Sanctification & Calvinism

[Mark Quayle]

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.

FWIW, Exekiel 18:30-32 is not written to Israel concerning salvation.

 

[John Mullally]

FWIW, Exekiel 18:30-32 is not written to Israel concerning salvation.

I mentioned that Ezekiel was OT. Ezekiel 18:30-32 shows God demanding repentance in the OT before He works to change man's nature. This shows man can repent before God changes his nature in the OT. He can do the same in the NT as there is no scripture that shows man becoming more depraved.

Calvinists postulate Total Depravity where men are totally disabled from repentance and believing the Gospel apart from God first changing his nature which is given only to Calvinism’s elect. Given that Calvinists postulate Total Depravity, the burden of proof is on them. This type of thinking is disproived by Ezekiel 18:30-32 as again God expeccts man to repent before God changes his nature. Total Depravity

 

[Mark Quayle]

I mentioned that Ezekiel was OT. Nevertheless, it shows God demanding repentance in the OT before He worked to change man's nature. If man can repent before God changes his nature in the OT, he can do the same in the NT as there is no scripture that shows man becoming more depraved.

Calvinists assert Total Depravity where men are totally disabled from repentance apart from God first changing his nature which is given only to Calvinism’s elect. This type of thinking is disporived by Ezekiel 18:30-32.

Let me try this again. This was not about salvation. This was not "repentance unto salvation".

 

[John Mullally]

Let me try this again. This was not about salvation. This was not "repentance unto salvation".

Are you sure it is not talking about salvation? Jesus spoke about salvation and eternal punishment among earlier people. But independent of whether Ezekiel 18:30-32 is speaking about eternal life and death, it is plain that in Ezekiel's time God expects man to repent prior to God changing his nature. It makes no sense that God would demand man repent without first changing his nature if that is unachievable. Thus Ezekiel 18:30-32 contradicts the Calvinist Total Depravity premise. Given that Calvinists postulate Total Depravity, the burden of proof is on them. Mere extensive writing on the subject is not proof.

Ezekiel 18:30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord God. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord God. “Therefore turn and live!​

​

I am a Traditionalist and as such I am not a Calvinists because Traditionalists (a) do not believe fallen man has a total inability to receive Christ’s well-meant offer of the gospel, (b) do not believe that God uses effectual means to irresistibly cause people to turn to Him, (c) do not believe that Christ’s death failed to propitiate for the sins of the whole world, (d) do not believe that God has excluded anyone from the hope of salvation, to which He graciously and sincerely offers it, (e) do not believe that God has ordained sin, such as having exhaustively decreed “whatsoever comes to pass” in the sense of determining the thoughts and intentions of the heart of every individual person, from cradle to grave, and (f) do not believe that exhaustive divine omniscience is made possible only by virtue of exhaustive divine determinism.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Are you sure it is not talking about salvation? Jesus spoke about salvation and eternal punishment among earlier people. But independent of whether Ezekiel 18:30-32 is speaking about eternal life and death, it is plain that in Ezekiel's time God expects man to repent prior to God changing his nature. It makes no sense that God would demand man repent without first changing his nature if that is unachievable. Thus Ezekiel 18:30-32 contradicts the Calvinist Total Depravity premise. Given that Calvinists postulate Total Depravity, the burden of proof is on them. Mere extensive writing on the subject is not proof.

Ezekiel 18:30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord God. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord God. “Therefore turn and live!​

​

I am a Traditionalist and as such I am not a Calvinists because Traditionalists (a) do not believe fallen man has a total inability to receive Christ’s well-meant offer of the gospel, (b) do not believe that God uses effectual means to irresistibly cause people to turn to Him, (c) do not believe that Christ’s death failed to propitiate for the sins of the whole world, (d) do not believe that God has excluded anyone from the hope of salvation, to which He graciously and sincerely offers it, (e) do not believe that God has ordained sin, such as having exhaustively decreed “whatsoever comes to pass” in the sense of determining the thoughts and intentions of the heart of every individual person, from cradle to grave, and (f) do not believe that exhaustive divine omniscience is made possible only by virtue of exhaustive divine determinism.

