Sanctification & Calvinism

[fhansen]

The reasoning by which you derive your doctrine somehow left out the reasoning that by removing God as first cause of all subsequent causes and effects, you have relegated destiny to the actions of mere chance —which is patently absurd. It is logically self-contradictory.

No I haven't. I've left destiny in the hands of those He's relegated their destiny to. We can say no to God, to grace. I've maintained that He allows without directly causing their choices. Again, if you say this is impossible then you insist that God cannot make a morally accountable being. He must overhaul them first instead in order for them to make a right choice. And that is simply untrue-He does not regenerate us against our wills as we are prior to regeneration, even though He draws and appeals to and moves us towards Himself prior to that event. But we can still say no. And even after rebirth we can die again, we can return to the flesh. Sin is intrinsically opposed to God's will. His overall purpose has always been to patiently steer His creation into willing rectitude as they-as we-come to see the error of our ways and the superiorty of His, of Him.

 

[GDL]

The Scriptures throughout teach that Sanctification is definitely synergistic (Philippians 2:12-13).

Informative post. Nice work.

I'd add to it or modify it just a bit, especially based upon these verses: Salvation is definitely synergistic (Philippians 2:12-13).

 

[Clare73]

That's no strawman. Read the rest of my post. The answer to sin/evil in your scenario is that God changes someone so that they no longer prefer sin/evil.

They no longer prefer unbelief, the gospel is no longer foolisheness to them (1 Co 2:14).

 

[Mark Quayle]

No I haven't. I've left destiny in the hands of those He's relegated their destiny to. We can say no to God, to grace. I've maintained that He allows without directly causing their choices. Again, if you say this is impossible then you insist that God cannot make a morally accountable being. He must overhaul them first instead in order for them to make a right choice. And that is simply untrue-He does not regenerate us against our wills as we are prior to regeneration, even though He draws and appeals to and moves us towards Himself prior to that event. But we can still say no. And even after rebirth we can die again, we can return to the flesh. Sin is intrinsically opposed to God's will. His overall purpose has always been to patiently steer His creation into willing rectitude as they-as we-come to see the error of our ways and the superiorty of His, of Him.

You don't seem to yet understand— that if it is up to us, mere creatures that we are, then something acted upon us in order for it to be possible that we choose what we do choose. It does not happen in a vacuum.

By eliminating in your mind 'God as causal of all things', you are implying one of two things:

1) Either we are miniature first causes, each possessing in and of ourselves a certain virtue (or negative of virtue), some of us better than others, again, in and of ourselves.
2) That each of us is what we are and do what we do by mere chance.

Both the above are contrary to scripture and contrary to logic.

 

[GDL]

It is better to say that we 'participate' in sanctification, but not 'co-operate' with God in it.

Why? What's the difference the way you see it?

I'm left wondering why Philippians 2:12-13 is translated and discussed as it is. It seems theologically translated instead of literally translated:

• "work out" is a word that means to accomplish by work. Actually, in this intensified spelling I see the emphasis on the accomplishment [by work] vs. the work [to accomplish} which is the same word but non-prefixed. This word is not translated as "work out" in any other verse.
• The word some are saying is "sanctification" is actually "salvation". Once again, it seems another theological translation (actually a change in wording) sneaks in.
• The word translated as God "works" in you is not the usual word for "work". It has a more literal meaning of "operates, functions, to be in action". The Greek is "energeo" which obviously would transliterate to "energy" or verbally to "energize".

IMO, the picture is very clear in a literal translation apart from soteriological concerns about works salvation issues:

• God is functioning/operating in us so we both will and do what pleases Him. He is supplying the energy, the drive, so to speak.
• We in turn obediently cooperate with Him with the energy He provides.
• With Him operating in us (primary) we cooperate with Him (secondary) to accomplish [by work] our Salvation (provided solely by Him) in fear and trembling (with reverence and respect and obedience to Him not to work at cross-purposes to Him or against Him).

IMO there's way too much caution to avoid the concept of works salvation. This is not in cross purposes to Eph2 which speaks of being made alive from the dead (regeneration) and provided with the entirety of His Plan to place us in Christ - made alive together with Him, raised together with Him, seated together with Hm.

