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?"
Continuing: But the grace of regeneration is a different specific expression of favor, the grace of granting the believer spiritual life. And the grace of justification is still another specific expression of God’s favor, also iven to the believer. As we consider the specific cases of regeneration and justification, we find that Scripture teaches that they are received by faith.
Finally, your question of how God could have favor on someone before faith seems odd. Grace is unmerited favor. Now faith is non-meritorious and so does not earn God’s favor. So it is grace when God gives a free gift in response to faith. However, since grace is unmerited favor, faith does not have to be present in a person for God to give him grace. The Calvinist version of common grace would agree. But Scripture makes clear that God gives the grace of regeneration, justification, salvation, etc. to those who believe (i.e. by faith).
Cherylu said: “did you notice Ariminian’s comment about theologians of all stripes recognizing the means for something having to precede the consequent?”
Yes, indeed it’s true. But remember, that specifically regards logical priority at the least. But logical priority is really the issue. Perhaps I should add that it can be the case that there is no logical priority between means and end, but this is very rare and does not apply in this situation, and that is, the only time there is no distinction in logical priority between means and end is when they are one and the same. In this case, it would be so if believing and regeneration were the same thing. But that is clearly not the case. One is logically prior to the other, leading to the other. And it is faith that logically precedesw regeneration according to John 1:12-13 and a whole host of other passages including but not limited to the many say that spiritual life comes by faith.
Cherylu said: “So, unless my logic is way off here, the eating still comes first, does it not?”
Yes indeed, you are right, it does, at least logically. One may get the taste of sugar at the same time one is eating, but it is the eating (or more technically biting/chewing, which is really what is meant by “eating” in this case) that logically leads to the tasting. But do you see Cherylu how someone would say these occur at roughly the same time, though technically the eating starts chronologically incredibly slightly before the tasting. So we can say they happen roughly concurrently. But the important thing in terms of priority is logical priority. Which leads to the other? The means leads to the end. “By” or “through” faith always means faith logically precedes that which is by it. Justification by faith is a classic example.
Hodge,
Concerning Ez. 11:17-20: Do you perfectly obey what God commands, now that you have been regenerated? In contrast, do you believe that God will make it so that we will never sin again some day? What will the difference be? What about us still gives us the propensity to sin? What will be changed about us? I personally think that my heart is still deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. I’m inclined to think that I still have a new heart coming. Perhaps before the millennium, when the enemy is in the pit, (which would happen to be the time when the children of Israel are to be raised from the dead and drawn from all over the world to their promised land). I still contend that this passage was looking forward to something new that God would do, not teaching about something that God had been doing since Abel.
Which side of “man exercising the faith which he received in regeneration” do you place receiving the Holy Spirit on? Do you believe God gives the indwelling of the Spirit to regenerate and enable the expression of faith, or, is the Holy Spirit given after faith has been placed into Jesus Christ?
Calvin said, (pg.4 #23)
“Could you quote one Calvinist, current or historical, that actually says that man is “saved by regeneration”?
I prefer the Scriptures myself. “We shall be saved by His life” (Rom. 5:10); “He saved us by the washing of regeneration” (Titus 3:5); “Made alive with Jesus Christ (regeneration), by grace you have been saved (Eph. 2:5)
Hodge said, (pg. 4:#48)
“There is nothing here that evidences the indwelling of the Spirit as exclusive to NT believers.”
Then what did Jesus and John mean in this passage: “He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, ‘From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water’” But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive: for the Sprit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (John 7:38-39)
Paul preached, “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)
Arminian,
I do see what you mean.
But back to Hodge’s point that they come instantaneoulsy. Even if they do come instantaeously (or almost instantaneously), that certainly gives no grounds whatsoever to turn around in the next breath and say that “logically” regeneration has to come first. Not in light of all the Scriputure evidence that it is faith that comes first–logically. It seems to me he has some verses that could be interpreted that way while there are others that say the complete opposite in a way that can’t be ignored. It seems that a good share of the assertion Calvinists make about this comes from their interpretation of what it means to be “spiritually dead” and how that has to be dealt with to be overcome before anything else can take place.