So you equate common repentance, and turning away from the practice of sins against the law, with "repentance unto salvation". I won't insult you by claiming you don't know the difference between compliance and obedience, but it seems that you don't realize the effectual difference in the work of the Spirit of God in the heart's submission to God, vs "breaking even" or the like.

And I won't insult you by claiming you don't believe Romans 8, nor so many other such passages, that state that fallen man is unable to do what you claim he can do. Submit and please God, but it sure does sound like you directly oppose them.

So you've restated the obvious: "I don't believe what Calvinists believe...." And for the first time, I congratulate you, that you here almost entirely accurately stated things that Calvinists do believe, instead of writing caricatures and strawmen. Well done.

 

[GDL]

But why would these newly regenerate be without the Spirit?

I don't see them as without the Spirit because they are regenerate (see 1Cor3:16). Paul has quite a bit of pneumatology in 1Cor from what I see. Using the NKJ a search of spirit* shows Paul speaking of it 57 times in this letter.

One of the discussions of what Paul means when he says "spiritual" is what he is saying in 2:6-16. Basically, the discussion is whether he is talking about regenerate vs. unregenerate or mature vs. immature Christians. I don't see the reason for the discussion. 1Cor3:1 is clear that he is using "spiritual" to contrast Christian infancy. One of the ways Paul speaks of the mature in Christ is with this word "spiritual" and one verse to take a look at is Gal6:1. His point there is that the mature in Christ who have been raised and trained to maturity have the ability to identify any sin, assist fellow Christians out of sin & thereby fulfill Christ's Law (think love one another as He loved us & gave Himself for us to save us from our sins).

In infancy and along the way to maturity (and thereafter to lesser degrees) we can grieve the Spirit, quench/extinguish the Spirit, not accept the [Apostolic] teaching of the Spirit and thus reject Him, and as Paul was saying to the infants, they can thus be fleshly, and walk according to man. So, they have the Spirit, but they in this sense do not have the Spirit - they in this sense have rejected Him - they do not have the deeper things of God Paul is saying in 2:6-16 the spiritual ones have - and they are walking as [unregenerate] men without [more of] the wisdom of God in strife and division and broken fellowship.

In 1Cor3 Paul goes into the Temple of God with the Spirit dwelling in you lesson. And he says the Temple can be defiled. He says if anyone of you thinks he is wise then become fools so you can become wise and then he clarifies that he is talking about worldly wisdom again as he was addressing in the first 2 chapters. IOW, the Christian can be deceived with the wisdom of the world, so he would then need to become a fool [to the wisdom of the world], so he can become wise to the wisdom of God taught by the Spirit, in this sense have the Spirit, now walk in Spirit, stop defiling the Temple. In the deceived & defiling condition the Christian indwelt with the Spirit of God is rejecting the Spirit, the Word, and is acting like the unregenerate as Paul spoke of in 2:14. I see this as part of the reason Paul spent so much ink in 1Cor2 teaching about the wisdom of the world and the unregenerate seeing God's wisdom as foolishness. The Christian can be deceived by the spirits and look and function no different than the unregenerate, especially in infancy. This is why we take so much care to protect and raise infants.

Being without the Spirit is thus something that needs to be clarified. Obviously being without the Spirit in the absolute sense is being unregenerate. One with the Spirit can in a sense be functioning as without the Spirit - without the teaching of the deeper things of God - and when deceived, not be walking in Spirit. I think this is why Paul uses the word "spiritual" to speak of the more mature. The spiritual have more teaching of the Spirit and are living like it walking in Spirit not accomplishing the things of flesh (being fleshly). He also uses the word "perfect/mature" in Gal3:3, which is the word used in Heb5:14-6:1 for maturity. The Hebrews writer contrasts completion/perfection/maturity with infancy as Paul contrasts spiritual with infancy. Paul in a way links the spiritual to the perfect/mature in Gal and thus to the Hebrews lessons.

Was their "conversion" a human decision apart from the Holy Spirit? Was their faith counterfeit (Mt 7:21-23)?

I don't see anything in conversion being done apart from the work of God. I think I'll take this up with Mark in the Monergism vs. Synergism discussion.

