The Value of Evangelism in Reformed Theology

[tdidymas]

1 Corinthians 2:14 has nothing to do with the Gospel, with some being elect or not. It’s about Christians not receiving teaching from the Spirit because they are carnal, babes in Christ, wanting to follow (be bottle fed) the teachings of men, and not be taught by Christ; by the Spirit of Christ.



These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For “who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; for you are still carnal. 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3



This is another good example of you lifting a verse out of its context, and projecting your own predetermine perspective into it.



JLB

Let's observe the larger context of what Paul is writing about: 1 Cor. 1:1-3:23
In response to the division in the church (1:10-17), Paul begins talking about the gospel he preaches (1:18-1:31) regarding to various peoples' attitudes toward it. Then on how the apostle presents it (2:1-5), then about who does and does not understand it (2:6-16), then about the attitudes of the ministers of the gospel (3:1-9), then about what kind of reward those ministers will receive (3:10-16), and finally about what ought to be the attitude of those who receive it (3:11-23). And this "it" of course is the gospel of which Paul and Apollos are ministers.

So then the "as carnal, as babes in Christ" are people who have little to no understanding of the gospel that Paul has been preaching. And so it is with the writer of Hebrews who said that those people needed to be taught the elementary things all over again, and with Peter saying to the churches to "long for the pure milk of the word as newborn babes." The actions of people show whether or not they understand the nature of their relationship with God, and to what degree they understand it.

So your response here begs a question: just what do you think Paul is talking about when he uses the figure "solid food"? Is "solid food" some portion of the gospel, or is it something else entirely, in your assessment?
TD

 

[tdidymas]

I honestly don't assume to know what you think.

This is a dishonest statement, since every response of yours has been a judgment on what you think I think about the subject matter.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

TD,

You are cherry-picking verses to suit your theology. How about Titus 2:11-12 (ESV): 'For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age'.

That doesn't mean all will receive this salvation but it is 'brought to all people'. That does not support particular redemption/limited atonement.

Oz

Your statement "that does not support particular redemption" is biased because it is out of context with the whole of scripture. Titus 2:11-12 is about the free offer of the gospel, and therefore it is not about particular redemption, so it obviously can't be used to teach the doctrine of particular redemption. But Rev. 5:9 is about particular redemption, and is not a doctrinal statement about the free offer of the gospel. So what you are essentially doing is pitting one verse of scripture against another which are statements about different subjects, or aspects, of the gospel.

We know from the OT that God saved a remnant of Israel, and not everyone in Israel. His statement to Elijah was "I have kept for Myself 7,000 who have not bowed their knee to Baal." And just how do you think God "kept" them? Do you think He may have had some control over their beliefs and attitudes in order to "keep" them from idolatry? Or do you think those people kept themselves by some sort of righteousness of their own? When Peter says we are "kept by the power of God through faith..." does God have some control over our faith and behavior, or do you think that people keep themselves in faith without God's help, but by virtue of a "free" will that is "free" from God's control?

The point is, the OT teaches particular redemption in this regard. When the prophets wrote about God saving the people, there was a subset of the nation which was in mind here. Paul explains it by saying "not all Israel is Israel." In the same way, the NT is written with the assumption that not everyone in the churches are saved, which is why there are many warnings in the NT writings, and Jesus said "not everyone who calls me 'Lord' shall enter the kingdom of heaven."

So when Rev. 5:9 says that Christ purchased men from every nation, the sense of the statement is that it is a subset of everyone. So Jesus' blood covers the subset, not the whole. It redeems the subset, not the whole. And from other scripture we can harmonize this doctrine taught by John, Paul, and Peter that the blood of Christ redeems particular people, namely those who believe in Him. And this also means the obverse, that the blood of Christ does not redeem unbelievers.

If you disagree with this (that is, you affirm a believe in universal atonement), then you have the burden of proof by reason of exegesis that Rev. 5:9 does not teach particular redemption. I challenge you to explain how "men from every nation" means the whole and not the part.

And this obviously leads to how Titus 2:11-12 is explained. If the Bible does teach particular redemption, then universal redemption cannot be assumed when this verse is read, because that assumption would then be a contradiction to what the scripture teaches about particular redemption.

