What I love about Lutheranism is it doesn't go down the rabbit holes that require all kinds of human reasoning applied to Scripture, but reason only as a servant of Scripture.
@@SugoiEnglish1 Obtuse means lacking sharpness or quickness of intellect or sensibility, or being insensitive or stupid. It can also mean being difficult to comprehend, or not being clear or precise in thought or expression. How is what Flowers said obtuse in any way?
I find this video very helpful because talking the Lutheran view on baptism with Baptists or (GOD HELP US) Reformed Baptists, it always ends up with them asking stuff like “do you think even if someone declares to believe a certain way on Scripture that is not truthful but their fruit says otherwise in their life, they are saved?” or “Do you think baptism does save you by getting in the physical water and actually doing so after that you are saved?” or “do you believe we are justified before God before or after baptism?” So yeah, it all seems predicated on the distracting, black-and-white, fundamentalist arguments over chronology in regeneration, which are just completely unhelpful and unnecessary debates to have
Why are they unnecessary and unhelpful? If someone says I'm unsaved because I never had a born again experience do i just let it go and walk away from the argument Is there scripture to help me deal with this accusation of false faith
@@prayunceasingly2029 I was talking about the other person. I just don’t find the debate over the chronology of regeneration helpful because the discussion is with someone who’s already convinced that the entirety of their regeneration is predicated on their understanding and mental consent. In other words, they have a “Get Saved!”-mentality. Good luck convincing someone with that approach to soteriology that baptism is a regenerative Sacrament. Their view is anthropocentric rather than Logocentric, which is VERY VERY difficult to sort through because it has several underlying assumptions that simply aren’t Scriptural. We’re saved because the Word said so on the cross and resurrected Himself to confirm it (Jn. 19:30; 1 Pet. 3:21), not because of we made the right choice (Arminianism (even Roman Catholicism somewhat aligns with that) and said the right prayer (sinner’s prayer of salvation) at the right age (age of accountability) and publicly demonstrated that belief to a local congregation (baptism as a SIGN of the covenant). “Baptismal regeneration” always sounds like heretical works righteousness to people who believe like that. I suggest keeping the focus on what the Word of God is and His mighty power to draw and bring forth His Faith. As Luther points out in the Large Catechism, baptism is not bound to faith, but to the Word.
Do Lutherans believe that regeneration takes place in baptism? That would mean that when an infant is baptised regeneration comes before the faith (though we don't know of course if a baby maybe has faith before being baptised) but when an adult is baptised then faith would come first because if the person would not have faith then he or she would not decide to be baptised.
Question: Do scripture and the church fathers ever speak of regeneration without reference to baptism? I certainly grant that repentance and faith are gifts of the Holy Spirit-“I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to him…”-and I grant that regeneration creates faith, as with the baptism of infants, but it seems as though with adult converts, faith precedes baptism, and thus faith precedes regeneration. Are there references to regeneration-γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, παλιγγενεσία, or another Greek expression explicitly referring to new birth-preceding faith in the church fathers? Have we gotten the categories right? Is regeneration necessary for a Christian death or is it rather about Christian life? (I’m most certainly not denying the sacramental efficacy of baptism in creating faith and remitting sins, just questioning if we’ve shoved far too many eggs into the regeneration basket and thereby severed it from baptism. Did anyone prior to Calvin and Reformed suggest that regeneration could precede baptism?
Baptism creates faith in infants. In adults, it confirms and strengthens that faith, but faith in the promise baptism makes justifies even before baptism. The Thief on the Cross is a classic example. Augustine: "It is not the absence of baptism, but contempt for it, that condemns."
I never found this discussion helpful. If regeneration precedes faith we have created the category of a faithless Christian. I have actually heard a couple Reformed people state regeneration can precede faith by multiple days which I find quite silly.
I know someone who says i don't have saving faith because i have never had a born again experience. Therefore I'm going to hell if i don't have a born again experience according to that person despite believing in Jesus Christ
@@prayunceasingly2029 I am sorry to hear that. It is a terrible thing for someone to question the validity of faith because it wasn’t accompanied by some kind of emotional personal experience. Be comforted, God has granted you the gift of faith to believe Jesus has died for your sins.
