I believe that salvation is a gift of God based upon no work which man may do. Long ago I was convinced of this based upon Ephesians 2:8–9: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” I humbly accepted this when I was young, with great wonder at the kindness of God. Another well known verse that helped shape my beliefs was John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” In the same vein, I had the short statement of Paul to the Philippian jailor memorized: “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). At that early age, these verses constituted the extent of my understanding of the doctrine of salvation. I would often run them through my mind and ponder their significance. “God is so gracious,” I would say to myself. “He requires nothing for us to be saved. Nothing, that is, but faith.”
Faith alone! The great battle cry of the Reformation. As I grew in my understanding of this salvation, I added many verses and passages to my “soteriological repertoire.” Among the more significant of these were the shocking statements made in Romans 9 and John 6. These verses gave me my first exposure to the doctrines known as “election,” “sovereign grace,” or “Calvinism.” I was again humbled by what these doctrines taught. Not only does God not require anything but faith for salvation, but He is the one who is solely responsible for salvation, having predestined people before the foundation of the world. Wow! As I wondered upon such marvelous yet confusing doctrines, there was a question that continually resurfaced. If God does not require any works for salvation, and if He is in control of the process to such an extent that He predestined all of this to occur, why does He require that one thing? As Bono says in “Though I don’t know why, I know I’ve got to believe.” Why does God require something so seemingly trifle as faith?
Don’t confuse my question. I am not asking if faith is a work. That is a different issue. I am speaking of faith as a requirement. Why, if God has worked everything out to such an extent that He is the one within people who is sovereignly and irresistibly calling them to a new life in Christ, does He initiate His plans with a human response of faith? It just seemed rather trivial to me. Not that I thought faith was unimportant, just as I don’t think that love, hope, or service are unimportant. But I thought that it was a little odd for God to require anything at all.
I accepted it, living with the tension for the time. At this time, my ordo salutis (order of salvation) looked like this:
Of all the components here, the only one before justification that is the responsibility of man is faith/repentance. All of the others are brought about and accomplished solely by God. The final goal is glorification, while the primary instrument of bringing this about is faith. God predestines people before the foundation of the world, and at some point in time He calls them to respond in faith. In response to this faith, God regenerates them and they enter into a justified standing. God accomplishes everything but the final instrumental link—faith. Later I made the discovery that there are other possible models of the ordo salutis and that there is a poswesible solution to my dilemma.
Many (if not most) Reformed theologians subscribe to an ordo salutis that places regeneration before faith. Their model, using the same components, looks like this:
The reason most Reformed theologians come to this conclusion is not necessarily because they have the same difficulties that I expressed above. Their reasons are much more complex and philosophical. It is my purpose in this here to briefly evaluate the Reformed ordo salutis with respect to regeneration preceding faith.
First, I will state their position, giving it biblical and philosophical defense. Second, I will deal with problems that arise from the position. Finally, I will evaluate the position.
Statement of the Position
As stated above, most Reformed theologians believe that regeneration necessarily precedes faith. They would not, however, make the sequence a temporal one, but logical. Temporally, it may be stated that all of the events in the ordo salutus stated above happen at the same time. But Reformed theologians would see a necessary logical order in these components of salvation. John MacArthur put it this way: “From the standpoint of reason, regeneration logically must initiate faith and repentance. But the saving transaction is a single, instantaneous event.” Regeneration is seen as a sovereign act of God by which He causes a person who is spiritually dead to become spiritually alive. We sometimes call this “monergism.” This act is not in anyway dependent upon man. Reformed theologian Anthony Hoekema puts it this way: “Regeneration must be understood, not as an act in which God and man work together, but as the work of God alone.”
Why do Reformed theologians insist upon an ordo salutis in which regeneration precedes faith? There are two primary reasons. First is because of their strong stance on total depravity. Second is because certain Scriptures seem to support the view.
First we shall deal with regeneration’s relationship to total depravity. According to Scripture, man is unable to do any good whatsoever. Jeremiah 17:9 states, “The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?” Jeremiah also states that just as a leopard cannot change its spots, neither can man change his evil heart (Jer. 13:23). Paul also states in Romans 3:10–11, “There is none righteous, not even one. There is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God.” There are two primary Scriptures that would be used to defend this belief:
Eph.2: 1–3
“But you were dead in you trespasses and sins in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved).”
1 Cor. 2:14
“But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised (emphasis added).”
The convincing argument is then made that if man is in such a position that he is evil (Jer. 17:9), does not ever seek to do good (Rom. 3:10–11), and that he cannot change his position (Jer. 13:23), how can anyone expect him to do the greatest good and accept the Gospel? Furthermore, man is spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1). A dead person cannot respond to the Gospel any more than a blind person can respond to light. As Best puts it, “What is good news to a dead man? As light cannot restore sight to a blind man, so the light of the gospel cannot give spiritual light to one who is spiritually blind.”
Finally, a non-spiritual person cannot receive the things of God (1 Cor. 2:14). How can anyone be expected to receive the Gospel, which is spiritual, in an unconverted state? The person must first become spiritual—the person must first be regenerated. Sproul sums up the logic, “If original sin involves moral ability, as Augustine and the magisterial Reformers insisted, then faith can occur only as the result of regeneration, and regeneration can occur only as a result of effectual or irresistible grace.” A good illustration to describe this way of thinking is physical birth. As a baby cries out only after it is born, so also believers cry out in faith only after God has regenerated them.
