Proof Regeneration Precedes Faith

[Guest]

Derek,

I posted an abbreviated answer while you were posting.

I think your restatement of our sinful nature as a general tendency to sin is a weaker argument. Are you implying that unregenerate people can do things that God would call good? I do not think that this is possible, especially since in Romans 8:8 we are told that "Those who are in the flesh cannot please God". That would be too strong of a statement for Paul to make if the unbeliever could occasionally make a good decision; Paul I think should have said something more like what you posted, that in general the natural man cannot please God, or with few exceptions. Instead, he rules it out as a possibility.

I think the reason he does so is that a good work to God is not just one that outwardly conforms with God's precepts. All of us know that we can do the right action with the wrong motive (for example, giving to the poor so that people will think we are spiritual). I believe that God must be the ultimate reason we do any deed in order for it to be good in His eyes, which is why the first and greatest commandment according to our Saviour is to "love the Lord with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength". If we do not do this, then our actions are for some other reason.

Since several months ago, when I advanced this argument, I was accused of being arrogant and trying to read the hearts of people and play God, let me just say that I have no pride in my heart whatsoever when I write this. I still struggle with sin, and I still struggle at times with having the Biblical motivation to do certain works that I know I should. However, I plead not a special insight into people's hearts, or any kind of Calvinistic attitude problem with people, nor do I look down on the unbeliever with haughtiness. I simply plead that our Bible describes good deed as only stemming from a good heart, one that pants after God, and that this is not possible for an unregenerate person, which seems in line with Paul's description of that class of men in Romans 8. And I realize, even more fully I think because of my Reformed views, that truly, except by the grace of God, there go I. I am sure that you Derek would also agree with this sentiment and thankfulness that God has put us on a better path.

Lastly, I do not think that every use of the word "dead' has to be taken in the same sense. Additionally, Peter says we should live unto righteousness, not that it is impossible for us not to, for reasons that I mentioned in my last post.

[Guest]

I have the flu, and I would appreciate it if you would pray for me. I will try to check back later so that I do not "duck in and out" of the forum, only here to post a response and not to follow-up. By the way, I received a flu shot, so I am especially unhappy about having the flu!

I will pray for you brother, though it is nice to have you around (I am assuming you're out of work sick)! I will be thinking over your post as well. I'll respond later.

God bless,

[Guest]

Tartanarmy,

Since you responded with this first:

Quote:
The key phrase in Paul's Letter to the Ephesians is this:

"...even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have you been saved)" (Eph. 2:5).

Here Paul locates the time when regeneration occurs.
It takes place 'when we were dead.'

With one thunderbolt of apostolic revelation all attempts to give the initiative in regeneration to man are smashed.
Again, dead men do not cooperate with grace.


I will comment on this passage first. I take this "thunderbolt" as your very best passage. I am wondering if you skipped over part of Ephesians.

In chapter 5:1 and following, Paul admonishes the Ephesians to avoid certain behaviors that will cause them not to inherit the Kingdom of God (compare Galatians 5:19-21). He then goes on to urge them, v. 14, "Awake, you who are sleep, arise from the dead, and Christ will give you light." You should know that the Greek word for dead, nekros, is exactly the same in Ephesians 2:1, 2:5, and 5:14. How then does Paul urge them to do something synergistically in 5:14 which according to you, if you are consistent, must be a monergistic act of God? You informed us "dead men" do not cooperate with grace, of which you have no proof.

First of all, I see no point in immediately jumping ahead to another context. Seems to be just looking for a passage that can be used against the plain context of what I cited, but be that as it may.

Why are you assuming that man has the ability to bring himself back from being dean in sin? Think about that. Is it in the text?

Paul knows that man does not have the ability to do this.
Command does not imply ability. If it did, then we could all keep the commandments, or we could be perfect even as God Himself is perfect.

Mat 5:48 Therefore be perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.

Same principal David mentions above regarding the dead bones.

Back to Ephesians 2:5,
God makes us alive. Now we know this is referring to Spiritually alive. The text says that while we were “dead”, meaning “not alive spiritually” or as he himself states elsewhere, “Natural man, In the flesh” etc.
God takes the initiative and “while” we are yet dead, He “makes” us alive.
That is monergism.

