Theological Question for Calvinists

[Bernie]

I'll present two views on spiritual life:

1) A. Regeneration of the individual takes place by which the sinner is sealed with new spiritual life;
B. Conversion then takes place over time, by which the born-again person is gradually brought to a solidity of faith and inner change of heart toward spiritual goods and matters.

2) Regeneration of the individual takes place gradually over time. As the person is brought to higher degrees of being born-again, the solidity of faith and inner change of heart toward spiritual goods and matters is effected.

Of these two general ideas, how--logically and Biblically speaking--is view #1 necessary and superior to view #2?

[justsumguy]

They both ignore the fact that people who are at different points in their physical and spiritual lives die at any minute and both fall into the realm of not being able to know until reaching some undefinable level; which equals belief by degree and answers to a degree.

At least something is sealed in #1. Sealed then converted. Then gradually solidified.

Regeneration over time, higher degrees of being born, solidifying.

None of that makes sense to me. I understand where it's coming from and am aware of passages that could be applied in different orders to support both suppositions but in either case...

No sense from my point of view with either.

I should say that I think I would be a "Calvanist other" so technically I probably don't count.

[Bernie]

They both ignore the fact that people who are at different points in their physical and spiritual lives die at any minute and both fall into the realm of not being able to know until reaching some undefinable level; which equals belief by degree and answers to a degree.

I agree, though this neither proves nor disproves either position.

At least something is sealed in #1. Sealed then converted. Then gradually solidified.

But in #2 something is sealed as well. Actually, I contend for #2....#1has some logical problems imo which are better answered in #2.

Regeneration over time, higher degrees of being born, solidifying.

None of that makes sense to me. I understand where it's coming from and am aware of passages that could be applied in different orders to support both suppositions but in either case...

Much depends on one's view of a spiritual causal scheme. In my thinking, corruption begins in spirit and passes causally to soul (mind) and matter (body). It doesn't make much sense to suggest that either body or mind has the capacity to corrupt spirit. In one form of the dualist position (or at least my take) spirit as a force animates or supervenes on matter to produce the emergent soul/mind. I don't think this is too far from orthodox tripartism, at least it's one form of it. Logically, if we say the spirit is made wholly "good" or true or brought to life, then it becomes hard to see how the soul, which lies "downstream" of the spirit/matter union as an emergent force, is still corrupted and needs to be 'converted'.

Progressive regeneration seems to be an uncomfortable concept in the minds of some Christians, and with good reason: followed out logically, it has some disturbing possibilities in terms of salvation of the individual. On the flip side, these very possibilities also hold within them seeds of the purest form of logic concerning God's justice and man's culpability in moral matters.....but that's another thread.

No sense from my point of view with either.

If neither makes sense to you, what would you consider a reasonable alternative?

[RBerman]

I'll present two views on spiritual life:

1) A. Regeneration of the individual takes place by which the sinner is sealed with new spiritual life;
B. Conversion then takes place over time, by which the born-again person is gradually brought to a solidity of faith and inner change of heart toward spiritual goods and matters.

2) Regeneration of the individual takes place gradually over time. As the person is brought to higher degrees of being born-again, the solidity of faith and inner change of heart toward spiritual goods and matters is effected.

Of these two general ideas, how--logically and Biblically speaking--is view #1 necessary and superior to view #2?

Calvin used the term "regeneration" in sense #2. Modern Calvinists tend to split it into "regeneration" (your view #1) which is a necessary antecedent of the beginning of true faith in God, and "sanctification," which takes place gradually over time. I'm happy with either terminology, as long as it's clear what is meant. In either case, God's antecedent action is both necessary and sufficient for saving faith to begin to flower, and is only begun in those in whom it will proceed to completion (Phil 1:6).

[justsumguy]

If neither makes sense to you, what would you consider a reasonable alternative?

I thought you'd never ask.
A regeneration of the individual takes place immediately when one realizes they cannot do anything to regenerate, accepts the fact that Christ did what it takes for one to regenerate, realizes one is dead to sin and has been resurrected in new life...fully regenerated.

This realization and acceptance followed by more realization can happen quite quickly, take a long time or never happen at all during this life. For my money, I think those in the gospels who went right to baptism after belief were regenerated (I don't think the baptism itself regenerated them, but I think it got the point across really well). I would call this regeneration a literal filling of and by the Holy Spirit.

I accepted Christ into my heart when I was seven years old. I was regenerated at 19 years of age when I came to know that I was dead to sin and had been resurrected to walk life anew. Here's the catch...
Truth is...I was regenerated when I was 7 but I didn't know it. There's alot I didn't know when I was 7.