Paul is not arguing against Paul. Paul is explaining with literal wording that we could not devise God's Salvation, could not regenerate ourselves, could not provide our future with Christ in Christ so God did it by grace and made it available to us through Faith. Once regenerate we cooperate with Him to accomplish our Salvation (gifted to us through faith) with Him being the primary cause and force enabling us to accomplish what He commands us to accomplish. I also agree with the synergism in our initial salvation, but that's not what this post is primarily about.

I'd be interested to know why you see participation vs. cooperation.

 

[GDL]

I never said it didn't, but it clearly says that God is the one at work in us to work out our salvation.

If I'm reading you correctly, in essence: God is the one working out our salvation, this is not what Paul says in Philippians 2:12-13 as I just explained in my previous post.

 

[GDL]

They no longer prefer unbelief, the gospel is no longer foolisheness to them (1 Co 2:14).

You seem to be mixing contextual meaning:

In the beginning of 1Cor2 Paul says their faith was based upon preaching and a demonstration of the Spirit and power. This is clearly the Word of God being presented with signs and miracles to substantiate the message being proclaimed. In these verses there is no regeneration evidenced in order to hear or see the message and power of God.

By the time Paul gets to 1Cor2:14 he has switched in 2:6 to speak of wisdom to the mature. 2:14 is in this context.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Why? What's the difference the way you see it?

I'm left wondering why Philippians 2:12-13 is translated and discussed as it is. It seems theologically translated instead of literally translated:

• "work out" is a word that means to accomplish by work. Actually, in this intensified spelling I see the emphasis on the accomplishment [by work] vs. the work [to accomplish} which is the same word but non-prefixed. This word is not translated as "work out" in any other verse.
• The word some are saying is "sanctification" is actually "salvation". Once again, it seems another theological translation (actually a change in wording) sneaks in.
• The word translated as God "works" in you is not the usual word for "work". It has a more literal meaning of "operates, functions, to be in action". The Greek is "energeo" which obviously would transliterate to "energy" or verbally to "energize".

IMO, the picture is very clear in a literal translation apart from soteriological concerns about works salvation issues:

• God is functioning/operating in us so we both will and do what pleases Him. He is supplying the energy, the drive, so to speak.
• We in turn obediently cooperate with Him with the energy He provides.
• With Him operating in us (primary) we cooperate with Him (secondary) to accomplish [by work] our Salvation (provided solely by Him) in fear and trembling (with reverence and respect and obedience to Him not to work at cross-purposes to Him or against Him).

IMO there's way too much caution to avoid the concept of works salvation. This is not in cross purposes to Eph2 which speaks of being made alive from the dead (regeneration) and provided with the entirety of His Plan to place us in Christ - made alive together with Him, raised together with Him, seated together with Hm.

Paul is not arguing against Paul. Paul is explaining with literal wording that we could not devise God's Salvation, could not regenerate ourselves, could not provide our future with Christ in Christ so God did it by grace and made it available to us through Faith. Once regenerate we cooperate with Him to accomplish our Salvation (gifted to us through faith) with Him being the primary cause and force enabling us to accomplish what He commands us to accomplish. I also agree with the synergism in our initial salvation, but that's not what this post is primarily about.

I'd be interested to know why you see participation vs. cooperation.

I think sometimes people see the word "works" and assume it to mean, "religious things we have to do to accomplish our own righteousness and salvation." In reality , I think, "works" should be read in the context of what James said. Faith without works is dead. Meaning that the proof is in the pudding. If you are genuinely saved and born again, your "works" as in "fruits" will show forth as proof. A good tree brings forth the natural fruit of good works. I read "faith without works" to mean "faith without corresponding actions." If faith is there, then you will naturally act in accordance with that which is believed. You are not really trying to work up some righteousness or repentance, you are merely doing what your new nature demands that you do. Be yourself. Be what you are. Having been reconciled to God, start acting in the light of your reconciliation.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That's no strawman. Read the rest of my post. The answer to sin/evil in your scenario is that God changes someone so that they no longer prefer sin/evil. He could've just done that with Adam in Eden. There's no rhyme or reason for the history of the world, rife with sin, with the experience of evil, if all God does is make it so some people don't want to sin. He's the author of both good and evil in that case because no one else's will is involved in whether or not evil will prevail. Just Him, pulling all the strings.

