Here's the answer Xavier, Infide, seer and co.

[GoBahnsen]

I'm pulling out part of a post from another thread.

GB, there is a very specific question being posed. it asks you to think outside the box for a moment. Just one moment.

Still can't see my answer! I noticed that C4Him got pearls from Xavier for essentially saying that all of salvation is monergistic. Well, I guess that's an answer too. I have spent pages trying to illustrate that you can't compare unregenerate men with the regenerate, and all you guys do is say "answer the question GB".

Honestly, i dont see how what youre saying could be true. The man who believes the testimony of God truly heard in his heart and assents to it, is better because...

The man? Just "the" man?How about the UNREGENERATE man. You left off the distinction between the man in sanctification and pre-regeneration. That's what you guys, Xavier, seer, and co. have not seen in my drawn out responses.

So you guys, your question was flawed. You essentially required the Calvinist to demonstrate why REGENERATE men don't boast in sanctification, but that REGENERATE men are accused of grounds for boasting in regeneration.

Your error was in failing to see that it IS NOT regenerate men in both cases. There is a huge difference between an UNREGENERATE man cooperating with God and a REGENERATE man cooperating. This is the distinction which you all failed to make, but then talked down to the Calvinist (not that I claim that label) because he found it hard to answer your flawed question.

In your view of regeneration (though Xavier has some peculiar view of partial regeneration), UNregenerate men make the amazing choice of rejection of sin and acceptance of Christ. This they do, because you claim that they CAN do it. When they do what they CAN, while those bound for hell fail to do what they CAN, this is the small grounds for a boast (not verbal bragging).

In sanctification we are no longer dealing with the UNregenerate, so you cannot make the comparison that you guys have tried to make. The REgenerate are different than the unregenerate. To talk about why they don't have grounds for a boast in synergistic sanctification (which we all believe) and then compare that with UNregenerate men in regeneration is not a valid comparison, but you have insisted that it is.

In sanctification, unless you believe men can lose their salvation, you have God working IN His redeemed. In regeneration, God is not IN the unregenerate. Do you see the difference? Therefore, a comparison is not valid. You have lost the debate based on a faulty comparison. Now, be men and admit your mistake or prove me wrong.

[micah4]

In sanctification, unless you believe men can lose their salvation, you have God working IN His redeemed. In regeneration, God is not IN the unregenerate. Do you see the difference? Therefore, a comparison is not valid.

Actually, GB it is. Because when you say that the Arminian system gives men grounds for boasting, your claim must be applied to the Arminian system which it charges, not the Calvinist system.

Under the arminian system, in the light of prevenient grace, God is in fact working IN the unregenerate to convict them and enable to respond to the gospel.

It is only in the Calvinistic system which you hold that God is (apparently) not working IN the unregenerate, so the charge of boasting might be applied there, but it is the arminian system you critique; and the arminian system affirms the same thing which you say eliminates the grounds for boasting, namely that God is at work in us.

Now, be men and admit your mistake or prove me wrong.

Dunno if you'd consider the above proof, but I tried a little bit anyway.

[seer]

In sanctification we are no longer dealing with the UNregenerate, so you cannot make the comparison that you guys have tried to make. The REgenerate are different than the unregenerate. To talk about why they don't have grounds for a boast in synergistic sanctification (which we all believe) and then compare that with UNregenerate men in regeneration is not a valid comparison, but you have insisted that it is.

1. Man responds to God's grace in regeneration - this is cause for boasting.

2. Man responds to God's grace in sanctification - this is no cause for boasting.

Sorry Gb, it just doesn't get it...

[themuzicman]

What exactly do you mean by "in the regenerate"?

God occupies space that He previously did not by inhabiting a human being?

Michael;

[infide]

I replied to most of this in the other thread. I will speak to the few things you added here, and Micah didnt cover (good job, micah).

So you guys, your question was flawed. You essentially required the Calvinist to demonstrate why REGENERATE men don't boast in sanctification, but that REGENERATE men are accused of grounds for boasting in regeneration.

Your error was in failing to see that it IS NOT regenerate men in both cases. There is a huge difference between an UNREGENERATE man cooperating with God and a REGENERATE man cooperating. This is the distinction which you all failed to make, but then talked down to the Calvinist (not that I claim that label) because he found it hard to answer your flawed question.

It's not a matter of making a distinction between regenerate and unregenerate man. The issue here is the similarities between Arminianism with regard to salvation/regeneration, and Calvinism with regard to sanctification. Both are synergistic. Both are no grounds for boasting.