One does not need to be enthralled with predestination or freewill to be real.
They are both true, neither diminishes from the other because they aren't two different things.

[Bernie]

Calvin used the term "regeneration" in sense #2. Modern Calvinists tend to split it into "regeneration" (your view #1) which is a necessary antecedent of the beginning of true faith in God, and "sanctification," which takes place gradually over time. I'm happy with either terminology, as long as it's clear what is meant. In either case, God's antecedent action is both necessary and sufficient for saving faith to begin to flower, and is only begun in those in whom it will proceed to completion (Phil 1:6).

Amazing, RB....I've finally found something to wholly agree with you on. Well stated.

[Bernie]

I thought you'd never ask.
A regeneration of the individual takes place immediately when one realizes they cannot do anything to regenerate, accepts the fact that Christ did what it takes for one to regenerate, realizes one is dead to sin and has been resurrected in new life...fully regenerated.

This realization and acceptance followed by more realization can happen quite quickly, take a long time or never happen at all during this life. For my money, I think those in the gospels who went right to baptism after belief were regenerated (I don't think the baptism itself regenerated them, but I think it got the point across really well). I would call this regeneration a literal filling of and by the Holy Spirit.

I accepted Christ into my heart when I was seven years old. I was regenerated at 19 years of age when I came to know that I was dead to sin and had been resurrected to walk life anew. Here's the catch...
Truth is...I was regenerated when I was 7 but I didn't know it. There's alot I didn't know when I was 7.

One does not need to be enthralled with predestination or freewill to be real.
They are both true, neither diminishes from the other because they aren't two different things.

Then it appears to me you're not so much interested in the technical aspect of the matter as you are in providing a general account of the phenomenon which proceeds from the point of view of the regenerated individual. Well and good. I tend to be more interested in the technical points.

From my point of view, anyone whatsover who performs actual good acts (distinguished for example from acts which have the outward appearance of being good intentions but are actually self-serving), regardless of religion (or lack thereof) shows evidence of regeneration. It's hard to explain how the atheist who stops to care for a drunk lying in a gutter late at night could do so from a complete lack of God's regenerative work in his spirit. This defies logic.

[RBerman]

Amazing, RB....I've finally found something to wholly agree with you on. Well stated.

Thanks! I bet we agree on lots. It just happens that we've only taken the opportunity to discuss the matters on which we disagree.

[justsumguy]

Then it appears to me you're not so much interested in the technical aspect of the matter as you are in providing a general account of the phenomenon which proceeds from the point of view of the regenerated individual. Well and good. I tend to be more interested in the technical points.

From my point of view, anyone whatsover who performs actual good acts (distinguished for example from acts which have the outward appearance of being good intentions but are actually self-serving), regardless of religion (or lack thereof) shows evidence of regeneration. It's hard to explain how the atheist who stops to care for a drunk lying in a gutter late at night could do so from a complete lack of God's regenerative work in his spirit. This defies logic.

It's not hard for me to explain.
Regeneration is not needed to do actual good acts. Regeneration is needed to be able to share the experience with the creator. There are many atheists out there who live wonderful, giving lives. The notion that one needs to believe in a god(s) to be kind and love others comes out of arrogance. The difference between me and an atheist isn't doing good or abstaining from bad (anyone who thinks so is being an idiot). The difference is I know my creator and they don't. I have a huge problem with Christians who don't seem to have any grasp of how great it is to be accepted by our creator. Let me rephrase that....I have a huge problem with the people that teach others in a way that makes it almost impossible for them to know how great it is.

All throughout this site it's the same....everything related to sin.
Talk about defying logic. There is no way to compare sin or victory over sin between two people (let alone billions). Each person has a completely different set of outside influence and an internal one as well. Anytime a Christian does anything good or "passes a test", they should get down on their knees and thank God for the blessing bestowed upon them. They sure were lucky. And everytime they think there is an atheist out there who couldn't possibly be doing anything as "good" as they just did or "passing a test" that was even more difficult than the one they faced, they should get down on their knees and ask to be forgiven for being an arrogant ass.

I am speaking of real regeneration, not some religious distortion of working towards our own salvation. There is a total, real regeneration that occurs when one comes to know that they have died and are resurrected. Most of the Christians I see on this site so far have not died...not by a long stretch. It's stll going on...their effort to regenerate.

So...looks to me like you want to talk about the particulars of the illusion known to some Christians as regeneration instead of real regeneration.

I agree with what you are saying from that perspective.

[Bernie]

Hi justumguy,

Couple things struck me in your last post.

Regeneration is not needed to do actual good acts.