There are also many other Scriptures that seem to explicitly teach that regeneration comes before faith.
Acts 16:14
“A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond [regenerated her] to the things spoken by Paul” (emphasis added).
Lydia, here, is portrayed as a woman who had her heart opened to receive the Gospel before she received it.
John 1:12–13
“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born [regenerated], not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (emphasis added).
The will of man is here shown to be uninvolved in the regenerating process of God.
Rom. 9:16
“So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs [or strives], but on God who has mercy” (emphasis added).
Again, the will of man is taken out of the picture in the saving process of God.
Problems with the Position
The problems connected with believing that regeneration preceds faith are primarily biblical. Even Erickson, a moderate Calvinist who does not subscribe to the Reformed ordo, states, “It must be acknowledged that, from a logical standpoint, the usual Calvinistic position makes good sense. If we sinful humans are unable to believe and respond to God’s gospel without some special working of his within us, how can anyone, even the elect, believe unless first rendered capable of belief through regeneration? To say that conversion is prior to regeneration would seem to be a denial of total depravity.” Erickson and others, however, do oppose the Reformed ordo. Bruce Demarest, another moderate Calvinist, supports the opposite position that regeneration is initiated by faith, “God grants new spiritual life by virtue of the individual’s conscious decision to repent of sins and appropriate the provisions of Christ’s atonement.” Those who, like Erickson and Demarest, affirm this would even state that regeneration is entirely a work of God, and that man cannot, by nature, respond to the Gospel. Therefore, some initial, or preparatory, work of God is necessary to make man able to respond to the Gospel. Erickson and Demarest believe that this preparatory work is God’s effectual calling, not regeneration. In response to this calling, man initiates faith and conversion, and then he is regenerated.
In this scheme, the effectual calling can be likened to the Arminian understanding of prevenient grace. Prevenient grace is the way that Arminians can hold both to total depravity and human choice. Even they recognize that man, left in his natural condition, must be made alive in some sense in order to have the ability to respond to the Gospel. The only difference between Erickson and Demarest’s scheme is that the spiritual awakening brought about by the calling is always effectual whereas previenient grace is not.
Nevertheless, the reason why those Calvinists who stand with Erickson and Demarest as well as Arminians would stand opposed to the Reformed ordo is because certain Scriptures seem to suggest that faith is a necessary component for regeneration. Norman Geisler, in his book Chosen But Free, emphatically denounces the Reformed position stating, “As anyone familiar with Scripture can attest, verses allegedly supporting the contention that regeneration preceds faith are in short supply.” He then goes on, “It is the uniform pattern of Scripture to place faith logically prior to salvation as a condition for receiving it.” Among the passages he sites are:
(1) Rom. 5:1
“Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Faith is here stated to be the source of justification. But most Reformed theologians place justification after faith as well (see chart). They do not equate regeneration with justification. Geisler seems to have misunderstood the Reformed position at this point.
(2) Luke 13:3
“I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”
But this does not speak to the issue of regeneration. Geisler’s statement, “Here repentance is the condition for avoiding judgment,” would also be affirmed by those who hold the Reformed position, for they would state that repentance logically preceds justification which results in salvation. Therefore, this verse presents no conflict with the Reformed ordo. Again, Geisler seem to have misunderstood the Reformed position.
(3) 2 Peter 3:9
“The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”
This, again, cannot be used to suggest either ordo. It is difficult to see why one would use such a verse to support their position. The verse could have as well stated, “God wills all to be regenerated.” This would not prove that regeneration comes before faith!
(4) John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
This verse does teach that belief in Christ is the instrumental act in salvation, but it says nothing about when the act of regeneration occurs in the process.
(5) Acts 16:31
“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.”
The order here is presented as faith first, then salvation. An initial, unbiased reading of this verse would suggest to anyone that faith is a condition of salvation. Of all the verses put forth above, only the last presents some merit in suggesting that faith precedes salvation, but not regeneration. I will explain below.
Evaluation of the Reformed Position
If one is to adhere faithfully to the doctrine of total depravity, understanding that man is unable to come to God on his own, he or she must insist that there must be some initial act of God by which He enables a person to accept the Gospel in faith. The Reformed position explained in this study, in my view, is the most consistent and biblically defendable position. The option that God’s effectual calling is that which enables a person to come to faith and thereby be regenerated is attractive but difficult to substantiate. The Scriptures do not anywhere indicate that faith comes before regeneration. In fact, one may state that salvation in the general all-encompassing sense (predestination, atonement, calling, regeneration, faith, and justification) is completed after faith, and therefore remain faithful to the plain reading of the text that suggests faith is before regeneration. For he or she would not then be suggesting that faith is before regeneration, but that faith logically occurs before the savific process is complete. In other words, the word salvation would be used to describe the entire complete package with all of the ordo (excluding sanctification and glorification) included. This would be a good way to explain the last Scripture (Acts 16:31) stated above and remain consistent to the Reformed position.
