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?"
To those here who disagree with regeneration preceeding faith, I ask, what makes someone turn to Christ in the first place?
What brings about someone saying “yes” to the Gospel call?
CMP said: “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!”
**** That issue has already been addressed. Just because some Arminians have spoken of enabling grace as a sort of enlivening does not mean that they equate it with biblical regeneration, and even if they did, that would not be the normal Arminian position. The point to see is that what the Bible refers to as regeneration (and equivalent terms) the Bible presents as coming after faith, as the passages mentioned attest, like John 1:12-13 and the many passages saying that spiritual life comes by faith.
[…] – Michael Patton asks if regeneration proceeds faith. […]
I see Arm, so you are appealing to John 1:12-13 to support some sort of chronological order that buttresses your view. Which with a hundred or so comments thus far, I am sure someone has already pointed out a contrary understanding of that passage.
I certainly don’t see some sort of chornology in that passage. I understand it to merely describe what Christians are. “People born of God”. It could just as easily be argued from that passage that people are Christians because they are born of God.
Continued in next comment
And yes, many passages do speak to the spiritual life coming by faith but that doesn’t mean the initial steps in coming to Christ isn’t the result of the Holy Spirit making what is dead, living.
There is no need to force an either/or understanding on passages that speak to spiritual life being the result of faith, because, well, because it is.
Spiritual growth in a believers life is the result of the spirit working in their life as well as how faithful they are in responding to him. Which the initial steps in coming to Christ are but an example of.
I hold to the view that we are regenerated prior to coming to Jesus otherwise we would never want Him. And we are regenerated (in a sense) daily by the power of the Holy Spirit.
There is no it’s either this or that here. It is a both and. If you wish to be true to Scripture that is.
Finally it is worth making the distinctions of what it means to be “dead” or dead in our sins.
Prior to our conversion we are dead in sin. We lack any moral ability to believe the Gospel. However, we most certainly do posses the natural faculties to believe.
What that means is, because we bare the image of God, we have the mental abilty to assent to the facts of the Gospel. However due to our sinful bent, we can not and will not turn to God because we lack the moral ability to do so.
The lack of moral ability leads to our lack of desire to love God; our lack of desire of Godly things; our lack of desire of the spiritual life.
So while we are fully capable (due to our natural ability – image of God) of believing the truth of the Gospel we suppress that truth in our wickedness (due to our moral inability – fallen state)
Carrie,
I pointed out earlieer in the thread how John 1:12-13 is definitive in showing faith preceding regeneration. A contrary view was brought forward, but it just does not square with the actual details of the text, which clearly has becoming children of God taking place by faith, and becoming born of God parallel/equivalent to becoming children of God, making regeneration by faith.
Carrie said: “And yes, many passages do speak to the spiritual life coming by faith but that doesn’t mean the initial steps in coming to Christ isn’t the result of the Holy Spirit making what is dead, living.
There is no need to force an either/or understanding on passages that speak to spiritual life being the result of faith, because, well, because it is.”
**** But you don’t have any biblical evidence for making the distinction. Tons pf passages say that we receive spiritual life by faith. Your position seems to be creating a distinction Scripture does not attest to in order to uphold your doctrinal position rather than drawing it from the text. Teher is not one passage of Scripture that suggests that regeneration comes after faith. The position is mostly arrived at by the type of reasoning you use here, that spiritual deadness must mean we have to have spiritual life beofre we believe. But , see the next post . . .
Continued from last post:
But that position does not match what the Bible says about spiritual deadness/death. Rather, it reasons simplistically with a strict parallel between physical deadness and spirtual deadness. But that is not how the Bible uses the figure. We should draw our understanding of such figures from the Bible and not by imposing our own thoughts of how the figure should apply.
I gave this link earlier in the thread. It addresses this issue and has more links to how this fugure is actually used in the Bible:
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/what-can-the-dead-in-sin-do/
Carrie,
You are absolutely right.
“We love because He first loved us.”
We are born rejecting God. “No man can come to me, except the Father draw him” (gospel of John)
So many people just refuse to believe the Bible on this, and they elevate the self, the expense of God.
Not good.