And vice-versa. If the Bible teaches universal redemption, then reading Rev. 5:9 with redemption of a subset would be wrong, since that would be a contradiction to the Biblical teaching of universal redemption. But since Titus 2:11-12 is not a doctrinal statement teaching either particular or universal redemption, one or the other must be assumed when reading the verse. No, Titus 2:11-12 does not say that all people everywhere are redeemed. Therefore universal redemption must be assumed if it is read that way.

Throughout the Bible, both in the OT and the NT, God deals with particular people. He separates particular people out of the whole, and reveals Himself to them, makes covenant with them, establishes personal relationship with them, makes them holy (separate from the whole), redeems them from sin, and grants them eternal life. And this of course, begs the question "why"? What starts God off with a particular people? Is it because He sees those people as salvageable, as doing the right things, as having the proper attitude, as making right decisions in life? Or is it because He simply decided to make them different than the whole? And if He did decide to make them different, how did He go about it? Well, this is what the NT is all about, explaining by reason of doctrinal statements, testimonies, historical narratives, prophecies, etc., which are like bricks of a building that gives us some picture of the nature of our relationship to God.

No, I didn't cherry pick anything. The doctrines I believe are the ones that the apostles taught.
TD

 

[TibiasDad]

TD,

You are cherry-picking verses to suit your theology. How about Titus 2:11-12 (ESV): 'For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age'.

That doesn't mean all will receive this salvation but it is 'brought to all people'. That does not support particular redemption/limited atonement.

Oz

Oz, I think you are misunderstanding me, for I am not promoting Limited Atonement, Calvinism, or anything else of that theological ilk. I agree with you!

Doug

 

[Hospes]

You imply that Arminian thought thinks that Lydia had anything to do with salvation of her own accord; we do not.
You have neglected the fact that Lydia was already "a worshiper of God", already had an open heart to the truth of God. For instance, in Acts 19, Paul found a group who had been baptized by John the Baptist, but had not heard of Jesus or the Holy Spirit, but as soon as they did, they recognized the truth and we're baptized in Jesus' name. Their hearts were all ready open, that's why the truth of Jesus was a natural extension of the truth they had already believed.

I'm a bit confused by the first sentence. It sounds very Reformed, but you have rejected Reformed Theology. (At least parts of it.) My understanding of Arminianism leads me to think an Arminian would think Lydia - with the assistance of God - made the independent determinative decision to believe Paul's message. If she made the determinative move toward salvation, wouldn't she have had to do it "of her own accord", given an Arminian theology? (BTW, I use the word determinative to describe an action that absolutely determines an outcome, e.g. Lydia's salvation.)

 

[JLB]

This is a dishonest statement, since every response of yours has been a judgment on what you think I think about the subject matter.
TD

To say I honestly don't assume to know what you think, is just being honest.

If you explain what you mean, then maybe I will understand what you mean.


So far, you have been unable to explain the fact that Jesus taught us ... whosoever believes should not perish but have everlasting life, but your “doctrine” says whosever is elected has eternal life.


You have attempted to explain away these words by saying...

The gospel is not for everyone (obviously), but it is for anyone.


So let’s us this word “anyone” in the verse instead of whosoever.


For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that anyone who believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16


Same thing, anyone or whosoever, believes should not perish but have eternal life.


This can not be rearranged to mean only the predestined elect are saved.


God’s invitation is for any human being who believes and therefore obeys the Gospel is eligible to be saved.




JLB

 

[JLB]

Let's observe the larger context of what Paul is writing about: 1 Cor. 1:1-3:23
In response to the division in the church (1:10-17), Paul begins talking about the gospel he preaches (1:18-1:31) regarding to various peoples' attitudes toward it. Then on how the apostle presents it (2:1-5), then about who does and does not understand it (2:6-16), then about the attitudes of the ministers of the gospel (3:1-9), then about what kind of reward those ministers will receive (3:10-16), and finally about what ought to be the attitude of those who receive it (3:11-23). And this "it" of course is the gospel of which Paul and Apollos are ministers.

So then the "as carnal, as babes in Christ" are people who have little to no understanding of the gospel that Paul has been preaching. And so it is with the writer of Hebrews who said that those people needed to be taught the elementary things all over again, and with Peter saying to the churches to "long for the pure milk of the word as newborn babes." The actions of people show whether or not they understand the nature of their relationship with God, and to what degree they understand it.