This is not specifically relevant to this video but I wanted to ask anyways, I’m returning to the Christian Faith after not believing for the vast majority of my life and am trying to understand as much as possible about the denominations and their beliefs. There seems to be a divide on the internet about Lutherans ( of which I am very interested in becoming). A lot of people seem to think that Lutherans do not preach the gospel, that they’ve somehow fallen away from the Bible? I’m seeking clarification on this topic, are these blanket accusations or is there a sort of falling out for specific groups of Lutherans? Do confessional Lutherans fall into this generalization? And if I were to become a Lutheran how can I ensure that my Lutheran church is the true Lutheran Church ?
For Lutherans in the US joining a WELS or LCMS congregation is your best bet. The ELCA is basically not even Christian at this point. Baptists will say all Lutherans have abandoned the gospel because we baptize babies, but that's silly.
The Gospel is what the Bible is for. A church that doesn't preach the Gospel isn't even a Christian church. ELCA Lutherans sort of believe whatever they want. Confessional Lutherans believe what the Book of Concord- our understanding of what the Bible teaches- says. Compare the Book of Concord with Scripture and you'll have your answer.
Reformed theologians say that "God gives us faith as a gift." The Apostle Paul says, "How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." (Rom. 10:14-17). Pretty clear. Don't need to jump through all the hoops. That's how it's done.
As a Lutheran, I struggle with this, since throughout the Bible people are told to believe. Why would they be told this if they have to be regenerated first? Now, if you want to locate regeneration in the sacrament of baptism, which Lutheranism want to do, then fine. For the infant regeneration and faith could coincide with the event. But for the adult, they come to baptism having already believed. Lutheranism wants it both ways, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.
When we "believe" in Jesus for salvation, it means we trust in Him alone. That's what the Greek word Pisteuo communicates> Trust... the word 'believe' appears 242 times in the Bible... Why would God insist we Do something that we are incapable of doing ??? Believing IS making a decision...
This one does John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And this one too 1 John 5:1 Whosoever is believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God: and every one that is loving him that begat loves him also that has been begotten of him.
@@aletheia8054 John 1:12 says that those who believed where then made sons of God (i.e. regenerated). The regeneration happened by God's will, not man's. This has faith before regeneration.
@@aletheia8054 1 John 1:5 says that those who are actively believing today (i.e. all active belivers, not a new convert) have been (in the past) born again. It doesn't speak to order at all, it is about knowing how to recognize God's children. Those who were born of God will love others who are born of God.
@@zacheaston6727 From my experience, I don't like to even claim any Baptist as Calvinist. They are better described as _Calvinistic._ Presbyterians, per Westminster, do hold to the efficacy of the sacraments. That baptism saves, but is not necessarily tied to the moment it is administered. Yet only for the elect. However, that baptism and grace aren't so inseparable that one cannot be regenerated or saved without it. I personally enjoy learning about Lutheranism, but I struggle with the whole "baptism regenerates and in that moment" idea. Since there are obviously those who are baptized as infants, but do not come to faith until much later in life.
Question from a non-Lutheran.. Don't Lutheran's affirm a universal atonement? Don't you also affirm that God desires all to be saved but something is disrupting his perfect will, namely (out rejection of him)... So how does this square with regeneration preceding faith? Why doesn't God regenerate everyone? Seems like Calvinism would be the consistent position, and I'm not a Calvinist
ruclips.net/video/pMiNjSsjM_w/видео.html Here's a video from another Lutheran pastor that gives a short answer to why some are saved and others are not. I'd give a longer answer but I have to sleep. Hope this helps in the meantime though. Fyi, Calvinism may seem to be the best option but coming from a former Calvinist like myself it's not.
@@jadenmarker8109 Right I'm not a Calvinist either, my point was that holding to pre-faith regeneration AND God wanting all to be saved makes little sense to me. I know Lutheran's also affirm that grace is resistible, but is regeneration? The Calvinist is at least consistent and will just bite the bullet and say "God doesn't want all to be saved" and ignore or rearrange the passages that say otherwise
Thanks Dr Cooper! this is helpful. I am debating a Lutheran on this subject in October. Its helpful in the way that I do not misrepresent Lutheranism. I desire to "steal man" rather than "straw man" my Lutheran brethren.
