Another Michael wrote:
...
If Spurgeon grossly failed in one area IMHO it is this: Spurgeon failed to impose his Calvinism on others against their conscience

Strange reasoning.

No, Spurgeon would not force anything on anyone. He would have taken out his BIble and sought to persuaded them from Scripture, just as folk here are doing. That is not forcing anything on anyone against their conscience. That is seeking to persuade using God's word. It would only be violence against someone's conscience if that person's conscience thought itself exempt from being persuaded by God's word or if folk were wrong in their exposition of the Scriptures and yet were trying to force someone to accept it.

Now I can't see that anyone here is trying to do the latter, because if that were the case you should be able to easily refute it by your own exposition of Scripture. Since you are not doing this, I can only presume that your objection is on other grounds.

Another Michael wrote:
..I am still guilty ... of desiring to learn and grow up in Christ to be and do all He saved me for; something a whole lot deeper than playing religious theology to pin others down

With respect, the whole of the NT epistles are written to pin truth down and expose the errors of those who sought to pervert the faith. We are even commanded to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" Jude 3, which means contending for apostolic teaching. So to have a go at those who are following the biblical command, making out that they are the unscriptural and immature ones is not right. Admittedly some may not appear to make allowance for people to grow in knowledge, but their zeal for the truth and being faithful to it is nevertheless commendable.

What I do find sad is that you label all such as elitist and yet you maintain an elitist stance yourself but are blind to it. Always having a dig at calvinists and then asking why it is that they are always gunning for arminians is hypocritical at best.

Why not engage everyone with scriptures and argue your points instead of always standing on the side lines making snide remarks?

John UK wrote:
I see the answer to your question like this. There is a quickening, which includes an enlightenment. This is life out of death, and every sinner will need this quickening unasked for, because "there are none that seeketh after God". And then there is the gift of eternal life, given to all that ask for it. The one life (quickening) leads inevitably to receiving eternal life.
The difficulty is in deciding which one is the new birth. I believe it is the first, for the reasons I have just given from John 3.

I don't want to argue over labels so am content to leave it at that.

Before I answer your question, may I ask a questions of my own?

Please look at:

Acts 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

If these people were already born again in order to be able to repent, why does the verse say that God granted them repentance that leads to life? Should it not have read, God granted them repentance that showed that they were already alive?

John UK wrote:
Where I disagree with you is in your claim that the new birth comes last of all. You've effectively said:
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be born again.

The "born again" term was used by our Lord with Nicodemus because even if the term was new the concept should have been familiar to any reputable Jewish teacher.

The tree of life may have been shut up in Eden, but the benefits of the tree were opened again by promise to our first parents and so salvation, even in the OT, meant life (eternal life).

I could prove this from very many places, but just look at Deut 30 verse 30.15, remember the context and compare the previous verses to Romans 10.4-13. This shows that the gracious covenant in the OT promised life.

Time and again the same 2 alternatives were put before the Israelites viz. life and death. e.g Ezekiel 33:11.

Now let us look at the NT a little closer. When is this "life" recognised?

I hope to deal with the final part - John UK's argument that we are never told to pray for the new birth or given any instructions on how to obtain it another time.

Gottogo

Catch y'all tomorrow.

It could even be argued that there would be no point in expostulating, reasoning with or preaching to someone who already has life because after all the fruit will appear in due time.

This is the explanation of why reasoning and arguing with souls in evangelistic preaching has died out.

This brings me to what I suspect was the motivation behind the first model of the 'ordo salutis' viz. the Presbyterian view of baptismal regeneration. Remember that if regeneration/conversion are the exact same and instantaneous then the kind of presumptive regeneration of kids can be argued on the basis that many will evidence this later in life by showing repentance and faith. Convenient even if totally incorrect.

