. . .
I think, for instance, atonement is indeed limited, if even by the sense that only those made-right, are atoned for, because specifically that is what it means definition-wise. It was always the only real beef I had with Calvinism before I acceded. I'd likely have been seen as Amyraldian prior.
Scriptures say all died when Christ died, and those who died with Him were made alive TOGETHER with Him when He resurrected. How?
On the cross, God fashioned us all into the Body of His Son thereby creating a New Man: Christ the Head, humanity the Body. When the Head died, the Body died with Him; when the Head resurrected the Body was made alive TOGETHER with Him. Hence, we all were atoned for.
But only overcomers will not be blotted out from the book of life.
To be blotted out from the book of life is to be detached from the body of Christ, removed from membership in the Family of God. The good news is, there is hope while alive, for it is only after one dies that judgment is rendered whether to blot his name or not from the book of life.
Scriptures say all died when Christ died, and those who died with Him were made alive TOGETHER with Him when He resurrected. How?
On the cross, God fashioned us all into the Body of His Son thereby creating a New Man: Christ the Head, humanity the Body. When the Head died, the Body died with Him; when the Head resurrected the Body was made alive TOGETHER with Him. Hence, we all were atoned for.
But only overcomers will not be blotted out from the book of life.
To be blotted out from the book of life is to be detached from the body of Christ, removed from membership in the Family of God. The good news is, there is hope while alive, for it is only after one dies that judgment is rendered whether to blot his name or not from the book of life.
I used to belong to an Arminian church. You've described a universal atonement here, well. Judas was lost, before universal atonement. Jezebel was evil before the atonement *(I'm not arguing here, trying to explain why I yet think atonement limited, regardless).
A Calvinist believes God in omniscience, knows who and who will not be saved, long before it happens (so do most Christians). Logically, I think a universal atonement can work (I'm not against Arminians, just am not one and obviously disagree). It seems to me, however, logically, omniscient atonement works, conversely. We embrace our particular systems as they must necessarily work. As a Calvinist works through this, from God's perspective 1) He forsees man's need 2) provides atonement and 3) Obviously in foreknowledge knows who responds and thus only provides atonement for those with whom it would be effectual (sorry, this is a bit simple, so not quite the accurate reflection of Calvinism, but I think close enough at least to convey the consistency, if crude and awkward, God doesn't 'just' respond, that'd still be an Arminian position, though yet different from a universal atonement, so there are Arminians too, that disagree with your particular universal atonement position).
Again, I see both logically working within the frame-work they are given. Most systematic theologies are complete buy-ins and I 'think' most disagreements are about how well one understands another's whole system or not. -Lon
Both were within hearing. I'd suggest only the elect would appreciate the message. Both of us have ONLY a Christian responding (or potential/pre- Christian more closely to what you believe).
You are yet thinking of it as a response, a command. I don't view it as a command, but an expressed condition that must happen. Like with Nicodemus, Jesus doesn't command 'repent' here. He isn't giving a 'direction.' He is 'explaining' a condition, imho. You say you are getting this but I'm not sure yet, but perhaps now?
I 'think' you are seeing this as an offer. Jesus is not saying 'repent or else' here to a crowd. He is teaching about a condition. There is 'no direction/command' given here. He is explaining a condition to be met. IOW, he is explaining their need, whether they are capable of meeting that need or not. Between us, I'm the Calvinist who believes they 'cannot' meet the need and only Christ, soon, would do so.
Is it fair that a poor child is born in an African country, and dies of malnutrition? No, it is not fair, but does the child have a say? Can he/she choose to live with me instead? No, sadly, still he/she has no choice but I should look into adoption (have done this through Compassion Int). So, here is what I'd say: "Unless you are born in a country where there is sufficient food and water, you will die of malnutrition and lack." There is no 'born-myself into the proper country" (I hate even using this analogy but perhaps it will prompt others sponsors). I simply gave an assessment, a condition that must be met, regardless if a child can do anything about it. This passage, has not command or directive verb. Look at it, it simply gives the condition, much like the one in this example. Jesus doesn't say 'repent.' He says 'unless' (condition/explanation of that condition).