Only from your self-deterministic point-of-view. You just cannot admit to God being so much above this whole of existence that we, choosing according to our own inclinations, are HOW he accomplishes what he determined from the beginning.

Let me attempt to show how ridiculous self-determinism is: Do you not admit to Omnipotent God as 'first cause'? Then, simply, all else is caused. But, just in case you have a different god, if a god is not first cause, he is not God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Informative post. Nice work.

I'd add to it or modify it just a bit, especially based upon these verses: Salvation is definitely synergistic (Philippians 2:12-13).

Don't get carried away, here. I doubt even most Arminian theologians, or at least the more honest ones, would exegete Philippians 2:12-13 as supporting synergism. It doesn't say, "...cause your salvation...", nor even, "...influence your salvation...", nor, by the way, "...cooperate with your salvation...", but only "...work out your salvation...", (which 'salvation' is a status already assumed, contextually), and it even goes on to say, "for it is GOD who works IN YOU both to will and to do according to his good pleasure", which to me speaks of possibly (depending on what one specifically means by 'synergism') attributing monergism to all virtue and obedience.

 

[GDL]

@Clare73
"The man without the Spirit" (that's unregenerate, not "immature") sees the gospel as foolishness. . .(1 Co 2:14)

Yes, I agree to a point. Paul in 2:6-16 is talking about much more than the basics of the Gospel. He's talking about the deeper things of God that some in Corinth do not have yet in the sense that they are clearly not walking in yet.

But this verse does not specifically speak of regeneration being necessary to gain some understanding, which seems to be one of the points I see you and @Mark Quayle discussing with @fhansen.

I'm going to work through here in part or even mainly for me to think through.

There are some complexities in 1Cor2:6-16 that are continually wrestled with among exegetes. They have been commented and disagreed on for quite some time.

In 1:9 Paul begins to address a fellowship problem - schisms and division in Corinth. He is also dealing with some who are questioning his authority and teaching. By 2:1-5 he begins to explain the narrow focus of his previous proclamation to them - Christ and crucifixion. At the end of the 2:6-16 instruction, he again picks up the problems in Corinth.

Beginning in 3:1 Paul says he previously could not speak to the Corinthians as "spiritual [men]" but as fleshly - as infants in Christ. He had to feed them milk. He says they are still fleshly - in strife with one another.

With this bracketing of the problem, in 2:6-16 Paul speaks of God's wisdom - mystery - hidden things God revealed to us (2:10). "Us" in context is not all of us, but some say refers to the Apostles - some say Paul is speaking editorially of himself as "us" - some include the mature from 2:6. Whatever the accuracy, he is not speaking of the fleshly - the infants - the divisive of pre 2:6 or post 2:16. They simply have not learned or grasped these deeper things of God yet and are not walking in them.

Remaining in context in 2:12-13 Paul continues with the "we" received the Spirit from God so "we" could know all things God has graciously given us, and he's making clear that he is teaching with words the Spirit teaches - actually more succinctly "taught words of Spirit". This is in part where he is dealing with the accuracy of what he teaches because his teaching and authority is being questioned.

One of the important things to know here in the overall context with Paul speaking of the "spiritual" vs. the out of fellowship in Corinth, is that the "fleshly," and "infantile" is speaking not only of knowing in the sense of understanding, but in the sense of understanding and living out. The fleshly in Corinth have simply not received the Spirit, the teaching, the words, to any point that has helped them to grow past infancy and they are "walking according to man" (3:3). So, this is not just being unlearned, but being unlearned and thus still walking according to men rather than in Spirit.

It's in this context that 2:14 is stated. The natural man (as you said, unregenerate) does not welcome (better translation than "receive") the things of God's Spirit - they are foolishness to him - he is unable to know because they are spiritually examined. The things in context are all the Christocentric things Paul is discussing including the things the fleshly in Christ have yet to know and walk in.

