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?"
Daniel Ashanda said: “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.”
The problem here is that Scripture does not teach that the word regenerates in and of itself. That is clear from the fact that not all who hear the word get regenerated. Rather, God regenerates us in response to our faith in the word. So we get passages like John 1:12-13 teaching that we are regenerated by faith and many passages teaching similarly that we receive spiritual life by faith. Of course, the word elcits faith resistibly. And that is why faith comes by hearing the word. If your/the Calvinist view were right, we would expect the passage you quoted to say that faith comes by regeneration. But it says that it comes by hearing the word.
I haven’t read all of the comments, so maybe someone brought this up, but if we are to read the Scriptural statements concerning the order of salvation as chronological, as opposed to simultaneous and logically ordered, then we’re also going to have to say that grace does not precede faith either. If that’s true, then where is prevenient grace? It supposedly is the same grace that continues on after one believes, but if it is only received through faith (by the logic being used), then faith must precede grace and we are back to Pelagius.
Hodge,
I don’t think your reasoning works, at least it doesn’t for me.
Life is spoken of as coming after faith in the verses we have been discussing. Assuming regeneration=life that seems pretty clear cut.
However, grace is much more wide ranging, for lack of a better term. Yes we are saved by grace through faith. But doesn’t God’s grace cover a lot more then that? Doesn’t His grace include His leading, drawing enabling, convicting, etc?
Unless you are going to say that the only thing in the Bible that can be referred to as grace is the actual act of God in saving us through faith, your argument falls apart.
Definition of grace: Theology .
a. the freely given, unmerited favor and love of god.
b. the influence or spirit of God operating in humans to regenerate or strengthen them.
c. a virtue or excellence of divine origin: the Christian graces.
d. Also called state of grace. the condition of being in God’s favor or one of the elect.
(Fom an…
“Doesn’t His grace include His leading, drawing enabling, convicting, etc?”
Cheryl,
Yes, it does. I’m not objecting to that at all. What I’m saying though is that if we are going to force the texts as speaking of the order of salvation in chronological sequence, which I strongly suggest it is not, then we are going to end up throwing grace on the wrong end of faith as well, and the Arminian no longer has an argument either. The truth is that these are things that surround a faith relationship with God. They are things that have to do with faith, but are the texts really telling us the metaphysics of when they occur in relation to faith? I don’t think they are. So we are left with the argument of orthodox Christianity that is based upon man’s inability to come to Christ in his spiritual condition. That could be answered by the Arminian or Calvinist, although I still think the Arminian has to answer in what way man is still not making a pelagian-like decision by not…
“Life is spoken of as coming after faith in the verses we have been discussing. Assuming regeneration=life that seems pretty clear cut.”
That’s the problem though. The assumption isn’t correct. Most of the verses you quoted above have to do with having an active life in Christ, not just a rebirth. Saying that I now have life because I had a heart valve put into me doesn’t mean I was just born after the heart valve was put into me. It refers to the life that is lived on the other side of the heart valve, not when I received it or was given life in the first place. Whenever you have the term “regeneration” in Scripture, it refers to something that God causes us to have and that must precede our seeing/understanding God’s kingdom, which we, as Calvinists, interpret to mean that one must first see the object of his faith before he exercises faith in it or for it. So the terms are not synonymous; but even if they were, we’re back to forcing the texts into a chronological…
sequence they were never meant to serve.
Well, they certainly appear to us to be in chronological sequence. In fact any reading of the verses that says life comes through or by faith would have to assume that faith is there prior to faith.
So…it would seem that we can not see chronologiccal order in Scripture, but you can say there has to be a chronological order there that is contrary to what the verses themselves read in any normal way would suggest?
Is chronological order only valid then when it is done by a Calvinist and not when done by an Arminian? That would be how this looks to me.
For the record, I probably won’t be back in this convo tonight. I have to leave the house in just a bit.
The Bible teaches “Faith before Grace: “We have our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand” (Rom 5:2). We are either under the Law, or under grace (Rom. 6:14). Every man is born under jurisdiction of the Law (Rom. 7:1). This is a relationship much like a woman who is bound to her husband. She can’t be joined to another until her husband dies. In the same way, we can’t be joined to Christ while we are bound to the Law. After a person places their trust in Jesus Christ, Jesus the High Priest baptizes him into His body (1Cor.12:13) and into his death (rom. 6:3). And so Paul says, “Therefore my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead…now we have been released from the Law having died to that which we were bound” (Rom. 7:4, 6).