:nono: You are making an assumption mistake. In John 3, Jesus tells Nicodemus he must be born-again. Fact.
The problem is that Nicodemus could not, in fact, 'born-again' himself. Fact.
Inadvertently, you are making the assumption that 'repent' is an ability that man 'can' do. If he/she could, there would have been absolutely no need for the Cross. I believe and preach the cross. It makes no difference, whatsoever, whether you 'think' you were able to repent or enabled to repent. What matters is that it happened. Learn where we agree and pay attention to specifics and details that make the difference in our theologies. It was eureka moment like "I cannot born-again myself" that have lead me to a Calvinist stance. I am not caught up on terms, I'm not trying to follow Apollos as and Apollosite or Paul as a Paulist, or Calvin as a Calvinist. I would also tend to acquiesce I may or may not be full-blooded Calvinist. I do believe Christ isn't desirous of any to perish, for instance. I'd suggest I am Calvinist, but don't always explain things as other Calvinists. I think, for instance, atonement is indeed limited, if even by the sense that only those made-right, are atoned for, because specifically that is what it means definition-wise. It was always the only real beef I had with Calvinism before I acceded. I'd likely have been seen as Amyraldian prior.
It's important to realize that the Calvinist always presents man as an island unto himself. We know this is false because Satan and his temptaions are influencing us towards evil and God thru the Holy Spirit is influencing us towards Christ. Jesus said when the Spirit comes he will reprove the world of sin, righteousness and judgment. The ministry of the Holy Spirit is to lead all men to the foot of the cross and repentance. The Calvinist assertion that fallen man by himself cannot come to repentance is actually true. But it ignores the biblical assertion that fallen man aided by the drawing of Christ and the Holy Spirit can come to repentance. The Calvinist rejects the ministry of the Holy Spirit to the world or all sinners.
Inadvertently, you are making the assumption that 'repent' is an ability that man 'can' do. If he/she could, there would have been absolutely no need for the Cross.
Hi Lon.
I'm not so sure this is true. Just because someone can repent without help, doesn't mean they don't need to be saved:
From their specific sins prior to repentance (repentance implies prior sins)
From original sin/curse of death all men are under
There's got to be some merit to the argument that if God calls anyone to repent, there's a implicit understanding that anyone can, actually, repent. That repentance is not enough for salvation, as outlined above. But it appears to be a necessary thing, at least in most presentations of the gospel in the New Testament.
Both were within hearing. I'd suggest only the elect would appreciate the message. Both of us have ONLY a Christian responding (or potential/pre- Christian more closely to what you believe).
You are yet thinking of it as a response, a command. I don't view it as a command, but an expressed condition that must happen. Like with Nicodemus, Jesus doesn't command 'repent' here. He isn't giving a 'direction.' He is 'explaining' a condition, imho. You say you are getting this but I'm not sure yet, but perhaps now?
I 'think' you are seeing this as an offer. Jesus is not saying 'repent or else' here to a crowd. He is teaching about a condition. There is 'no direction/command' given here. He is explaining a condition to be met. IOW, he is explaining their need, whether they are capable of meeting that need or not. Between us, I'm the Calvinist who believes they 'cannot' meet the need and only Christ, soon, would do so.
Is it fair that a poor child is born in an African country, and dies of malnutrition? No, it is not fair, but does the child have a say? Can he/she choose to live with me instead? No, sadly, still he/she has no choice but I should look into adoption (have done this through Compassion Int). So, here is what I'd say: "Unless you are born in a country where there is sufficient food and water, you will die of malnutrition and lack." There is no 'born-myself into the proper country" (I hate even using this analogy but perhaps it will prompt others sponsors). I simply gave an assessment, a condition that must be met, regardless if a child can do anything about it. This passage, has not command or directive verb. Look at it, it simply gives the condition, much like the one in this example. Jesus doesn't say 'repent.' He says 'unless' (condition/explanation of that condition).
