tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13519403.post8004841252766922714..comments2023-09-08T10:15:41.426-04:00Comments on God Entranced: Does One Need Faith to be Born Again?Dan Waughhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13239327568868739040noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13519403.post-13715652168938806362011-04-14T12:01:30.064-04:002011-04-14T12:01:30.064-04:00Mark,
I wouldn't say you're born again...Mark, <br /> I wouldn't say you're born again before you're saved...but that you are born again before you experience a conversion of faith and repentance. Again, being born again, in my understanding, isn't the sum total of salvation, but a constitute part of it. Salvation certainly includeds regeneration, but also justification, sanctification, glorification, etc. A technical sequence is offered in Scripture in that, for instance, justification comes afte faith. We aren't justified prior to it, nor are we sanctified prior to justification. You may be at odds with where I place regeneration in the sequence, but I think the Bible clearly portrays salvation as a series of events that occur in order (at least a logical order).<br /> Regarding 1 Peter 1, I have no issues taking that at face value. The Spirit brings the new birth but the Spirit doesnt' work in a vacuum. 1 Peter clearly indicates that the Spirit sovereing causes us to be born again, but the Spirit often (almost always) works in cooperation with the word and sacraments - not independently of them. <br /> Last point, Romans 8 tells us the those in the flesh 'cannot please God'. Since I assume faith and repentance are pleasing to God, I don't see how they are possible apart from a regnerating work of the Spirit in which we begin a new spiritual life. <br /> Talk to you soon.Dan Waughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13239327568868739040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13519403.post-51892925901116631582011-04-13T23:06:47.643-04:002011-04-13T23:06:47.643-04:00Moreover, 1 Peter 21-25 uses the phrase "born...Moreover, 1 Peter 21-25 uses the phrase "born again" and indicates that this rebirth happened as a result of hearing the preaching of the word. Limiting "born again" to refer exclusively to a pre-receptive act of God seems to me inaccurate, despite whatever analytical tidiness it might offer.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13519403.post-69712554303559793132011-04-13T22:55:16.731-04:002011-04-13T22:55:16.731-04:00So in your theology you're born again before y...So in your theology you're born again before you're saved? Still seems like systematization run amok to me. I tend to think of the conversion experience as more unitary than that, with there being multiple metaphors for describing different aspects of it. To try to provide a technical sequence to the operation seems a bit extreme, beyond the (to me) obvious bit about divine initiation. But maybe that's the main thing you're trying to say? Or is there a limited atonement subtext you're headed towards here?Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13519403.post-26708820615990835602011-04-12T21:16:49.516-04:002011-04-12T21:16:49.516-04:00Mark,
I'm glad I'm up on FB again too!
...Mark,<br /> I'm glad I'm up on FB again too!<br /> My position is only at odds with Romans 10:9 if you make regeneration the sum total of salvation. I do not question for a moment that faith is necessary for salvation...but regeneration is the precondition to genuine saving faith - without the new birth, the Godward orientation of faith isn't possible. When God quickens an individual and calls them, they respond in faith and are saved. <br /> And you're right - there doesn't seem to be much point in telling unbelievers they don't need to to have faith to be born again. I have little hope that too many unbelievers frequent my blog. I will explain the practical implications of not understanding it as I have described in a subsequent post (if that's ok). The post was born out of a conversation. I don't think I've come across to many people who 'boast' in the faith, but I do find quite a few who's confidence is in their faith, rather that Christ. Maybe the next post will clarify the 'why this is important' question. <br /> Lunch would be great. I'm free!Dan Waughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13239327568868739040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13519403.post-70571654584352836502011-04-12T20:42:20.424-04:002011-04-12T20:42:20.424-04:00P.S. Glad to see they let your blog back on FB!
P...P.S. Glad to see they let your blog back on FB!<br /><br />P.P.S. Let's have lunch sometime. I much prefer to harass you face-to-face!Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13519403.post-12637460897178542812011-04-12T20:11:31.982-04:002011-04-12T20:11:31.982-04:00Sorry, but this just seems to be an example of sys...Sorry, but this just seems to be an example of systematic theology gone wild, resulting in a kind of excessive precision.<br /><br />For instance, what you say about faith would seem at odds with Romans 10:9, "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." With you, I believe that those who are saved are appointed to be so. But what you've written leaves you in the position (I believe) of having to explain away the language Paul uses in Romans 10:9, as well as many other passages. I have no problem telling people they must repent and believe to be saved. I just don't see how it is helpful to go around telling people they don't need faith to be born again.<br /><br />Moreover, I seldom run into people who are proud of their faith in the way you describe. Perhaps instead you could explain the practical value of your assertions to someone who wants to evangelize?Marknoreply@blogger.com