Agreed. I understand the 'new birth' to take place at conversion, and involving repentance from sins and renouncing a sinful life, and accepting Jesus as Savior. The 'Illumination' as you call it, and I think that is an appropriate term here, would precede the New Birth. Jn. 1, the true Light enlightens every person coming into the world. That enlightenment is from God. It is the initial step leading to conversion. The time from that initial illumination to the New Birth I would compare to gestation in physical birth. Just as in physical birth, there doesn't suddenly pop out a baby without a pregnancy first, so in Spiritual rebirth there is enlightenment or illumination, which ultimately leads to being born again.
Illumination is the medieval term for it. The Light of the World that illuminates everyone is not necessarily causing spiritual birth though. What's now seen in the light is not simply the good, but also the evil.
And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God. John 3:19-21
The idea of "light" and "illumination" in Jesus' terms is indeed a confrontation with the truth, and it is also universal and it is also not the New Birth.
That illumination is also not a heart change to make the spiritual attractive. It's clear people flee the light. They see. And they run away.
At the Final Judgment people will be clear on the fact that they're condemned for their evil. Illumination makes the judgment of God clear. Knowledge does not make someone spiritually alive.
With 2 Cor 2, this spiritual information is comprehended, but still looks foolish, silly, incredible to the natural man. He's not born of God.
So there's no reason to think this universal Illumination is considered credible or real or even attractive to soul-al or fleshly-minded people.
With that I can't see how this new knowledge is the reason why people change their own hearts. God doesn't change hearts -- or strengthen the will -- through this form of illumination. It seems clear that the Light
repels those who do what is wicked, but
attracts those who do what is true.
Ultimately, I don't see how the splitting of New Birth from the two reactions to Illumination could proceed, given the John 3 passage. The Spirit is still completely responsible for who's born again. The person's fleshly will won't take this spiritual initiative according to John 3:3,5.
Jesus has just been talking with Nicodemus about a division -- born of the Spirit and born of the flesh. (Jn 3:6) We'd need to split the John 3:16ff passage away from John 3:3-10 concepts and references in order to sustain this. It's possible. But Jesus certainly isn't making it easy for Nico, or anyone else, to see the relevance of John 3:16ff to His discussion with Nico starting John 3.
That passage has been addressed in some detail earlier, as well, I think as on the Return of Calvinism thread. Did you have a chance to review those discussions?
Detail has quite a bit of impact on the concept here. There's little you've said about the illumination distinction on these explanations, and so the discussion there has something of a drawback. Not all listen to the Father -- so the spread of information in John 6 cannot be the universal illumination we're talking about.
We can talk about illumination as being the clear visible evidence of sin and what God's done to deal with it, I think. But it wouldn't extend to God's actions of John 6, which aren't universal. Those actions are specific (not everyone listens) and effective (all those involved in this way come to Christ).
"But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe." John 6:36
The Illumination: "
you have seen me". But to no effect: "
and yet do not believe".
Jesus contrasts here: "
All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out."
Jesus expects those the Father gives, to come. The grumbling Jewish people thus haven't been given by the Father. It's not universal. Instead those that the Father gives Jesus will come to Him.
The critical point here is belief, on which we agree. What we don't agree on is whether the Father decides
on the basis of an ungifted faith, or gives New Birth resulting in faith.
So what's Jesus contrasting here? What's He doing, by forcing the conclusion: the Father hasn't given these people to Jesus? Does this really say something meaningful to the non-Calvinist? That God's gifts are really based on looking in the future and seeing how good we've been? I for one wonder why Jesus wouldn't take this very opportunity and tell everyone, "All those who are coming to me the Father is giving me." rather than the reverse, "
All those the Father is giving me will come to me."
It's an explanation from systematics. I don't see much in the passage supporting this position, so I wonder what would cause Jesus
not to mention this? Where is Jesus wording different, showing Jesus doesn't have the Calvinist view in mind?
For the record, I see this passage as saying that the ethnic Jewish people are splitting up into those who believe in Christ Jesus, and those who don't. And the real children of God are being made public by their belief in Jesus. They aren't
caused to be children of God by belief. They're
shown to be children of God by belief.