The call to repent is a command, Lon. Scriptures say so:
ESV Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent
Quite clear that unless people - Calvinism's Elect or Non-Elect - repent, they perish, as Christ said. It's either don't repent and perish, or, repent and not perish. And to not perish is to have life everlasting, as Christ Himself said.
The gospel that Jesus preached COMMANDS people to repent. And for me, to repent is to overcome evil with good. And Jesus assures us that overcomers will NOT be blotted out from the book of life.
Seems clear to me that God's command for all people everywhere to repent as embodied in the gospel that Jesus preached is against Calvinism. And that's the Calvinists' dilemma.
There's got to be some merit to the argument that if God calls anyone to repent, there's a implicit understanding that anyone can, actually, repent. That repentance is not enough for salvation, as outlined above. But it appears to be a necessary thing, at least in most presentations of the gospel in the New Testament.
Never in Scripture is repentance given a treatment that implies repentance is means to our being born-again versus the way faith is credited with the instrumentality of accomplishing one's re-birth (e.g. Eph. 2:8).
Unless you are now moving towards rejection of the lost man's total inability in your ongoing walk towards open theism, what one ought to do as their duty is no implied warrant one can do, hence the need for regeneration such than one will actually possess the ability to do what they ought to do.
The call to repent is a command, Lon. Scriptures say so:
ESV Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent
Quite clear that unless people - Calvinism's Elect or Non-Elect - repent, they perish, as Christ said. It's either don't repent and perish, or, repent and not perish. And to not perish is to have life everlasting, as Christ Himself said.
The gospel that Jesus preached COMMANDS people to repent. And for me, to repent is to overcome evil with good. And Jesus assures us that overcomers will NOT be blotted out from the book of life.
Seems clear to me that God's command for all people everywhere to repent as embodied in the gospel that Jesus preached is against Calvinism. And that's the Calvinists' dilemma.
It's important to realize that the Calvinist always presents man as an island unto himself. We know this is false because Satan and his temptaions are influencing us towards evil and God thru the Holy Spirit is influencing us towards Christ. Jesus said when the Spirit comes he will reprove the world of sin, righteousness and judgment. The ministry of the Holy Spirit is to lead all men to the foot of the cross and repentance. The Calvinist assertion that fallen man by himself cannot come to repentance is actually true. But it ignores the biblical assertion that fallen man aided by the drawing of Christ and the Holy Spirit can come to repentance. The Calvinist rejects the ministry of the Holy Spirit to the world or all sinners.
I would think the Freewill theist more of an island to himself. I'm a bit perplexed you'd think Calvinist think that because Romans 9 says we are but owned, and clay in the Potter's hands. We are even accused of being His puppets and robots so it is strange to here 'island' in someone's next breath. I'd like to see that unpacked a bit more. Thanks.
I've been long searching for a forum where an actual "discussion" was possible (minus the "incindiary rhetoric" that appears about five or six lines down in the comments of about everyplace I've looked so far). Hopefully this will be such a place. So Maranatha all!
While I understand the difficult balance between the Sovereignty of God and the Free Will of Men, there is one point of Reform Theology that I have wrestled with for years, that being: If God has "predestined" (in an absolute sense) who will be saved (to the exclusion of those who are NOT among the Elect), then it seems that it has nothing to do with "righteousness" or even "judgement" (in any judicial sense). If God has made some men incapable of repenting, then how does He "judge" them worthy of punishment? If He made them incapable of behaving any other way than as sinners, how does he "judge" them as unrighteous? It would be like me building a car from scratch but then calling it "junk" because it does not mow grass, wouldn't it? It seems as though the only way God could judge men as unrighteous would be if they were CAPABLE of choosing to do right but FAILING to do so. I think there is a vast chasm between "knowing" who would repent and "determining" who would repent. It seems as though the Calvinist position puts ALL responsibility on God, allowing those of Reform thinking to absolve themselves from evangelism (why preach to those who either can't repent or who will do so whether we preach or not) and from personal holiness (if I'm saved, my sin won't matter and if I'm NOT, well, I might as well enjoy this world while I can).
Would somebody care to discuss this part of the "Calvinist Dilemma" with me?