Hi Arm,
I read the post at that link:
This stood out:
Now it is important to remember that Arminians do not deny the need for God’s gracious enabling before a sinner can believe and embrace the gospel. Without divine initiative and enabling no one would ever come to God in faith. We are confident, however, that God is powerful enough to overcome our depravity and there is no need for the priority of regeneration since there is no strict parallel between the inability of a physical corpse and the inability of those dead in sin. We can therefore accept the Biblical teaching of depravity and God’s prevenient grace without needing to turn the Bible on its ear in an effort to put spiritual life before faith.
I would say, what is the divine initiative and enabling you are speaking to? What is the power God is using to overcome our depravity?
Regeneration preceding faith is just one way of explaining that. If the problem you are having with the language used, OK…
If however the problem is with understanding the Holy Spirit quickens our hearts, or replaces our heart of stone with a heart of flesh, or that God gives us the moral ability to accept him where before we would reject Him due to our depravity then… well…
I don’t understand why.
Also in one of your replies to me, you acted as though I was using the “dead men can do nothing” approach to this argument.
I made a point to make it very clear that there is a difference between having a natural ability to believe the Gospel and a moral one. In my saying that, in no way did it allude to the “dead men can’t speak” or whatever the argument is….
Hi Steve,
I was speaking to my friend about this, and he and I agreed that the language used by most Calvinists when discussing this issue, can be problematic.
However all throughout Scripture we see where our mind is set to unrighteousness. Our hearts are at enmity with God.
Prior to our conversion, we hate God. We do.
Romans 8:7 speaks to the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God. John 3:19 – People love darkness in place of light. Romans 1 – the entire chapter really … people rejecting God while they know the truth that is plain to see.
I just don’t see any way around believing that prior to God doing a work on our heart, we simply hate Him and will not under any circumstance (apart from His spirit working) come to him.
Again if its a problem with the words “regeneration preceding faith” not being found in that order in Scripture, ok. Fine.
Is the concept there however? Absolutely.
Carrie said: “I would say, what is the divine initiative and enabling you are speaking to? What is the power God is using to overcome our depravity?
**** His grace. Arminians call this prevenient grace. It is referred to in various ways in Scripture. But it is never called regeneration nor the giving of spiritual life. That is always presented as coming by faith.
carrie said: “Regeneration preceding faith is just one way of explaining that. If the problem you are having with the language used, OK”
**** No, it’s not just language. The problem is that it is not the way Scripture explains it in language or concept.
Carrie said: If however the problem is with understanding the Holy Spirit quickens our hearts, or replaces our heart of stone with a heart of flesh, or that God gives us the moral ability to accept him where before we would reject Him due to our depravity then… well…
I don’t understand why.”
*** It is simple: because Scripture does not indicate that the giving of spiritual life must be before faith, but rather indicates quite clearly that such lofe is given by faith. There is a big difference between replacing our heart of stone with a heart of flesh and giving us the moral ability to accept him. The former is regeneration, the giving of spiritual life, wheras the other is a supernatural work of God that enables belief but does not irresistibly cause it. Mostly all the passages that Calvinists use to say that regneration must come first just as easily support such a prevenient working of God’s grace. But, Scripture clearly indicates the giving of spiritual life is by faith.
Carrie said: “Also in one of your replies to me, you acted as though I was using the “dead men can do nothing” approach to this argument.
I made a point to make it very clear that there is a difference between having a natural ability to believe the Gospel and a moral one. In my saying that, in no way did it allude to the “dead men can’t speak” or whatever the argument is….”
**** Ok, fair enough.
Steve said: “So many people just refuse to believe the Bible on this, and they elevate the self, the expense of God.”
**** That’s just crazy talk. I could easily ask, why don’t you believe John 1:12-13 about this or any number of other passages showing that faith precedes regneration/the giving of spiritual life? (And there’s much more by the way; I only have so much time and the comments here do not allow for lengthy or in depth treatment. I have just been picking a couple things to focus on. That’s partly why I have given links in the thread.) Such comments are not too helpful for the discussion.
Carrie,
Here is a verse that just came to my mind that seems to me is a perfect example of what is being talked about here: Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? Romans 2:4 Look at the lexical meaning of that word lead. It seems to me it fits the picture very well.
So Cheryl you are saying it is God’s kindness and Arm you are saying it is God’s grace … that those are the things that cause us to turn our affections towards him and away from ourselves?
This explains the whole matter very well (I believe).
