What does an unregenerate heart lack that keeps a person from coming to faith?

[Eternally-Grateful]

You have two points you have concerns with:

1) God descending down to redeem His people.

But his people did not receive him..

2) Is Faith a Gift from God or is it a human capability to choose God from a free-will standpoint.

faith is a gift from God. without God. no one would have anything to trust.

except self

Do I have this correctly before I retort?

 

[makesends]

Most, if not all, of us Reformation-minded monergists used to be synergists. We've ben where you are. We learned we misunderstood the theology. We learned it correctly and thereby changed our position(s). One thing we learned is that the Reformation povs go back at least as far as Augustine. What we preach is Augustinian, not (just) Calvinist. Luther, Calvin, Arminius, and all the rest, repeatedly referenced Augustine and built on his viewpoints. It was he who first argued the matter of volitionalism with any degree of formality, not Luther, Calvin, or Arminius (or Wesley or Flowers).

WHAT??? NOT FLOWERS????!!!!?

 

[Josheb]

WHAT??? NOT FLOWERS????!!!!?

Nope. Especially not Flowers.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

WHAT??? NOT FLOWERS????!!!!?

Leighton Flowers?

Didn't he used to be a Calvinist?

How can anyone go from Calvinism to Arminianism?

That is mind boggling.

Apologies off topic.

 

[makesends]

Leighton Flowers?

Didn't he used to be a Calvinist?

How can anyone go from Calvinism to Arminianism?

That is mind boggling.

Apologies off topic.

Far as I've seen, when it happens, it is because they didn't understand what they had claimed to be.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

Far as I've seen, when it happens, it is because they didn't understand what they had claimed to be.

Here is truth.

 

[Josheb]

Leighton Flowers? Didn't he used to be a Calvinist?

Claims he was but I've scores of the articles over at his website (tried to work my way through them but there are too many to do that without committing exorbitant amounts of time) and find his presentation of Calvinism grossly incorrect. The entire site is one big strawman.

How can anyone go from Calvinism to Arminianism? That is mind boggling.

Um... yeah... no one wants me to answer that question (but let's say the Church Lady could explain it ). Just kidding. There are a hundred million ways to misread scripture. Only one truth. Given his misrepresentation of monergism it's not a mystery how he left It's easy to leave that which is not correctly understood.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

Claims he was but I've scores of the articles over at his website (tried to work my way through them but there are too many to do that without committing exorbitant amounts of time) and find his presentation of Calvinism grossly incorrect. The entire site is one big strawman.

Um... yeah... no one wants me to answer that question (but let's say the Church Lady could explain it ). Just kidding. There are a hundred million ways to misread scripture. Only one truth. Given his misrepresentation of monergism it's not a mystery how he left It's easy to leave that which is not correctly understood.

Off topic here, but do you think pride blinds the Arminian from seeing the truth about the 5 points, is this the Lord's doing (obviously)?

I always believed the 5 points even before I knew anything about Calvinism and always believed in God's sovereignty over everything.

 

[Rescued One]

Off topic here, but do you think pride blinds the Arminian from seeing the truth about the 5 points, is this the Lord's doing (obviously)?

I always believed the 5 points even before I knew anything about Calvinism and always believed in God's sovereignty over everything.

My late husband liked the Wesleyan church but never discussed the Bible with me. He like reading a lot, but I never saw him reading his Bible.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

My late husband liked the Wesleyan church but never discussed the Bible with me. He like reading a lot, but I never saw him reading his Bible.

I'm sorry.

My wife claims to be a Christian but will not read the Bible or go to church with me, wants nothing to do with the Lord.

If I bring any of that up it causes an argument.

 

[Rescued One]

I'm sorry.

My wife claims to be a Christian but will not read the Bible or go to church with me, wants nothing to do with the Lord.

If I bring any of that up it causes an argument.

God bless you. My maternal grandmother didn't have a Bible and thought people were born Christian or ______(Jewish?) Her mother died of cancer, age 66. Grandma's parents didn't have Bibles eirher.

 

[Josheb]

Off topic here, but do you think pride blinds the Arminian from seeing the truth about the 5 points, is this the Lord's doing (obviously)?

