Does Regeneration Precede Faith?

[bling]

Being re-born is no more "accepted" by man that was his being born.

Man has nothing to do with either his birth or his rebirth.

I am talking about prior to rebirth and what the spiritual dead can do.

 

[tdidymas]

Now you need to read my post 38.

With just hoping in God’s illogical, unconditional, unbelievable Love, the unregenerated Spiritual dead sinner (like the prodigal son prior to returning to his father), can accept undeserved, pure charity from God (like what the prodigal son did).

An unregenerated sinner (spiritual dead) can still come to his senses (see where he is, what got him where he is and where he is going) and thus decide to accept God undeserved help/charity.

It takes a huge “faith” in self to believe you can personally turn your situation around, so without any good logical alternatives you turn to your enemy (God) for help.

I am referring to the natural faith, not saving faith, all mature adults have which can allow them to believe a rock is a god. There is such a thing which the Bible does refer to.

This real little faith is enough faith for a sinner to humbly accept as pure undeserved charity since he/she is desperate to have gift, with only tragic other alternatives, but many will still refuse.

The prodigal son went back to the father when he was spiritually dead and not regenerated by the father.

All nature adults are brought to their senses at some point(s) in their life, every direction they turn to is a deserved disaster, but they do have the slim possible hope of God’s help.

I like the use of “hope”, but he also can see with coming to his senses the disaster he created, the future before him (starving to death in a pigsty) which all give him no hope. The young son has only one possible positive outcome, so without the need for regeneration he chooses to return to the father.

Coming to your senses is not making the choice for you, it is still your free will choice. As hard as it may be to take the punishment you fully deserve, macho (false pride, people do just that).

The difference between those who turn in hopes and trust of accept an unbelievable undeserved pure charity and those who refuse charity is not being regenerated, but being humble now instead of later, since everyone is made humble at some time.

Selflessness comes after you have the Spirit and Godly type Love.

I believe God Loves everyone even those who go to hell. Any mature adult can humble accept God’s Love as pure undeserved chrity or go on refusing God’s Love, but God Loves them.

A soldier can hate his enemy will being a prisoner of war, but if that enemy showers him with unbelievable wonderful gifts and he humbly accepts those gifts as undeserved charity, he will than love the giver (Luke 7) .

It seems to me that you don't believe what the apostle Paul clearly states in 1 Cor. 2 and Rom. 3 about unregenerate man. It also appears to me that you don't think "choosing to believe in Jesus" is a righteous choice. There is a cognitive dissonance in your stand. If you agreed with Paul in those two chapters, you would see that it's an "either/or," not a "sliding scale" of belief/unbelief. If you understood the true spiritual condition of unregenerate souls, that there is a hate for God and loathing for His commands, that they would never submit, then you would understand that God must do something within them (by His own choice) to draw them to Himself. It's a forced drawing with powerful influence (a born-again experience), not a "wooing" in which it's left totally up to the "free will" of unregenerate man. If a man is dead in sin, he will never choose to submit to God. This is Paul's clear teaching in Eph. 2. So if you continue to argue your stand, trying to justify it with your favorite prooftexts, then I think this conversation is over.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

The spiritual dead sinner is not directly “accepting” regeneration, but regeneration comes after with the spiritual dead sinner accepting pure underserved charity (Love) from God. He is doing nothing honorable initially, like joining God’s family, since he is still hating his enemy.

God wants everyone to be “regenerated”, saved, forgiven, Loved and fellowshipped, so it is man who is keeping that from happening (do not blame God, He is doing all He can to help people fulfill their objective).

...

You're repeating assertions without engaging any exegetical comments I've offered in my replies. Scripture nowhere presents God as "doing all He can" while man's will restrains Him, nor does it depict unregenerate sinners as capable of "selfishly accepting" divine grace. The "spiritually dead" (νεκροὺς, Eph. 2:1) are not wounded seekers; they are morally incapable of submission to God (Rom. 8:7-8; 1 Cor. 2:14). To "accept" anything offered by God would already require acknowledgement and delight in Him as God, which hostility cannot produce. The prodigal's "coming to himself" (Luke 15:17) is not a soteriological mechanism but a narrative turning point illustrating the father's initiative, not the son's latent virtue. Reading that as a model of pre-regenerate response confuses genre and manufacturers a category Scripture never affirms.

