Libertarian Free Will is an Extra-Biblical Commitment

[Winman]

Allan, I think your post #139 was excellent and I agree with everything you said.

For me, this is not a difficult issue. The scriptures say God never tempts any man to sin.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Now, if God controls the will of man so that a man wills to sin, then God is a liar. James 1 also clearly says a man is drawn of his "own lust". Brian argues that a man's will is controlled by his desire. Therefore James 1:14 proves man has free will by Brian's own definition.

That God allows men to sin is obvious, it is undeniable, look at the world around us, there is sin everywhere.

I spent last night reading the account of Joseph and noticed several things. First, the majority of the brothers wanted to kill Joseph, but Reuben stepped in and stopped them.

Gen 37:20 Come now therefore, and let us slay him, and cast him into some pit, and we will say, Some evil beast hath devoured him: and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
21 And Reuben heard it, and he delivered him out of their hands; and said, Let us not kill him.
22 And Reuben said unto them, Shed no blood, but cast him into this pit that is in the wilderness, and lay no hand upon him; that he might rid him out of their hands, to deliver him to his father again.

So, if anything, God thwarted the desires of Joseph's brothers here and protected Joseph. It seems that Reuben then left the others, to do what I do not know.

But the brothers still threw Joseph into a deep pit that he could not escape and would most likely have died if left there. But then a caravan of Ishmeelites came along and Judah thought it more profitable to sell Joseph. So here again Joseph was delivered out of the pit. But also, Reuben returned later to the pit alone to get Joseph. Now had Reuben done this, Joseph would have been saved, but he would have not gone down to Egypt. So we see God bringing about his plan to send Joseph to Egypt here. Did God cause anyone to sin? No, he actually thwarted their attempts to sin.

Gen 37:23 And it came to pass, when Joseph was come unto his brethren, that they stript Joseph out of his coat, his coat of many colours that was on him;
24 And they took him, and cast him into a pit: and the pit was empty, there was no water in it.
25 And they sat down to eat bread: and they lifted up their eyes and looked, and, behold, a company of Ishmeelites came from Gilead with their camels bearing spicery and balm and myrrh, going to carry it down to Egypt.
26 And Judah said unto his brethren, What profit is it if we slay our brother, and conceal his blood?
27 Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmeelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother and our flesh. And his brethren were content.
28 Then there passed by Midianites merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites for twenty pieces of silver: and they brought Joseph into Egypt.

And you see God delivering Joseph throughout the account. When he was falsely accused of assaulting his master's wife and thrown into prison, the butler and baker of Pharaoh were also placed in prison and dreamed. God gave Joseph the interpretation which later came to the knowledge of Pharaoh when he also dreamed. Then God gave Joseph the interpretation of Pharaoh's dream. Not only was Joseph released, he was placed second in command over all Egypt. And it was the wisdom God gave Joseph that caused him to store food against the great famine. The famime brought his brothers down to Egypt, and later all of Joseph's family came down.

So, all along God was protecting Joseph even though sinners persecuted him.

We cannot understand how God uses sinners to bring about his will. It is too great for man to understand. But the Bible says God is Holy and cannot sin, and that God never tempts any man to sin. And I believe God must give man a free will or choice, otherwise his attribute of love would be violated. You must permit someone to love you or hate you of their own free will for love to be real.

I am sure Brian will not accept this, he seems determined to believe there is no such a thing as free will, even though the Bible says so directly in many verses.

 

[Carico]

So then God doesn't control Satan. Satan is more powerful than God. Is that correct? That means that I get to take credit for whatever is good in me not give it to God because I can tell God what to do ad what not to do. Why, I can even resist his call an his will (which contradicts Romans 11:29 & Phil. 2:13). But who cares? All that matters is me. My I have so much power! Maybe people should bow down to me whenever I do good, not bow down to God. :thumbs: So say Arminians.

