🧵 𝟎/𝟓

Cheryl Schatz’s (@CherylSchatz’s) denial of the biblical doctrine that regeneration causes (i.e., that the new birth is logically, if not temporally, prior to) saving faith has several problems.… 𝟏/𝟓

Cheryl writes,

“If God must regenerate you before you can believe, your will is effectively overridden.”

This is a pseudo-problem.

Since neither Scripture nor Calvinism teaches that in regeneration God “overrides” a person’s will in any of the normal senses of that term, Cheryl is making, at best, a very poor choice of words here.

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the verb “override” can mean, “1: to ride over or across: trample,” “2: to ride (an animal, such as a horse) too much or too hard,” “3 a: to prevail over: dominate,” “b: to set aside : annul” (as in override a veto), “c: to neutralize the action of (something, such as an automatic control)” (as in entering a code to override an alarm), and “4: to extend or pass over especially: overlap” (as in waves overriding a beach).

Definitions 1, 2, 3 c and 4 obviously can’t apply here. That leaves 3 a and b as the only remaining possibilities.

But regeneration does neither of the things described in definitions 3 a or b. It neither dominates nor annuls (in the sense of vetoing) the will of a redeemed person. Rather, regeneration transforms our will.

So, Cheryl has effectively made a straw man argument here.

While prevailing over ordominating the will of others still leaves them unwilling, regeneration makes them willing: “for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Php 2:13 ESV).

While setting aside in the sense of annulling the wishes of another (as in a veto) often makes that person even more determined to rebel, regeneration causes a permanent change in a person’s spiritual direction: “‘And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me’” (Jer 32:40 ESV).

In regeneration, God Himself circumcises our hearts (Dt 30:6) after we fail to do so (Dt 10:16; cf. 29:4, 18-28).

He replaces our “heart of stone” with a “heart of flesh” (Ez 36:25-27) after we stubbornly refuse to do it ourselves (Ez 18:31; cf. 2:3-4; 3:7; 36:17-23).

He writes His laws on our hearts (Jer 31:33) where sin had hitherto reduced it to a conscience-nagging impression (Rom 2:15) and puts the fear of Him within us (Jer 32:40) where it was previously nonexistent (Rom 3:18; Ps 36:1).

If God waited for us to do these things, it would never happen and we would be eternally lost (Jn 3:3, 5). That’s how deeply entrenched in our being sin is (Gen 6:5; 8:21; Ps 51:5; 58:3; Rom 3:10-18; Eph 2:1-3).

Cheryl writes:

“In Calvinism, regeneration happens without your consent…”

Yes, that’s why Scripture calls it being “born again” and why we sometimes refer to it as “the new birth.”

Just as being physically born happens without our consent, so also being born again happens without our consent.

We have as much say in the latter as we have in the former.

The Bible also calls regeneration being raised from spiritual death (Eph 2:5-6; Col 2:12-13), and just as Christ did not ask Lazarus for permission before He raised him from physical death but simply commanded him, “Lazarus, come out!” (Jn 11:43), so also God does not require our consent to raise us from spiritual death so that we can turn to Him in repentance and faith.

Cheryl finishes her sentence:

“…with your nature changed first, and faith becomes guaranteed afterward.”

Why would this be problematic for Cheryl? If my justification before God and hence my salvation requires faith, and God does something that guarantees that faith in me, why wouldn’t that be considered a good thing?

All she has to offer by way of explanation is a false dichotomy fallacy.

She says,

“Once you’ve been transformed, belief is not a free response but an inevitable effect.”

Here Cheryl claims that there’s a contradiction between faith being an inevitable effect of regeneration and faith being a free response of the regenerated but gives no reason why we should think this involves any contradiction.

She never explains why an inevitable effect of regeneration can’t simply be a free response, and for a very good reason: there is no basis for her claim; the two concepts are not incompatible.

Cheryl simply assumes there’s a problem here when there isn’t.

Biblically speaking, saving faith can be, and in fact is, both an inevitable effect of regeneration and a free response on the part of the person who’s been regenerated.

The only real problem here is that Cheryl displays no awareness of the biblical teaching that prior to regeneration, sinners do not have freedom in the most important and meaningful sense of that word.

This is because until we receive the new birth, we are natural-born, willing slaves to sin (Jn 8:34; Rom 6:16; Tit 3:3; 2Pet 2:19).

We need to be totally rebuilt in our spirits from the ground up.

