All Categories |

Bible & Theology Issues Cast your vote to see the results of this survey | 405 user comments  ( edit survey )

What does being Regenerated mean to you? Created: 11/25/2007 | Last Vote: 26 hours ago | Comment: 3 months ago

Disclaimer: These surveys are created by PLUS or FULL Members of the site and, unless specified, are not created by the SermonAudio staff nor do they necessarily reflect the site's position on any topic.    Church baptism into the New Covenant.    Being indwelled by the Holy Spirit.    Asking Jesus to come into my heart.    A restored relationship with God.    Being saved with signs following as evidence.    No answer. Skip this survey, I do not care to vote on this topic.

100 votes  |   Will you take the H1N1 vaccine? • 1 month ago    66 votes  |   Do you currently feel more or less safe than you did a year ago... • 2 months ago    163 votes  |   If someone preaches the death, burial and resurrection of Christ... • 2 months ago    181 votes  |   Does the Roman Catholic Church falsely worship a different Jesus? • 3 months ago    169 votes  |   Who is the Twelfth Apostle? • 3 months ago BROWSE SURVEY CATEGORIES | MORE..

1,606 votes  |   What Bible Version Do You Use? • 3 hours ago    2,770 votes  |   Should Christian Contemporary Music be used in fundamental... • 4 hours ago    2,397 votes  |   Does the Bible Permit Christians to Drink Alcohol? • 4 hours ago    100 votes  |   Will you take the H1N1 vaccine? • 6 hours ago    163 votes  |   If someone preaches the death, burial and resurrection of Christ... • 8 hours ago BROWSE SURVEY CATEGORIES | MORE..

9,463 votes  |   What version of the Bible do you use? • 5586 comments    5,984 votes  |   What is your view of women pastors? • 870 comments    5,852 votes  |   Do you think the Pope went to heaven? • 1484 comments    5,253 votes  |   Are you Presbyterian, Methodist, or Baptist? • 443 comments    4,486 votes  |   How old are you? To determine the SermonAudio age groups... • 111 comments BROWSE SURVEY CATEGORIES | MORE..

FORUMS | USER COMMENTS | add new

Sorting Order:   Sort by newest firstSort by oldest first

· Page 1 ·  Found: 405 user comment(s)