I think it's clear that Paul was treating them as regenerate but taking up the infancy problem discussed above that can look like being unregenerate. Could some of them still walk away as counterfeit? Probably, but I didn't look to see if he specifically addresses this in 1Cor.

He's most definitely working to resolve the infancy problem (and other problems) and in 1Cor3 he's essentially warning both the building (the Christians - the Temple of God) and the builders that they best be building the Temple with quality products and workmanship. Paul says in 1Cor3:11 that he placed the only foundation that can be placed - Jesus Christ (and recall he earlier said his earlier focus for various reasons among these Christians was Jesus Christ and Him crucified).

This is his point when we look at all that's going on in Corinth. He knows he placed the only foundation properly. He knows they (most?) accepted it. He knows he could only take them so far at the time. He knows there are infancy problems there and that his authority and thus teaching per the Spirit is being challenged. He is dealing with a lot and working to overcome a lot to get the deeper things of God taught by the Spirit into that congregation. In this sense he is working to get the Spirit [more] into that group and get them to the "spiritual" condition.

 

[John Mullally]

So you equate common repentance, and turning away from the practice of sins against the law, with "repentance unto salvation". I won't insult you by claiming you don't know the difference between compliance and obedience, but it seems that you don't realize the effectual difference in the work of the Spirit of God in the heart's submission to God, vs "breaking even" or the like.

Peter promises the remission of sins and gift of the Holy Spirit (this is arguably salvation) to those who repent and are baptized (v38) in response to the preaching of the Gospel. Verse 39 says that that offer extends to today. In addition, the call (v39) goes out to all because God commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). Ezekiel 18:30-32 shows that men can repent without first having God change his nature.

Acts 2:36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” 37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” 40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them​

​

Romans 1:16 and 1 Thessalonians 2:13-14 indicate that the Gospel is the power of God for salvation for those who beilieve.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.​

​

1 Thessalonians 2:13-14 And for this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God’s message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.​

And I won't insult you by claiming you don't believe Romans 8, nor so many other such passages, that state that fallen man is unable to do what you claim he can do. Submit and please God, but it sure does sound like you directly oppose them.

Don't underestimate the conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8) or the power of the Gospel. If Romans 8:6-8 is indicating that men are so evil that they require pre-faith regeneration, why didn’t Paul say that? Why don't any NT writiers say that regeneration is pre-faith?

So you've restated the obvious: "I don't believe what Calvinists believe...." And for the first time, I congratulate you, that you here almost entirely accurately stated things that Calvinists do believe, instead of writing caricatures and strawmen. Well done.

Well you know, its difficult to get around the double-talk and contradictions:

1. Sometimes I can get Calvinists to agree that "God desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4)", but then Calvin asserts that God predestines many to hell from before birth.
2. Calvin says God decrees every man's action, including sin, but only man, not God, is accountable for the action.

And if you really want dissension start talking about free-will with a Calvinist.

 

[GDL]

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.

Nice statement.

And things like this are the balance: NKJ Rev4:9-11 Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying: 11 "You are worthy, O Lord, To receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were created."

His creation may wear crowns and hear a "well done" for service but at the same time we understand first causes and the grace that enabled us to receive a well-done. We understand where the glory & honor truly go.

 

[GDL]

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'm using this quote mainly to flag you and not leave you unanswered, at least in part. I think I'm going to say just a few things and then leave you and @John Mullally to discuss the topic for now, so I don't sidetrack that discussion. So, a couple things:

• When I went through some of the analysis on Philippians2:12-13 a few posts back, I think it's clear that God is functioning in us to do what's necessary to assist us to both will and do what pleases Him. That functioning, that energy, is provided to us to assist us to willingly obey Him. Paul is issuing the command to those who have been obeying in all things. I don't think there's a question in these verses about our abilities being reliant on God in some or various ways. I do think we can swing the pendulum as we typically do and turn this into, we play no part.
• Monergism vs. Synergism:
  • I long ago gave up discussing theology in terms of the names of those who went before us. Honestly, I don't like the camp-based soldier mentalities and way of arguing anymore. I was schooled in them, function in them for some time, left them and have pretty much forgotten the details by now. I have no camp-based systematics allegiances.
  • I prefer to pick a Scriptural topic and just discuss it with Scripture.
  • Honestly, I had to check with you and look around a bit to make sure I knew what the M & S terms are meant to say by those who use them even before I used one of the terms myself.
  • I saw your defining statements as much as you meant them to be definitions. In the meantime I saw this site and looked around it a bit. Whether it's good or bad on the topic I make no assertion at this time: Monergism |
  • I looked at this article briefly and one or two more. I'll post the opening paragraph for a brief comment or two:
  • Three Quotes on Monergism vs. Synergism | Effectual Grace "The doctrine of justification by faith alone was debated during the Reformation on the deeper level of monergistic regeneration. This technical term must be explained. Monergism is derived from a combination of a prefix and a root. The prefix mono is used frequently in English to indicate that which is single or alone. The root comes from the verb “to work.” The erg of monergy comes into our language to indicate a unit of work or energy. When we put the prefix and root together, we get monergy or monergism. Monergism is something that operates by itself or works alone as the sole active party. Monergism is the opposite of synergism. Synergism shares a common root with monergism, but it has a different prefix. The prefix syn comes from a Greek word meaning “with.” Synergism is a cooperative venture, a working together of two or more parties."
    • I can tell you that right away I have questions about the M & S terminology based upon what he says about "a unit of work or energy" as we would relate this to the Greek language. If you read what I wrote about Philippians 2:12-13 you may pick up what would begin my questions and discussion even at the entry level of discussing the titles themselves.
  • I glanced through another article that seemed very sternly Monergistic and I can tell you my first response was to disagree with his opening volley on the Scripture he referenced.

Enough for the moment. Have fun with @John Mullally.

 

[GDL]

I see your argument -- 1Co 2:6-16 kinda' could go either way: referring to the unregenerate, or referring to the fleshly new regenerate.

Let me clarify: 1Cor2:14 is talking about the unregenerate. The point is that Paul is using them to explain how the unregenerate does not welcome the teaching of God's Spirit. He then uses this to discuss comparably those who are regenerate but still don't have the deeper things of the Spirit and are in effect walking like the unregenerate - walking according to man - being fleshly like the unregenerate man.

After I wrote the earlier post this morning, a couple other things came to mind I'd like to add:

• Part of my initial training in Greek was to impress upon me how different races with different languages not only speak differently but think differently. For example, we think about time much differently than those who spoke ancient Greek. Our verbs reveal this.
• Then we have men like Paul - a Hebrew - extensively trained in the Hebrew Faith - writing in Greek and us working to understand him in English.
• We're effectively working to understand through 3 languages and then how God speaks words through His Spirit, which is one of the things Paul is stressing in 1Cor2 - he is speaking in words received from the Spirit of God - this in part is Paul's authority he is stressing - this is also why he was only able to take the Corinthians so far by the time he wrote 1Cor.
• So, here's the point and a Scripture to exemplify it:
  • We may speak of having the Spirit or not having the Spirit and we may think this in a more absolute sense that can get us into trouble in reading the Text.
  • I think we'd agree that Paul has the Spirit. I think Paul would agree also. But if we let that simple thinking control our reading, then we can have a problem with things like this:
  • NKJ 1Cor7:39-40 A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. 40 But she is happier if she remains as she is, according to my judgment-- and I think I also have the Spirit of God.

Paul knows he and all the regenerate are indwelt with the Spirit and in this sense, they have the Spirit. But here he's using the literal phrase of thinking to have the Spirit in the sense of having God's thoughts on the matter he's discussing. This is similar to what he's discussing earlier in regard to having or not having the Spirit's teaching of the deeper things of God. If we don't have the teaching and are walking according to man, then in this sense we don't have the Spirit.

I'm attempting to make sure we've done what we can to be on the same page for discussion.

 

[Clare73]

Let me clarify: 1Cor2:14 is talking about the unregenerate.
The point is that Paul is using them to explain how the unregenerate does not welcome the teaching of God's Spirit. He then uses this to discuss comparably those who are regenerate but still don't have the deeper things of the Spirit and are in effect walking like the unregenerate - walking according to man - being fleshly like the unregenerate man.

