The Equivocation of Regeneration
In the order of salvation, which comes first, faith or regeneration? Before we can answer that, don't we first need to understand what regeneration is? In this post I plan on contrasting Hodge's view with Arminius'. Hopefully, in the process we can clarify the issue of monergism vs. synergism.
Hodge’s Order of Salvation
- Common Grace – a “moral suasion” that brings good works, but is insufficient to enable justifying faith
- Regeneration – God’s supernatural and immediate change of a person’s nature
- Vocation – same Gospel as the one in common grace, but it’s effectual on the changed man.
- Conversion – faith and repentance “first conscious exercise of the renewed soul”
- Justification
Two Definitions of Regeneration
Hodges provides two alternative definitions of regeneration. Sometimes regeneration means just the imparting of life, other times it means the whole process including the things coming before and after the imparting of life. 1 Hodge says these two difference sense are not just used by bible commentators, but in the bible itself. He cites 1 Corinthians 4:15 and 1 Peter 1:23 as examples of the broader definition of regeneration. Since regeneration is God’s immediate act on the soul and these texts speak of a means (i.e. the Gospel and God’s word) they indicate a broader definition of regeneration which includes conversion.
Arminius’ Order of Salvation
- Prevenient Grace – common grace plus enablement of justifying faith
- Vocation – Gospel call
- Conversion – Repentance and faith
- Justification
- Regeneration – Mortification and Vivification
Everyone gets excited that Hodge says regeneration comes before faith and Arminius said it comes after. But before we discuss when regeneration is, we must understand what regeneration is.
Using Hodges’ broad definition of regeneration, both Arminian and Calvinistic regeneration is synergistic. There’s a call and a response – God acts, man reacts. But in the narrow sense of regeneration, Hodge states man is a passive, not an active participant. God omnipotently imparts spiritual life. The same is true in the Arminian system. Faith doesn't cause or merit regeneration. God mercifully regenerates the sinner. So in the broad definition of regeneration, it's sysnergistic and in the narrow definition it's monergistic.
Both Hodge and Arminius said enablement comes before faith, so both affirm total depravity and deny semi-Pelagianism. But Hodge said enablement is part of regeneration2 and Arminius said its part of prevenient grace. But Arminius doesn't completely disconnect regeneration and prevenient grace. He describes those under prevenient grace as "under the process of the new birth" but "not yet regenerate".3
To me, the difference between Arminians and Calvinists on the order of salvation is far too subtle for all the fuss made over it. Particularly when there's a much bigger issue just under the surface - the difference in their understanding of enablement.
Before prevenient grace (in an Arminian system) and before regeneration (in a Calvinist system) a man can only say no to the Gospel. However, in Arminianism, he can say no for a variety of reasons and in a variety of ways. In Calvinism, he can only say no for one reason and in one way. Both prevenient grace (in Arminianism) and regeneration (in Calvinism) change our nature, such that we can say yes to the Gospel. But in Calvinism, we can only say yes. In Arminianism, we can say either yes or no. In Calvinism, given our nature, only one response is possible, in Arminianism, our nature contains a range of acts possible for us to perform.
So in the final analysis, the resistible/irresistible debate boils down to the issue of libertarian freewill vs. compatible freewill. Only the context has changed to "under grace".
Even though the issue of order is a lesser point, God willing, I will explore it in the next post.--------------------------------------------------------
1There are two senses in which it may be said that we are begotten by the truth. First, when the word to beget (or regeneration) is meant to include the whole process, not the mere act of imparting life, but all that is preliminary and consequent to that act. The word “to beget” seems to be used sometimes in Scripture, and very often in the writings of theologians in this wide sense. And secondly, when the word 'by' expresses not a cooperating cause, or means, but simply an attending circumstance. Men see by the light. Without light vision is impossible. Yet the eyes of the blind are not opened by means of the light. In like manner all the states and acts of consciousness preceding or attending, or following regeneration, are by the truth; but regeneration itself, or the imparting spiritual life, is by the immediate agency of the Spirit. (link)
2The truth involved in this doctrine was so important in the eyes of the Apostle Paul, that he earnestly prayed that God would enable the Ephesians by his Spirit to understand and believe it. It was a truth which the illumination and teaching of the Holy Ghost alone could enable them duly to appreciate. …The Apostle Paul, who glories so much in the gospel, who declares that it is by the foolishness of preaching that God saves those that believe, still teaches that the inward work of the Spirit is necessary to enable men to receive the things freely given to them of God; that the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit, that they must be spiritually discerned. … when God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good. (link)
3For the word "the unregenerate," may be understood in two senses, (i.) Either as it denotes those who have felt no motion of the regenerating Spirit, or of its tendency or preparation for regeneration, and who are therefore, destitute of the first principle of regeneration. (ii.) Or it may signify those who are in the process of the new birth, and who feel those motions of the Holy Spirit which belong either to preparation or to the very essence of regeneration, but who are not yet regenerate; that is, they are brought by it to confess their sins, to mourn on account of them, to desire deliverance, and to seek out the Deliverer, who has been pointed out to them; but they are not yet furnished with that power of the Spirit by which the flesh, or the old man, is mortified, and by which a man, being transformed to newness of life, is rendered capable of performing works of righteousness. (link)
Comments
sounds like you are going soft? Your words herein are evenly fair. What gives? :)
But anyway, you wrote:
The same is true in the Arminian system.