So your response here begs a question: just what do you think Paul is talking about when he uses the figure "solid food"? Is "solid food" some portion of the gospel, or is it something else entirely, in your assessment?
TD

Sorry sir,

The context of 1 Corinthians 2:14 refers to them being carnal, immature, following the teachings of men, wanting men to (bottle) feed them milk, rather than than growing up and learning from Christ; from the anointing that God has given us to teach us, by His Spirit.


That is the context.


These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For “who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?
Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase. 1 Corinthians 2:13-37


Again, the context has noting to do with your statement about only the elect are interested in salvation. It’s about immature verse spiritual Christians. It’s a call to grow up and stop following the teachings of man.



JLB

 

[tdidymas]

To say I honestly don't assume to know what you think, is just being honest.

If you explain what you mean, then maybe I will understand what you mean.


So far, you have been unable to explain the fact that Jesus taught us ... whosoever believes should not perish but have everlasting life, but your “doctrine” says whosever is elected has eternal life.


You have attempted to explain away these words by saying...

The gospel is not for everyone (obviously), but it is for anyone.


So let’s us this word “anyone” in the verse instead of whosoever.


For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that anyone who believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16


Same thing, anyone or whosoever, believes should not perish but have eternal life.


This can not be rearranged to mean only the predestined elect are saved.


God’s invitation is for any human being who believes and therefore obeys the Gospel is eligible to be saved.




JLB

Perhaps your problem is not understanding that whosoever believes is the elect of God.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

Sorry sir,

The context of 1 Corinthians 2:14 refers to them being carnal, immature, following the teachings of men, wanting men to (bottle) feed them milk, rather than than growing up and learning from Christ; from the anointing that God has given us to teach us, by His Spirit.


That is the context.


These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For “who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?
Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase. 1 Corinthians 2:13-37


Again, the context has noting to do with your statement about only the elect are interested in salvation. It’s about immature verse spiritual Christians. It’s a call to grow up and stop following the teachings of man.



JLB

By your response here, it looks like you think that 1 Cor. 2:14 is limited to Christians only. Do I read you correctly?
TD

 

[TibiasDad]

I get this is your opinion, but not scripturally based.

What do you mean, "not scripturally based" I am referring to the scriptures you quoted, the scripture you posted 1:Cor 2:14, and Rev 5:9. These, for one, do not satisfy the constraints you place on them, and therefore, and secondly, I find your assertions logically invalid.

Yes, 1 Cor 2:14 demonstrates that without the Spirit giving illumination the natural man will not be able to understand what he is saying, but this does not necessitate the Calvinistic protocol of regeneration before belief (nor the irresistible call of grace). It just means that God must give us understanding, without defining the way it is given.

Rev 5:9, likewise, in my humble opinion, fails to declare a particular election as Calvinism expresses it. Yes, it does not mean every single person from every tribe and nation, but neither does it necessitate that those from these tribes and nations were the only ones predestined by God to believe. That had to be read into the text, and creates a circular argument. No scripture states such a premise explicitly, and thus, any inference of it is drawn and assumed to be true by the adherent of limited atonement. This again, make many of your arguments very susceptible to circular reasoning. (All of us are susceptible to this, but it is especially true of limited atonement, and without such, there is no Calvinism! (Again, my humble opinion!)

As For Rom 8:28-30, predestined is not about any individual being picked by God for salvation, but about the class of those who "love the Lord and are called according to his purpose" being predetermined to "be conformed to the image of his Son"!
The calling, justifying, and glorifying are all God's steps in the accomplishment of "being conformed" to the image of Christ.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

My understanding of Arminianism leads me to think an Arminian would think Lydia - with the assistance of God - made the independent determinative decision to believe Paul's message.

God is always the one that moves first in the salvation experience. But God is not the only one to move. God moves, we react. Without God's movement, there cannot be, nor will there be any human reaction. Lydia, by the movement of God in her life, the means by which this was accomplished we have no information given, but that she was a true worshiper of God already when Paul and Silas came to where she was. She had already acted in response to God's movement and when hearing the gospel through Paul, she recognized the truth of it because she had already recognized the voice of spiritual truth.


