For me it was a combination of things but it started and ended with researching and studying out not only what regeneration is but 'how' it does what it does, when it does it.
When you look at all that the reformed view 'says' regeneration does to the sinner (and we all agree it makes them alive, but the rest as well) it makes good sense - UNTIL - you notice that each aspect of what they claim regeneration does, scripture states is brought about 'by faith'.
I have 'tried' to debate this very topic on here and not many will venture in.
I used Packer as the ground work and few reformed friends (on here) specific statements about what the Reformed doctrine is to establish uniformity of view, then and now. Still pretty much the same
1. a new nature (old things are passed away behold all things have become new - IOW - you are no longer what you were);
2. the Holy Spirit indwells them;
3. their relationship to God has been reconciled (justified);
4. they have been sanctified unto God;
4. they are now IN Christ (thus alive);
5. and are given faith and repentence to be used for salvation.
Now here is the problem with what you have stated if all the above are imparted at regeneration (which includes faith) that precedes the excersizing of one's faith.
None of the above, biblically, are imparted to man except 'by faith'.
Look at what 'scripture' states about each of the above:
It is not before faith is excersized that these are imparted to us (your view of regeneration) but 'after' we have believed.
Therefore if all of the above happened 'at' the regeneration, which includes the giving of faith (The reformed view of regeneration preceding faith), then we have a conflict with scripture which states the exact opposite. I do agree that all stated happens 'at' the regeneration (aside from faith). But scripturally if one holds that regeneration entails the above, regeneration can not precede faith for it is by faith all of the above is imparted to man. Then you must conclude that faith precedes regeneration.
There are many verse which show this as well, and from a Greek standpoint it is quite hard to get around this verse (as well as some others):
NOTE: They were slaves 'when' called. The Greek bears this out more clearly.. basically put - they were still in chains when God called them to faith, not that they were set free.. then called. If they were still slaves then they have not received a new nature but are operating from their old.
You can see this also in other verses such as Acts 26:18 and John 12:46, ect..
It is of note however that historically Calvinists (especially those with strong Greek Skills) have maintained that Ordo Salutis (order of salvation) regarding regeneration preceding faith, was a LOGICAL conclusion and NOT one found in scripture. It is only JUST recently that many of the Reformed view are stating it IS found in scripture. What happened? Was there some new discovery regarding the Greek that these historical giants of the Reformed faith were not privy to?
Another point after grappling with that and yet in addition to it, is researching what 'dead' means in a spiritual sense, and that if the definition is correct (unable) then it applies every time it used in a spiritual sense. It was here that another problem arose where we have Paul stating that Believers ARE 'dead' TO sin (this referring to our spiritual state).. thus the reformed definition must be applied here as well meaning that Believers ARE unable TO sin. Then a few verses down after Paul states we are 'unable/dead' he states we are to 'consider ourselves dead TO sin. - Now here is the big problem comes into play, with obvious initial one that believers are 'unable' to sin - but that being a state whereby we 'ARE' dead/unable, now declares that we are to live out our faith remembering we are dead to sin and thus CHOOSING not to sin.
How can a person go against their nature?
How can a believer who IS dead TO sin (regarding our new nature as opposed to the old nature), while maintaining the reformed definition of dead being 'unable', how are we as believers (being dead to sin) able TO sin since it goes against their nature? I thought we can only choose according to our nature?
The issues were becoming stark and yet clear. Much of this was based upon theological presupposition and had built 'up' the case from there. Much like some hotels that are pretty solid but in some places having paper thin walls, where any amount pressure could tear through.
Then of course you have the order of decrees, which have no basis in scripture whatsoever, but are established upon theological suppositions, which by-the-way are used to help establish mans inability.
Which again brought me back to not only what Regeneration does, but HOW (and therefore when) it does it
These are all very quick summations of path I walked through 7 years of study on the subject. It goes much deeper, and wider, and has much more substance but I am merely pointing out some of the finer points of my travel in a condensed form.
:laugh: I thought the OP was about those who DID NOT go into Calvinism and why.. LOL.. well fool me once..
