Hodge on Ephesians 1:17-19
Hodge argues for effectual calling based on Ephesians 1:17-19. He claims that the passage teaches the regeneration is monergistic, so it proves God's call is effectual. Here's the passage:
Ephesians 1:17-19
17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, 18 the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power.
Hodge has several problems. First, the passage teaches sanctification, not regeneration. It's dealing with living the Christian life and growing in grace, not conversion. Second, even if the passage were teaching that regeneration is monergistic, this wouldn't prove that God's call is effectual. I agree regeneration, strictly defined, is monergistic. But broadly defined, regeneration is synergistic - which leaves room for resistible grace.
Let's look at Hodges' reasoning. Hodge claims:
The great majority of commentators, Greek as well as Latin, Protestant as well as Catholic, ancient as well as modern, understand the passage to refer to the conversion or regeneration of believers. (link)
This statement is plainly wrong. Hodge states as much in his commentary on Ephesians:
He prays that God would give them that wisdom and knowledge of himself of which the Spirit is the author, v. 17; that their eyes might be enlightened properly to apprehend the nature and value of that hope which is founded in the call of God; and the glory of the inheritance to be enjoyed among the saints, v. 18; and the greatness of that power which had been already exercised in their conversion, v. 19. (link)
How interesting. In his commentary he states conversion has already happened, but in his systematic theology he claims the topic is conversion. His commentary is dated 1856 and his systematic theology is dated 1871. Perhaps he changed his mind over time.
But the scripture itself is clear that the Ephesians Paul prayed for were already believers.
15 Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, 16 do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers:
I really am surprised Hodge appeals to this passage. Paul is praying that God reveal Himself more and more to Christians. How does this prove irresistible grace during conversion?
Ephesians 1:17-19
17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, 18 the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power.
Hodge has several problems. First, the passage teaches sanctification, not regeneration. It's dealing with living the Christian life and growing in grace, not conversion. Second, even if the passage were teaching that regeneration is monergistic, this wouldn't prove that God's call is effectual. I agree regeneration, strictly defined, is monergistic. But broadly defined, regeneration is synergistic - which leaves room for resistible grace.
Let's look at Hodges' reasoning. Hodge claims:
The great majority of commentators, Greek as well as Latin, Protestant as well as Catholic, ancient as well as modern, understand the passage to refer to the conversion or regeneration of believers. (link)
This statement is plainly wrong. Hodge states as much in his commentary on Ephesians:
He prays that God would give them that wisdom and knowledge of himself of which the Spirit is the author, v. 17; that their eyes might be enlightened properly to apprehend the nature and value of that hope which is founded in the call of God; and the glory of the inheritance to be enjoyed among the saints, v. 18; and the greatness of that power which had been already exercised in their conversion, v. 19. (link)
How interesting. In his commentary he states conversion has already happened, but in his systematic theology he claims the topic is conversion. His commentary is dated 1856 and his systematic theology is dated 1871. Perhaps he changed his mind over time.
But the scripture itself is clear that the Ephesians Paul prayed for were already believers.
15 Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, 16 do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers:
I really am surprised Hodge appeals to this passage. Paul is praying that God reveal Himself more and more to Christians. How does this prove irresistible grace during conversion?
Comments
I know you are on a quest to prove something.
Could you be succinct about it here. What's the point here?
Be Lutheran for a moment and bring this down to earth so I can understand your point.
While you are at it, would you kindly comment on Paul's unusal words here?:::>
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.
If
A) there is only one energy that can possibly be involved
and
B) that energy is applied
then either
C) an effect is achieved
or
D) there is no hope of ever beeing an effect by that energy.
Conversely:
If
A) an effect is observed to occur
and
B) only one source of energy is available
then
C) that energy is effectual
I agree regeneration, strictly defined, is monergistic. But broadly defined, regeneration is synergistic - which leaves room for resistible grace.
Either there is one energy responsible for the effect, or there are more than one energies responsible for the effect.
The chair is either in the office, or not in the office... not both.