But Scripture nowhere suggests that faith initiates regeneration in the restricted since. Grudem’s statement is helpful at this point:
“The reason that evangelicals often think that regeneration comes after saving faith is that they see the results . . . after people come to faith, and they think that regeneration must therefore have come after saving faith. Yet here we must decide on the basis of what Scripture tells us, because regeneration itself is not something we see or know about directly: ‘The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit’ (John 3:8).”
Previously I mentioned my dilemma concerning God’s requirement of faith and nothing else for salvation. This study has helped me to get a better handle on the issues that are involved. I have come to the conclusion that I am in agreement with the Reformed camp concerning the ordo salutis. I believe that regeneration is a sovereign act of God by which He places a new life within a person so that the person naturally responds in faith. At the same time, I am not entirely dogmatic about this. I hope that as I continue to study Scripture, I will gain more insight.
Charles Wesley painted the picture beautifully of the Reformed ordo salutis in one stanza of the great hymn “And Can It Be.” (Though, I know, he was must certainly speaking about prevenient grace.)
Long my imprisoned spirit lay [alienation from God]
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night [total depravity].
Thine eye diffused a quick’ning ray: [regeneration (Reformed) or prevenient grace (Arminian)]
I woke—the dungeon flamed with light! [enlightening]
My chains fell off, my heart was free, [salvation]
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee. [faith]
391 replies to "Does Regeneration Precede Faith?"
Is anyone else having a problem with the edit feature here today? Also the html tags seem to only be working part of the time. Don’t know what the deal is.
Question?
Is true that REVELATION precede regeneration?
I am convinced that regeneration precede Faith?
I myself ,strongly believe that before regeneration must be REVELATION,but I am open to hear other opinion,likewise justified by Scripture .Thanks!
Virginia Brasov
Matt bell:
Greetings brother! It is true that in John 10 25-26 that Christ is telling some that they do not believe because they are not of his flock. Now see verses 14 -16 before
I am the good shepherd.(P) I know my own and(Q) my own know me, 15(R) just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and(S) I lay down my life for the sheep. 16And(T) I have other sheep that are not of this fold.(U) I must bring them also, and(V) they will listen to my voice. So there will be(W) one flock,(X) one shepherd.
Is it possible that Jesus in verses 25-26 is simply referring to those Jews who do not believe who he is.(Judisam) In verses 14-16 he says there are(2) folds(flocks) one could be those jews and the other flock the gentiles whom he will call and they will listen to his voice. Just a thought! Can anyone explain the two flock(fold) meaning?
Matt,
I think there must be another way of understanding those verses in John 10 then the way you do.
Going back to John 1:12 again, it says that the ones that receive Him and believe on His name are the ones that He gives the right to become children of God. The children of God would be the ones that are part of his flock, the sheep, right? Notice that to become one of those children believing on His name is a prerequisite.
(By the way the words believe and receive are both in the active voice there. That implies the person was active in the receiving as well as the believing, does it not?)
Michael,
Justification is not the saving work. Justification comes before the eternal life given in regeneration. Remember, the promise was THE JUST SHALL LIVE by faith. Romans 5 clearly laid this out for us. A man is an enemy. He is reconciled to God after he places his trust in Jesus, when he is baptized into Christ’s death (Rom. 5:10). (Remember, the “old things pass away before the new comes”). He is justified in Christ’s blood (5:9). Through death with Christ a man goes from “many transgressions to justification” (5:16); he is give a gift of righteousness (5:17); he is acquitted (5:18); made righteous (by the blood of Jesus Christ which cleanses him of all sin). He was introduced to God’s grace by faith (Rom. 5:2), and grace reigns through righteousness into eternal life (5:21). Eternal life is our present possession now when Jesus Christ comes to live in our hearts. The scriptures declare when we are made alive with Jesus Christ, by grace WE HAVE BEEN SAVED (Eph. 2:5). (Salvation now a done deal). “And if Christ be in you, THE BODY IS DEAD, because of sin, and the spirit is LIFE because of righteousness” (Rom 8:10)
Good Morning Michael. I am a friend of LR and have watched your service from a far for quite some time. For the most part, I am “warmed” by your direction of thought. Truly the battle between logical and chronological order is very much alive and well but I am encouraged by the fact that, (as you well know), hermeneutics precedes theological formulation; a reminder that will serve all who attempt to answer this and all similar musings.
If I may suggest something for all to consider. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is the overarching action and event in-which all that is said to be connected with salvation in time (calling, regeneration, faith, and justification, etc.) is contained and accomplished. In my humble opinion, we have missed this and its importance to the discussion. If one believes that the new birth is wholly the work of God and that the whole of that work is actualized by the Spirit’s baptism, then it can be said that “all” occur simultaneously. Give it a…
Micheal (cont…)
You look to Rom. 8:30, but Paul gives a lot of detail that fits between these few words in chapters 5, 6, 7. After Christ’s CALL to repentance (Matt. 9:13), there is conversion, and Jesus Christ baptizing men into His death. “He who is dead is JUSTIFIED from sin” (Rom. 6:7). There is no more condemnation, we are acquitted, and set free from slavery to sin, enslaved to righteousness, enslaved to God, sanctification (6:22), adoption, becoming an heir, and sharing in the promise made to Abraham and His Seed—the Holy Spirit— Jesus Christ comes to live in our hearts giving us eternal life (6:23), we are made a priest because we now have eternal life, and hopefully we will bear fruit. Ultimately we wait to be GLORIFIED.