Interestingly, you are using a Reformed translation
We are jumping from John at this point because Acts requires its context to explain the one verse. Read the surrounding passage, because this then would become a longer discussion, and moving from one topic to exegesis of Acts and what it means. Such is ever the problem of cherry-picking verses. Let me ask the first preliminary question: What does Paul say men must repent 'of' in this chapter? Is it salvation 'turning-away' from (definition of repentance) in this particular chapter, or have we changed subjects? There are many who do believe Paul is talking about repentance unto salvation, but Paul in the previous verse said that men thought god was idols made of metal and wood and specifically, he is saying all men are commanded to repent of that ignorance, and that He was declaring Himself known. It is a challenge to the whole earth, as the gospel must be. "Change your thinking (repent) there is only one God, and only the choice of Christ if you are going to follow Him, the only one that exists." (my paraphrase of that 17:30
Quite clear that unless people - Calvinism's Elect or Non-Elect - repent, they perish, as Christ said. It's either don't repent and perish, or, repent and not perish. And to not perish is to have life everlasting, as Christ Himself said.
You've done just as Jesus Christ Our Lord God and Savior had done: He and you have explained a condition and given no direction (at this point). It 'may' be implied you are directing repentance, but if you are not, I just made a mistake, especially if one must be born-again and cannot born-again himself. Oddly, you do, truly, believe one can born-again himself. Is that a fair assessment? Do you believe all men can born-again themselves? You seem to be implying exactly that.
The gospel that Jesus preached COMMANDS people to repent. And for me, to repent is to overcome evil with good. And Jesus assures us that overcomers will NOT be blotted out from the book of life.
Seems clear to me that God's command for all people everywhere to repent as embodied in the gospel that Jesus preached is against Calvinism. And that's the Calvinists' dilemma.
I 'think' you have a greater dilemma because I don't think I can make myself a new creation or born-again myself simply by repentance (a change of mind). I think, rather that a change of mind comes 'from' being a new (change) creation. We are asking about the proverbial cart and horse and chicken/egg, but it 'seems' illogical to me that I can born-again myself or new creation myself. I've ALWAYS (even within Arminian walls) believed only God can make me a new creation, and only in and through Christ, could I be born again.
Hi Lon.
I'm not so sure this is true. Just because someone can repent without help, doesn't mean they don't need to be saved:
From their specific sins prior to repentance (repentance implies prior sins)
From original sin/curse of death all men are under
There's got to be some merit to the argument that if God calls anyone to repent, there's a implicit understanding that anyone can, actually, repent. That repentance is not enough for salvation, as outlined above. But it appears to be a necessary thing, at least in most presentations of the gospel in the New Testament.
This is the Arminian position, yes. I too, think you are distancing yourself from some Arminians with this post as well. There are some that would have no Divine enablement or interaction specifically because such violates their independent freewill in their minds. I'd suggest then, that you agree with me regarding Divine enablement, but I am thinking it would become a different discussion than this that I'm having with a few of the freewill theists here.
While I understand the difficult balance between the Sovereignty of God and the Free Will of Men, there is one point of Reform Theology that I have wrestled with for years, that being: If God has "predestined" (in an absolute sense) who will be saved (to the exclusion of those who are NOT among the Elect), then it seems that it has nothing to do with "righteousness" or even "judgement" (in any judicial sense).
One might say that when God began to create, the lump of clay contemplated by God was a fallen mass of humanity, out of which He elected a great number no man can number; the rest justly left in their sins in Adam. Given the Federal Headship of Adam, when he failed in his probationary period to "do this and live", all his progeny failed. It was just as if each of us were there in the Garden sinning as Adam sinned on our behalf. At this juncture then, no one deserves any mercy from God, yet mercy was extended to some determined by only God's own pleasure and not by any merit on the one's to whom mercy was given.
God did not make them incapable of repenting. The inability of man to not sin is not the way man was made. Adam was made upright, but mutable, being able to sin or not to sin. When he sinned, the result is that all are born sinners, able only to sin more or sin less, because they are sinners. The fall of man brought about this terrible state of affairs. All of Adam's progeny possess no moral ability to do what they ought to do spiritually. It is only until the Holy Spirit regenerates the lost, a quickening from spiritual death to life, that they now are morally able.