8/7/09 4:20 PM San Jose John  | San Jose, CA    • Add new comment • Reply to comment • Report abuse • Groups | Comments Both #2 and #4 sound good. #1 and #3 don't necessarily mean salvation has ocurred. #5 sounds redundant. If one is truely saved, signs WILL follow. I was always taught that "regeneration" meant that God gave you a new "heart" and a resurrected soul. Our bodies (those of the true believers) will not be regenerated until Christ's return. 6/12/09 8:22 AM HYH    • Add new comment • Reply to comment • Report abuse • Groups | Comments John UK wrote: Well I would debate it with you HYH...but... #1 I'm pushed for time #2 I'm in agreement with what you say Huh? #1. My post was addressed to Hailsham. #2. I had read your earlier posts and knew that you did not agree with Hailsham. Good of you to chat all the same 6/12/09 6:27 AM John UK  | Wales    • Add new comment • Reply to comment • Report abuse • Groups | Comments HYH wrote: Don't make me laugh. The argument is not over whether there are any elect infants who die in infancy. It is about whether the children of believers are guaranteed to be elect. You and your ilk say yes, we say no, because one of the key lessons of the Bible, which seems to elude Presbys. like you, is that Christianity is not hereditary. It has nothing to do with who my parents were. It is a matter of pure grace. Your imagined covenant which makes the children and the spouse "elect" is just that viz. pure fiction and runs counter to all that we read of Salvation in the NT. Now if you want to debate this, fine, but at least be honest and don't attribute sentiments to others which they have not stated. Well I would debate it with you HYH...but... #1 I'm pushed for time #2 I'm in agreement with what you say 6/12/09 5:15 AM HYH    • Add new comment • Reply to comment • Report abuse • Groups | Comments Hailsham wrote: HYH and Guinness choose another path. They therefore imply by their posts that the children of the Elect are going to hell. They have even further implied that the spouse also goes to hell? Some covenant they have!! THIS is UNScriptural. Isaiah 44:1-8, 61:9, 65:23. A Promise of GOD! Amen! Don't make me laugh. The argument is not over whether there are any elect infants who die in infancy. It is about whether the children of believers are guaranteed to be elect. You and your ilk say yes, we say no, because one of the key lessons of the Bible, which seems to elude Presbys. like you, is that Christianity is not hereditary. It has nothing to do with who my parents were. It is a matter of pure grace. Your imagined covenant which makes the children and the spouse "elect" is just that viz. pure fiction and runs counter to all that we read of Salvation in the NT. Now if you want to debate this, fine, but at least be honest and don't attribute sentiments to others which they have not stated. 6/11/09 9:41 AM Hailsham    • Add new comment • Reply to comment • Report abuse • Groups | Comments Mike wrote: And infant salvation is by God's grace, same source as grown-up salvation A careful review of the Canons article begs the question, "Which passage of Scripture have they contravened?" I contend that the Canon says the same as what Scripture states. That a] The Covenant INCLUDES the children of the Elect. b] Scripture does NOT declare the children are excluded. 17th century Europe was more greatly aware of the terrible tragedy of infant mortality than we are today. The article is written in a "Pastoral" way which does NOT make it wrong. How would you handle telling a young couple in your church what may happen to their dead child? A couple who have entered into the Covenant with God. Can you be more Biblically accurate by telling them that the child is in hell? They like any parents hope and pray for their children to be God's children. Clearly it is NOT sentimental to teach that the child is covenant elect. ___ HYH and Guinness choose another path. They therefore imply by their posts that the children of the Elect are going to hell. They have even further implied that the spouse also goes to hell? Some covenant they have!! THIS is UNScriptural. Isaiah 44:1-8, 61:9, 65:23. A Promise of GOD! Amen! 6/10/09 7:51 PM HYH    • Add new comment • Reply to comment • Report abuse • Groups | Comments Guinness wrote: HYH, Let's deal with that if he begins to engage with his own fallacious argument. I don't think it will ever happen .... On a side note may I urge you to draw greater distinction between the actual Canons of Dordt and any ignorant reinterpretation, reconstruction and reinvention of them. It would be akin to judging the theology of the 39 Articles by J H Newman's fanciful and ludicrous Tract 90. I don't buy into Hailsham's view (or that of the Synod of Dort) on the issue of the Covt of Grace and infants. They are way off track! The Synod, as august a company as it was, got many things wrong. But hey they were only men after all! 6/10/09 7:29 PM Guinness    • Add new comment • Reply to comment • Report abuse • Groups | Comments HYH wrote: How would you answer if he affirmed that the unbelieving spouse is also elect by virtue of the Covt. of Grace? HYH, Let's deal with that if he begins to engage with his own fallacious argument. I don't think it will ever happen .... On a side note may I urge you to draw greater distinction between the actual Canons of Dordt and any ignorant reinterpretation, reconstruction and reinvention of them. It would be akin to judging the theology of the 39 Articles by J H Newman's fanciful and ludicrous Tract 90. 6/10/09 5:08 PM Michael Hranek  | Endicott, New York    • Add new comment • Reply to comment • Report abuse • Groups | Comments Hailsham wrote: Nota Bene Michael and the DIY brigade on site. Hailsham Note Well, I repsectively disagree with the philosopholical premises of Calvinism, especially if you are not a Calvinist you must be an Do It Yourself Arminian No were in Scripture do I find God giving us this type of reasoning. I do however find. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." Wow! I simply don't need a doctorate in theology to be saved, just Jesus. 6/10/09 5:02 PM Hailsham    • Add new comment • Reply to comment • Report abuse • Groups | Comments Guinness wrote: Well, now you've reverted back to your previous postings Ha! Ha! Ha! It is you who got the subject wrong sunbeam! MisReading? or Misconstruing? 6/10/09 4:38 PM Guinness    • Add new comment • Reply to comment • Report abuse • Groups | Comments HYH wrote: How would you answer if he affirmed that the unbelieving spouse is also elect by virtue of the Covt. of Grace? HYH - Please wait and see. 6/10/09 4:22 PM HYH    • Add new comment • Reply to comment • Report abuse • Groups | Comments Guinness wrote: Well, now you've reverted back to your previous postings how about you actually interact with the logical fallacy. A believer's children and unbelieving spouse have the SAME standing in the source proof text - i.e. in this case holy/sanctified. So what you argue for children, you have to argue for unbelieving spouses. By your reasoning therefore from the same text YOU also "have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of" unbelieving spouses. If you were consistent you would "judge of the will of God from his Word" for the election of all unbelieving spouses as well as all children. It seems Hailsham is all knotted up with Marlow Ropes! How would you answer if he affirmed that the unbelieving spouse is also elect by virtue of the Covt. of Grace? 