Who provides the decisive impulse towards God in salvation, God or the determinative choice of man? Arminians, Wesleyans and Calvinists will answer this question differently. What is Calvin’s view and is it compatible with an Arminian interpretation of grace?
After considering our discussion in class regarding the election of infants, I began to think about whether or not this kind of election could extend to the tribesman in a remote jungle who never had the chance to hear the gospel. I am not suggesting Inclusivism; I do not believe that he is worshipping Christ because he has a sincere faith in some other god. Could he have the law written on his heart, and as such, be part of God’s elect without ever hearing the gospel? Is Paul making this kind of argument in Romans 2:12-16, or is he explaining that some Gentiles, who seem to have the law written on their hearts, are all the more guilty for this reason? Does Calvin affirm natural law’s ability to lead one to a saving knowledge of God? (See Institutes II.viii.1 [footnote 5] and 2-10). A comment was made when we were discussing infant salvation in which their failure to hear the gospel was one possibility for their inclusion in God’s election. We also discussed how this might be connected to their parents in some way, looking at 1 Corinthians 7:14 as a possible text that could explain how infants might be saved. This also leads us into the questions raised about pagan philosophers who lived before the time of Christ. Can we really say that because they knew humanity needed some sort of redeemer, that that alone brings them into the kingdom of God? Or, that because they had an understanding of their god that was similar to that of the God of Israel (Acts 17:28), that somehow this knowledge grants them eternal life? If we affirm total depravity, and man’s heart is in need of only one Redeemer, then how do we justify any salvation outside of him?
Michael,
Thanks for your questions? I think a lot of key issues of orthodoxy are at stake in the questions before us? So I will try to be careful in how I approach the many questions you raise.
Michael said, “Could he have the law written on his heart, and as such, be part of God’s elect without ever hearing the gospel? Is Paul making this kind of argument in Romans 2:12-16, or is he explaining that some Gentiles, who seem to have the law written on their hearts, are all the more guilty for this reason? Does Calvin affirm natural law’s ability to lead one to a saving knowledge of God?” In other words, does Calvin maintain that someone can be saved on the basis of natural law and apart from knowledge of Christ? Let me approach this question by looking to Calvin himself, and then from the Scripture.
Personally, I think Calvin would be up in arms over the suggestion that there is salvation outside of a saving knowledge of Christ the Redeemer. He says, “Surely, after the fall of the first man no knowledge of God apart from the Mediator has had the power unto salvation (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:24). For Christ not only speaks of his own age, but comprehends all ages when he says: “This is eternal life, to know the Father to be the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent” (John. 17:3). Thus, all the more vile is the stupidity of those persons who open heaven to all the impious and unbelieving without the grace of him whom the Scripture commonly teaches to be the only door whereby we enter into salvation (John 10:9). But if anyone would like to restrict this statement of Christ to the publishing of the gospel, there is a ready refutation: it was the common understanding of all the ages and all the nations that men who have become estranged from God (Eph. 4:18) and have been declared accursed (Gal. 3:10) and children of wrath (Eph. 2:3) without reconciliation cannot please God [Rom. 8:7-8].” (II.VI.1) or (p. 341-42)
Calvin has no place for people coming to God apart from Jesus Christ. In fact, we are totally unable to come to God on our own, because depravity and corruption has so twisted the hearts of mankind such that we universally rebel against God, until we are transformed by grace (Rom. 3). Natural theology or General Revelation is unable to save us, but does render us inexcusable before God (Rom. 1). Jesus himself said, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day (John 6:44).” Furthermore, we cannot even know the Father unless we have the Son. As Jesus proclaims, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me (John 14:6).” If Jesus says there is no other way to the Father than through Him, I would say that the exclusive nature of Christianity is a divine prerogative.
