Sign in or signup
Radio Streams
SA Radio
24/7 Radio Stream
VCY America
24/7 Radio Stream

My Favorite Things
Home
NewsSITE
Events | Local | Blogs
New Audio | Video | Clips
Broadcasters
Church Finder
Webcast LIVE NOW!
Sermons by Bible
Sermons by Category
Sermons by Topic
Sermons by Speaker
Sermons by Date
Staff Picks
CommentsALL -0 sec
Top Sermons
Daily Log
Photos
Stores
Online Bible
Hymnal
Daily Reading
Our Services
Sermon DashboardNEW
Members Only

 
BIBLE, SOCIETY, TECH, PERSONAL SURVEYS | FAVORITES CREATE NEW

All Categories |  Bible & Theology Issues
912 total votes have been cast on this survey | 408 user comments  ( edit survey )

What does being Regenerated mean to you?
Created: 11/25/2007 | Last Vote: 8 years ago | Comment: 7 years 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.
  1% | 10 votes

 •   Being indwelled by the Holy Spirit.
  43% | 395 votes

 •   Asking Jesus to come into my heart.
  3% | 30 votes

 •   A restored relationship with God.
  21% | 194 votes

 •   Being saved with signs following as evidence.
  26% | 241 votes

 •   No answer. Skip this survey, I do not care to vote on this topic.
  5% | 42 votes

   

Subscribe to these comments


   11 votes  |  Do you homeschool your children? • 9 years ago
   105 votes  |  Is the 4th commandment binding in the New Covenant? • 9 years ago
   91 votes  |  How many hours a week do you spend in your occupation providing... • 9 years ago
   130 votes  |  How would you describe Brit Hume's recommendation of the... • 9 years ago
   169 votes  |  Do You Celebrate The Christmas Holiday? • 9 years ago
BROWSE SURVEY CATEGORIES | MORE..
   2,720 votes  |  What is your opinion of SermonAudio? Suggestions, questions,... • 8 months ago
   3,978 votes  |  Gay marriage • 8 months ago
   169 votes  |  Do You Celebrate The Christmas Holiday? • 1 years ago
   866 votes  |  Do you think women should have their heads covered during public... • 1 years ago
   740 votes  |  Is it getting harder to find a church in which you agree in most... • 1 years ago
BROWSE SURVEY CATEGORIES | MORE..
This feature is for PLUS or FULL members only. Please log in first | or learn more about favorites.
   9,507 votes  |  What version of the Bible do you use? • 5590 comments
   6,045 votes  |  What is your view of women pastors? • 873 comments
   5,907 votes  |  Do you think the Pope went to heaven? • 1482 comments
   5,305 votes  |  Are you Presbyterian, Methodist, or Baptist? • 444 comments
   4,559 votes  |  How old are you? To determine the SermonAudio age groups... • 111 comments
BROWSE SURVEY CATEGORIES | MORE..
FORUMS | USER COMMENTS | add new  

    Sorting Order:  

· Page 1 ·  Found: 408 user comment(s)

Survey4/12/12 12:34 PM
Vine Post  Find all comments by Vine Post
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
• Groups | Comments
Mike N.Y. wrote:
what Scripture says?
Mike;
Here is a couple of quotes from Prof John Murray, ex your US Westminster Theol Seminary.

"Regeneration is inseparable from its effects and one of its effects is faith. Without Regeneration it is morally and spiritually impossible for a person to believe in Christ."

"If Regeneration is the way of entrance (into the Kingdom of God) then those Regenerated have entered and having entered they see the Kingdom of God and are members of it. This is again the pointed lesson of Jesus in John 3.6 "that which is born of Spirit is spirit" that is to say the person born of the Holy Spirit is indwelt and directed by the Spirit. The regenerate person cannot live in sin and be unconverted."

"Regeneration is the beginning of all saving grace in us and all saving grace in exercise on our part proceeds from the fountain of Regeneration. We are not born again by faith or repentance or conversion - We repent and believe because we have been Regenerated."