In your view of regeneration (though Xavier has some peculiar view of partial regeneration), UNregenerate men make the amazing choice of rejection of sin and acceptance of Christ.

With God, all things are possible, I'm told.

Secondly, although i havent thought about the specific terminology and all it entails, i wouldnt necessarily say that what happens in prevenient grace isnt unlike a partial regeneration. One problem seems to be the implied appeal to something like compatibilism, where one like myself would be leary of such moves.

This they do, because you claim that they CAN do it. When they do what they CAN, while those bound for hell fail to do what they CAN, this is the small grounds for a boast (not verbal bragging).

Well i guess the Calvinist has small grounds to boast of their sanctification, then.

In sanctification we are no longer dealing with the UNregenerate, so you cannot make the comparison that you guys have tried to make. The REgenerate are different than the unregenerate. To talk about why they don't have grounds for a boast in synergistic sanctification (which we all believe) and then compare that with UNregenerate men in regeneration is not a valid comparison, but you have insisted that it is.

What is different about the synergism in Calvinism w.r.t. sanctification, and the synergism in Arminianism w.r.t. regeneration/salvation? Appealing to the fact that one is regenerate and one is not, doesnt help - since regeneration is not a requirement in Arminianism to be influenced by divine grace w.r.t. God's truth, conviction, repentance, and belief.

In sanctification, unless you believe men can lose their salvation, you have God working IN His redeemed. In regeneration, God is not IN the unregenerate. Do you see the difference? Therefore, a comparison is not valid. You have lost the debate based on a faulty comparison. Now, be men and admit your mistake or prove me wrong.

Well i do beleve men can lose their salvation. But the answer is the same - Prevenient Grace provides the enablement to the Unregenerate which you believe regeneration provides to the regenerate.

peace,
jd

[Xavier]

[...] Secondly, although i havent thought about the specific terminology and all it entails, i wouldnt necessarily say that what happens in prevenient grace isnt unlike a partial regeneration. One problem seems to be the implied appeal to something like compatibilism, where one like myself would be leary of such moves.

You are correct, of course. My usage of the term is tempered against who I'm talking with. I think that there is a grace involved in offering us a choice and making that choice a viable one. Whether or not that requires regeneration (of some form or another) is up to your own view of depravity. I'm more than willing to work within the Classical framework of depravity (the Wesleyan and essentially Reformed view) and my own less severe version of the same doctrine (detailed a touch in a post an the previous thread).

Yours,
Xavier

PS: In regards to the OP, I'll allow my esteemed collegue to speak on my behalf for the moment.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Here is one for you, Greg:

In Romans 8:30 we find:

Moreover whom he did predestinate,
them he also called:
and whom he called,
them he also justified:
and whom he justified,
them he also glorified.

Now we can safely say with one voice that we do NOT know God's basis of predestination, or preselection... But what we DO know from this passage is that He does preselect.

Second, we know that having preselected, He then CALLS these to the faith...

And that third, having called these, He THEN justifies them...

And upon that justification, He THEN glorifies them...

So that we have a sequence of three events of which we can have a little knowledge:

1: Being Called
2: Being Justified
3: Being Glorified

Now I have a theory that you may be confusing the calling with the justifying... So what I would like from you is for you to explain how it is that we can tell the difference between being called and being justified.

Are both irresistable?
Are both intensely holy?
Are both an action of God?

And maybe you could throw in Glorification as well...
Are holiness and sanctification one, or two?
And how do they relate to the three events Paul lists?

And then, after all this, where does your theory of the regenerate and unregenerate fit in to everything? Are men regenerated by the calling, the justification, or the glorification?

The Orthodox hold that they are regenerate at baptism, and are as little babes being rebirthed, and acquire their righteousness in the trials of life to the end...

You seem to think that they are righteous as a result of regeneration...

And I always thought that righteousness was a product of those who are mature in the faith, and not of the newly entered...

Thank-you...

Arsenios

[GoBahnsen]

1. Man responds to God's grace in regeneration - this is cause for boasting.

We say so and you say no. But you do have to admit that the final difference between those in heaven and those in hell was due to the will of man. Sure, grace was made available in your view, but the will of man was the final determiner. You may then have that satisfaction that you managed a task that those in hell forever, failed to manage.