Are you passive too in this sense as Hodge?
You wrote:
“Before prevenient grace (in an Arminian system) and before regeneration (in a Calvinist system) a man can only say no to the Gospel. However, in Arminianism, he can say no for a variety of reasons and in a variety of ways. In Calvinism, he can only say no for one reason and in one way. Both prevenient grace (in Arminianism) and regeneration (in Calvinism) change our nature, such that we can say yes to the Gospel. But in Calvinism, we can only say yes. In Arminianism, we can say either yes or no. In Calvinism, given our nature, only one response is possible, in Arminianism, our nature contains a range of acts possible for us to perform.”
I am not sure I would speak of it as changing our nature. I do not believe that Prevenient grace changes our nature, rather, it enables us to make a choice that previously we were unable to make.
Analogy – if you went to a restaurant and they had two menus. One was for the new customers and say it contained 10 selections. If you were a new customer, you would be limited to those 10 selections and only those 10 selections (and say none of them included prime rib as a possible choice). There was another menu however, and this one was different from the first. This one contained the 10 selections of the first menu, but also had an 11th possible selection: prime rib. If you are given this menu you have been enabled to choose the prime rib (and vice versa you can also not choose the prime rib if your choice is not necessitated). Before the work of the Holy Spirit, we are limited to 10 choices, and no matter how we choose we remain lost. However when the Spirit works upon us (i.e., prevenient grace) he enables us to make a choice that previously was unavailable to us (gives us that 11th choice). Without his enabling, without his giving us the second menu, we can not choose prime rib. If we are enabled to choose prime rib, we now have access to prime rib.
In all of this did our nature change, or did God enable us to make new choices that previously to his work in us, were unavailable?
I personally do not see our nature being changed by prevenient grace, rather, our range of choices is enlarged by the work of the Spirit. Without his enlarging our range of choices we will never choose Christ. And even with the enlarged range of choices we can still choose to say No. So I don’t see our nature changing (human nature was created with the capacity to have and make choices), rather, our range of choices is changed by the work of the Holy Spirit.
“So in the final analysis, the resistible/irresistible debate boils down to the issue of libertarian freewill vs. compatible freewill. Only the context has changed to "under grace".”
Well see again, if our range of choices is enlarged it does not mean our nature is changed, we were created with libertarian free will, we retain it as unbelievers, and we have it as believers. Libertarian free will appears to be one of the characteristics of human nature (we were created to have this capacity so it is part of our **nature**). Prevenient grace does not change our nature; say like giving us libertarian free will when we did not have it before, rather, grace enables us to make choices that before grace were unavailable to us. So our nature does not change, rather, our range of choices changes due to prevenient grace/the enabling of the Spirit.
Robert
Regarding regeneration itself, yes.
God be with you,
Dan
Humm.... I would say our range of potential actions is part of our nature. Let's take this comment made by Theojunkie in "the difference maker":
The FW view definition of free will requires that man be free to choose contrary to their nature... contrary to their desires... it requires that man be free of ALL influences, not just external ones.
Rather than LFW being the ability to choose contrary to our nature, I would say our nature contains a range of acts we can perform, not just one act.
You gave an example, so I will offer a counter example. Think of a 10 speed bike that you modify to add two more gears. Now it's a 12 speed. Before it could be switched into 10 speeds, not it can be switched into 12 speeds. But it took a change to the bike. The analogy breaks down because with the bike it's a passive potency whereas man has an active potency. But with both the bike and us, the change that expands the range is intrinsic.
I am not sure we only lack the opportunity to choose Christ. Rather, we lack opportunity, desire and understanding needed to choose Christ. Grace provides all of that. Opportunity is external, but understanding and desire are internal - and they expand the range of things we can choose. W/O understanding and desire, we cannot choose something. But we still have LFW, because we desire both to continue living for self and to follow Christ. Since we desire both, we can choose either. But the point is that enablement takes both external and internal factors.
God be with you,
Dan
According to your description, it would appear that the Arminian view of prevenient grace can basically be described as follows:
God restores all human beings to the place (with respect to their nature and abilities) that Adam was at prior to the fall.
Therefore, I ask you this: What did Adam do when his nature was in the state it was prior to the fall?