Yes, Paul seems clearly to be saying the unregenerate need illumination or some sense of understanding given by the Spirit, but I'm not seeing any regeneration stated here in order for this perception to take place. The infantile are regenerate and do not have the Spirit in the sense or to the degree that they are walking in Spirit and not walking according to men.

IOW, I see Paul making the point that as the unregenerate need the Spirit to know Truth, so do these infants in Christ who are not yet functioning in Spirit as they should. Paul can be rejected as unauthoritative. The Spirit - the Word - the Truth can be rejected as foolishness. It's not only a problem for the unregenerate, but for fleshly, infant Christians walking according to man and out of fellowship in Christ.

The natural vs. spiritual: 1 Cor 15:44-46 definitely draws the distinction - the difference. Jude1:19 ties such again to divisions and warns believers to keep themselves in the love of God.

Doesn't John16:8-9 say the Spirit will bring to light/convince/convict concerning sin & righteousness & judgment due to unbelief?

For all of this, I'm just not seeing regeneration in order to welcome the Truth. How are you getting it? Or am I misreading you?

 

[GDL]

Don't get carried away, here. I doubt even most Arminian theologians, or at least the more honest ones, would exegete Philippians 2:12-13 as supporting synergism. It doesn't say, "...cause your salvation...", nor even, "...influence your salvation...", nor, by the way, "...cooperate with your salvation...", but only "...work out your salvation...", (which 'salvation' is a status already assumed, contextually), and it even goes on to say, "for it is GOD who works IN YOU both to will and to do according to his good pleasure", which to me speaks of possibly (depending on what one specifically means by 'synergism') attributing monergism to all virtue and obedience.

I'm translating the verses & stating how words are translated, not getting carried away. 2:12-13 show very clearly an operating by God within us, and our being commanded to accomplish (based upon God operating in us) Salvation that obviously we have [by grace been given]. If this is not interaction or cooperation or participation, then it seems some soteriological training may have crept in. Scripturally, Salvation is a process and not a one-time event.

I agree with your questioning what one means by monergism or synergism. What do you mean by the terms?

 

[fhansen]

The Scriptures throughout teach that Sanctification is definitely synergistic (Philippians 2:12-13).

God sanctifies those who sanctify themselves to Lord Jesus, following Him by faith.

1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 (WEB) 3 For this is the will of God: your sanctification, that you [the believer] abstain from sexual immorality, 4 that each one of you know how to control his own body in sanctification and honor, 5 not in the passion of lust, even as the Gentiles who don’t know God, 6 that no one should take advantage of and wrong a brother or sister in this matter; because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as also we forewarned you and testified. 7 For God called us not for uncleanness, but in sanctification. 8 Therefore he who rejects this doesn’t reject man, but God, who has also given his Holy Spirit to you.

If your faith is not evidenced in sanctification unto righteousness, you will never see the Lord.

Hebrews 12:14-16 (WEB) 14 Follow after peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no man will see the Lord, 15 looking carefully lest there be any man who falls short of the grace of God, lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and many be defiled by it, 16 lest there be any sexually immoral person, or profane person, like Esau, who sold his birthright for one meal.

2 Timothy 2:19 (WEB) However God’s firm foundation stands, having this seal, “The Lord knows those who are his,” [Numbers 16:5] and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from unrighteousness.”

Matthew 10:38 (WEB) He who doesn’t take his cross and follow after me isn’t worthy of me.

Romans 6:19-22 (WEB) 19 For as you presented your members as servants to uncleanness and to wickedness upon wickedness, even so now present your members as servants to righteousness for sanctification. 20 For when you were servants of sin, you were free from righteousness. 21 What fruit then did you have at that time in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22 But now, being made free from sin and having become servants of God, you have your fruit of sanctification and the result of eternal life.

To those who believe, which includes repentance: (2 Corinthians 7:10), God indwells by His Spirit to mark the believers as His (Ephesians 1:13-14) and to guide or lead the believer in that New Life, which is regeneration (Romans 8:14), but only as the Christian continues in the faith evidenced by walking by the Spirit - For the Spirit will only give life to those who live, walk, and sow to the Spirit - that is synergistic sanctification:

Galatians 6:7-9 (WEB) 7 Do not be deceived. God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8 For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap destruction. But he who sows to the Spirit will {{from the Spirit}} reap eternal life. 9 Let us not be weary in doing good, for we will reap in due season, {{if we}} do not give up.