After I wrote the earlier post this morning, a couple other things came to mind I'd like to add:

• Part of my initial training in Greek was to impress upon me how different races with different languages not only speak differently but think differently. For example, we think about time much differently than those who spoke ancient Greek. Our verbs reveal this.
• Then we have men like Paul - a Hebrew - extensively trained in the Hebrew Faith - writing in Greek and us working to understand him in English.
• We're effectively working to understand through 3 languages and then how God speaks words through His Spirit, which is one of the things Paul is stressing in 1Cor2 - he is speaking in words received from the Spirit of God - this in part is Paul's authority he is stressing - this is also why he was only able to take the Corinthians so far by the time he wrote 1Cor.
• So, here's the point and a Scripture to exemplify it:
  • We may speak of having the Spirit or not having the Spirit and we may think this in a more absolute sense that can get us into trouble in reading the Text.
  • I think we'd agree that Paul has the Spirit. I think Paul would agree also. But if we let that simple thinking control our reading, then we can have a problem with things like this:
  • NKJ 1Cor7:39-40 A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. 40 But she is happier if she remains as she is, according to my judgment-- and I think I also have the Spirit of God.

Paul knows he and all the regenerate are indwelt with the Spirit and in this sense, they have the Spirit. But here he's using the literal phrase of thinking to have the Spirit in the sense of having God's thoughts on the matter he's discussing. This is similar to what he's discussing earlier in regard to having or not having the Spirit's teaching of the deeper things of God. If we don't have the teaching and are walking according to man, then in this sense we don't have the Spirit.

I'm attempting to make sure we've done what we can to be on the same page for discussion.

And that you have done!

So in response to my insistence that 1Co 2:14 refers to the unregenerate, and not to the immature,
your (excellent) "thinking through" (post #91) has taken you from
the position of 1 Co 2:14 being about the "unregenerate to a point," to
the position of 1Co 2:14 being about the unregenerate in a "comparison of similarity" to the immature. . .
which I see as an accurate Biblical reconciliation of the difficulties. . .and which I accept.

Thanks so much!

 

[GDL]

And that you have done!

So in response to my insistence that 1Co 2:14 refers to the unregenerate, and not to the immature,
your (excellent) "thinking through" (post #91) has taken you from
the position of 1 Co 2:14 being about the unregenerate "to a point," to
the position of 1Co 2:14 being about the unregenerate in a "comparison of similarity" to the immature. . .
which I see as an accurate Biblical reconciliation of the difficulties. . .and which I accept.

Thanks so much!

These discussions can get confused. I almost hate to do this, but just to clarify:

I always saw 2:14 being about the unregenerate. It's very clear that it is. When I stated that it was in the context of Paul dealing with the mature vs. immature, that is what I worked out in all the detail. I think you misunderstood me when I spoke of context. I never said 2:14 was about the immature. Not even in my "to a point" comment that I'll touch on near the end of this post.

What I jumped into the middle of was a discussion about regeneration before belief. My points were directed at this discussion. I saw your comment about 2:14 as being in this context of regeneration before belief, so this was my answer:

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.

I may have misunderstood your reference to 2:14 so I emphasized "seem" to be mixing...

My second paragraph was to address the regeneration discussion in regard to initial belief in the Gospel. Paul is nowhere indicating regeneration before belief prior to 2:14. He stresses how the Spirit was backing up his proclaiming Christ. Any talk of regeneration before belief would have to be inserted into what Paul is saying when he was talking about his evangelizing efforts.

My 3rd paragraph is stating what I went to lengths to show. Neither is regeneration before belief to be taken from 2:14. Belief in the Gospel foundation was mostly handled prior to 2:6-16. There was a point to Paul briefly inserting the statement about the unregenerate and it was mainly just to say how the Spirit's teaching can be unwelcome and seen as foolishness by someone who is not spiritual - the unregenerate being the epitome of such - the infantile not being spiritual is not immune to being deceived into the same problem of inability to spiritually examine the Spirit's [deeper] teachings.