Why do you think modern man would do any different than Adam?
My guess is they don't want to admit that sinless humanity can be deceived!
There must be this agrument going on inside their hearts and minds that God would not create humans, as in Adam/Eve, that way, now would He?
And because they do not want to believe that about Our Sinless God, they then can bypass the "eternal purpose" in this life/bios that we, the Elect, are called into:::>
Eph 3:11 This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord,
Eph 3:12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him.
*****
Dear Michael,
appreciate your post on life and it's surely interesting to debate. Looks like, in the light of Hodge's view, it is even better to talk about it here other then there.
However
"eternal purpose" in this life
hmmm... there is no way around the obvious eternal purpose of those predestined for Hell.
RC Sproul is a smart fellow and surely worthy of attention, but his explanation of double predest. failed to impress me.
I agree that if premises of Calvinism are correct that his rationale makes sense.
Honestly admit- i am not in agreement with that view as of now,it's possible i just dont understand it enough.So go ahead, come up with your arguments, i will gladly read :)
The problem with some reformed and non ref. authors is they go heavy into preacherese and general christinish flavored emotoionalism, robbing the material they present of true substance. Glad you dont do that.
O.
The chief end of man (i.e., eternal purpose of man)... all humans, regardless of final abode... is to glorify the Creator.
People in hell glorify God just as much as people who are saved from hell. One group glorify God's justice, the other group glorify his grace and mercy.
Election and predestination I think are for another discussion... (and the above is too, really).
thanks for your comments.
Do you have a grasp on what Paul was saying there at Ephesians 3?
What about Theo's question though?
Doesn't it just make solid sense to you? It does me?
We tend to, until God intervenes, rationalize everything from our "humanistic" senses.
What we are saying opens up to what was before Genesis 1:1 and after Genesis 3.
When you can settle the rationale for Genesis 1:2 and why there is no mention of "darkness" being something God, "God", as in Our Heavenly Father, His Son and the Holy Ghost, "created", the eternal purpose of the "Church" comes into play.
In any event, Theo is right, we are on this subject of regeneration not predestination or the level of immaturity some preachers find themselves preaching from.
Onward though, as we do, those of us called out of the world, in this battle against dark rulers and dark authorities in heavenly places.
Granted also that only the Regenerated will ever engage in this sort of fight with them. Noone else is called to fight the way the Church is called to fight these evil forces. God only gives this battle to Christ and His Angel through His Own Body, i.e., the Holy Dwelling Places of the Most High, cf. Ps 46.
We wrestle not against flesh and blood, [though it does seem from time to time we do in here, :)], but against:::>
Eph 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
you wrote:
[[ I am not sure I would speak of it as changing our nature. I do not believe that Prevenient grace changes our nature, rather, it enables us to make a choice that previously we were unable to make. ]]
I happen to agree with that strongly!
Who enables? It is a mystery:::>
Col 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,
Col 1:25 of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known,
Col 1:26 the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints.
Col 1:27 To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
Col 1:28 Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ.
Col 1:29 For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me.
Now I bet you doubt me, huh?
Oh yes, most probably now you do not agree with my interpretation!
I quite agree and Scripture so develops the "two natures". One of these natures does not change.
I agree that my "old man" is not going to change. It is the "reborn", ""new man"" that has come alive in me. He does change. He grows in the knowledge of the Truth and I believe for all the rest of eternity we will move from God's eternal glory to glory!!!
1Co 2:7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory.
1Co 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
1Co 2:9 But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him"--
2Co 4:16 So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day.
That old unchanging man, my adamic human nature, that nature without a choice as to whether or not I will suffer death, he will go back to the dust from whence he came. Ashes to ashes and dust to dust the preacher says, right? :)
So, one nature never changes. It is sinful from birth. The Prophet asked the question this way:
Jer 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.
Now the Apostle proclaims this about the new man this way:
Rom 7:4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.
Rom 7:5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.
Rom 7:6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
Now what it seems to me Arminians have a hard time with is the fact that there are some in the world, how many, is only a guess and as the saying goes: GOD ONLY KNOWS, who are never given the Law so as to see that depraved human Adamic sin nature. Why? Well, you can pronounce God as some puppetmaster who dangles human flesh over an open flame roasting them all you want, but it does not change the Wisdom or Foreknowledge of God about who is Chosen, Called and Elected to Eternal Life:
Mat 11:27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
Why do you think modern man would do any different than Adam?
You mean if we were put in the garden instead of him (i.e. having the same history he did)? The reason people do things always boils down to two things:
themselves (primarily) and what they choose (secondarily). Adam ate the fruit, so he could be like God. But Adam was able to choose to obey or not. If he had chosen to obey, his reason would have been his love for God.
So if someone else had been in the garden, and they choose to not eat, there secondary reason would have been love for God and their primary reason would have been themselves.