Curious to know how you formulate this. Are we created with an inherent ability to do good? What defines what is "good" from what is "bad", and what in your opinion are the forces (soulish, intellectual, material?) involved in either doing or knowing good and evil, right and wrong?

So...looks to me like you want to talk about the particulars of the illusion known to some Christians as regeneration instead of real regeneration.

I agree with what you are saying from that perspective.

I'm a bit confused with this statement; why would you agree with something you call an illusion?

From what I gleaned from your post, I might agree with you on the distinction between illusory and real regeneration, if by this you mean that there exists a superficial notion in some parts of organized Christianity of what regeneration is, that it's more of what I've come to call a 'blab-it-n-grab-it' membership that is often trivial and not heartfelt. Our arminian brethren seem to have filled the pews with these, departing the old days where membership was withheld until a heartfelt confession of personal worthlesness was confessed. (This I believe Calvinists and most Arminians would usually agree together on 150 years ago...times they do change.) Today I wonder if churches aren't more interested in attracting the upwardly mobile (or at least the gainfully employed) due to the fact that they tend to fill the church tithe basket much more quickly than the ragged poor. Hard to fund those fave ministries without cheerful (and prospering) tithers.

But as to real regeneration, however you define it, I'm not convinced my Calvinist brethren have not also fallen onto this path of winking the eye in order to fill the pews, as I hear few speak of seeing the Horrible Thing within, unlike many Godly Calvinists of old.

[justsumguy]

Hi justumguy,

Couple things struck me in your last post.


Curious to know how you formulate this. Are we created with an inherent ability to do good? What defines what is "good" from what is "bad", and what in your opinion are the forces (soulish, intellectual, material?) involved in either doing or knowing good and evil, right and wrong?


I'm a bit confused with this statement; why would you agree with something you call an illusion?

From what I gleaned from your post, I might agree with you on the distinction between illusory and real regeneration, if by this you mean that there exists a superficial notion in some parts of organized Christianity of what regeneration is, that it's more of what I've come to call a 'blab-it-n-grab-it' membership that is often trivial and not heartfelt. Our arminian brethren seem to have filled the pews with these, departing the old days where membership was withheld until a heartfelt confession of personal worthlesness was confessed. (This I believe Calvinists and most Arminians would usually agree together on 150 years ago...times they do change.) Today I wonder if churches aren't more interested in attracting the upwardly mobile (or at least the gainfully employed) due to the fact that they tend to fill the church tithe basket much more quickly than the ragged poor. Hard to fund those fave ministries without cheerful (and prospering) tithers.

But as to real regeneration, however you define it, I'm not convinced my Calvinist brethren have not also fallen onto this path of winking the eye in order to fill the pews, as I hear few speak of seeing the Horrible Thing within, unlike many Godly Calvinists of old.

Bernie, I am certain that being kind is something Jesus held in high regard. Now…is it good? It’s good as defined by Jesus holding it high regard. Does a person have to believe in any god to be kind? Not from what I’ve seen.

The simplified doctrines of Calvinism an Armenian’s don’t do it for me. My reality is Heaven (perfect eternity). That which is not Heaven is not real to me. Don’t get me wrong, it’s as real to me as it is to everyone else but that’s where the real issue comes into play. I am not real. I am not real in the sense that I am not eternal. I am real. I am real because I have everlasting life. The fact that I have everlasting life makes me real…but it’s not me that validates my being real. I am real in spite of my ability to validate my being real. God is the only thing that can make me real and God has done so by doing something that is impossible. I am an impossible addition to that which is real and that which is real cannot be added to.

Due to the impossibility of me being able to be added to that which cannot be added to (how the heck to you add to everything that is when there is nothing other than it?), and the impossibility being made real…

I currently live in something that cannot be. It’s not just spiritually. It’s also physically. Everyone wants to pretend as if this world (universe) is Heaven and either make idiotic excuses for God allowing horrible things to happen or to pin it on Adam and Eve or Satan which can always be boiled back down to God allowing horrible things to happen (or simply arguing that God is just and hates bad so it’s all good – which is about as ignorant an argument as can be possibly be made).
I say the creation is an impossible creation, that God created something other than Heaven when there can be nothing other than Heaven and that’s why all of this fallen angels, fallen man, good and evil makes no sense. In fact, I suggest the very notion of creating something other than Heaven is what caused and is causing all the trouble because it looks like a mistake to some of the angels and humans.

The way I see it, there are angels and humans insisting it’s a mistake. Even the humans who are supposedly trusting in God are insisting each other are mistaken. I say the root cause amongst believers is their insistence to define their reality with the illusion.

Then I finally get to the point…
I think one of the properties of the impossible creation is that we are linked to eternity and we can see eternity within the very fabric of the illusion. Some can see it more than others for an almost infinite number of reasons.