Yes, Cherylu, I very much agree. But I want to calrify that when you say that Hodge has some verses that could be interpreted his way , it is that he has some verses that could be interpreted his way or the Arminian way. I.e., they could reasonably be taken to go along with either view. But then there are many that completely support the Arminian view (faith logically precedes regeneration) and contradict the Calvinist view (regeneration logically precedes faith).
Hodge said: “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.”
I will have to aswer in the next postfor space reasons . . .
But if not seeking God displays total depravity, which includes the inability to believe in Christ on own one’s own, and the need for regeneration, then seeking God would seem to show people doing what total depravity prevents them from doing. The fact that people do seek God before being regenerated shows that regeneration is not needed for people to do that which total depravity prevents them from doing on their own, but only God’s grace/aid. Your response really seems to be just playing around with the wording in such a way that tries to make it sound like it is compatible with your theology even though it isn’t (not that you are trying to be deceptive or anything like that). Many unregenerate people do seek for God. Saying that this is God working with them to seek him but not enabling them to do so does not seem to make sense. If they seek God, then they are able to seek him.
See continuation in the next post . . .
Continuing last post:
But if they can’t seek him on their own, which Arminians and Calvinists agree on, then they can seek him with God’s aid. But since regeneration has not taken place yet, the Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace explains this quite nicely whereas the Calvinist doctrine that regeneration is necessary for people to seek for God has no real explanation. In the Arminian view, people can’t seek God on their own, but they can do so with his help. Neither can they believe on their own, but they can do so with God’s help. he is powerfully enough to enable unbelievers to believe the gospel.
Jim,
Again, you’re confusing the sending and indwelling of the Spirit with regeneration. Christ tells the disciples that they are already clean, yet the Spirit has not yet been given at Pentacost. We are told that Christ makes us clean. How are the disciples clean then? Because they are still washed by the Spirit. They have the Spirit. They just don’t have the Spirit doing the work that He will do in the church yet. This explains why He indwells believers in the OT, NT (pre-pentacost), and rest of the age of the church.
Arminian,
I think we have different definitions of seeking. I also think that your claim before that common grace doesn’t explain it, and your claim now that your view is like common grace, doesn’t accord. I believe people seek God, i.e., move toward a position of receiving Christ, not because they are God-seekers, but because they are being moved by God Himself. I don’t believe regeneration is the first work of God in a person’s life toward His…
salvation. I believe that it begins with God’s election and continues through the course of world and his individual life. This is God working, not the human individual. The individual himself is only seeking himself, not God. As such, Paul is talking about what humans do on their own. He is referring to the fact that left to ourselves, no one seeks God. This is the state of TD, and why God must do the work that causes one to seek Him. The assumption that many people seek God, however you are defining that, may not accord with what I mean by that. So regeneration is needed for the individual to actually seek God in salvation, rather than himself. To explain it another way. God is seeking Himself through the individual before regeneration, and man is seeking himself before regeneration; but it looks like man is seeking God (and that is what he is doing from the divine purpose, even if different from the human). It is not until regeneration that the human purposes to seek God as well.
Arminian,
“But if they can’t seek him on their own, which Arminians and Calvinists agree on, then they can seek him with God’s aid. But since regeneration has not taken place yet, the Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace explains this quite nicely whereas the Calvinist doctrine that regeneration is necessary for people to seek for God has no real explanation. In the Arminian view, people can’t seek God on their own, but they can do so with his help”
Can you establish this belief with the Scriptures? I understand Paul to say that God created men to seek Him (Acts 17:27 and context).