 

[webdog]

So then God doesn't control Satan. Satan is more powerful than God. Is that correct? That means that I get to take credit for whatever is good in me not give it to God because I can tell God what to do ad what not to do. Why, I can even resist his call an his will (which contradicts Romans 11:29 & Phil. 2:13). But who cares? All that matters is me. My I have so much power! Maybe people should bow down to me whenever I do good, not bow down to God. :thumbs: So say Arminians.

Curious...do you actually engage in conversation and debate, or are you here to troll?

 

[Carico]

Curious...do you actually engage in conversation and debate, or are you here to troll?

Actually it's you who is not responding to what I said. So are you here to engage in conversation or personally attack those who disagree with you? Personal attacks are a waste of time because they don't change one word in the bible. So let's see if you can converse about the bible instead of personally attacking people.

 

[webdog]

Actually it's you who is not responding to what I said. So are you here to engage in conversation or personally attack those who disagree with you? Personal attacks are a waste of time because they don't change one word in the bible. So let's see if you can converse about the bible instead of personally attacking people.

Asking you a question is not a personal attack...you need a dictionary. I've been here a lot longer than you have, and from the short time you have been here, you simply erect your own strawmen to blow over, never discussing what is actually said. That's not engaging in debate.

 

[Carico]

Asking you a question is not a personal attack...you need a dictionary. I've been here a lot longer than you have, and from the short time you have been here, you simply erect your own strawmen to blow over, never discussing what is actually said. That's not engaging in debate.

Again, you're going off topic. All you have to do is discuss the bible to show us what your beliefs are so we can see if I'm right or wrong about Arminians. Otherwise calling my posts strawmen without proof is slander. So stick to the topic and there will be no problem.

 

[webdog]

Again, you're going off topic. All you have to do is discuss the bible to show us what your beliefs are so we can see if I'm right or wrong about Arminians. Otherwise calling my posts strawmen without proof is slander. So stick to the topic and there will be no problem.

I have supplied proof...no slander.

I would point you toward your own advice.

 

[Carico]

I have supplied proof...no slander.

I would point you toward your own advice.

So then you believe that God controls people's lives. Is that correct? If so, then none of my posts apply to you and you've been defensive for no reason.

 

[webdog]

So then you believe that God controls people's lives. Is that correct? If so, then none of my posts apply to you and you've been defensive for no reason.

As a non-cal (what you deem Arminians), I believe God is sovereign, and in man's responsibility...so your snide comments after Winman's post applied to me as well ("so say Arminians").

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Winman,

Thank you for the interaction. I do not think we will get any further, and as such choose to leave things as they are. I have enjoyed the discussion with you. I am glad to have gotten to know you a little and pray for both God's grace and peace to be with you.

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[AresMan]

But God is also a God of love. And love necessarily by definition requires freedom. If you put a gun to a girl's head and forced her to marry you, would that be love? Of course not.

What about the kind of love that a father has for his small child? If the child had wandered onto the road and a car was coming, the father would simply NOT allow his beloved child the "freedom" to continue wandering on the road. The father would run to the road and yank him off. The father would even dive in front of the car and sacrifice his own life to save the child, totally at odds with the child's "free will" or awareness of his situation. After the child is rescued, he then realizes what the father did for him and becomes thankful.

That is the kind of love that I believe God has for His children, His elect. He does not just stand there watching the child on the road and gently attempt (potentially unsuccessfully) to "woo" his child off.

"Here, Johnny. Better git off the road, now Johnny. Please, Johnny! **splat** Oh, NO! Why didn't he come?!"

NO! God effectually saved His own. He loved His people so much that He effectuated their salvation.

Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save HIS people from their sins.

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Joh 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Joh 10:2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
Joh 10:3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
Joh 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

I do not believe in a God whose love is superficial: a mile wide, but only an inch deep. As a loving parent who will give his life to secure the life of his child, so Jesus Christ, the Son of God, paid a substitutionary atonement that secured the salvation of His people. His love never fails!