No, but based on my former personal experience as an Arminian, I think pride drives the degree of adamance with which one argues a synergist defense. In extreme cases it leads to routine ad hominem. I used to delight in handing monergists their backside, but I after switching sides I came to realize they probably walked away sad for me (or worse) and I was errant in my appraisal. This idea that someone would intentionally set out to correct a huge bunch of other people with a demonstrably unwillingness to have one's own mistakes corrected is a sure sign of pride, especially when the correction hides behind words like, "challenge."

I always believed the 5 points even before I knew anything about Calvinism and always believed in God's sovereignty over everything.

Not me. However, I will say I was probably Calminian before I realized I was Calminian. I understood, accepted, and affirmed "T" (like a true Arminian) and parts of U, I, and P, and became more convinced of those their veracity as I studied the various arguments of both sides. Some of you may recall my openly identifying as Calminian and arguing with you fifteen years ago in CARM or observing my gradual change to the dark side .

TULIP was also one of the subjects that also helped built my apprehension about extra-biblical sources because theologians, even noted theologians with accolade from all sides, either get TULIP wrong or poorly explain it. TULIP can, and should, be worded in a theo-centric way. ALWAYS. I had difficulty finding a way to articulate "T" theocentrically until recently when @Arial posted an op that does so. The rest I've had down pat for awhile but a theocentric "T" alluded me. I do not know for sure, but I think it helps the synergist see at least the veracity of some of the points, even if not fully persuaded to any one of them or all five together. For several years I used the (more) common human-centric definitions. Once it is realized TULIP is about God, not Man, everything changes. A huge array of insights ensues and the possibility of building consensus increases. After all, who is going to disagree with the premise, the truth, God always accomplishes His purpose when He acts? The person dissenting from that has a bad Theology, not just a bad soteriology. A completely different conversation needs to be had on those occasions.

Divisions are almost always due to either a lack of exegesis (study) or a poor exegetical skillset. TULIP wasn't the first matter that prompted wariness about extra-biblical sources, it was Dispensational Premillennialism. And I say that as someone who had been in a "Christian" cult and someone who has been on a mission trip with other Christians and witnessed how poorly we can behave even when sharing a common theological orientation and a common goal. This is the chief problem in the Cal v Arm debate. It's why I post ops like this one HERE. I'm in the midst of a conversation with CCAM former member JIM, who we all respect as an articulate Wesleyan, and he cannot shake his weak exegesis. I have yet to meet a synergist who does not take verses written about the already saved and regenerate and apply them (wrongly) to the unsaved, unregenerate, sinfully dead and enslaved non-believer. The ontological difference between a non-believer and a believer is incomprehensible to every synergist I've ever read, with every synergist with whom I have ever traded apologetics. They believe a person can change from unbelief to belief in a dead state. The deadness, the depravity gets minimized or denied (both are sure ways to tell the non-Arm synergist from the Arm synergist). That's at the foundation of every non-Arm synergism.

That belief in the human ability, in my own ability, while dead in sin is pride.


And that is why a simple request to be shown and explicit (not an inferred one) example of what they preach is always ignored. It doesn't just reveal the paucity of synergism; it confronts one's pride.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

No, but based on my former personal experience as an Arminian, I think pride drives the degree of adamance with which one argues a synergist defense. In extreme cases it leads to routine ad hominem. I used to delight in handing monergists their backside, but I after switching sides I came to realize they probably walked away sad for me (or worse) and I was errant in my appraisal. This idea that someone would intentionally set out to correct a huge bunch of other people with a demonstrably unwillingness to have one's own mistakes corrected is a sure sign of pride, especially when the correction hides behind words like, "challenge."

Not me. However, I will say I was probably Calminian before I realized I was Calminian. I understood, accepted, and affirmed "T" (like a true Arminian) and parts of U, I, and P, and became more convinced of those their veracity as I studied the various arguments of both sides. Some of you may recall my openly identifying as Calminian and arguing with you fifteen years ago in CARM or observing my gradual change to the dark side .

