Regeneration verses God's Drawing?

[BobRyan]

Quote:

Bob said

BR: #3. You equate "regeneration" with the "ability to choose" - but in fact it is the DRAWING of God that "ENABLES what depravity DISABLES" by way of choosing to accept the Gospel.


The point being HP - you are saying "regeneration" is when you have the ability to choose - but not proving it. Where is the response to that?

I simply point out that many among BOTH Calvinists and Arminians admit that it is in the DRAWING that one is enabled as we see in John 6.

John 12:32 God DRAWS ALL
John 6 - that DRAWING ENABLES men to choose Christ

HP: We all believe in the regeneration of the soul in one sense or another.

Certainly in John 3 we see "that you must be born again".
In 2Cor 5 we see that the one who accepts Christ is "a New Creation".

I accept these truths as speaking of the same new birth creation.

However - this is not the John 12:32, John 6 "DRAWING" and John 16 CONVICTING of the whole world.

The John 3 NEW birth and 2Cor 5 "NEW CREATION" only happens for those who RESPOND to God as a result of the DRAWING.

HP

The sense that I feel is inaccurate is the sense in which the word regeneration is used to depict the Holy Spirit acting upon the soul, enabling it to respond by the granting of abilities to do so antecedent to salvation.

Agreed that is NOT "regeneration" it is "DRAWING"!

God "draws ALL"

But not ALL are "Born again" not ALL are "regenerated.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

One cannot avoid deterministic fatalism with such a view.
I maintain that the soul is well able to respond to the gospel message without any such enabling,

Why?

What do you get by hoping that the depravity of the sinful nature APART FROM GOD is very different from what Romans 3 says it is???

Why do you even need such a teaching so foreign to scripture and so unnecessary since God "draws ALL"???

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

drfuss: Right now I don't have time to answer your entire post. However, based on the above, are you saying that you do not believe in any regeneration? I think most Calvinists believe regeneration occurs just before repentance and faith.

HP: I do not believe in regeneration prior to man willingly, without force or coercion, yielding themselves to God in repentance and faith. Regeneration is the results of having an offer made by God to man and man responding to that offer by the fulfilling of the conditions God has required of man. Regeneration is the end result of God setting a plan in place, and man fulfilling his end of God’s requirements. Man’s part is NOT meritorious in nature, and is best thought of in the sense of ‘not without which’ not ‘that for the sake of.’

I believe that God grants to everyman the necesssary abilities to respond to the gospel message as an intrinsic part of their moral make up. I do not believe that God has to do something to man to enable him to respond. The mere fact of man being a moral agent and responsible for his intents is all the enabling man needs to respond to the gospel messsage once he hears it. The call goes out from God to man for man not to harden their hearts, but rather to take the God given abilities He grants to every man and use them in fulfilling the conditions of salvation He requires man to fulfill once man has heard the gospel message.

 

[BobRyan]

I believe that God grants to everyman the necesssary abilities to respond to the gospel message as an intrinsic part of their moral make up. I do not believe that God has to do something to man to enable him to respond.

Why??

Why not simply accept that this is the supernatural Work of God "For ALL" as he "Convicts the WORLD" and "Draws ALL" unto Him - and that without it all you have left is the depravity described in Romans 3?

What is the problem with that? Just "preference"?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: Why not simply accept that this is the supernatural Work of God "For ALL" as he "Convicts the WORLD" and "Draws ALL" unto Him - and that without it all you have left is the depravity described in Romans 3?

HP: Scripture, reason, and experience clearly informs us that there is a distinction between conviction of sin, some knowledge of a Supreme Being, and having the gospel presented to them. As to the depravity represented by Scripture, it is as far from Augustinian original sin as light is from darkness. Romans 3 in no way supports the false notion that sin lies in the flesh of man and not in the will.

BR: What is the problem with that? Just "preference"?

HP: What do you mean by it being “Just preference?”

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: Why not simply accept that this is the supernatural Work of God "For ALL" as he "Convicts the WORLD" and "Draws ALL" unto Him - and that without it all you have left is the depravity described in Romans 3?

HP: Here might be another response.
In order to start from your perspective, one would first have to beg the question of the state man is born into to, and assume without proof the false and unscriptural presupposition introduced into the Church by Augustine that sin lies in the constitution of the flesh and not the will. Such a presupposition makes God out to be unjust in condemning and punishing man for something he had no choice in. It turns the grace of God into nothing other than justice, for if God is going to hold man responsible for something he had absolutely no choice in and no possibility to escape, it would be a matter of justice, not grace, that God would offer them a means of escape.

