You're making my point, not defeating it.
I was only answering/clarifying your queries on my position - I wasn't setting out to defeat anyone's position. Besides, much of our doctrines overlap - so, we'll have to simply discern the points that we actually disagree upon - but for that, we should understand each other's positions well - which is what is being done now.
Only by the Holy Spirit can a man 'hear' the truth. But it appears you're doing what many do--instantly equating simply hearing the Spirit, and knowing by virtue of that experience that the gospel is true, with being born again. How do you get out of the passage that you cited that Paul is speaking of saved people?
Two concepts are at play here (I've split the 2nd concept into sub-parts) -
1) that of man "being made aware of the truth" [ what you call 'knowing' the truth, through 'enablement of faith'] - this is through the testimony of the Spirit.
2a) that of man "accepting/retaining the truth", in this case, "believing/trusting in Christ" / "having faith in Christ" - this is the choice of man.
2b) that of man "rejecting the truth" ie "not believing/trusting/having faith in Christ" [ what you'd call - "not retaining the faith" ] - this is the choice of man.
My position: The above (1) could happen to any man - there is no requirement that man be regenerate. (2a) happening necessarily confirms that that man is already regenerate. (2b) happening necessarily confirms that that man is still unregenerate.
Again, I'd like you to acknowledge
my position on - "hearing the testimony of the Holy Spirit" NOT being the same as "being in the spirit(God-nature) [spirit(God-nature) is different from the Holy Spirit].
So as you can see,
A. I do NOT equate "hearing the testimony of the Spirit" with being regenerate. I only equate "accepting/retaining/believing that testimony" with being regenerate.
B. I do NOT equate "regeneration" with "hearing the testimony of the Spirit". I only equate "regeneration" with "being in the spirit(God-nature) [ spirit(God-nature) is different from the Holy Spirit].
But according to your interpretation of the passage you just cited in 1 Corinthians 2 Agrippa has to be born again to be made aware of the truth--but now you say he's not, and that he is in the flesh. Very confusing. This is why I can't easily discuss things with you.
I have never stated the above text in bold - I said, "Agrippa has to be born again to
accept[retain/believe] the truth" - he already was made aware of the truth through the testimony of the Holy Spirit without requiring him to be born-again.
Besides, you really need to be making the connection with this and election.
Election is a given, if absolutely no credit is given to the flesh(self-nature).
I guess you're going to have to explain how James says a person can 'know' the truth--what even he calls 'faith'--yet not be saved by that truth/faith, since the bottom line is you are rejecting that possibility.
I believe a person can be "made aware of the truth" [what you call him 'knowing'] - and yet not be saved if he rejects that truth.
I do NOT believe a person can have faith - and not be saved.
I do NOT equate "knowing the truth" with "faith", but I'd adopt these terms to converse with you.
Some clarifying required from your end -
1a) Where does James call such "knowing the truth" as "faith" in James 2:19 ?
1b) If you claim that the word which has never been translated "faith" even once(out of 248 times) in the entire NT, is supposed to have been translated "faith" - what evidence do you have for this claim apart from your own theology?
And your question...it doesn't make sense. What enablement of truth is required to choose wrongly? Don't get it.
You say that this King Agrippa was given an "enablement of faith" so that he could now be "free" to choose to believe or reject the truth. Take any previous sin of Agrippa's - say, him having to judge a criminal justly - but he ended up setting him free for money. Agrippa still was making that choice between being corrupt and not corrupt, right? Why do you say that he didn't have a choice there because of Adam? What could God have done to "enable him to have chosen rightly" there?
Yes, if the Holy Spirit is not speaking that testimony. But Paul said Agrippa 'believes' the truth. So even you know, according to your own doctrine, that he has heard the Spirit.
Of course, the truth of the Gospel of Christ has been presented to Agrippa - and here, he rejects it. Like I've stated above, my doctrine sets no conditions on the hearing of the Gospel - it's only on the acceptance/retaining/believing aspect that my doctrine differentiates on.
But you're saying you have to be saved in order to decide to be saved.
We've already gone over this once - man is permitted to decide to be saved, he chooses not to be saved, he remains in condemnation, is dependent on God's mercy which when shown, saves him by a complete work of God alone.
Actually, both of us are referring to similar events. Both of us agree that man continually chooses evil in the flesh - Both of us agree that a supernatural work of God is required to disable this operation of the flesh, for man to be able to make the right choice. And here we depart - where I call this supernatural work as "regeneration" , you call it "enablement of faith". Where I say this is a permanent work of God, you call it a temporary work dependent on human input. I derive my core theology on this from Rom 8. Where from the Bible do you derive your doctrines on this from primarily?
But the 'work' of believing is the very thing Paul contrasts the works that can't justify with!
I'm not talking about justification at all - I'm limiting it to Jacob's selection alone, which isn't pertaining to personal salvation. How is Jacob's "believing" a basis for God's selection of inheritance lines, when God's election of grace is said to be independent of either boys' works?