Jesus clearly taught in john 5:44 that the pharisees could not believe in Him (have faith) because they sought the glory that comes from men rather than the glory that comes from God. How on earth is faith possible for one who is dead in sins and seeks the glory that comes from men and not God? Furthermore Paul states in Romans 2:28-29 that a person is a Jew inwardly and circumcision is of the heart- by the Spirit, not the letter. His praise is not from men but from God. So circumsion of the heart happens first, then ones praise comes from God and not men thereby enabling them to believe in Christ. One dead in sins cannot possibly have saving faith because his heart does not care about the glory of God in Christ. This is not “enlightening”, this is regeneration. Also, an example from real life would be the conversion of the great missionary to the Indians- David Brainerd. In his own account of his conversion he stated that he could not find out what “faith” was. After a series of…
Hey Jim
I do not believe that John 10:25-26 is meant to be a 2 fold/flock meaning here even though he is speaking to a Jewish crowd. In fact in Ephesians 2:16, Paul is adamant that the cross tore down the dividing wall of hostility and made the 2 now 1 body. Now if we stay in the same book of John (as I think Michael P would prefer we do 🙂 ) then I would take you to John 6:35-40. Jesus states, All the Father has given to me will come to me, and I think the key in this text is the multiple use of the word FOR. The Father gives them to Christ. Furthermore I would continue down to vs 44 of the same Chapter and see that “No one can come to me unless he who sent me, draws him…” then in vs 45 “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me…” He speaks as though those that truly do believe on Christ for life, have already been given ears to hear and hearts and minds to learn and that these new ears, hearts and minds finds it’s root in vs 37.
Hi Cherylu
I see your referrence to John 1:12 but in the following vs 13, it says “who were born not of the will of man but born of God.” John writes as though vs 12 comes to fruition only because of vs 13. I believe that is the case because there is a comma after vs 12 as it leads into vs 13 and vs 13 is not a separate sentence to be taken on it’s own but is meant to point to a preceeding verse, and I think that it’s vs 12. I also point to the order of Jesus statement in John 3 vs 3 and vs 4. He says, Unless you are born again (or born from above) you cannot see/enter the kingdom of God.” I believe that he means, you must be born of the Spirit first (Regenerated) before you can enter (display saving faith). I take that stance because in the same context of John 3 he says “that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit. Flesh begets Flesh which produces nothing spiritual. Spirit begets spiritual things which God produces. Hope this…
Matt,
Even if men were active in receiving and believing, it is still the will of God that caused them to be born again. He is the one that planned it and speaks of Jesus as “crucified before the foundation of the world. He (Jesus) is the one that died to make it possible, He is the one that said He is not willing that any should perish. Of course they are born of the will of God. They are born of the will of God even if they have an active part in it. And if they don’t have an active part in it, verse 12 makes no sense whatsoever. At least that is how it looks to me.
I definitely believe that salvation is initiated by God. No one can come to faith apart from the Holy Spirit first working within them–the “enabling” you’ve described.
However, I agree with those who’ve implied that to call this enabling “regeneration” falls short of the biblical meaning of the word.
Pre-fall, Adam and Eve’s human spirits were in a sense “alive” or “living,” (i.e., functioning, not dead in sin); thus they could have a relationship with God.
However, they did not truly possess “life” (Gk: zoe), because they did not have God in Christ as eternal life within them. Hence, they were not born of God to be children of God (John 1:12-13) in the NT sense, and neither were they partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4) or a new creation in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17).
I believe that “regeneration” in the Bible refers to this life-union with Christ (Col. 3:4), rather than the mere recovery of the ability to respond to God lost in Adam’s fall.
One thing I think we all agree God is the one who initiates. No one thinks man makes the first move. I think we extrapolate the use of the word “dead” in Eph. 2 too far. Consider the words from the same passage refering to those dead in their sin: followed, live, disobedient, gratifying, cravings, desires, thoughts. These words make the opposite case than reformed Christians seem to make about the pasivity of death. To me, this verse seems to refer more to being condemned to death rather than the passive imobility that seems to be emphasised in this internal discussion. Consider “The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus.” The result ultimately will be death of the active pursuit of sin. The gift is Jesus and the eternal life residing in him. The gift is received by trusting in it. In the next chapter Rom 4. God makes it clear faith isn’t meritorious. You can’t boast about it. We don’t have to explain away faith. It’s nothing to be…
Michael, Matt and Christ,
There are only two births. How many different kinds of life are there? Is the life given in the new birth eternal life?
If you say no, then can you give me any verses which speak of a life that is not given to us by the indwelling of Jesus Christ?
If you say that men were receiving “new spiritual life” by regeneration in the OT to enable men to believe, and they were also receiving God’s gift of eternal life when they believed, then what kind of life was John and Jesus talking about in these texts:
“In Him was LIFE” Jn 1:4
“I am the… LIFE” Jn 14:6; 11:25
“For as the Father has LIFE in Himself. so He has given the Son to have LIFE in Himself” (5:26)
“I am the bread of LIFE… if any man eat of this bread (Jn 6:40, 48, 51)
“I am come that they might have LIFE” Jn 10:10
“Except you eat of the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have NO LIFE in you” Jn 6:53
In Jn 6:53, what kind of LIFE did men not have yet, if men were already believing in Christ? (your assumption: some were believing and following therefore they had been regenerated to enable belief and after believing they had received eternal life)?
