Proof Regeneration Precedes Faith

[Guest]

My answer is no, of course not. As I stated from an earlier post, "dead"
does not always mean we have no capacity for good or evil. Obviously its
meaning is determined by its context. "We died to sin" means IMO, as a
ruling principle, the old man, old way of life etc, is what we are called to die too.

Hey brother,

I would say the same about being "dead" in sin. That as a ruling principle, a man dead in sin will make choices compatable with that nature (i.e. sinful choices). However, this does not mean that he is incapable of making a good choice, such as choosing to follow God, any more than one who is dead to sin cannot make a sinful choice.

[Guest]

Hi Derek,

You wrote:

Hey brother,

I would say the same about being "dead" in sin. That as a ruling principle, a man dead in sin will make choices compatable with that nature (i.e. sinful choices). However, this does not mean that he is incapable of making a good choice, such as choosing to follow God, any more than one who is dead to sin cannot make a sinful choice.
______________

We'll in part I agree. However as I've stated in an earlier post, the issue is not whether man can or has the the ability to make good moral choices or not. The issue is a condition of the heart and the hearts motives. Only God can judge the heart. The Law demands that we love the Lord our God with all our heart and our neighbor as ourselves, and do this perfectly or completely. Do you? Do I? If we have some little niche in the deep dark crevices of our hearts that does so-in any capacity, why then do we need a new heart? We should be able of our own ability "reform" our way of thinking and mend our relationship with God out of our own good intentions, shouldn't we? Why do we need Jesus? Isn't that what Rabbinic Judaism teaches? But that is not what the Scripture describes IMO.
The best the Law could do is demand an outward conformity to its precepts. The Law cannot and does not change the heart. It sets up a tension between God's righteousness demands and our total inability to perform. God's standard is not relaxed because of our inability. Rather it shows us our poverty. "Blessed are the poor in Spirit" as Jesus IMO, speaks ,not of any inate ability, but of our radical inability to do what God requires. I for one can completely identify with what Paul is teaching us when he said: " I find this law at work; When I want to do good, evil is right there with me". Rom 7:14-24.

So my question is, what needs changing in us? A new attitude toward God? An adoption of a new way of thinking or a new regenerated heart that is not of human will or decision, but from God?

Grace and Peace to you,
In Jesus,
Bob

[Guest]

Hi Traveler Bob,

You wrote:

"I do not necessarily subscribe to the notion that man cannot make good choices. But since God alone knows the heart of man, He alone knows our motives. Whether or not "unregenerated" people can or cannot make "good" moral choices is not the issue. They do indeed. But for any "good" deed to pass God's standard of goodness, it must flow from a heart that loves God perfectly and loves our neighbor perfectly."

It is true that "He alone knows our motives," which is why I do not understand why Calvinists claim to know the motives of every unbeliever. I do not claim to know another man's motives. Therefore, I cannot, as the Calvinist does, pronounce upon the contents of any individual sinner's (or Christian's) heart.

The issue under discussion is whether an unregenerate person can make the choice to repent and cast himself upon the mercy of God. I think an unbeliever may, at times, be of a mind to make such a choice--and I have known many sinners who did so. Is the returning sinner's choice motivated entirely by "a heart that loves God perfectly and loves our neighbor perfectly"? I doubt it.

But then how many of the choices made by regenerated people can claim to have this as their motivation. I doubt if any Calvinist would claim that, at the moment of his conversion, he loved God and his neighbor perfectly--or even does so after years of Christian experience. Apparently, either God does not demand such perfection of motivation before He honors our choices, or else there are very few of our choices that He honors.

If I hope that God may be pleased with my weak efforts to please Him, though I may not be completely selfless in my motivation, why should I think He would require the most selfless of motivations from the returning sinner? The prodigal son's motivation for returning to his Father cannot be said to have been entirely without self interest (Luke 15:17), but he was well-received by his merciful father--who did not even wait for his son to make the whole journey home, but, seeing (from a long way distant) his inrtentions to return, ran out to meet and forgive him.

[Guest]

Hello Steve

Your comment: "The issue under discussion is whether an unregenerate person can make the choice to repent and cast himself upon the mercy of God".

Herein lies the rub between Calvinists and Arminians. What I am trying to say is , I recognized a prior work of God in my life before conversion.
When I finally came to "saving faith" I believe and still do, that God and God alone drew me to himself in Christ. Yes, I made the decision to recieve Christ. However, I do not think my own regeneration was effected by my own will. Therefore I believe regeneration is an act of God, not a cooperative effort between God and man. I believe there is a mystery here. In my mind, Paul's Damascus road experience with the Lord illustrates my point well. A Calvinist will call it effectual grace. An Arminian
will call it previenient grace. Either way, its all grace, isn't it?
..."not of human will or decision, but born of God"...

Love your radio program. I hope your equipment issues will be resolved
soon.
In Jesus
Bob

[Guest]

Yes, I made the decision to recieve Christ.

Hiya Bob,

Do you believe that you had the choice to choose otherwise?