We are made to die with Christ to be set free from slavery to sin and the Law (Rom. 6, 7), before we are made alive with Christ.
Jim,
Why do I need to trust in Jesus when I can do good on my own? What purpose is the gospel when I can obey God and live? You’ve fallen into the error of pelagianism and have made the gospel only possibly necessary rather than absolutely necessary. All of Christianity rejects your claim. There is none that does good, no not one. It is God in His grace who grants repentance before repentance is made. It is God in His grace who gifts faith to us. Grace must logically precede faith; but your misreading of the text as chronological has found your theology in heretical waters.
Acts 15:11 says we’re saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus. So in your chronological order, we would not be saved until we are given grace after we are given faith, and therefore, not saved by faith until rewarded by that grace. This becomes absurd. We are saved by grace as we are regenerated through faith as an instantaneous event, not an unfolding chronology. All components are necessary at once.
“So…it would seem that we can not see chronologiccal order in Scripture, but you can say there has to be a chronological order there that is contrary to what the verses themselves read in any normal way would suggest?”
Cheryl,
The Scripture only seems to be giving a chronology because you have traditionally read it that way. There is nothing in the text to suggest a time frame.
And please understand, I’m not positing a different chronology opposed to the text. I’m positing that there isn’t a chronological unfolding, but a logical sequence. Please understand the difference. I believe it all happens in the twinkling of an eye.
Hodge,
I need to trust in Jesus because I cannot save myself.
I cannot set myself free from slavery to sin or from jurisdiction of the Law. I can’t make myself die to the Law so that I can be joined to Christ. I can’t justify myself in His blood. I can’t cleanse myself from sin. I cannot remove the defilement of sin. I cannot make myself holy. I cannot prepare my heart to become a temple of the Living God. I cannot give myself eternal life. I cannot make God send the Spirit of His Son into my heart. I cannot make myself a priest of God. I cannot even qualify myself to become a priest under the old or new covenants. I cannot baptize myself into Christ’s death: I cannot crucify myself with Christ, unite myself to the likeness of His death, bury myself in baptism, or circumcise the body of flesh in order to remove it (nor can I clothe myself with Christ in baptism). These are some of the things that the Bible says God does to me after I place my trust in His Son, before He sends His Son into my heart to make me alive with Jesus Christ (regenerate me), give me eternal life and save me.
Paul tells us that a man only needs to have a preacher to hear the Word, and then believe in the Word so that he will call upon the name of the Lord to be saved. When a person calls upon the name of the Lord, God does all of the things listed above.
BTW- Rom.3 quotes two Psalms, 14&53. The fool who says in his heart “there is no God” will not seek God, nor fear God, and without faith it will be impossible for him to please God, and there will not be any imputed righteousness. Therefore no fool can do any good and no fool will be righteous. Romans1 tells us how a man becomes a fool.
Hodge,
So what do you do with the whole Romans 10 discussion? You know, the if you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth and whoever calls on the Lord will be saved kind of thing? All of that didn’t happen in the twinkling of an eye.
Or are you going to try and tell us that the person that calls on the Lord was already saved before he called? That, as you would say, becomes absurd since Paul says he will be saved if he calls.
“Is faith an action…to act…in order to be saved?” A questioned asked by me of unschooled man, yet has practical, even be said logical way of looking….regeneration…then…faith. He said, can a dead person cry out a word when he is already dead…?
then….he said, same dead man in spirit…can not cried out for help…in oder to be saved.”
And Hodge,
HE SAVED US BY…
“After the kindness and love of God our Savior toward men appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have don, but according to His mercy HE SAVED US BY THE WASHING OF REGENERATION, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus3:4,5).