Question?
Is true that REVELATION precede regeneration?
I am convinced that regeneration precede Faith?
I myself ,strongly believe that before regeneration must be REVELATION,but I am open to hear other opinion,likewise justified by Scripture .Thanks!
Virginia Brasov
___________
Virginia,
The word you want to use here is “illumination” and not “revelation”. I know what you mean by the use in your question but as a theological category they have distinct meanings and “illumination” is the word that refers to being enlightened as to the meaning of something that has been disclosed whereas “revelation” refers to new information being disclosed. Revelation is the data or information and illumination is the understanding or enlightenment of its meaning.
To answer your question, though, yes illumination must occur and one must believe the gospel to which they have been illuminated before they are regenerated.
Michael or any other Calvinist,
There is another thought that is running around in my mind. Michael said somewhere up above that, Regeneration is the restoration of a broken (dead) relationship through the vitalization of the “spirit.
Then I think of the verse that says, And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. Hebrews 11:6
Is it possible for that person that is regenerated before faith to please God if faith is required to do so? If not, how can he be in a revitalized relationship with God?
Or does this verse only refer to those seeking God that have already repented, been converted, and justifed as per Michael’s chart above?
Thoughts, anyone?
Matt Bell, in reply to #10
John is telling men that they first receive the right to become a son when they believe/receive Christ. A man must first be set free from slavery to sin, before he can become a slave under another master, let alone an adopted son. God frees the slave by union to Christ’s death, then He enslaves him (Rom. 6:22), then he adopts Him. This is the one who is then “born of God” when God sends the Spirit of His Son into a man’s heart (Gal. 4:6). Belief, receive the right to become a son, then the new birth.
“That which is born of the FLESH is FLESH, that which is born of the SPIRIT is SPIRIT”
Paul says, “You are not in the FLESH, but in the SPIRIT —IF— indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. BUT IF ANY MAN HAVE NOT THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST HE IS NONE OF HIS.” (Rom. 8:9)
How can you say any man “is spirit” if they do not have the Spirit dwelling in them? How can they be regenerated if they do not have THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST?
Note:
“The one who confesses the Son has the Father also” (1John 2:23)
“The one who abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son” (1Jn 2:9)
“If any man loves Me…We (the Father and the Son) will come to him and make our abode with Him” (Jn 14:23)
“If any man have not the Spirit of Christ…If the Spirit of Him who raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in you” (Rom. 8:11)
CMP said: “I don’t care about terms…What I said was that I do care so much about terms, it is the concepts they represent.
Again, call it “life” or “restored ability”, it is the same for my present argument” and “There is the life from the death aspect of our salvation (regenration) which amounts to a restored relationship with God and there is the “eternal life” aspect of salvation which refers to our everlasting life with God. We are talking about the first here. Concepts are what are important here, not so much terms.”
But what I am pointing out is that Scripture does not talk about regeneration as the ability to begin to have faith. Regeneration does inherently mean being given life. So it is you creating an alleged problem for Arminian theology that does not really exist by saying enabling people to believe is life, from which you make the argument that therefore the passages invoked that show life comes by faith stand against Arminian theology. Do you see the problem?
Continuing to CMP:
Do you see the problem? You are essentially creating a problem that does not exist and begging the question. You equate enabling people to believe with life, and therefore with regeneration, but then say it does not matter if it is life or not. The concept is what is important. But you equate it with regeneration by calling it life!
I am talking about biblical regeneration and biblical spiritual life. On that score, the texts that have been pointed to (and many more could be adduced) indicate that what the Bible calls regeneration and equivalent terms comes by faith and is therefore logically preceded by faith.
Kudos Brandon!
Lannie, I agree with you (#13). Early reformers accepted the interpretation of Eph. 2:5 that was handed down a thousand years earlier. They did not see the need that a man has to be put to death with Christ. A man must die with Christ (via Christ baptizing him into His death), to be set free from slavery to sin (Rom. 6:2-6). Also note: “ You have been released from the Law, having died to that which you were bound…You were made to die through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to Him…” (Rom. 7:6, 4). When we are “baptized into Christ’s death” (Rom. 6:3), “united to the likeness of Christ’s death” (Rom. 6:5); “conformed to His death” (Phil 3:10); That is the real “spiritual death”. We have to die before we can be joined to Christ. Men were not baptized into Christ’s death before Christ died and became our High Priest. It is Jesus Christ the High Priest who baptizes men into the likeness of His death.
We died to sin. At that point Eph. 2:1 literally states: “And you BEING DEAD, the trespasses and the sins of you”. Prior to that, you lived and walked in the lusts of your flesh. But Christ “crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts” (Gal. 5:24). It was when we were “dead with Christ” that we were made alive with Christ (the new birth), raised and seated with Christ in the heavenly
I must judge that 1 Tim 6:4 has to come into play here for me. I am sorry but that is the direction of my involvement here.