This is clear from the various metaphors Scripture uses to describe the inevitable blessings of regeneration: being circumcised in our hearts; receiving new fleshly hearts in place of stony hearts; being cleansed by water from above; being born again; being resurrected from spiritual death; being made new creatures in Christ.

All of these assume that Christians had an “old self” (or “old man,” Rom 6:6; Eph 4:22; Col 3:9) but now have a “new self” (Eph 4:24; Col 3:10).

And the reason we have this “new self” is because our regeneration has united us with Christ, who purchased all these blessings for us by His death and resurrection (Gal 3:13-14; Eph 1:7; Col 1:20). And high on that list of blessings is the breaking of our enslavement to sin:

⁶ We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.
⁷ For one who has died has been set free from sin.

— Romans 6:6-7 (ESV)

And one of the key signs of enslavement to sin is unbelief.

As Jesus informed the scribes and Pharisees regarding their own unregenerate state:

⁴⁴ “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
⁴⁵ But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.”

— John 8:44-45 (ESV)

What Jesus said about the scribes and Pharisees was true of all of us before the Spirit regenerated us (Eph 2:1-11; Tit 3:3). As slaves to sin, which is slavery to rebellion against God, we made ourselves unable to turn to Christ in faith until He set us free from our self-imposed slavery:

³⁴ Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin.
³⁵ The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever.
³⁶ So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.”

— John 8:34-36 (ESV)

And how does the Son set us free so that we can freely believe? He regenerates us:

¹⁵ For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!”

— Romans 8:15 (ESV), cf. Ezekiel 36:27

The inevitable effect of regeneration according to both Scripture and Calvinism is the free response to the Gospel.

But Cheryl doubles down on her false dichotomy fallacy:

“And that raises the core question:

“How can you know you truly love God if you were made willing by force rather than by choice?”

This time, instead of using the word “overridden” she uses “force.”

Merriam-Webster provides 16 definitions each for the noun and verb “force.” I won’t waste space here by going over all of them.

Since she’s dichotomizing between “by force” and “by choice,” she appears to be using “force” according to either Merriam-Webster’s verb definition 1 “to compel by physical, moral, or intellectual means” (as in “They forced the CEO to resign”) or definition 3 b, “to impose or thrust urgently, importunately, or inexorably” (as in “had the decision forced on them”).

In either case, “force” serves as a synonym for “coerce,” so it’s a stronger word than “override.”

But when someone is coerced, they remain fundamentally unwilling even though we can say they were in some way “made willing” by means of force.

This is because coercive force depends on the threats of negative consequences for failure to cooperate.

Ironically, the Gospel message itself contains threats of negative consequences for failure to cooperate:

³⁶ Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

— John 3:36 (ESV)

Unbelievers have been known to complain about this. This is because, like Cheryl, they lack a biblical sense of how deeply sinful and deserving of wrath we are.

She’s being quite inconsistent to not complain about God “forcing” people to believe in this coercive manner.

But since she clearly understands that Calvinists aren’t saying that God uses threats to regenerate people (obviously because Scripture doesn’t say that), by “force” she can only be referring to a supernatural means (definition 1) or imposition (definition 3 b).

But again, if this supernatural “forcing” of regeneration on a sinner results in their eternal salvation, why should they complain?

Would they rather spend eternity in hell?

And how could they not know that they truly love God for saving them in this way, especially when they realize that if He didn’t, they would have never believed?

🧵 𝟏/𝟕: Scripture is clear, in both the Old and New Testaments, that regeneration causes and therefore logically (if not chronologically) precedes the faith in Christ that brings justification before God.

https://x.com/Pastor_Gabe/status/2006458868424155395?s=20

𝟐/𝟕: Regeneration Causes Faith in Deuteronomy 29:4, 30:1-6

🧵

“…I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error.”

—Augustine of Hippo (ᴀᴅ 354-430), Letter 82 (ᴀᴅ 405) to Jerome, NPNF1 1:350.

𝟏/𝟒 Evangelical inerrantists are on the same page as Augustine and apparently Jerome were in the 5th century.

𝟐/𝟒

🧵

Eph 1:11b:

God
1. “works” [ἐνεργέω, energéō: produces; effects (BDAG)]
2. “all things” [τὰ πάντα, tà pánta: not some things]
3. “according to the counsel” [βουλή, boulḗ: purpose (NIV); plan (NLT); design (CEB)]
4. “of his will” [θέλημα, thélēma: will; desire].

