Broken Syllogisms and the Equivocation Fallacy

A syllogism is sometimes posed in order to prove that regeneration precedes justification:

1 - It is pleasing to God for someone to repent
2 - Those who are in the flesh cannot please God
3 - Therefore those who are in the flesh cannot repent

The desired conclusion of this syllogism is that a person has to be regenerated before they are saved. Now there's nothing in the argument that actually makes that case, but the presumption is that regeneration is what takes a person from "being in the flesh" to not being in the flesh.

Bottom line - the case is being made that God justifies the wicked.

What's the problem with this line of reasoning?

Onw way to illustrate the problem with this can be shown from the following verse:

Exo 23:7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.

That passage tells us that God does not justify the wicked. Yet, that is exactly what is happening if the first syllogism is true. If the syllogism is true, then God justifies the wicked.

So how does this get put back together?

Words have a meaning and that meaning is often conditioned by the context. The problem with all of these verses and concepts is that they are not talking about conversion at all.

The weak link in this syllogism is 2 from above. It is not about conversion. So the conclusion does not follow from 1 and 2 since 2 is faulty, in that while it is generally true, it is not describing people who are being converted.

God is always pleased to see someone convert. That is how a person goes from being in the flesh to being in the spirit. The angels in Heaven rejoice when a sinner repents. In the end this argument does not prove that regeneration precedes repentance.

Luke 15:10 - "In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents."

Postscript

A friend wrote:

The claim is that libertarianism commits one to the idea that uncaused events occur. This claim is false since they conflate determinism and causation. There are perfectly plausible accounts of indeterministic causation showing that the two concepts can be pried apart.

Ya, what he said.