God be with you,
Dan
huh?
That was interesting, the response to TheoJ.
TJ, hope you don't mind me stepping into your fire now?
Dan,
What exactly do you believe the purpose for creating Adam is anyway?
He came into the picture 5 and one half days after verse 2 of Genesis 1.
(In making analogies we need to be careful what we are intending to carry over. The menu is choices, the bike is our nature).
The way I see it is that we are initially created with imago Dei which says a lot about our nature. We reason in the image of God.
We subsequently became fallen which is an addition, but it is not that the imago Dei is gone, rather it is broken. But not broken like a building ground to sand, but broken in a way that means it distorts reality. It favours wrong choices, it prefers death to life, it wants its own way, it does not naturally want to obey God.
Because I think God desires all men to come to him, God woos all men, even those who have not heard the gospel, so all have an opportunity; just most don't take it.
It is clear that you understand that what Adam did in his pre-fall state is... he fell.
We agree that Adam made a choice, and that choice was to disobey God (that is, his choice was to move away from God).
And I see that you agree that "the reason people do things always boils down to... themselves (primarily)."
While I don't think you are correct that "what they choose" is a reason people do things. However, I appreciate that you understand that "what they choose" is a secondary event... because this indicates that you understand that "what they choose" is a function of the primary reason-- and that primary reason is indeed "themselves."
So... Adam, in his pre-fall nature, fell. And this choice to fall away (to turn away) came primarily from himself... his nature.
Therefore again: the Arminian view of prevenient grace is that fallen man (post-fall man) is restored to a condition that is identical in abilities to Adam in his pre-fall state.
I doubt that you TRULY deny the federal headship of Adam (though your last sentence strongly suggests that you do). I think however that you misspoke, because just recently you stated that Arminians (yourself included) affirm the full reality (that is, the Reformed view) of Total Depravity in post-fall man. You stated that the difference between Reformed and Arminian theology does not lie in the doctrine of TD. Note that it is because of the federal headship of Adam that all men are naturally born into this condition of total depravity.
Therefore, would you like to rephrase your comment about "if someone else were in the garden"? Do you truly think that if anyone else were in the garden, they would choose and do differently than Adam did?
I'm not talking about hypothetical ability. We both agree that pre-fall Adam had the moral capability of choosing either for or against God. The fact is, Adam chose against God.
Do you think that someone else WOULD (not could, but WOULD) choose for God, if they had been the first man in the Garden?
Thanks!
(PS, Michael, no worries at all-- speak your mind)
I would suggest that the fallenness of man is a subtraction -- not an addition-- to the imago Dei.
That said... if being created with imago Dei speaks to our nature, as you suggest... then what does the choice Adam made in the garden suggest about the nature of God?
Can God choose to sin? May it never be!
So the point of God changing our nature (from a spiritually dead person to a spiritually alive person) is likely the point at which we stop walking away from Christ and start walking toward him, even if we are not aware of this event.
It depends on what you mean by a subtraction. There are things that are different because of the fall. Our life expectancy, our desire (or lack thereof) for righteousness. But one must be careful how the subtraction is defined. That is why "broken" (or "fallen") is better than "subtraction" because it is less likely to be misapplied.
That said... if being created with imago Dei speaks to our nature, as you suggest... then what does the choice Adam made in the garden suggest about the nature of God?
That God and man can make choices.
(Note I don't think that the power of choice is the sole factor of the imago Dei)
Can God choose to sin? May it never be!
No, but then it is impossible for God to sin because sin is choosing contrary to God and God cannot choose contrary to God. It is a logical impossibility. But God can make choices. He was not limited in what kinds of animals he made on the earth, or the number of planets in our solar system.
I promised to return to this. Perhaps this is what we see as common grace. I think that God desires all men (that is every single person ever born) to be with him in heaven. There is Scripture to support this.
The difference between us is that if you took my view your question would be, "then why is not everyone in heaven as surely God could arrange this being his will"; whereas I don't think God can arrange this if we are to also be free to choose for God or against him.
Yes and no. The second part is correct, but that does not imply equality. God gains more glory from those he offers mercy to. God would offer mercy to all who would accept it, that is to those who repent from wicked living. To those who reject his offer he will still gain glory, though through judgment; but he would still rather they had chosen his mercy.
Mercy triumphs over judgment!
theojunkie Do you think that someone else WOULD (not could, but WOULD) choose for God, if they had been the first man in the Garden?
Briefly, I would consider this a possibility.
Undoubtedly so. That is not under debate. C view of God selecting some to Hell is what is not glorifying( based on my current understanding of C)
Election and predestination I think are for another discussion... (and the above is too, really).
LOL you r right as usual, Theo. My dad claims that girls can’t stay on topic.. My comments were aimed at ;) and directed to Michael.