@Sage of Synergism I do believe God desires to save all, as Calvin also states in his commentary on 2 Peter 3:9, he says God wants to save all, no disagreements there. As for Acts 7:51 no problem there since men are able to resist the Spirit, that's natural to man. As for 1 Peter 1:22 You forgot the context. 1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. There is no mention of foreseen faith, faith is even a gift of God John 6:28-29, Acts 3:16, Phil 1:29.
@Sage of Synergism In response to your question to the limited atonement question. I now hold to the efficient sufficient view since some of the Reformers including Calvin believed Christ died for all but effectively for the elect, but most importantly I changed my mind because of Scripture. I had presuppositions when reading the text such terms as "all" "world" even Calvin believed those terms to what those indicated all meant all and world did really mean world, also, I read Lutheran and Augustinian traditions which a few of them supported universal atonement and the current view I hold now. Acts 7:51, the doctrine of irresistible grace or another term effectual grace which is a better term teaches all resist God and reject Him until God decides to effectually draw or call sinners to Himself. Phillipians 1.29 "it has been granted to you to SUFFER" was the persecution of christians actively caused by god just as faith is actively caused by god? I think it's quite clear that is the case, that God allows or even causes Christians to suffer since that's apart of the Christian life, that's what the text is saying and so we can say the faith is also granted to the Christian by God, once again backed up by other Scripture passages that I have given. You're not giving much detail in your response to how 1 Peter 1:2 supports conditional election. It doesn't have to directly say unconditional election. Do you believe faith is a gift of God? I assume not. Election occurs because God foresees whom He will elect and He acts upon it, thus predestination in the Greek is "marked out before hand" God marks out whom He will save. My exegete of 1 Peter 1:22 will be in the next post.
@Sage of Synergism My exegesis of 1 Peter 1:22. 19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. 22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. In Verse 19 that it was through Christ's precious blood one as a lamb without blemish we're saved which is in connection to Verse 20 where Christ was foreordained or predestined to be crucified for sinners. This next verse is where I believe is vital and the connection of the verses before and after it which is Verse 21 we see "Who by him do believe in God" we see this "who" is in connection to the following verses is obviously Christ who Peter is speaking about here and it is "by him" that is Christ we receive and "believe in God" so faith is a gift of God as I have shown before with Scripture passages. So, that faith or belief and hope is to be put in God. We see so far that so far that it's God focused in salvation. Now Verse 21 we see here that the key term here is "purified" which usually means being born again, one's sins is cleansed which connects to the next verse (which I will do when done with this verse). So, their souls were purified by obeying the truth through the Spirit, what is meant by this? This is in connection to the verse before, "who by him do believe in God" which is in connection to "purified by your souls in obeying the truth of the Spirit" when God saves a soul, God makes alive the soul of man Eph 2:1-5 and then man obeys the call of God and the Spirit and thus being born again we see in verse 23 by the Word of God which is an instrument of salvation.
What I love about Lutheranism is it doesn't go down the rabbit holes that require all kinds of human reasoning applied to Scripture, but reason only as a servant of Scripture.
For Calvinists, they sure point to scripture for proof. I would only say that in light of scripture, some make logical inferences.
Or are Lutherans just punting, kicking the can down the road?
Thank you. Always count on you to straighten out the hard questions. God's peace be with you.
Thanks Coop, good clarification.
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." John 6 44
@@tomtemple69 Two different contexts. In John 12 Greeks i.e. Gentiles ask to speak to Him. Jesus is talking about drawing all i.e. Jews and Gentiles.
@@SugoiEnglish1 yeah i know that now, thanks
i've come to see the light, Reformed theology is true
im a supralapsarian infant baptizing Presby now 😂
Would you consider producing a video discussing the scriptures that support these findings? Thank you.
This seems like a reasonable ask
Many others have produced that type of video and text. Do your own research.
@@SugoiEnglish1you don't realize who you're talking to
@@jeremybullen655 Oh I do. LOL. I have more years of research than Flowers. He is being obtuse here.
@@SugoiEnglish1 Obtuse means lacking sharpness or quickness of intellect or sensibility, or being insensitive or stupid. It can also mean being difficult to comprehend, or not being clear or precise in thought or expression. How is what Flowers said obtuse in any way?
