Eph 2:1-6 (regeneration preceding faith?)

[Guest]

It seems the question you're asking is whether God needs anything from us or whether we can contribute anything to Him.

I don't think so -- I don't know how many times we non-Calvinists have to say this, but it's not about what God "needs" or is "able" to do alone and apart from us, but what it pleased God to in fact do. We don't think God "needs" our participation, but that it pleases Him to have given us the choice whether to follow Him and that He empowers us for His pleasure and good will to follow Him or not. That He could effect our salvation and obedience without our participation is not disputed (though we continue to hear this straw man objection to our position) -- that He does not do so (at least in a normative way) is apparently quite disputed.

[Guest]

It seems the question you're asking is whether God needs anything from us or whether we can contribute anything to Him.

I don't think so -- I don't know how many times we non-Calvinists have to say this, but it's not about what God "needs" or is "able" to do alone and apart from us, but what it pleased God to in fact do. We don't think God "needs" our participation, but that it pleases Him to have given us the choice whether to follow Him and that He empowers us for His pleasure and good will to follow Him or not. That He could effect our salvation and obedience without our participation is not disputed (though we continue to hear this straw man objection to our position) -- that He does not do so (at least in a normative way) is apparently quite disputed.

But my assertion is based on your claim that the latter presumably "glorifies God more." If He chooses us, He gets "less glory" than if we choose Him, right? Or what was the point of your schoolyard illustration?

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

But my assertion is based on your claim that the latter presumably "glorifies God more." If He chooses us, He gets "less glory" than if we choose Him, right? Or what was the point of your schoolyard illustration?

I believe if He chooses us, he does get less glory, yes.

For an all-powerful God to exercise His power in such a trivial fashion as to monergistically choose and draw and convert and use man without their participation or will doesn't seem to do anything more than if I lift my own arm glorifies me. But, if I could create a moral being capable of choosing whether to follow me, and they did do so --- boy, that would bring me glory.

I am capable of picking my son up and moving him to each toy and moving his arm and hands to cause him unilaterally to pick up each toy and place it in his toy chest, but what good does that do besides exercise my power -- when he chooses to obey me and do it of his own volition with joy (from my training), that makes me so proud I can hardly contain myself. Being in the image of God, I can only imagine that this is a infinitesimal example of how God must feel when his moral beings turn to Him and obey Him of their own accord (through His training and empowering of course).

[Guest]

Bob,

You wrote:

But I don't feel the analogy is apt, because I don't see the sinner as "ill", but as "dead in trespasses and sins". So showing him others who have been likewise healed would have no affect on dead men.

So you think the figure of speech, "dead in trespasses and sins", indicates total inability to respond to the gospel? Yet we find Paul urging "dead" people to do just that:

Ephesians 5:13-15 (New King James Version)

13. But all things that are exposed are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is light. 14. Therefore He says:

“ Awake, you who sleep,
Arise from the dead,
And Christ will give you light.”

We can excuse Paul; he preceded Calvinist thought by almost 300 years.

And you wrote:

Maybe an analogy from the scripture would be more apt: say John 11:1-46?

I think this is one of the most inapt analogies one could think of. I have heard it (mis)used by Calvinists before. So you would have us think the physical death of Lazarus and his resurrection by Jesus is meant to be analogous to the regeneration of the spiritually dead to spiritual life? Strange. How does Lazarus' ultimate physical death fit into your analogy? Do all regenerated people in your system die again spiritually?

I think Jesus informed the folks of His intended message in the raising of Lazarus:

John 11:42 (New King James Version)

42. And I know that You always hear Me, but because of the people who are standing by I said this, that they may believe that You sent Me.”

[Guest]

Bob,

You wrote:

But I don't feel the analogy is apt, because I don't see the sinner as "ill", but as "dead in trespasses and sins". So showing him others who have been likewise healed would have no affect on dead men.

So you think the figure of speech, "dead in trespasses and sins", indicates total inability to respond to the gospel?

Apart from being raised by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, yes, that's what I think. What does "dead in trespasses and sins" mean to you?

Yet we find Paul urging "dead" people to do just that:
Ephesians 5:13-15 (New King James Version)

13. But all things that are exposed are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is light. 14. Therefore He says:

“ Awake, you who sleep,
Arise from the dead,
And Christ will give you light.”

Well that's curious indeed. Paul has inserted a text that overturns all his other teaching on the deadness of the natural man in sin right in the middle of an extended passage directed at Christians on how we are to live our lives in obedience to him?

Note there is nothing in this passage about "in trespasses and sins", and nothing in the other passages (whose force you seek to overturn) about "sleep".

I think in our zeal you're making a hasty conclusion about the applicability of this verse.

We can excuse Paul; he preceded Calvinist thought by almost 300 years.

And you wrote:

Maybe an analogy from the scripture would be more apt: say John 11:1-46?

I think this is one of the most inapt analogies one could think of.

Well, that doesn't surprise me.

I have heard it (mis)used by Calvinists before. So you would have us think the physical death of Lazarus and his resurrection by Jesus is meant to be analogous to the regeneration of the spiritually dead to spiritual life?

Yes. It illustrates His power over death, whether physical or spiritual.

Strange. How does Lazarus' ultimate physical death fit into your analogy? Do all regenerated people in your system die again spiritually?

Given that Lazarus' ultimate physical death doesn't figure in the story, why must it be relevant to the analogy? Presumably your chieftan died again eventually as well, but that's not relevant either.

I think Jesus informed the folks of His intended message in the raising of Lazarus:

John 11:42 (New King James Version)

42. And I know that You always hear Me, but because of the people who are standing by I said this, that they may believe that You sent Me.”

Of course. But sent Him to do what? Give sight to the blind, raise the dead, find the lost, etc. All pictures of Christ's power over death and sin that binds and enslaves us in our lost state.

The illustration is both biblical and apt.

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

Bob,

You wrote:

Well that's curious indeed. Paul has inserted a text that overturns all his other teaching on the deadness of the natural man in sin right in the middle of an extended passage directed at Christians on how we are to live our lives in obedience to him?

Note there is nothing in this passage about "in trespasses and sins", and nothing in the other passages (whose force you seek to overturn) about "sleep".

Yes, this is very curious. "Dead" means physically dead. "Dead" means totally depraved when coupled with "in trespasses and sins". But when Paul uses "dead" in a warning against falling away, it means something else entirely. Is "in trespasses and sins" the phrase that governs the meaning of dead? If so, we seem to have very little to base a doctrine on. Unless I am mistaken, Paul used the phrase only once.

So you think the story of Lazarus' resurrection in John 11 is meant as an allegory about regeneration, but we can not have Lazarus' ultimate death as part of the allegory. I anticipated that would be a huge problem for the Calvinist. That would knock the "P" right out of your TULIP! So let's forget about that, its not in the narrative of John 11 anyway. We will stick with what's there. Fair enough?

Well, the narrative of John starts with Lazarus alive, but sick. Hmmm. What are we to make of that? Does he represent a regenerated man who is sick with sin as in Paul's warning to the Ephesians? He is alive. Doesn't being physically alive represent regeneration in your allegory, or like Humpty Dumpty, does it mean only what you want it to mean, and when you want it to mean it? And when Lazarus dies, prior to being raised from the dead, how does that work with the "P" in your TULIP? Perhaps you'd like to forget about using the Lazarus' story as support for Calvinism's peculiar ideas about regeneration.

[Guest]

Nice to be apart of this dialog. I was looking at the Eph/Col explanation and do not find anything that has anything to do with what Paul is trying to communicate. His emphasis is on the sinner being dead and God having the power to make the dead living.