Romans 8:12-14 (NIV) 12 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation – but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. 14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.

Galatians 5:24-25 (WEB) 24 Those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts. 25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.

Romans 8:3-4 (WEB) 3 For what the law couldn’t do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh; 4 that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

That is synergistic sanctification.

The key word is "believe" or "faith," which is a present and continuous faith evidenced by following Lord Jesus into a sanctified life of righteousness and love.

Luke 21:34-36 (WEB)34 “So be careful, or your hearts will be loaded down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that day will come on you suddenly. 35 For it will come like a snare on all those who dwell on the surface of all the earth. 36 Therefore be watchful all the time, praying that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will happen, and to stand before the Son of Man.”

"The Promise" to be made alive is by faith (Galatians 3:21-22).

Yes! And for this we still need the continuous help of grace-which is why we must remain in Him, which is another option for man, the one that Adam opted out of for all practical purposes, an act which constituted the first and most basic sin of mankind: to deny the authority of their Creator, to fail to recognize Him as their God. Faith is the reversal of that sin, and so is the first and most basic act of man in his becoming reconciled with God. As Adam's alienation from God is the essence of man's injustice/unrigheousness, his turning back to and uniting with God is the essence of his justice/righteousness. Jesus reveals the God whom we can and should recognize and bow to.in faith, hope, and love,

 

[GDL]

an act which constituted the first and most basic sin of mankind: to deny the authority of their Creator, to fail to recognize Him as their God. Faith is the reversal of that sin

And the reason Faith is the reversal of that sin is because faith in God and obedience to God are so vitally interconnected that they are used in parallel in Rom10:16 and other verses.

Nice post.

 

[GDL]

You are not really trying to work up some righteousness or repentance, you are merely doing what your new nature demands that you do. Be yourself. Be what you are. Having been reconciled to God, start acting in the light of your reconciliation

There seems to be a little tension here. Maybe I'm not reading you correctly.

You're really not trying....start acting.

I understand the "be yourself...what you are...reconciled to God. I think this is what the overall concept and goal is. Once His Law is written on our heart and working experientially, then we will naturally think and do His will without burden.

Along the way to this completion, we are commanded to actively take part in the process of getting there - to accomplish our Salvation - based upon His operating in us to both will and do what pleases Him.

 

[John Mullally]

On that day when we stand before the Lord, nobody will be saying "See what I did? I sought You and found You. I did it. I was wise enough, strong enough, righteous enough, and it was my integrity that led me to take advantage of Your offering. It was me making the right decisions. I made the right choices. It is a good thing I was so virtuous, otherwise I would have never responded to Your offer. I did the work required to receive what You offered. Thanks for the assist of what you did on the cross, but in the end, it was all me, my actions, my thoughts, my faithfulness, not Yours that saved me. Now give me those crowns I deserve."
An exaggeration for effect, I know. But it is His faithfulness and love that saved us, not ours. All we can do is bow down and give thanks for His love, faithfulness, and sacrifice. Him. Not you.

When it is over, we all want Jesus to declare "Well done, good and faithful servant". That accolade from Jesus would not be possible if the recepient did not strive to serve God. No one will brag. Obviously, we receive the Spirit by hearing with faith, and hence faith is our introduction to grace.

However, from the Calvinistic perspective, any religion that teaches that salvation comes about by anything other than an “Irresistible Grace,” necessarily makes salvation into a works-based process, because (as it is reasoned) once you incorporate any act of the human will—even as little as a person’s submission in passive non-resistance—what is left is some element of human contribution in the process. So, when Calvinists say that “salvation is of the Lord” (Jonah 2:9), what they really mean is that God does everything in salvation, including the act of faith, on behalf of the elect-person, by overcoming their resistance through an irresistible gift of pre-faith regeneration. In other words, Calvinists believe that faith becomes a “work” whenever we come to think of faith as something that we do ourselves, absent of an Irresistible Grace. This means that in Calvinism, faith without Irresistible Grace = works. As such, Calvinists insist that if God had not chosen some—namely Calvinism’s elect—then no one would have freely chosen to love God. Calvinists also deny that God coerces any person to believe or that God believes on behalf of the elect, even though Calvinists admit that they believe that God unilaterally regenerates the unregenerate-elect against their totally depraved will, unsolicited, simply because they happen to be “elect.”

