Is Calvinism a heresy?

[Xeno.of.athens]

Those causes internal to the moral agent ARE from "yourself". Causation is necessary. Sorry, but it is simple logic. And yes, it all descends logically from God's speaking his creation into existence. There is no escaping it.

Simple logic?
Is this not pure determinism, which means only that everything that happens is caused by something that happened (in time) before and which is the immediate or proximate cause. There is in this system no room for action arising without a proximate cause. It also - theologically speaking - means that every proximate cause is traced through a finite series of proximate causes back to God. Thus God is the cause (remote in many cases, proximate in some cases) of every human act be it sinful or saintly. It is all clockwork mechanisms, with mushy cogs and bubbling mechanisms. It is hardly distinguishable from atheistic determinism, except that instead of all tings tracing back to a big bang with an unknown cause this system will have all things trace back to God who is not caused. Is this the kind of simple logic you advocate?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Simple logic?
Is this not pure determinism, which means only that everything that happens is caused by something that happened (in time) before and which is the immediate or proximate cause. There is in this system no room for action arising without a proximate cause. It also - theologically speaking - means that every proximate cause is traced through a finite series of proximate causes back to God. Thus God is the cause (remote in many cases, proximate in some cases) of every human act be it sinful or saintly. It is all clockwork mechanisms, with mushy cogs and bubbling mechanisms. It is hardly distinguishable from atheistic determinism, except that instead of all tings tracing back to a big bang with an unknown cause this system will have all things trace back to God who is not caused. Is this the kind of simple logic you advocate?

If by 'pure determinism' you mean no real choice, then no, that is not the simple logic I advocate. There is, however, indeed no room for action arising without a proximate cause. The only possessor of utter spontaneity is God himself.

The thing that I find hard to get anyone to see, is that the determinism that I advocate is not like fatalism, where it is doom, with no heart. GOD is the one doing this story, but from a 'realm' far 'above' ours, and from within the minutest particle of matter and energy within this universe. He is not us and we are not him. When he causes something, he almost always uses means to accomplish it.

Do you believe there can be more than one first cause? Or that any creature can escape the law of causation?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

GOD is the one doing this story, but from a 'realm' far 'above' ours, and from within the minutest particle of matter and energy within this universe. He is not us and we are not him. When he causes something, he almost always uses means to accomplish it.

That is bifurcating; God WAS the one doing the story - remember the eternal decree, it precedes (at least logically) creation - and now the story plays out with whatever divine energies are needed to keep it going exactly according the eternal decree plan. Thus what you wrote before means that God decreed all things, whatsoever, that come to pass, and now, your current post means that God is working in creation, as well as outside of it, to make his eternal decree come to pass, exactly as he planned. So, what's the difference, two perspectives yielding the same net result but by different pathways; you've bifurcated - used the same word to carry two different concepts, one that declares the finality of God's eternal decree and the other meaning that the decree is worked out step by step in time as well as in eternity. You ought to clarify which meaning has priority and how they relate, one to the other, to form a coherent plan that is encompassed by "simple logic". Or do you really want to say that God does both 'simultaneously' in this 'simple logic'; that is, that he both eternally decrees everything and also 'simultaneously' does everything directly without proximate causes between his action and the accomplished action or indirectly through proximate causes?

 

[Mark Quayle]

That is bifurcating; God WAS the one doing the story - remember the eternal decree, it precedes (at least logically) creation - and now the story plays out with whatever divine energies are needed to keep it going exactly according the eternal decree plan. Thus what you wrote before means that God decreed all things, whatsoever, that come to pass, and now, your current post means that God is working in creation, as well as outside of it, to make his eternal decree come to pass, exactly as he planned. So, what's the difference, two perspectives yielding the same net result but by different pathways; you've bifurcated - used the same word to carry two different concepts, one that declares the finality of God's eternal decree and the other meaning that the decree is worked out step by step in time as well as in eternity. You ought to clarify which meaning has priority and how they relate, one to the other, to form a coherent plan that is encompassed by "simple logic". Or do you really want to say that God does both 'simultaneously' in this 'simple logic'; that is, that he both eternally decrees everything and also 'simultaneously' does everything directly without proximate causes between his action and the accomplished action or indirectly through proximate causes?