A "selfish acceptance" of divine charity is a contradiction in terms. Fear of judgment is not faith, and craving relief is not repentance. Regeneration is not God rewarding man's impulse toward Him; it is God creating that impulse where none existed (John 1:13; 3:8; 6:44; Titus 3:5). If you intend to defend your view, you'll need to do so from explicit, didactic passages that actually describe regeneration, not by speculative extrapolation from a parable.

 

[d taylor]

Where do you get that from Scripture? "Gives" precedes and grounds "will come" in John 6:37, not vice versa.

-
​

The Father gives believers to Jesus, He the Father would not give unbelievers. Nothing in the verse states that all The Father gives Me. they will then believe in Me

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.
This verse is about the eternal security of the believer in Jesus. no matter how their life turns out/

God also knows already who will believe in Jesus for Etrenal Life, but that does not mean God has elected certain people to eternal life.

With God that also is the fact that God does not need to be told when a person believes in Jesus.

A person does not need to walk an isle at a church, say a prayer, be baptized, repent of sins, etc...

 

[bling]

It seems to me that you don't believe what the apostle Paul clearly states in 1 Cor. 2 and Rom. 3 about unregenerate man. It also appears to me that you don't think "choosing to believe in Jesus" is a righteous choice. There is a cognitive dissonance in your stand. If you agreed with Paul in those two chapters, you would see that it's an "either/or," not a "sliding scale" of belief/unbelief. If you understood the true spiritual condition of unregenerate souls, that there is a hate for God and loathing for His commands, that they would never submit, then you would understand that God must do something within them (by His own choice) to draw them to Himself. It's a forced drawing with powerful influence (a born-again experience), not a "wooing" in which it's left totally up to the "free will" of unregenerate man. If a man is dead in sin, he will never choose to submit to God. This is Paul's clear teaching in Eph. 2. So if you continue to argue your stand, trying to justify it with your favorite prooftexts, then I think this conversation is over.

I have repeatedly said: “A believe in Jesus” is a salvational choice coming after regeneration/ being born again.

You said: “If you understood the true spiritual condition of unregenerate souls, that there is a hate for God and loathing for His commands, that they would never submit…” is what I do believe. That does not mean the unregenerated sinful man while still hating his enemy, not wanting to do anything for his enemy and unwilling to submit to doing anything for his enemy (God) cannot for strictly selfish reasons (thus sinful reasons) be willing to humbly accept undeserved pure charity as charity from his enemy. This willingness to accept of your own free will is all God needs to shower you with unbelievable wonderful gifts.

This is also the God given logical, just, righteous, Loving reason for why some people fulfill their earthly objective winding up in heaven and others end up in hell. So, what is your reason for some going to hell and it not be God’s fault?

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

The Father gives believers to Jesus, He the Father would not give unbelievers.

That directly contradicts what verse 37 says: "All that the Father gives me will come to me." The giving precedes the coming.

Nothing in the verse states that all The Father gives Me. they will then believe in Me

That's exactly what it says, almost verbatim...

What do you understand "coming" to mean?

God also knows already who will believe in Jesus for Etrenal Life, but that does not mean God has elected certain people to eternal life.

Can you please interact with post #35? Particularly the middle and latter portions on John 6:44, 45.

 

[tdidymas]

I have repeatedly said: “A believe in Jesus” is a salvational choice coming after regeneration/ being born again.

You said: “If you understood the true spiritual condition of unregenerate souls, that there is a hate for God and loathing for His commands, that they would never submit…” is what I do believe. That does not mean the unregenerated sinful man while still hating his enemy, not wanting to do anything for his enemy and unwilling to submit to doing anything for his enemy (God) cannot for strictly selfish reasons (thus sinful reasons) be willing to humbly accept undeserved pure charity as charity from his enemy. This willingness to accept of your own free will is all God needs to shower you with unbelievable wonderful gifts.

This is also the God given logical, just, righteous, Loving reason for why some people fulfill their earthly objective winding up in heaven and others end up in hell. So, what is your reason for some going to hell and it not be God’s fault?

So then does God see someone's "humble acceptance of His undeserved pure charity" prompt Him to cause Spiritual blessing, namely eternal life? You said, "This willingness to accept of your own free will is all God needs to shower you with unbelievable wonderful gifts." - is this "free-will" acceptance of God's charity seen as a righteous choice, meriting God's blessing of eternal life?