 

[Clare73]

@Clare73
"The man without the Spirit" (that's unregenerate, not "immature") sees the gospel as foolishness. . .(1 Co 2:14)

Yes, I agree to a point. Paul in 2:6-16 is talking about much more than the basics of the Gospel. He's talking about the deeper things of God that some in Corinth do not have yet in the sense that they are clearly not walking in yet.
But this verse does not specifically speak of regeneration being necessary to gain some understanding, which seems to be one of the points I see you and @Mark Quayle discussing with @fhansen.

I'm going to work through here in part or even mainly for me to think through.

There are some complexities in 1Cor2:6-16 that are continually wrestled with among exegetes. They have been commented and disagreed on for quite some time.

In 1:9 Paul begins to address a fellowship problem - schisms and division in Corinth. He is also dealing with some who are questioning his authority and teaching. By 2:1-5 he begins to explain the narrow focus of his previous proclamation to them - Christ and crucifixion. At the end of the 2:6-16 instruction, he again picks up the problems in Corinth.

Beginning in 3:1 Paul says he previously could not speak to the Corinthians as "spiritual [men]" but as fleshly - as infants in Christ. He had to feed them milk. He says they are still fleshly - in strife with one another.

With this bracketing of the problem, in 2:6-16 Paul speaks of God's wisdom - mystery - hidden things God revealed to us (2:10). "Us" in context is not all of us, but some say refers to the Apostles - some say Paul is speaking editorially of himself as "us" - some include the mature from 2:6. Whatever the accuracy, he is not speaking of the fleshly - the infants - the divisive of pre 2:6 or post 2:16. They simply have not learned or grasped these deeper things of God yet and are not walking in them.

Remaining in context in 2:12-13 Paul continues with the "we" received the Spirit from God so "we" could know all things God has graciously given us, and he's making clear that he is teaching with words the Spirit teaches - actually more succinctly "taught words of Spirit". This is in part where he is dealing with the accuracy of what he teaches because his teaching and authority is being questioned.

One of the important things to know here in the overall context with Paul speaking of the "spiritual" vs. the out of fellowship in Corinth, is that the "fleshly," and "infantile" is speaking not only of knowing in the sense of understanding, but in the sense of understanding and living out. The fleshly in Corinth have simply not received the Spirit, the teaching, the words, to any point that has helped them to grow past infancy and they are "walking according to man" (3:3). So, this is not just being unlearned, but being unlearned and thus still walking according to men rather than in Spirit.

It's in this context that 2:14 is stated. The natural man (as you said, unregenerate) does not welcome (better translation than "receive") the things of God's Spirit - they are foolishness to him - he is unable to know because they are spiritually examined. The things in context are all the Christocentric things Paul is discussing including the things the fleshly in Christ have yet to know and walk in.

Yes, Paul seems clearly to be saying the unregenerate need illumination or some sense of understanding given by the Spirit, but I'm not seeing any regeneration stated here in order for this perception to take place. The infantile are regenerate and do not have the Spirit in the sense or to the degree that they are walking in Spirit and not walking according to men.

IOW, I see Paul making the point that as the unregenerate need the Spirit to know Truth, so do these infants in Christ who are not yet functioning in Spirit as they should. Paul can be rejected as unauthoritative. The Spirit - the Word - the Truth can be rejected as foolishness. It's not only a problem for the unregenerate, but for fleshly, infant Christians walking according to man and out of fellowship in Christ.
The natural vs. spiritual: 1 Cor 15:44-46 definitely draws the distinction - the difference. Jude1:19 ties such again to divisions and warns believers to keep themselves in the love of God.