Eph 2:8-9 confirms that the whole of salvation, including faith is a gift from God. We are saved by grace, which is undeserved mercy. Not of works, meaning anything we do, but by grace “through” faith in Christ alone.

If being converted was a synergistic thing, then we would have room to take some credit in our salvation. We did something that others did not do.
We can boast in synergism, but the Apostle says, “lest any man should boast”

Elsewhere he says, 1Co 4:7 For who makes you to differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?

There is no boasting in Monergism Homer, so I would ask you.

Did you by an act of your fallen, natural man will, (which cannot please God and is not able to please Him) reach out in order to take salvation, or did God, by an act of sheer grace and mercy, draw you to Himself, and then you acted in faith and repentance because you could do nothing else, being amazed by His love for you?

Mark

[Guest]

Mark,

You wrote:

Why are you assuming that man has the ability to bring himself back from being dean in sin? Think about that. Is it in the text?

Paul knows that man does not have the ability to do this.
Command does not imply ability.

Command does not even imply ability? Astonishing! If a command isn't enough to imply ability how about the rest of the context:

Eph. 5:2-12:

1 Therefore be imitators of God as dear children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.
3 But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this you know,[a] that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them.
Walk in Light

8 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of the Spiritis in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), 10 finding out what is acceptable to the Lord. 11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret.

So Paul exhorts and warns them prior to telling them to "Arise from the dead" and nothing in the passage even "implies" ability to do so? And you wonder why I would "assume" so? Why all the exhorting, warning, and appeal to their conscience if they could "do nothing else" as you say? You have to work really, really hard to be a Calvinist.

I am becoming more and more convinced that in the Calvinist view all of life is a mere pageant.

[Guest]

Homer,

When you argue that the issuing of a command logically necessitates the ability to perform the command, then what you are saying is the legitimacy of the command is somehow tied to the ability of the recipient to perform it. If the recipient cannot perform the command, then the command may be disregarded, and in fact the person issuing the command is out of line and unreasonable to pursue their demands.

The reason I do not agree with you is that the commands that God gives us are a description of His unchanging nature and character, and are therefore non-negotiable, since His nature is immutable. As you have no doubt noticed from your Scripture reading, the Bible describes the law in many of the same ways that God is described - holy, just, and good. The law is God's description of His nature, His values, His character; it reflects Him. None of us believe that we can keep the law perfectly, but all of us believe that we should (in fact God commands us to, He commands us to keep it perfectly, not to depart to the left or the right, yet Paul said no one does or can - imagine, God commanding the impossible to point out our need for a Saviour), and all of us believe in the justice and goodness of God's law, as did Paul. The problem is not with the command, but with us. Our ability to follow the law has been greatly diminshed (if you are an Arminian) or obliterated (if you are a Calvinist) because of sin and its affect on our nature. Yet God's nature has not changed, and of necessity, neither has the command. Right and wrong don't change with man, as if we are the definition of these things. God is not required to slacken or lessen what He requires of man just because man's sin has plunged himself into a reprobated state of moral incapacitation, and in fact for God to do so would be against His nature since it would imply that His nature can be ignored on our behalf when all of us here would agree with the author of Hebrews who said "Without holiness, no one will see the Lord."

Most Arminians believe that there are times that God may harden a stubborn man who, they say, chose to dig in his heels. According to your reasoning, would that mean that from the time that God hardens the heart of the man, thus ensuring his disobedience, that God is the author of the resultant sins? Or is the man no longer culpable because it is God hardening? I think there are some questions here that the Calvinist is not alone in needing to answer.

[Guest]

mark wrote:

or did God, by an act of sheer grace and mercy, draw you to Himself, and then you acted in faith and repentance because you could do nothing else, being amazed by His love for you?

this sort of statement sounds good, but perhaps states too much. Eph 2:8-9 doesnt seem to stand for the proposition that we don't have to DO anything to be saved. We have to have faith, don't we? Isn't that, in a sense, doing something? Now, you stated that we have faith "because we could do nothing else" in response to God's drawing us. But how can faith, for lack of a better word, be "forced?" If we have no choice but to have faith when God draws us, what kind of faith is that? Are we talking about the same thing when we talk about faith? Jesus didn't go around forcing people to have faith in Him; in fact He allowed many to walk away. In other words, the genius of faith would seem to be that it is voluntarily given. If it is something that I have no choice but to experience, then we must call it something else. Brainwashing comes to mind.

TK

[Guest]

Hi TK,

Brainwashing is a term that implies deception, as if God unjustly manipulated someone He had no right to impose His will on, and tricked them into a false reality where their mind now dwells. It is interesting that this type of language is used of the devil in 2 Timothy where Paul says that the unbeliever has been taken captive by the devil to do his will. God's opening a man's eyes is liberating, and causing him to come to his God-given senses and recognize his environment, that he is in the presence of God, living on God's planet, and breathing God's air.

Calvinists believe that God changes the heart of a person to what it ought to be, one that seeks God, a requirement since it is from the heart flow all of the issues of life. And He has the right to impose His will at any time and on anyone, because the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, and he is the Creator of every person.

We should not think that if God ordains something, His ordination changes the nature of that thing. When God ordained in Isaiah that not one of Jesus' bones would be broken on the cross, Jesus' bones did not change in nature. They were still made of the same material that yours and mine are; they did not cease to be real bones. In that sense, they were just as real and otherwise breakable as our legs. His ordaining the decisions of men, likewise, does not change the fact that they are just that - men's decisions! His ordination does not destroy the created order and the causal relationships we all observe, but rather establishes them.

[Guest]

thanks david-- just so i am clear--

are you saying, by some divine mystery that we cannot fathom, that we have free will despite the fact that God knows (and ordains) exactly what we will do?

I used to say such things, until brother Paidion elsewhere on these forums pointed out rather cogently how this is simply not possible; it is like saying that God can ordain that 2 +2 = something than four, or that God can create square circles, etc. perhaps Paidion will chime in.

TK

[Guest]

TK,

I am not familiar with Paidion's post you are referring to, however, if he was saying that God follows the law of non-contradiction, I would second that notion.

I like the way that Paidion attempts to reason. He writes very irenic and thought provoking posts. Additionally, I think he has some good arguments of logic against the idea that God has precognition of our faith and other moral events.

God does not make square circles because God has created a world where circles are round, and God does not contradict Himself.

The last paragraph of my post was attempting to address the issue of whether God's ordaining the free choices of men is like a "square circle". Is this a contradiction? I think 99.999% of the people would say "Yes, obviously". But God's ordination of things does not change their nature or their constitution, as in the example I gave with the prophecy of Jesus having no broken bones.

There is almost a schoolyard type of taunt sometimes used by against one saying "I think it is a mystery" or "I cannot fully explain this". But we would all agree that God has no beginning, no end, He can be everywhere all at once, He spoke the world into existence, He is Tripersonal - I believe these things because I think the Bible teaches them, as do you. There would be no mystery I suppose to this debate if I were to see God as not ordaining any or all of our choices; then I would say we choose what we choose, we are truly self-determinative. But you see I do not think this does justice to some of the passages that we have discussed, which is why I am no longer an Arminian.

[Guest]

Homer,

When you argue that the issuing of a command logically necessitates the ability to perform the command, then what you are saying is the legitimacy of the command is somehow tied to the ability of the recipient to perform it. If the recipient cannot perform the command, then the command may be disregarded, and in fact the person issuing the command is out of line and unreasonable to pursue their demands.

The reason I do not agree with you is that the commands that God gives us are a description of His unchanging nature and character, and are therefore non-negotiable, since His nature is immutable.

I just have time for a quick comment:

Your conversation makes me think of Matthew 5:48, "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (The preceding verses say that we should love our enemies, not just our neighbors--even tax collectors love those who love them.) Does that command imply that we can actually attain perfection, or does it simply assert the standard that we are rightly measured against?


Disclaimer: I don't have any resources with me, so I can't check the exact meaning of the word translated "perfect".