 

[The Archangel]

Winman,

AresMan posted a response to your following statement:

But God is also a God of love. And love necessarily by definition requires freedom. If you put a gun to a girl's head and forced her to marry you, would that be love? Of course not.

His response was quite good and I am not seeking to improve on it. I would like to point out two things, however:

1. You said Love, by definition, requires freedom.

This is simply not true and it is a false definition of love. Why? Because you love your wife but you'd never allow her to commit adultery with all of your friends. Your love for her, like God's love for His elect, is a jealous love--wanting His people only for Himself. To properly love your wife, you would have to be "Jealous" and demand her all to yourself. In other words, she is not free to commit adultery.

2. You said God's election in the Calvinist understanding is akin to God holding a gun to our heads.

This is neither true nor an accurate description of the Calvinist position. We do not suggest that God hauls us in to the Kingdom whilst we are kicking and screaming against Him. We argue that He, through the Holy Spirit and regeneration, makes us willing. There is a huge difference.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

1. You said Love, by definition, requires freedom.

This is simply not true and it is a false definition of love. Why? Because you love your wife but you'd never allow her to commit adultery with all of your friends. Your love for her, like God's love for His elect, is a jealous love--wanting His people only for Himself. To properly love your wife, you would have to be "Jealous" and demand her all to yourself. In other words, she is not free to commit adultery

I'm sure he will answer, but I believe he was talking about the one doing the loving, not the object of ones love. Love is a choice, and like choices, require the option of 2 or more things to choose from.

 

[MB]

What about the kind of love that a father has for his small child? If the child had wandered onto the road and a car was coming, the father would simply NOT allow his beloved child the "freedom" to continue wandering on the road. The father would run to the road and yank him off. The father would even dive in front of the car and sacrifice his own life to save the child, totally at odds with the child's "free will" or awareness of his situation. After the child is rescued, he then realizes what the father did for him and becomes thankful.

Beautifully writen but what about the lost. You see we aren't His until we are adopted. Our adoption is our Salvation. To be adopted we must first believe that He is.

That is the kind of love that I believe God has for His children, His elect. He does not just stand there watching the child on the road and gently attempt (potentially unsuccessfully) to "woo" his child off.

"Here, Johnny. Better git off the road, now Johnny. Please, Johnny! **splat** Oh, NO! Why didn't he come?!"

NO! God effectually saved His own. He loved His people so much that He effectuated their salvation.

Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save HIS people from their sins.

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Joh 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Joh 10:2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
Joh 10:3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
Joh 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

I do not believe in a God whose love is superficial: a mile wide, but only an inch deep. As a loving parent who will give his life to secure the life of his child, so Jesus Christ, the Son of God, paid a substitutionary atonement that secured the salvation of His people. His love never fails!

What scripture have you read that has convinced you, you are His sheep before you believe?. I believe Christ told those who didn't believe that they were of there father the devil. We are all born dead to Christ so why would He attempt to save the life of someone who is dead?
Christ said we cannot serve two masters. So How is it that before Salvation that anyone could hope to be one of His? If election makes you one of His and you were elected before the foundation of the world. Then why were you born in sin. Why would the Father who loves His sheep so much allow such a thing to happen to His child? Just seems to be more like shoving your child out in the street to get hit by a car.
MB

 

[Winman]

You guys are misrepresenting what I said, or perhaps I did not make it clear.

Of course no parent would allow their child to play in the street and would forcibly remove them.

But I am speaking about the relationship of love. No one should ever try to force someone to love them. Oh sure, we see these crazy fellows who stalk their girlfriends and ex-wives, sometimes resulting in violence. But we all recognize that as self-love.

No, most normal people realize you cannot force someone to love you, neither would you want to. I want someone to love me because they choose to, not because they were made to.

You others, who knows? Maybe I will read about you in the news tomorrow.