You should really consider this deeply. If God sees nothing at all good or worthy in the receiver of eternal life, this is called "saved by grace." If God must see a "willingness to accept God's charity of one's own free will" to prompt Him to save, then it is meritorious by nature. As Paul wrote, "grace is no longer grace."

So if you think an unregenerate person can make such a choice, then no, you don't believe Paul's assessment of the condition of man's soul. Yet you also said, "'A believe in Jesus' is a salvational choice coming after regeneration/ being born again." So then, why do you think an unregenerate man is able to come humbly to God to accept His charity? Do you have a scriptural example of that (besides your speculation about the prodigal son)?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It can be no other way,

LOL. Says you. But, not scripture.

for man is spiritually dead in trespasses and sin until he is born again, and the spiritually dead, deaf, dumb and blind cannot see or understand anything spiritual without the Holy Spirit, it is all foolishness to him because he cannot understand it (1 Co 2:14).

You are taking 1 Corinthians 2:14 completely out of context. That verse relates specifically to someone not being able to understand the deep things of God or what Paul called the meat or solid food of God's word. It has nothing to do with one's ability to understand their need to repent and put their faith in Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.

You clearly have never bothered to dig below the surface to see the context of 1 Corinthians 2:14.

1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written: “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.” 10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. 13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ. 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; 3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?

Paul was not saying here that the natural man is not able to understand simple things like the gospel of Jesus Christ. No. Read it more carefully and you can see that what Paul was saying is that the natural man, and even those who are carnal "babes in Christ", can't understand "the deep things of God" which Paul compares to eating solid food. The natural man, and those who are carnal "babes in Christ" can understand the gospel. They are able to drink milk. They just are not able to eat solid food (understand the deep things of God).

 

[Spiritual Jew]

1 John 5:1a reads:

πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστός, ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται
("Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God")

A few grammatical observations:

First, ὁ πιστεύων is a present active participle functioning substantively: "the one who is believing." The participle presents the subject, and describes a present, ongoing activity rather than a completed act of faith.

Second, γεγέννηται, the main verb of the clause, is a perfect passive indicative: "has been begotten" or "has been born [of God]." The perfect tense is more than just a "past" tense. Its aspectual function specifically points to a completed action in the past whose effects continue into the present.

When the two forms are set in relation to each other, especially with the present participle functioning substantively -- that is, as the subject of the main verb -- the natural sense is that the person who now believes does so as one who has already been born of God. The grammar, therefore, suggests a logical ordering in which the new birth precedes the act of believing.

This does not, of course, deny the simultaneous experience of these realities in human perception, but grammatically the text places regeneration as the root (the logical grounds) and believing as its fruit.

This doesn't address how someone comes to believe in Christ in the first place. You are talking about someone who now believes having previously been born of God, but that doesn't at all prove that someone was born of God before initially putting their faith in Christ.

Scripture is clear that one is not sealed by the Holy Spirit until after first putting their faith and trust in Jesus Christ. We're not sealed by the Holy Spirit until we're born of the Holy Spirit. Those things happen at the same time. I don't believe it makes any sense to think that the Holy Spirit would regenerate us without sealing us at the same time.

Ephesians 1:12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. 13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

 

[Spiritual Jew]

So then does God see someone's "humble acceptance of His undeserved pure charity" prompt Him to cause Spiritual blessing, namely eternal life? You said, "This willingness to accept of your own free will is all God needs to shower you with unbelievable wonderful gifts." - is this "free-will" acceptance of God's charity seen as a righteous choice, meriting God's blessing of eternal life?

You should really consider this deeply. If God sees nothing at all good or worthy in the receiver of eternal life, this is called "saved by grace." If God must see a "willingness to accept God's charity of one's own free will" to prompt Him to save, then it is meritorious by nature.

What you said in your last statement here is is not taught anywhere in scripture. You noticeably are not supporting your comments with any scripture.

As Paul wrote, "grace is no longer grace."

So if you think an unregenerate person can make such a choice, then no, you don't believe Paul's assessment of the condition of man's soul. Yet you also said, "'A believe in Jesus' is a salvational choice coming after regeneration/ being born again." So then, why do you think an unregenerate man is able to come humbly to God to accept His charity? Do you have a scriptural example of that (besides your speculation about the prodigal son)?

Jesus called unregenerate sinners to repentance, so He clearly understood that "unregenerate man is able to come humbly to God to accept His charity".