This reminds me of a conversation I got into recently as I was studying Calvin at the Java Co. A large man came up to me and asked if I was reading the Bible. I told him that I was reading the 16th century Reformer, John Calvin. He sort of snickered and said, “Are you a Calvinist?” I replied in the affirmative, because you have got to represent! Although I was able to share with him that Calvin had a high view of Scripture and has significantly impacted the Protestant tradition. So, we talked for a bit, and I found out that he was a professing believer and use to attend Calvary Chapel. After about ten minutes, he hits me with this heavy dose of theological skepticism, and at the pinnacle of this he says, “I think it is kind of narcissistic for Christians to claim Jesus is the only way…you mean to tell me that Jesus is going to send people from all those other religions to hell?” After that, I began with a discussion of the total depravity of humanity and worked right on through to Book Two of the Institutes. Finally, I said that we need to affirm what Christ Himself taught. This is not simply my idea, but it is the sure testimony of Jesus and the whole New Testament. Nobody can be saved apart from a saving faith in Christ (Act. 4:12; Rom. 1:16; Eph. 2:8).
As far as the issue of election goes, to argue that people are saved apart from a saving knowledge of Christ is an argument from silence, because the Scriptures do not support it. Eph. 1 makes it clear that we are elect in the Son, and that election is manifested in the transformation of our lives (Eph. 1:4). So, the idea that you can be elect without knowing it or because of Natural law is a pleasant fiction, but not what the Bible teaches. Furthermore, the OT Jews and proselytes were saved by grace through faith as well (Heb. 11).
Much more can and should be said, but perhaps a little later. I look forward to hearing people’s responses. Thanks Michael.
Michael said, ”Could he have the law written on his heart, and as such, be part of God’s elect without ever hearing the gospel?”
I was thinking today about the necessity of the proclamation of the Gospel, and a passage in the book of Romans came to mind. Paul says, “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? [1] And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news! (Rom. 10:9-15)”
It seems pretty clear from Paul’s teaching that the God-ordained means by which people get saved (by God’s grace) is the proclamation of the gospel, and that proclamation can either take a written or verbal form. Without a preacher, who will hear the message? Some might say, “ Well, doesn’t God save people with dreams and such in Muslim and African countries?” To this, I would simply point out that in every story you hear, the dreams are always followed by a missionary proclamation of the gospel. The dreams are usually an affirmation of the validity of the Gospel message, much like we see in the book of Acts. If we say that people can be saved without the proclamation of the gospel, then it would undermine the urgency and necessity of evangelism. Why work so hard to reach un-reached people groups, God can just save them via Natural theology? However, we have already established that Natural theology cannot save anyone (Rom. 1).
How might someone respond to a person who says that natural theology is salvific, especially if they argue from Romans 1 and 2?
Peter,
Thanks for the response. It is very clear from the passage you quoted, as well as other verses in scripture, that the gospel is needed for one’s salvation (Matthew 24:13-15; Mark 13:10, 16:15-16; Acts 4:12; Ephesians 1:13, to name a few). Romans 1 and 2 cannot be divorced from the rest of the argument Paul is making throughout his letter. In the first six verses of Romans 1 alone, you cannot get away from the necessity of the gospel, and in verses 15-17 Paul is explicit about his purpose for the Romans. In order for someone to argue that natural theology is salvific, and use Romans 1 and 2, they would have to misinterpret and completely ignore Paul’s argument.
In regard to your statement about Muslims coming to know the Lord, you are correct. The stories I have heard involve “the man in white” Isa al Masih (Jesus Christ) coming to Muslims in a dream or vision and telling them the gospel, but not in its entirety-for the whole story they are directed to a specific place, where a missionary ends up, or to a specific person, who is typically a missionary, and from the stories I have heard, all of this occurs without either the missionary or the Muslim having ever come into contact with one another. It is amazing how God is working in the Muslim world!
Hey Peter and Michael,
Sorry it’s taken me so long to get over here and do anything. I am a little confused as to the nature of this particular thread, because it is entitled Synergism and Determinism (why not Monergism?) and it seems as if you two are discussing other things than that.
But here is something I wanted to run past you guys. Recently I’ve come to the conclusion that while the initial act of salvation (regeneration and justification) is monergistic in nature, that the process of salvation (santification) is in fact synergistic. I think this is biblical because of passages like Romans 8 in particular. This does not seem to me to be in anyway contradictory to the theological teaching of the reformed tradition but it does seem to be in contrast with the philosophical teaching of the reformed tradition, namely total, or near total determinism. For if the Christian has any form of “free” will then we’re going to have to deny some part of our determinist philosophy.