 

[AresMan]

Beautifully writen but what about the lost. You see we aren't His until we are adopted. Our adoption is our Salvation. To be adopted we must first believe that He is.

No, our faith is the result of our sonship.

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe [πιστευουσιν, pisteuousin, present active participle dative plural masculine] on his name:
Joh 1:13 Which were born [εγεννηθησαν, egennethesan, aorist passive indicative third-person plural], not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

1Jo 5:1 Whosoever believeth [πιστευων, pisteuwn, present active participle nominative singular masculine] that Jesus is the Christ is born [γεγεννηται, gegennetai, perfect passive indicative third-person singular] of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

Those who believe "have been born" of God. The born is passive; it is not something that people do to themselves. According to the tenses, the born precedes the belief.

What scripture have you read that has convinced you, you are His sheep before you believe?.

Just a question: do sheep choose their shepherd, or does a shepherd choose his sheep?

Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

Joh 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

If one is Christ's sheep, one will believe. The belief is the result of one being Christ's sheep. The shepherd chooses his sheep and lays down his life for the sheep.

I believe Christ told those who didn't believe that they were of there father the devil.

Yup.

We are all born dead to Christ so why would He attempt to save the life of someone who is dead?

He makes us alive (Eph 2:1).

Christ said we cannot serve two masters.

Yup.

So How is it that before Salvation that anyone could hope to be one of His?

Before salvation, one is not hoping or seeking it (Rom 3:10-11).
God sovereignly appoints some to believe (Act 13:48). They could not do otherwise (Joh 6:44-45).

If election makes you one of His and you were elected before the foundation of the world. Then why were you born in sin.

Because God saves from sin. If you want to know the logic behind it, ask Him when you get to heaven.

Why would the Father who loves His sheep so much allow such a thing to happen to His child?

Well, if He sovereignly saves them, I do not see a problem. If you want to understand, ask Him when you get to heaven.

Just seems to be more like shoving your child out in the street to get hit by a car.

Nope. The child wandered out on the road by his own depraved will. The father sovereignly saved him. You would have it so that the father never sovereignly saves his own children and that they would have to "luck out" by their own awareness and ability.

 

[MB]

No, our faith is the result of our sonship.



Those who believe "have been born" of God. The born is passive; it is not something that people do to themselves. According to the tenses, the born precedes the belief.

Are you saying men need not repent or even submit to the righteousness of God first?

Just a question: do sheep choose their shepherd, or does a shepherd choose his sheep?

Of course the Shepard chooses His sheep. Just as Christ first chose us. Yet if we are still in rebellion it's a certainty we haven't been chosen yet. The Bible says we are chosen in Him, with out Him we are not chosen even if it is before the foundation of the world. If we were chosen before Salvation there would be no need for Salvation. We would be saved automatically whether we wanted to be or not.

I can agree we are given faith and our hearts are opened by the Holy Spirit and the word but this is not Salvation. We still have to submit to the righteousness of God and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ.

If one is Christ's sheep, one will believe. The belief is the result of one being Christ's sheep. The shepherd chooses his sheep and lays down his life for the sheep.

If true then how is it that Christ is the propitiation for the whole world.

1Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Does this mean we are all chosen?

Yup.

He makes us alive (Eph 2:1).

Yup.

Before salvation, one is not hoping or seeking it (Rom 3:10-11).

God sovereignly appoints some to believe (Act 13:48). They could not do otherwise (Joh 6:44-45).

In act 13:48 there is a grammar question of which comes first "belief" or "appoint." In the original manuscripts "Belief" comes first. I believe this is the way it was intended because they had to leave a few small words out in order to make appoint come first and have it sound right. Surrender or submission is required other wise even the proud would be saved. Paul said this of the Jews who had so much Zeal for God yet they couldn't submit.

Rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

You see they seek God and it's the real God they seek. They just can't get there head around the fact that they have no desirable qualities no matter how hard they try. To submit to the righteousness of God is to believe in the righteous plan for redemption. The gospel of Jesus Christ.