The leopard can either change his spots, or he cannot. If we know that leopards cannot change their spots, and we observe a leopards spots change, then we must conclude that some other source of energy outside himself caused his spots to change.
theojunkie Either there is one energy responsible for the effect, or there are more than one energies responsible for the effect.
The chair is either in the office, or not in the office... not both.
theojunkie, he is saying that regeneration has more than one meaning. An "office" within an "office" (block) if you will. The chair is inside the greater office, but outside the CFO's office.
and
B) that energy is applied
then either
C) an effect is achieved
or
D) there is no hope of ever beeing an effect by that energy.
Think of it like we are offered the choice of turning the switch on. It is monergistic in that the only source of power is God's not ours, it is synergistic in that we are involved in whether we turn the switch on or leave it off. We are not the source of the energy, but we can refuse to have the lights on if we are stubborn.
Light On = Regeneration
Electricity = God's grace
Switch = human will
Flipping the Switch = human choice
Then, regeneration is not MONergistic, but SYNergistic.
When more than one are involved, then it is cannot-- by definition-- be "mono".
This is not a "both and" or "in one sense or the other" situation. If the human will is involved in ANY capacity in regeneration, then regeneration is synergistic. No two ways about it.
Regeneration has only one meaning. That is: "Generated Again"... a.k.a., reborn, re-created.
You either have something to do with it... or you do not.
When you were born, did your mother have to wait till you gave the go-ahead before she went into labor?
How about when you were conceived?
Why do you think the Bible refers to regeneration in terms of a new "birth"?
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,
Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
I want you to imagine for a moment all of you reading this going back in time to moments after Adam ate the death fruit and God called to Adam and the three discussions that followed. God has finally spoken to the serpent and Cain and Abel are well on their way now experiencing death and the curses. We have a video recorder and a microphone device. We approach Adam and ask him what the "feeling and sensation" of death is like?
What would Adam say?
Would it be something like this?
What I had before I ate the death fruit I now sense and understand and know I do not have now. This is death. I am going to die a natural death. Now I know I know I know death. Now I have "Hope".
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.
Mankind bombarded by outside forces of hopelessness falls away from this Adamic "Hope" and turns to senseless fruit dieting on Death.
1Co 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
Adam ate and did die and when they had relations, every soul after was without something because of the death Adam experienced.
The only thing Adam could naturally give souls that came from him is "Hope".
Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it--
Rom 3:22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:
Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Rom 3:24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Rom 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
and
Rom 5:9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
Rom 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.
Rom 5:11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--
Rom 5:13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
The Bible refers regeneration as the new "birth" because it places us into the family of God as children of God, just as physical birth places us into the family of our parents as children of our parents.
seeing you and I at least are pointing to "Hope", you wrote Theoj this:
[The Bible refers regeneration as the new "birth" because it places us into the family of God as children of God, just as physical birth places us into the family of our parents as children of our parents.]
I want to edit it with these additions and ask you if this is indeed what you meant then?
Michael's edit of Truehope's: The Bible refers regeneration as the new "birth" because it/[The Holy Ghost] places us into the family of God as children of God [by His, that is, the Holy Ghost's work, cf 1Peter 1:2], just as physical birth places us into the family of our parents as children of our parents [because God formed me in the depths of the earth].
Psa 139:11 If I say, "Surely the darkness shall cover me, and the light about me be night,"
Psa 139:12 even the darkness is not dark to you; the night is bright as the day, for darkness is as light with you.
Psa 139:13 For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
Psa 139:14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.
Psa 139:15 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
Psa 139:16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.
Psa 139:17 How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them!
Was that kind of what you meant Truehope?
And of course you did not mean to imply the devil had anything to do with it as Jesus opens the door for TrueBelievers, TrueHopers to understand that the devil also sows weeds too?
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 13:38 The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one,
Mat 13:39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels.
The Three created of One, another, now two come together and sometimes she, as the woman I heard about yesterday, can have seven!
Most of the time there is just one, though! :)
So could one conclude that the Three made the two and from the one seven came forth?
Yes or no??
What?!
:)
ps, the Minister of the Interior promised on behalf of the entire nation the family free food and diapers for two years! Maybe it is synergism then? Two years of free food and diapers! Why not one year? Why? why? why?.