Doesn't John16:8-9 say the Spirit will bring to light/convince/convict concerning sin & righteousness & judgment due to unbelief?

For all of this, I'm just not seeing regeneration in order to welcome the Truth. How are you getting it? Or am I misreading you?

Well done. . .as in your word studies.

I'm thinking here of Jude 18-19, those who are divisive, sensual, corrupt, sinful and do not have the Spirit (Jn 1:5).
I'm thinking here of those that do not have their minds on what the Spirit desires, do not have the Spirit and do not belong to Christ (Ro 8:6-9).
I'm thinking here of Paul's mention of the wisdom of God which has made foolish the wisdom of unbelievers ( 1 Co 1:20-21).
I'm thinking here of the man without the Spirit who regards the things of God as foolishness (1 Co 2:14) as definitely meaning he is not born again (unregenerate).
How can the born again (regenerate) with the indwelling Holy Spirit ever regard the things of God as foolishness?

I see your argument -- 1 Co 2:6-16 kinda' could go either way: referring to the unregenerate, or referring to the fleshly new regenerate.
But why would these newly regenerate be without the Spirit?
Was their "conversion" a human decision apart from the Holy Spirit? Was their faith counterfeit (Mt 7:21-23)?

What does "without the Spirit" mean in those who are born again of/by the Holy Spirit?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm translating the verses & stating how words are translated, not getting carried away. 2:12-13 show very clearly an operating by God within us, and our being commanded to accomplish (based upon God operating in us) Salvation that obviously we have [by grace been given]. If this is not interaction or cooperation or participation, then it seems some soteriological training may have crept in. Scripturally, Salvation is a process and not a one-time event.

I agree with your questioning what one means by monergism or synergism. What do you mean by the terms?

Let me first say this, in order to introduce what I mean by 'monergism' and 'synergism'. One huge difference between the Arminian and the Calvinist/Reformed that keeps showing itself: The Arminian sees himself as a being, in and of himself; the Calvinist/Reformed as dependent on God even for his very being. The Arminian, a complete individual. The Reformed, not complete until we see him as he is. The Arminian, ready to deal with God on God's terms. The Calvinist, God be merciful to me a sinner. The Arminian, God owes me respect according to his word. The Reformed, Who am I that you should take notice of me? The Arminian, God can't accomplish his will in me unless I obey. The Calvinist, God will accomplish absolutely all he set out to do.

Seems to me this difference shows up in EVERY argument where the Arminian and Calvinist/Reformed oppose each other, and particularly in the Free Will vs Sovereignty debates. And I am at a loss how to express the difference, long or short version. The best concise statement I can come up with is to characterize the Arminian as Self-Deterministic. (Granted this is from my own perspective, and no doubt I make generalizations and exaggerations; also I recognize that there is a lot of overlap and variety among members of both camps. But I present this, not as a basis for what I believe, but in order to help you understand what I mean, by "monergism" and "synergism".)

SYNERGISM: The vague definition that I have read/heard from several sources involves the notion 1) of the lost presented with the Gospel, "cooperating" with God to bring about Salvation. But when I press a little more, it turns into 2) that the efforts of the lost add to the work of God, to produce a greater effect than God could have done (or variously, would have done, or does) on his own. If man doesn't "reach out and take the gift", it will not happen.

MONERGISM: 1) God does the whole work from beginning to end. (And no that does not mean that man does nothing, but that his efforts are not contributive toward effecting salvation.)

For the sake of brevity I'll leave it there for now, but I welcome a continuation on the subject —in this context particularly the notion of monergism in sanctification. It is a subject near and dear to me, in that I have found myself unable, though knowing that I am responsible to obey, unable, I say, to obey without him doing it in me, all the way from giving me the need, the will, the desire for holiness, the fortitude, the Scripture, the whole business —and when I can look back with satisfaction at any obedience, I realize that I did nothing, regardless of how simple or extreme or sincere or anguished my efforts or how deep my sacrifice or anything else but that God did it all.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

There seems to be a little tension here. Maybe I'm not reading you correctly.

You're really not trying....start acting.