I agree.
I tried to give you a slight hint about preacherese and vagueness that used to plaque your posts and make them pointless and largely ignored - something that brilliant man like you doesnt deserve. And compliment you on recently overcoming it .
I mentioned other authors to make the hint as gentle as possible, as God forbid not to offend you.
your remark about Arminians lack of understanding the eternal purpose of Elect made me think about the problem i also see with the eternal purpose of unelect in C view.
God bless you richly,
O
So the point of God changing our nature (from a spiritually dead person to a spiritually alive person) is likely the point at which we stop walking away from Christ and start walking toward him, even if we are not aware of this event.
That's exactly what happens. It is instant, and because we are still WE (I am still ME) after the event, we don't perceive that anything has been done to us at all... we just know that we have "changed our minds" on the matter.
sin is choosing contrary to God and God cannot choose contrary to God
Again, exactly right. Now apply this concept to post-fall man.
But God can make choices.
OF course. And so do we humans. But see above.
God says that he desires "mercy, not sacrifice."
He does not say that he desires "mercy, not justice."
..................
Briefly, I would consider this a possibility.
Before you affix this to your worldview, I encourage you to play out the logical ramifications of such an outcome... particularly as it refers to the glory of Christ.
Note: I do not mean to merely wax philosophical. But consider the scripturally logical ramifications. Particularly with regard to Christ's statements of his eternal purpose in John and in Revelation.
Undoubtedly so. That is not under debate.
I appreciate that. Thank you!
C view of God selecting some to Hell
Note, I am a Calvinist, and I consider that God only selects (elects) people to salvation.
There are some calvinists who would disagree with me on this and affirm the view you don't like. But note: regardless of who is right on this issue, the question of whether God elects people to hell is not a "mark of Calvinism" (as evidenced by the internal debate).
.... and I do not affirm your assertion regarding girls and trouble with sticking to topics. I'm not a girl. :o)
I suggest each invest in commodities, ah, wood, and start building your ark! :)
Bethyada, you wrote to TheoJ this:
[[No, but then it is impossible for God to sin because sin is choosing contrary to God and God cannot choose contrary to God. It is a logical impossibility. But God can make choices. He was not limited in what kinds of animals he made on the earth, or the number of planets in our solar system.]]
Consider this about what you wrote, that above:
Indeed God, Good, Pure, Holy, Sinless, Eternal, cannot choose contrary to God.
YES! YES! YES!
Adam, created "good" is not like God in that we see and realize he can choose contrary to himself.
Is not partaking of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil a choice contrary to himself?
He is good and created good.
Here might be the camel to swallow?
God created Adam. God did not CREATE JESUS born of Adam.
When Jesus came into the world through the life exchanges of Adam and Eve and according to Promise, He was not a created being, only a body was created for His Eternal Being to dwell.
Adam was not created with the ability to overcome Satan's will.
Christ came into this world to destroy the devil and the power of sin in the flesh controlled by the devil's will!
When Adam was tempted in the garden, a prophecy was being fulfilled, albeit, it was not clear at the time. It is clear now, at this time, for those who want to know it.
Adam was created for God's "eternal purpose" to be carried out through this creature, made a little lower than the angels, not the demons,remember?
Are demons lower than angels?
YES, YES, YES.
And we learn from Hebrews this about that:
Heb 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
Heb 1:4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
Heb 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"? Or again, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son"?
Heb 1:6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."
and:
Heb 1:13 And to which of the angels has he ever said, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet"?
Heb 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?
and:
Heb 2:6 It has been testified somewhere, "What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him?
Heb 2:7 You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor,
Heb 2:8 putting everything in subjection under his feet." Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him.
Heb 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
and finally:
Heb 2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,
Heb 2:15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.
Heb 2:16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham.
Heb 2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
Heb 2:18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.
Bethyada,
care to comment on this then?
I will try to ponder that unceasingly so as to float up to heaven on your kindness and word remarks! :)
Have you spoken to my wife?
As she would not undoubtedly consider me brilliant!
She is having second thoughts about her choice too! :) But, til death do we part! I have offered to go first! She simply smiles!
seeing there are so many comments at the other post, difference maker I choose to post your remarks here and pick it up here.
Bethyada: [[Those who are not in the Book of Life are those who have not chosen Christ. This does not mean God had never wooed them, you are presupposing that whoever God woos chooses righteousness, I don't subscribe to that proposal.]]
Bethyada, there is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning here. And as one as I am I will answer this flaw with Scripture and ask you "who" is doing "what"??
Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus declared, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;
Mat 11:26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.
Mat 11:27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
Mat 11:28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Secondly, let's be clear about it, you wrote this ascribing this to me and my presuppositions about everything "Life"/life/life/life:::>
[....you are presupposing that whoever God woos chooses righteousness....]