The Bible refers regeneration as the new "birth" because it places us into the family of God as children of God, just as physical birth places us into the family of our parents as children of our parents.
Do you suppose there is any parallelism (with regard to our choices in our own births) between the new birth and the original birth?
What, to you, is the meaning and significance of Jesus' dialogue with Nicodemus in John 3? (...As it relates to the new birth in relation to the old birth, who is involved, who acts, who is acted upon, and in what sense...)
Thanks
The answer is 43.
You asked:
1) Do you suppose there is any parallelism (with regard to our choices in our own births) between the new birth and the original birth?
2) What, to you, is the meaning and significance of Jesus' dialogue with Nicodemus in John 3? (...As it relates to the new birth in relation to the old birth, who is involved, who acts, who is acted upon, and in what sense...)
My answer:
1) No, because that is not the intended parallelism. The intended parallelism is in being born into an earthly family (old birth), compared to being born into God's family (new birth).
2) Nicodemus, despite being a devout Pharisee who is a teacher of Israel, is still in a state of spiritual separation from God. The remedy of spiritual separation is the new birth, an act of God on the believer in which He puts the believer into His family as a child of God, a child not born of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
come on, please address my words too! I am feeling left out, right?
Now, now, that's not nice. Jesus said to love, even your enemies and surely you do not count me as one of your enemies? :)
Truehope,
Do you believe God knows the end from the beginning and knows who are the "Sons" of God from the beginning?
Deu 32:7 Remember the days of old; consider the years of many generations; ask your father, and he will show you, your elders, and they will tell you.
Deu 32:8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.
Hodge distinguished between regeneration and "the call".
Regeneration comes first. It changes our nature from a God hater to a God lover. Before regeneration all we do is refuse the call, but after regeneration we are all primed up and God could knock us over with a feather.
After regeneration, God calls us and we respond.
Explained this way regeneration and the call are not the same thing. They may be kissing cousins, but the are different. In the broad sense of regeneration, they are the same thing, but in the narrow sense of regeneration they are different.
This is why proving that regeneration is monergisic does not prove the call is effectual. Even if the passage had proven that regeneration was monergisic, it would only have proven something about regeneration and not something about the call.
God be with you,
Dan
Truehope has answered this well. We must be careful about how far we extend analogies. We could end up trying to defend transubstantiation.
Do you agree with Hodge?
I don't think Hodge is necessarily correct with regard to Scripture-- but suppose he is...
1) This seems to be an interesting academic curiosity, but what is the practical value...
and
2) Along with 1, how does his position help the LFW view?
(It appears that even if regeneration is separate from "the call", both would appear to be required prior to coming to faith... for even if it only takes a feather for God to knock us over, He still must knock us with that feather before we will repent and believe. I would note that it appears that Hodge thinks that all who are called will be justified (etc)... Would you suggest that some who God calls are not justified (etc)?)
It would appear that Jesus is the one making the analogy-- or rather, the comparison. Further, it would appear that you and TH are not taking the comparison for what it is (versus me being guilty of overextending an analogy).
And I have no idea what transubstantiation has to do with this conversation or how any reading of John 3 could result in trying to defend that doctrine.
An analogy makes a point. One should seek to find the point being carried over (similar to a metaphor). Carrying over more than one point may be the intention of the speaker, but people should be careful how much they think is being carried over.
Truehope identified the point. Jesus was saying Nicodemus needed to become part of a new family. The family of God. It was Nicodemus who misunderstood him and talked about re-entering his mother's womb. Jesus redirects Nicodemus to things of the Spirit. It is questionable whether the point of someone not choosing his own birth is relevant to the analogy. There are many things about natural birth one could analogise to the spiritual birth and be wrong about.
And I have no idea what transubstantiation has to do with this conversation or how any reading of John 3 could result in trying to defend that doctrine.
Transubstantiation has nothing to do with John 3. It is an example about how wrong theology can develop by insisting on ideas not in the text.