But those of us who believe that God sent Christ and Christ did what needed to be done in order for us to be a part of Heaven, need to come to the realization that our reality is not defined by our sin, it is defined by our lack of sin per the belief.

I agree with your assessment on the state of things and what I see as lack of realization of our total worthlessness that demands nothing short of trusting God to do the impossible…make us worthy, which is exactly what He has done through Christ.

It doesn’t matter if one is seeing it through predestination or freewill, what matters is if the end result is trusting in God, not because it’s a rule but because it’s the only way.

There is no way to fool God. We either truly realize our total inability to do anything about our real existence and trust God to do it, or we are pretending. Living an illusion if you will.

[Bernie]

Greetings justsumguy,

Bernie, I am certain that being kind is something Jesus held in high regard. Now…is it good? It’s good as defined by Jesus holding it high regard. Does a person have to believe in any god to be kind? Not from what I’ve seen.

I'm not sure this is a good example, as kindness is more a capacity and response which issues forth from the soul of the individual than it is a moral capability. On the other hand, maybe all we're talking about boils down to assumption A), man is a created being endowed with the moral and intellectual capacities she then by virtue of her choices in life either enhances or deteriorates, or, assumption B), these capacities in all humans are inate by virtue of natural causes, arising from electrochemical processes finetuned by chance over millions of years of evolution.

As to the rest of your post, you pose some interesting, if abstract, ideas of existence. Not sure I understand what you mean when you say some pretend this is heaven. You're an idealist, right?

I especially like your statement, "It doesn’t matter if one is seeing it through predestination or freewill, what matters is if the end result is trusting in God, not because it’s a rule but because it’s the only way."
That statement is something solid to rest in. As falsity is removed, we begin to gain (or regain?) the freedom to go in the only direction a logical, reaonable person would go if not otherwise hindered: toward relationship wtih God and not away from it.

[justsumguy]

Greetings justsumguy,
I'm not sure this is a good example, as kindness is more a capacity and response which issues forth from the soul of the individual than it is a moral capability. On the other hand, maybe all we're talking about boils down to assumption A), man is a created being endowed with the moral and intellectual capacities she then by virtue of her choices in life either enhances or deteriorates, or, assumption B), these capacities in all humans are inate by virtue of natural causes, arising from electrochemical processes finetuned by chance over millions of years of evolution.

You're going to get this out of me everytime...A and B are both true until they are worded in a way that suggests the other can't be true. I must say there are incredible varaibles in both. It's safe to say that no two people start with the same measure of the mentioned attributes from the beginning.

As to the rest of your post, you pose some interesting, if abstract, ideas of existence. Not sure I understand what you mean when you say some pretend this is heaven. You're an idealist, right?

It's not abstract for me. This universe is not Heaven and Heaven is not in this universe (heaven being where I am going to spend eternity - I don't care about the first 1000 years). As for me being an idealist - it depends on who is doing the defining.

I especially like your statement, "It doesn’t matter if one is seeing it through predestination or freewill, what matters is if the end result is trusting in God, not because it’s a rule but because it’s the only way."
That statement is something solid to rest in. As falsity is removed, we begin to gain (or regain?) the freedom to go in the only direction a logical, reaonable person would go if not otherwise hindered: toward relationship wtih God and not away from it.

I like your statement also. When one honestly stands before God, one realizes there is nothing to bring to the table other than self itself. Self is stripped of all the trappings. Self is reduced to awareness but there is something incredibly special about it's uniqueness. I would say it's being more aware than is possible with the trappings. I think it's safe to say that the closer we step towards God...the more we leave behind and the more we gain.

[Bernie]

justsumguy,

your responses are too good for you to be just some guy....you are clearly more than the sum of your parts, or at least than the sum of your posts. I like the 'take 'er easy dude', baggy britches, chewin on a foxtail persona, but your intelligence leaks out of the cracks and crevices....

[justsumguy]

justsumguy,

your responses are too good for you to be just some guy....you are clearly more than the sum of your parts, or at least than the sum of your posts. I like the 'take 'er easy dude', baggy britches, chewin on a foxtail persona, but your intelligence leaks out of the cracks and crevices....

Chicks dig it. lol I'm a missionary son who was raised amongst people who lived in caves, a cowboy, a preacher, a surfer, a seminary student, a snow-skier, a city-slicker, a rock guitar player, a land surveyor, a database designer, a disc golfer, an extreme mountain hiker, a husband, a father, a grandfather and an online forum dude. I know exactly who I am spiritually but the persona?...I never know which influence is going to the forefront. I don't know about the intelligence thing but I do have some experience to share.