Notitia, Assensus, and Fiducia

[Bob Higby]

Please look at the following article regarding this formula invented by Melanchthon. I do not agree with every point in it, especially the nature of the 'faith' (belief) of those wanting to kill Christ mentioned by John, but I find much of value in the whole evaluation of the history of this controversy:

http://themileses.com/2017/12/21/the...ucia-argument/

To summarize it simply, notitia is faith (only the elect are given 'understanding'), assensus is faith (only true regenerated believers assent to the full scope and implications of gospel doctrine), and fiducia is faith (fiducia is CONFIDENCE!). So I recommend this article.

Phillip Melanchthon, the father of confessional Lutheranism, in the end completely disagreed with Luther and even Augustine on predestination. He admired his former professor Erasmus and couldn't believe Erasmus the humanist was is in heresy!

--Bro. Bob

[Don19]

Faith is believing the promises of the gospel are true for you.

"For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.

Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them."
(Mark 11:23-24)

The faith that saves is that which says, "it is finished." And finished means finished, because we must be dead to the law by the body of Christ (Rom 7:1-4). Jesus said to cut off your right hand if it causes you to sin. But the whole body is the body of sin (Rom 6:6). So, in fact, my whole body of sin is cut off; I am crucified with Christ (Gal 2:20). I am cut off as He was cut off (Daniel 9:26, Isaiah 53:8).

And so the common teaching that you must look to your works to validate your faith is a totally apostate doctrine. Such a "gospel" won't save anyone. This can be really subtle, though. One may say, that works don't validate faith, and are not needed to validate faith, yet they may believe that there are certain sins that, if committed and/or persisted in, would prove one destitute of the grace of God. Even John Gill says as much in his erroneous commentary on 1 Cor 6:9. This is why it is so hard to believe, and the elect are truly very few. Only a remnant, who have repented of the works of their hands (Rev 9:20). It is fornication and going after strange flesh (Jude 1:7) to trust in any law keeping, because we who are in Christ are dead to the law by the body of Christ. The refraining from certain sins is the work of your own hands (Isaiah 2:8) - it's idolatry.

Moreover, when you believe the gospel, you receive the earnest of the Holy Spirit in your heart that you are sealed, that it is finished. (Eph 1:13-14, 2 Cor 1:21-22, Rev 7:3). This is the testimony of Jesus Christ (Rev 12:11, Rev 12:17, Rev 19:10), this is the witness that is in every believer (1 John 5:9-10, Rom 8:16). God brought Israel out of Egypt with signs and wonders (Jeremiah 32:21, Deuteronomy 26:8) and He does seal His elect in like fashion (Heb 2:1-4, 1 Thess 1:4-5, Mark 16:16-20).

How, then, could one suppose that any of Paul's "sin lists," as it were, are intended to convey the idea that, "if you are doing these things, you are not saved," when any believer can know he is secure in his salvation even if he did do every single one of those things? No, those sin lists are referring to those who are unbelievers; their works are only evil continually, because they're the works of this body of death, which can do no good. A corrupt tree cannot bear good fruit. But those who are in Christ can have perfect works, which is also James's sense. You can have perfect works by putting to death the deeds of the body - otherwise, you have death, or a sense of separation from God, and nakedness, if you walk after the flesh (that is, after the law). Rom 8:13. But to put to death the deeds of this flesh is to continually bring Jesus Christ as your sacrifice for sins to God. No "struggle with sin" after the flesh is necessary. But spiritually, we mortify the deeds of the body through Jesus Christ.

[Bob Higby]

Thanks so much Don, I agree fully except that a discussion of what you mean by 'perfect works' is definitely in order., as I'm not sure what you are getting at. --Bob

[Don19]

Thanks so much Don, I agree fully except that a discussion of what you mean by 'perfect works' is definitely in order., as I'm not sure what you are getting at. --Bob

Thanks. As for having perfect works, I believe it has to do with as James said: be a doer of the Word and not a hearer only (James 1:22-25). As James clarifies, the doer of the Word is one who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues therein. Jesus Christ is the Word of God; to be doer of the Word, that means that Jesus Christ is my good works. And this is what James is getting at in that notoriously misunderstood passage, James 2:14-26.

We are to walk in Jesus Christ just as we received Him (Col 2:6). So that is, as I detailed in my last post. It's receiving Christ's perfect, complete works, and having perfect assurance in Him. We put to death the deeds of this body of sin, not by the flesh, but by the Spirit. As Paul said, those who sow to the flesh will reap corruption. Gal 6:8. We mortify the deeds of the flesh through the Spirit, in the same manner that we are dead and our life is hid with Christ in God. Col 3:1-5.