Do Paul’s declarations fit into your theology: “For by faith we have our access into this grace in which we stand” (Rom. 5:2) Also, Paul seems to indicate that a man is either under the Law, or under grace (Rom. 6:13). How was a man set free from jurisdiction of the Law (Rom. 7:1-6) prior to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ?
So to sum up, I think you are seeing this as God helping man to seek Him. However, I am saying that God is moving the man toward him, not helping him to seek Him. His purposes are warped and don’t just need help, but total renewal.
“prevenient grace explains this nicely”
Well, so does Pelagianism that sees man not being able to seek God as a matter of revelatory ignorance, but since revelation is given, enables him to know and seek God; but that’s an extrabiblical idea. We need to go with what the Bible says, not what explains something nicely.
I can equally say that God always has grace toward His elect, but the favor of a salvific relationship is not granted until He gifts faith to the individual.
But I want to discuss this idea that grace is unmerited favor, given as a reward to faith, and faith does not merit it. This is playing with words. A reward of faith is merited. That’s what a reward is. One gets X if he does Y. If he does not do Y, he does not get X. So Y…
Unless we say with Eph 2:8-9 that all of it, grace, faith, and salvation, is a gift from God and not produced from ourselves, we are going to end up with grace as merited. But my point wasn’t whether different modes of grace might come before or after salvation. My point was that “seeking God” by a prevenient grace that helps the man to do so (in other words, he is responding faithfully to it) is pleasing to God. Yet, the Bible says that apart from faith no man can please God. How, then, can man do what is pleasing to God before he has faith? The Calvinist system has this as solely a work of God that man is not doing. Arminian theology has man as doing this with the help of God, but he is still doing it. This, to me, seems very problematic for your position.
Jim,
I’m going to try this Ezekiel thing one more time. The text has nothing to do with perfectly obeying God. The sole point I am making is that God must regenerate the individual SO THAT he or she is able to obey His commands. It’s not talking about perfection. It’s talking about the need to be remade in order to obey what is commanded. It gives us a definition of regeneration which you previously claimed was redefined. It wasn’t redefined by us. We’re getting our definitions from texts like this one.
Cheryl,
My point is that tasting the sugar in a doughnut is not a different event than eating the doughnut. It’s the same event. You are eating the doughnut. Not bringing it to your mouth. You are biting down on it and tasting it and swallowing it. The sugar is tasted through it all. Likewise, grace is tasted through it all. It is in faith, by faith, through faith, with faith, etc. I don’t believe that Paul is giving the order of salvation here, but is talking about how one is saved. That’s why in some places it says we are saved BY faith and others that we are saved BY grace and still others that we are saved BY Christ’s death. Which is the means to our salvation? All of it. I think Paul is saying that grace is not through being a Jew, but through faith. That’s it. Nothing more. We extrapolate to our own destruction. This is a metaphysical event that we want explained to us through our experience of that event, and that is a dangerous road to take. The question should instead…
be, “Why does God have to gift us grace, faith, and salvation that is not produced in any way by us, if we can just believe on our own?” Does it correspond to what he just said about our being dead in sin? Does that mean that God must graciously make us alive through faith?
BTW, the preposition “through” is still being thought of in chronological terms. If I receive a package through the mail, the mail is the means through which I received it; but the means through which I received it is made known to me when I received it. Or if I say, I ended the bug’s life through my squashing it. The two are simultaneous, even though one logically is accomplished in the other. I believe the gift of faith is a gracious act. So it is through the giving of faith that we are receiving grace. It’s not two events, one bringing about the other, but the same one.
Hodge,
Does regeneration=salvation in your understanding? Or is regeneration the agent that brings an instantaneous change in a man which instantaneously brings forth faith and the corresponding act of calling upon the name of the Lord? Or is salvation is subsequent to regeneration?
In your understanding, when the Bible says that ‘a natural man cannot perceive the things of God,’ can he “hear” or “understand” the gospel? Or does he need to be given “ears to hear” by God’s act of regeneration before he can perceive and hear the gospel?
