SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Justified but not regenerated

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 Next Page )
PosterThread
BeYeDoers
Member



Joined: 2005/11/17
Posts: 370
Bloomington, IN

 Re:

Robert, according to Gen/Romans, Abraham's justification took place when he believed God for the promised son (Isaac). According to James, the "proof" of Abraham's justification was when he lay Isaac on the alter. Circumcision was the outward identification that he was part of the Covenant. Circumcision was not the "proof"...for circumcision or uncircumcision is nothing. Like water baptism, it was being obedient (toward a good conscience) to a command of God to be publicly identified with the covenant. I guess the question here would be is do we see a type (or shadow) of regeneration with Abraham? Regeneration itself seems to be entirely a new covenant entity, so Abraham wasn't truly regenerate, but is there a type to look at?


_________________
Denver McDaniel

 2008/6/26 0:03Profile
rbanks
Member



Joined: 2008/6/19
Posts: 1330


 Re:

Quote:

RobertW wrote:
So the question becomes, were the folk in Acts 19:2 'justified'? In other words, if they died before hands were laid on them would they have went to heaven?



Brother, do you believe in the separate experiences of regeneration of the spirit and the baptism of the Holy Spirit with power?

Just wondering because regeneration is the new birth. Whereas baptism in the Holy Spirit is the enduement of power from on high.

It is clear from scripture that the disciples were regenerated when they were waiting in the upper room for the outpouring of the holy Ghost with power.

We are baptized into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit, before we are baptized in the Holy Ghost with power from on high.

Joh 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Ac 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

rbanks

 2008/6/26 0:06Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
Robert, according to Gen/Romans, Abraham's justification took place when he believed God for the promised son (Isaac). According to James, the "proof" of Abraham's justification was when he lay Isaac on the alter.



You are citing Gen. 15:6 in part; however, Hebrews 11:8-10 tells us that Abraham's response to God's call to leave Ur was also faith. In fact, his whole life was a journey of faith as he looked for a city. This is not a one-off faith event, but a lifetime walk with God. I think this is an important point to make because the old timers did not suggest that folk were 'saved' after a single act of faith. they were known as 'hopefully converted'. There is always a sense of:


[color=000066](Col 1:21) And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled.

(Col 1:22) In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:

(Col 1:23) [u]If ye continue in the faith[/u] grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
[/color]

Those dreaded '[u]if's[/u]'!! The event with Isaac and the altar was another faith 'event' in a lifelong process that began in Ur and continued until death. James mentions Isaac. We could site several other faith spots perhaps. James was more trying to emphasize obedience than draw a time line of what 'point' Abraham was justified, I think.

Quote:
Circumcision was the outward identification that he was part of the Covenant. Circumcision was not the "proof"...for circumcision or uncircumcision is nothing. Like water baptism, it was being obedient (toward a good conscience) to a command of God to be publicly identified with the covenant.



Water baptism don't really have the same effect as Spirit Baptism. Follow me for a minute:

[color=000066](Rom 4:11) And he received the sign of circumcision, [u]a seal[/u] of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:[/color]

Circumcision made Abraham a 'marked man'. but his progeny did not always walk in the steps of the faith of Abraham so their circumcision was made 'uncircumcision'. The physical act was meaningless without faith, but for Abraham it was given as God's response to Abraham's ongoing right response to God (faith). Notice that the 'proof' of Abraham's justification was that he received the 'sign' or the 'seal' of circumcision; this is understood by the 'and' in the text; [i]And he received the sign of circumcision...[/i]

Circumcision was the 'earnest of his inheritance' as it were (See Ephesians 1). This was a picture of the future coming of the Spirit and circumcision of the heart (see previous post).

Quote:
I guess the question here would be is do we see a type (or shadow) of regeneration with Abraham?



Yes. As I mentioned above. Regeneration is our being baptized into Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit. I know I am making a very uncomfortable connection, but I think it is clear that when a person responds rightly to God in Abrahamic type faith, they are 'circumcised in heart by the Holy Spirit' as a fulfillment of the type and shadow of physical circumcision.

Quote:
but is there a type to look at?



Yes. ;-)


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2008/6/26 1:14Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
Brother, do you believe in the separate experiences of regeneration of the spirit and the baptism of the Holy Spirit with power?



Yes, but sorting it all out is very challenging. ;-)

Quote:
It is clear from scripture that the disciples were regenerated when they were waiting in the upper room for the outpouring of the holy Ghost with power.