1/9 I don’t know why the NIV and CSB chose to render the participial form of ἐνεργέω (energéō) as “works out,” which generally means something like “solves” or “resolves,” as in the title of the Beatles’ song, “We Can Work It Out.” The Greek word doesn’t have that meaning.

2/9

Our Egalitarian friend, @ryanschatz, continues to tirelessly serve up items from his ample menu of exegetical fallacies. This time, he dishes them out as questions, covering ground so well-trodden that subterranean critters are becoming anxious.

My year is starting to get really busy and I probably would’ve ignored this post if he hadn’t tagged me in the thread. (Perhaps I still should have.)

As Ryan apparently acknowledges, we’ve covered these points before, rather extensively, in fact, so I hardly imagine he’ll find any of my replies persuasive, nor will his fellow Egalitarians. In my view, that’s a testimony to how committed they are to their conclusions despite the biblical and historical-theological evidence.

Any errors here are strictly my own, although I’ll no doubt wish I could blame someone else. I don’t know how much time or how many opportunities I’ll have to reply to follow-up comments here, so please don’t be offended if you don’t hear from me in what you consider a timely fashion.

Thanks!

𝟏/𝟖 “1. Given Paul’s stated purpose was to ‘instruct certain people not to teach strange doctrines’ (1Ti 1:3), why did it shift to ‘instruct all women to not teach true doctrine to any male over 17’?”

But that’s the problem: Paul’s stated purpose for writing 1 Timothy was not to “instruct [KJV, ESV: charge] certain people not to teach strange doctrines.” The only way one could arrive at such a conclusion is to misquote 1Tim 1:3.

In 1Tim 1:3-4, Paul is stating his reason for telling Timothy to remain at Ephesus. This becomes clear when we restore the opening words in verse 3: “As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons…”

If you leave out everything leading up to “charge certain persons” (or “instruct certain people”) it’s easier to twist this verse into a general statement about the epistle’s purpose. But it’s obvious here that Paul is not telling Timothy why he’s writing this epistle, but simply reiterating an exhortation (παρακαλέω, parakaléō) he’d given him earlier in Ephesus. 1Tim 1:3-4 states the purpose for Timothy remaining at Ephesus, but it does not state the purpose of his letter.

Paul states that clearly when he states explicitly in 3:14-15, “…I am writing these things to you so that…you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God…” If you check the context you’ll see that my ellipses do not leave out anything that might alter or contradict this point, unlike Ryan’s truncated citation of 1T 1:3.

So, there is no shift of purpose between 1Tim 1:3-4 and 2:9-15 that we need to account for. The reason for Timothy remaining at Ephesus is a function of Paul’s broader purpose in this epistle of instructing Timothy about “how one ought to behave in the household of God.”

And Paul obviously covers a lot of ground in this letter unrelated to “instruct[ing] certain people not to teach strange doctrines,” including instruction on corporate prayer (2:1-8), women’s apparel (2:9-10), the qualifications for elders and deacons (3:1-13), exhortations to self-discipline (4:9-16), proper behavior toward age groups and genders in the church (5:1-2), care for widows (5:3-16), care for elders (5:17-22), health advice (5:23), wisdom about sins in the church (5:24-25), admonitions to slaves (6:1-2), and miscellaneous closing exhortations (6:6-21). This leaves only 4:1-8 and 6:3-5 where Paul actually addresses the issue of false teaching.

So, even if we were to accept the (false) premise that Paul’s purpose for writing was to “instruct certain people not to teach strange doctrines,” or that Timothy should be occupied with doing that one thing, apparently he didn’t have a problem with shifting to many topics that are not related to that goal.

This being the case, as it obviously is, why should it be considered problematic for Paul to shift to “instruct[ing] all women to not teach true doctrine to any male over 17?” It makes no sense to suggest that it does.

As for whether Scripture teaches that women are not to “to not teach true doctrine to any male over 17,” that’s a crude caricature of what Complementarians believe Scripture teaches. We believe that women are not to occupy any office or official role that makes them authoritative teachers in the church. This includes the office of pastor. It does not include the kind of informal teaching that takes place in non-authoritative settings such as casual conversations or social media interactions.