In order to accept the presupposition of Augustinian original sin, one has to overlook or change every known definition of sin in Scripture, that clearly informs us that sin is not an unavoidable malady transmitted by the genes of man, but is the direct results of willful failure to obey know commandments of God. If man could do nothing other than to sin, and that due to his nature, man might be pitied but never blamed. Punishment for such an unavoidable malady would be unthinkable in light of any semblance of justice. Such a view destroys freewill, a matter clearly testified to by conscience, and establishes by logical inference that God is indeed the author of all sin.

That's another reason why.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

In a recent debate with Drfuss under the heading “Security of the Believer Beliefs” I attempted to get a straight answer as to a distinction Drfuss made concerning the nature of was termed by Drfuss as a ‘drawing’ by God which he obviously objected to it being categorized as a regeneration by God in what he termed as 'Calvinistic sense.' Although he used the word regeneration, Drfuss insisted upon a distinction from the sense employed and any Calvinistic sense. When I asked specifically if this drawing included in any way the granting of abilities to accept or reject salvations offer, Drfuss closed the debate.

Would there be anyone on the list that might be able to explain to the reader as to what this distinction Drfuss claims exists is all about? Does the drawing of God, from the eternal security perspective cited as the #2 viewpoint, involve the granting of abilities to accept or reject the offer of salvation in clear opposition to, or a completely differing sense, the generation or granting of abilites the Calvinist speaks about?

GE:

I've just have had a strong cup of coffee; now perhaps I shall be able first to make out something of what you ask, and second may try answer something!

The will of natural man, i.e., 'unregenerate man', 'wills', accordingly. It is in bondage to sin; it serves sin; it loves it, and desires, sin. It naturally resists the very 'drawings' of God. "When we were HATERS of God", God LOVED .... US, these WRETCHES!

God's 'drawings' "with bonds (or 'ropes') of Love" (as Hosea says) are stronger that the 'bonds of death' by which we are bound IN DEATH. It 'regenerates' unto 'repentance unrepentable'; it converts the will directly into its opposite direction. Now this very SINNER finds himself DRAWN to God, irresistably and yes, spontaneously, freely and his own will, agreeably. "O God, forgive me this sinner I am!" is the prayer of a holy man, of the regenerate, of the justified, and, of the in the determination of God, already in Christ glorified man.

Take it, if you can. This subject is not for debating and never can; this subject is for experiencing only.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim

I believe that God grants to everyman the necesssary abilities to respond to the gospel message as an intrinsic part of their moral make up. I do not believe that God has to do something to man to enable him to respond.



Why??

Why not simply accept that this is the supernatural Work of God "For ALL" as he "Convicts the WORLD" and "Draws ALL" unto Him - and that without it all you have left is the depravity described in Romans 3?

What is the problem with that? Just "preference"?

GE:

As I understand these two gentlemen, the Arminian has assumed the position of Calvinist; and the 'Calvinist-of-its own', the position of Arminian!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Drfuss:
"I think most Calvinists believe regeneration occurs just before repentance and faith."

HP:
"I do not believe in regeneration prior to man willingly, without force or coercion, yielding themselves to God in repentance and faith."

GE:

John owen has written a mighty paragraph on this issue. If his works are available to you, I would strongly recommend its reading.

Nevertheless. here's one thought that may help. One must distinguish mentally where in actuality there exists no distinction - which is here not only supposed, but imposed and conditional, in order to grasp the relationship between regeneration and faith. Calvin stood very strong on the reality of the experience of both, simultaneously and undivideably. For Calvin only one thing goes before any and all of the things that if not 'worked out' in the life-bases of being man, disappear into oblivion, and that is electing grace. I accept it exactly like that.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

This is what is taught in Hebrews chapter six. I understand this passage to take under scrutiny the IM-possibility of a falling away of the elect; not any possibility of mere suggestion or supposition.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Hey GE, May I have the name of the coffee you are drinking? I think I could give up about half of my energy pills for a swig of that stuff. :laugh:

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Hey GE, May I have the name of the coffee you are drinking? I think I could give up about half of my energy pills for a swig of that stuff. :laugh:

'Kroenung' - a German coffee made in Israel - really nice!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I in every way of life constantly find myself somehow falling back upon this dual forebears of me. Not that I always like it; but with the coffee, I do!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Sounds great! Seriously, I will see if I can muster a bit of energy without the caffine (which I cannot have) and reply. If my reply seems a bit sluggish, at least you now know why.:laugh:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

GE: John Owen has written a mighty paragraph on this issue. If his works are available to you, I would strongly recommend its reading.