Perry

[Guest]

It is true that "He alone knows our motives," which is why I do not understand why Calvinists claim to know the motives of every unbeliever.

Steve, I'm not sure I believe you. (Rather, I suspect you're engaging in a bit of rhetorical flourish.)

I'll ignore the unfortunate wording that Calvinists "claim to know the motives of every unbeliever"--Calvinists may claim to know something about the motives of unbelievers--that is, of man in his natural state--but I doubt very much that many Calvinists would claim, "I know their motives." (Perhaps that's what you meant. And perhaps it's unfair for me to say that your wording was poor. At any rate, I wanted to point out the distinction.)

I guarantee you, you have not seen Reformed theologians claiming to have looked into the hearts of unbelievers and determined their motives. Anything they say about the heart of natural man is ostensibly taught in Scripture. You disagree, and of course you should argue from Scripture the best you know how. But your exegetical case is not strengthened by this kind of remark.

[Guest]

Hi Traveler Bob,

The case of Saul on the road to Damascus is, in principle, not really much different from the case of those who saw the miracles of Jesus in His lifetime (e.g., the raising of Lazarus). In both cases, men received remarkable, visible proof that Jesus was who Christians claim Him to be.

Such visual proofs are not common among modern people, so that most of us fall into the category of those who are blessed because, though not seeing, we believe. However, witnessing these miraculous demonstrations did not, in themselves constitute "regeneration"--nor, in every case, did they result in it.

Those who received special manifestations still had a choice to make, whether to submit to the obvious truth, or to destroy the evidence (John 12:17-19/ John 3:19-21/ Rom.1:18/ 2 Thess.2:10). The ability to reject the truth, after seeing his vision of Christ, seemed to be implied in Paul's later testimony: "Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision" (Acts 26:19).


Jugulum,

My statement was referring to the fact that Calvinists claim that every unbeliever only has evil motives (which is why he cannot make any decisions acceptable to God, like that of repenting). In this, the Calvinist certainly is claiming knowledge of a man's motives--e.g. the non-Christian man who professes a sincere desire to know the truth, to stop sinning, and to please God. If a Calvinist would assert that no unsaved man would make such professions, he would simply be revealing that his theology was developed in an ivory tower, apart from much contact with the real world of unbelievers. On the other hand, if that Calvinist would say, "Although this unbeliever professes these desires, we really know that he has no selfless or God-centered motivation (because he is unregenerate, and cannot have such good motives)," then the Calvinist is claiming to know a man's motives (as I suggested). I have very often heard Calvinists make this second assertion, thus claiming to know themselves what only God can possibly know.

I realize, as you have said, that they use certain scriptural rationalizations to justify their statements. However, the scriptures they use are far from declaring such intimate secrets about the heart of every man, and so it remains true that they are judging a man's motives after all. That people of any persuasion may twist certain scriptures to support their judgments does not absolve them from the charge of making unrighteous judgments. The Pharisees no doubt used their interpretations of certain scriptures to justify their evil judgments also. This did not spare them Jesus' denunciation.

"But go and learn what that means: 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice' [Hos.6:6]..." (Matt. 9:13)


"But if you had known what that means: 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice," you would not have condemned the guiltless." (Matt.12:7)


"...judge righteous judgment." (John 8:24)

Apparently, Jesus held religious people accountable to discover the right meaning of the scriptures before making sinful judgments about other persons made in the image of God (James 3:9).


For my answers to the Calvinist's biblical case for total depravity, see
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=229

[Guest]

I realize, as you have said, that they use certain scriptural rationalizations to justify their statements. However, the scriptures they use are far from declaring such intimate secrets about the heart of every man, and so it remains true that they are judging a man's motives after all.

And my point, Steve, is that you said you didn't understand how Calvinists could make their claims in light of the fact that only God knows our hearts. That was a peculiar statement to make, since those claims are based (whether validly or not) on Scripture, not on Calvinists' personal assessment of people's hearts.

Yes, of course it's true that we are held responsible to use Scripture correctly. Just as the Pharisees were held accountable, every person on this board will be held accountable for any misuse of the Bible.

That does not lend any validity to your own misapplication of "only God knows our motives" to how Calvinists defend the Total Depravity view of unregenerate man.

[Guest]

Steve, I'd also like to clarify my comment about the wording of "knowing motives".

On the other hand, if that Calvinist would say, "Although this unbeliever professes these desires, we really know that he has no selfless or God-centered motivation (because he is unregenerate, and cannot have such good motives)," then the Calvinist is claiming to know a man's motives (as I suggested). I have very often heard Calvinists make this second assertion, thus claiming to know themselves what only God can possibly know.

I wouldn't describe Joe Calvinist in your example as claiming to "know their motives". Joe is certainly claiming to know something about their motives, but "knowing their motives" sounds to me like another level of knowledge.

As I indicated in my first post, I wasn't entirely sure your wording needed correction. Really...This might be too fine of a semantic point, too subjective. I thought it worthwhile to bring up the possibility of the distinction, but...looking back, I didn't do a very good job of explaining myself. I'll try again.