Because God saves from sin. If you want to know the logic behind it, ask Him when you get to heaven.

Well, if He sovereignly saves them, I do not see a problem. If you want to understand, ask Him when you get to heaven.

Nope. The child wandered out on the road by his own depraved will. The father sovereignly saved him. You would have it so that the father never sovereignly saves his own children and that they would have to "luck out" by their own awareness and ability.

Logic? I don't want to wait to understand. I believe I already have it in my understanding. Paul told the Jailer to believe and because he asked. he was in fact seeking Salvation from his sins. If he had already been saved then why didn't he understand that he was?

Believe me brother I only want you to be sure of your Salvation.

MB

 

[Rippon]

The Bible says we are chosen in Him, with out [sic]Him we are not chosen even if it is before the foundation of the world. If we were chosen before Salvation there would be no need for Salvation.

Those who are chosen before the foundations of the world were laid are the elect. They do not enter the world in a saved state.

Yes, were were chosen in eternity past, long before we are were saved in time. Since we were elected long before our very existence -- how does that logically follow that we don't need salvation?!

how is it that Christ is the propitiation for the whole world.

Christ's propitiation was made for the elect scattered throughout the world -- not the "world"in the sense you mean of head-for-head every person who has and shall live upon the face of the earth.

Does this mean we are all chosen?

No, certainly not -- only for the elect whose names were written in the Lamb's Book of Life written before the world was even formed.

In act [sic]13:48 there is a grammar question of which comes first "belief" or "appoint." In the original manuscripts "Belief" comes first. I believe this is the way it was intended because they had to leave a few small words out in order to make appoint come first and have it sound right.

That's laughable, but sad as well -- that you believe that kind of junk. What original manuscripts are you referencing? We don't possess the original autographs.

Admit it, you don't like the force of the truth in Acts 13:48 -- no Arminian does. But even Dave Hunt hasn't been as original as you.

"They had to leave a few small words out in order to make appoint come first and have it sound right." Yeah right. Who's gonna' buy that MB? You're out on a broken limb with that kind of Scripture-twisting.

Logic? I don't want to wait to understand. I believe I already have it in my understanding.

You have a severe misunderstanding.

 

[AresMan]

Are you saying men need not repent or even submit to the righteousness of God first?

I am saying that men need to repent and submit to the righteousness of God, but this can only occur through, and is an inevitable result of, the effectual work of the Holy Spirit on the heart of a natural person dead in trespasses and sins. The Holy Spirit regenerates one, raises him to spiritual life, and gives him a heart of flesh.

Of course the Shepard [sic] chooses His sheep. Just as Christ first chose us. Yet if we are still in rebellion it's a certainty we haven't been chosen yet.

No. The elect start out unjustified. They become justified when the Holy Spirit regenerates them and they respond inevitably in repentance and faith.

The Bible says we are chosen in Him, with out Him we are not chosen even if it is before the foundation of the world.

If we were chosen before Salvation there would be no need for Salvation. We would be saved automatically whether we wanted to be or not.

I can agree we are given faith and our hearts are opened by the Holy Spirit and the word but this is not Salvation. We still have to submit to the righteousness of God and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ.

True. It is regeneration, but not justification. However, regeneration is effectual to repentance and faith, and then justification.

If true then how is it that Christ is the propitiation for the whole world.

1Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Does this mean we are all chosen?

Does not kosmos have different applications and ranges in different contexts?

It can also mean "Jew and Gentile alike."
It can mean "every nation."
It can mean the socio-political system.
It can mean the physical earth.
It can mean only the unregenerate.

Context is king.

Who are redeemed?:

Rev 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

I posit that "the whole world" means Jew and Gentile alike in every nation. Propitiation means satisfaction. If "whole world" means every individual person without exception, then God's justice has been satisfied on behalf of every individual, and God would have no just reason to send anyone to hell.