“Now to him that worketh not, but believeth… therefore it is by faith, that it might be by grace” (Rom. 4:5, 16)
“For by grace YOU HAVE BEEN SAVED THROUGH FAITH, not by works…” (Eph. 2:8)
“MADE ALIVE WITH JESUS CHRIST (REGENERATION) BYGRACE YOU HAVE BEEN SAVED” (Eph. 2:5)
That didn’t say, “made alive with Jesus Christ to enable you to believe.” We are saved when God sends the Spirit of His Son into our hearts (Gal. 4:6) (Christ dwells in our hearts THROUGH FAITH- Eph. 3:17), to give us the gift of eternal life (Rom. 6:23; 1John 5:11, 12). Faith precedes eternal life, and an act of man precedes salvation (Rom. 10:13) (even the Westminster Confession says this). The Last Adam (the incarnate Christ) became the life giving Spirit” (1Cor. 15:45). Jesus was made perfect through His suffering…And being made perfect, He BECAME THE SOURCE OF ETERNAL SALVATION” (Heb. 2:10, 5:9)
I actually agree with Hodge that there is not a chronological order (roughly) but a logical order. But this is a neutral point. One can demonstrate this by asking if there is ever a timne that onbe is believing that one is not born again or vice versa. Obviously not. as soon as we believe, God regenerates us. As soon as we believe he makes us his child. It’s the same with justification. As soon as we believe God justifies us. Regeneration and justification by faith. The question is which logically precedes the other, faith or regeneration. I.e., which one leads to the other. It’s the difference between saying:
as soon as we believe, God regenerates us
vs.
as soon as God regenerates us, we believe
I believe Scripture is clear that faith precedes regeneration logically (and notice I used that qualification “logically” at times in the preceding discussion), as testified by passages like John 1;12-13 and passages that show spiritual life comes by faith.
I mentioned that Hodge’s point that we are dealing with logical priority rather than strictly chronological priority is a relativeley neutral point. But let me add that there are probably a number of Calvinists who see it as chronological priority, and actually think that God might regenerate someone and they might not believe for some time. That is obviously untenable, that there are people born of God who do not believe in him and are not his children walking around. The more sophisticated Calvinists agree that it is an issue of logical priority. However, this then preswnts another problem for them. For it is clear that people do seek God before they believe, sometimes for a long period of time, even years. Yet they claim that no one seeks God who is not regenerated. The Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace handles this nicely no one seeks God on their own. But God can work in people’s hearts and enable them to seek him. But the “logical priority” Calvinist has no recourse…
Continuing: unless he grants what essentially amounts to prevenient grace, and gives up the store to the Arminian!
Some might want to invoke common grace. However, their position is that common grace is not enough to bring people to seek God, for no one seeks God. Considering my last post, this is quite a quandary for Calvinists on every front. That’s partly why I’m an Arminian, it matches what the Bible actually says!
Arminian,
Are you saying that you don’t believe then that there is any outward, for lack of a better word, response necessary from us? That if faith is in our heart we are automatically saved without any active “receiving” or “calling on the name of the Lord” or anything like that?
I don’t think that is correct both from the way I uderstand the Bible myself and what I have been taught all of my life in churches of seven different denominational or independent varieties. It also doesn’t square with my personal experience. I believed fully that Jesus was God, the one and only Savior and Lord, and that I was a sinner and needed Him long before I made any actual move to actually embrace Him as all of those things for myself.
Cherylu,
No, I would say that biblical faith entails embracing Christ as all of those things for yourself. Biblical faith is trust. When we trust in Christ, also referred to as receiveing him and as believing on his name in John 1:12, then God regenerates us / makes us his child. However, could you say that someone can receive him / believe on his name and yet not be justified, regenerated, saved? I don’t think so. Once we receive him / believe in him (in the biblical sense), he justifies and regenerates us.
Great point Cherylu!
Faith precedes regeneration/eternal life/salvation/JesusChrist dwelling in me. And historically, men had faith long before God sent His Son to save men, and give them eternal life, and long before God began sending the Spirit of His Son into men’s hearts.
God has always been active in the life of a man prior to his coming to faith, the activity however is not called regeneration.
Arminian,
Would you dispute that an act of faith, calling on the name of the Lord, precedes being saved?
“How shall they call on the one they have not believed in?” (Rom. 10:14). Techically, the believing comes before the calling on the name of the Lord.
I think the real problem a Calvinist has is getting their description of the “spiritually dead man” to hear the gospel. At one moment he can’t perceive or understand anyting, the next moment he is saved by regeneration.
When was the time for hearing the preaching of the gospel?
Calvinists,
Do men need to “perceive”, “hear”, or “understand” the gospel before he is saved by regeneration?