TULIP was also one of the subjects that also helped built my apprehension about extra-biblical sources because theologians, even noted theologians with accolade from all sides, either get TULIP wrong or poorly explain it. TULIP can, and should, be worded in a theo-centric way. ALWAYS. I had difficulty finding a way to articulate "T" theocentrically until recently when @Arial posted an op that does so. The rest I've had down pat for awhile but a theocentric "T" alluded me. I do not know for sure, but I think it helps the synergist see at least the veracity of some of the points, even if not fully persuaded to any one of them or all five together. For several years I used the (more) common human-centric definitions. Once it is realized TULIP is about God, not Man, everything changes. A huge array of insights ensues and the possibility of building consensus increases. After all, who is going to disagree with the premise, the truth, God always accomplishes His purpose when He acts? The person dissenting from that has a bad Theology, not just a bad soteriology. A completely different conversation needs to be had on those occasions.

Divisions are almost always due to either a lack of exegesis (study) or a poor exegetical skillset. TULIP wasn't the first matter that prompted wariness about extra-biblical sources, it was Dispensational Premillennialism. And I say that as someone who had been in a "Christian" cult and someone who has been on a mission trip with other Christians and witnessed how poorly we can behave even when sharing a common theological orientation and a common goal. This is the chief problem in the Cal v Arm debate. It's why I post ops like this one HERE. I'm in the midst of a conversation with CCAM former member JIM, who we all respect as an articulate Wesleyan, and he cannot shake his weak exegesis. I have yet to meet a synergist who does not take verses written about the already saved and regenerate and apply them (wrongly) to the unsaved, unregenerate, sinfully dead and enslaved non-believer. The ontological difference between a non-believer and a believer is incomprehensible to every synergist I've ever read, with every synergist with whom I have ever traded apologetics. They believe a person can change from unbelief to belief in a dead state. The deadness, the depravity gets minimized or denied (both are sure ways to tell the non-Arm synergist from the Arm synergist). That's at the foundation of every non-Arm synergism.

That belief in the human ability, in my own ability, while dead in sin is pride.


And that is why a simple request to be shown and explicit (not an inferred one) example of what they preach is always ignored. It doesn't just reveal the paucity of synergism; it confronts one's pride.

Thank you for this reply.

 

[Dave]

Dave are you an Arminian? And can you explain the fall and sin for me. Please be detail as possible, thanks.

Hey ladodgersfan

No, I'm not Arminian. To answer your question. This is how I understand it. And I'll elaborate for anyone who cares to try to understand what it is that they are arguing against.

God alone is good. God cannot deny Himself. He cannot create man as He is. He did the next best thing. He created man dependent on Him. Created by design to live through Him. I like to think of us as a lamp. We were created to be plugged into Him. Everything bit of light (good) that comes from us is sourced in Him. When sin entered the picture, God could not be joined to that which is unholy, so He had to separate Himself from us. Separated, or, unplugged, if you will, man is left with no source of good (by righteous standards), and slowly deteriorating. Physical death entered the scene. Adam and Eve would have never experienced physical death had they never sinned. Some of the long term effects of the physical part started slowly. In the beginning man lived for about 900 years. That slowly deteriorated to what we have today. The physical effects can also be seen in the Law added by Moses, to curb the effects of birth defects from from mistakes in the DNA. Death also entered the scene spiritually. Now man is born unplugged from God. Did the spiritual side of the fall have the same long term effects? I can't see anything like that long term, that is, what we call man being as bad as he can be. Maybe smaller contexts like Sodom and Gomorrah. Heck, look at the U.S. today. Our enemies are injecting sin into this country to destroy it. But, back to the topic at hand. I do see that spiritual slide in the life of an individual. It's a gradual slide that progresses to the end of, what we would call, that person being as bad as he could be. All the while understanding that anything that he does, by righteous standards, is not good. It's tainted by sin somewhere, probably in the motives.