Michael,
Is it not the meaning of the words–the concept behind them that we are talking about here and disagreeing on? Regeneration to you doesn’t seem to be the same concept as regeneration to many of the rest of us. Isn’t that where the disagreement is? And from there the understanding of when regeneration happens?
Maybe I am misunderstanding the point of your last comment?
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Michael Patton, g1antfan. g1antfan said: RT @CMichaelPatton: Does regeneration precede faith? http://bit.ly/gJqMeS […]
To all non-Calvinists,
Please note the following quote. There are some important facts in here, and if they are true, (I believe they are) then the damage to Reformed Doctrine is beyond repair.
From John Piper’s sermon, “Receive with Meekness the Implanted Word” (1/6/08) (This message was later put in print in his book “Finally Alive”.
“The second objective historical event that had to happen for us to be born again with eternal life was the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead…so the point is that by the new birth, God means for us to have not just new life, but eternal life… Our new life in the new birth will last forever.”
Eternal life given by the new birth, after the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. That is when Jesus Christ began dwelling in the hearts of men. If there was no regeneration before the resurrection, then there is no TOTAL INABILITY as defined by Reformed proponents! “Bondage of the Will” is a tradition of men!
OT men could have faith, and through that faith they could please God (Heb. 11;6), but they could never save themselves. Jesus Christ came to save men, and give them eternal life. God saves men when He sends Jesus Christ to dwell in their hearts to give them eternal life. OT prophets wrote of the salvation that would come (1Pet. 1:10). OT believers were saved through their faith the same way as NT believers.
When God says that he is going to give hearts of flesh for hearts of stone, it kinda implies that before he does his work we have stony hearts. Stony hearts can’t believe – why does it freak you out that God works in us first? Regeneration must come first or there is no ability to exercise faith.
Harley,
Have you been reading this thread? People are not saying that God doesn’t work in us first. What we are saying is that we don’t believe that work is properly defined as regeneration or that what happens before faith entails all that Michaeal says it does.
Harvey,
When did God first give the prophecy that he was going to give men “hearts of flesh for hearts of stone”?
Speaking of that passage, Wayne Grudem states, “The sovereign work of God in regeneration was PREDICTED in the PROPHECY of Ezekiel. Through him, GOD PROMISED A TIME IN THE FUTURE when He would give new spiritual life to His people”.
Ezekiel predicted,
“A new heart I WILL GIVE (future), and a new spirit I WILL PUT WITHIN YOU…I WILL PUT MY SPIRIT WITHIN YOU” (Ez. 36:26-27)
If this prophecy refers to the new birth (and not the literal resurrection of the dead prior to the millenium), then no man prior to Ezekiel had received this promised work of God. No man had yet to receive a new heart. No man had been regenerated (YET).
There was a particular point in history when God began placing His Spirit into every believers heart. If the placing of the Spirit within men is regeneration, may I remind you that Paul says we receive the promise of the Spirit through faith (Gal. 3:14)
cherylu,
I confess I haven’t read the entire multitude of comments. Please forgive me – I’m trying to write a paper- for just skimming. If that work is not regeneration, then what else would you call it.
Jim,
Until you get my name right I’m not talking to you:)
Faith is a gift, the Bible clearly says so.
Jesus clearly says they He (God) chooses us, snd that we don’t choose Him.
But so many can’t let go of their own salvation project. That cannot abide God being a real God and asserting Himself.
They make God into a beggar who pleads for us to do something BEFORE He can do something.
Even with the idea Prevenient grace, questions still stand regarding man’s capability of believing and where that desire to believe comes from. Prev. Grace does not answer the issue at hand.
More specifically:
1. Why do some believe and others not?
2. What is inside them that makes them WANT to believe? Faith is no mere arbitrary decision (and I don’t know of any Arminian who says so) and thus there precedes a DESIRE to believe.
3, Where does that desire come from? (Not from the nature or Will of man according to Scripture)
4. Why do some not have ‘that desire’ and others apparently dont according to your theology?
Without talking about “Nature” and “desires” I would have never seen my past contradiction of “faith preceding regeneration”.
Nevermind the explicit contradiction of man doing something that the Scriptures say we cannot do. (Eph. 2:1, Rom 3; John 3, etc.
May God give grace to you all in seeing these truths, for your joy and…
HODGE must be either very busy or held by restraints!
Harley (sorry) and others,
Reformed “regeneration” is a concept built around isolated phrases, and sometimes verses that have been lifted from their contexts and given an interpretation that fits the doctrine. For instance, the often quoted passage in Romans 3:10-18 actually comes from 2 Psalms (14, 53). They describe a fool. “The fool says in his heart there is no God.” A fool who does not believe that God exists will have no fear of God, and no faith in God. Without faith, he does not have righteousness credited to his account, and therefore “there are none righteous”.
A fool will not seek God. Yet in contrast Paul preached that God created men…”that they should seek God” (Acts 17:27). Back in Romans 1 Paul tells us that God made certain things evident to men: His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature HAVE BEEN CLEARLY SEEN, BEING UNDERSTOOD THROUGH WHAT HAS BEEN MADE, so they are without excuse (Rom. 1:19, 20). Who doesn’t have any excuse? The people who God’s wrath will come upon: those “who suppress truth in unrighteousness” (R1:18). These men “knew God but they didn’t honor Him or give Him thanks. Their foolish hearts were darkened…they BECAME FOOLS. And Paul describes the fools in Romans 3.