From a pastoral point of view, if we hold to view 2 we can help and counsel those struggling in the developmental stage with issues like repentance and faith. But we have to be careful to insist that whatever they do they do unto the Lord and assure them that the Lord will deal with them and answer their cries if they are genuine and whole hearted. We can help them understand where or how their repentance and faith may be defective and hence why the Lord may be keeping them waiting etc.

Now why is it important that we should hold to the right model? Let me suggest some points, not working out all the details, because I'm confident that you can do this yourself given the lead.

Under model one, as soon as you see someone showing concern of soul, or appearing to repent or believe, you would assume he already has life, he is saved and you could assure him that that is the case. Let me ask, how is this any better than decisional regenerationists?

We know that justification only takes place at the point of genuine faith and that without justification that person is still not safe. But under the first view they are safe already because they are repenting etc.!

Sirs, what must I do to be saved?…they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved Acts 16.30-31

The verse does not say believe on the Lord Jesus and thereby prove to yourself that you are already saved. The experience of salvation follows the belief, it is consequent upon believing. Thou SHALT be saved.

If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved…For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans 10.9 and 13

Not to labor the point, but notice again confession and faith here are not signs that someone is saved, because those who confess and believe are the very ones who are promised salvation.

I don't want to test readers patience and so will conclude with one other verse before moving on to the practical implications of the 2 models.

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him Hebrews 11.6

The diligent seeker here is obviously awakened and yet there is still a reward to be entered into.

John UK

This view was the viewpoint of the puritans and early baptists.

Isaiah 55.7 – Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

What follows the commanded repentance here? Experience of mercy and pardon.

Matthew 7.7-8 – Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

In each case here, it is not the seeking, or knocking or asking that is the end in itself. There is something that follows viz. finding, opening and receiving.

Matthew 11.28 – Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

The purpose of coming is what? The coming itself? No. It is to find rest.

Acts 2.21 and 38 – Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved…Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost

Call for what purpose? To be saved! Repent what for? For the remission of sins which is accompanied by the gift of the Holy Ghost.

NeedHim wrote:
They occur simultaneously, but one actually CAUSES the other.

That is the modern Presbyterian view and it has been adopted for a specific reason to do with covenant children. I will elaborate as I develop the theme,

But thank you for posting the incorrect view, because it affords me an opportunity to clarify something viz. when I speak of a process, I am not suggesting for a moment that the stages have of necessity to be separated by a huge amount of time. In terms of time, the stages can be simultaneous, but they can also be separated - and the time lapse can vary case by case. Some may struggle with whole hearted repentance, others will struggle with faith etc

May I ask, how many here were converted the instant they sought the Lord? I suspect many will have repented for some time before genuine belief and the conscious experience of the new birth. Others may have repented heartily but struggled with faith before conscious experience of the new birth etc. When one reads biographies like that of Spurgeon or Bunyan, one can see the struggles they had to go through until finally they experienced peace.

More later..

John UK wrote:
Carry on bro.

This model does not see repentance and faith as ends in themselves; there is something beyond.

Now we need to start looking at the scriptures to see which is the correct model.

Since both views see the implantation of life as originating in God, I do not propose to look at this aspect. The aspect that I would like to concentrate on is whether repentance and faith are ends in themselves or whether there is something beyond. We can also look at scriptural examples of conversion to see the development aspects.

I would then like to assess the pastoral and practical aspects of both the models.

The utility and propriety of the above distinction, were it sufficiently attended to, would appear as bright as the sun in a clear meridian.
I wish some able pen would undertake to investigate the subject more fully than either my talents or time will admit of. However, the few following remarks I hope may be of use to weak Christians, for whose sake I write, either to rectify their judgments, stimulate their obedience, increase their joy, or relieve their perplexity.

1. From the sacred oracles it appears, that God's necessary hatred to sin is not contrary to his sovereign love or gracious intentions to do good to his people, even while they are subjects of no other dispositions than what he abhors. If sovereign love to the sinner was inconsistent with his infinite hatred to sin, who then could be saved? Fallen men are, as such, altogether abominable in the eyes of their holy Maker, the imagination of their hearts being, while unrenewed, evil, only evil, and that continually. "They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good, no, not one;" Psal. xiv. 1,3; compared with Rom. iii. 9, 18.