That has to do with God's timeless nature (among other things about his nature). We say he is everywhere at all times, which is true enough, so I can say, with a large degree of assurance, that he spoke the completed product (that we have yet to see as completed) into existence, in what WE call the past. But to him, I am equally sure, to have done it and to be doing it (again, from our POV), are one and the same thing. It is OUR thinking that insists there is meaning to whether it was past or present or future, while in fact, those are all OUR way of thinking.

Notice that WE are the ones who want one of the two concepts to have priority. As a time-bound creature, I say his decree has priority, and my human logic (assuming time-dependence, of course), demands that his decree causes all other things, which will include all that he does within time. But really, I think, all of it IS his decree, spoken into existence.

The "simple logic" is about causation, timeless or otherwise. Everything except first cause is an effect. (And most of those effects are also causes). And every effect has a cause.

 

[zippy2006]

Those causes internal to the moral agent ARE from "yourself". Causation is necessary. Sorry, but it is simple logic. And yes, it all descends logically from God's speaking his creation into existence. There is no escaping it.

Necessitated acts are not free. Sorry, but it is simple logic.

(I am happy to address more rigorous posters with more rigor.)

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That has to do with God's timeless nature (among other things about his nature). We say he is everywhere at all times, which is true enough, so I can say, with a large degree of assurance, that he spoke the completed product (that we have yet to see as completed) into existence, in what WE call the past. But to him, I am equally sure, to have done it and to be doing it (again, from our POV), are one and the same thing. It is OUR thinking that insists there is meaning to whether it was past or present or future, while in fact, those are all OUR way of thinking.

If I may use two analogies to deal with the bifurcation in the logic of your posts.

1. God creates an intricate play and builds a device to act it out. The device is made with cogs, a wind-up spring to actuate the cogs, and a box to contain the hidden mechanism. Atop the box is the stage where the intricate play is acted out by players. God winds up the spring, and when he is pleased to start it running he does so. And the play is acted out with perfection exactly as he wrote it.
2. God creates an intricate play and constructs actors to act it out. He builds a stage for the players to act out the play. He attaches strings (invisible) with which he actuates the players. The play is acted out as God uses the strings to make each player do exactly what is written in the intricate play. The entire play is acted out with perfection exactly as he wrote it.

These two methods achieve the same net result but by different means. You see this do you not?

• In the first the eternal decree has logical priority and the mechanism is hidden yet certain; the mechanism plays out according to the order established in its creation and that is that.
• In the second the eternal decree has logical priority and the means is hidden yet certain; the players play everything out according to the order imposed by their creator and that is that.

The point of view argument in your post is about the invisible mechanism (or invisible strings). The timeless 'realm' that you posited (see earlier post) reveals that the play is acted out in perfection exactly as God intends because God acts it out, the players merely make it visible. This is not freedom of the will in any sense, yet it is what the explanations you've proposed and offer.

I leave it to the reader to decide if the document quoted below proposes either model or offers some other and if after the fall any human has free will to do anything.

---

Westminster Confession of Faith (Presbyterian; protestant)​

Chapter 9 – Of Free Will​

1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.a​

aMatt 17:12; James 1:14; Deut 30:19.​

2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good, and well pleasing to God;b but yet mutably, so that he might fall from it.c​

bEccl 7:29; Gen 1:26. cGen 2:16-17; Gen 3:6.​

3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation:d so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good,e and dead in sin,f is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.g​

dRom 5:6; Rom8:7; John 15:5. eRom 3:10,12. fEph 2:1,5; Col 2:13. gJohn 6:44,65; Eph 2:2-5; 1 Cor 2:14; Tit 3:3-5.​

4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin;h and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;i yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.k​

hCol 1:13; John 8:34,36. iPhil 2:13; Rom 6:18,22. kGal 5:17; Rom 7:15,18-19,21,23.​

5. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only.l​

lEph 4:13; Heb 12:23; 1 John 3:2; Jude 1: 24.​

 

[Mark Quayle]

Necessitated acts are not free. Sorry, but it is simple logic.

(I am happy to address more rigorous posters with more rigor.)

No. You're letting your words play you. I wouldn't be surprised to hear you say that God gave you that freedom. Therefore, caused. (Simple logic).