6/10/09 4:03 PM Guinness    • Add new comment • Reply to comment • Report abuse • Groups | Comments Hailsham wrote: "Since we are to judge of the will of God from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the *COVENANT* of grace, in which they, together with the parents, are comprehended, godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children, whom it pleaseth God to call out of this life in their infancy." (Canons of Dort 1:17) Well, now you've reverted back to your previous postings how about you actually interact with the logical fallacy. A believer's children and unbelieving spouse have the SAME standing in the source proof text - i.e. in this case holy/sanctified. So what you argue for children, you have to argue for unbelieving spouses. By your reasoning therefore from the same text YOU also "have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of" unbelieving spouses. If you were consistent you would "judge of the will of God from his Word" for the election of all unbelieving spouses as well as all children. It seems Hailsham is all knotted up with Marlow Ropes! 6/10/09 3:07 PM Hailsham    • Add new comment • Reply to comment • Report abuse • Groups | Comments Mike wrote: 1] but I recognize your accent. Long way from Eastbourne, lad 2] And infant salvation is by God's grace, same source as grown-up salvation, not man-invented ideas about Godly parents. Mike 1] Aye mun, a lang lang stracht awa! 2] Do me a wee favour here Mike, and read this Canon article again slowly. "Since we are to judge of the will of God from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the *COVENANT* of grace, in which they, together with the parents, are comprehended, godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children, whom it pleaseth God to call out of this life in their infancy." (Canons of Dort 1:17) Guinness wrote: I'd be more interested if you could provide support for your previous illogical arguments about your unusual perspective on the scope of election rather than changing the subject to infant baptism. Baptism??? 6/10/09 1:05 PM Guinness    • Add new comment • Reply to comment • Report abuse • Groups | Comments Hailsham wrote: Here is some good teaching to hopefully absorb your interest folks. I'd be more interested if you could provide support for your previous illogical arguments about your unusual perspective on the scope of election rather than changing the subject to infant baptism. 6/10/09 10:38 AM Mike  | New York    • Add new comment • Reply to comment • Report abuse • Groups | Comments Hailsham wrote: -- And your buddies speculations? No nowhere near Eastbourne or England - wherever that is. Dont you recognise my accent? _____________ Here is some good teaching to hopefully absorb your interest folks. "The doctrine of infant salvation finds a logical place in the Calvinistic system; for the redemption of the soul is thus infallibly determined irrespective of any faith, repentance, or good works, whether actual or foreseen. It does not, however, find a logical place in Arminianism or any other system. Furthermore, it would seem that a system such as Arminianism, which suspends salvation on a personal act of rational choice, would logically demand that those dying in infancy must either be given another period of probation after death, in order that their destiny may be fixed, or that they must be annihilated." (Boettner) Nota Bene Michael and the DIY brigade on site. Don't know about John, but I recognize your accent. Long way from Eastbourne, lad. Dear Hailsham, you know very well the "suspension" or loss of salvation is both impossible and illogical. And infant salvation is by God's grace, same source as grown-up salvation, not man-invented ideas about Godly parents. 6/10/09 9:28 AM Hailsham    • Add new comment • Reply to comment • Report abuse • Groups | Comments John UK wrote: Is there any truth in the rumour that the Canons of Dordt are the protestant equivalent of the papal bulls? Why John, I thought you were a Protestant? But clearly a true Protestant would never allege this about such rich Biblical teaching and truth. So which Popish house do you belong to? As for "Eastbourne" And your buddies speculations? No nowhere near Eastbourne or England - wherever that is. Dont you recognise my accent? _____________ Here is some good teaching to hopefully absorb your interest folks. "The doctrine of infant salvation finds a logical place in the Calvinistic system; for the redemption of the soul is thus infallibly determined irrespective of any faith, repentance, or good works, whether actual or foreseen. It does not, however, find a logical place in Arminianism or any other system. Furthermore, it would seem that a system such as Arminianism, which suspends salvation on a personal act of rational choice, would logically demand that those dying in infancy must either be given another period of probation after death, in order that their destiny may be fixed, or that they must be annihilated." (Boettner) Nota Bene Michael and the DIY brigade on site. 6/10/09 7:27 AM Bournemouth    • Add new comment • Reply to comment • Report abuse • Groups | Comments Mike wrote: Quite imaginative for one addicted to the Canons. As a south coast dweller, I can confirm that people on the south coast are drab and unimaginative. They can only come up with names of cities and towns to use as monikers! Lol. 6/10/09 5:33 AM Michael Hranek  | Endicott, New York    • Add new comment • Reply to comment • Report abuse • Groups | Comments John UK wrote: Hi Hailsham (near Eastbourne?) Is there any truth in the rumour that the Canons of Dordt are the protestant equivalent of the papal bulls? John UK Hmmmm Interesting Oh! That men might treat the word of God as Holy, authoritative, as the very word of God because it is the very word whereby we might live and know God with the kind of passion some have for the Canons of Dordt. I will stand by my conviction one simply does not need the dictates of Dordt nor the Westminister Confession of Faith to interpret the Word of God to us, to have God Himself convict one of sin and bring to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ as He Himself identifies and reveals Him to us in His Holy Written Word, the Bible. And to love Him above all things and all other beings even our own life and find our greatest joy and satisfaction and reward in life now and for all eternity in knowing Him and serving Him, Yes! Even in telling of Him to others that they might be saved from sins to joyfully follow and serve Him too! And once saved! May we never loose the preeminent hunger for the Word of God and substitue other spiritual nurishments even as new born babes thirst for mother's milk. 6/9/09 8:13 PM Guinness    • Add new comment • Reply to comment • Report abuse • Groups | Comments Mike wrote: The one posting as Hailsham uses interesting monikers. Quite imaginative for one addicted to the Canons. .... and from nowhere near Eastbourne 6/9/09 8:02 PM Mike  | New York    • Add new comment • Reply to comment • Report abuse • Groups | Comments Guinness wrote: It is you that is relying on the line of argumentation you are quoting from Canons of Dort 1:17. You tell me. John UK - possibly near Eastbourne .... or perhaps a play on Quintin Hogg's coined phrase "elective dictatorship" ..... The one posting as Hailsham uses interesting monikers. Quite imaginative for one addicted to the Canons.

There are a total of 405 user comments displayed | add new comment |