J asked:”Would you dispute that an act of faith, calling on the name of the Lord, precedes being saved?”
No. But they are roughly the same time (note my use of “roughly” a few posts ago). If God answers such a plea immediately, which he certainly does, then the asking and the saving happen at roughly the same time. One could say that technically, even with logical priority there may be a technical negligibly small chronological priority. But it is not like someone asks God t osave them and then there is some sort of waiting period or what have you. One could look at it precisely and say there is a negligible chronological priority, or look at it generally and say they are rougly concurrent (like pressing the button that turns on the light). But the important point is the logical priority. faith leads to regeneration and salvation because God responds to our faith by regenerating us and saving us. But there is no substantial time differentiation between faith and God’s response
Arminian,
Looks like I was writing while you were posting! Do you believe that God always gives the promised Holy Spirit when a person is regenerated? In other words, when a person is born of the Spirit, is he always given the indwelling presence of the Spirit?
I would say yes with these two verses in mind.
“If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His” (Rom. 8:9). “He who does not have the Son of God does not have life” (1John 5:12).
Jesus comes to dwell in our hearts THROUGH FAITH, and we receive the promise of the Holy Spiirt THROUGH FAITH (Eph. 3:17; Gal. 3:14). Therefore, faith logically and chronologically precedes regeneration.
Could you quote one Calvinist, current or historical, that actually says that man is “saved by regeneration”?
Arminian,
Cross posting again! I do agree with you (#20), after God began giving the promised Holy Spirit (i.e. sending the Spirit of His Son into a man’s heart), regeneration occurs immediately when one calls upon the name of the Lord.
But, I believe, that there was a long period of human history when men placed their faith in God without receiving the Gift of God’s Son sent into their hearts to dwell (they weren’t saved by regeneration in their lifetime; they died looking forward to the promise). …And yes I do believe that these men were eventually saved.
“Therefore, having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear” (Acts 2:33).
Jim asked: “Do you believe that God always gives the promised Holy Spirit when a person is regenerated? In other words, when a person is born of the Spirit, is he always given the indwelling presence of the Spirit?”
Of course! I think that is absolutely clear in Scripture as God’s normal/standard procedure. Indeed, I believe that the giving of the Spirit basically/practically is regeneration. God implants his Spirit within us and the Spirit naturally/automatically communicates the life of God to us, the divine nature to us (in the sense that 2 Peter 1:4 says that we partake of the divine nature), the prssence of the Father and the Son to us, and so much more. We are incredibly blessed! How great it is t oknow the Lord!! All of this a free gift given to us by faith!!! What a God we serve!!!! praise his name!!!!!
Jim said: “But, I believe, that there was a long period of human history when men placed their faith in God without receiving the Gift of God’s Son sent into their hearts to dwell (they weren’t saved by regeneration in their lifetime; they died looking forward to the promise). …And yes I do believe that these men were eventually saved.”
I completely agree. In the OT, the Holy Spirit was with believers. In the New, he comes to dwell within us, giving us an even greater experience of God than could be had normally under the Old Covenant. The promise of the giving of the Spirit in the New Covenant to believers was essentially the promise of regeneration, a point confirmed by John 3, which speaks of regeneration while alluding to one of the major promises of the giving of the Spirit (essentially equating it with regeneration).
Arminian,
Then do you see these three critical points in refuting Calvinism:
1. Somewhere, someone re-defined the work of God in regeneration saying that regeneration was a work of God to change a man to enable him to believe, rather than the work of God to save a man.
Regeneration occurs when God sends the Spirit of His Son Jesus Christ into our hearts, giving us eternal life, thus regenerating and saving us.
2. If there is no regeneration prior to the giving of the Spirit in Acts 2, then many Reformed assumptions are in error– there is no “bondage of the will” (it is a man made tradition); there is no “Total Inability”, rather there is ‘defilement from sin’ and other issues that man cannot save himself from.
3. If faith comes before regeneration, then there is no TULIP. The whole TULIP is founded upon unbiblical assumptions, erroneous interpretations of God’s Word, and unbiblical definitions.