I find this video very helpful because talking the Lutheran view on baptism with Baptists or (GOD HELP US) Reformed Baptists, it always ends up with them asking stuff like “do you think even if someone declares to believe a certain way on Scripture that is not truthful but their fruit says otherwise in their life, they are saved?” or “Do you think baptism does save you by getting in the physical water and actually doing so after that you are saved?” or “do you believe we are justified before God before or after baptism?”
So yeah, it all seems predicated on the distracting, black-and-white, fundamentalist arguments over chronology in regeneration, which are just completely unhelpful and unnecessary debates to have
Why are they unnecessary and unhelpful? If someone says I'm unsaved because I never had a born again experience do i just let it go and walk away from the argument
Is there scripture to help me deal with this accusation of false faith
@@prayunceasingly2029 I was talking about the other person. I just don’t find the debate over the chronology of regeneration helpful because the discussion is with someone who’s already convinced that the entirety of their regeneration is predicated on their understanding and mental consent. In other words, they have a “Get Saved!”-mentality. Good luck convincing someone with that approach to soteriology that baptism is a regenerative Sacrament. Their view is anthropocentric rather than Logocentric, which is VERY VERY difficult to sort through because it has several underlying assumptions that simply aren’t Scriptural. We’re saved because the Word said so on the cross and resurrected Himself to confirm it (Jn. 19:30; 1 Pet. 3:21), not because of we made the right choice (Arminianism (even Roman Catholicism somewhat aligns with that) and said the right prayer (sinner’s prayer of salvation) at the right age (age of accountability) and publicly demonstrated that belief to a local congregation (baptism as a SIGN of the covenant). “Baptismal regeneration” always sounds like heretical works righteousness to people who believe like that.
I suggest keeping the focus on what the Word of God is and His mighty power to draw and bring forth His Faith. As Luther points out in the Large Catechism, baptism is not bound to faith, but to the Word.
Do Lutherans believe that regeneration takes place in baptism? That would mean that when an infant is baptised regeneration comes before the faith (though we don't know of course if a baby maybe has faith before being baptised) but when an adult is baptised then faith would come first because if the person would not have faith then he or she would not decide to be baptised.
Baptism regenerates and cultivates faith in us. A baby can’t articulate or express this faith, but they still have it.
Question: Do scripture and the church fathers ever speak of regeneration without reference to baptism? I certainly grant that repentance and faith are gifts of the Holy Spirit-“I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to him…”-and I grant that regeneration creates faith, as with the baptism of infants, but it seems as though with adult converts, faith precedes baptism, and thus faith precedes regeneration. Are there references to regeneration-γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, παλιγγενεσία, or another Greek expression explicitly referring to new birth-preceding faith in the church fathers? Have we gotten the categories right? Is regeneration necessary for a Christian death or is it rather about Christian life? (I’m most certainly not denying the sacramental efficacy of baptism in creating faith and remitting sins, just questioning if we’ve shoved far too many eggs into the regeneration basket and thereby severed it from baptism. Did anyone prior to Calvin and Reformed suggest that regeneration could precede baptism?
Baptism creates faith in infants. In adults, it confirms and strengthens that faith, but faith in the promise baptism makes justifies even before baptism. The Thief on the Cross is a classic example. Augustine: "It is not the absence of baptism, but contempt for it, that condemns."
Well now I’m more confused than before
I never found this discussion helpful. If regeneration precedes faith we have created the category of a faithless Christian. I have actually heard a couple Reformed people state regeneration can precede faith by multiple days which I find quite silly.
It’s more of a logical order rather than a temporal order
I know someone who says i don't have saving faith because i have never had a born again experience. Therefore I'm going to hell if i don't have a born again experience according to that person despite believing in Jesus Christ
@@prayunceasingly2029 I am sorry to hear that. It is a terrible thing for someone to question the validity of faith because it wasn’t accompanied by some kind of emotional personal experience. Be comforted, God has granted you the gift of faith to believe Jesus has died for your sins.
Ephesians 1:11 “AFTER ye believed, ye were SEALED with the holy spirit of promise.”
Case closed
Being regenerated by the Spirit is different than being filled. John 3:3.