It’s worth a ten or 15 minute listen.
http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/i-believe-that-i-cannot-believe/
.
Arm.,
You might think it’s crazy talk, but the Bible is quite clear, Jesus is quite clear, we have NO FAITH in God by ourselves. It comes to us from outside of ourselves.
Just because you don’t happen to like it doesn’t mean it is crazy.
I’m not sure if anyone mentioned this or not, but as I have read the scriptures and wrestled with this topic I have always wondered if perhaps we should not separate REGENERATION & CONVERSION at all, either logically or temporally.
Why not say that when one is regenerated s/he is given a repenting/believing heart?
Instead of thinking of it like God implants a new heart and then it beats, why not think of it as God implanting a heart that is actually, currently, and presently beating with faith and repentance?
I don’t think you can have eternal life without faith, and I don’t think that you can have faith without eternal life. I would prefer to say that eternal life IS the life of faith (as far as it concerns us) and that regeneration is the impartation of a repentING/believING heart instead of a heart that then repents/believes.
Hope that makes sense.
Matt
I was not saying htat your position holding that regeneration precedes faith is crazy, though I think it is clearly unbiblical. I was talking about your claim that people who don’t agree with you are simply refusing to believe the Bible and are elevating self. That is just counterproductive commenting and a particularly egregious form of begging the question. I truly believe that the Bible is clear that faith logically precedes regeneration. Should I delcare that you simply refuse to submit to the word of God? That just wouldn’t be helpful for a discussion in which people disagree about what the Bible teaches on the subject.
Arm.,
Thanks for that. I see your point, and I appreciate it. But I still believe that the Bible is very clear that we cannot do anything at all to move closer to God until He calls us to do so.
Carrie said: “So Cheryl you are saying it is God’s kindness and Arm you are saying it is God’s grace … that those are the things that cause us to turn our affections towards him and away from ourselves?”
Well, sort of. I am saying that it is God’s grace that enables us to believe. I think I said that quite clearly. It is the standard Arminian view, typically referred to as prevenient grace. That is not at odds with Cherylu pointing to God’s kindness as leading us to repentance. God’s enabling grace can come in various ways, as kindness, drawing, opening of the heart, convicting, etc. You can sum it all up as preregenerating grace. But it does not irresistibly “cause us to turn our affections towards him and away from ourselves”. It is a resisitlbe cause. So it resistibly causes us to turn our affections towards him and away from ourselves. it influences us toward doing so, leads us toward doing so, enables us to do so.
So Arm, how does this grace reach us? Is it infused in our minds or hearts? Or what exactly?
Carrie said: “how does this grace reach us? Is it infused in our minds or hearts? Or what exactly?”
By God’s power and will. By the Holy Spirit. Scripture doesn’t give a lot of detail about exactly how this grace reaches us. The Bible is not a systematic theology textbook. But Scripture does tell us that we believe by grace and speaks of the need for God to draws us, etc. So there are probably various ways it reaches us. It comes to us through the word, the Spirit’s action upon our minds and will, his conviction of our hearts, opening our hearts, etc.
Honestly, the question seems odd to me. How does God do anything that he does? How does he speak things into existence or perform miracles? How does God regenerate us? What exactly does he do?
Please visit http://www.truthwhys.com/news/faith-electionism/
This article names the position of Erickson and Demarest as faith electionism and expands it a bit. Worth the read.
I don’t think the question seems odd. I am not getting overly profound and asking how or why God does things. I am asking you a direct question about your own system.
Ultimately, I was trying to understand how you saw this grace of God being “delivered” to a person. You are saying through the Holy Spirit. You at least believe that in order for a person to be inclined to God, the Holy Spirit does some sort of work on their heart/mind.
You aren’t calling it regeneration. You called it pre-generation (I think anyway) in one of your earlier comments. But you at least believe it is necessary for our hearts to be opened in some sense by the Holy Spirit, prior to our receiving the Gospel. (I think that is what you believe anyway)
A final thought regarding “grace” and “kindness” in my next comment….
I don’t believe grace and kindness are some sort of substances that God uses as sort of an intermediate means of reaching us.
I believe grace and kindness are but two characteristics of God.
So in the context of this discussion, it is because God is gracious and it is because God is kind, that the Holy Spirit does a work on a person’s heart.
Otherwise we have this “grace” and “kindness” floating around waiting to be “infused” into us.