HP: Sorry, I have never heard of John Owen. Could you place into your own words the crux of his statement that you feel is right on? Thanks.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

GE: The will of natural man, i.e., 'unregenerate man', 'wills', accordingly. It is in bondage to sin; it serves sin; it loves it, and desires, sin. It naturally resists the very 'drawings' of God. "When we were HATERS of God", God LOVED .... US, these WRETCHES!

HP: If man cannot do anything other than what he does under the very same set of circumstances, he cannot ‘will’ anything in the sense of intents and subsequent acts rightfully the objects of moral praise or blame. His formed intents would be a matter of necessity, and in no wise the sole product of the will of man.
I fully believe that the will of man indeed does come under bondage, even to the point that free will acts are no longer possible, but at this stage of development of bondage, the man ceases to be morally responsible for any future acts. We would consider such a one as a fit candidate for a mental hospital, unable, even rightfully said to be ‘impossible’ for one do be held accountable for their formed intents and subsequent actions.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

It is not very Christian to make such distinctions, but to me, John Owen is the greatest of the English theologians and greatest of the Puritans. He often found himself with Cromwell on the battlefields and faced many difficulties that never occur in our modern times. Nevertheless he, I would say, wrote about three times as much as Karl Barth - with all the modern and academic help he enjoyed. "Andrew Thomson said that Owen 'makes you feel when he has reached the end of his subject, that he has also exhausted it'." The editors of my edition" of his works, remark, "they all have a uniform quality of timelessness".

So I shall post a few quotations from the man himself, rather than try to say what he says in my own words.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

"God is pleased to exercise a prerogative and sovereignty in this whole matter (of "cinviction of sin" and "disquieting and perplexing affections"), and deals with the souls of men in unspeakable variety. Some He leads by the gates of death and hell unto rest in His love, like the people of old through the waste and howling wilderness into Canaan; and the paths of others He makes plain and easy unto them. Some walk or wander long in darkness; in the souls of others Christ is formed in the first gracious visitation.

There is no certain measure or degree of these accidents or consequents of conviction to be prescribed unto any as antecedaneously necessary to sincere conversion and sound believing; but these two things in general are so :- first, Such a conviction of sin, -- that is, of a state of sin, of a course of sin, of actual sins, against the light of natural conscience, --- as that the soul is satisfied that it is thereby obnoxious unto the curse of the Law and the wrath of God. Thus, at least, does God conclude and shut up every one under sin on whom He will have mercy; for "every mouth must be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God", Ro3:19, Gl3:22. Without this no man ever did, nor ever will, sincerely believe in Jesus Christ; for He calleth none unto Him but those who in some measure are weary and thirsty, or one way or other, seek after deliverance. .... Secondly, A due apprehension and resolved judgment that there is no way within the compass of a man's own contrivance to find out, or his ability to make use of and to walk in, nor any other way of God's appointment or approbation, which will deliver the soul in and from the state and conditions wherein it is and and that which it fears, but only that which is proposed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

On the fine distinction between the indistinguishable acts of God's grace, next.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

HP:

"I fully believe that the will of man indeed does come under bondage, even to the point that free will acts are no longer possible, but at this stage of development of bondage, the I fully believe that the will of man indeed does come under bondage, even to the point that free will acts are no longer possible, but at this stage of development of bondage, the man ceases to be morally responsible for any future acts. . ...."

GE:

You will find that you are in complete disagreement with John Owen as per above. Just by the buy.

You actually are in complete disagreement with yourself, here.
You, by saying, "... man ceases to be morally responsible for any future acts", contradict and deny yourself, saying, "I fully believe that the will of man indeed does come under bondage, even to the point that free will acts are no longer possible ...."

You confuse ability and responsibility. Able or no longer able, man remains responsible. First time sinner or veteran sinner, man still is obnoxious both to the curse of the Law and the holiness of God.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

HP:

"We would consider such a one as a fit candidate for a mental hospital, unable, even rightfully said to be ‘impossible’ for one do be held accountable for their formed intents and subsequent actions."

GE:

You are very kind even though you have no right to be kind or wrathful. What "we consider" is of no consequence.
God though, would 'consider such an one as fit candidate', for hell, who, despite or exactly for, being unable, even rightfully said ‘impossible’, is, to be held accountable for his formed intents and subsequent actions!

This, is the fine line; this, makes the difference.