2. Man responds to God's grace in sanctification - this is no cause for boasting.

Right, because he has already been monergistic-ly regenerated. He has already graciously been chosen, called predestined. Now God works in him.

Sorry Gb, it just doesn't get it...

I know, and it won't until perhaps that light switches on inside by God's grace. May He be pleased to switch it on for you. If He does not, you're to blame for your willful blindness.

And this is that strange premise in Scripture...men are guilty for their willful blindness, but only God can relieve their blindness. If He does, it's His gracious action, the sinner deserves his own stubbon way.

Have a nice day you stubborn sinner, GB

[GoBahnsen]

What exactly do you mean by "in the regenerate"?

God occupies space that He previously did not by inhabiting a human being?

Michael;

Before God created, He made decided to create vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath. Both groups being free to pursue their fallen natures, inherited from Adam. Both do follow after sin. Those ordained unto eternal life believe God (Act 13:48). Those who do not were fore-ordained of old to be allowed to have what they wanted. The elect are, by God's predetermined counsel and hand, changed else they too tumble into hell with the rest.

We were before Children of wrath, even as the others (unbelievers) (Eph).

So Michael, I descibe this "in" action of God as one descriptive of His activity in His own elect, which differs from His decision to leave the Pharaoh's, the Herods, the Pilates, my next door neighbor (thus far at least), to their own evil desires. My desires were evil too, before God said "enough...you're one of mine, stretch forth your hand (to use one of Christ's sovereign choices in miracles as an example of God having mercy upon whom He wills-not all the lepers in Israel were cleansed in the days of Elisha, save a Gentile ruler) and God changed me, thus I responded in faith granted unto me...monergistic regeneration.

[Xavier]

[...] Have a nice day you stubborn sinner, GB

That is pathetic, GB. You are the picture of the subborn Reformed proponent who is too good to actually think about his own position. You refuse to admit your own misunderstanding. You refuse to take opponent's criticism seriously. We are not stupid, GB. When at least 4 different people tell you the same thing, chances are YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS WRONG!

Who's the stubborn sinner here?

[seer]

Right, because he has already been monergistic-ly regenerated. He has already graciously been chosen, called predestined. Now God works in him.

But we are saying that God worked in the man for regeneration too. So why can't you take credit for some of your sanctification, since you needed to play a part...

[GoBahnsen]

That is pathetic, GB. You are the picture of the subborn Reformed proponent who is too good to actually think about his own position. You refuse to admit your own misunderstanding. You refuse to take opponent's criticism seriously. We are not stupid, GB. When at least 4 different people tell you the same thing, chances are YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS WRONG!

Who's the stubborn sinner here?

Oh settle down, I wasn't saying that to seer with my nose in the air. My theology holds, that all I have that's right or any good is by sovereign grace, so I hardly can look down upon seer. I think he is stubbor, so are you, but that doesn't mean I think I'm free from stubborness. I'm a work in progress, I trust you are as well, and seer.

Your appeal to "4 people" is quite sad and uncharacteristic of your usual sharp mind. The 4 people all hold to freewill presupposition. Of course they will reject my view and tell me that I gave no answer.

Why pearls to C4Him (though I'm glad for him), when all he did was say salvation is monergistic? When I had said that regenerate men can not be compared to the unregenerate. I'm not pearl shopping, but I find your standard of what makes something an answer as opposed to a wrong answer (in your view) as opposed to a no answer...to be hard to discern.

[GoBahnsen]

But we are saying that God worked in the man for regeneration too. So why can't you take credit for some of your sanctification, since you needed to play a part...

If you like...I suppose I could, but God would show me that I'm being carnal in my thinking.

Look, I realize that to you, it is no boast that your will was the final determiner in salvation. You reject my analysis. I can't help that.

[GoBahnsen]

Well i guess the Calvinist has small grounds to boast of their sanctification, then.

I suppose both the Calvinist and the Arminian can be carnal.


But you Mr. freewill, you out-did your unbelieving neighbor. I did no such thing, but God did it for me. I can't make a boast because what happened to me was God's choice. You can make your boast because what happened to you was only by your consent. You managed that consent and the other guy failed. The results are eternal.

[Xavier]

I suppose both the Calvinist and the Arminian can be carnal. [...]

So your position is now:
*YOU* participate in the Reformed sanctification -- Possibly Boastful
*YOU* participate in the Arminian regeneration -- Possibly Boastful
???

If so, congrats, THAT'S an acceptable answer (even if I don't agree with it).