Paul uses no temporal language comparisons in Col 2:13 and does not support any temporal cause effect issue with faith and making alive or forgiving sins. In Col 2:13 the "made you alive" and "having forgiven your sins" are both in the aorist tense. There is no temporal difference, thus it does not support any claim of faith preceding regeneration.

Concerning "regeneration" or being "reborn" and faith, what do you think of 1 John 5:1? This directly is talking about this issue in temporal language and uses both "faith" AND "being born again" and who is the cause of both.

Homer: In Ephesians 5:14 That is an imperative. It conveys a command, thus it is demanding what ought to be done but it does not say what CAN be done. To imply ability to the text from an imperative is an eisogetical statment and is bringing a presupposition to the text.

[Guest]

In Ephesians 5:14 That is an imperative. It conveys a command, thus it is demanding what ought to be done but it does not say what CAN be done. To imply ability to the text from an imperative is an eisogetical statment and is bringing a presupposition to the text.

It seems to me to be a presupposition to think that God might command something to be done, when it is impossible for the hearer to do it.

Would your employer ever ask you to do something which is impossible for you to do? Surely God is at least as reasonable as your employer.

[Amyfree]

It seems to me to be a presupposition to think that God might command something to be done, when it is impossible for the hearer to do it.

Would your employer ever ask you to do something which is impossible for you to do? Surely God is at least as reasonable as your employer.

That is because it is not, in the Calvinist system, impossible for an unregenerate man to repent. Or it is, depending on what you mean by "impossible".

An unregenerate man possesses the faculties to do so; he lacks the will to use those faculties.

It is not impossible in the sense that it is impossible for me to flap my arms and fly. If my employer told me to do such a thing, I would be entirely willing to do so; if I attempted, I would fail. And I do not believe it would be just for my employer to hold me accountable. I do not believe it would be just for God to judge in an analogous situation, and I do not believe he does so. (By that, I mean primarily that I do not find Biblical reason to think that he does, and secondarily that it does not fit with my understanding of justice.)

However, if my employer told me to do something knowing that I would be entirely unwilling to obey, it would still be just to hold me accountable.


Now, from here the discussion goes to a few places: What about God's hardening? (How does that affect the justice of holding us accountable? If he does harden us, how does he do so? Does that affect the question? Does he ever harden a neutral person, removing their ability to respond in faith? Calvinists would say no: That there are no neutral or good people whom God hardens to become sinners. Rather, there are only sinners whom he hardens in their sin, to more clearly display the evil of sin and the holiness of his justice--and to show more clearly the glory of his mercy on those undeserving rebels whom he does mercy.) Another question is, what about Adam, before the Fall? How were things different then? How does that fit with this description of justice & hardening? (My brief answer: I have no idea.) Also, what about the justice of condemning a being who was created with a fallen nature, bent to be a sinner?

I would identify those kinds of questions as the meaningful questions to ask and discuss. The discussion will go to Romans 9, Ezekiel 18, etc.

I don't think the employer question, on the other hand, is a meaningful, applicable analogy.

[Guest]

It seems to me to be a presupposition to think that God might command something to be done, when it is impossible for the hearer to do it.

Would your employer ever ask you to do something which is impossible for you to do? Surely God is at least as reasonable as your employer.

And there is the Assumption upon the text AND and EVEN an assumption upon my understanding!

I didn't SAY that God would give a command that no one could do. See? You assumed that even in my explanation of GRAMMAR not the text. Throw out the text. Just plainly look at a basic Grammatical construct. An imperative is just that, a command. You can not by the command itself say anything other than that grammatically. It doesn't say you can fulfill the command or you can NOT! And your reply definitely proves that you implying meanings that are not there. The ability or inability has to be found somewhere else where it is given in an indicative statement that qualifies the subject to be able to fulfill it or not.

You used a philosophical analogy and imposed that on the text. This is a prime example of eisegesis. The ability or inablility for a dead man to be able to raise himself must be shown in scripture to qualify the command.