So we must abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul (1 Peter 2:11), and touch not the unclean thing (2 Cor 6:17). The "unclean thing" is man's "good works." (See Isaiah 64:6). The fleshly lusts are to do "good works" for God. The problem is, that's falling back to the law - because, as James said, if one knows to do good and doesn't do it, to him it is sin (James 4:17). The strength of sin is the law (1 Cor 15:56).

Case in point, consider Paul's use of the word "works" in Titus 1:15-16. He's saying it's tantamount to denying Christ to have a defiled conscience - because to the pure, all things are pure. Amen!

[Bob Higby]

Don,

I do not attempt to interpret James 2:14-26 in any intelligible way, I can't. It was historically viewed as antilegomena even by the Roman Catholic Church until the canon of Trent in 1545 (authored by Francis Loyola Jesuits) enforced the end of the homolegoumena/antilegomena distinction on all Protestants and this was ultimately accepted by all Protestant denominations and confessions. See all the historic debates available on the internet between Dave Armstrong (Protestant pastor turned Roman Catholic) and James Swan ('Beggars All' Reformation and Apologetics) on this subject.

Calvin did not attempt to interpret 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation in his commentaries. He did interpret 2 Peter but did not believe Peter was the author. Luther never attempted to interpret James 2:14-26, Jude, Hebrews (on which I firmly disagree with Luther--he was led astray by the authorship issue), and Revelation for the same reason. Even in the Council of Florence the RCC confessed the homolegoumena/antilegomena distinction. The RCC historically rejected James and Jude as homolegoumena because James the brother of Jesus, as the elected leader of the Jerusalem 'church', attempted to usurp the authority of Peter as the apostle to the circumcision.

For the real history behind how we got the present book of James, I recommend the German theologian Hans Van Campenhousen ("The Formation of the Christian Bible"). He nailed this brilliantly with historical evidence, even better than Luther did.

--Bob

[Don19]

Don,

I do not attempt to interpret James 2:14-26 in any intelligible way, I can't. It was historically viewed as antilegomena even by the Roman Catholic Church until the canon of Trent in 1545 (authored by Francis Loyola Jesuits) enforced the end of the homolegoumena/antilegomena distinction on all Protestants and this was ultimately accepted by all Protestant denominations and confessions. See all the historic debates available on the internet between Dave Armstrong (Protestant pastor turned Roman Catholic) and James Swan ('Beggars All' Reformation and Apologetics) on this subject.

Calvin did not attempt to interpret 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation in his commentaries. He did interpret 2 Peter but did not believe Peter was the author. Luther never attempted to interpret James 2:14-26, Jude, Hebrews (on which I firmly disagree with Luther--he was led astray by the authorship issue), and Revelation for the same reason. Even in the Council of Florence the RCC confessed the homolegoumena/antilegomena distinction. The RCC historically rejected James and Jude as homolegoumena because James the brother of Jesus, as the elected leader of the Jerusalem 'church', attempted to usurp the authority of Peter as the apostle to the circumcision.

For the real history behind how we got the present book of James, I recommend the German theologian Hans Van Campenhousen ("The Formation of the Christian Bible"). He nailed this brilliantly with historical evidence, even better than Luther did.

--Bob

I appreciate your suggestions, and I am aware of the controversy here. Nevertheless, my mind is made up on this issue. James is Scripture, as I can judge all things and authenticate it. Men will always lead you astray. I think even trying to use history or other extra-Biblical sources to interpret the Bible is to be avoided.

Case in point, John wrote in two of his epistles against those who deny that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. Now, if you try to interpret the Bible using extra-Biblical history, you might read all about gnostics and stuff like that. So, what, an ancient heresy that no one believes anymore? How does that profit us today? Catholics don't deny that Jesus is come in a physical body, and they obviously have the spirit of antichrist. John tells us this is how we can identify the spirit of antichrist, or the spirit of error. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable to us (2 Tim 2:16-17). God uses the foolish things to confound the wise of this world. We are dead to the law by the body of Christ (Rom 7:1-4). Hence, the one who denies that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh denies this. See? Those who claim knowledge of God (supernatural experiences) but who don't keep His commandments (that is, who do not believe, who do not hold to the doctrine of Christ) are not of God. Moreover, EVERY Spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God!