That's the context of my "to a point" comment quoted below in the first paragraph. IOW I could not agree entirely with what was being discussed until we got all the way into the regeneration topic as my second paragraph says below. Note again my emphasis on "seems". IOW I'm still attempting to make sure I know what your intention was for referencing 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.

IOW @Mark Quayle comment about the mic-drop was ignored in part because it was based upon a misunderstanding of what I was saying.

There was some context lost because of the way I entered in and that seems to have been carried forward. Apologies.

 

[fhansen]

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.

And can you admit that God is so far above His creation that he can accomplish His ends by allowing His creation to do as it wills without overtly or completely changing its inclinations? Isn't it obvious that hell could not exist unless for God allowing creation to oppose His own will, hell being the eternal absence of God? Hell is for those who refuse to do His will because they had the choice to do it but refused even as He beckoned and graced and drew and appealed to them. And heaven is for those who say yes, again, without being totally changed in inclination beforehand.

God as the first cause means that, yes, no evil would ever exist if He'd refrained from creating. But that doesn't mean that he created the evil itself but only that He granted the free will which, if freely abused, could result in that evil. He created the playing field. We decide whether or not we'll play by His rules as time, experience, revelation, and grace hopefully sway us to see the superiority of His rules. Otherwise we're back to saying that God is too small to make a truly morally accountable beng; our decisions are meaningless, without moral force; He must pull all the strings instead.

God would only create a world where evil could enter if, at the end of the day, He could bring about an even greater good from that evil which He foreknew and allowed to have its way, for a time determined by Him.

 

[fhansen]

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.

God has shown man what is good; God has given that truth to us, within us, from the beginning, along with His own image and likeness that He created us after. So it's not as if we have no direction, no moral compass to begin with. Augustine put it this way, "God wrote on tablets of stone that which man failed to read in his heart".

Man is able to obey, but he will not obey until he freely chooses to do so, and he will not freely choose to obey until he loves: God and neighbor. That's the "goal"; that's where man's purpose, perfection and righteousness lie, which is why the greatest commandments are what they are, incidentally. And that love necessarily, in order to be love, is a choice. Man is obligated to love. And the only way man can do that is to recognize his need, his lack, his sinfulness, and turn to God, in faith-a work of grace and yet a work we can resist and refuse. But as we accept, however weakly that may be at first, God can begin to do His work in us.

This world, this life, is a giant schoolhouse, not a puppet show but the beginning of a journey, a journey to become who God created us to be if we get on board with Him, and remain there. It's a journey towards becoming increasingly like Him, as we will, as we draw nearer and nearer to Him. This is all impossible without grace, and yet He doesn't totally overwhelm us with grace. He coaxes us, not because He has to but because He wants us to "own" our right choices to the extent possible, as any good parent does.

 

[Clare73]

These discussions can get confused. I almost hate to do this, but just to clarify:

And so do I. . .but we've made it this far, maybe we can make it to the end.

I always saw 2:14 being about the unregenerate. It's very clear that it is. When I stated that it was in the context of Paul dealing with the mature vs. immature, that is what I worked out in all the detail. I think you misunderstood me when I spoke of context. I never said 2:14 was about the immature. Not even in my "to a point" comment that I'll touch on near the end of this post.

What I jumped into the middle of was a discussion about regeneration before belief.

Which was in the context of "free will". . .and my point that God does not violate free will by operating in our disposition giving us (disposing us) to prefer his will (the gospel).

My points were directed at this discussion. I saw your comment about 2:14 as being in this context of regeneration before belief, so this was my answer:

I may have misunderstood your reference to 2:14 so I emphasized "seem" to be mixing...

I think you did, 1Co 2:14 was simply the "proof verse" for unregenerate, and not used in relation to 1Co 2-3.

My second paragraph was to address the regeneration discussion in regard to initial belief in the Gospel. Paul is nowhere indicating regeneration before belief prior to 2:14. He stresses how the Spirit was backing up his proclaiming Christ. Any talk of regeneration before belief would have to be inserted into what Paul is saying when he was talking about his evangelizing efforts.

Agreed. . .