Mark 2:16 And when the scribes and Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, “How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?” 17 When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

This doesn't address how someone comes to believe in Christ in the first place. You are talking about someone who now believes having previously been born of God, but that doesn't at all prove that someone was born of God before initially putting their faith in Christ.

Your objection assumes a bifurcation the text itself never makes. Why should we believe that "initial faith" should be categorically distinguished from "continuing faith"? Where does John make that distinction?

There is no biblical category of "pre-regenerate belief." If you wish to assert there is, the exegetical burden is yours to identify a passage where this is described. Scripture consistently teaches the opposite: the natural man does not and cannot receive the things of the Spirit (John 6:44; Rom. 8:7-8; 1 Cor. 2:14).

Scripture is clear that one is not sealed by the Holy Spirit until after first putting their faith and trust in Jesus Christ. We're not sealed by the Holy Spirit until we're born of the Holy Spirit.

What is your argument for understanding the "sealing" as regeneration? σφραγίζω ("seal") denotes ownership. It's a mark of assurance of salvation, not the act itself of imparting new life.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Your objection assumes a bifurcation the text itself never makes. Why should we believe that "initial faith" should be categorically distinguished from "continuing faith"? Where does John make that distinction?

I have no idea of what you're trying to say here. Obviously, someone who currently believes has previously been born again. How does that prove that they were born again before they first believed? You have not addressed that as far as I've seen.

There is no biblical category of "pre-regenerate belief."

Again, I have no idea of what you're talking about. Try to speak more clearly, so I don't have to guess as to what you are intending to say. Jesus indicated that sinners are sick and He calls them to repentance, right?

Mark 2:16 And when the scribes and Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, “How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?” 17 When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

When someone is regenerated, they are made righteous because that involves the washing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit in a person's heart. But, Jesus said He did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance. That means He calls unregenerate sinners to repentance. You try to say that sinners need to be regenerated first before they can repent, but Jesus gave no such indication at all. All people have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23), so that means Jesus calls all people to repentance. If only people who have been regenerated could repent, then it would make no sense for Jesus to call all sinners to repentance and would make no sense for God to command all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30).

If you wish to assert there is, the exegetical burden is yours to identify a passage where this is described. Scripture consistently teaches the opposite: the natural man does not and cannot receive the things of the Spirit (John 6:44; Rom. 8:7-8; 1 Cor. 2:14).

Read my post #48 in this thread. I see that you too are taking 1 Corinthians 2:14 out of context.

What is your argument for understanding the "sealing" as regeneration? σφραγίζω ("seal") denotes ownership. It's a mark of assurance of salvation, not the act itself of imparting new life.

Why would regeneration and sealing not happen at the same time? How could we be regenerated by the Holy Spirit without also being sealed by the Holy Spirit? That makes no sense. What do you think, that the Holy Spirit regenerates us and then takes a break until we repent and put our trust in Christ and then He seals us?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It seems to me that you don't believe what the apostle Paul clearly states in 1 Cor. 2 and Rom. 3 about unregenerate man.

It seems that you don't understand what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 2 and Romans 3 about unregenerate man. If you continue reading into 1 Corinthians 3 after reading 1 Corinthians 2 you should see that even the "babes in Christ" that Paul rebuked were being carnal like the natural man and were not able to yet take in the solid food that Paul was wanting to feed them, which is comparable to the natural man being unable to discern "the deep things of God" that Paul talked about in 1 Corinthians 2. In no way, shape or form was Paul saying that unregenerate man is incapable of recognizing his need to respond to the gospel message with repentance and with putting his faith in Christ. Instead, he was saying that unregenerate man, and even carnal "babes in Christ", are unable to discern "the deep things of God" and the "solid food" of God's word.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

I have no idea of what you're trying to say here. Obviously, someone who currently believes has previously been born again. How does that prove that they were born again before they first believed? You have not addressed that as far as I've seen.

We have both agreed (it seems) that the order, born again --> currently believing, is scriptural. But your question implicitly assumes a different sequence:

First believed --> born again --> currently believing.

That assumption introduces a bifurcation (distinction) Scripture never makes: a distinction between initial and continuing faith. Your question is an argument from silence. It's not my burden to disprove the speculation that there is "first belief" prior to being born again. It's yours to substantiate it. The text of John simply speaks of believing as the mark of the regenerate, not as two discrete phases of faith. So I'm asking you to demonstrate this distinction exegetically: where does John differentiate between an "initial" and a "continuing" faith?