Doug

 

[Hospes]

God is always the one that moves first in the salvation experience. But God is not the only one to move. God moves, we react. Without God's movement, there cannot be, nor will there be any human reaction. Lydia, by the movement of God in her life, the means by which this was accomplished we have no information given, but that she was a true worshiper of God already when Paul and Silas came to where she was. She had already acted in response to God's movement and when hearing the gospel through Paul, she recognized the truth of it because she had already recognized the voice of spiritual truth.


Doug

Not sure if I got my question answered. You wrote,

"You imply that Arminian thought thinks that Lydia had anything to do with salvation of her own accord; we do not."​

Was this a misstatement?

I understand that from an Arminian perspective how Lydia could not come to salvation without God's help. But doesn't Arminian theology also teach that God cannot bring salvation to a person unless He gets their help, i.e. the exercise of the saved person's independent autonomous will?

 

[JLB]

Perhaps your problem is not understanding that whosoever believes is the elect of God.
TD

Does the elect of God include anyone who believes?



JLB

 

[OzSpen]

Your statement "that does not support particular redemption" is biased because it is out of context with the whole of scripture. Titus 2:11-12 is about the free offer of the gospel, and therefore it is not about particular redemption, so it obviously can't be used to teach the doctrine of particular redemption. But Rev. 5:9 is about particular redemption, and is not a doctrinal statement about the free offer of the gospel. So what you are essentially doing is pitting one verse of scripture against another which are statements about different subjects, or aspects, of the gospel.

We know from the OT that God saved a remnant of Israel, and not everyone in Israel. His statement to Elijah was "I have kept for Myself 7,000 who have not bowed their knee to Baal." And just how do you think God "kept" them? Do you think He may have had some control over their beliefs and attitudes in order to "keep" them from idolatry? Or do you think those people kept themselves by some sort of righteousness of their own? When Peter says we are "kept by the power of God through faith..." does God have some control over our faith and behavior, or do you think that people keep themselves in faith without God's help, but by virtue of a "free" will that is "free" from God's control?

The point is, the OT teaches particular redemption in this regard. When the prophets wrote about God saving the people, there was a subset of the nation which was in mind here. Paul explains it by saying "not all Israel is Israel." In the same way, the NT is written with the assumption that not everyone in the churches are saved, which is why there are many warnings in the NT writings, and Jesus said "not everyone who calls me 'Lord' shall enter the kingdom of heaven."

So when Rev. 5:9 says that Christ purchased men from every nation, the sense of the statement is that it is a subset of everyone. So Jesus' blood covers the subset, not the whole. It redeems the subset, not the whole. And from other scripture we can harmonize this doctrine taught by John, Paul, and Peter that the blood of Christ redeems particular people, namely those who believe in Him. And this also means the obverse, that the blood of Christ does not redeem unbelievers.

If you disagree with this (that is, you affirm a believe in universal atonement), then you have the burden of proof by reason of exegesis that Rev. 5:9 does not teach particular redemption. I challenge you to explain how "men from every nation" means the whole and not the part.

And this obviously leads to how Titus 2:11-12 is explained. If the Bible does teach particular redemption, then universal redemption cannot be assumed when this verse is read, because that assumption would then be a contradiction to what the scripture teaches about particular redemption.

And vice-versa. If the Bible teaches universal redemption, then reading Rev. 5:9 with redemption of a subset would be wrong, since that would be a contradiction to the Biblical teaching of universal redemption. But since Titus 2:11-12 is not a doctrinal statement teaching either particular or universal redemption, one or the other must be assumed when reading the verse. No, Titus 2:11-12 does not say that all people everywhere are redeemed. Therefore universal redemption must be assumed if it is read that way.

Throughout the Bible, both in the OT and the NT, God deals with particular people. He separates particular people out of the whole, and reveals Himself to them, makes covenant with them, establishes personal relationship with them, makes them holy (separate from the whole), redeems them from sin, and grants them eternal life. And this of course, begs the question "why"? What starts God off with a particular people? Is it because He sees those people as salvageable, as doing the right things, as having the proper attitude, as making right decisions in life? Or is it because He simply decided to make them different than the whole? And if He did decide to make them different, how did He go about it? Well, this is what the NT is all about, explaining by reason of doctrinal statements, testimonies, historical narratives, prophecies, etc., which are like bricks of a building that gives us some picture of the nature of our relationship to God.

No, I didn't cherry pick anything. The doctrines I believe are the ones that the apostles taught.
TD

No, the doctrines are not from the apostles. They are from supralapsarians from the Reformation to today.