@@SugoiEnglish1 That verse has nothing to do with your statement
Without the revelation of Gods Word there is nothing
This is not specifically relevant to this video but I wanted to ask anyways, I’m returning to the Christian Faith after not believing for the vast majority of my life and am trying to understand as much as possible about the denominations and their beliefs. There seems to be a divide on the internet about Lutherans ( of which I am very interested in becoming). A lot of people seem to think that Lutherans do not preach the gospel, that they’ve somehow fallen away from the Bible? I’m seeking clarification on this topic, are these blanket accusations or is there a sort of falling out for specific groups of Lutherans? Do confessional Lutherans fall into this generalization? And if I were to become a Lutheran how can I ensure that my Lutheran church is the true Lutheran Church ?
For Lutherans in the US joining a WELS or LCMS congregation is your best bet. The ELCA is basically not even Christian at this point.
Baptists will say all Lutherans have abandoned the gospel because we baptize babies, but that's silly.
The Gospel is what the Bible is for. A church that doesn't preach the Gospel isn't even a Christian church.
ELCA Lutherans sort of believe whatever they want. Confessional Lutherans believe what the Book of Concord- our understanding of what the Bible teaches- says. Compare the Book of Concord with Scripture and you'll have your answer.
God's desire is for "everyone" to be saved correct ? So then the gift of faith is given to everyone ??
Reformed theologians say that "God gives us faith as a gift." The Apostle Paul says, "How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." (Rom. 10:14-17). Pretty clear. Don't need to jump through all the hoops. That's how it's done.
As a Lutheran, I struggle with this, since throughout the Bible people are told to believe. Why would they be told this if they have to be regenerated first?
Now, if you want to locate regeneration in the sacrament of baptism, which Lutheranism want to do, then fine.
For the infant regeneration and faith could coincide with the event.
But for the adult, they come to baptism having already believed.
Lutheranism wants it both ways, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Logic is limited. Jesus knew who didn't believe but still called them to turn.
When we "believe" in Jesus for salvation, it means we trust in Him alone. That's what the Greek word Pisteuo communicates> Trust... the word 'believe' appears 242 times in the Bible... Why would God insist we Do something that we are incapable of doing ??? Believing IS making a decision...
Why cant faith be "both and". Why cant faith both be a gift of God AND a choice of the will?
Yes it does because you need to be born first before you can have the kind of faith that saves.
Nah
Any verses that actually support this? I'm not finding any.
You’re looking for a verse that says “regeneration precedes faith” you won’t find any
No
This one does
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
And this one too
1 John 5:1 Whosoever is believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God: and every one that is loving him that begat loves him also that has been begotten of him.
@@aletheia8054 John 1:12 says that those who believed where then made sons of God (i.e. regenerated). The regeneration happened by God's will, not man's. This has faith before regeneration.
@@aletheia8054 1 John 1:5 says that those who are actively believing today (i.e. all active belivers, not a new convert) have been (in the past) born again. It doesn't speak to order at all, it is about knowing how to recognize God's children. Those who were born of God will love others who are born of God.
that is one tiny cup u got there sir!
Didn't the original calvinists have a more sacramental perspective on this issue than today's calvinists?
Yes New Calvinism is a plague
Yes
@@zacheaston6727 From my experience, I don't like to even claim any Baptist as Calvinist. They are better described as _Calvinistic._ Presbyterians, per Westminster, do hold to the efficacy of the sacraments. That baptism saves, but is not necessarily tied to the moment it is administered. Yet only for the elect. However, that baptism and grace aren't so inseparable that one cannot be regenerated or saved without it. I personally enjoy learning about Lutheranism, but I struggle with the whole "baptism regenerates and in that moment" idea. Since there are obviously those who are baptized as infants, but do not come to faith until much later in life.
Question from a non-Lutheran.. Don't Lutheran's affirm a universal atonement? Don't you also affirm that God desires all to be saved but something is disrupting his perfect will, namely (out rejection of him)... So how does this square with regeneration preceding faith? Why doesn't God regenerate everyone? Seems like Calvinism would be the consistent position, and I'm not a Calvinist
Why are you so worried about what others believe?