If anyone teaches a salvation that can be lost, he does not know the New Testament, and does not know the sealing of the Spirit. John also denounces murderers - this refers to those who judge by the law, because the letter kills and the Spirit gives life (Romans 7:11, 2 Cor 3:6-9). Minsters of the law are not able minister of the New Testament, as those who take the sword shall perish with the sword (Matthew 26:52). James also condemns this in similar language (James 2:8-13, James 4:11-12, James 5:1-6) - as does Peter, who tells us about the judgment of God against murderers (1 Peter 4:14-19), true Christians who have gone astray. The "rich men" are those who accumulate the riches of this world - that is, "good works" of the flesh. To do this is to defile our garments (that is, Christ's righteousness) with the the filth of the flesh (see James 5:2, Jude 1:22-23, Rev 3:4) - and to invite Christ's judgment upon us when He returns, in the day of the Lord (to judge us individually, in this life) - James 5:7, 1 John 2:28, Rev 3:3.

James is spot on and speaks spiritually, with the other New Testament writers, in these and others respects.

[Bob Higby]

Thanks Don.

We will just have to disagree on this. I recognize the acceptance of the book named James by the 'church' (wow!), and only will say that if they are right, James 2 on justification has to be totally non-salvific and be translated 'a man LIVES JUSTLY by works and not by faith only'. But that is not Calvin's translation. Calvin 'justified' the passage by stating that it taught a different usage than that of Paul, John, and Peter (which is certainly correct), namely, how we are 'justified before men'. But here is the caveat: if any believer is justified before men by works to prove his/her justification by God, then the same believer is justified before himself/herself by the same works! So assurance of salvation is by works and not by faith only. So Calvin did not go where we need to be on this, even though I'm not proposing he was a false teacher. I don't believe he reasoned through the issue to the ultimate conclusion.

When you say 'scripture', you are referring to the Canon of Trent in 1545 as invented by men by the definition you have given. I am quite certain that even Calvin rejected this canon as a complete fabrication of history. Hans Van Campenhausen ("The Formation of the Christian Bible"), a Baltic/German theologian who ultimately joined the 'Confessing Church' rebellion against Hitler during WWII, documents that the original book written by James the brother of Jesus most likely ended with 'mercy triumphs over judgment' in 2:13, prior to the apparent antithesis starting in 2:14. Then he goes on to propose that the book is 4 separate compositions pieced together ultimately by different writers (3 and 4 another treatise and the taunt against the rich in 5 yet another). In any case, I do not reject historical theology--we can't do this without excepting almost every false doctrine invented in the rule of bishops after the first century as something taught by 'scripture' (sacerdotalism, sacramentalism, the 'one baptism for the remission of sins' being the water, free-willism, and dozens of others).

Dave Armstrong, in his long-standing debate with James Swan, advanced the obvious for me: the notion that all 66 books of the confessed Bible are homologoumena is a homage that Protestantism pays to the Roman Catholic Church. It was invented by the Francis Loyola's secret Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) who composed the Council of Trent to attempt ending the Reformation. The Fourth Session on April 8, 1546 states: But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, these same books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately despise the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. The same Session calls James the Just an apostle, which not only goes against the foundation of the 12 named in the New Testament, but also goes against the entire tradition of the RCC affirming that James usurped the authority of Peter as the apostle to the circumcision.

None of this has anything to do with the inerrant inspiration of the Bible which believers joyously accept. Dave Armstrong, like Scott Hahn and others in the 'coming home' network, is a convert from being a Protestant pastor to the Roman Catholic Church (an interesting note: Fred Rogers of 'Mister Rogers Neighborhood', an ordained PCUSA minister, received the last rites of the RCC before his death).

I have written in the past on the French Confession of 1559 as the first APPARENT adherence to the Canon of Trent. But here is the difference--it did not affirm the end of the homologoumena/antilegomena distinction that had been the confession of nearly all adhering to all versions of 'Christianity' since the third or fourth century, as taught by the early historians documenting the history of the canon (Eusebius and others). Some of the books in our canon were unknown to all published writers until Origen, he was the first to advance them--including the book named James. Earlier references quoted from Irenaeus to attempt early attestation are obviously fradulent when examined in context--the point advanced in Irenaeus has nothing to do with the context of the book named after James..