Such as it hath pleased the Lord to make his people, 1 Sam. xii. 22, may with humble joy and holy admiration say, " Behold what manner
of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God." 1 John iii. 1. This sovereign love of the Lord to his spiritual Israel, set apart his own son, Immanuel, as the head of his people, and gave their persons to him before the world was ; and in time gave him to die for them. God loved their persons, but abhorring their sinful conduct and criminal dispositions, was determined to remove that from them which he hated in them, and by creating them anew in Christ Jesus, or implanting holy and heavenly principles in their souls, to make them a holy people, that as such they might become the suitable, fit, and proper objects of his natural, necessary, and essential love. Sovereign love having their persons only for its objects, without being excited by their dispositions, is therefore invariably the same, without addition or diminution. Hence all that is done for them, and wrought in them, is in consequence of, and according to that great love wherewith he loved them, even when they were dead in trespasses and sins, This sovereign love is the fruit of God's good pleasure...

but it consisted in a voluntary determination to do good to the persons he sovereignly fixed upon as his people, with infinite and invariable delight.

If, then, we consider the voluntary love of the great Eternal as distinct from, and yet harmonizing with, that natural and necessary love of which we have been treating, difficulties, otherwise insurmountable, will disappear. That love which is essential, or natural to God, has personal holiness or pure principles for its invariable object. But sovereign love fixed upon persons without a regard had to their dispositions as its cause; which sovereign favor is entirely uninfluenced by their dispositions, and is beautifully illustrated by the Lord's voluntary favor to the person of Jacob, and the distinguished special privileges enjoyed by his posterity, without respect had to his having done either good or evil. " Jacob have I loved, saith the Lord." Rom. ix. 13.*

And Moses, speaking of Israel as a chosen people, observes, The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you because ye were more in number than any people, (for ye were the fewest of all people,) but because the Lord loved you. Deut. vii. 7, 8....

Let me preface this presentation with 2 alternative views of the order of salvation within reformed circles and then let's look at the scriptural evidence to see which one is correct. Once this is done I will address your point that there is nothing in the Bible about seeking the new birth or any instructions as to how to go about that.

But, for the moment let me just say, tongue in cheek, that maybe you should write to Billy about that and explain that he should have changed the title of his book from "How to be born again" to something more scriptural, even if the contents then proceed to explain steps the sinner has to take to make himself a Christian!

So then firstly there is the position that you seem to adhere to, which is not the historic reformed position, but which states that the Lord regenerates and that repentance and faith are the inevitable fruits which in themselves are the evidence of life. I hope I am representing your position correctly. If not by all means feel free to correct this. This position sees regeneration/conversion as synonymous terms, so it's not so much a process but a once for all accomplished work which just awaits the evidence.

I will deal with the pastoral issues and difficulties arising from this in another post.

The scriptures themselves command us to admonish each other. It is a duty that is admittedly difficult, but where and when the truth is at stake we are doubly indebted to carry out the duty.

It is sadly little practiced in the churches, and therefore often when someone not used to receiving it is on the receiving end they take personal slight and become rancorous.

I for one am glad to see you make a stand for truth and faithfully admonish people on here without respect of persons. It is a most loving thing that you do, even if not perceived as such by those who are being admonished.

We are all a work in progress and all in need of grace. That we can also help each other by faithfully and lovingly dealing with each other on our way to the Celestial City is a great privilege, even if sometimes difficult.

If you should see something in my posts that you find objectionable, the knowledge that you would not hesitate to speak to me about it comforts me.

Proverbs 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

Thus it appears that the various ranks of intelligent creatures were, in their original condition, interested in God's favor. Even those abominable beings, called devils, were, while holy, the objects of their Maker's love and approbation, as well as the angels who continue to shine in holy splendor and purity. ...