When someone is regenerated, they are made righteous because that involves the washing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit in a person's heart.

If regeneration makes one righteous, how does a person exercise saving faith prior to being made righteous? Is faith not itself a God-pleasing act? How then could one who is still "in the flesh" and "hostile" toward God perform it, given Rom. 8:7-8 and John 6:44?

Read my post #48 in this thread. I see that you too are taking 1 Corinthians 2:14 out of context.

You've chosen to respond only to one of the texts I cited. Would you algo engage with post #35, where I address John 6:44?

Your reading of 1 Cor. 2:14 conflates two different passages (2:6-16 and 3:1ff) and, in doing so, collapses distinct categories under the guise of "context." In vv. 10-16, the contrast is between ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος ("natural man") and ὁ πνευματικὸς ("spiritual man"), not between "deep doctrine" and "simple gospel." The distinction is anthropological, not pedagogical. Two kinds of people in nature, not two stages of maturity. The adjective ψυχικός consistently denotes one governed by natural faculties, devoid of the Spirit (cf. Jude 19, ψυχικοί, πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες, "natural men, not having the Spirit"). This is not a category of "immature believers," but of unregenerate people. By contrast, πνευματικὸς is one in whom the Spirit dwells (cf. Rom. 8:9).

The "babes in Christ" appear later as a separate category in a different discussion. Chapter 3 shifts topics to internal church divisions. Chapter 2:10-16, however, is an epistemological statement about spiritual perception. Verses 10-12 ground all true apprehension of divine wisdom (the gospel) in the Spirit's revelation. Verse 14 then states that the ψυχικὸς man, devoid of the Spirit, cannot receive that wisdom, while verse 15 affirms that the πνευματικὸς, the regenerate man, can discern it.

δέχομαι denotes receptivity, not just comprehension. It means "to welcome" or "accept favorably," not merely "to grasp intellectually." The phrase οὐ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ θεοῦ ("does not receive the things of the Spirit of God") means that natural man refuses spiritual things, not just that he "struggles to understand" them. He rejects them as μωρία, "foolishness" (cf. 1 Cor. 1:18).

And Paul tells us why: οὐ δύναται γνῶναι, ὅτι πνευματικῶς ἀνακρίνεται, "he is not able to understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." οὐ δύναται denotes an ontological incapacity, not a temporary ignorance. The verb ἀνακρίνω means "to discern or evaluate rightly." Apart from the indwelling Spirit, man cannot rightly perceive or embrace spiritual truth, including the gospel itself. "Babes in Christ" have the Spirit. The natural man does not.

So 1 Cor. 2:14 is identical in principle to Rom. 8:7-8 and John 6:44. Can you address those texts as well? See post #35 for my comments on John 6:44.

Why would regeneration and sealing not happen at the same time? How could we be regenerated by the Holy Spirit without also being sealed by the Holy Spirit?

Again, you are assuming what needs to be demonstrated. It is not my burden to disprove that "born again" and "sealing" are identical; it is yours to argue from the text.

Paul does not use σφραγίζω to describe regeneration. Regeneration is consistently marked by terms that denote the impartation of life or a new creation: ζωοποιέω ("make alive"), γεννάω ἐκ θεοῦ ("born of God"), and καινὴ κτίσις ("new creation") -- cf. John 3:3-8; Titus 3:5; 2 Cor. 5:17; 1 John 5:1. By contrast, σφραγίζω refers to authentication (cf. John 6:27), ownership, and the guarantee of what God has accomplished. It's a mark of assurance (2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 4:30). It is never used to denote the impartation of new life. In Romans 4:11, the noun form is used covenantally to refer to a confirming seal (a stamp) of righteousness that already exists, not the means by which righteousness is imparted.

I also never denied that regeneration and sealing can occur simultaneously in time. They very well may, at least from our perspective. You are conflating logical and chronological order. The argument in 1 John 5:1 is about logical precedence, not necessarily temporal sequence. Two actions may coincide from a human perspective, yet remain distinct in nature and function. Regeneration is the impartation of spiritual life; sealing is the Spirit's mark of authentication and assurance. One is an ontological act; the other is an attestation. Regeneration --> faith --> sealing, can all occur within the same temporal window. That does not make regeneration and sealing identical, nor does it have any bearing on the logical precedence of regeneration --> faith.