 

[jameslouise]

To take Biblical principles all together is not the same as to mash up texts. I didn't even put full quotes around anything, at that point, but 'scare-quotes' around 'to whom he chose to show mercy', if I remember right. All Scripture is interpreted by Scripture. Using many different Scriptural principles together is something we all do. Except maybe you? Idk.

The phrase Foundation of the world (FOTW) is a thing of exquisite beauty with multiple meanings, had you shown interest in it during our discussion i would have discussed it with you in great detail and was really asking for some sharpening. When I pointed out that really the use of FOTW in Heb 9:27 could well be referring top the Abraham Covenant you were seemingly unimpressed and I disengaged then. Once these meanings are understood, it is clear your singular use of it does not do it justice.

 

[jameslouise]

It was your regenerated will.

You are the one stretching it. My point was that it is still obviously OUR will, that God has regenerated

That is not the view that I am proposing—or even believe, for that matter. And there is no good excuse for that sort of straw man because the beliefs and doctrines of Reformed covenant theology are published in confessional standards accessible anywhere by anyone.

P.S. That is a reliable indication of a straw man argument, when your opponent cannot find anything recognizable in your description or characterization of his views

No straw man, in my opinion just a justified extrapolation of your use of 'regenerated will' (this term is not in the bible). You both ( @Mark Quayle @DialecticSkeptic) use the word 'regenerated' attached to 'will', You do not say God regenerated my 'tohu and bohu' spirit and as a result of that regeneration I adopted a certain position. You use the word directly attached to 'will'- a description of an event on my will.
My will is exclusivity mine. It is under my dominion, if it is not subject to anybody or any specific argument put to it, otherwise it would be under their or that argument's dominion. Every man is made with free will. period-show scripture that says otherwise. If God makes me susceptible to a certain irresistible argument then He has made me without freewill because that argument then has dominion over my freewill.

Sorry, where does it say that the Spirit presented Christ to them? Which version of the Bible are you using?.

Always the KJV.
John 12:48 describes a group of people who reject Christ, we know that no one can come to Christ except by The Holy Spirit presenting him to them. Logically in order for this people group to reject Christ they must have been offered him by The Holy Spirit or they have not really been offered him at all. There is no other valid valid offer. Once you accept this, some other questions arise and I ask them.

Why didn't The Holy Spirit regenerate their will? Why just a half hearted attempt for these then?
Do you think God foreknew and pre-destinated these attempts too?
Would Rom 8:29 then be applicable For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son for this group but just that they rejected Christ and so the rest of the chain of events of Rom 8 30 did not follow.
Wait a minute, that would tie in with my earlier point that Romans 8:28-30 is only about those who have chosen 'yes' to accepting Jesus as their savior. (them that love God) It says nothing about those who have not. So verse 28 applying to all but the rest just to those who said yes. I'm liking it.
Wait a minute, that would mean that God treated everybody equally and gave them all a fair chance. I like that God. My God as absolutely good and absolutely just. How about yours?
Show me scripture otherwise

 

[Mark Quayle]

No straw man, in my opinion just a justified extrapolation of your use of 'regenerated will' (this term is not in the bible). You both ( @Mark Quayle @DialecticSkeptic) use the word 'regenerated' attached to 'will', You do not say God regenerated my 'tohu and bohu' spirit and as a result of that regeneration I adopted a certain position. You use the word directly attached to 'will'-

Do you not attach your notion of 'free' to "will"? Let's don't get excessively hypocritical here. I can show by combining text upon text why I say "regenerated will". You cannot show why you say "free will" except by adding your reasoning based on your presuppositions add "free" (meaning "uncaused" or "altogether spontaneous") to "will".

 

[jameslouise]

Do you not attach your notion of 'free' to "will"? Let's don't get excessively hypocritical here. I can show by combining text upon text why I say "regenerated will". You cannot show why you say "free will" except by adding your reasoning based on your presuppositions add "free" (meaning "uncaused" or "altogether spontaneous") to "will".

Then show me those combination texts, please do As for use of 'free' will then remove the free and use will, my stance with just the use of 'will' on its own still 'works', My addition of free is to emphasize an essential attributes of a 'will'.i.e. it is free, it is not under the dominion of an outside agency be that a person or argument. i do not share your dentition of 'free' either, Google came up with able to act or be done as one wishes; not under the control of another and I think uncaused and spontaneous do not really represent this use of it.