 

[JLB]

By your response here, it looks like you think that 1 Cor. 2:14 is limited to Christians only. Do I read you correctly?
TD

Paul is most certainly writing to and teaching Christians.


JLB

 

[OzSpen]

Does the elect of God include anyone who believes?

JLB

JLB,

For me, the added issue (outside of TULIP) is: 'This is good, and pleases God our Saviour, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth' (1 Tim 2:3-4 NIV). 'And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost' (Rev 22:17 NASB).

Oz

 

[JLB]

Perhaps your problem is not understanding that whosoever believes is the elect of God.
TD

I would agree with you if that were biblical, but since it’s not, then I disagree.

Whosoever, or anyone who believes is what the Bible teaches.


If John 3:16 taught us that ...

For God so loved the world elect that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever those who have been predestined to be saved believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life...

Then I would agree with you. But since the Bible doesn’t say this, I disagree with you.



JLB

 

[JLB]

JLB,

For me, the added issue (outside of TULIP) is: 'This is good, and pleases God our Saviour, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth' (1 Tim 2:3-4 NIV). 'And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost' (Rev 22:17 NASB).

Oz

Amen. For me, it’s...

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. John 12:32

Those who are drawn must believe in Him to be saved.

The invitation is to all men, for He is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.



JLB

 

[Hospes]

Amen. For me, it’s...

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. John 12:32

Those who are drawn must believe in Him to be saved.

The invitation is to all men, for He is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.



JLB

Do you think all men will be drawn to Him? (I think we agree this is a salvific drawing of God; let me know if not.) If so, then your position would be universalism, to be discussed as a whole different topic. If not, why not?

 

[tdidymas]

What do you mean, "not scripturally based" I am referring to the scriptures you quoted, the scripture you posted 1:Cor 2:14, and Rev 5:9. These, for one, do not satisfy the constraints you place on them, and therefore, and secondly, I find your assertions logically invalid.

Did you read what I wrote? I explained why your assessment of what I wrote is not scripturally based. It has to do with the meaning of the text in the larger context, and not about an isolated proof text. I was responding to your invalid assertion that I was "hair splitting," which you seem to be doing right now. If you took the time and effort to exegete the scripture rather than merely make assumptions on a proof text, perhaps we can get past the petty judgments.

Yes, 1 Cor 2:14 demonstrates that without the Spirit giving illumination the natural man will not be able to understand what he is saying, but this does not necessitate the Calvinistic protocol of regeneration before belief (nor the irresistible call of grace). It just means that God must give us understanding, without defining the way it is given.

Eph. 2:5 is Paul's definition of grace, which reads:
"Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)"
Do you see how Paul defines "saved by grace"? The figure "dead" points to a spiritual inability to do anything righteous in the sight of God, including any exercise of saving faith. Faith in Christ is a righteous act, since by it we are declared righteous. Only after God raises us to life and positions us in Christ do we then become "alive" enough to exercise saving faith.

So a spiritually dead person isn't alive enough to even hear the gospel preached. He may hear it with physical ears, but it goes into one ear and out the other, because he doesn't have the spiritual wisdom to understand it (enough to believe and obey) that comes only from the illumination of the Holy Spirit. The spiritually dead person assesses the gospel as foolishness, which is what Paul is conveying in 1 Cor. 2:14. This figure is also implied in Rom. 5:6 by the term "helpless" (or "without strength" in other translations).

Rev 5:9, likewise, in my humble opinion, fails to declare a particular election as Calvinism expresses it. Yes, it does not mean every single person from every tribe and nation, but neither does it necessitate that those from these tribes and nations were the only ones predestined by God to believe. That had to be read into the text, and creates a circular argument. No scripture states such a premise explicitly, and thus, any inference of it is drawn and assumed to be true by the adherent of limited atonement. This again, make many of your arguments very susceptible to circular reasoning. (All of us are susceptible to this, but it is especially true of limited atonement, and without such, there is no Calvinism! (Again, my humble opinion!)

It has been stated that any of the 5 doctrinal points of Calvin laid out by the Remonstrants stand or fall together (meaning that if any one of them is false, then they are all false). But it is also true of those opposing 5 points supported by the Remonstrants. So, it matters how one defines the doctrine of Original Sin - that is, how sinful is man? Does he have any spiritual ability to exercise righteous faith without God's help, and how much of God's help is required for that exercise of righteous faith?