So, as you know, God had a plan to save us while at the same time not compromising who He is, since He cannot deny Himself. This is where Jesus enters the Picture. The second Adam. Through Him, as a result of being in Him, we have peace with the Father and are plugged back in and can then begin to become what God already reckons us to be, legally, in Christ. So, when we are placed into Him, we are given life. With Him (indwelling of the Holy Spirit), we have life. Without Him (No indwelling of the Holy Spirit), we don't have life. The Scripture speaking of faith as being a gift, could just as easily be argued, and I believe it's even a better argument, as speaking from the indwelling forward, after initial faith and conversion. And then as Paul argued in Galatians, this begins our being perfected as a result of that initial faith. That's were life happens, that were we begin to be sanctified through faith, becoming what God already reckons us to be in Christ. What I do know is there is a faith before the indwelling, and the indwelling is necessary, among other things, to be born again.

Now, what of the faith that gets us there? There are two possibilities that I see.

If the faith before conversion is from God, it's the same faith, but it's different in power from the faith received as a result of being born again. It's the same faith, but not yet empowered from the conversion. If you say that isn't possible, I offer the OT believers as proof. They believed, but were not indwelt, and not born again. And their power and understanding were limited as a result. If, you're going to explore this, I would suggest that you start with the difference between the the Holy Spirit being upon a believer, as He was in the OT, and the NT indwelling that is the result of the NT conversion. I believe that the NT pre conversion work of a person being called effectually by the Holy Spirit would parallel the OT believers relationship with the Holy Spirit being upon them.

If it's from the flesh. If we are entertaining the idea that the faith that gets us there is from the flesh, because scripture allows for that possibility until questions get answered, then the best way that I know how to explain it is this. Think of our faith as needing to be born again also. A carnal faith, that desires good, (though not according to righteous standards as to be called good...tainted with sin), and acknowledges that he's sick and needs a doctor, and knowing that it is sin that has making him die, and hearing that Jesus offers the cure. He steps forward in faith, not good, or pure, but faith none the less. Maybe on top of that he fears hell. Isn't it the fear of God that motives a new convert? Why is it that the person who comes to faith must have a five start faith, while the new convert must be motivated to obey God because he fears chastisement? Romans 2, among other places plainly states that what that they know God, and what must be known of Him, but they suppressed the truth. Can a carnal faith (though not good by the standards of the Law), still selfishly want to be be delivered from the power and the penalty of sin.

If we see faith in two stages, yet it's still the same faith. We can also see how Jesus can be the Author and finisher of our faith, the true faith, the one that has the power to do something. When Scripture is speaking about that, it could be argued that it's speaking of conversion forward. That's the "through faith" that saves us, meaning sanctifies us practically, meaning us becoming what God already reckons us to be in Christ legally. Life begins in Christ when we receive the Holy Spirit. That's the result of faith (brings us to Christ), and also results in through faith (finishes the sanctification).

I don't' have time to reread this, so if it's a bit scatter brained, sorry.

Dave

 

[Josheb]

Besides, If I understand your posts correctly, you are not Arminian. You're more of a Traditionalist or Provisionist. Yes?

The second hearing gets attributed to the human sinner's effort it becomes a works-based soteriology and that is heretical. It is also not Arminian. Arminius was a subscriber to total depravity..... I asked you if you were Traditionalist or Provisionist because these posts are NOT Arminian...... Why would the discussion be a run of the mill Calvinism-Arminianism thread if you're not Arminian?

I did ask. Twice!

Hey ladodgersfan

No, I'm not Arminian. To answer your question. This is how I understand it. And I'll elaborate for anyone who cares to try to understand what it is that they are arguing against.

God alone is good. God cannot deny Himself. He cannot create man as He is. He did the next best thing. He created man dependent on Him. Created by design to live through Him. I like to think of us as a lamp. We were created to be plugged into Him. Everything bit of light (good) that comes from us is sourced in Him. When sin entered the picture, God could not be joined to that which is unholy, so He had to separate Himself from us. Separated, or, unplugged, if you will, man is left with no source of good (by righteous standards), and slowly deteriorating. Physical death entered the scene. Adam and Eve would have never experienced physical death had they never sinned. Some of the long term effects of the physical part started slowly. In the beginning man lived for about 900 years. That slowly deteriorated to what we have today. The physical effects can also be seen in the Law added by Moses, to curb the effects of birth defects from from mistakes in the DNA. Death also entered the scene spiritually. Now man is born unplugged from God. Did the spiritual side of the fall have the same long term effects? I can't see anything like that long term, that is, what we call man being as bad as he can be. Maybe smaller contexts like Sodom and Gomorrah. Heck, look at the U.S. today. Our enemies are injecting sin into this country to destroy it. But, back to the topic at hand. I do see that spiritual slide in the life of an individual. It's a gradual slide that progresses to the end of, what we would call, that person being as bad as he could be. All the while understanding that anything that he does, by righteous standards, is not good. It's tainted by sin somewhere, probably in the motives.