Interestingly, you are using a Reformed translation
We are jumping from John at this point because Acts requires its context to explain the one verse. Read the surrounding passage, because this then would become a longer discussion, and moving from one topic to exegesis of Acts and what it means. Such is ever the problem of cherry-picking verses. Let me ask the first preliminary question: What does Paul say men must repent 'of' in this chapter? Is it salvation 'turning-away' from (definition of repentance) in this particular chapter, or have we changed subjects? There are many who do believe Paul is talking about repentance unto salvation, but Paul in the previous verse said that men thought god was idols made of metal and wood and specifically, he is saying all men are commanded to repent of that ignorance, and that He was declaring Himself known. It is a challenge to the whole earth, as the gospel must be. "Change your thinking (repent) there is only one God, and only the choice of Christ if you are going to follow Him, the only one that exists." (my paraphrase of that 17:30
There is no change of subject. I quoted Christ calling people to repent. You countered it was not a command. I showed you Scriptures saying God COMMANDS people everywhere to repent. You say it is specific to repentance of idol-related ignorance. Granting you are correct that the repentance referred to in Acts 17:30 is specific to idol-related ignorance, yet the fact that all men everywhere are commanded, then Calvinism's Elect are likewise commanded. And should Calvinism's Elect or Non-Elect refuse to repent, they perish, Christ said. And we are back to square one: the Calvinists' Dilemma remains unresolved.
You've done just as Jesus Christ Our Lord God and Savior had done: He and you have explained a condition and given no direction (at this point). It 'may' be implied you are directing repentance, but if you are not, I just made a mistake, especially if one must be born-again and cannot born-again himself. Oddly, you do, truly, believe one can born-again himself. Is that a fair assessment? Do you believe all men can born-again themselves? You seem to be implying exactly that.
Am not implying anything. It's Scriptures that say God caused people to be born again thru the resurrection of Jesus:
ESV 1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead
No. I already said God caused our being born-again. Having been fashioned into His Body on the cross, we died with Christ, and when the Head resurrected, we - His Body - were likewise made alive TOGETHER with Him.
I 'think' you have a greater dilemma because I don't think I can make myself a new creation or born-again myself simply by repentance (a change of mind). I think, rather that a change of mind comes 'from' being a new (change) creation. We are asking about the proverbial cart and horse and chicken/egg, but it 'seems' illogical to me that I can born-again myself or new creation myself. I've ALWAYS (even within Arminian walls) believed only God can make me a new creation, and only in and through Christ, could I be born again.
Yes, only God can make a new creation. And He did that for us all when He made us alive TOGETHER with Christ when He resurrected our Lord from the grave. Again, repentance is overcoming evil with good. And overcomers will NOT be blotted out from the book of life.
The Calvinists' Dilemma remains unresolved. You could try again.
Of course He does. Per Romans 1 it is the very duty of all mankind to acknowledge the revelation of God in His first book, the book of general revelation—creation—such that man is without excuse to deny the existence of God. Even our Lord's, you must be born again, is an imperative.
“who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:13).
Where is the volitional element to assent to faith given the clear passages of Holy Writ that clearly demonstrate the unsaved cannot possibly possess or claim, for they are spiritually dead and in need of re-birth? We are not “born again” as a result of something we did(as in repenting, then somehow believeing), but solely on the basis of God's sovereign will and power. Birth is the necessary prerequisite of belief, the fruit of that belief will be simultaneously repentance, in the same sense that life must come before activity. "..not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). The regenerated person is made a new creation in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:10; I Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 4:24).
“Jesus answered him, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). The word again (anothen) literally means “from above.” Unlike our first birth, which is horizontal, divine rebirth is vertical—it comes “from above.” The origin of regeneration is supernatural, not the natural work of our volition. “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (James 1:17).
“Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:4-6). Like Nicodemus some argue from a process perspective, as in the birthing labor and delivery process. But note that Our Lord uses the word, gennao (born), that refers to the concept of generational descent. Jesus focuses not on the birth process or experience that one may assume, but on the fact that the father’s nature is passed to the child. What kind of birth is Christ referring to? A birth in which the Divine nature is imparted to the soul. Our Lord states that our first birth reproduced in us the nature of our parents: “...that which is born of the flesh is flesh.” But, then Jesus concludes that our new birth implants within us the Divine nature: “...and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” The thrust of the argument should be clear: regeneration is supernatural. Only the Holy Spirit can effect a change of nature of the heart, not our “volitional will”.
In John 3:7, Jesus says to Nicodemus, “Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'” As noted above, the unsaved possess no inherent ability to save themselves by their own choosing for they are deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9), full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), love darkness rather than light (John 3:19), unrighteous, do not understand, do not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6), dead in their trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14), and slaves of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).
As Jesus states, without the new birth, no one will be saved. He uses a strong term, dei (must), indicating a logical necessity, that regeneration is essential, imperative, absolutely necessary for salvation. Some will argue that Nicodemus should take personal responsibility for his own new birth. But nowhere do we find Christ instructing Nicodemus to take personal responsibility and make a decision using his volitional will. “You must be born again” is a declarative statement of fact, not an imperative command to be obeyed. Jesus, instead of suggesting Nicodemus take ownership of his situation and do something about it, is teaching exactly the opposite. Jesus is teaching that new birth is a necessity, but no man can cause it to happen, even if a man could figure out how to return to the womb. Only God can perform this work.
One may complain that Our Lord's telling someone about the necessity to be born again, then also telling them that they have no ability to produce such a work is self-defeating and contradictory. On the contrary, His objective was to expose the fallacies of trusting in one’s own efforts and works for salvation. If only being religious and devoted to keeping the law could save a person, Nicodemus was safe, but jesus clearly states that no one is safe, regardless of their works, religious fervor, etc. Because of universal sin, a new birth is a necessity and the debilitating effects of universal sin means no one has the ability to rescue himself. John 3:7 teaches a sinner’s only hope for eternal bliss is through the sovereign grace of God.
The “new birth” is no more or less than the monergistic, sovereign, and direct work of the Holy Spirit. Regeneration (re-birth, quickening) is immediate. Faith is the gracious first fruit gift of God in regeneration (Ephesians 2:8). Following regeneration the sinner synergistically responds to the life-giving voice of the Jesus Christ (John 5:25) just as Lazarus immediately responded to the command of Jesus in John 11. In regeneration, and regeneration alone, God is the active cause; the sinner is the passive recipient. This is the grace that is irresistible. God’s gift of faith enables the newborn soul of a person to function spiritually, an ability the person did not have prior to his quickening (John 3:3; John 3:5; I Corinthians 2:14). The gift also gives the person the ability to believe, that is "ears to hear" (Revelations 2:7; Revelations 2:11; Proverbs 20:12; Matthew 11:15).
Regeneration in summary:
Spoiler
From the preceding we see that regeneration is a birth (John. 3:3-8; John 1:13; I Peter 1:23-25; I John 3:9; I John 5:1), a creation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 4:24), the Divine creative act of speaking into existence that which previously did not exist, a resurrection (Ephesians 2:1; I John 3:14; John 5:24), the Divine act of giving life to one who is dead in their trespasses and in their sins. All the images, birth, creation, resurrection, speak to the immediacy of God’s work of grace in the soul. Did the baby play an active role in his own birth, or what the baby a passive party in the work of external factors bringing about his birth? Did man help God create the universe or was that creation the sole work of God? Can man raise the dead to life or the corpse of Lazarus play an active role in his own resurrection? No, for God and only God is the active party, the only Creator, and life-giver at the moment of regeneration.
Jesus says in John 5:25, "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the deadwillhear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear willlive.” He teaches here that God’s effectual calling is always successful when He calls the dead in sin to spiritual life, that the dead will hear His voice (not the preacher, or the parent, or the personal witness), that there will be life, and that it is an irresistible certainty.
