I would say that they are different steps which are contemporaneous.
How can they be different steps if they are contemporaneous? Because #2 is the cause and #3 is the effect.
Look again at 1 Corinthians 2:14. This difference between #2 and #3 is absolutely critical to Paul's theology. There is no way around this, Ward!
The contemporaneity of steps 2 and 3 is confusing to some folks. It's like a bullet going through a board. Which happened first--the bullet going through the board or the occurrence of the hole?
Most would say that it's not at all confusing. The bullet came first, since it caused the hole. But the Arminian would say that the hole formed first--since the bullet could not have traversed the board without the hole being there!
But the Arminian is being idiotic. The bullet caused the hole. And causes logically precede effects. (Another way to say this is that causes are not mediated by effects.)
***
Notice that I said that the Arminian's analysis of the ballistics scenario is idiotic. Well, the Arminian's analysis of regeneration and conversion is just as idiotic.
The Arminian is correct in saying that the "board" (the lost sinner's soul) resists the "bullet" (the regenerating Spirit). Well, if the bullet's striving is only that of a lead slug which is tossed at the board, the resistance will certainly prevent the full work of the bullet. But it is completely silly to brag about the board wonderfully allowing the bullet to pass through the board when the bullet is fired from a rifle of Omnipotence. That is what happens when God decides to convert His elect.
See 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5.
So, the Arminian has missed the point by emphasizing that if the board had not formed a hole for the bullet's passage, the bullet could not have made it through. He has the cause and effect backwards. And this is one of the reasons why he reverses the order of regeneration and repentance unto life.
See again 1 Corinthians 1:14. There's no way around this, Ward.
And I would say that statement is double talk. Still your insistence that 1 Corinthians 2:14 proves your point rings hollow.
But the Arminian is being idiotic.
There you go again. You know doc, I've told you about my Wesleyan heritage. I've also stated clearly that I'm no theologian. But, I went to a Wesleyan Holiness college associated with a Wesleyan Holiness seminary. There I sat under the teaching of some of Christianity's foremost Biblical scholars. If I dropped names here, many would recognize them. These are people who have devoted their lives to the cause of Christ and to the study of scriptures. Many of them risked their very lives for the cause of Christ. Dear friends of ours (now deceased) were in prison in China with Eric Liddle (Chariots of Fire). They go way back.
And you have the audacity to call their position "idiotic."
Am I to believe them, whom I have known and revered for twenty-five years?
Or do I believe you, whom I've "known" via pixels on a screen for 48 hours?
I think I know.
I'm sure you're a nice guy, doc. And I'm sure that you believe you are firmly grounded in your beliefs. But if you can't present them without hurling insults at my heritage and my beliefs, then why should I bother listening to you?
There's been a lot of proof-texting going on here, but I've seen little evidence of John 13:35.