My 3rd paragraph is stating what I went to lengths to show. Neither is regeneration before belief to be taken from 2:14. Belief in the Gospel foundation was mostly handled prior to 2:6-16. There was a point to Paul briefly inserting the statement about the unregenerate and it was mainly just to say how the Spirit's teaching can be unwelcome and seen as foolishness by someone who is not spiritual - the unregenerate being the epitome of such - the infantile not being spiritual is not immune to being deceived into the same problem of inability to spiritually examine the Spirit's [deeper] teachings.

Paul's statement about the things that come from the Spirit of God being foolishness to the man and his not accepting them seems too strong to apply to the regenerate.
I see it as applying to the unregenerate, and by extension, remedied only in the rebirth.

That's the context of my "to a point" comment quoted below in the first paragraph. IOW I could not agree entirely with what was being discussed until we got all the way into the regeneration topic as my second paragraph says below. Note again my emphasis on "seems". IOW I'm still attempting to make sure I know what your intention was for referencing 2:14.
IOW @Mark Quayle comment about the mic-drop was ignored in part because it was based upon a misunderstanding of what I was saying.

There was some context lost because of the way I entered in and that seems to have been carried forward. Apologies.

Yes, the context was free will. . .but the resulting understanding of unregenerate in the context of immaturity is not a bad thing.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That functioning, that energy, is provided to us to assist us to willingly obey Him. Paul is issuing the command to those who have been obeying in all things. I don't think there's a question in these verses about our abilities being reliant on God in some or various ways. I do think we can swing the pendulum as we typically do and turn this into, we play no part.

One very basic difference between what I believe and what @John Mullally believes, has everything to do with a viewpoint typical of each. By this I don't mean to brag nor to complain, but just by way of explanation, and I do mean to exaggerate for effect. JM seems to think that we are respected fellow-beings with God. Certainly lesser, but nevertheless, capable on some level of 'dealing with' God, and assisting God's efforts. Like all Arminian-leaning believers, he considers himself also, though working separately from God, to need God's help, and to be always looking for a more pure and effective way to be depending on God. Thus, the synergy, the efforts of both parties adding up to a greater sum, than the efforts of God alone. —This, I call the mind of self-determination, which to me, is akin to enmity* with God.

The Reformed, whether they know it or not, (and many don't), operate (theoretically, anyhow), from a notion of complete dependence on God for their very being. The self-determining 'old man' that must be continually put to death, is always nagging for a position of dominance in their heart, but at the core, the Reformed/Calvinist is not of himself anything, nor capable of doing anything apart from Christ.

*(To the reader, please do not get me wrong here —this is not to claim that JM nor any particular other Arminian is at enmity with God. God knows we all fall short of the facts in doctrine, and the Holy Spirit indwelling us knows better, knows the truth, and it is HE we are 'one with'. As I have mentioned elsewhere, I love it sometimes when I hear one of Arminian doctrine pray, because they sound like Calvinists, speaking to God very much as though they believed what Calvinists do.)

I can tell you that right away I have questions about the M & S terminology based upon what he says about "a unit of work or energy" as we would relate this to the Greek language. If you read what I wrote about Philippians 2:12-13 you may pick up what would begin my questions and discussion even at the entry level of discussing the titles themselves.

It doesn't seem to me that you are bearing in mind that languages and particularly, words, migrate in use and meaning. The use of the two terms, Monergism and Synergism, are (I'm guessing) the best way that those who coined them could find to describe what they wished to describe. Whether the original use is or was in the context of Salvation, I don't know, nor do I find it particularly relevant. What they mean NOW is what is relevant to this discussion. And, obviously, I'm not saying I am the purveyor of meaning. I am saying there is a range of use, sometimes vague, sometimes outrageous, sometimes unbiblical.

But they are useful handles for the two concepts.

 

[GDL]

Paul's statement about the things that come from the Spirit of God being foolishness to the man and his not accepting them seems too strong to apply to the regenerate.
I see it as applying to the unregenerate, and by extension, remedied only in the rebirth.

It's not clear to me what you're meaning. 1Cor2:14 the natural man is the opposite of the spiritual man. The natural man in 2:14 is unregenerate. Do we agree?

Rebirth before belief?