 

[tdidymas]

What you said in your last statement here is is not taught anywhere in scripture. You noticeably are not supporting your comments with any scripture.

You didn't say what you are objecting to, so how can I respond? Everything I write is found in scripture. If you are injecting yourself in the conversation at this point, how do I know you aren't taking my statement out of context? I said that God sees nothing at all in us that merits (prompts) His saving us, calling it "saved by grace" - is exactly what Paul wrote in Eph. 2:5.

Jesus called unregenerate sinners to repentance, so He clearly understood that "unregenerate man is able to come humbly to God to accept His charity".

I disagree with you. Paul clearly stated in Rom. 8:7 "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." 'Neither can be' is a statement of inability. An unregenerate man has a carnal mind, and therefore is unable to submit himself to the "law of God." Paul is talking about the law of faith in God as his gospel teaches. For someone to "come humbly to God to accept His charity" they must have faith in God, and ultimately in Christ. The carnal man can't do it, because of the spiritual deadness of his soul. Jesus called sinners to repentance, but few repented, because God is the one who regenerates people and makes them spiritual (1 Cor. 2:14-16), where Paul is talking about the gospel he preaches beginning in ch. 1.

Mark 2:16 And when the scribes and Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, “How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?” 17 When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

So you think that the Pharisees were righteous, that Jesus said they were by his statement here?

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

This reply is dismissive and rhetorically overconfident. You continue to make a category confusion without acknowledging what I've repeatedly pointed out. The ordo salutis concerns what is logically prior, not what is empirically perceptible. We do not "experience" election, calling, or regeneration as discrete sensations, yet their effects manifest in faith and repentance. The lack of direct experience does not make them unreal; it simply marks them as divine acts beneath consciousness.

John 1:12-13 actually supports this. Verse 12 describes the human side ("receiving" Christ and believing in His name), while verse 13 explains the cause of that response: "who were born... of God." The verb "who were born" (ἐγεννήθησαν) is aorist passive, locating the birth as a completed divine action antecedent to and causative of the believing response. The "right to become" children of God (ἐξουσίαν γενέσθαι) is consequent upon faith, but the birth that makes one a child is God's act alone. You have reversed the logic of the text.

John 3:3-5 teaches the same: apart from new birth, one cannot even see the kingdom, let alone enter it. That is not a post-faith event; it is what enables faith itself. Nicodemus' problem was not disbelief in data but incapacity for spiritual perception.

So this isn't "metaphysical reasoning"; it's exegesis. You have not directly engaged hardly any of the argumentation I have made from Scripture, including the grammatical argument of the OP.

Yes, I did sense a discrete change when Jesus forgave my sins and came to live in my heart.

You Greek grammar could be spot-on or it could be biased. I suspect the latter. But I do know when I see false doctrine because I listen to God when He sets off alarm bells in my heart. So, when you argue on the basis of gramatical correctness that somehow spiritual birth preceeds believing in Jesus and receiving Him (contrary to Scripture and contrary to our experience), then I know that something is wrong with your understanding.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

Yes, I did sense a discrete change when Jesus forgave my sins and came to live in my heart.

You Greek grammar could be spot-on or it could be biased. I suspect the latter. But I do know when I see false doctrine because I listen to God when He sets off alarm bells in my heart. So, when you argue on the basis of gramatical correctness that somehow spiritual birth preceeds believing in Jesus and receiving Him (contrary to Scripture and contrary to our experience), then I know that something is wrong with your understanding.

Personal experience cannot adjudicate between competing exegetical claims. Scripture must govern experience, not the reverse. You've offered testimony, not argument. On what grounds do you "suspect" grammatical bias? If you're going to raise accusations without engaging the reasoning, the suspicion itself suggests bias.

 

[bling]

You're repeating assertions without engaging any exegetical comments I've offered in my replies. Scripture nowhere presents God as "doing all He can" while man's will restrains Him, nor does it depict unregenerate sinners as capable of "selfishly accepting" divine grace. The "spiritually dead" (νεκροὺς, Eph. 2:1) are not wounded seekers; they are morally incapable of submission to God (Rom. 8:7-8; 1 Cor. 2:14). To "accept" anything offered by God would already require acknowledgement and delight in Him as God, which hostility cannot produce. The prodigal's "coming to himself" (Luke 15:17) is not a soteriological mechanism but a narrative turning point illustrating the father's initiative, not the son's latent virtue. Reading that as a model of pre-regenerate response confuses genre and manufacturers a category Scripture never affirms.