Egalitarians have argued that Paul’s instruction that all believers should be “teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom” (Col 3:16) disproves the Complementarian position. Thomas R. Schreiner addressed this well when he wrote:

“Furthermore, Colossians 3:16 (cf. 1 Cor. 14: 26) does not refer to authoritative teaching but to the informal mutual instruction that occurs among all the members of the body. Unfortunately, some churches ban women from doing even this, although it is plainly in accord with Scripture. Yet this mutual instruction differs significantly from the authoritative transmission of tradition that Paul has in mind in the Pastoral Epistles. Such authoritative teaching is typically a function of the elders/ overseers (1 Tim. 3: 2; 5: 17)…”

—Thomas R. Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2: 9-15: A Dialogue with Scholarship,” in Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner, eds., Women in the Church: An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2: 9-15, 3rd edition, (Crossway, 2016), Kindle Loc. 4696-4700.

It is inevitable that in various fellowship settings, women will pass on the truths of the Christian faith to men with results that can be characterized as “teaching.” But Paul is not addressing such informal teaching situations in 1Ti 2:9-15. He is clearly prohibiting the formal, authoritative teaching of men in the truths of the Christian faith by women in the church.

𝟐/𝟖

🧵When I quoted 1Ti 2:11-12 in the ESV, Wesley (@the_blind_guide) said, “if you look in the lexicons αὐθεντεῖν doesn’t mean ‘to have authority’ it means ‘to dominate’ or ‘domineer’ as in boss around, it does not mean ‘have a position of authority’.”

So, I thought, “Why not?” Wesley says, “the problem is not the woman having the position but the means by which she obtains it.” But that’s not supported by either the standard New Testament Greek lexicon (BDAG), the standard Classical Greek lexicon (LSJ), or the more recent BrillDAG for Classical Greek.

🧵False. The word rendered “homosexuals” in 1Co 6:9 and 1Ti 1:10 (NASB), ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenkoítēs), is from the Septuagint which renders יִשְׁכַּ֤ב אֶת־זָכָר֙ (yiš·kaḇ ’eṯ-zā·ḵār), “lies with a male,” in Le 20:13 in part as ἄρσενος κοίτην (arsenos koítēn), “male in bed.” Since “homosexual” didn’t enter the English language unti 1891, it’s unsurprising we don’t find it in English Bibles until the 20th century. But we find even more graphic terms before that, such as “buggerers” in the 1557 Geneva Bible New Testament.

🧵Wherein I reply to someone questioning my honesty for saying that, in Provisionism, God’s love and grace are insufficient reasons for Him to choose (i.e., elect) to save sinners since He also requires something in the sinners (i.e., faith)—with additional notes on definitions. Well, @Duke456521, since all my remarks here echo Provisionism’s actual statements, including what’s written in its official statement of faith, “What is Provisionism?” I could just as easily question your honesty, couldn’t I?

🧵Did Paul Call Andronicus and Junia Apostles in Romans 16:7?

⁷ Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

—Romans 16:7 NIV

What exactly is Paul saying here? As far as many social media advocates are concerned, it’s quite obvious that Paul is telling his Roman audience that Andronicus and Junia are not only apostles but outstanding or prominent ones (ἐπίσημος, epísēmos), which raises the question of why we only read about them here.

Was God’s Election Ever Simply About Choosing a Nation? Meanwhile, the same logic that anti-Calvinists try to apply to Paul’s quote from Ge 25:23 also applies his quote from Mal 1:2-3:

🧵 No, no, no! A thousand times, no! 🤦‍♂️ When Trinitarians say the Son is the “same substance as the Father” (ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί, homooúsion tō̃ patrí) we’re saying they’re the same Being, having the same essence—and thus, the same God.

Notes to Self:

(1) According to @Lanier_Greg:

“The Greek New Testament, as edited in the latest Nestle Aland 28 / UBS 5 volumes, consists of the following (rounded):

• 7,940 total verses
• 138,150 total words (by word count)
• 5,420 distinct words”
glanier.wordpress.com/2015/01/27/qua…
Since the NA29 isn’t expected to be out until 2025, I take it these numbers are still good.

🧵I’ve received some interesting reactions to my diagram titled “Scriptures in Which πᾶς (pãs: ‘all’) Means ‘Every Kind Of’ or ‘All Sorts Of.’” One person even suggested that what I presented goes against nearly 3 millennia of Greek scholarship! This is a surprising claim. 𝟏/𝟕 https://t.co/UlK7WZGNjWtwitter.com/i/web/status/1…
I’m sure it would have come as a surprise to the compilers of the venerable standard LSJM lexicon for Classical Greek, since they found this meaning for πᾶς as far back as Homer (8th century ʙᴄ). 𝟐/𝟕

Contrary to what @aspin3 argues… https://t.co/uon9k2YYzX

https://twitter.com/aspin3/status/1679259947169660930

@aspin3 And why do you ignore the fact that Paul is not referring to the grace of regeneration but the grace of justification, which I have clearly stated comes after faith? First regeneration, then faith, then justification. Ro 5:1-2 isn’t dealing with regeneration but justification.

