Then please explain what "made alive" means, and why the parenthesis (by grace you have been saved) doesn't relate to being made alive. Simply claiming they are not equated doesn't explain the verse. My explanation is that they ARE equated. Prove why they aren't.
Uh, he mentioned being made alive and being saved, all in the same breath. Why are you ignoring that?
Being made alive means giving life to someone who was dead. Or, alternately, it means creating something new which contains life.
I'm not ignoring anything as you charge. I am addressing your lack of logic in this matter in a direct and courteous manner.
Note the two words that I highlighted in your post above. They are not the same thing. You switch from one word to the other as if they were the same thing. You are wrong.
Relation and equation are on the same thing. I am
related to my mother. I should not be
equated by you to my mother. While it is true that I would not be sitting here without the existence of my Mother. We are not the same thing.
Your explanation that they are "equated" is simply not logically true. The fact that they are mentioned "in the same breath", as you say, has nothing to do with them being equated or not.
Making one alive does not "equate" to salvation.
One is justified and born again by believing and receiving the Word of God (the gospel). Until they do that they are headed for Hell.
For example - I know that you do not believe in election as do I. You disagree with me on that. So be it. I can live with that.
But what I could not live with is your "equating" my being elected to my being saved. This is done quite often here in the forum by those opposing so called Calvinism. They are wrong in doing so. The two words and concepts are "related". But they are not the same. I was, as I see it, elected from before the foundation of the world. But I was not saved until I accepted Christ and was justified in the presence of God because of that faith.
Most Calvinists would be quick to point out that God would not likely give spiritual life to someone who will not eventually be saved. I agree with that notion.
Most pelagians and semi-pelagians on the other hand would take exception to that - believing, as they apparently do, that fallen man is either spiritually alive in the first place or that God gives prevenient grace to all sinners thereby allowing them to understand and respond to the gospel in all cases. (Jesus and Paul said otherwise as I read it.)
Let me give you an admittedly totally off the wall example of the type of illogical reasoning you are employing.
John gave me the last ration of food on the island we were stranded on - thus allowing me to live until I was saved. (By grace I was saved.)
You apparently believe that it is good logic to "equate" being saved to a box of food rations. I do not. The box of rations played such a pivotal part in my being saved that I ecstatically acknowledged John's grace in the telling of the story of my being saved. But my being saved doesn't "equate" to a box of food rations. I would not have lived until being saved without the food. But much more went into my delivery than that box of food.
You are saying (erroneously) that being regenerated "equates" to being saved. You are simply wrong in your logic. Being regenerated played such a pivotal in the salvation process that it caused Paul to give credit where credit is due (God's grace in regeneration). Without that totally unmerited act of grace we could not have even understood the gospel let alone respond to it favorably.
But one is not "saved" by being regenerated. One is justified and allowed to come into God's presence only because of faith not regeneration. They are not the same theological concept - as you should and probably do know.
So then, if Paul didn't equate being made alive with being saved, then it should follow that one can exist without the other. is that your view? Can one be saved who isn't regenerated, or can one be regenerated without being saved?
Dead men cannot understand the gospel rightly - let alone respond in a God pleasing manner without being first made alive. Jesus and Paul both tell us that.
As to whether people who are made alive can remain in that state without eventually being saved - the Bible tells us that all men, including the reprobate, will be made alive and face God directly some day. Not all will be saved.
But - more directly related to what you are asking - the scriptures say that God opened Lydia's heart to receive the gospel. But Lydia was not saved until receiving the gospel. The sentence structure definitely indicates a sequential series of events. God acted so that she could respond to the gospel. She heard the gospel. She responded to the gospel and was saved.
Beyond what I have been given - I cannot go in understanding things in the spiritual realm.
My view is simple: Paul equated the 2 phrases./QUOTE]
Your view is simply wrong. Paul praises God for the grace that He extends to undeserving sinners by making them alive and able to respond and be saved through faith. But He does not "equate" regeneration with faith. The two are related, in that saving faith cannot occur without regeneration. But they are not "equated" by Paul.
Please note --- Lest we go too far off the original subject. You have said originally that, since salvation comes "through faith", it follows that regeneration comes "through faith" since ---- as you erroneously argue --- Paul "equates" being saved with regeneration.
That is the point of all this back and forth - lest anyone miss the point.
The idea that regeneration comes through faith stands and falls on the concept that salvation and regeneration are the same thing.
They are not the same. Therefore you premise is flawed from the jump.