No, I am not. I am asserting Biblically now, that God woos the Elect "only".
Now when we come to resistable and irresistable grace and what one who is being "wooed" by God does, there seems to me that the Elect go through some mighty terrible experiences before they ultimately come to "Salvation". For instance, explain what Paul is saying here:
1Co 5:3 For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing.
1Co 5:4 When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus,
1Co 5:5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
That Judas, son of perdition, by the way of digression here, [who knew he was the son of perdition?], his office was reassigned to another:
Act 1:15 In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said,
Act 1:16 "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.
Act 1:17 For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry."
Act 1:18 (Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.
Act 1:19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
Act 1:20 "For it is written in the Book of Psalms, "'May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it'; and "'Let another take his office.'
Act 1:21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Act 1:22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us--one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection."
Act 1:23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias.
Act 1:24 And they prayed and said, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen
Act 1:25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place."
Act 1:26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Neither you nor I can fully "know" these matters about which I write and it is precisely for that reason I note them, not for debatable controversy between you and me, just simply to point out that we obviously are in differening opinions about some presuppositions.
I am open to learn from you. You will need to explain yourself better with what you wrote I noted above though as you can read what followed shows you that I disagree with your presuppositional position about my presupposition about "who" God "woos". He does not woo every human being.
Of course it is clear that you believe He does.
To which I cite Scripture and Jesus' own explanation of the weeds and wheat "parable" He tells about the end of time and all that preceded the creation of these present heavens and earth:
Mat 13:10 Then the disciples came and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?"
Mat 13:11 And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.
Those are Jesus' own Words. He clearly infers not all are wooed.
So you still disagree, right? :)
Mat 13:36 Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field."
Mat 13:49 So it will be at the close of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous
Mat 13:50 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 13:51 "Have you understood all these things?" They said to him, "Yes."
By His Grace alone,
michael
you wrote this to Robert:
[The way I see it is that we are initially created with imago Dei which says a lot about our nature. We reason in the image of God.]
Huh?
No we do not. Adam could. Adam lost that creativeness reasoning in God after his fall and he began experiencing what God said He would experience, death, when he partook of the fruit.
Until Christ came, here is the best a fallen human can realize about themself:::>
Gen 6:5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
Gen 6:7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them."
and here:::>
Psa 53:1 To the choirmaster: according to Mahalath. A Maskil of David. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity; there is none who does good.
Psa 53:2 God looks down from heaven on the children of man to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God.
Psa 53:3 They have all fallen away; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.
I guess you just do not want to believe there is no good in human flesh now, huh?
I will say this, God by His Own doing has left in all generations a testimony about His Christ.
It is not until after the Resurrection that Jesus Himself could promise this and humanity could experience that that they did:
Act 1:6 So when they had come together, they asked him, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?"
Act 1:7 He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.
Act 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."
Act 1:9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.
Act 1:10 And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes,
Act 1:11 and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."
Here are a couple of quotes full of "life" I read at another's blog this morning. I cite them here from Seth's blog, Contend Earnestly.
The first question that we put to the text is not what does this say to or about us, but the first question that we take to the text is how does this text testify to Jesus. I say it again, that the Christian life is defined by our relationship to Jesus so until we understand who and what Jesus is, we cannot properly understand what our relationship to him is.
Graeme Goldsworthy (from his book, Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture)
The bible is not a collection of Aesop's fables, it is not a book of virtues. It is a story about how God saves us. Any exposition of a text that does not get to Christ but just explains biblical principles will be a synagogue sermon that merely exhorts people to exert their wills to live according to a particular pattern. Instead of the life giving gospel, the sermon offers just one more ethical paradigm to crush the listeners.
Tim Keller
by His Grace alone
michael
As she would not undoubtedly consider me brilliant!
I already marveled at that -she must be a real angel to put up with your occasionally way too florid rhetorical style .
I truly meant my compliments to you, as well as my honest critique of you, my dear friend.
:) Glad you take it well.
But note: regardless of who is right on this issue, the question of whether God elects people to hell is not a "mark of Calvinism" (as evidenced by the internal debate).
You mean that veiw of God electing some to Hell is also present in various flavors of freewill theology, as well? But in FW the basis for the election would be their own choice.
I guess i am diverting from the main issue currently debated, sorry for that :)
I am more interested now in this whole meghillah with Adam's headship, that Dan made in the new post.
and I do not affirm your assertion regarding girls and trouble with sticking to topics. I'm not a girl.
Glad to hear you dont affirm it -
it actually was my dad's assertion :)
if i remember correctly from last year talk with you on CW you have at least one daughter and a wife - so i presume your view on girls abilities to stick to subjects is just as valid as his.
He does not say that he desires "mercy, not justice."
I wrote "Mercy triumphs over judgment." I stand by that statement.
bethyada sin is choosing contrary to God and God cannot choose contrary to God
theojunkie Again, exactly right. Now apply this concept to post-fall man.
You are missing the point. Whatever God chooses is not contrary to God's will because God's will is what he chooses by definition and sin is contrary to God's will by definition. God could make a multitude of choices all of which are different. God is not compelled to make any one choice. This we should both agree on.
Man's opinion and decisions do not decide righteousness and evil, these are objective to us. I claim that man can make many different possible decisions, some of these are contrary to God, ie. sin. But we can make God choices (at least Adam could) fallen man has a tendency to make the wrong ones and does not choose after God without God helping him to do so. It is just that I think fallen man can either accept or reject God's prompting to do right.
bethyada But God can make choices.
theojunkie OF course. And so do we humans. But see above.
We both claim this. From the last thread I cannot see how your deterministic view of God leaves man with genuine ability to choose God.
So theojunkie says that man cannot choose contrary to his nature and natamllc claims that man can choose contrary to his nature?
All I claim is that man (including unfallen Adam) can choose contrary to God who defines sin.
When Adam was tempted in the garden, a prophecy was being fulfilled, albeit, it was not clear at the time. It is clear now, at this time, for those who want to know it.
No.
Adam was created for God's "eternal purpose" to be carried out through this creature, made a little lower than the angels, not the demons,remember?
Are demons lower than angels?
YES, YES, YES.
How is this relevant? And demons are not intrinsically lower than angels, they are angels. Eternally they will be damned but that is not how they were made.
And we learn from Hebrews this about that:
If this is your pre-Adamic prophecy you are incorrect. This first verse of Hebrews talks about God talking to our fathers, this means people from Adam onwards. This is defending the supremacy of Christ over the angels, not discussing any pre-Adamic prophecy.
I am not certain how far we are getting with my concept of God wooing all men so I might put it on hold currently. I would suggest you interact more with less texts rather than throwing in more prooftexts. I read the texts you use and do not find they disagree with what I think so the issue here is not that I dispute the Bible, rather what we think various passages mean.
I do not think all men will be saved. Evidence of outcome that you provide does not contradict the Arminian position. The issues relate to who God desires to come to him, how he does that, whether we can choose to accept or reject him, how depraved we are and what we can and cannot do in that state, and whether we can fall away from faith after accepting Christ.
huh?
you wrote:[So theojunkie says that man cannot choose contrary to his nature and natamllc claims that man can choose contrary to his nature?]
I believe if you weigh carefully what each of us said, you will find we said the same thing and you got it wrong.
Adam, the only sinless human to ever be on planet earth was not "hardwired" to resist Satan's will.
If he was so created by Our Sinless, Holy, Perfect in All Ways God, Adam would have resisted Satan's will.
Adam succumbed to Satan's will and Christ did not.
The Eternal Purpose is in there.
I do believe you and I are on a difference of opinion plain here so it would be better therefore to touch on things we agree on, like Jesus Christ died, rose again and is coming back again.
This is the Gospel:
1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
1Co 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
Do you agree with that assertion Paul makes to his brothers?
here is my response posted here because you brought it in here and over at your blog too, true paradigm.
Bethyada,
you wrote: God does not desire evil nor ordain evil.
Let me edit your sentence and make two of them from that one and see if we can agree on that then?
God, now modified by your modification DOES NOT DESIRE EVIL.
God does ordain evil and Bethyada's modification makes it clear.
Does that clear up the challenge to your earlier double assertions, [God does not desire evil nor ordain evil.]?
Again, I will again assert that God does ordain evil.
michael
you responded to my comment:
bethyada: [Are demons lower than angels?
YES, YES, YES.
How is this relevant?]
Very relevant.
Care to take a stab at Genesis 1:2?
Let me ask you a question, before verse 1:1 and up to Genesis 3 and the fall incident, does the Scripture reveal anywhere that God "creates" darkness?
Now though, after the fall, pre-determined by God to occur, as you quoted from Isaiah 45, God does withhold light allowing for the consequences of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil to happen or take it's course within these created heavens and earth.
Ah, as for the prophesy quib, no, those verses in Hebrews should help you find your place and position before God, Elect Angels, demons, the Elect and the reprobates.
Again, offer something that equivocates regeneration then.
you wrote: [I truly meant my compliments to you, as well as my honest critique of you, my dear friend.
:) Glad you take it well.]
Let me without hesitation apologize to you if you felt at all abridged by my comments.
I know I can be a cluts and bumpie. Even with sincerity it still does not take away the experience!
I am sorry!! Please forgive me?
You mean that veiw of God electing some to Hell is also present in various flavors of freewill theology, as well?
No, Calvinists differ among Calvinists as to whether God elected both the saved and the reprobate... or whether He elected only the saved.
I wrote "Mercy triumphs over judgment." I stand by that statement.