 

[jameslouise]

Do you not attach your notion of 'free' to "will"? Let's don't get excessively hypocritical here. I can show by combining text upon text why I say "regenerated will". You cannot show why you say "free will" except by adding your reasoning based on your presuppositions add "free" (meaning "uncaused" or "altogether spontaneous") to "will".

I am also going to throw a curve ball at you here and say Genesis 1 and 2 may well describe man having dominion over all components of his spirit.But that is a long argument for another day i hope.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Then show me those combination texts, please do As for use of 'free' will then remove the free and use will, my stance with just the use of 'will' on its own still 'works', My addition of free is to emphasize an essential attributes of a 'will'.i.e. it is free, it is not under the dominion of an outside agency be that a person or argument. i do not share your dentition of 'free' either, Google came up with able to act or be done as one wishes; not under the control of another and I think uncaused and spontaneous do not really represent this use of it.

Well, then, if will is neither uncaused nor spontaneous, I'm glad to hear you agree with me concerning it. The way you've been talking, I thought you were saying God did not cause choices.

----------

Mark Quayle said:
Do you not attach your notion of 'free' to "will"? Let's don't get excessively hypocritical here. I can show by combining text upon text why I say "regenerated will". You cannot show why you say "free will" except by adding your reasoning based on your presuppositions add "free" (meaning "uncaused" or "altogether spontaneous") to "will".

jameslouise said:
Then show me those combination texts, please do

'Regenerated' + 'will':

Romans 8: verse 5 I think you will agree tells us about the will: 5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.

Then verse 6 doubles down on the difference: 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace.

But verses 7 and 8 tell us what the unregenerate will cannot do: 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

Then verse 9 says: 9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. Now if verse 9 doesn't say "regenerate" clearly enough for you, there are chapters before and after chapter 8 with plenty to say about the Spirit regenerating, and other passages of the NT such as Ephesians 2, graphically detailing what the Spirit does in making the dead alive.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I am also going to throw a curve ball at you here and say Genesis 1 and 2 may well describe man having dominion over all components of his spirit.But that is a long argument for another day i hope.

You can't just throw the pitch and expect the batter to stand there looking at it go by. Since you threw it, I will react: If man originally (pre-Adamic fall) had dominion over all components of his spirit, does that mean that God had no control over what man did?

 

[jameslouise]

If I may use two analogies to deal with the bifurcation in the logic of your posts.

1. God creates an intricate play and builds a device to act it out. The device is made with cogs, a wind-up spring to actuate the cogs, and a box to contain the hidden mechanism. Atop the box is the stage where the intricate play is acted out by players. God winds up the spring, and when he is pleased to start it running he does so. And the play is acted out with perfection exactly as he wrote it.
2. God creates an intricate play and constructs actors to act it out. He builds a stage for the players to act out the play. He attaches strings (invisible) with which he actuates the players. The play is acted out as God uses the strings to make each player do exactly what is written in the intricate play. The entire play is acted out with perfection exactly as he wrote it.

These two methods achieve the same net result but by different means. You see this do you not?

• In the first the eternal decree has logical priority and the mechanism is hidden yet certain; the mechanism plays out according to the order established in its creation and that is that.
• In the second the eternal decree has logical priority and the means is hidden yet certain; the players play everything out according to the order imposed by their creator and that is that.

The point of view argument in your post is about the invisible mechanism (or invisible strings). The timeless 'realm' that you posited (see earlier post) reveals that the play is acted out in perfection exactly as God intends because God acts it out, the players merely make it visible. This is not freedom of the will in any sense, yet it is what the explanations you've proposed and offer.

I leave it to the reader to decide if the document quoted below proposes either model or offers some other and if after the fall any human has free will to do anything.