Obviously, the RCC and generally the Methodist and Charismatic churches teach that original sin does not completely bind man to an inability to exercise righteous faith, but that man simply needs just enough grace from God to give him enough wherewithall to reason out wisdom from the gospel message, and this is how they define "help."

But the teachers of the Reformation, including Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer, among others, taught that man's inability to exercise righteous and saving faith was total (thus, the Remonstrants called it "Total Depravity"), which means total depravity spiritually, not naturally. So let's see what the apostle Paul says about the matter of spiritual inability:
"Dead in sin" - Eph. 2:1
"No one seeks for God" - Rom. 3:11
"Not even able" (to submit to God's law) - Rom. 8:7
"Blinded by the god of this world" - 2 Cor. 4:4
"Held captive by the devil" - 2 Tim. 2:26
"Slaves" (to sin) - Gal. 4:8
And the apostle John:
"Under the control of the evil one" - 1 Jn. 5:19
"Slaves to sin" - John 8:34

So, what has to happen before an unbeliever can become a believer is that God has to:
Bring them to life,
Illuminate their mind and heart,
Enable them to submit,
Give them spiritual sight,
Release them from captivity by Satan,
Free them from the sinful nature,
Translate them from the kingdom of darkness to God's kingdom.

According to Peter's statement that God has caused us to be born again (1 Pet. 1:3), it is God causing it, not us. One might argue that it is through the hearing of the gospel (1 Pet. 1:23), so being born again and hearing the gospel might happen simultaneously. However, according to the above statements, spiritual rebirth is the logical precedent to becoming a believer, and that is an action done by God as a necessary precedent to the exercise of saving faith, as we see implied in these two passages from the apostle John: 1 Jn. 5:1 and Jn. 3:3.

1 Jn. 5:1 "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God" (ESV). So if a person is believing in Christ, that person has already had spiritual birth. Notice it doesn't say "can become born of God" which would imply that believing comes first. It says "is" (most translations), which essentially means "has been." This statement implies that believing is the outward manifestation of being born again.

John 3:3 "...unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." This statement implies that being born again comes first, since a person cannot have the spiritual eyes to see God's kingdom unless his eyes have been opened to see it first. It implies that anyone who believes in Christ is already seeing the kingdom of God, and already has an instilled desire to be in it. It implies that if anyone sees God's kingdom in Christ, that they are already in it. Those outside the kingdom of God can't see it because they are spiritually blind and dead, and the gospel is foolishness to those people (1 Cor. 1:23).

IMO it takes a very strong bias against this idea to read these scriptures differently. The main point is that being born again (and our subsequent faith) is caused by God. It would be contrary to these verses of scripture to claim that we cause our spiritual birth by choosing to believe first. I'm saying that our choice to believe (or rather, our choice to continue believing) is a result of God's work in us.

As For Rom 8:28-30, predestined is not about any individual being picked by God for salvation, but about the class of those who "love the Lord and are called according to his purpose" being predetermined to "be conformed to the image of his Son"!
The calling, justifying, and glorifying are all God's steps in the accomplishment of "being conformed" to the image of Christ.

Doug

A class is made up of individuals, and it is individuals who either love God or not. But in regard to predestination, you seem to be implying that God only predestines only those who already love God, which begs the question how did they get to the righteous condition of heart to love God. Since Paul says "no one is righteous," and "we were by nature children of wrath," which means we hated God and were His enemies, then God has to do something radical in the human heart to convert individuals to loving Him instead. This implies that predestination means that our change of heart to submit to God's will (namely believing in Christ) was God's decision, not ours. And since we know that a subset of people in the world are saved, then God had to predestine individuals.

That's a far cry from the idea that God predestines everyone in general but no one in particular, or that He predestines everyone in a class but no one in particular. The "class" idea implies that some people by nature are more righteous than most others, since it takes righteous reasoning to properly assess the gospel so as to believe and obey it. So the "class" idea is contrary to what the apostles taught, since the NT teaches that we all start out equally dead in sin (Eph. 2:1-5). In fact, I would say that the Pharisees thought according to the "class" idea - if you join the Pharisees (and do all they command), then you're sure to be saved and gain eternal life.
TD