I know this is a classical Pentecostal view, but can it be sustained biblically?

[color=000066]

(John 16:7) Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

(Joh 16:8) And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
[/color]

The ingredients we needed for genuine repentance came [i]after[/i] Christ ascended. Pentecost signaled the Spirit filled life. Also, a look at the work of the cross, as appropriated by the Holy Spirit was impossible to implement before they were actually accomplished (death to Sin, death to the Law, etc.).

Quote:
We are baptized into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit, before we are baptized in the Holy Ghost with power from on high.



I'm not disagreeing here, I just do not believe this was possible before Pentecost.

Quote:
Joh 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:



I think this was symbolic. They received the Holy ghost in Acts 2 as Peter testified to. John 20:22 helps us out of some difficulties if we take it literally, but it creates other problems.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2008/6/26 1:34Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:


This statement is baseless and needlessly offensive.


No offense was intended by my illustration.


Secondly, the Reformed view is that the imputation of righteousness is simultaneous with the impartation of the Holy Spirit, thereby beginning true sanctification, which is improved and maintained over the rest of one's life.

It is not my intention to defend Reformed doctrine any further than it is my desire to dispel blatant misunderstandings and caricatures.


I'm not seeking to make inappropriate caricatures of reformed doctrine. I have the utmost respect for my reformed brethren.

I'm simply saying that in the Calvinistic/Reformed point of view, so far as I have understood it, there is no room for the notion of imparted righteousness that accompanies imputed righteousness. Indeed, the idea of imparted righteousness, where the believer is actually made righteous as a result of imputed righteousness, is entirely foreign to Calvinistic/Reformed thought.

The idea of imparted righteousness that accompanies imputed righteousness, is a Wesylean notion. Calvin only understood righteousness in the forensic, legal, and positional sense of the term. Wesley understood it in the legal sense as well, however, he also understood it as effecting man's actual constitution and nature. So far as I understand Calvin, he didn't see justification as effecting man's constitution and nature. It was purely a legal transaction in his eyes. Thus, even after a man was justified, he might sin a thousand times a day in his heart. Thus, notions of eternal security arose. For he saw no change in the actual constitution of man as a result of justification. Thus, while man continues to sin, God continues to justify. Whereas Wesleyan notions of justification see justification as resulting in a change of nature, and therefore, if a man continues to sin a thousand times a day in his heart, it is evidence that he is not presently saved. Thus, eternal security is conditional in nature.

Thus, I believe the illustration I offered, where Calvin's notion of justification involves God crossing His fingers behind his back when declaring man righteous, isn't that off. For the crossing of the fingers behind one's back signifies that what one is saying is not true. Calvin's notion of justification is purely legal, not actual, and in my opinion, is the same thing as offered in the illustration. Indeed, I have known some Calvinist who while they did not overly appreciate such an illustration as representing their views, ultimately thought it to not be inaccurate in regard to what they teach.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2008/6/26 7:14Profile









 Re:

Quote:
I'm simply saying that in the Calvinistic/Reformed point of view, so far as I have understood it, there is no room for the notion of imparted righteousness that accompanies imputed righteousness.



There is very much a place for imparted righteousness within reformed theology; it is the life-long process called sanctification.

Quote:
Indeed, the idea of imparted righteousness, where the believer is actually made righteous as a result of imputed righteousness, is entirely foreign to Calvinistic/Reformed though



No, not really. We are made righteous ONLY as a result of being declared righteous, but that making righteous is a process that will go on until we see Jesus as He is. All those who are justified are BEING sanctified.

Quote:
The idea of imparted righteousness that accompanies imputed righteousness, is a Wesleyan notion



To define justification as imparted righteousness is not only Wesleyan it is also very much Roman Catholic (which is why they have he categories of venial and mortal sins)

Quote:
Calvin only understood righteousness in the forensic, legal, and positional sense of the term



See, we have to get our categories and terms right. What you have said is not correct. Reformed theology states that JUSTIFICATION is forensic and legal. It is the imputed righteousness of Christ put to a believers account. (Sort of like what Romans 4 says about Abraham...but I digress) Again Reformed Theology also teaches IMPARTED righteousness, but it is categorized as sanctification. The process of being conformed into the image of Christ.

Real honest to goodness righteousness...you know loving your wives, loving your neighbor, caring for the poor. Yes, reformed Christians actually believe in loving God and loving people...which is of course the whole law.