I believe I can take each verse attributed to Reformed Theology and demonstrate from its context that it was improperly interpreted, or it violates other clear teaching in the Scripture.
Harley,
“What else we would call it” has been discussed conderably in this thread too. Sorry, but I don’t have the time or energy to repeat what has already been said and then have to cover the same ground all over again.
And Steve Martin,
How do you account for the active tenses of the verbs in places like John 1:12 if we don’t have to “do” anything–even receive and believe? They don’t fit at all with just sitting and everything happening to us with no response from us.
Let’s remember, brothers and sisters, that neither Calvinists or Arminians are completely right. A third way, at least, that doesn’t accept either extreme is always an option. One thing I’ll add from Eze 11. “I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh. Then they will follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. They will be my people, and I will be their God. (Now look at the qualification in verse 21) But as for those whose hearts are devoted to their vile images and detestable idols, I will bring down on their own heads what they have done, declares the Sovereign LORD.” Something about their devoted heart condition to idols exempts them from the heart transplant. God initiates and makes the transplant, but there is a people who will stay devoted to their own way. Why would we resist seeing this part of the story as well. Grace and peace, friends.
Steve Martin (#29),
“Faith is a gift, the Bible clearly says so.”
Actually, the Bible states, “By grace we have been saved, through faith, it is the gift of God…” Grammatically the Greek does not make faith the gift. Grudem states,
“The word translated “this” is the neuter pronoun touto, which refers not to “faith” or to “grace” specifically in the previous clause (for they are both feminine nouns in Greek, and would require feminine pronouns), but to the entire idea expressed in the prededing phrase, the idea that you have been saved through faith” (Grudem’s Systematic pg 730).
But the Bible specifically calls eternal life a gift (Rom. 6:23); the Holy Spirit a gift (Acts 2:38; 10:45), and perhaps Jesus Christ a gift (Jn 3:16). Now, back to the context of Eph. 2:8. Paul just previously proclaimed that a person who had been made alive with Jesus Christ had been saved (Eph. 2:5-“made alive with Jesus Christ, by grace YOU HAVE BEEN SAVED).
God’s Gift= Jesus Christ=Holy Spirit= Eternal Life= Salvation
Jesus Christ coming to live in the heart of a man gives him eternal life and it saves Him. Faith precedes Jesus dwelling in a mans heart (Eph. 3:17), faith precedes eternal life, and faith precedes salvation (saved through faith). Faith is not the gift given to us by God.
Do you have another passage that teaches “faith is a gift”?
I’ve been wondering where Hodge is too. And how about Michael T? Don’t think we have heard from him for weeks. He used to be very involved in these discussions too.
Jim,
On a rather humorous note, unless I read it totally wrong, I once saw someone that was contending that verse in Acts about people being created and put in nations to seek the Lord and perhaps find him as saying that God put them in nations so that they couldn’t find him! Now there is a case of verses being “twisted” if I ever saw one!
Jimmy – you’re firing an all cylinders with your Calvinist-proof vest on. 🙂
If you don’t collapse from debate fatigue once you’re finished here, channel some of this energy over here where Johnny Mac says that the recent uprisings in the middle-east are all “in violation of a biblical command – to submit to the powers that be because they’re ordained of God” He’s been criticized of cold-hearted Calvinism (the sovereignty factor), but biblically it’s hard to argue with this view.
One last word here: Charles Wesley (a pretty strong voice in the Arminian position!) said “Thine eye diffused a quickening ray.”
Quicken: “To become alive; receive life.”
According to him, this “quickening” happens before faith in order to facilitate it! 🙂
Hi Michael,
I have a hunch this is one we will probably always have to agree to disagree on. It’s obvious we aren’t convincing you and I guess you know you haven’t convinced us either.
Doesn’t mean you aren’t my brother in the Lord though. And I am glad for that.
Michael,
You certainly stimulated a great discussion today! I was wondering if you would do another blog and identify whether you believe the life given in regeneration is eternal life or a different kind of life? I know the founding documents (Canons and Westminster) both make a differentiation between the life given in regeneration and eternal life. If this view is correct then I had some questions which nobody tackled in post #14, that I would appreciate hearing a Calvinist’s perspective on.
On the other hand the Bible tells us there are two births. John Piper has gone on record saying that we are given eternal life in regeneration…our new life in the new birth will last forever (see post #24). This is the view I personally hold. If eternal life is given in regeneration, then I believe that one fact is very problematic for Reformed proponents. And if John Piper is correct in saying, the historical event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead had to happen for us to be born again with eternal life, then what does that fact do to Calvinism?
Jim,
For the record, John Piper also says regeneration comes before faith. Just read that this afternoon. Don’t have a link for you now though.
Cherylu,
First I want to say I appreciate your input in these discussions. You have very perceptive contributions.