---

Westminster Confession of Faith (Presbyterian; protestant)​

Chapter 9 – Of Free Will​

1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.a​

aMatt 17:12; James 1:14; Deut 30:19.​

2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good, and well pleasing to God;b but yet mutably, so that he might fall from it.c​

bEccl 7:29; Gen 1:26. cGen 2:16-17; Gen 3:6.​

3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation:d so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good,e and dead in sin,f is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.g​

dRom 5:6; Rom8:7; John 15:5. eRom 3:10,12. fEph 2:1,5; Col 2:13. gJohn 6:44,65; Eph 2:2-5; 1 Cor 2:14; Tit 3:3-5.​

4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin;h and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;i yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.k​

hCol 1:13; John 8:34,36. iPhil 2:13; Rom 6:18,22. kGal 5:17; Rom 7:15,18-19,21,23.​

5. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only.l​

lEph 4:13; Heb 12:23; 1 John 3:2; Jude 1: 24.​

I love a good metaphor and that was one, but the links on free will did not work on mouseover but kept opening new web pages in new windows, not sure why? But it made it very time consuming to follow,

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I love a good metaphor and that was one, but the links on free will did not work on mouseover but kept opening new web pages in new windows, not sure why? But it made it very time consuming to follow,

The links were external, to the Free Presbyterian web pages, it was their copy of the "free will" that I displayed. So that was a Protestant & Calvinist source.

 

[jameslouise]

You can't just throw the pitch and expect the batter to stand there looking at it go by. Since you threw it, I will react: If man originally (pre-Adamic fall) had dominion over all components of his spirit, does that mean that God had no control over what man did

Cant wait to send you the answer to this, but I will prepare my answer to the Romans 8 stuff first. But here's some more teasers:
Genesis 1 and 2 are very, very precisely written, without any chance of misunderstanding and they completely refute your stance on who does what leading up to and our salvation moment. The two chapters also clearly show that God wants all (every single man) to be saved. Watch this space

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Cant wait to send you the answer to this, but I will prepare my answer to the Romans 8 stuff first. But here's some more teasers:
Genesis 1 and 2 very, very precisely written, without any chance of misunderstanding and they completely refute your stance on who does what leading up to and our salvation moment. The two chapters also clearly show that God wants all (every single man) to be saved. Watch this space

Speaking of Romans 8, our liturgical bible text has an interesting choice of words for some verses in that chapter. If you have a Jerusalem Bible, the one from the 1960s, then read Romans 8:24-25

For we must be content to hope that we shall be saved -- our salvation is not in sight, we should not have to be hoping for it if it were -- but, as I say, we must hope to be saved since we are not saved yet -- it is something we must wait for with patience.​

The passage containing those verses is read at the Pentecost vigil mass.

 

[jameslouise]

Romans 8: verse 5 I think you will agree tells us about the will:
Then verse 6 doubles down on the difference:
But verses 7 and 8 tell us what the unregenerate will cannot do:
Then verse 9 says: Now if verse 9 doesn't say "regenerate" clearly enough for you, there are chapters before and after chapter 8 with plenty to say about the Spirit regenerating, and other passages of the NT such as Ephesians 2, graphically detailing what the Spirit does in making the dead alive.

5.For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6.For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7.Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8.So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9.But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Firstly, the text does not contain the words will and regenerate so we are dealing with an interpretation from you and you have some clear problems.Secondly, i disagree with most of your interpretations.

You have a timeline problem: The whole of this passage is about them who have the spirit of Christ inside them, those who are indwelt. those who are saved. Comparisons being made with those who do not have this indwelling who are not saved. You define a 'regenerated will' . well according to this text this regeneration cannot happen before we are in the spirit. Also, according to this text as we are not in the spirit until we have accepted Christ. Or maybe simpler we have to be regenerated before we can accept Christ-we are not regenerated until we do. We have a chicken and egg situation. You cannot back date these attributes from this text. Being indwelt by and being acted upon by The Holy Spirit are different states.

You have a terminology problem: You seem to be interchanging 'will' and 'mind' or at least saying that will is entirely dependent on the 'mind. I suggest they are two different things. Mind being literal in what 'is in our thinking' both present and past.
I suggest my soul is my mind. my will and my emotions. I suggest what comes into my mind will be processed. The processing will be influenced by everything I have ever said, I have ever done, I have ever heard, I have ever seen together with my emotions and with the base 'me; that God created, The result of this process may be nothing and just a 'musing but may lead to an expression of my volition. Be that an inclination and appetite action or whatever. Will and mind not being interchangeable. One playing a role with forming the other.
In addition, if we accept Jesus then He will indeed be the light of our life and the Holy Spirit will also guide us right from wrong, like magnet drawing us to the light -living in the spirit. But at the same time there is still a magnet drawing us to the flesh. Both will affect our will. If we get it right then we may end up 'without spot or wrinkle' living entirely in the spirit. Eph 5:27

You have an assumption of always problem: You seem to be saying that while living in the flesh you cannot make a 'good decision' to come to Christ,. but many unsaved people do good things all the time.The text is describing a way of living and does not prohibit good choices while living in the flesh or bad choices while living in the spirit.
The text does not say Christ/The Holy Spirit by indwelling leads you to salvation either.