I do not engage in most of your exegetical comments, since for the most part I agree with them. Mostly we are talking about two very different things in the salvation process, you are talking about after regeneration and I am talking about before regeneration (having the indwelling Holy Spirit). I am talking about what the person needs to do which is nothing honorable, righteous, holy, worthy or spiritual, to be regenerated. You have not told me any difference between people prior to be regeneration or not, so did God arbitrarily choose some over others for no known logical reason?

You say: “Scripture nowhere presents God as "doing all He can"…”. Yet God allowed His only son to be torture, humiliated and totally unjustly murdered on the cross, to help us, so what more is possible? What is God doing which does not help willing individuals in fulfilling their objective and what more could be done?

You say: “…nor does it depict unregenerate sinners as capable of "selfishly accepting" divine grace.” Yet, there are lots of example like every time “Whosoever” is used we see the exercising of free will. How can man fulfill his earthly objective without free will?

I fully agree with what you said here: “The "spiritually dead" (νεκροὺς, Eph. 2:1) are not wounded seekers; they are morally incapable of submission to God (Rom. 8:7-8; 1 Cor. 2:14).” But what things can a spiritual dead person do?

You say: “To "accept" anything offered by God would already require acknowledgement and delight in Him as God”, lots of soldiers have surrendered to the enemy knowing very little “truth” about their enemy.

“the father's initiative”, is not shown in the son coming to his senses. If the father had sent servants after the son you could say: it was the father’s initiative.

The prodigal son story is like the story for many Christian’s salvation story.

A "selfish acceptance" of divine charity is a contradiction in terms. Fear of judgment is not faith, and craving relief is not repentance. Regeneration is not God rewarding man's impulse toward Him; it is God creating that impulse where none existed (John 1:13; 3:8; 6:44; Titus 3:5). If you intend to defend your view, you'll need to do so from explicit, didactic passages that actually describe regeneration, not by speculative extrapolation from a parable.

You said: “A "selfish acceptance" of divine charity is a contradiction in terms.” But how is that any different from a soldier selfishly willingly to accept pure undeserved charity from an enemy he still hates?

 

[bling]

So then does God see someone's "humble acceptance of His undeserved pure charity" prompt Him to cause Spiritual blessing, namely eternal life? You said, "This willingness to accept of your own free will is all God needs to shower you with unbelievable wonderful gifts." - is this "free-will" acceptance of God's charity seen as a righteous choice, meriting God's blessing of eternal life?

The free will “acceptance of God’s charity”, is seen as a purely selfish act on the sinner’s part and thus a sin, but the unregenerate sinner is always sinning. Everyone will humble so humility is not a spiritual activity:

Luke 14:11 For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted

Humbly accepting undeserved charity as charity for selfish reasons is not a righteous choice, since it is a selfish choice, but it does allow God to shower the person with gifts.

You should really consider this deeply. If God sees nothing at all good or worthy in the receiver of eternal life, this is called "saved by grace." If God must see a "willingness to accept God's charity of one's own free will" to prompt Him to save, then it is meritorious by nature. As Paul wrote, "grace is no longer grace."

Again, being willing to humbly selfishly accept pure undeserved charity as charity is not something others would see as being honorable, glorious and exceptional sine the lowliest mature adult on earth go do that. What makes selfishly accepting pure undeserved charity “worthy” of anything?

So if you think an unregenerate person can make such a choice, then no, you don't believe Paul's assessment of the condition of man's soul. Yet you also said, "'A believe in Jesus' is a salvational choice coming after regeneration/ being born again." So then, why do you think an unregenerate man is able to come humbly to God to accept His charity? Do you have a scriptural example of that (besides your speculation about the prodigal son)?

Paul is not saying the unbeliever cannot make a sinful selfish choice.

Mark 2:16 And when the scribes and Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, “How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?” 17 When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

The Spiritual Jew uses lots of good verses.

It is obvious to me from scripture, but what is your answer to: What logical good reason does God use for those He regenerates and those He does not regenerate?

 

[Clare73]

I am talking about prior to rebirth and what the spiritual dead can do.

If they are spiritually dead, they can do nothing spiritual.