Arminian,
I’m glad you see my point as neutral, as it is just that. The texts don’t solve the chronology for us. However, your use of John 1:12-13 to prove that point is a bit surprising, as the point there is that the right of sonship is given to those who believe/receive Him, but their being born is not of the will of man, but of God. If their receiving Him was the catalyst through which they received their birth, then it was of the will of man and God, not God in contrast to man. I still think, therefore, that this is a misreading of chronology back into a text that doesn’t give us one. The logical priority here is the will of God as opposed to man’s will, not the sonship as a result (something the text does not say) of our receiving Him. However, I do agree that sonship is given in reception.
The claim that Calvinists have a hard time with men seeking God before regeneration is not anything I have ever heard before. I have no problem with it at all.
Men who seek God are doing so because God is working in their lives up to the point of regeneration (as per Augustine’s Confessions). The point we are making is that no none pleases God without faith, so their lives are not pleasing to Him and they do not and would not seek Him before that without His work in their lives for them to do so. This isn’t an enabling grace. It’s God moving us to a point He has chosen upon which He will cause us to be born again in the giving of faith through grace. Again, this is instantaneous, only we try to solve the chronology through experience, which is inadequate, or the logic of the biblical texts.
So no problem there.
Jim,
I basically agree with your # 1.
But I disagree with your # 2. I (and the Arminian view) believe that we are totally unable to believe in Christ on our own, but that we need God’s grace to be able to do so. This is called prevenient grace by Arminians. Some call it pre-regenerating grace. We see it is Scripture in things like God drawing unbelievers towards Christ or convicting the world of its sin or opening unbelievers’ hearts to the gospel, none of which irrresitibly causes them to believe, but enables them to believe.
Unfortunately, I also disagree with your # 3, as much I would like to agree. Although regeneration first is the standard Calvinist position, some Calvinists agree that faith comes first as the OP stated and as is so clear in Scripture. The real issue behind it is probably whether God’s grace is resistible or not. calvinsust could accept that faith precedes regeneration, but then hold that God irresistibly causes faith in those he really wants to save.
Jim,
You miss the point yet again. If you can make a good decision to obey the gospel command, then why can you not obey all lesser commands? Your view is inconsistent and why pelagianism was rejected. It undermines the gospel because it says that man can in fact be pleasing to God apart from being in a salvific relationship with God already. God must initiate the relationship through His grace, or no man can exercise faith, since that is an act that pleases God. You are positing that man can please God on his own accord, in his own strength and power, so why is man a slave to sin? and how is he a slave to sin if he can choose something that evidences freedom from sin? The point of Romans is that we are all the fool, both Jew and Gentile. No one, therefore, is good, no not one. None can come to Christ. None can exercise faith and please God in that way. This is the whole point of Rom 1-3.
“1. Somewhere, someone re-defined the work of God in regeneration saying that regeneration was a work of God to change a man to enable him to believe, rather than the work of God to save a man.”
Yeah, Ezekiel and Jeremiah changed it (Ezek 11:17-20; Jer 24:7).
“Regeneration occurs when God sends the Spirit of His Son Jesus Christ into our hearts, giving us eternal life, thus regenerating and saving us.”
Who disagrees?
2. “If there is no regeneration prior to the giving of the Spirit in Acts 2, then many Reformed assumptions are in error– there is no “bondage of the will” (it is a man made tradition); there is no “Total Inability”, rather there is ‘defilement from sin’ and other issues that man cannot save himself from.”
Too bad the assumption is false, Dear Pelagius. Isa 66:1-2 indicates that all who tremble at God’s Word (something I believe obviously given by God) are indwelt by the Spirit of God as His temple.
Hodge,
The substance of your comments on John 1:12-13 have been addressed in prior discussion, so I won’t address them again right now. I think you are missing key points that have been stated and undo the view you are presenting.
I haven’t seen the discussion. If you can point it out to me, I’d be much obliged. I seriously doubt it undoes it, however, since it is a recurring theme within the Gospel of John. Only when taken out of context could one regard it as otherwise; but I’m willing to look at your arguments.
Hodge said: “The point we are making is that no none pleases God without faith, so their lives are not pleasing to Him and they do not and would not seek Him before that without His work in their lives for them to do so.”
