You're probably getting annoyed with me, and you won't be the first, but...
The statement you just said above, is exactly what the Calvinist position affirms. YES, exactly, they teach that "he is is first unwilling, and then willing without his own input, then he is unwillingly regenerated."
I see what you're trying to say, but I think you missed my point. Many non-Calvinists have made a lot of hubub about free will, and how they believe that man must be willing in order to be saved, that "willing" being sourced in the man. The implication is that it would be some sort of travesty if God were to save a man without the man's permission (for lack of a better term), which totally misses the real point, which is in what way can salvation possibly be viewed as a negative, or bad thing? It's SALVATION for crying out loud! it's being saved from a certain fate of Hell!
Calvinists do not affirm that a man is saved against his will, like you;re trying to say. Calvinism teaches that the unwilling, unregenerate man is regenerated and his will is changed by that regeneration to desire that which he formerly despised and hated, so that the man then
willingly believes and is Justified, and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. There is no such thing as "unwillingly saved", not because the man makes it so, but because God makes it so.
My whole exchange over this began when you posted a very different assertion, namely, that in Calvinism God forces people to spend eternity with him against their will. The whole point of his regenerating them (against their will) is to enable them to live with him according to their will.
Now that is closer. The problem is, those who reject Calvinism tend to exalt the free will of man to a position which it does not rightfully belong.
Now, as to whether it is still his "natural" will after God has regenerated him, I have never understood from the protestant perspective. They often seem to use "nature" in ways outside the precise language of the councils. Ancient Christianity holds that the will is a faculty proper to nature and not to person. Protestants often speak of those saved by Christ as receiving a "new nature." And I'm not sure how they mean the term. There is only one human nature. The same nature that fell in Adam was healed and divinized in Christ. So I suspect that when they say a man receives a "new nature" they mean a "restored nature." In the Calvinist case, I think that means a "restored nature now capable of willing to believe in God." So I'm guessing (and it's a guess) that when you say "it's not his natural will," they might say "it is his natural will, but it had to be turned back on by God before he was capable of ever coming to Christ. "
Interesting perspective. I'm not one who believes in the "two natures" idea. "Restored nature" is a good term. I like it, because it more accurately expresses what happens. The idea of the two natures view is an attempt to explain why, even after being saved, we can so easily sin. My view is that, as Paul says, we are new creatures in Christ, but we are still living in the "old man's" body, a physical body still subject to temptation, lusts, and which does not naturally submit to God's ways. That's why Paul said he had to buffet his body, to get it to conform to th way of Christ. Paul speaks of the "inner man" and the "outer man". Perhaps this is where the idea of "dueling natures" came from/
Or maybe not. So again the crux of the whole issue boils down to the effect of the fall. Did man entirely lose his ability to choose to return to God, or didn't he? Calvinists and a particular thread of Western thought stretching back to Augustine say yes. The rest of Christianity has always said no. I do not believe that Scripture teaches total depravity. I accept the orthodox understanding of the fall and man's condition thereafter.
I look around, and it seems to me that men are getting worse. Depravity is increasing. Totally depravity doesn't mean utterly depraved, or completely depraved, in Calvinist theology, it means that the entire being of man has been corrupted beyond man's ability to overcome it. He is not prevented from turning to God, he simply has no desire to do so. The will is based on desire. We have heard it said that man is hard-wired to seek pleasure and avoid pain. That's actually very true, and if you think about why you make the choices you do, they pretty much align with one or both of those things. Sometimes it may be the relative "lesser of two evils", as in the lesser of two painful things, or "what will I get into less trouble for?". There are always the bringing up of altruistic acts, which may include the one doing the act losing his own life, and they are pointed to as "proof" that unregenerate men can do "good" things, but even such acts as these are not pleasing to God if they are done by an unregenerate man, because the acts is still tainted with the stain of sin. We have to be careful that we don't substitute what man thinks is good for what God has made known to b good in His sight. Our idea of "good" is incomplete and selfish, and not in accordance with what God has revealed.
The whole point of my "help me" post was to point out the absurdity of anyone claiming that God saving someone , supposedly against their will, can be construed as a bad thing, undesirable, and out of character for God.
"Help! I've been kidnapped! Jesus kidnapped me against my will and forced me to believe in Him! I've been taken captive by the Holy Spirit against my will!", said no Christian, EVER!