Regeneration comprises the implanting of the principle of the new spiritual life in man, radical change of the controlling disposition of the soul, which, under the influence of the Spirit, gives birth to a life that moves in a Godward direction. This change affects the whole man: the intellect, I Corinthians 2:14-15; II Corinthians 4:6; Ephesians 1:18; Colossians 3:10; the will, Psalms 110:3; Philippians 2:13; II Thessalonians 3:5; Hebrews 13:21; and the feelings or emotions, Psalms 42:1-2; Matthew 5:4; I Peter 1:8.
Regeneration, exclusively a Divine act (monergistic), is an instantaneouschange of a man's nature, affecting at once the whole man, intellectually, emotionally, and morally. That regeneration is an instantaneous change has two implications: (1) that regeneration is not a work that is gradually prepared in the soul, as the Roman Catholics and all Semi-Pelagians teach; there is no intermediate stage between life and death; one either lives or is dead; and (2) that regeneration is not a gradual and synergistic process like sanctification.
Three possible explanations for regeneration:
Spoiler
There are only three possible explanations for the efficient cause of regeneration: the human will, the truth, the Holy Spirit.
The human will is incapable of cooperating or doing anything to assist. Man is incapable—so plainly taught in the Scriptures, John 5:42; Romans 3:9-18; Romans 7:18; Romans 7:23; Romans 8:7; II Timothy 3:4, and of the Scripture truth that it is God who inclines the will, Romans 9:16; Philippians 2:13.
The truth was the view of Lyman Beecher and Charles G. Finney. It assumes that the work of the Holy Spirit differs from that of the evangelistic preacher only in degree. Both work by persuasion only. But this theory is very unsatisfactory. The truth can be a motive to holiness only if it is loved, yet the natural man does not love the truth, but hates it (Romans 1:18; Romans 1:25). Consequently the truth, presented externally, cannot be the efficient cause of regeneration.
The only adequate view is that the Holy Spirit is the efficient cause of regeneration. The Holy Spirit works directly on the heart of man and changes its spiritual condition. There is no cooperation of the sinner, spiritually dead in his sins, in this work whatsoever. It is the work of the Holy Spirit directly and exclusively (Ezekial 11:19; John 1:13; Acts 16:14; Romans 9:16; Philippians 2:13). Thus regeneration must be conceived monergistically. God alone works, and the sinner has no part in it whatsoever. This, of course, does not mean, that man does not cooperate in later stages of the work of redemption. It is quite evident from Scripture that he does. Accordingly, we must distinguish between regeneration and conversion.
Conversion contrasted from regeneration:
Spoiler
Conversion, as spoken of by those that came before us, is not an unusual, once-for-all, extraordinary, inexplicable experience through which one passes from the "dark night of the soul" to rapturous union with God. Instead conversion is a daily characteristic of a believing, regenerated child of God. Conversion ought to take place and does take place every day of a person’s life. As long as the believing child of God lives here in this world, that person is a believer who does battle with sin, not only in the world about him, but in his own flesh. This person is not yet perfect. He is not yet brought into the everlasting joy that shall be the inheritance of the people of God in glory. Here he is in the church militant. Here he must do battle. Here he carries with him the body of his death. Conversion has a beginning, continues through life, and is completed when the elect soul goes to glory. The continual nature of this action is what we generally associate with sanctification, but, as the great church divines insisted, sanctification is of the same nature as conversion.
Conversion is "a daily killing of the old man." We are told in Scripture to make our calling and election sure by giving diligence to add to our faith (2 Peter 1:5-7). Insofar as we do so we are being renewed or converted daily. This is one of the major pastoral problems associated with the punctiliar conversion paradigm, in that there is a tendency to create a mindset which elevates experience over instruction. Rather than practice being made to conform to principle, it is usually the case that the conversion experience becomes the rule for distinguishing truth and falsehood. The teaching of decisional regeneration is the reason for much of a Christian's misunderstanding of what conversion truly is. It is a seeking of experience over transformation. It's an unwillingness of some to actually seek maturity and, instead, want to recapture an emotional feeling. In fact, these persons do not feel like they're growing unless the emotional feelings are present. It is not, then, a clinging to Christ and the Gospel to work within us to will and do His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13), but a constant seeking after fresh experience. Such persons do not cling to sound doctrine after a while but instead collect teachers to tickle their ears and give them shows.