But don’t Calvinists regularly cite Rom 3:11 as proof that regeneration precedes faith? No one seeks for God. The explanation you give is basically the Arminian view, that God enables people to seek him. The text as Paul uses it seems to mean that no one seeks for God on his own. You say it is not an enabling grace, but it certainly enables people to seek for God. And your explanation removes that as a proof text for the Calvinist view, which is a very common one. describing it as you do does not rescue it from being enabling, nor does it provide for any logical connection between where God brings people in seeking him and their reception of the gospel, since regeneration itself is sufficient for causing someone to believe the gospel.
Hodge,
1. If you had followed this discussion from the beginning you would have seen the interaction relating to the new birth and Ezekiel 11:19 is a prophecy of a work that God will do in the future. “I will (future) put a new spirit within you, I will take the stony heart out of their flesh and give them a heart fo flesh”.
OT believers who were speaking for God were directly prompted by the Spirit of God, who often came upon them, and on a rare occassion was said to be in them. But I would ask you, What is the “new Spirit” that Ezekiel’s prophecy is referring to?
2. When did Jesus Christ begin to dwell in men’s hearts? Doesn’t the Bible say that Jesus Christ dwells in our hearts THROUGH FAITH -Eph. 3:17? And, don’t we receive the promise of the Holy Spirit THROUGH FAITH- Gal 3:14?
Didn’t men have faith in the gospels? God had not sent the Spirit of His Son into their hearts yet.
Men can believe before they are saved by receiving the Spirit in…
“But don’t Calvinists regularly cite Rom 3:11 as proof that regeneration precedes faith? No one seeks for God. The explanation you give is basically the Arminian view, that God enables people to seek him.”
I can’t speak for the Calvinists that you have encountered, but this is a text cited to display TD, and therefore, the ultimate need for regeneration in making a faith decision, not whether God can work in a person’s life so that they ask questions about God, or end up at a church service, or read the Bible, etc. I see them on a divine hook, not as being “repaired” in some way so that they choose to seek God on their own accord. In other words, no one seeks God. God causes one to seek Him, even though on their part it is still a God-dishonoring seeking of the self (they’re usually looking to fulfill themselves in some way since God has made known to them their lack of fulfillment, etc.). My point then is that God is working with them to seek Him, not enabling them to do so.
Jim,
Your confusing the points I’m addressing. Your point 1. was that regeneration was redefined to mean that God enabled men to believe/obey Him. My point to you is that is what Ezekiel describes. My point had nothing to do with whether OT believers were regenerated.
“Didn’t men have faith in the gospels? God had not sent the Spirit of His Son into their hearts yet.”
Your confusing indwelling with the Spirit’s work, and you’re also positing that the special sending of the Spirit for the work of ecclesiastical ministry was the first coming of the Spirit into men. Where does it say this? The sending of the Spirit has the idea that it is being done for the purpose of a specific work. What is new is the covenant to which the Spirit will now oversee in men’s lives, not His indwelling and regeneration.
What you are essentially doing is arguing against the text that states that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. You think He has a point in time, i.e., post-pentacost, when His Spirit indwells people. I think He regenerates and indwells all believers of all time based on the work of Christ that is not bound by time. So you seem to be confusing the reception of the Spirit for special purposes with the larger work of the Spirit in the…
“When did Jesus Christ begin to dwell in men’s hearts? Doesn’t the Bible say that Jesus Christ dwells in our hearts THROUGH FAITH -Eph. 3:17? And, don’t we receive the promise of the Holy Spirit THROUGH FAITH- Gal 3:14?”
Yes, through faith. What was faith’s object in the OT according to the NT? Christ and the gospel. Hence, those who believed Moses would continue to believe Christ because it is the same faith with the same object, even if not understood as fully or in the same way. Notice also that it is “through” faith, not after faith.
I do have a question for Arminian, however. I want to know how you would address Jim’s semi to full blown Pelagianism. If apart from faith no one can please God, as the Scripture says, and grace is simply another word for favor, in this case God’s favor, how can God have favor upon someone before he has faith? How can grace precede faith chronologically, as prevenient grace requires? Or does it require it? It would seem, according to what you have said, that it explains why men pursue God long before they have faith, so is this not a conundrum for your position?
Hodge,
It isn’t appropriate to lift a verse out of its context and apply any interpretation to it that you desire. The passage in Ez.11:17-20 says that God will gather the children of Israel from the lands that they had been scattered . (Had that happened before this prophecy? No.) “They shall come thither…and I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; I will take the stony heart…” God is giving a prophecy of something that he will do in the future to those who come thither.