Quote:
Whereas Wesleyan notions of justification see justification as resulting in a change of nature, and therefore, if a man continues to sin a thousand times a day in his heart, it is evidence that he is not presently saved.



Have you stopped sinning?

Quote:
Thus, I believe the illustration I offered, where Calvin's notion of justification involves God crossing His fingers behind his back when declaring man righteous, isn't that off.



I can assure you that any well studied reformed believer would not agree with your illustration of God crossing his fingers behind His back. For we would declare with Paul that:

Quote:
whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.



Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ

 2008/6/26 8:19
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
Have you stopped sinning?



I think it is important to recognize that we need constant fillings of the Holy Spirit in order to walk in real victory over sin. It seems as though sometimes we get the idea that spiritual growth is some mysterious thing that we really have no control over. That is not true. We are as Christlike as we are full of the Holy Spirit. when we grieve the Holy Spirit by resisting Him and we do not cultivate good desires that He works in us; then we start slipping.

Christ in you the hope of glory, etc. Our attitudes, things we might entertain, all have an effect on how 'welcome' we make the Holy Spirit in us. He is the 'Holy Guest' and when He cannot rest in us (Isaiah 66:1, 2) then we have no means of producing the fruit of the Spirit. We need to make sure we make Him welcome, because it is God that works in us to will and do His good pleasure. Having 'begun' in the Spirit, we must also 'walk' in the Spirit. That is the key to victory over sin.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2008/6/26 9:23Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:


There is very much a place for imparted righteousness within reformed theology; it is the life-long process called sanctification.


Thanks for the correcting my misunderstanding of Reformed theology/categories.


To define justification as imparted righteousness is not only Wesleyan it is also very much Roman Catholic (which is why they have he categories of venial and mortal sins)


Wesley, so far as I have studied, was the first to bring imputed and imparted righteousness together in the justification experience. It's a double-edged sword in Wesleyan thought. His view is different than Rome's view though. Rome understands justification/righteousness to be something that is earned. They shun the entire notion of a passive righteousness that is received entirely on the basis of faith. They are looking for a day in which they will be justified on the basis of their being just. And whatever they lack in being just, they seek to receive from the treasury of the saints, who have some extra righteousness to spread around and make up for one's own deficits.


Again Reformed Theology also teaches IMPARTED righteousness, but it is categorized as sanctification. The process of being conformed into the image of Christ.


Correct. They view sanctification as the means by which one has righteousness imparted to them. They do look at justification however, purely in a legal/forensic sense. Wesleyan thought looks at it in the legal sense, as well as the imparted sense.


Have you stopped sinning?


I sinned yesterday. But I'm not presently living in any unrepentant sin, because I repented of it. I'm not sinning right now, however.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2008/6/26 12:23Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:


Having 'begun' in the Spirit, we must also 'walk' in the Spirit.


Amen!


_________________
Jimmy H

 2008/6/26 12:24Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:


...the life-long process called sanctification.


It should be noted, however, that contrary to popular theology in both Reformed and Wesleyan camps, that nowhere in Scripture is it ever taught that sanctification is a progressive process. Nor is it ever taught that sanctification is the process whereby we sin less and less.

Rather, sanctification is always seen as a definite act that happens in a single moment. In regard to our salvation, we were sanctified in full the moment we believed. That is, we were set apart, and transfered from death to life. All our sins were forgiven, and the power of sin was given a fatal blow. We were cleansed from all unrighteousness. Just as God "sanctified" the Sabbath day instantly at the end of the creation, so we were "sanctified" when we believed.

What remains then, and the only thing we see of "progression" in the Christian life, is not sanctification, but glorification. Glorification is the process whereby we bear more and more fruit for Christ. You see, we don't grow more like Christ by sinning less and less. Rather, we grow more like Christ in the same manner in which He grew in wisdom and stature in His earthly days. We, like Him, go on from glory to glory. We bear more and more fruit.

Sinning less and less is not the object of the Christian life. We should not sin at all. Though if we do, we have and Advocate with the Father, Christ Jesus the Righteous. Rather, we seek to apply the work that Christ completed on the cross and the moment we believed. We seek to walk out in the thing God has created us as. For I can never be holier than I am the moment I believed. I can never be cleaner than when Jesus cleansed me of my sins. The blood didn't miss anything when it took away my sins. It covered and cleansed all of me.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2008/6/26 12:33Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy