Regeneration verses God's Drawing?

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?

 

HP: When does this drawing come that you say all men receive? Do we have this drawing from first light of moral agency, or does it come later in life? Is it possible to die before one receives this drawing? Does man have to be regenerated, i.e., be granted special gracious abilities, before he is able to accept or reject this offer of salvation?

 

BR, I have never heard a single politician dodge the questions better than you just did. :laugh:

 

HPossibly a demonstration might shed some light on the subject. Ask me a question and I will respond with a Scripture.

 

HP: Being without excuse has nothing to do with the cure.

HP:In light of the omniscience of God, why could not this be said? What does that have to do with the unfounded presupposition you hold to that all have had the gospel presented to them?

HP: Conviction of what? There is a slight difference between the universal conviction of sin and whatever you might be trying to inject into that verse.

HP: He certainly does. But that in no way establishes that that light is anything more than conscience.

HP: Now I would be especially interested in seeing that verse.

HP: That is indeed true, but that verse does not grant you the right to interject an unfounded absurdity into the mix as you have done with the unfounded presupposition that God has given to all men the gospel message.

 

HP: No. I am simply trying to establish first what time in life does this drawing come. Here are some possible answers. 1. At birth 2. At first light of moral agency. 3. At some time subsequent to moral agency. 4. When the message of salvation is heard and understood.

Secondly I am trying to understand the nature of this drawing, whether or not man is granted any abilities to respond to salvation in this drawing, or if in fact all men have the necessary abilities to respond apart from this drawing. I am trying to determine whether or not this drawing is again passive, i.e. inline with a mere influence or persuasion to act upon the light of salvation, or if in fact this drawing is coercive in nature, granting man abilities that without which no man could accept or reject the gospel.

HP: My purpose is not to lead you into responding in a certain way. My purpose is to hopefully force the listener to fairly examine not only ones beliefs, but the logical consequences of them. My hope would be to be instrumental in aiding the listener to thoughtfully consider his views and to seek eliminate any and all absurdities from ones views. We may have many uncertainties, but we should allow no clear absurdities to exist.

As to my personal views, I cannot accept the notion that God regenerates the soul antecedent to repentance and faith. To believe that God must regenerate the soul antecedent to accepting or rejecting salvation, places an absurdity into ones views if one believes that Christ died for all, that the atonement was made for all, and that there are indeed conditions to salvation.

I see a great inconsistency if not absurdity for one to say "I do not believe in a limited atonement," while holding to the very fundamental necessities of a limited atonement, i.e., the necessitated granting of abilities to reject or accept salvation antecedent to accepting salvation.

HP: First, if the individual is actually saved, it has nothing in actuality to do with what happened on that Sunday morning according to the Calvinistic model. That is simply the day that the individual comes into a cognizance of what was accomplished for them two thousand years ago on the cross when their sins were paid for. It has nothing to do with how long it takes. It was already done for them. The salvation experience is just when they become personally aware of what has already been done, and come to realize for the first time that they have always been part of the elect, today simply being the day they were cognizant of it.

If my answers are not direct and answering your questions as you feel they should, just ask again and explain why I did not answer them directly. I will always try my best to be as open and honest as I can possibly be.

 

HP: Now explain to us the questions I asked before that you have not given a direct answer to. When does this drawing come to man? You say that all have received this drawing. If that is true, is it not universal in scope? If it is universal in scope, it is already been accomplished in the past. Nothing needs to be done now for any, or you cannot say “all have received.”

Your position is as foreign to any semblance of logic as one can imagine. If you take the position that all have (past tense) received this regeneration consisting of ability to respond, then logic demands there never has been a time when God has not granted this ability. If you take the position that all have not yet received this drawing, this granting of abilities to receive, you have to admit that God has not granted this ability to everyone. Reason would demand that the possibility exist that one could die prior to receiving this ability, therefore such a one could never have had any opportunity to receive the gospel, forcing the logical conclusion that God predestines the damned by withholding the needed abilities. Your reasoning clearly appears to fall apart logically and entertains absurdities from every angle.

 

HP: We all believe in the regeneration of the soul in one sense or another. 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. 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, for God grants to every man the measure of faith and needed abilities to not only respond to the gospel but to act in accordance to benevolence, IF they would only choose to. Bear in mind, that once one has committed the first sin that no amount of benevolence will atone for one solitary sin. Since all have sinned, there is no possibility in our dispensation that any would not or will not need a Savior. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God and no amount of benevolence can or will atone for their sins, We need an Advocate!
When I use the word regeneration in reference to what I believe, I am using the term to express the work of the Holy Spirit in salvation, NOT the granting of abilities to respond antecedent to salvation as do the Calvinists and even some Arminians. Some Arminians prefer to call prevenient grace what I find little difference in that the regeneration of the Calvinists. If frankness is what this discussion calls for, I will tell you right now that there is one reason for the false notion of regeneration or prevenient grace (when thought of as the granting of abilities to respond to the gospel), ie., the false Augustinian notion or original sin. Both the Arminians and the Calvinists have developed these two notions as cover for the false doctrine of original sin, thinking that these doctrines somehow rectify their idea of sinful man being unable, according to original sin, to do anything benevolent, including the accepting of the gospel. I believe both camps are in Scriptural and logical error.

HP: Yet another fine example of reading into the text your presupposition of God granting to all the opportunity of salvation. The Scripture has a little word “IF” that qualifies the all. It does not say that all will be drawn to salvation, but rather says that IF Christ is lifted up He will draw all me to Himself. If all men hear the gospel, all men that hear have the opportunity to respond. Nothing more can be fairly made of the text.

It should be clear to the reader that BR has one consistent problem. He makes no distinction between all men having a conscience awareness of sin and some idea of God and at least some obligation to Him, and the opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel. This is a fundamental error of great importance. God has indeed granted to men light and understanding of His existence, and in some measure right from wrong. Just the same this in NO wise can be extrapolated into suggesting that all have or will have the opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel. Such a notion as BR and others falsely make concerning God granting to all men the opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel, is yet another cover doctrine for the false notion of original sin. They must somehow, in the far reaches of their minds, believe by adding this false notion that it somehow justifies God for creating men as sinners unable to do right yet condemned. What they have not came to realize is, that even with the false notion that all hear and have an opportunity to respond they cannot avoid God being unjust in His condemnation of the sinner if the dogma of Augustinian original sin is correct.

HP: What is universal in it’s application? The gospel message? Far from it. God will have mercy on whomsoever he wills.



Quote:

HP: Nothing needs to be done now for any, or you cannot say “all have received.”

HP: Your position is that all have the opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel. IF that position is true, there is nothing now that could be undertaken by God now to see to it that all would hear, for by doing so it would validate the point that up until that time some have not heard. If you cannot follow that logic, I cannot help you. If all have had the opportunity to respond and hear, the gospel would OF NECESSITY be nothing more or less that a natural inclination from birth. If the possibility that one could be alive that has not heard the gospel yet, it could not be said that all have received the opportunity. It would be an ongoing process. If that is true, logic would demand that some will in fact die before the chance ever reaches them to hear and respond, for we know that infants, teens, and adults all die at all stages of development. That simply shatters the logic that all have or will hear the gospel, unless you are to say that the gospel message is inherent in our very make up and gene pool. Which is it? Trust me. There is a logical trail for you to follow in this part of the discussion although up until this point you have failed to do so.

 

HP: The question remains whether or not this desire, or any other natural propensity or desire, equates to hearing the gospel, and if it is a natural propensity or desire, does God have to provide special grace (in this case that of abilities) to take advantage of the offer of salvation that some are indicating is natural to man?

 

HP: What you denote as grace, I denote as justice IF, I say again IF, man is created as a sinner without hope and condemned for eternity for failure to do the impossible, i.e. overcome necessitated fate.