@@antonralph6947 I mean... It's a channel about Lutheran theology and I'm curious about Lutheran theology
Anton Ralph It’s a legitimate question because Lutherans can never give a straight answer here. Don’t ask me how I know.
ruclips.net/video/pMiNjSsjM_w/видео.html
Here's a video from another Lutheran pastor that gives a short answer to why some are saved and others are not. I'd give a longer answer but I have to sleep. Hope this helps in the meantime though. Fyi, Calvinism may seem to be the best option but coming from a former Calvinist like myself it's not.
@@jadenmarker8109 Right I'm not a Calvinist either, my point was that holding to pre-faith regeneration AND God wanting all to be saved makes little sense to me. I know Lutheran's also affirm that grace is resistible, but is regeneration?
The Calvinist is at least consistent and will just bite the bullet and say "God doesn't want all to be saved" and ignore or rearrange the passages that say otherwise
Thanks Dr Cooper! this is helpful. I am debating a Lutheran on this subject in October. Its helpful in the way that I do not misrepresent Lutheranism. I desire to "steal man" rather than "straw man" my Lutheran brethren.
😂 How did it go?
No one who is not born again believes Jesus is the Christ.
Yet, you believe a person can choose to reject God’s grace. So the decision of salvation ultimately comes down to the person.
Sage of Synergism Amen!
@Sage of Synergism I do believe God desires to save all, as Calvin also states in his commentary on 2 Peter 3:9, he says God wants to save all, no disagreements there.
As for Acts 7:51 no problem there since men are able to resist the Spirit, that's natural to man.
As for 1 Peter 1:22
You forgot the context.
1 Peter 1:2
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
There is no mention of foreseen faith, faith is even a gift of God John 6:28-29, Acts 3:16, Phil 1:29.
@Sage of Synergism In response to your question to the limited atonement question. I now hold to the efficient sufficient view since some of the Reformers including Calvin believed Christ died for all but effectively for the elect, but most importantly I changed my mind because of Scripture. I had presuppositions when reading the text such terms as "all" "world" even Calvin believed those terms to what those indicated all meant all and world did really mean world, also, I read Lutheran and Augustinian traditions which a few of them supported universal atonement and the current view I hold now.
Acts 7:51, the doctrine of irresistible grace or another term effectual grace which is a better term teaches all resist God and reject Him until God decides to effectually draw or call sinners to Himself.
Phillipians 1.29 "it has been granted to you to SUFFER" was the persecution of christians actively caused by god just as faith is actively caused by god?
I think it's quite clear that is the case, that God allows or even causes Christians to suffer since that's apart of the Christian life, that's what the text is saying and so we can say the faith is also granted to the Christian by God, once again backed up by other Scripture passages that I have given.
You're not giving much detail in your response to how 1 Peter 1:2 supports conditional election. It doesn't have to directly say unconditional election. Do you believe faith is a gift of God? I assume not. Election occurs because God foresees whom He will elect and He acts upon it, thus predestination in the Greek is "marked out before hand" God marks out whom He will save.
My exegete of 1 Peter 1:22 will be in the next post.
@Sage of Synergism My exegesis of 1 Peter 1:22.
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
In Verse 19 that it was through Christ's precious blood one as a lamb without blemish we're saved which is in connection to
Verse 20 where Christ was foreordained or predestined to be crucified for sinners. This next verse is where I believe is vital and the connection of the verses before and after it which is Verse 21 we see "Who by him do believe in God" we see this "who" is in connection to the following verses is obviously Christ who Peter is speaking about here and it is "by him" that is Christ we receive and "believe in God" so faith is a gift of God as I have shown before with Scripture passages. So, that faith or belief and hope is to be put in God. We see so far that so far that it's God focused in salvation.
Now Verse 21 we see here that the key term here is "purified" which usually means being born again, one's sins is cleansed which connects to the next verse (which I will do when done with this verse). So, their souls were purified by obeying the truth through the Spirit, what is meant by this? This is in connection to the verse before, "who by him do believe in God" which is in connection to "purified by your souls in obeying the truth of the Spirit" when God saves a soul, God makes alive the soul of man Eph 2:1-5 and then man obeys the call of God and the Spirit and thus being born again we see in verse 23 by the Word of God which is an instrument of salvation.
6 minutes just to say "yes"?
🙂
It's important to explain it.