You have a choice of words problem: the word regeneration looks to have a plain and obvious meaning to me: In Mat 19:28, a regeneration of our body to a glorified body and in Titus 3:5 exactly the same but of our 'spirit man' -our tohuw and bohuw spirit being remade. I think in the physical realm you could see Mat 19.28 regeneration, measure it and weigh it. I think if you were actually in the spiritual realm you could see the Tit 3:5 regeneration measure it and weigh it there too. I do not think a will can be measured or weighed in either realm.
Maybe its like hardware and software, the regeneration being hardware but the invisible 'will and thinking' being like software? Jameslouise is software-my thinking, will and emotions all software-glitchy, virus sodden, malware full software. (and bombarded everyday with more) The light gets rid of these and makes my software run more like His perfect software. But you can not rewrite my code or it will not be me anymore.
How can my volition be 'regenerated' you would have to change everything that forms it. It would not be a will under my dominion then but under the re-generators dominion and it would not be me (i am using the word generate to mean roughly: remake/regrow or re-invigorate).

All of these argument apply to Eph 2 passage as well.
Please show me some more examples as it is not so much I cannot see your point but to me, I can see it is just not there.

 

[Mark Quayle]

5.For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6.For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7.Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8.So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9.But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Firstly, the text does not contain the words will and regenerate so we are dealing with an interpretation from you and you have some clear problems.Secondly, i disagree with most of your interpretations.

Why does it need the words if it has the meaning of the words? I didn't argue that it has the words. I argued that it has the principles the words refer to. What else is dead made alive, if not 'regenerated', or 'born again'?

You have a timeline problem: The whole of this passage is about them who have the spirit of Christ inside them, those who are indwelt. those who are saved. Comparisons being made with those who do not have this indwelling who are not saved. You define a 'regenerated will' . well according to this text this regeneration cannot happen before we are in the spirit. Also, according to this text as we are not in the spirit until we have accepted Christ. Or maybe simpler we have to be regenerated before we can accept Christ-we are not regenerated until we do. We have a chicken and egg situation. You cannot back date these attributes from this text. Being indwelt by and being acted upon by The Holy Spirit are different states.

Not quite. The whole passage is indeed about those who have the Spirit of God dwelling in them, but not only about that. In fact, Paul goes out of his way to use the proposition, "if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you" I'm guessing because he knows there are usually some that are pretenders, or that have fooled themselves. But more, the whole passage quoted above, and more, is also showing the distinction between those who are, and those who are not, born again.

Your own statement here, that it shows that "we are not in the spirit until we have accepted Christ. Or maybe simpler we have to be regenerated before we can accept Christ-we are not regenerated until we do.", demonstrates that even you recognize that is what it is talking about —regeneration. And no. Being indwelt by the Holy Spirit necessarily causes results. (But no, I'm not saying that the Holy Spirit brings ALL things about suddenly. He can do as he pleases, according to John 3:8 "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”) You even say "this regeneration", which demonstrates that you agree with me it is talking about the regenerated will, because you said that referring back to the sentence before, where you say that I define a 'regenerated will'.