Do you deny…
That the Day of Pentecost was the beginning of the church, the Body of Christ? And at that point every believer, from that time forward, becomes a priest under the New Covenant. That Jesus is High Priest under the New Covenant, and He baptizes believers into His Body. That Jesus baptizes men with the Holy Spirit. And on that day Paul preached, “Repent and you will receive the promise of the Holy Spirit”. On that day Jesus Christ began indwelling men.
Hodge,
I don’t believe you have answered my questions in comment # 12 on this page. If you have, would you tell me in what comment they are because I have missed them if they are there.
And regarding your Gal 3:14 argument. No it doesn’t say we receive the Spirit after faith. It does say “through faith”.
But my question is, how in the world can any one receive something through anything that isn’t there prior to us receving something through it?? If I receive a letter through the mail, an entitiy known as “the mail” has to be there before I can receive the letter. If I get the flu through contact with Jane Doe, Jane Doe had to be spreading the flu virus first for me to get it, etc, etc. They can not logically happen simultaneously. Pretty much instantaneously, yes. But simultanesously, no. The thing that something came “through” has to be in place before anything can be received “through” it.
Yes, Cherylu , it is well recognized by theologians of all stripes that if something is through/by means of something else, then it is logically consequent to it. I.e., the end is logically preceded by the means through which it is accomplished.
Arminian,
BTW, thank you for answering my question earlier and clarifying what you meant. I appreciate that.
Cheryl,
You’re still thinking in chronological terms. I receive a taste of sugar through my eating the doughnut. Which chronologically comes first in your mind?
Jim,
Sigh. I can fully acknowledge that the prophecy of Ezekiel points to the future. Again, that’s not my point. My point is that the Ezekiel text presents God having to give His people a heart of flesh after removing the stony heart SO THAT they can obey what He commands.
Now, I can argue that God promises this because it His normal mode of saving His people, and has been throughout the OT; but this is not my point. My point in quoting this passage is in addressing your number 1., not your number 2. So it has nothing to do with OT saints and everything to do with the nature of regeneration. God gathers His people, causes them to put away their idols, gives them a new spirit and a heart of flesh rather than stone SO THAT they can obey what He commands.
“Do you deny…
That the Day of Pentecost was the beginning of the church, the Body of Christ? And at that point every believer, from that time forward, becomes a priest under the New Covenant. That Jesus is High Priest under the New Covenant, and He baptizes believers into His Body. That Jesus baptizes men with the Holy Spirit. And on that day Paul preached, “Repent and you will receive the promise of the Holy Spirit”. ”
No, I deny the non sequitur at the end. There is nothing here that evidences the indwelling of the Spirit as exclusive to NT believers.
Hodge,
Of course I am still thinking in chronological terms as I believe the text speaks of chronology. BTW, did you notice Ariminian’s comment about theologians of all stripes recognizing the means for something having to precede the consequent? That is exactly what I am saying.
“I receive a taste of sugar through my eating the doughnut. Which chronologically comes first in your mind?”
I know you are trying to get me to say they happen at the same time. However eating is a process, it is not an instantaneous event like you say all of the elements of salvation are including regeneration and faith. And in the case of eating the donut, the eating has to have at least started before you are going to receive the taste of sugar. The bite of donut has to be put in your mouth before your taste buds can recognize the sweet taste. So, unless my logic is way off here, the eating still comes first, does it not? If I am wrong, please show me where.
Hodge said: If apart from faith no one can please God, as the Scripture says, and grace is simply another word for favor, in this case God’s favor, how can God have favor upon someone before he has faith? How can grace precede faith chronologically, as prevenient grace requires? Or does it require it? It would seem, according to what you have said, that it explains why men pursue God long before they have faith, so is this not a conundrum for your position?”
Prevenient grace does precede faith chronologically. But this is not a concuncdrum for my position, for my position holds that the grace of regeneration, justification, salvation, etc. comes by faith and so is preceded by faith. Since, as you point out, grace refers to God’s favor (and I would add, unmerited), then there is no problem in recognizing different operations of God’s grace. Prevenient grace is aid God gives us to seek him and believe in him, made necerssary by total depravity. See next post for more . . .