Once I said to my friend Michael Garten, who is Greek Orthodox, that I think the Christian issue has never really been how free we are without God but how free we are with God. And he wholeheartedly agreed. Now of course his explanation of the cause and nature of this freedom is different from mine, but I think that this is in many ways the spirit of the Christian faith: our freedom with God. It may not be total, or autonomous but I really do think the will of the believer is in a very important sense free which would deny total determinism. What do you guys thinks?
First off, I’m not familiar with “santification,” “becoming more like santa”? If you could be more clear then maybe we can dialogue more. No but seriously, what do you mean when you say that “sanctification” is a process of salvation? My understanding is that sanctification is a process of becoming more Christ-like, which occurs after one’s salvation. What say you?
Aaron,
Phil. 2:12-13-”Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”
In light of this verse, I think one can make a good case that sanctification is a monergistic. For example, we don’t deny (as Calvinists) that man believes or receives Christ, but that the decisive impulse comes from God. He grants us faith and repentance, but this does not deny that we have a will or responsibility to believe). Likewise, with sanctification, one can only be conformed to Christ’s image by grace through faith, as predestined by God (Rom. 8:29; Eph. 2:8-10).
Rom. 8:28-30 “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, [7] for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.”
Eph. 2:8-10 8 “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”
In response to Michael: HOLY CRAP! I think I’ve been spelling sanctification like that for a long time. Oh man. We call that total spelling depravity.
In response to what you said I think that most protestants falsely regard justification and salvation as synonymous. I mean its not as if being sanctified isn’t a salvation from our sins right? Justification is a salvation from the judgement of sin, but sanctification is a salvation from the effects of sin in our lives. We are being renewed. This also includes glorification. I mean how can Paul talk about our salvation being nearer now if Justification was salvation.
In response to Peter:
I think that Phil 2:12-13 clearly teaches synergism of some form. The admonition is to YOU. You work out your salvation with fear and trembling. Alone? No not at all. And of course the actual sanctifying elements come entirely from the Lord, but that does not in any way deny that you are in fact acting with God. Otherwise the admonition is without meaning. Paul should have said just: for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. Grace is monergistic. That is true for my greek brothers as well. But they think that the initial act is synergistic as well.
In regards to Romans 8, I think you’ll enjoy taking a look at the NIV translation. The translation of the entire passage is so calvinistic. But surprisingly the ESV sounds synergistic. Of course God works all things. God has to work in order for their to be a synergism. But given the fact that your new nature is not absolute yet I think we must contend that the believer chooses to participate. Sometimes he chooses rightly and sometimes wrongly. But he still chooses.
Also I think the Ephesians passage teaches two things. The first is the monergistic nature of justification. The second is the synergistic nature of sanctification. Verses 8 and 9 clearly teach the monergistic nature and verse 10 clearly teaches the synergistic nature. Verse 10 says three things God does and one thing we do.
Maybe we need to give specific definitions of monergism and synergism before we discuss any further. How about I present my two definitions and you guys present yours and we’ll flip a coin to see who wins. God’s predestined it right? I’m kidding, well not about the coin flipping. Here are my definitions:
Monergism: the doctrine that the Holy Spirit acts independently of the human will in the work of salvation
Synergism: the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Spirit in the work of salvation.
Salvation: deliverance from the consequences, power, and effects of sin.
These three definitions were dictionary definitions that I modified slightly. In both of the first two definitions I replaced Ghost with Spirit and regeneration with salvation, because the issue of regeneration being monergistic is settled between the three of us. And for the definition of salvation I simply added the word consequences.