This sermon of John Piper’s was one in a series on the New Birth. Prior to this series I studied many of Piper’s sermons to see what he had to say about Bible passages which taught about eternal life and salvation. I may be wrong, but he seemed to have the clear view that eternal life and salvation were something that men received at the end of their lives. Therefore there were odd ideas, like the gospel was for believers, because unregenerate men would not believe, and so the gospel (the power of God to salvation) was a tool of God to bring regenerate men to salvation at the end of their life. (See a multi-part sermon on Rom. 1:16).
So this series was quite unique, since he identified the life of regeneration as eternal, and regeneration is the work of God to save man. Of course the Bible places faith before both eternal life and salvation. So it was very interesting to see how he danced around trying to explain where faith fits into the process. But once he identified that Jesus Christ had to rise from the dead before there was any new life to have then I knew he was straining at gnats, while swallowing the camel. If there was no regeneration prior to the resurrection then there should be absolutely no faith in the OT according to the essential Reformed assumptions! But of course we know the testimony of the Scripture details the lives of faithful and godly OT believers. So men can believe without regeneration!
Cherylu
As an after thought I wanted to point to the Scriptures. Peter says that were born again through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (1Pet. 1:3).
Nobody has told men how men could be “born again THROUGH THE RESURRECTION” before the resurrection ever took place!
That’s as bad as the view that God has to save somebody with regeneration (Titus 3:5) so that they will be enableds to believe.
Ok, Jim…then faith is a work that we do.
Square that with the rest of Scripture. You have just relagated God to a little god.
Cherylu,
We do respond..after He has called and chosen us, through His Word.
Jesus tells Peter, “Blessed are you Simon Peter, for flesh and blood have not revealed this (that Jesus was the son of God ) to you, BUT MY FATHER IN HEAVEN.” my emphasis of course.
Ratcheting up faith on our own is just one work…but it is one work too many.
Jim,
The doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly defined in Scripture either but is deduced from various passages, so I am not persuaded by your argument in #32.
Regeneration can be seen in Deut 30:6- “And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.” It is taught throughout the Bible that”God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ.” God initiates salvation by regeneration.
Paul, Christ and the other NT writers use OT passages frequently- Paul’s purpose in citing these verses is clearly to substantiate the accusation of v. 9, and, in particular, his claim that sin is universal. They not only use the passages, they expand and explain them. So again I don’t think your point is made.
Peace
Yes ,ILLUMINATION is the best word !And I am glad that you agree with this fact that ILLUMINATION precedes REGENERATION
Thanks for answering my question MR.Alex Guggenheim
Virginia B.
Alex Guggenheim says:
February 25, 2011 at 2:15 pm
Like or Dislike: 1 0
Here’s a good audio (pastor’s class) that is relevant here:
http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/class-on-galatians-and-christian-freedom/
.
Steve Martin,
Here are some passages that contrast works and faith. Somewhere in the OT people began believing, or they were taught, that keeping the Law (their works) was their source of eternal life. By keeping the Law they could be just, and it was the just who would live. But Habakuk revealed the just would live by faith. Works of the Law could not bring life. But life would come to the just through faith (men would be justified in Christ’s blood—something a man could never do.) In contrast:
“…through FAITH, not of WORKS lest any man should boast.” (Eph. 2:8).
“Now to the one that works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor but what is due. But to the one WHO DOES NOT WORK, BUT BELIEVES IN HIM who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness” (Rom. 4:4, 5)
“The Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by FAITH; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that Law. Why, because they did not pursue it BY FAITH, but as though it were BY WORKS” (Rom 9:30-32).
Steve Martin, cont…
What is necessary for a man to come to faith? Paul says “whoever will call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call upon Him whom they have not believed? And how shall they BELIEVE in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent?” (Rom. 10:14, 15)
God sendspreacher preachesman hearsman believesman calls God saves by regeneration (Titus 3:5)
Is God active between the hearing of the gospel and the believing? You bet! God sent the “seed sower” and He sends those who water. It is His Word which is planted in the heart. His Word is supernatural, living and powerful, and it accomplishes the purposes of the one who sent it. On the other hand, the Devil tries to steal away the Word so that men may not believe to be saved (Luke 8:12). Just like the seed planted in the ground is doing things that can’t be seen, so is God’s Word. His Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin, righteousness and judgment. God brings forth the increase (1Cor. 3), and He brings harvesters into His field to help bring in the harvest. There is no room for boasting for the sower, the one who watered, the reaper, or the believer: because God does an incredible work upon the believer to cleanse him, and more, to prepare him to become a temple of the Holy God.
HarleyVol (#45),
“And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.” (Deut. 30:6)
I see two problems with the passage that you referenced. First the passage in Deut. 30:6 is still a future work: I will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your offspring…” It was still future from Moses writing the passage. Who lived before Moses was used to communicate this truth? Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, and most of Moses’ life. If this passage is speaking of regeneration, then these men were unregenerate. Still doesn’t fit your doctrinal profile.
Second, if regeneration is the circumcision of the heart in the above passage, then the regeneration comes to men who lived sometime after Moses, so that they will love the Lord with all their heart and soul THAT THEY MAY LIVE. I thought that regeneration was the giving of the life. Or, does God circumcise the heart, and then the man loves the Lord with all his heart and soul THAT THEY MAY BE REGENERATED?
I really do not think that is a good passage to support what you are trying to say.