For this reason I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
- Matt 12:31

Sam

You wrote:
“Ben has answered your response to me quite well. But I want to underscore something I said originally and that Ben has pressed in his response to you, because it addresses what is probably your main argument in response to me, your contention that one becomes a child by being born.” And in a subsequent post: “It [the Calvinist argument] rides on the impossible assertion that someone is not a child until born, when reality has the order exactly reversed: a person is obviously a child of his parents before being born!”

I agree that a child is a child before being born, but you have missed my general point: you can’t equate born with child. A child can miscarry in the womb and never be born, so not all “children” are born, therefore, there is a distinction. But John says that the child of God has been born. This is not to say that regeneration precedes faith or faith precedes regeneration in John 1:12-13. Remember, as I pointed out to Ben, I never said that I think John 1:12-13 teaches regeneration precedes faith. I have obviously said that I think it does not teach faith precedes regeneration. But like I’ve told Ben, you guys have given me some good stuff to think about.

Thanks for the recommendation for the SEA site. In fact, that’s how I found Ben’s blog. In my estimate, the SEA seems to be the best of Arminian theologians/pastors on the web today. Do you guys have meetings/conferences and such. Do you think a Calvinist could come?

Dan

I’m back. I’ll respond to you (Ben) and then Arminian, in separate posts.

You (Ben) wrote:
“It seems that you also see it [regeneration] as Scriptural, and at least important enough to devote time to this discussion (though you do not think it is as important as other areas of Calvinist theology).”

Just for clarity once again, I see regeneration preceding faith as “Scriptural” in the sense of being a theological/logical construct, but do not see any passage of Scripture that plainly argues for the priority of either regeneration or faith. But we’re discussing this point…

You wrote:
“I think you have much to prove with regards to these assertions. On what basis do you distinguish between being born of God and adoption as sons?”

I base this on the biblical teaching of adoption in the Bible. In Gal 3:26, there is no hint of being “born.” We become sons of God through faith. Granted, a son has to be born, but in this passage (and other Galatians passages you cited) “being born” is not there. In other words, a son can be born to one family, but be adopted to another family. Legally, he’s a son of the adopted family. This is what I think Paul is talking about in Galatians. So my point is that I don’t think you can use the Galatians passages as support for faith preceding regeneration. And yes, I know I have much more to prove on this. Unfortunately, a blog post is not the place to do it.

You wrote:
“So one can be born of God and yet not formally belong to Him?”

No, this is not what I’m suggesting. If I’m born of God, I “formally” belong to him. But in Galatians, I’m not “born” of God, I’m adopted by God. Adoption is what Paul is talking about. I just think you cannot import regeneration into these passages, specifically Gal 3:26.

You wrote:
“Again, this highlights the many theological absurdities that result from trying to defend the Calvinist ordo. We have sinners being born of God outside of union with Christ and without the indwelling Holy Spirit. We have people becoming “children” of God, while not yet having the “legal status” of children of God. We have people possessing life prior to the righteousness of justification, while Paul says that life results from the righteousness of justification (Rom. 8:10, 11, cf. Gal. 3:21-22).”

I see your point. I’ll have to think more about this.

You wrote:
“But this is just begging the question. The only reason we would need to make such a “distinction” is because it is necessary to salvage your ordo, and not because the Bible makes such claims (and are you now suggesting that regeneration is not a primary element of salvation?).”

I know you don’t think so, but I’m not making the distinction between the work of the Holy Spirit in an unbeliever and the indwelling in believer to maintain any kind of ordo, and the ordo is not my theological interpretive grid either (at least I don’t think it is, but this discussion could have brought out a “presuppisition I “unconsciously hold to). Besides, there’s more than regeneration and indwelling with the Holy Spirit’s work/role in both unbeliever and believers.

You wrote:
“Being born of God and becoming His child is the same thing and such is the result of believing on Christ and receiving Him.”

See my answer to Arminian on this.

You wrote:
“But this is contrary to the Calvinist insistence that one who is dead cannot “hear” unto life, but must first be given life before they can “hear”.”

The Calvinist says this because they believe God must start salvation. For them, God starts it with irresistible grace/regeneration (or just irresistible grace for some Calvinists). For Arminians it’s started with prevenient grace. Man in is naturally condition cannot “hear” in the sense that he is in bondage. The will must first be freed. What theological term we give to the will that is freed is the difference.

Anyways, this discussion has gotten out of hand; I’ve lost track of what we’re talking about with all these rabbit trails! I agree that there are problems with regeneration logically preceding faith, but I don’t agree, yet, that biblically (not theologically/logically) faith precedes regeneration. But you (and Arminan) have given me some good stuff to think about.

Thanks for your blog. I will check it again. I’ll leave you the last word on this blog discussion. I actually have some further questions about Arminianism, but I will ask them in your “questions” section in due time.

Godspeed.

Dan

The Arminian perspective is not biblical.

Did you read the post or only the comments? How do you explain the many theological problems that result from the Calvinist ordo salutis as described in the post? If you looked at the post you will find that according to the Arminian ordo salutis (and the Bible) faith is what joins us to Christ. It is by faith that we become a part of Christ’s body and we are elect in Him (Eph.1:3- not elect “to be” in Him). It is the elect body of Christ that is “predestined” to glory, adoption, and conformity to the image of Christ. Nowhere does the Bible teach that sinners are predestined to have faith and get saved. Predestination always speaks of those who are already believers. Believers are predestined to glory, adoption, and ultimate conformity to Christ’s image because they are joined to Him in faith.

In your quote you left out the first part of the verse, “Those He foreknew…” This means those He foreknew as His covenant people, i.e. believers. So from beginning to end Paul is speaking of believers. He is not talking about sinners being predestined to become believers. If you want to discuss this further I will not be able to respond again for quite a while (as I will be away from the computer until the 28th. And if you do respond further, please do not use the “reply” button. Instead, scroll down to the bottom of the comments thread and reply there.

You should probably check out the following posts before responding further, as they will help you better see why I think your understanding of Rom. 8:29-30 is inaccurate:

http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/corporate-election-resources/

http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/what-does-callingcalled-refer-to-in-the-bible/

God Bless,
Ben

Like the examples

“You have yet to prove from Scripture that faith is an irresistible gift given only to the “elect”. I don’t necessarily disagree with the rest.”

Here is the proof:

“Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”

In other words, all those who were predestined and called (the elect) were indeed justified. Justification is by faith alone. Then, all those who were predestined and called received faith.

The Arminian perspective is not biblical.