Thus, though God alone is the author of conversion, it is important to stress, against any suggestions of a false passivity, that there is also cooperation of man in conversion which follows regeneration. In the Old Testament shubh (to turn about), the word most often used to denote conversion, is used 74 times of conversion as a deed of man, and only 15 times, of conversion as a gracious act of God. The New Testament represents conversion as a deed of man 26 times, and speaks of it only 2 or 3 times as an act of God. [/u]It should be kept in mind, however, that this activity of man always results from a previous work of God in man[/U] (Lamentations 5:21; Philippians 2:13). That man is active in conversion is quite evident from such passages as Isaiah 55:7; Jeremiah 18:11; Ezekiel 18:23; Ezekiel 18:32; 33:11; Acts 2:38; Acts 17:30, and others.
Returning to my opening statement, we should see that one's duty to seek after God does not imply one is capable of performing said duty due to besetting sinful natures. Nor does God's commands imply that acknowledging He exists, per Romans 1 for example, that man can then save himself. The general revelation of God is not salvific revelation, as is Scripture. General revelation is warrant enough for God to condemn the unbeliever, who knows He exists, yet suppresses this truth in unrighteousness, failing to seek after the God declared all around Him in creation, the God who promises nonethatseekHim will be lost to Him.
There is no change of subject. I quoted Christ calling people to repent. You countered it was not a command. I showed you Scriptures saying God COMMANDS people everywhere to repent. You say it is specific to repentance of idol-related ignorance. Granting you are correct that the repentance referred to in Acts 17:30 is specific to idol-related ignorance, yet the fact that all men everywhere are commanded, then Calvinism's Elect are likewise commanded. And should Calvinism's Elect or Non-Elect refuse to repent, they perish, Christ said. And we are back to square one: the Calvinists' Dilemma remains unresolved.
:nono: You are just scripture hopping and using a framework that applies to one thing, as if it could be superimposed upon another text. Scripture hopping is never a good idea. We can sometimes do it to present like-passages, but it is best just to stay within a scriptural context and not jump from one to the other. It also makes for an incredibly long side-trail and distraction so, with absolutely no authority but perhaps a call to reason and time-consumption, I say: "Don't do it."
Am not implying anything. It's Scriptures that say God caused people to be born again thru the resurrection of Jesus:
ESV 1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead
No. I already said God caused our being born-again. Having been fashioned into His Body on the cross, we died with Christ, and when the Head resurrected, we - His Body - were likewise made alive TOGETHER with Him.
Yes, only God can make a new creation. And He did that for us all when He made us alive TOGETHER with Christ when He resurrected our Lord from the grave. Again, repentance is overcoming evil with good. And overcomers will NOT be blotted out from the book of life.
Not when you are doing half my work for me and agreeing with me. I'm not sure what winning an argument looks like in your neck of the woods :think: :cheers:
This is the Arminian position, yes. I too, think you are distancing yourself from some Arminians with this post as well. There are some that would have no Divine enablement or interaction specifically because such violates their independent freewill in their minds. I'd suggest then, that you agree with me regarding Divine enablement, but I am thinking it would become a different discussion than this that I'm having with a few of the freewill theists here.
I'm still thinking through the divine enablement (not that I've got everything else already figured out ). Of course there's something that prevents our salvation by our own works, but does that mean that none can ever repent without God doing it for them? Maybe, but it seems a little backward to command people to do something and then withhold the capability to do so. So, what if the "divine enablement" is the death of Jesus Christ, rather than some internal meddling God does with our thought process. Then we are enabled to become the children of God, but children of God are defined by their recognition of God as their Father--that He gets to tell them what to do--which equals "repentance". So a recognition of God as the lawgiver that needs to be obeyed can happen without that enablement, but without the death of Christ, the penalty for sin still remains to be paid by each and every one of us.