"God's call since it is effectual carries with it the operative grace whereby the person called is enabled to answer the call and embrace Jesus...
And that grace is the grace of regeneration"
(From Redemption Accomplished and Applied)


Survey3/6/12 10:48 AM
testing  Find all comments by testing
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
• Groups | Comments

Survey11/28/10 6:51 PM
John Gard | Florida USA  Contact via emailFind all comments by John Gard
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
• Groups | Comments
RE: "Our Own Hymn Book" Psalms, Paraphrases and Hymns.

Could I ask you to lok at page 308. If it is "When this passing world is done", please tell me the name of the tune used. I have been looking for this version for moths with no success.


Survey8/7/09 4:20 PM
San Jose John | San Jose, CA  Find all comments by San Jose John
• 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.


Survey6/12/09 8:22 AM
HYH  Find all comments by 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


Survey6/12/09 6:27 AM
John UK | Wales  Find all comments by John UK
• 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


Survey6/12/09 5:15 AM
HYH  Find all comments by 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.


Survey6/11/09 9:41 AM
Hailsham  Find all comments by 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!


Survey6/10/09 7:51 PM
HYH  Find all comments by 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!


Survey6/10/09 7:29 PM
Guinness  Find all comments by 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.


Survey6/10/09 5:08 PM
Michael Hranek | Endicott, New York  Find all comments by Michael Hranek
• 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.


Survey6/10/09 5:02 PM
Hailsham  Find all comments by 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?

Survey6/10/09 4:38 PM
Guinness  Find all comments by 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.

Survey6/10/09 4:22 PM
HYH  Find all comments by 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?

Survey6/10/09 4:03 PM
Guinness  Find all comments by 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!


Survey6/10/09 3:07 PM
Hailsham  Find all comments by 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???

Survey6/10/09 1:05 PM
Guinness  Find all comments by 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.

Survey6/10/09 10:38 AM
Mike | New York  Find all comments by Mike
• 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.


Survey6/10/09 9:28 AM
Hailsham  Find all comments by 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.


Survey6/10/09 7:27 AM
Bournemouth  Find all comments by 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.

There are a total of 408 user comments displayed | add new comment |Subscribe to these comments

Jump to Page : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 more | last




Mike Allison
Never About the Land Part 1

Hebrews 11:8-10, Joshua 1:1-7
Sunday - AM
Madison Baptist Church
Play! | MP3 | RSS


Hourly:
God's Hell
Rev. John Wagner
Covenant Free Presbyterian
Staff Picks..

Pastor James Mansfield
Why The Fall?

Bethel Baptist Chapel
Sunday - AM
Play! | MP3

Sponsor:
Free Book Giveaway

The Sov­er­eignty of God & the Resp­ons­ib­il­ity of Man
desiringrevival.org

Sermon:
Meat to Eat
Shawn Reynolds

SPONSOR | 2,000+

SPONSOR




                   
One Almighty is more than all mighties. ... William Gurnall


Gospel of John
Cities | Local | Personal

MOBILE
iPhone + iPad
Church App
Watch
Android
Church App
Fire Tablet
Wear
Chromecast TV
Apple TV
Android TV
ROKU TV
Amazon Fire TV
Amazon Echo
Kindle Reader


HELP
Knowledgebase
Broadcasters
Listeners
Q&A
Uploading Sermons
Uploading Videos
Webcasting
Tips & Tricks
YouTube Screencasts
2-MINUTE TIPS

FOLLOW
Weekly Newsletter
Staff Picks Feed
SA Newsroom
RSS | Twitter | Facebook
SERVICES
Sermon Dashboard | Info
Audio | Video | Podcast
Sermon Player | Video
Church Finder | Info
Mobile & Apps
Live Webcasting
Listen Line
Events Support
Transcription | PowerClips
Billboards
Business Cards
SOLO Sites New!
Favorites New! | QR Codes
Online Donations
24x7 Radio Stream
INTEGRATION
Embed Codes
Goodies
WordPress
Twitter
Facebook
Logos | e-Sword | BLB
JSON API

BATCH
Transfer Agent
Protected Podcasts
Auto-Upload Sermons
Upload via FTP
Upload via Dropbox
Picasa
ABOUT US
The largest and most trusted library of audio sermons from conservative churches and ministries worldwide.

Our Services | Articles of Faith
Broadcast With Us
Earn SA COINS! New!
Advertising | Local Ads
CONTACT
info@sermonaudio.com
Privacy Policy | Support Us | Stories New!