I see this as being problematic.
Carrie said: “You at least believe that in order for a person to be inclined to God, the Holy Spirit does some sort of work on their heart/mind.”
Of course. I have said that from the beginning. That is the Arminiasn view. It seems strange for you to state it as if it is a concession from me. The Holy Spirit must do a supernatural work in a prson’s heart to enable them to believe. He must draw them, open their heart, enlighten their mind. But this is not what Scripture calls regeneration or equivalent terms. It is not the giving of spiritual life. We should let the Bible define our doctrine (something I know you agree with).
I don’t call it pre-regeneration. I called it pre-regenerating grace. That simply means that God gives aid for us to believe prior to regeneration.
Carrie: “I don’t believe grace and kindness are some sort of substances that God uses as sort of an intermediate means of reaching us.”
**** Good, I agree and was worried that you did from your comments and almost mentioned that seeming to be a problem wiht your view of the matter.
Carrie said: “I believe grace and kindness are but two characteristics of God.”
*** That is true, but it is not all they are. Those words are also also routinely used of gracious and kind acts of God. So God’s grace in drawing us toward himself and enabling us to believe when we could not do so on our own is an expression of grace and kindness.
Carrie said: “So in the context of this discussion, it is because God is gracious and it is because God is kind, that the Holy Spirit does a work on a person’s heart.
**** Yes indeed. But as I mentioned above, his act of working in the person’s heart enabling belief is an expression of grace and kindness, and can be called grace or kindness.
Carrie said: “Otherwise we have this “grace” and “kindness” floating around waiting to be “infused” into us.
I see this as being problematic.”
*** Well, that does not apply to my view, as I have made clear. But this sort of thinking ought not be allowed to trump what Scripture says about faith preceding regeneration in texts like John 1:12-13 (though I realize you would view such passages differently).
Arm.,
You totally misread John 1:12-13.
Look at what it says.
13 “who were born, NOT of blood NOR of the will of the flesh NOR of the will of man, BUT OF GOD.”
My emphasis of course. The words are clear. We don’t do anything. God does it all.
Steve Martin,
You totally misread John 1:12.
Look at what it says.
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, ESV
We had to believe and receive before we could become children/be born.
(Sorry Steve, I just couldn’t resist!)
Here’s how the net Bible translates it. (Remember that Dan Wallace who is a Calvinist was on the translation team of the Net Bible.)
1:12 But to all who have received him – those who believe in his name – he has given the right to become God’s children 1:13 – children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband’s decision, but by God.
It is even noted in the footnotes of the Net Bible that the phrase translated “the will of the flesh” refers to sexual desire and the phrase, “the will of man” adds force to that. If that is true, these verses do not speak at all against an active role of our will in new birth the way you…
13 says how 12 is possible. The second is key when it comes to how faith is born.
Steve,
I would take it you didn’t think much of the notes in the Net Bible about the meaning of verse 13? That the “will of man and desire of man” phrases refer to sexual desire? That puts a totally different light on the passage and in effect contrasts being born of God to being born as a human baby. It doesn’t say that we have no will in our new birth at all in that case.
Besides your understanding would have faith being born as a result of new birth (v 13) so that faith can bring about new birth. (v 12) A wee bit circular it seems to me!
Arm to be fair, I don’t know what you stated from the onset of this entire discussion. I entered in at comment 100 or so and did not read all the comments leading up to it. So my line of questioning was focused on what you and I had discussed from the time I entered the conversation.
The reason for my asking the questions was to narrow things down to the actual point. The point being, it is absolutely necessary for God to do a work on the heart of a lost person before they can possibly turn to Him in faith and repentance.
What this work of God is called has been debated in the comment section here and, well, for hundreds of years leading up to it.
The Calvinist’s concern in this matter is pointing to God as being the initial cause of salvation. That the term “regeneration preceding faith” could use some qualifying and adjustment, is a given. But the concept of God being the initial cause of salvation, God being the primary agent in our saving faith, is the most important point…
Cherylu,
Right on about the sense of John 1:13. That is the view of most scholars of the verse, even many Calvinist commentators such as D.A. Carson and F.F. Bruce. I have been wanting to point that out, but there is only so much space and time. Thanks for doing so. John 1:12-13 is really pretty definitive on the question of the order of faith and regeneration, showing that faith precedes regeneration.