It is about Catholics over reading Jesus' words in John 6. "Jesus meant literal flesh and blood so therefore the wine and bread have to literally become the blood and the flesh even though they still appear like wine and bread." If you don't believe this perhaps you think that the Catholics are stretching the analogy too far.
Look at the passage again. Is there anything that suggests Jesus is implying that this is about whether we choose or God chooses or mothers choose?
Rather the analogy is comparing flesh to spirit,
John 3
3Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4Nicodemus 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?" 5Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."
9Nicodemus said to him, "How can these things be?" 10Jesus answered him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? 11Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. 12If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. 14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
16"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God."
Jesus did not say "Nicodemus, you need to become part of God's family." This passage is not about "rebirth thyself." Neither is it about "get thee adopted."
Rather, it is about what needs to occur before one can see the kingdom of God... and how that occurs. Jesus brought up the subject of birth, not Nicodemus. He started out by saying "unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Is there anything that suggests Jesus is implying that this is about whether we choose or God chooses or mothers choose?
Mothers choosing? I asked whether YOU chose when you would be born (i.e., whether your mother had to wait for YOU to choose before her body pushed you out).
But correct. There is nothing in the passage that says we choose... Rather, the passage explains that we do NOT choose. The explanation is in verse 8.
In addition, I understand and would concur that he is not made of wood and does not have hinges.
You are correct that we should not take analogies (etc) beyond what the speaker intended.
However, we SHOULD take analogies AS far as the speaker intended.
How do you know He does not have wooly feet?
He has wooly hair!
Rev 1:14 The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire,
Rev 1:15 his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters.
OOOPS, I retract only two thirds way then!
would you fairly accept this characterization?:::>
That grace in effectual calling is not efficacious and invincible, but resistible, so that all actual conversions are the joint result of this grace and the sinner's will working abreast. That Christ died equally for the non-elect and the elect, providing an indefinite, universal atonement for all; and that true converts may, and sometimes do, fall away totally and finally from the state of grace and salvation; their perseverance therein depending not on efficacious grace, but on their own free will to continue in gospel duties.
Does Jesus Teach That Regeneration Precedes Faith in John 3:3, 6?
God Bless,
Ben
do you believe Jesus is this:::>
1Co 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
1Co 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
Yes I do, which only confirms my position in my opinion. We can only have life in union with the source of life- Jesus Christ, and we come to be in union with Christ by faith. Calvinism has us being given life outside of vital union with the source of life, and prior to being forgiven (justified), which is theologically absurd.
God Bless,
Ben
I will go into this and then see how you answer the above question.
AP,
predestination, what's your view here?
Now to the "life" giving Spirit of Christ then, I turn to this question.
When Jesus said:
Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me,
Joh 10:15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Joh 10:16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.
Joh 10:17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again.
Joh 10:18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father."
Joh 10:19 There was again a division among the Jews because of these words.
What do you understand He means by that?
And for the next idea, what do you understand is being taught here about "death"?
Eph 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,
Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved--
Eph 2:6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
Eph 2:7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
And would you agree about death that Jesus is the "firstborn from death" while Satan is the firstborn of death"?
Do you agree with Hodge?
No. I think regeneration comes after faith... but not because of faith. God mercifully regenerates the believer.
1) This seems to be an interesting academic curiosity, but what is the practical value...
Learning more about God, salvation... See the logo on the top of the blog...
2) Along with 1, how does his position help the LFW view?
If we can choose either to believe or not, we have LFW. If not, we don't.
Would you suggest that some who God calls are not justified (etc)?
Yes, but those foles are outside the golden chain and not part of the discussion in Romans 8.
God be with you,
Dan
That grace in effectual calling is not efficacious and invincible, but resistible, so that all actual conversions are the joint result of this grace and the sinner's will working abreast. That Christ died equally for the non-elect and the elect, providing an indefinite, universal atonement for all; and that true converts may, and sometimes do, fall away totally and finally from the state of grace and salvation; their perseverance therein depending not on efficacious grace, but on their own free will to continue in gospel duties.
Hum.... Some of that's fairly close. How about this? Grace enables us to choose, but we still have to choose. Make sense?