So, as you know, God had a plan to save us while at the same time not compromising who He is, since He cannot deny Himself. This is where Jesus enters the Picture. The second Adam. Through Him, as a result of being in Him, we have peace with the Father and are plugged back in and can then begin to become what God already reckons us to be, legally, in Christ. So, when we are placed into Him, we are given life. With Him (indwelling of the Holy Spirit), we have life. Without Him (No indwelling of the Holy Spirit), we don't have life. The Scripture speaking of faith as being a gift, could just as easily be argued, and I believe it's even a better argument, as speaking from the indwelling forward, after initial faith and conversion. And then as Paul argued in Galatians, this begins our being perfected as a result of that initial faith. That's were life happens, that were we begin to be sanctified through faith, becoming what God already reckons us to be in Christ. What I do know is there is a faith before the indwelling, and the indwelling is necessary, among other things, to be born again.

Now, what of the faith that gets us there? There are two possibilities that I see.

If the faith before conversion is from God, it's the same faith, but it's different in power from the faith received as a result of being born again. It's the same faith, but not yet empowered from the conversion. If you say that isn't possible, I offer the OT believers as proof. They believed, but were not indwelt, and not born again. And their power and understanding were limited as a result. If, you're going to explore this, I would suggest that you start with the difference between the the Holy Spirit being upon a believer, as He was in the OT, and the NT indwelling that is the result of the NT conversion. I believe that the NT pre conversion work of a person being called effectually by the Holy Spirit would parallel the OT believers relationship with the Holy Spirit being upon them.

If it's from the flesh. If we are entertaining the idea that the faith that gets us there is from the flesh, because scripture allows for that possibility until questions get answered, then the best way that I know how to explain it is this. Think of our faith as needing to be born again also. A carnal faith, that desires good, (though not according to righteous standards as to be called good...tainted with sin), and acknowledges that he's sick and needs a doctor, and knowing that it is sin that has making him die, and hearing that Jesus offers the cure. He steps forward in faith, not good, or pure, but faith none the less. Maybe on top of that he fears hell. Isn't it the fear of God that motives a new convert? Why is it that the person who comes to faith must have a five start faith, while the new convert must be motivated to obey God because he fears chastisement? Romans 2, among other places plainly states that what that they know God, and what must be known of Him, but they suppressed the truth. Can a carnal faith (though not good by the standards of the Law), still selfishly want to be be delivered from the power and the penalty of sin.

If we see faith in two stages, yet it's still the same faith. We can also see how Jesus can be the Author and finisher of our faith, the true faith, the one that has the power to do something. When Scripture is speaking about that, it could be argued that it's speaking of conversion forward. That's the "through faith" that saves us, meaning sanctifies us practically, meaning us becoming what God already reckons us to be in Christ legally. Life begins in Christ when we receive the Holy Spirit. That's the result of faith (brings us to Christ), and also results in through faith (finishes the sanctification).

I don't' have time to reread this, so if it's a bit scatter brained, sorry.

Dave

And what, in your mind, does that make you?

Pelagian?
Semi-Pelagian?
Provisionist?
Traditionalist?

Definitely not Reformed Arminian, Wesleyan, Reformed Calvinist, Reformed Lutheran, or Augustinian. How do you self-identify? And please do reply with nonsense about not liking and eschewing labels. Just be forthcoming and authentic.

 

[John Bauer]

But how do we get the Spirit, to live by the Spirit? By faith.

Define faith, as understood in your claim here.

You're assuming that the life Paul is describing begins before faith.