BTW, you missed these questions about the Spirit:
Which side of “a man exercising the faith which he received in regeneration” do you place receiving the Holy Spirit on? Do you believe God gives the indwelling of the Spirit to regenerate and enable the expression of faith, or, is the Holy Spirit given after faith has been placed into Jesus Christ?
Jim,
The giving of the Spirit for the purpose of sanctification is upon or following faith. I do not confuse the giving of the Spirit for sanctification with the work of the Spirit in regeneration.
Regeneration is the beginning of salvation. It comes at the moment of faith. It is gifted through it. By that, I mean to say that an individual is made alive by the gracious giving of faith all at one moment. So . . .
The natural man can “hear” and “understand” the gospel, but he cannot obey it. He rejects it on his own. God must enliven him upon the hearing of the gospel, and through it, gifts him faith in the regeneration of his self in Christ.
“The natural man can “hear” and “understand” the gospel, but he cannot obey it. He rejects it on his own. God must enliven him upon the hearing of the gospel, and through it, gifts him faith in the regeneration of his self in Christ.”
AMEN!!!
“Regeneration is the beginning of salvation. It comes at the moment of faith. It is gifted through it. By that, I mean to say that an individual is made alive by the gracious giving of faith all at one moment. So . . .”
Excuse my need for further clarification. The first “it” in the second sentence refers to salvation?
If I was to divide a “second” (1/60th of a minute) into a billion bits, Are you saying that God is placing regeneration and faith and salvation in the very same ‘bit’ of time? So in the first bit of the second, the individual is unregenerate, but in the 2nd bit he is a regenerated/saved individual?
Is this the norm and are there any exceptions to this “rule”?
Jim,
“it” refers to regeneration. In other words, regeneration is a part of the same act as the gifting of faith. God pulls the individual to Himself through the preaching of the Word. This is the moment of regeneration, faith, grace, and salvation. I don’t divide it chronologically, even in bits, so I’m not going to force upon the Bible what it does not intend to say. It only intends to say that all of this is done by God, and apart from it, we are left dead in our sins.
Why would there be exceptions? This is what needs to happen. Otherwise, in your system, we have man meriting salvation through his obedience to the gospel command. He has obeyed and pleased God in his act of faith. God has granted him a gift in return. So please tell us how your faith is still “not of yourself.”
Hodge,
I have always been told the following: that the unregenerate cannot perceive the things of God, or hear. He needs to become a spiritual man through the new birth before he can perceive any spiritual things, and he needs to be given “ears to hear” before he will even hear the gospel. And the unregenerate will not have any spiritual desires until he is given a new heart. And all the things in Rom. 3- none who understands, none who seeks God, none who does good, no fear of God before their eyes.
Would you clarify for me all of the things that the unregenerate man cannot or will not do, according to your understanding?
It depends upon what you mean by “perceive” and “hear.” Obviously, the unregenerate man can hear and understand the gospel. He does not obey it. He does not perceive the truthfulness AND absolute desirability of the gospel. He sees it either as offensive, silly, or something that is not as desirable as a different route to pursue. Unregenerate man has plenty of spiritual desires. He doesn’t have any correct spiritual desires that would lead him to glorify God in the truth in terms of those desires that belong to him. So no one understands the value of God’s rule in his life, no one seeks God’s rule in his life, none does good, no fear of God is before their eyes, all are murderers and exalt the self. So what can the unregenerate man do? Damn himself. That is all.
You still haven’t answered my question, Jim. Why must God gift a faith to us that is not of us if we are capable of exercising faith on our own?
(Already discussed on page 2…)
Actually, the Bible states,
“By grace we have been saved, through faith, it is the gift of God…” Grammatically the Greek does not make faith the gift. Wayne Grudem states, “The word translated “this” is the neuter pronoun touto, which refers not to “faith” or to “grace” specifically in the previous clause (for they are both feminine nouns in Greek, and would require feminine pronouns), but to the entire idea expressed in the preceding phrase, the idea that you have been saved through faith” (Grudem’s Systematic pg 730).