God be with you,
Dan
Thanks for the link. It was a thoughtful post.
God be with you,
Dan
Be Lutheran for a moment and bring this down to earth so I can understand your point.
What synod? My wife was a lifelong Missouri Synod Lutheran and still is one at heart.
God be with you,
Dan
be whatever, but be down to earth on that one explanation.
Again, maybe I am missing it? How does a dead person, dead in trespasses and sins choose anything? It is God who makes us "alive" in Him. Its His Grace, His Mercy, His Faith, His Word and His Name. He gives His all to me. I give my all, which is nothing, to Him. I am not Jewish, but SUCH A DEAL!
I will say I am just fearful of some of what others say about works when it comes to Arminius.
about Grace, how about this instead?:::>
Rom 7:20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
Rom 7:21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being,
Rom 7:23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.
Rom 7:24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
Rom 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
theojunkie Mothers choosing? I asked whether YOU chose when you would be born (i.e., whether your mother had to wait for YOU to choose before her body pushed you out).
I have already covered that. I wrote we choose, God choose, mothers choose. I was covering all my bases. The analogy is not about choose, it is comparing the flesh to the spirit.
But correct. There is nothing in the passage that says we choose... Rather, the passage explains that we do NOT choose. The explanation is in verse 8.
You misunderstand me. I meant choose or not choose, the idea being is there anything about choice? Not choosing is an issue of choice (or the lack thereof).
Verse 8 is talking about those born of the Spirit, ie. us, not the Holy Spirit.
Thank you, TH for guarding me from thinking Jesus has wooly feet.
In addition, I understand and would concur that he is not made of wood and does not have hinges.
But how do you know that? Catholics think that bread is Christ's flesh.
You are correct that we should not take analogies (etc) beyond what the speaker intended.
However, we SHOULD take analogies AS far as the speaker intended.
Then please dissect the analogy for us and show us how Jesus intends for the meaning of his birth analogy to imply that we don't have any choice in whether we are saved.
theojunkie Mothers choosing? I asked whether YOU chose when you would be born (i.e., whether your mother had to wait for YOU to choose before her body pushed you out).
I have already covered that. I wrote we choose, God choose, mothers choose. I was covering all my bases. The analogy is not about choose, it is comparing the flesh to the spirit.
Mothers do not choose when their babies are born (scheduled C sections excepted)... and babies do not choose when they will be born.
Correct. The analogy IS about being born in the flesh, as compared to being born in the Spirit.
Correct. The analogy is not about the person making a choice in the matter, and in fact shows there is not. Both with it's reference to the natural birth, and the comparison of the Spirit to the blowing wind.
(I hear you that you think the passage has nothing to do with choice. Read it carefully: you will see that it is about choice because it excludes choice.)
please dissect the analogy
In the next comment...
Verse 3: Jesus brings up the concept of being "born again". Note that Nicodemus did not use this term. The concept of a "new birth" -- and therefore inherently, a reference and comparison to the "old/first birth"-- is introduced by Jesus.
Verse 4: Nicodemus either doesn't understand, or is playing dumb in order to draw Jesus out (this is not clear here, but it is irrelevant). But he DOES understand there is a reference in there to the natural birth, because he asks Jesus about climbing back into the womb.
Verse 5: Jesus does not deny the reference to the natural birth. Rather, he affirms the analogy by saying "that which is born of the flesh is flesh" (the natural birth results in unspiritual man)... and "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (the new birth results in spiritual man).
Verse 8: Jesus goes on to explain how the new birth occurs (remember he his responding to Nic's "marveling" about how someone can enter the womb again)... Jesus says, "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."
The wind-- pneuma. A play on words with the same term used for Holy Spirit. The wind-- the Spirit-- goes where IT [HE] wishes. It is the Spirit's choice where He goes.
Further: You hear [His] sound but you do not know where [He] comes from or where [He] goes. In other words, you feel His effect and you know when He is there... but you cannot predict his coming (much less command his coming). Here is a CLEAR analogy between the Spirit and the wind. Nobody can choose the wind into blowing... and likewise, nobody can choose the Spirit into action. And "so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."