That is not an assumption, it is a conclusion drawn from the text. Paul is talking about the flesh-governed disposition of the unregenerate person (Greek: to phronēma tēs sarkos). How do we know this is a pre-faith unregenerate state? Because, as I already noted, a person of this disposition (a) is hostile to God, (b) does not submit to the law of God, (c) is unable to submit, and (d) cannot please God.

That is not a regenerate person with faith. A life of this disposition "is" death (v. 6)—a present indicative equative verb (estin)—marked by hostility toward God, inability to obey him, and incapacity to please him. Regeneration reverses all of these: It grants peace with God (5:1), a willing submission (6:17), and a pleasing obedience (12:1-2; Phil 2:13). Faith is life and peace, pleasing to God (Heb 11:6). It is not death.

So, Paul is certainly talking about a pre-faith unregenerate state.

Jesus defines regeneration as being born of the Spirit (John 3:6). There is no such thing as a Spirit-less new birth. Regeneration is the sovereign work of the Spirit who indwells, gives life, renews the heart, and brings the dead to life. To say a person is born again but not indwelt by the Spirit is to posit a Spirit-less spiritual birth—which is incoherent (John 3:6-8).

[The new life] begins when we receive the Spirit.

—which happens with regeneration. "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God" (1 John 5:1). Faith is the fruit of regeneration, not the cause of it.

Because Jesus would not lose one of them ...

You ignored the point. Please address it: "The issue is belonging, not opportunity."

This too, I believe is best understood in the same context: John 6:35, "This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day" (OT true believers).

This likewise fails to address the point. Please do so: No one has the ability to come to Christ unless the Father grants him the ability. (In other words, the ability to believe is not universal.) "The notion that mere exposure to opportunity can unlock a universal ability to believe (even if only a potential)," I said, "appears to be flatly rejected by the very scriptures that define the nature of unregenerate unbelief, moral inability, and the necessity of sovereign monergistic grace."

Romans 8:7-11 ... doesn't say what you're claiming.

I was only translating the passage. If you disagree with it, explain what I got wrong grammatically, semantically, syntactically, whatever.

[Romans 8:7-11] says that we receive life when the Spirit of God dwells in us. You're assuming that it's before faith,

Obviously, for a dead person cannot exercise faith. The scripture is clear: "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God" (1 John 5:1). Not is, not will be, but has been. The perfect passive indicative is unmistakable.

Paul asks them [in Galatians 3:2-5] if they are being perfected by the flesh or the Spirit.

What subject is Paul discussing in this passage? Regeneration? Or the full experiential entrance into the new covenant economy, which includes sanctification? Since it's the latter, as you noticed ("they are being perfected"), then it doesn't support the point you're trying to argue.

Dave, there are passages that address regeneration specifically, one of the clearest being 1 John 5:1. Let's deal with them, instead of trying to understand regeneration in particular through passages that deal with the full covenantal presence and power of the Spirit in general.

Regeneration is the Spirit’s secret, efficacious, quickening work. Indwelling is the Spirit’s abiding, empowering, manifest presence in the believer. The latter presupposes the former. "He saved us, not by works of righteousness that we have done but on the basis of his mercy, through the washing of the new birth and the renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). Regeneration is life imparted; renewal is nature renovated (cf. Rom 12:2). so that the sinner not only lives (regeneration) but also believes, loves, and obeys (renewal). The one who believes (1 John 5:1), loves (4:7), and obeys (2:29) has been born of God (i.e., the perfect passive indicative γεγέννηται is used in all three).

It's the baptism with the Holy Spirit (Rom 6:3-11) that indwells us as a result of faith.

Faith is the context, not the cause. It is through faith, not because of faith. Regeneration imparts new life so the person can exercise faith and experience the powerful and manifest presence of the Spirit with an eschatological hope.

Paul says [in Romans 7:18] that he cannot perform good deeds by the flesh, but by the flesh he desires to do them.

He did not say that it's "by the flesh" that he desires to do the good. All he said is, "I want to do the good, but I cannot do it." And obviously it can't be by the flesh, for "nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh." Elsewhere, in Galatians 5:16-24, he makes it clear that it's by the Spirit, not the flesh.