I don't want to derail this particular thread... briefly, please note that James was addressing humans, and particularly believers.... instructing them as to how they are to behave toward other humans. He was not making a proclamation about how God approached election or God's desires regarding the entirety of humanity.
Whatever God chooses is not contrary to God's will because God's will is what he chooses by definition
No... God chooses according to his will. The choice is the product of the will. Same for humans.
But otherwise yes-- the two go hand in hand. This statement then seems like the equivalent of saying "up is up because it is up"
Man has the genuine ability to choose anything he wants. FALLEN man simply does not want anything to do with God. Therefore, he will never choose God even if given an eternity to mull it over. He must be changed if he is to desire God.
now I realize what the problem is with this word of yours:
O:[I tried to give you a slight hint]
Ah, maybe it is because you tried?
But rather, I am like the horse, no the mule instead, seeing I do not like to bridle my tongue, ah, fingers thinking what I am going to type out next! :)
Go ahead and swing lady, hard swings do make it through to what little grey matter might be there inside my thick skull!
Did you say you liked big ears?
maybe we can agree that "woo" and "reconcile" mean differently?
Here is reconcile which I know you agree with it in this context:
Col 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
Here we read that God Our Heavenly Father "reconciles" ""all"" things to Himself through the Cross of Christ.
That does not mean God is wooing all to spend eternity with Them and the Elect in Paradise.
For me, reconcile, in this context simply means God is being Wise with His Own Wisdom in all matters before Him. For us, of course, all those matters have been wisely dealt with already! :) Jesus did say, you must be "changed", as in, born again changed. The old nature falls off when it expires. The new man, conjoined to Christ by this change God makes by His Sovereignty, His Choice, lives on clothed with a heavenly body!
Now, for the remaining time in this life/bios, I too can receive and live/zao this admonition from the Apostle in the life/zoe of Christ Himself:
2Ti 2:3 Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.
2Ti 2:4 No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him.
2Ti 2:5 An athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.
2Ti 2:6 It is the hard-working farmer who ought to have the first share of the crops.
2Ti 2:7 Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything.
By His Grace and His Faith then!
aren't you being very very generous now, ah, God letting man take eternity to mull it over? :)
In one sense God does give some an eternity to mull... not that they mull, but they do get an eternity.
In another sense (and the sense I meant), giving them an eternity to mull is pointless because they won't do any more mulling than they do at the moment.... left to their own natural self interests.
yes and amen.
One time I was out door to door "witnessing", foolish, I know, or maybe not?:}, but anyway I knocked on this door and an old woman, very well dignified in her way and demeanor opened the door smiling. She must have thought I was someone else? Well, anyway, I handed her a brochure that was craftily designed to get her to read it and ask questions, which she did, happily for me! I put another notch in my, successful people I witnessed to that day belt.
After reading it, pausing, sizing up the situation, she looked me right in the eye and said "young man, let me tell you a thing or two about this Jesus and religion and and and". Boy, was I in for a treat, ah, a piece of her mind!!!
What do you do when you are out aged and out wised and out outed?
Basically she said this that her belief is when the "last" page of her predetermined lifebook is turned, which she was a bit reluctant to talk about, the turning of that last page, although I was very willing!, there would be no thought or "mulling" over things, as you so kindly and graciously describe what one does when they leave the present heavens and earth and all her glory for the next reality of life.
She was convinced that there is no after life and no after thought. She believed it is all about here and now and when it is over its over!
It was over then as there was nothing left to do but proclaim the Gospel and let it do its perfect work as Paul describes it in Colossians:
Col 1:3 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,
Col 1:4 since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love that you have for all the saints,
Col 1:5 because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel,
Col 1:6 which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing--as it also does among you, since the day you heard it and understood the grace of God in truth,
Oh well, thanks for your brightess in His Grace, Mercy and Truth!
10 "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven
and do not return there but water the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout,
giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
11so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.
Isa 66:18 "For I know their works and their thoughts, and the time is coming to gather all nations and tongues. And they shall come and shall see my glory,
Isa 66:19 and I will set a sign among them. And from them I will send survivors to the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, who draw the bow, to Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands far away, that have not heard my fame or seen my glory. And they shall declare my glory among the nations.
Isa 66:20 And they shall bring all your brothers from all the nations as an offering to the LORD, on horses and in chariots and in litters and on mules and on dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the LORD, just as the Israelites bring their grain offering in a clean vessel to the house of the LORD.
Isa 66:21 And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the LORD.
Isa 66:22 "For as the new heavens and the new earth that I make shall remain before me, says the LORD, so shall your offspring and your name remain.
Isa 66:23 From new moon to new moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before me, declares the LORD.
Isa 66:24 "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."
I see no equivocation here but regeneration to one and wrath to the other!