Aaron,
I agree that sanctification is not monergistic in the sense that regeneration is, namely, because the unregenerate sinner is dead spiritually and needs to be brought to life, and that is entirely a work of God. There is a kind of synergism at work in sanctification, as J.I. Packer notes, “Regeneration was a momentary monergistic act of quickening the spiritually dead. As such, it was God’s work alone. Sanctification, however, is in one sense synergistic – it is an ongoing cooperative process in which regenerate persons, alive to God and freed from sin’s dominion (Rom. 6:11, 14-18), are required to exert themselves in sustained obedience. God’s method of sanctification is neither activism (self-reliant activity) nor apathy (God-reliant passivity), but God-dependent effort (2 Cor. 7:1; Phil. 3:10-14; Heb. 12:14). Knowing that without Christ’s enabling we can do nothing, morally speaking, as we should, and that he is ready to strengthen us for all that we have to do (Phil. 4:13), we “stay put” (remain, abide) in Christ, asking for his help constantly – and we receive it (Col. 1:11; 1 Tim. 1:12; 2 Tim. 1:7; 2:1).
But, we need to be careful on how far we take the synergistic sense in sanctification. If you mean what Packer states above, then I’m all for it. But, if you take that to a place where God starting what the believer completes, then we have problems. God is constantly involved working in and through the believer to conform him to Christ. So, there’s a sort of one way dependence at work. Hope this helps our discussion.
Monergism and Synergism:
In its simplest form, monergism states that the regeneration of an individual is the work of God the Holy Spirit alone, as opposed to synergism, which, in its simplest form, argues that the human will cooperates with God’s grace in order to be regenerated. To the synergist, faith may arise from unregenerated human nature. Salvation is not complete until the individual performs some action(s). According to monergism, faith in Christ only springs from a heart first renewed by God. Among various arguments, proponents believe 1 Corinthians 12:3 to mean that no one can possibly confess Jesus as Lord apart from the Holy Spirit’s prompting and conviction (Wikipedia actually got it on the nose).
I agree with what you have presented. It wouldn’t synergism if we completed what God started. I think that is semi-pelagianism, right?
And you’re right about the simplest forms of monergism and synergism that you have presented. Like I said in my post those are the the actual definitions that I found as well.
Peter said:
“To the synergist, faith may arise from unregenerated human nature.”
This is not synergism. I think this is actually Pelagianism. It cannot be true faith without God’s regenerating act in HUMAN NATURE. The orthodox interpret Ephesians 1 and 2 as referring to the incarnation and human nature, not individuals. I think this interpretation fails, but regardless that is what they believe.
Aaron,
Sadly, that is the synergist’s position. God grants everybody the same measure of grace in wooing man, but the exercise of faith must come from an unregenerate heart. Arminians and synergists maintain that regeneration comes after faith, not prior to. So, the above quote is correct as stated. It may smack of semi-Pelagianism, but it’s not a straw man. Wesley, maintained everybody was given the gift of faith by God, but it was up to man to believe in the gospel. Why do some not believe? The Wesleyan says its because not all appropriate the gracious gift of faith. Pelagius actually teaches that man has the ability in and of himself (apart from divine aid) to obey God and earn eternal salvation.
I can’t speak for Wesley but Greek Orthodoxy (which I might not be able to speak for either) teaches that God regenerated human NATURE, making possible salvation for all. His grace has been given to all. I thought something similar was meant by Prevenient Grace. I don’t think you’re straw manning but I think there maybe some confusion. If God’s grace still has to procede the act of faith in some way then nothing “smacks” of pelagianism. Every synergist I’ve spoken to thinks that it does, Bill Craig even affirms this in his chapter on Apologetics. So the above statement is false as quoted. At least according to the historic synergist doctrine which is Greek Orthodoxy. I’ll double check with somebody today and make sure I’m speaking correctly.
Aaron,
You said, “I can’t speak for Wesley but Greek Orthodoxy (which I might not be able to speak for either) teaches that God regenerated human NATURE, making possible salvation for all. His grace has been given to all.”
I’m not sure why were talking about the Greek Orthodox view, but it seems terribly problematic (which I’m sure you agree). First, if God has regenerated human nature (for all human), then why don’t all believe. The regenerate, by definition, will believe (John 6 makes this point). Second, Christ does not merely make it possible for men to be saved, but he secures salvation for all the elect.
Prevenient grace does not teach that God regenerates all men; otherwise there would not be such a thing as unregenerate people (which is another problem with the above view, because clearly the Bible teaches that there are). Furthermore, the Wesleyan maintains that God grants everyone the gift of faith (which is the grace of God to all), but that not all exercise that faith in Christ. However, it’s up to man to choose to believe and respond to this grace and the gospel. Sanctification is another matter (see my paper), which is synergistic for them too.