A regenerate person may struggle against the flesh, but he is no longer defined by it. He is not "in the flesh." Romans 7 ends with Paul's inner delight in God's law (v. 22)—something that the flesh cannot do (8:7). Therefore, the man of Romans 7 is not the same man as Romans 8:5-8.

Isn't that what faith is, at least initially—a desire?

Sure, but it's not by the flesh. Paul said in no uncertain terms that the flesh-governed disposition is hostile to God, does not submit his law, is unable to do so, and cannot please God. That is not faith. If someone has that desire, it wasn't the flesh that produced it. Faith is submission to God's command to believe (John 6:29; 1 John 3:23) and is pleasing to him (Heb 11:6)—things that the flesh cannot do.

And lets not overlook [the fact that Romans 1:18-21] claims the very thing that you're claiming cannot be done, that man can believe even when they are about to be hardened by God.

It says "although they knew God" (v. 21). It does not say they can believe apart from being born of God. (Your willingness to have Paul contradict John, and even himself, is remarkable.)

How could they know God? Because what can be known about God—his eternal power and divine nature—is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them through what has been made. But they suppress that truth by their unrighteousness, refusing to glorify him as God or give him thanks. That's the flesh for you.

John, that's a good question.

And you didn't answer it.

Maybe being born again is not the only way to be regenerate.

Maybe being born again is not the only way to be born again? Huh? You do know that's what re-generate means, right?

 

[John Bauer]

I was not able to really see the holes in the Reformed view until I began to understand about the baptism with the Holy Spirit and the transition from the OT to the NT.

This line of thought reflects the dispensational-Pentecostal assumptions that tie regeneration to a post-faith reception of the Spirit, and that see the Old Testament saints as not truly regenerate. It is a hybrid of revivalist soteriology, dispensational eschatology, and charismatic pneumatology, which teaches that

• in the Old Testament, believers were not indwelt by the Spirit,
  
  ​
• the new birth as we know it did not occur,
  
  ​
• the Holy Spirit was only given after Christ's glorification,
  
  ​
• therefore, the "birth from above" began after Pentecost,
  
  ​
• and now, one is born again by receiving the Spirit through baptism in the Holy Spirit.

 

[Arial]

if regeneration is a one time act, then it's inescapably the result of faith, and parallels the receiving of the Holy Spirit's indwelling. Scripture fits way better this way, and that was my point. This indwelling/baptism with the Holy Spirit is what makes us one with Christ. To say that it's a one time act, therefore it must be before faith, is not what Scripture teaches.

It is not inescapable that it is the result of faith. The disconnect in your reasoning is making the claim that faith parallels the receiving of the Holy Spirit's indwelling. And also that there is only one evidence of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and that there is only one evidence of regeneration. That it is restricted only to what we see at Pentecost. It is the new birth, according to Jesus, that makes us one with Christ, and faith is the result of that new birth. "One cannot see or enter" unless, "one is born again" by the Spirit. There can be no faith without being taken out of Adam. It is what Scripture teaches. In essence, you are saying in regard to the claim that OT saints were not indwelt by the Holy Spirit, that the God of the OT is different from the God of the NT. That God is not three in one in the OT but only in the NT. That people have faith unto salvation in a different way in the OT than they do in the NT.

Dispensationalists have no trouble saying that in a literal thousand year reign of Christ in Jerusalem, the animal sacrifices will be reinstated, and this is not for salvation, but that they are done as a looking back from the cross, instead of a looking forward to the cross (I know when it is said "out loud" it sounds downright rediculous). No problem saying OT saints will be born again retroactively. So why the problem with this concept in regeneration and the Holy Spirit's indwelling before Pentecost?

 

[Dave]

I did ask. Twice!

And what, in your mind, does that make you?

Pelagian?
Semi-Pelagian?
Provisionist?
Traditionalist?

Definitely not Reformed Arminian, Wesleyan, Reformed Calvinist, Reformed Lutheran, or Augustinian. How do you self-identify? And please do reply with nonsense about not liking and eschewing labels. Just be forthcoming and authentic.