 

[GDL]

It doesn't seem to me that you are bearing in mind that languages and particularly, words, migrate in use and meaning. The use of the two terms, Monergism and Synergism, are (I'm guessing) the best way that those who coined them could find to describe what they wished to describe. Whether the original use is or was in the context of Salvation, I don't know, nor do I find it particularly relevant. What they mean NOW is what is relevant to this discussion. And, obviously, I'm not saying I am the purveyor of meaning. I am saying there is a range of use, sometimes vague, sometimes outrageous, sometimes unbiblical.

I'll still leave you and @John Mullally and/or @fhansen to your discussions and will leave any overall views and philosophies about any isms to you and whoever would like to discuss them.

I'm OK with using the terminology, but I'd first want to ensure an agreed upon definition of terms. I can see what the words mean to the discussion and why they're being used. I know what the mon[o] and sun (syn is a transliteration) prefixes mean and I know they are taking the first 3 letters of the Greek word for "work" - ergon.

Then, within the concept of ergon I'd want to delve into Philippians 2:12-13 and ask whether 2:13 is speaking about God doing the work, or God providing the energy for us to do the work or both God and us working or???. This is what I meant by wanting to immediately discuss the energy & work terminology spoken of in the article I posted for you. So, we'd have to do a little work in Greek words first.

Also, we'd have to make certain we see Salvation in the same way. If anyone I'm discussing this M&S concept with is stuck on the concept of Salvation > Sanctification > Glorification, IOW "salvation" only applies to our initial justification in the Text, then we're not going to get very far in the M&S discussion.

If we agreed to simply focus on M&S in our initial justification, then we might be able to have that discussion, but we may end up with side debates about what some verses speaking of salvation have to do with.

In the end, for me, the discussion has to be about Scriptures - one or a few at a time and not some laundry list. IOW, I've found too many who are versed in some systematic theology represented in some ism, but less who are able to work through the Scriptures and simply want to rest upon others' work. With due respect to the founders of the isms, we're still debating what they were debating, and the Word needs to be the final arbiter. It doesn't matter if we agree or disagree on Scripture other than I know what the disagreement is about and it's not about me being of one ism or another.

 

[Clare73]

It's not clear to me what you're meaning. 1Cor2:14 the natural man is the opposite of the spiritual man. The natural man in 2:14 is unregenerate. Do we agree?

Rebirth before belief?

Yes, to both. . .rebirth before belief (Jn 3:3-8).

In his presentation of God's secret wisdom (1Co 2:7), which he had communicated to the Corinthians, and how it is received by the natural man and the spiritual man, he does not refer to the Corinthians as
natural (psuchikos) -- physical, animal, sensual (i.e., unregenerate) (1Co 2:14), but as
carnal (sarkinos) -- given up to the flesh (1Co 3:1), whereas, the mature Christian is
spiritual (pneuatikos) - one who walks by the Spirit (Gal 5:16, Gal 5:25), who manifests the fruit of the Spirit.

Is 1 Co 2:14 actually not related to, nor is it referring to the Corinthians, but rather to how, in general, God's wisdom is received by the spiritual man and not received by the natural man, while
1 Co 3:1 is about the Corinthians' carnality?

 

[Mark Quayle]

If Romans 8:6-8 is indicating that men are so evil that they require pre-faith regeneration, why didn’t Paul say that? Why don't any NT writiers say that? Calvinists go beyond the Bible to rely on extra-biblical conclusions.

He did. We've already been through this. No doubt the fact you can't see it is because you don't inflict your extra-Biblical constructions on Scripture.

Well you know, its difficult to get around the double-talk and contradictions:

1. Sometimes Calvinists agree that "God desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4)", but then Calvin asserts that God predestines many to hell from before birth.
2. Calvin says God decrees every man's action, including sin, but only man, not God, is accountable for the action..

1. Why pit one Calvinist against another then claim they are therefore [both] being inconsistent?
2. Been through this with you too, but somehow you can't see it.

I avoided answering the beginning of your post for the exasperation I felt. I don't want to be accused of flaming. Just know, John, that I do think that God has your heart in his hands, in spite of your theology, and you are my true brother in Christ. God bless you, but I need a recess.