Of course God’s grace precedes belief, but that grace is not guaranteed to be effectual, that part is up to man. Monergism is the idea that God’s grace in the Spirit’s regenerating work is prior to faith. For the synergist, the non-believer is still unregenerate until he believes on the Gospel, even though God has applied grace to him, hence the term “resistible grace.”
Aaron,
I said, “Of course God’s grace precedes belief, but that grace is not guaranteed to be effectual, that part is up to man. Monergism is the idea that God’s grace in the Spirit’s regenerating work is prior to faith. For the synergist, the non-believer is still unregenerate until he believes on the Gospel, even though God has applied grace to him, hence the term “resistible grace.””
The top sentence was referring to synergism, just in case that was not clear. The synergist does maintain that God’s grace is prior to faith, but that grace is not effectual in nature. Everyone can believe if they do choose, but not all do. That’s what makes it different from the Reformed idea of the irresistible grace of regeneration. Semi-Pelagianism, admitted that man’s nature was “injured” by original sin, but maintained that man still has free will and the ability to cooperate with God’s grace in the salvation process (theopedia). Richard Muller points out in his dictionary of Latin and Greek terms, “that the Arminian view not only supposes the cooperation of the will with the word and the Spirit, but the ability to attach itself to grace. In the Arminian view, the will is the effective ground of salvation. This view is not only synergistic, but also fully semi-pelagian (294).”
I hope this can help in clearing away the confusion. I’m not sure about the Greek Orthodox view, and it is not what I am speaking of when I talk about synerigsm, but it has its obvious problems (which I pointed out).
Peter said:
“I’m not sure why were talking about the Greek Orthodox view”
Because the Greek view is Synergism. We call our soteriology Calvinism, they call theirs Synergism. And I was responding to your claims about my claims concerning Pelagianism.
Peter said:
“First, if God has regenerated human nature (for all human), then why don’t all believe.” The regenerate, by definition, will believe (John 6 makes this point).
That’s not really a problem for Synergism. They believe in free will. So not all believe because not all choose to believe. I believe the part of John 6 you’re referring to is this:
All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
Now I think this passage is problematic at face value for the Greek view of synergism. They will have to interpret part of verse 37 in an awkward way (or as I think, falsely, but I’m trying to be kind). They would probably say something like when John says “All that the father gives me will come to me” refers to human nature. I’m not sure about that, but it sounds reasonable given the way I’ve heard them interpret other things. This seems like an obviously false interpretation (but if you have to reconcile historic church teachings then…you’ll say many things that we don’t say). But I think that’s the only problem in the passage for the synergist. Just because Jesus won’t drive them away doesn’t mean they can’t drive themselves away. And of course God’s will is for all to be saved and raised on the last day, but that doesn’t mean that all will be.
I actually think the biggest problem with the Eastern view is Old Testament saints. They aren’t saved until Jesus comes. But it seems awkward to me because the ability to even approach God doesn’t come until Jesus comes so that would mean that all Old Testament saints were unregenerate. They didn’t have the bonding of the Holy Spirit the way we do, but I think there was clearly acts of regeneration in the Old Testament saints. I’m not very clear on much of what the East teaches on the O.T. any way though.
Peter said:
“Prevenient grace does not teach that God regenerates all men; otherwise there would not be such a thing as unregenerate people (which is another problem with the above view, because clearly the Bible teaches that there are).”
I didn’t say that Prevenient grace teaches God regenerates all men, I said that I thought it taught something similar to Synergism which is that God regenerates Human Nature. All Eastern Ideas (not just orthodox, but all Eastern Ideas) belong properly to the community and secondarily to individual. All Western Ideas belong properly to the individual and secondarily to the community. That is one of the reasons why I think Arminianism looks so weak so much of the time. Because they really are concerned with individuals but Synergism has never been a salvation of individuals, it has always been a salvation of community.
Peter said:
“Of course God’s grace precedes belief, but that grace is not guaranteed to be effectual, that part is up to man. Monergism is the idea that God’s grace in the Spirit’s regenerating work is prior to faith. For the synergist, the non-believer is still unregenerate until he believes on the Gospel, even though God has applied grace to him, hence the term “resistible grace.””