But the Bible specifically calls eternal life a gift (Rom. 6:23); the Holy Spirit a gift (Acts 2:38; 10:45), and perhaps Jesus Christ a gift (Jn 3:16). Now, back to the context of Eph. 2:8. Paul just previously proclaimed that a person who had been made alive with Jesus Christ had been saved (Eph. 2:5-“made alive with Jesus Christ, by grace YOU HAVE BEEN SAVED).
God’s Gift= Jesus Christ=Holy Spirit= Eternal Life= Salvation
Jesus Christ coming to live in the heart of a man gives him eternal life, and both saves and regenerates a man. Faith precedes Jesus dwelling in a man’s heart (Eph. 3:17), faith precedes eternal life, and faith precedes salvation (Rom. 10:13; Acts 16:31). We are saved through faith. Faith is not the gift given to us by God.
Do you have another passage that teaches “faith is a gift”?
H said: “I also think that your claim before that common grace doesn’t explain it, and your claim now that your view is like common grace, doesn’t accord.”
I don’t think I said my view was like common grace. But in any case, if I did that would accord because I think I mentioned the *Calvinist* view of common grace, which inherently cannot bring people to seek God, since the Calvinist view is that people must be regenerated first.
H said: “I believe people seek God . . . not because they are God-seekers, but because they are being moved by God Himself. . . The individual himself is only seeking himself, not God. . . . The assumption that many people seek God, however you are defining that, may not accord with what I mean by that. So regeneration is needed for the individual to actually seek God in salvation, rather than himself. To explain it another way. God is seeking Himself through the individual before regeneration, and man is seeking himself before regeneration; but it looks like man is seeking God (and that is what he is doing from the divine purpose, even if different from the human). It is not until regeneration that the human purposes to seek God as well.”
Again you seem to be playing with words and essentially speaking contradictorily. You practically say that people seek God before regeneration, but they don’t really. And then, incredibly, you characterize it as God really seeking *himself* cont.
Continuing last post:
And then, incredibly, you characterize it as God really seeking *himself* through the unregenerate and imply that the unregenerate are not really seeking God but themselves. It appears like linguistic gymnastics to try and get around the obvious problem this is for your theology.
H said: “Paul is talking about what humans do on their own. He is referring to the fact that left to ourselves, no one seeks God.”
This is the Arminian position as well. That is why when God’s grace is necessary to enable the unregenerate person to seek God and believe, to which God responds by regenerating / making him his child.
H said: So to sum up, I think you are seeing this as God helping man to seek Him. However, I am saying that God is moving the man toward him, not helping him to seek Him. His purposes are warped and don’t just need help, but total renewal.”
You just don’t have any Scripture to back you up though, whereas I have plenty of Scripture attesting to God giving us his Spirit by faith, giving us spiritual life/regeneration by faith, making us his children by faith, etc., etc. Any passages indicating we can’t initiate with God support prevenient grace just as readily as the need for regeneration. Moreover, God is powerful enough to aid someone to believe without totally renewing them.
I said: “prevenient grace explains this nicely”
H said: “We need to go with what the Bible says, not what explains something nicely.”
What I was saying was what the Bible teaches. The fact that it explains the issue nicely is in this case due to it being what the Bible teaches. Nice try, though, to brush off the fact that Arminianism’s explanation fits nicely with what the Bible says (whereas Calvinism’s explanation does not).
H said: But I want to discuss this idea that grace is unmerited favor, given as a reward to faith, and faith does not merit it. This is playing with words. A reward of faith is merited. That’s what a reward is. One gets X if he does Y. If he does not do Y, he does not get X. So Y…
Well, I did not use the word reward, you did. However, Scripture does use it at times, so that’s ok. But when speaking of reward for God’s salvation in response to faith, it speaks of unmerited reward. That is very clear from Scripture. Faith is not meritorious because it does not earn anything. As Rom 4:4-5 says, “Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.” See next post for continuation . . .