Suppose you and Joe were talking about this subject. You pointed to Peggy Pagan, who claims a sincere desire to serve God/the gods/the Goddess/the Divine Essence, but who rejects Christianity. And maybe you also pointed to Alvin Agnostic, who says he who like to do the right thing, and serve whatever God there might be, but he just can't tell whether or not there is a God. So you ask Joe, "What are Peggy's real motives? What are Alvin's real motives?"

How would Joe respond? In my mind, he would be claiming to know their motives if he responded with something like: "Well, Peggy is pursuing paganism because her feminism conflicts with the idea of God as Father. She also has a bad temper and tendency to hold grudges, and wants to be able to use voodoo as an outlet. Furthermore, she has a strong streak of materialism that causes..." You get the idea. (And there may well be some Calvinist somewhere who would go that route--but that doesn't mean you can generalize.) On the other hand, he's just claiming to know something about their motives if he says, "I don't know what's in any man's heart. I do, however, know that 'no one seeks after God', and that 'the natural man does not accept the things of God'. I don't know what their motives are, but I know that their motives are not a sincere seeking after God."

I realize that you would challenge Joe's use of Romans 3:11 and 1 Cor. 2:14, and you might raise the question of whether even a new Christian has truly pure motives, so what's the difference between them? Etc. My purpose with this distinction was just to point out the difference between the two types of claims. They're not completely different, but I do see enough of a difference to put the first entirely beyond any man's power (unless he's receiving direct prophetic revelation from God), and to bring the second within the realm of the kinds of things one might be able to know through a biblical teaching.

So, again, the question is, "What is the biblical teaching about man's depravity?"

[Guest]

Hi Jugulum,

I will accept your explanation of the distinction.

As for the biblical teaching of man's depravity, there are few anthropological statements in scripture that are worded so as to describe a universal human condition, other than that "all have sinned" and "all die." Verses that are not worded as absolute descriptions of all mankind are often adopted and extrapolated to all people by Christian theologians--apparently so that we will have more to say (than the Bible does) about human nature.

Much of what we can know on this subject comes from our limited knowledge of actual human beings, including ourselves, though the scriptures seem to back up most of what a careful observer would likely deduce. I believe the following points could be asserted without fear of biblical contradiction:

1. While unfallen Adam was made in the image and likeness of God (Gen.1:27; 5:1), his offspring were born in the likeness of (fallen) Adam (Gen.5:3), yet retaining an element of the image of God (James 3:9).

2. This likeness of God in man was marred, but not obliterated, and accounts for the incurably religious nature of all human beings. Even those who don't know God, or who reject Him, cannot seem to avoid making up religions (rather than nothing) to replace Him in their lives (Acts 17:22/ Roman 1:23-25)

3. The damage done to human nature by the fall seems to have bequeathed to Adam's offspring an in-born tendency toward self-love, self-seeking and self-importance, so as to incline people, from birth, or shortly thereafter, to place themselves above God and their own interests above His. This phenomenon is sometimes called (in scripture) "sin" and, sometimes, "the flesh."--and sometimes called (though not in scripture) "the sin nature." (Rom.5:12, 19; 7:8, 11, 14, 17-18; 8:7-8 / Gal.5:17)

4. Due to this predisposition toward self and sin, mankind suffers two deadly consequences: a) all humans commit sins, incurring God's condemnation (Rom.3:23; 6:23; 5:12); and b) humans have no innate power to overcome or be free from this sinful tendency (Rom.6:16-17; 7:23-24).

5. The religio-spiritual nature in man, leads many to recognize the evil of their ways, to sense their guilt and condemnation before God, and to seek redemption through various impotent and mis-guided religions, which cannot provide either justification nor redemption (Judges 10:14/ Isa.45:20; 47:13/ Jer.11:12/ Rom.3:20).

6. Some people, upon discovering the futility of all other paths (Ecclesiastes), or after finding their lives ruined by sin (Luke 15:17ff; 18:13), or after much searching (Prov.8:17/ Jer.29:13), through the conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8), are persuaded of the truth of the Gospel, and recognize it as the good news they have been yearning for. Some of these make a full surrender of themselves to the Lordship of Christ and are saved by His grace (Eph.2:8-9).

7. Others suppress the religio-spiritual impulses and ignore the voice of conscience, resulting in the hardening of their hearts to the point of spiritual insensitivity (Mark 3:5/Rom.2:5). These ones "suppress the truth in their unrighteousness" (Rom.1:18) are "past feeling" (Eph.4:19) and seem to be irredeemably wicked (Jer.13:23). God gives ultimately gives them over to a reprobate mind (Rom.1:24, 26, 28). Such people have "sold themselves to do evil" (2 Kings 17:17). Their hearts are "deceitful...and desperately wicked" (Jer.17:9), and their thoughts are "only evil continually"(Gen.6:5). Such people can justly be described as "totally depraved."