Yes, I think we’re clear about Monergism. But any statement you make concerning the synergist believing that “regeneration” is after faith is false, if I am understanding the Greek View, Bill Craig’s view, and regeneration correctly. Craig thinks that the spirit’s illumination is what makes salvation possible and effectual so at the very least noetic regeneration has taken place before you can choose to accept or reject, and at that point “regeneration” and justification are so closely tied that it is hard to distinguish between them. In the East they think that the Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection are what breathed life into dead humanity. They interpret Ephesians 2’s language of death to the Pre Christian world as a whole. Christ has changed that for the Synergist. I’m not saying I don’t have concerns with both of these views, but I think that your comments regarding them force them into one of the incarnations of the heresy of Pelagius and are therefore inaccurate. Maybe we should put this part of the dialogue on hold until I get a chance to confirm what I’ve been saying with some of my libertarian friends. Did you ever get the Why I’m not a Calvinist book? Danny took both of mine from that series to Kentucky with him. I’m not even sure if he realizes it, cause I never mentioned it to him.
I think what’s going on now is not the original discussion I tried to spark. I think we’ve gone down another road, which is fine. But I just want to clarify:
We all agree that Justification and Regeneration are Monergistic. Do we all agree that while Santification and Glorification may be primarily Monergistic (in the sense that God is the grace “supplier” and guider) they are ultimately a synergistic process due to the necessity of interaction between the Holy Spirit and the believer? This is really the question I wanted to deal with and I think we have dealt with it, I’m just trying to figure out if we’ve clarified our reformed position. In other words: God does not totally determine human choices but predestines the monergistic act of justification/regeneration and the synergistic act of santification/glorification. Is there anything objectionable about this?
And a couple more questions. What does this mean for our view of Christian Agency? And what sort of determinists are we?
It seems to me that we really must deny total determinism and affirm, for the Christian (at least a limited) Free Agency. Which if you guys agree means we need to come up with a view of how God’s absolute divine foreknowledge is compatible with the Christian’s Limited Free Agency. Some kind of nuanced Molinism or Mystery may be the only viable options at this point. I don’t think simple foreknowledge will work, unless of course we simply accept mystery anyway.
Aaron,
What do you think of Muller’s quote, which is under his definition of synergism in his Dictionary?
Richard Muller points out in his dictionary of Latin and Greek terms, “that the Arminian view not only supposes the cooperation of the will with the word and the Spirit, but the ability to attach itself to grace. In the Arminian view, the will is the effective ground of salvation. This view is not only synergistic, but also fully semi-pelagian (294).”
Aaron,
You said, “Yes, I think we’re clear about Monergism. But any statement you make concerning the synergist believing that “regeneration” is after faith is false, if I am understanding the Greek View, Bill Craig’s view, and regeneration correctly.”
A couple of thing can be said here. First, I think you may be vacillating between a few different ideas of what synergism is or, at least, how it manifests in different theological systems. I’m not really interested in the Greek Orthodox view, because it has so many problems, and it is not even considered Protestant. I pointed out what I thought to be obvious problems with their view, and I think they get John 6 wrong to a greater extent then you articulate above (see James White’s treatment, “God will raise up all whom he draws to the Son”).
Anyhow, I think Craig’s position leaves man sort of “half saved,” until they cooperate with grace. He has the same problem the Arminians do. His view is that all men have a regenerate mind, from what you said (I don’t know what he believes, personally), and I would take issue with this notion. Namely, because this runs into the problem of God sending people with regenerate minds to hell if they don’t cooperate with grace. Regeneration, by New and Old Testament standards, involves the whole person, not just his mind. Do you hold to Craig’s position? What is your position? I’m curious.
Lastly, I think you need to see sanctification in terms of Compatibilist freedom, if you want to make sense of it in Reformed terms. God will save completely all whom he draws, and he will supply the grace of perseverance and sanctification, yet the believer must abide, persevere, exert willful obedience, and so on. I think you may muddy the waters to bring libertarian freedom in.