In no way do I deny the infallibility of the scriptures of the Old and New Testament as originally given. But I can't ignore history and therefore be condemned to repeat it, proposing that ALL true gospel believers since the 1st century have always certainly known that every word in our CURRENT translated Bible (unless scholarly exceptions are noted) was given directly by God That affirmation did not come until after the fundamentalist/modernist controversy, which also attempted to impose upon us a dispensational premillenialism and the restoration of apostate Jewish National Israel to salvation as the undisputed teaching of the Bible.

I will never surrender on this one, though I have modified my earlier statements in that I have a very general acceptance of James 2:14-26 as the 'consensus' of gospel believing churches along the lines that I mentioned. I just don't accept the notion that we need James 2:14-26 to have a complete gospel as taught by fundamentalism. Another example among several is the allegorical interpretation of the Canticles as Christ and His 'church'--though I do accept them as antilegomena teaching that the one-flesh union is a vital part of God's good creation and may (?) be redeemed in the New Earth. No other book alleged as scripture is completely devoted to that--but it is a whole different consideration.

The most recent books of Michael Kruger on the canon (Canon Revisited, the Question of Canon) are really enlightening on this issue. I'm not claiming he agrees with all I have said above but he goes a long way to establish that the historic homologoumena/antilegoumena, distinction is indeed legitimate. His website 'Canon Fodder' is here: https://www.michaeljkruger.com/

Most of this is very different interpretation, not differences on the inspiration of scripture as originally given.

Bob

[Don19]

Hi Bob,

When I say Scripture, I mean that which is God-breathed. Not necessarily the same thing as the canon. As for these Protestants-turned-Catholic, I really marvel at their blindness. These loss-of-salvation-teachers (the LOST) are that way because they’ve never truly believed and never experienced the sealing of the Spirit, the earnest of the Spirit. I wish there were more of them, quite frankly, because then they’d be obvious, and maybe take more reprobates with them, because the wolves in Protestantism can be harder to spot. So I would have them go all out in their worship of Baal and no longer halt between the two opinions.

I will say this: even though I ultimately disagree with you on James, I do find your position on this nobler than that of many Protestants, which is to accept James as Scripture and interpret it to mean that the faith which justifies is never alone. In other words, they believe you need works of the flesh to validate faith. This, too, strongly suggests that they’ve never been born again, never received the Spirit of adoption. You don’t need works to validate faith. That’s tantamount to unbelief. You must be born again. That is, our natural birth is under the law; our rebirth is apart from the law (Galatians 4:1-5). Those who believe they must do works are under the law; or, if truly born again and eternally secure yet grieving the Spirit, have returned to their own vomit. For those who have the witness of God (John 5:9-10), we know this is a lie.

But I thank God for His ability to blind them with the Bible, while revealing truth to His children. And James 2 does a spectacular job of this. We offer Jesus Christ as our sacrifice to God. He is our tithe to God. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God’s. You can't serve God and mammon. Caesar is a type of antichrist, so his image is on money--and riches also signify the accumulation of the “good works” of this world. But for the children of God, Jesus Christ is our works. We offer Him to God as our sacrifice. The poor widow offered all she had, while the others offered out of their own carnal abundance (Mark 12:41-44). Jesus Christ is my everything. In truth, He *IS* my life! (Col 3:4) Therefore, I offer Him as my sacrifice to God. Just like Abraham offered Isaac. And why? Because he believed God’s promise and knew that if he sacrificed Isaac, God would be able to raise him from the dead (Heb 11:17-19). But those who gave out of their abundance represent those who offer their own “good works” of the flesh to God as their sacrifice, which are rejected.

So that’s all James means by works. Note also Jesus’s apparent double reference to “works” in Revelation 2:19. If I had to choose just one verse to prove my point, it’d be Revelation 2:19 - clearly, it can be seen from this that there is more than one sense in which “works” are to be understood in Scripture. The “works” consist of offering Jesus Christ as our sacrifice to God. And this is the “perfect” which James mentions (James 2:22) - this term is used to denote maturity as a believer (compare to Heb 6:1, Rev 3:2, 1 Cor 13:10-12). Likewise, James brings this up so that we might go on to perfection.

[Bob Higby]

Thanks Don.

On a very different (and temporary) note, for those who deny the homologoumena/antilegomena distinction, I would like to see their interpretation of this passage from Ecclesiastes 3:18-22

I said to myself regarding the sons of mankind, “God is testing them in order for them to see that they are as animals, they to themselves.” For the fate of the sons of mankind and the fate of animals]is the same. As one dies, so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath, and there is no advantage for mankind over animals, for all is futility. All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust. Who knows that the spirit of the sons of mankind ascends upward and the spirit of the animal descends downward to the earth? I have seen that nothing is better than when a person is happy in his activities, for that is his lot. For who will bring him to see what will occur after him?