In act 13:48 there is a grammar question of which comes first "belief" or "appoint." In the original manuscripts "Belief" comes first. I believe this is the way it was intended because they had to leave a few small words out in order to make appoint come first and have it sound right.

We do not have the original manuscripts. I trust that the way the wording is in the vast majority of manuscripts reflects the reading of the original. Acts 13:48 is not the only passage that shows man's depravity and God's effectual calling. It's ridiculous when someone has to argue the text based upon one's perceived notion of what the original said rather than what is accepted in the vast majority of manuscripts.

Surrender or submission is required other wise even the proud would be saved. Paul said this of the Jews who had so much Zeal for God yet they couldn't submit.

They had a "zeal for God" insomuch that they had a zeal for their own ethnicity and their perceived purity of it. The Pharisees had a zeal for their own hypocritical traditions and applications of the law. They did not have a zeal for God as He really is.

Rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Yup. No debating that here. Sounds like any depraved individual. Now, what makes someone want the true righteousness of God?

You see they seek God and it's the real God they seek. They just can't get there head around the fact that they have no desirable qualities no matter how hard they try.

Sounds like you are saying that they are depraved and need the effectual working of the Holy Spirit for conversion. Good job. :thumbs:

To submit to the righteousness of God is to believe in the righteous plan for redemption. The gospel of Jesus Christ.

True. However, it is God who makes that happen, because no one can raise himself to spiritual life and give himself a new heart. That is against his nature. Only God can do that.

Logic? I don't want to wait to understand.

There are many things we will not understand until we get to heaven.

I believe I already have it in my understanding. Paul told the Jailer to believe and because he asked. he was in fact seeking Salvation from his sins. If he had already been saved then why didn't he understand that he was?

Proverbs 21:1; John 1:12-13; Acts 16:14; Acts 13:48; Romans 8:28-34.

Believe me brother I only want you to be sure of your Salvation.

I am just as sure of my salvation as you are (I hope that you are). I just simply believe that my faith in the Gospel and salvation is monergistic rather than synergistic.

 

[Winman]

I am saying that men need to repent and submit to the righteousness of God, but this can only occur through, and is an inevitable result of, the effectual work of the Holy Spirit on the heart of a natural person dead in trespasses and sins. The Holy Spirit regenerates one, raises him to spiritual life, and gives him a heart of flesh.

I disagree. Although some may find it shocking, I believe a person believes while they are yet spiritually dead, and upon believeing receive the Holy Spirit and are then quickened.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

There is nothing difficult about this verse. And it is very specific in showing the order of events in salvation. It shows that a person trusts in Christ after hearing the gospel, and that only after believeing do they receive the Holy Spirit.

There is not another verse in the Bible that so clearly and definitely shows the order of salvation like this. If there is, I would love to see it.

Jesus said the "dead" could hear his voice.

John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Jesus very clearly says the hour is coming, but also now is, when the dead shall hear his voice. And those that hear, that is believe, shall live.

John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

Now this is very clear. Jesus says here that a person who believes, even while in a state of deadness, shall live.

And we see the story of Abraham given as an example in Romans. Abraham was said to be "now dead". He was physically incapable of having children. Yet he believed God's promise and therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. And this was given for our example as shown.

Rom 4:19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb:
20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

It would not take faith if Abraham were already regenerated to believe he would have children. But to believe while incapable would be to believe what is impossible. Notice how great his faith was, he "staggered not", was "strong in faith", was "fully persuaded" that God was "able" to perform.

Did you notice it says Abraham was persuaded God was "able" to perform that which he promised? If Abraham were already regenerated this makes no sense. Why would he need faith if God had already regenerated his body?

And then only after believeing God while in this state of deadness was righteousness imputed to Abraham.

And then verses 23 and 24 show us that righteousness will be imputed to us in the same way. So this was a picture of salvation for all.