I understand the "be yourself...what you are...reconciled to God. I think this is what the overall concept and goal is. Once His Law is written on our heart and working experientially, then we will naturally think and do His will without burden.

Along the way to this completion, we are commanded to actively take part in the process of getting there - to accomplish our Salvation - based upon His operating in us to both will and do what pleases Him.

Yes, there is a conflict in between the components of our being. The new creature spirit is struggling against the flesh and the unrenewed mind. We are tasked with the renewal of our mind and daily crucifixion of our flesh.
Contrast this with the former condition: A spirit with a fallen nature, the flesh, and an unrenewed mind.
As new creatures we can now do something that was impossible to do in our former state. We can walk in the spirit and by its fruits of love and faith, please God.

 

[John Mullally]

Let me first say this, in order to introduce what I mean by 'monergism' and 'synergism'. One huge difference between the Arminian and the Calvinist/Reformed that keeps showing itself: The Arminian sees himself as a being, in and of himself; the Calvinist/Reformed as dependent on God even for his very being. The Arminian, a complete individual. The Reformed, not complete until we see him as he is. The Arminian, ready to deal with God on God's terms. The Calvinist, God be merciful to me a sinner. The Arminian, God owes me respect according to his word. The Reformed, Who am I that you should take notice of me? The Arminian, God can't accomplish his will in me unless I obey. The Calvinist, God will accomplish absolutely all he set out to do.

Seems to me this difference shows up in EVERY argument where the Arminian and Calvinist/Reformed oppose each other, and particularly in the Free Will vs Sovereignty debates. And I am at a loss how to express the difference, long or short version. The best concise statement I can come up with is to characterize the Arminian as Self-Deterministic. (Granted this is from my own perspective, and no doubt I make generalizations and exaggerations; also I recognize that there is a lot of overlap and variety among members of both camps. But I present this, not as a basis for what I believe, but in order to help you understand what I mean, by "monergism" and "synergism".)​

SYNERGISM: The vague definition that I have read/heard from several sources involves the notion 1) of the lost presented with the Gospel, "cooperating" with God to bring about Salvation. But when I press a little more, it turns into 2) that the efforts of the lost add to the work of God, to produce a greater effect than God could have done (or variously, would have done, or does) on his own. If man doesn't "reach out and take the gift", it will not happen.

MONERGISM: 1) God does the whole work from beginning to end. (And no that does not mean that man does nothing, but that his efforts are not contributive toward effecting salvation.)

For the sake of brevity I'll leave it there for now, but I welcome a continuation on the subject —in this context particularly the notion of monergism in sanctification. It is a subject near and dear to me, in that I have found myself unable, though knowing that I am responsible to obey, unable, I say, to obey without him doing it in me, all the way from giving me the need, the will, the desire for holiness, the fortitude, the Scripture, the whole business —and when I can look back with satisfaction at any obedience, I realize that I did nothing, regardless of how simple or extreme or sincere or anguished my efforts or how deep my sacrifice or anything else but that God did it all.

I see Ezekiel 18:30-32 as key to this debate. As I can find nothing in the NT that addresses the order between repentance and regeneration. Perhaps NT believers did not have the spare time to consider stoic philosophy such as :"first cause". In the NT reprentance preceeds salvation per Acts 2. I see Calvinist viewing regeneration as being different from salvation. from that perspective this was not an issue in the early church.!

What does the Scripture actually say about the logical order of new life and man’s responsibility in attaining it through repentance? Which comes first, new life or repentance? Let’s observe:

Ezekiel 18:30-32: “Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!”​

The order is clearly laid out is as follows:

1. “Repent, Turn away…Rid yourselves…”
2. "…get a new heart and a new spirit.”

Verse 32 makes it even more simple:“Repent and…live!”

Per Ezekiel 18:30-32, Life comes from after repentance, as opposed to repentance comes from life. That desroys Calvinist Total Depravity doctrine. Mark Quayle says that repentence and salvavation may occurr concurrentl.y As we think about this transaction, we must put a causal order to it. Does the Bible indicate that a person must be regenerated so that he can believe or does the Bible teach that a person must believe in order to be regenerated? Ezekiel 18:30-32 indicates the latter.