How is this a gospel passage compared to Isaiah 40 and following?

This has strayed a long way from what I originally intended to discuss in this thread and will end my 'canon' comments. I intended to discuss notitia, assensus, and fiducia and the history of that hermeneutic of compartmentalization invented by Philip Melanchthon (which is one of my '4 false hermeneutics' that all know about who have read me for a long time). To simplify, it is the hermeneutic of separating 'head knowledge' and 'heart knowledge' into separate compartments, with head knowledge being dead faith and heart knowledge being a living faith.

I have here the book ''Faith Alone: The Doctrine of Justification, What the Reformers Taught . . . and Why it Still Matters" by Thomas Schreiner. The book is excellent on the overall presentation of the true gospel of the Reformation. The introduction by John Piper is suspect to me only because I know Piper's history of being dialectical with himself by synergizing the 5 solas of the Reformation with works-based assurance, especially in reference to 'fitness for heaven' or 'readiness for heaven' not being achieved in 'initial' justification. In chapter 16 (The Role of Good Works in Justification) Schreiner appears to agree with Piper in his introduction although I doubt he does in entirety. But he uses the arguments from James 2:14-26 and compares them to John and Matthew in a way that I am convinced in the Lord is very invalid teaching. I will compose my evaluation and post it in this thread soon. I 'sort of' regard Dr. Schreiner as the Baptist counterpart of R.C. Sproul, I have a lot of respect for him even though I'm not afraid to point out where he has gone wrong. The book other than chapter 16, especially his evaluation of the New Perspective on Paul of N.T. Wright, is brilliant. --Bob

[Bob Higby]

Calvin on 2 Peter:

"The doubts respecting this Epistle mentioned by Eusebius, ought not to keep us from reading it. For if the doubts rested on the authority of men, whose names he does not give, we ought to pay no more regard to it than to that of unknown men. And he afterwards adds, that it was everywhere received without any dispute. What Jerome writes influences me somewhat more, that some, induced by a difference in the style, did not think that Peter was the author. For though some affinity may be traced, yet I confess that there is that manifest difference which distinguishes different writers. There are also other probable conjectures by which we may conclude that it was written by another rather than by Peter. At the same time, according to the consent of all, it has nothing unworthy of Peter, as it shews everywhere the power and the grace of an apostolic spirit. If it be received as canonical, we must allow Peter to be the author, since it has his name inscribed, and he also testifies that he had lived with Christ: and it would have been a fiction unworthy of a minister of Christ, to have personated another individual. So then I conclude, that if the Epistle be deemed worthy of credit, it must have proceeded from Peter; not that he himself wrote it, but that some one of his disciples set forth in writing, by his command, those things which the necessity of the times required. For it is probable that he was now in extreme old age, for he says, that he was near his end. And it may have been that at the request of the godly, he allowed this testimony of his mind to be recorded shortly before his death, because it might have somewhat availed, when he was dead, to support the good, and to repress the wicked. Doubtless, as in every part of the Epistle the majesty of the Spirit of Christ appears, to repudiate it is what I dread, though I do not here recognize the language of Peter. But since it is not quite evident as to the author, I shall allow myself the liberty of using the word Peter or Apostle indiscriminately."

[brightfame52]

Don

That is, our natural birth is under the law;

Greetings to all, this is my first post. Now I saw this statement and agree with it. Because of this, I dont believe the unregenerate are ever commanded to repent as Per Acts 17:30

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Many who I have read believe this command goes out to everyone. I dont believe that for a couple of reasons. 1 St the natural man in the flesh is under the law, his obligation is to the law, he must either obey it perfectly or die. There is no repentance under the law. In fact the unregenerate reprobate are under the curse of the law Gal 3:10

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

I dont believe God commands the elect to repent while they are in a unregenerate state.

The non elect since Christ didnt die for them, they are permanently married to the law so theres no provision for them in the death of Christ to sever their relationship to the law, so evangelical repentance isn't a option.

However I do believe that the elect while in nature, they are dead to the law by the body of Christ, His Death Rom 7:4

4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

And so in due time they are born again and given the gift of repentance to obey the command !