So, we have two analogies: one of comparison to the natural birth (and as Nicodemus rightly notes, and is not rebuked for, one cannot choose to climb into the womb again-- and even if one chose and tried to do so, it is just as impossible as choosing to grow wings and fly). The second analogy is incontrovertible, and compares the Spirit's action in the new birth to the wind... clearly stating that, as with the wind, man has zero input as to when or where the wind blows.. and therefore zero input as to when or where the next new birth is going to happen.
Hope this helps.
The first error is that of the calvinist who wants to argue that regeneration precedes faith. The bible does not teach that regeneration precedes faith. The error here is the claim that **regeneration causes or produces faith**. The bible never says this though it makes it clear that regeneration is a supernatural work that God alone does. It appears he does this work at the time when a person is adopted into the family of God (i.e., when they are converted, when they become Christians) because to be saved is also to be regenerate.
The other error sometimes made by noncalvinists is to assume that faith causes or brings about regeneration. since faith precedes regeneration. If regeneration is a supernatural and miraculous action by God (as passages such as John 3 suggest) then it is not caused by or produced by faith.
So regeneration does not produce faith and neither does faith produce regeneration. Faith may precede regeneration but just because it occurs previous to regeneration does not mean that it causes regeneration.
Regeneration is an action God alone does in the lives of His people, His family members, as Truehope has made clear. Faith is our response to the work of the Spirit in revealing Christ to us, showing that Jesus is the way of salvation, that we are sinners and in need of forgiveness for our sins, etc.
Hope that clarification helps this discussion,
Robert
I have never heard any Calvinist claiming that regeneration "causes or produces" faith. So your first error seems to be a moot statement.
Likewise, I have never heard any non-calvinist assuming that faith causes or produces regeneration. Your second error seems therefore also moot.
I also have been in many useless debates, but not regarding either of those two statements.
PS... In my above generalizations I do not include those who have no idea why they believe what they do (i.e., I include only those who are diligent studiers of the Word... who happen usually to be the same people debating these things). I'm sure there are people on earth who think as you suggest, but you don't usually find them in debates except perhaps the occasional troll.
Mat 27:50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.
Mat 27:51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split.
Mat 27:52 The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised,
Mat 27:53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
Mat 27:54 When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, "Truly this was the Son of God!"
And these more interesting verses from the book of Hebrews:
Heb 6:3 And this we will do if God permits.
Heb 11:39 And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised,
Heb 11:40 since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.
Regeneration
Faith
Ok?
Which is which first and second and then more importantly, Why is it an obvious issue for debate between strongly held views of doctrine?
Will an "error" of this kind remove one's Salvation from them living in the "error" of which is which first and second?
thanks for the explanation of your view on John 3.
as for Nic...Judaism is generally not about individ. salvation, rather concern about being in good standing with Father.
Being Born (phys.) into a nation is seen as being elect( special, apple of God’s eye, chosen, saved), Jew generally does not question it, i never ever did.
Sort of taken for granted. As in :
"For you are a holy people unto the Lord your God...,because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers…"
True Jew is concerned about moral life here on earth, not final judgment, which is God’s business. So Nick, coming I presume from the same mindset thought - "Well, the natural birth as a Jew, of course, that is what get us there. Wadda you mean "anew"? Again? How?
Big misunderstanding of Judaism by some - that it teaches salvation by works.Nope, any decent rabbi will prove that by God's mercy only :)
however as for choice i am not convinced we can draw conclusions supporting C or A out of the analogy.I just mentioned that in talking with BY on the prev. thread - of course we can't cause or control our salvation. We cant believe at will, we cant just decide to belive just becasue we want to.I know a few people that want to believe but can't, at this point at least. " ...father, help my unbelief"... How belief comes about it pretty mysterious.
O
I can see your point about the "national identity" mindset that Nic may have been operating under.
However does this not underscore my point (rather than decreasing it)?
Can one decide they want to be born a Jew? (or can a person decide their parents at all?) No... God determines what house a person is born into.
It would appear that again, "so is it with everyone born of the Spirit".