On the Idolatry of Libertarian Free Will: A Response to @Soteriology101

Leighton, it’s hard to overstate how astonishing your tweets are here. But given that you hold an anthropology that assigns to man’s will an attribute belonging only to God, I shouldn’t be surprised. 1/9 https://t.co/cS05fu0XS5twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
@Soteriology101 To even suggest that believers have libertarian free will (LFW) simply because God provides a way of escape from temptation calls into question your understanding of that term means.

The precious truth of 1Co 10:13 doesn’t have anything remotely to do with the spurious and… https://t.co/PzpBhC7HYJtwitter.com/i/web/status/1…

🧵On Saturday, @Soteriology101 asked me to list “the top three” places in Scripture where I claim “we find the teaching of nature-changing regeneration causing faith.” He also said, “if they actually mention the words ‘nature, regeneration or faith’ that would be great.”

𝟏/𝟗 I told him I hoped to be able to fulfill this request today, and that I trusted “top three” did not represent a limit. Plus, I decided to do more than just list them. Hence this thread.

Note: since (a) biblical language is much more flexible than the theological jargon…

𝟐/𝟗

🧵 So, people have been claiming that @bethallisonbarr has provided “receipts” for her narrative that for the past few months she’s expressed “concern” over Mike Law’s list. Has anyone checked those receipts? Perhaps we should.

cc: @megbasham @tomascol @TomBuck @RodDMartin @bethallisonbarr @megbasham @tomascol @TomBuck @RodDMartin On June 20, Barr says she “didn’t actually look at the list,” but she obviously (a) knew that there was a list, (b) knew that it identified women pastors in the SBC, and (c) raised no ethical concerns about its existence.

On March 24, she said the list gave her hope. She… https://t.co/NN6Pz4UZPDtwitter.com/i/web/status/1…

🧵: This is a follow-up from my recent Leighton Flowers meme quotetweet. I understand why some make this argument regarding the question of whether “all” always means absolutely 𝑎𝑙𝑙 in Scripture, so I thought it worthy of an extended response (here & in the original thread). Well sure, God doesn’t exaggerate. Agreed. You make an excellent point. But since God inspired Scripture, what did 𝐻𝑒 mean when He inspired Paul to say, “I have suffered the loss of 𝑎𝑙𝑙 [Greek: 𝑝𝑎̃𝑠 (πᾶς)] things,” (Phil 3:8)? Paul wrote this under the…𝟏/𝟏𝟔

Jon D Payne (@gospelrefnet): “Now, I have had interaction with Greg Johnson [@PcaMemorial] and I sincerely with all of my heart want the best for Greg Johnson. I want him to recognize that Revoice [@revoiceus] is off the rails in its speakers, in… 𝟏/𝟗
“…its emphases, in its heterodoxy as it concerns the gospel, as it concerns human sexuality, and I have encouraged him to remove himself from this ministry, and that that would begin some healing of some kind as it regards all of the controversy that’s happened in the… 𝟐/𝟗

𝟏) Rosaria Butterfield: “You know, one of the most awful, awful, awful…extra terminology from the Revoice movement is this idea of mixed-orientation marriage. The first time Nate Collins met me at a conference and he asked me what it’s like to be in a…
𝟐) “…mixed-orientation marriage, if I’d had a brick in my hand I would have probably thrown it at him. That’s just because I love him as a sister—and I really do mean this. Like, that is a vile thing to say about my marriage or about anyone’s marriage.…”

@zoeschimke: “It’s…

𝟏) “Bavinck locates the origin of marital and familial disintegration not in the state, nor society, which precedes the state, but in the entrance of sin into humanity in the Fall in Genesis 3. Thus, at base, it is always primarily sin and the curse that must be… overcome in… 𝟐) “…the fight for the family, including strained relations between man and woman. Susan Foh’s interpretation2 of Genesis 3:16-17—that woman’s desire for her husband in God’s curse is subversive—has been dismissed as a recent idiosyncrasy, but those who do should reckon with…