You have a terminology problem: You seem to be interchanging 'will' and 'mind' or at least saying that will is entirely dependent on the 'mind. I suggest they are two different things. Mind being literal in what 'is in our thinking' both present and past.
I suggest my soul is my mind. my will and my emotions. I suggest what comes into my mind will be processed. The processing will be influenced by everything I have ever said, I have ever done, I have ever heard, I have ever seen together with my emotions and with the base 'me; that God created, The result of this process may be nothing and just a 'musing but may lead to an expression of my volition. Be that an inclination and appetite action or whatever. Will and mind not being interchangeable. One playing a role with forming the other.
In addition, if we accept Jesus then He will indeed be the light of our life and the Holy Spirit will also guide us right from wrong, like magnet drawing us to the light -living in the spirit. But at the same time there is still a magnet drawing us to the flesh. Both will affect our will. If we get it right then we may end up 'without spot or wrinkle' living entirely in the spirit. Eph 5:27

Not saying that I would go with your suggestion —such things can get a bit complicated— but the two are inextricably tied together, even if you are right. Regardless of whatever else plays into the question, it is at least with your will that you decide. But here's what you seem to miss. A regenerated person is reborn —all of him, mind, will, soul, whatever. So if a person is born again, so is his will. Not so complicated.

You have an assumption of always problem: You seem to be saying that while living in the flesh you cannot make a 'good decision' to come to Christ,. but many unsaved people do good things all the time.The text is describing a way of living and does not prohibit good choices while living in the flesh or bad choices while living in the spirit.
The text does not say Christ/The Holy Spirit by indwelling leads you to salvation either.

Many unsaved people do good things according to who? At the core, the unsaved hate God. They do things that I can't argue are not good, but their decision is done, nevertheless, in enmity against God —and that is according to MANY scripture references besides Romans 8 and Ephesians 2, as no doubt you are aware.

Believe it or not, I have never studied Calvin, nor done anything but listen and read Calvinists. I have not studied Calvinism formally. So when I give my opinion about this, it may or may not represent how Calvinists would put it. I don't know, and I don't really care, but I have read several that sound very much like this: that logically, regeneration, being the Work of the Spirit of God upon indwelling the elect, directly CAUSES the faith by which we believe. You are THEREFORE saved, not by an act of human will, nor by human decision, but of God. Your notion of being led to salvation, if it includes your part as an improvement to God's part of the matter, is bogus.

I'm not going to take the time to look at the Westminster or any other confession to see how they word it, though no doubt they do a better job than I can. If you want to argue against Calvinism, you'll probably have to find a better source on this than me.

You have a choice of words problem: the word regeneration looks to have a plain and obvious meaning to me: In Mat 19:28, a regeneration of our body to a glorified body and in Titus 3:5 exactly the same but of our 'spirit man' -our tohuw and bohuw spirit being remade. I think in the physical realm you could see Mat 19.28 regeneration, measure it and weigh it. I think if you were actually in the spiritual realm you could see the Tit 3:5 regeneration measure it and weigh it there too. I do not think a will can be measured or weighed in either realm.

I don't remember saying anything about measuring and weight. Maybe I did, concerning the depth of knowledge, wisdom, understanding, integrity, dedication, love, strength and so many other things we do not have to make such a decision in any worthy manner. If that isn't what you are referring to above, maybe you could enlighten me as to why you go there.

Maybe its like hardware and software, the regeneration being hardware but the invisible 'will and thinking' being like software? Jameslouise is software-my thinking, will and emotions all software-glitchy, virus sodden, malware full software. (and bombarded everyday with more) The light gets rid of these and makes my software run more like His perfect software. But you can not rewrite my code or it will not be me anymore.

Sorry. Does not parallel.

How can my volition be 'regenerated' you would have to change everything that forms it. It would not be a will under my dominion then but under the re-generators dominion and it would not be me (i am using the word generate to mean roughly: remake/regrow or re-invigorate).

False. It is just as 'you' as the 'you' that you were born as. You are quite literally born again, but not physically, but of the Spirit. I know that grates against you intuition, because YOU think if you are changed, it had to be as a result of YOUR decision. But it does not.

Consider just this one way a person is 'changed'. To me, if a person suffers catastrophic brain damage, such that, while most of his faculties work well, he remembers pretty much nothing from before the injury, that is still the same person. His personality may be completely different. He may have been given a different name, and began a new life, but he is still the same person. Also note that he did not choose to be injured! What is it that makes humans so majestic that it has to be insisted upon they THEY decide such things concerning themselves. The facts are even more compelling than that! "In him we live and move and have our being", so it is ONLY by God's decree that our decisions mean anything!

All of these argument apply to Eph 2 passage as well.
Please show me some more examples as it is not so much I cannot see your point but to me, I can see it is just not there.