[Don19]

Don



Greetings to all, this is my first post. Now I saw this statement and agree with it. Because of this, I dont believe the unregenerate are ever commanded to repent as Per Acts 17:30

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Many who I have read believe this command goes out to everyone. I dont believe that for a couple of reasons. 1 St the natural man in the flesh is under the law, his obligation is to the law, he must either obey it perfectly or die. There is no repentance under the law. In fact the unregenerate reprobate are under the curse of the law Gal 3:10

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

I dont believe God commands the elect to repent while they are in a unregenerate state.

The non elect since Christ didnt die for them, they are permanently married to the law so theres no provision for them in the death of Christ to sever their relationship to the law, so evangelical repentance isn't a option.

However I do believe that the elect while in nature, they are dead to the law by the body of Christ, His Death Rom 7:4

4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

And so in due time they are born again and given the gift of repentance to obey the command !

As for duty repentance, I have to disagree. I believe the meaning of that verse is precisely as it appears. The fact is, man is indeed unable to repent apart from God's drawing. However, God's drawing is not regeneration. Regeneration occurs when one repents. Then being born again is in receiving the witness of the Spirit with signs and wonders. Water turns into wine.

However, if it were hypothetically possible for a reprobate man to repent, then they would be saved by believing in Christ. See Matthew 13:15. Reprobates never quite come to the love of the truth that they might be saved. What keeps them unsaved is they don't forsake all. One can have a whole lot of correct theology and yet be unsaved. If they believe they must produce evidence of any sort to demonstrate that their salvation is a reality, they are not believing in Christ.

[brightfame52]

don 19:

However, God's drawing is not regeneration.

I disagree I believe it is new birth, its the new man coming to Christ in Faith. That word draw denotes an inward impelling, which I believe is the Spirit of God working in the regenerate to both will and to do of Gods good pleasure Phil 2:13


For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

Its the new man having been made willing in the Day of Gods Power Ps 110:3

3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

Regeneration occurs when one repents.

I disagree, I believe repentance is an effect of New Birth.

However, if it were hypothetically possible for a reprobate man to repent, then they would be saved by believing in Christ.

Which would be salvation by works, conditioned on what man has done

What keeps them unsaved is they don't forsake all.

Huh ? I dont understand What keeps them unsaved is they werent of Gods Election of Grace or His Sheep

[Don19]

don 19:



I disagree I believe it is new birth, its the new man coming to Christ in Faith. That word draw denotes an inward impelling, which I believe is the Spirit of God working in the regenerate to both will and to do of Gods good pleasure Phil 2:13


For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

Its the new man having been made willing in the Day of Gods Power Ps 110:3

3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.


I disagree, I believe repentance is an effect of New Birth.



Which would be salvation by works, conditioned on what man has done



Huh ? I dont understand What keeps them unsaved is they werent of Gods Election of Grace or His Sheep

Regarding Psalm 110:3, it should be noted that power is not merely used in the sense of divine enablement. Power is more specific than that. Power is the miraculous (1 Cor 4:20, 2 Tim 3:5, 1 Thess 1:4-5, 2 Peter 1:3-4). The day of the Lord's power is the new birth - as I said in my previous post, in receiving the witness of the Spirit with signs and wonders. God led His people out of Egypt with signs and wonders, with power.

[Bob Higby]

Don, respectfully, you are utilizing paradoxical arguments and are becoming dialectical with yourself. You can't claim both contradictory propositions: that regeneration is needed as a prerequisite for faith to exist and at the same time claim that regeneration occurs only after one repents, i.e., that repentance is a condition for regeneration. This is a hermeneutic of paradox that you certainly can believe if you are impressed by it, of course. It is not one that believers in sovereign grace will accept for a moment.

It is very important to note that 'repentance' in the New Testament is not change of behavior but change of mind about the gospel. Only the Holy Spirit can give this, and when it is given by regeneration faith is always a corollary of that. The whole apostasy starting in the 2nd century is that those who claimed to be 'rabbis' (teachers) changed their message from a gospel of justification by faith alone, grace alone, in Christ alone, to a gospel of 'repentance' (not biblical repentance, but change of 'behavior').

--Bob

[brightfame52]

Bob

Don, respectfully, you are utilizing paradoxical arguments and are becoming dialectical with yourself. You can't claim both contradictory propositions: that regeneration is needed as a prerequisite for faith to exist and at the same time claim that regeneration occurs only after one repents, i.e., that repentance is a condition for regeneration.

Yes that would be a contradiction

It is very important to note that 'repentance' in the New Testament is not change of behavior but change of mind about the gospel.

I certainly concur with that, especially in light of 2 Tim 2:25

In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;