Hi Josh

I hold Biblical consistency over theological consistency. I hope it's the same for everyone here, but wanting the labels so badly kind of sets off some red flags. Especially since most of the arguments here that are made against me are actually against labels that you're trying to pin on me so that you can use the Calvinist step by step play book. Josh, theologically speaking, I know you because I am you. I pretty much know you're arguments foundationally. You kept saying that I should test my own beliefs, when you never realized, that's exactly what I have been doing. Go to Christianforum.net, check "Dave...". You'll see twenty years of posting history. I was on Grace centered forum also, but that one seems to be out of commission. Many others. Same arguments, step by step. I never thought that John 3:3 was translated accurately, but I let it go. There were other passages too. But recently, with a better understanding of some spiritual mechanics of being born again, and the baptism with the Holy Spirit, I've come back around to start to question some of these inconsistencies. Heck, Piper is still arguing that Colossians 2:10-14 is water baptism. Can you believe that? Extremely unacceptable for him. His definition of John 1:12-13 from the same article is just as bad. It's reading tradition into Scripture, plain as day.

https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/does-faith-cause-regeneration

There are some big names in the reformed circles who make the same kind of mistakes with similar passages. That's just the tip of the iceberg. That's completely unacceptable, yet that's todays Calvinism. It's not as time tested as might think. People just didn't know where to look.

The framework of this discussion comes from my understanding of Scripture, and, unless they are yet undiscovered, it's not from theologians who died hundreds of years ago. In short, your answers must come from you. I've explained my understanding in this matter many times, and in many ways. Even trying to think up new ways to express it. There's no need for a label to respond to it.

I've called myself reformed. Maybe even in this thread. In the past I've even gone so far as to say I'm reformed independent. I really have no answer beyond that. I'm not hiding it, I just never cared for that stuff so I really don't know what to call it, and I really don't care to invest the time to find out what to call it. Nothing personal, but it just doesn't interest me. There's no box to reference. Just answer the questions from from your heart, from your own understanding of Scripture.

Dave

 

[Dave]

Define faith, as understood in your claim here.

Believe. There's always Hebrews 11:1. But, even though it's OT, John does a better job. This is what Paul is echoing in Galatians 3.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:

Galatians 3:2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

That is not an assumption, it is a conclusion drawn from the text. Paul is talking about the flesh-governed disposition of the unregenerate person (Greek: to phronēma tēs sarkos). How do we know this is a pre-faith unregenerate state? Because, as I already noted, a person of this disposition (a) is hostile to God, (b) does not submit to the law of God, (c) is unable to submit, and (d) cannot please God.

That is not a regenerate person with faith. A life of this disposition "is" death (v. 6)—a present indicative equative verb (estin)—marked by hostility toward God, inability to obey him, and incapacity to please him. Regeneration reverses all of these: It grants peace with God (5:1), a willing submission (6:17), and a pleasing obedience (12:1-2; Phil 2:13). Faith is life and peace, pleasing to God (Heb 11:6). It is not death.

So, Paul is certainly talking about a pre-faith unregenerate state.

Jesus defines regeneration as being born of the Spirit (John 3:6). There is no such thing as a Spirit-less new birth. Regeneration is the sovereign work of the Spirit who indwells, gives life, renews the heart, and brings the dead to life. To say a person is born again but not indwelt by the Spirit is to posit a Spirit-less spiritual birth—which is incoherent (John 3:6-8).

Yes, I know your argument well. But it doesn't say what you think it does. In that same passage (Romans 8:8-11) it says that with the Spirit of God you have Christ, without the Spirit of God, you don't have Christ. You receive the Spirit as a result of faith (Gal.3:2). There is no baptism into Christ death and raised up with Him without the Spirit indwelling. That placing into Christ spiritually also places us into His death, and raises us up with Him (Romans 6:3-11). This is how we are born again. There is no other way. It's impossible to be born again and not be in Christ. The indwelling of the Spirit is what makes us in Christ. We receive the Sprit as a result of faith, always. Galatians 3:2 says the same thing as Ephesians 1:13-14...

Ephesians 1:13-14 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

—which happens with regeneration. "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God" (1 John 5:1). Faith is the fruit of regeneration, not the cause of it.

Yes, I agree. Everyone who believes has been born of God. This is not in conflict with what I've been saying.


I'm out of time. I'll get the rest later.