(But even apart from the sense you point out, taking it as Steve wants to does not place regeneration before faith. The human will would not nbe accomplishing regneration. It is still God who alone does it. I believe both you asnd I poiinted this out earlier. So the Calvinist view does not really have any traction any way you slice it.)
…. to be made in this particular discussion.
It is important that the Arminian view not be misreprsented by the zealous Calvinist seeking to provie their system is correct. And it is equally as important that the Calvinist view not be misrepresented by the Arminian in seeking to support their own system.
Which, regardless of how either side wishes to shout they aren’t thinking systematically, that they are being biblical, there are rival systems at work here.
It is a discussion over systems. But that is a digression…
Thank you for taking the time to add clarity on your view Arm. I appreciate it.
Arminian,
And thank you for answering Carrie’s questions. I wasn’t sure how to express it so I was hoping you would.
I didn’t read the Net Bible, I just used my RSV. For me (anyway) it is clear. There is no coming to faith unless God gives it to us. There are a great many passages that state just that and many are Jesus saying it himself.
You don’t believe that and that is ok. I (and others here) just want you to nhear the other side.
Thanks, Arminian!
Steve,
I quoted the verses directly from the Net Bible above. Did you not read that? If you did, you would see the point that I was trying to make spelled out there very clearly. You didn’t have to go the notes to see it. If you didn’t even read it, no wonder you responded as you did.
But I must say, if you are not reading the comments we wrote, (and I may be wrong, but that is how it appears at the moment from what you just said), how are you going to expect to understand the position we are taking??
And what we have been arguing here is that regeneration does not come before faith
Right, cherylu.
Nothing at all comes before faith, and faith is not something which we do, but a gift.
I’m glad we agree.
So many Christians believe that they can make a “decision for Jesus”, or “accept Jesus” of their own “free will”. That view is just un-biblical.
Matt,
Good word.
Separating for order of sequence is a good exercise, but they occur simultaneous and we shouldn’t lose sight of that.
I wanted to share a few scriptures that came to mind when reading the statement “Faith is not something we do., but it’s a gift.”
I don’t want to draw any conclusions but share a few scriptures about faith:
Matthew 8:10, 26 “When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.” “He replied, “You of little faith, why are you so afraid?” Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm.” Matthew 13:58 “And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.” I don’t ask you to believe a certain thing about faith. But let’s ask ourselves does saying God did not give faith in these situations adequately explain what the Holy Spirit is telling us about faith in these few samples? Grace and peace.
Steve Martin,
Regarding your last comment, #44. I think I need to clarify that I do believe we have a choice in the matter. We do need to respond to God or to resist His grace. In other words, I do believe that we have a “will” in the matter. That doesn’t mean that I don’t believe God works in us to enable us to believe and to draw us to Himself.
Carrie said: “The Calvinist’s concern in this matter is pointing to God as being the initial cause of salvation. That the term “regeneration preceding faith” could use some qualifying and adjustment, is a given. But the concept of God being the initial cause of salvation, God being the primary agent in our saving faith, is the most important point…”
Yes, that is a concern of both Arminians and Calvinists. Both Arminians and Calvinists use many of the same Scriptures to say that God must take the initiative in our salvation and must do a supernatural work of grace in a person to enable them to believe the gospel. We then disagree over what that work is. Calvinists say regeneration, which is irresistible. But Arminians point to all sorts of Scriptures that indicate that faith precedes regeneration (like John 1:12-13 and the many passages tha tsay life comes by faith) and so say it is prevenient grace, which enables all who hear the gospel to believe.
Useful post a usua. John 6: 44 says that no man can come to Chst except the father “draws him. This “drawing” preceeds faith, regenerartion ect and is soley an act of grace on the father’s part to the sinner ( call it prevenient grace) . It is this “drawing” that stats the salvation process. The sinner now has a heart that can respond to the gosple and make a decision to commit/ or not commit to Christ. If he accepts and believes in Jesus the sinner is now in a possition to have a relationship with the Father.
Jesus said “I am the Way, The Truth and the Light no man comes to the Father except by the Son”.
faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of God.before a person believes he must have heard the word which regenerates that person and forces him to believe in that word of God thus believing in Christ who is the word according to the Bible. John 1:1-2.