Featured Four questions for Calvinists.

quote- What this text cannot mean is that unregenerate Galatians heard, responded savingly to the Gospel, and then received the Spirit.

Ephesians 1:13 also says that receiving the Spirit is connected to faith.

quote- That would contradict 1 Corinthians 2:14 and Ephesians 2:4-10

Not at all, when you realize that faith is the result of God DRAWING US. You all confuse "drawing" with "regeneration". Drawing precedes both faith and regeneration. Elementary stuff, man.

quote- God must give us eyes to see and ears to hear before we can come to faith in Christ (cf. Deuteronomy 29:4; Matthew 11:15 etc.).

Yes, through the Father drawing us by means of the Holy Spirit. NOWHERE in the Bible does it say regeneration before faith.

Quote-But under your system, and that of Wesley, Man, as it were, holds an armlock on God

RIDICULOUS STRAWMAN.

To say that is the same as saying that if I as a Christian pray for something without believing, and God does not answer due to my lack of faith, that I have an armlock on God and am controlling Him. No, we do not hold to your erected strawman argument. We hold that GOD is free to LIMIT HIMSELF by choosing not to save unbelievers. Not that THEY limit Him, that He decreed their salvation, but they hinder His decree (that is a silly strawman), rather that He decreed that he would only save those who receive the gift of faith and repentance that EVERYONE WHO THIRSTS MAY COME TO THE WELL AND DRINK.

quote- and He cannot regenerate unless Man cooperates by not resisting His grace.

WHERE does it say that God CANNOT SAVE someone. Give me the quote and page number. As far as I know, the correct position is that God WILL NOT (NOT CANNOT) save such a person.

If Wesley said "cannot", then I would disagree with Him on that. But you need to establish that He used such words. I say HE WILL NOT, which is MUCH DIFFERENT THAN than the words CANNOT.

Or do you not know the difference?

It's not a question of Divine Ability. It is a question of what God will and will not do.

Where does the Bible say that "drawing" is the act of giving spiritual life? Book, chapter, and verse please.

We are drawn that we might eat the bread of life. It is the bread of life that gives life, not the drawing.

Your extrabiblical traditions are clouding your reading of the text.

 

quote- Now maybe we're getting somewhere. But what is "the hearing of faith"? That's not a term I'm familiar with and can't define. I would prefer to call it the impartation of faith or the gift of faith or the creation of faith.

The hearing of faith that regenerates is in Galatians 3:2, and I would rather use Biblical Terminology than my own (or Calvin's, or Luther's, or anyone elses)

quote- It is God's work.

So the subject of the verb "believe" in John 3:16 is God? I thought God already has (nay, God is) eternal life. What need is there for God to believe?

quote- Whether you want to consider that faith precedes regeneration or vice versa, the ultimate truth that it is all the work of God and we have nothing to do with it.

Who is the subject of the verb "believe" in John 3:16? God or us?

If you want to say that God grants us faith, I will agree. If you are trying to say that He believes on our behalf, I would say that that is a stretch.

quote- Logically, it seems that regeneration must precede faith;

Regeneration cannot occur without receiving the Spirit, and the Spirit is received by the hearing of faith. SO logically, faith precedes regeneration. (Galatians 2:3, Ephesians 1:13)

quote- in fact they are simultaneous.

Yes, I agree with that. But one never receives the Spirit BEFORE they believe, which would be the case if regeneration is the cause and faith is the effect.

quote- Of course there is, because salvation encompasses more than justification; and it includes both temporal and eternal aspects. We have been saved (justification), we are being saved (sanctification) and someday we shall be saved (glorification). No one disagrees with that.

And we are KEPT by the power of God through faith in the state that we entered into by the power of God through faith.

 

So if a person is regenerated by or through faith, it cannot be said that faith is the result of regeneration. Otherwise, it would be faith by or through regeneration.

 

I do not think we are far apart either, but again, I am not the one making false accusations (like synergism being imputed to me). I have shown that Classical Arminianism is not synergistic, and you call me a synergist because you incorrectly think that we affirm that one's unbelief ties God's hands, making Him unable to save. But that is a strawman, for we do not say that God is UNABLE, we say that He is UNWILLING to save the one's who will not believe.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

thank you for the link. I will read and reply asap.

Of course all that the Father gives to Jesus will come to Him, being foreknown from eternity (God being OMNISCIENT and all)

quote- Praise God for Irresistible Grace!

If your children are not elect, will you rejoice with a big smiley face therein or be filled with sorrow But Paul did not rejoice about the unbelieving jews (Romans 9) nor did Jesus, nor did the Father take pleasure in the death of the wicked. And I will not either.

For there is always another side to irresistible grace.

 

Received the Spirit by the HEARING OF FAITH.

No regeneration without receiving the Spirit.

No receiving the Spirit without faith.

Therefore, a person cannot be regenerated BEFORE faith, therefore INITIAL faith is not the result of regeneration.

I can go along with "simultaneous", but if they are simultaneous, then it cannot be said that faith is the result of regeneration. Faith and regeneration are simultaneous results of effectual DRAWING!

Drawing and regeneration are not the same thing.

It says "no one can come unless drawn",

IT DOES NOT SAY "no one can come unless regenerated". Nowhere in the Bible.

 

Again, it is only synergism if I help God regenerate me. Since I believe that regeneration is a work of God alone, then synergism does not apply to me. See the sig below...

How regeneration is monergistic.

"From hence it manifestly appears, what is the nature of the new birth. It is that great change which God works in the soul when he brings it into life; when he raises it from the death of sin to the life of righteousness. It is the changewrought in the whole soul by the almighty Spirit of God when it is "created anew in Christ Jesus;" when it is "renewed after the image of God, in righteousness and true holiness;" when the love of the world is changed into the love of God; pride into humility; passion into meekness; hatred, envy, malice, into a sincere, tender, disinterested love for all mankind. In a word, it is that change whereby the earthly, sensual, devilish mind is turned into the "mind which was in Christ Jesus." This is the nature of the new birth: "So is every one that is born of the Spirit." (The New Birth- John Wesley)

see? Nothing about us sharing in the work of regeneration. All a work of God.


quote- Gosh! This is like wading through treacle! The Father gives the sheep to the Son. The Son lays down His life for the sheep. The sheep hear His voice and follow Him. That is Monergism. If some of the sheep do not hear His voice, not only is it unbiblical but it becomes synergistic because salvation depends- to some degree at least- on Man and not God.

I thought synergism had to do with Regeneration.

a. Is practical/progressive sanctification a part of salvation?
b. Is practical/progressive sanctification monergistic or synergistic? (see 2 Cor. 7:1)

Regeneration is monergistic because it is the work of God alone. Faith is not the same as regeneration, because it is the means by which God regenerates us. (Ephesians 1:13 and Galatians 3:2)

No regeneration before receiving the Spirit, and no receiving the Spirit before faith.

Elementary...

 

No, but he also could not have rejected the outward call by himself either, but sinners can. Therefore, the analogy is invalid.

A corpse cannot hear, sin, disobey, choose, or reject, but SINNERS CAN.

Plus, I agree with what Jonshaff said in post 56