Continuing: Or as we are told in Heb 11:6, “And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.” God clearly rewards those who seek him. Are you seriously suggesting that this means we merit God’s favor by seeking him? That would clearly be unbiblical. This speaks of unmerited reward, reward that is unmerited because it is granted for free in response to faith, which receives a free gift, rather than works. It is ironic that you charge me with playing word games here. Do you mean to tell us that receiving a free gift is really meriting it? That runs contrary to any normal use of language.
H said: “Unless we say with Eph 2:8-9 that all of it, grace, faith, and salvation, is a gift from God and not produced from ourselves, we are going to end up with grace as merited.”
Well, that is an improper use of Eph 2:8-9 according to its Greek grammar (since Dan Wallace is connected to this site, see his Greek grammar on the passage) but that doesn’t matter since I and most Arminians view faith as a gift, but like most gifts, not an irresistible one, not one we have no choice about. It is a gift in that God enables us to believe. That doesn’t make grace merited any more than accepting a gift from a friend merits that free gift.
H said: “But my point wasn’t whether different modes of grace might come before or after salvation. My point was that “seeking God” by a prevenient grace that helps the man to do so (in other words, he is responding faithfully to it) is pleasing to God. Yet, the Bible says that apart from faith no man can please God. How, then, can man do what is pleasing to God before he has faith?”
But seeking God when still unbelieving is not fully pleasing to God in the sense spoken of in the passage you allude to. Where does Scripture say that it is? Are you claiming that “good” things that unbelievers do are fully pleasing to God? This line of argumentation presents quite a problem for your own position.
H said: “The Calvinist system has this as solely a work of God that man is not doing. Arminian theology has man as doing this with the help of God, but he is still doing it. This, to me, seems very problematic for your position.”
I don’t think so at all. Rather, I think it shows up the falsehood of your position. It engages you in denying what is obviously true. You claim that that many things that unbelievers do they don’t do.
H said: “BTW, the preposition “through” is still being thought of in chronological terms. If I receive a package through the mail, the mail is the means through which I received it; but the means through which I received it is made known to me when I received it.”
You really shoot yourself in the foot with this argument and the following one. Your own argument refutes your position, though I have maintained that it is an issue of logical order not chronological (though pointing out that there is probably a technical, negligible chronological order involved). The sending of something in the mail precedes its reception. It doesn’t matter when you are award of it. The means still logically precedes the end. And this example illustrates that.
H said: Or if I say, I ended the bug’s life through my squashing it. The two are simultaneous, even though one logically is accomplished in the other.”
But the logical order is what is important, as I have maintained, and I believe Cherylu has come to see. And the means logically precedes the end. Your squashing of the bug logically precedes the end of its life. The squashing is what leads to death. They do happen roughly concurrently (though technically, the squashing begins chronologically slightly before the dying), but the means leads to the end. Salvation, justification, spiritual life are all through faith, which means that faith logically precedes them and leads to them.
( Hodge, Already discussed on page 2…)
Actually, the Bible states, “By grace we have been saved, THROUGH FAITH, it is the gift of God…” Grammatically the Greek does not make faith the gift. Wayne Grudem states, “The word translated “this” is the neuter pronoun touto, which refers not to “faith” or to “grace” specifically in the previous clause (for they are both feminine nouns in Greek, and would require feminine pronouns), but to the entire idea expressed in the preceding phrase, the idea that you have been saved through faith” (Grudem’s Systematic pg 730).
But the Bible specifically calls eternal life a gift (Rom. 6:23); the Holy Spirit a gift (Acts 2:38; 10:45), and perhaps Jesus Christ a gift (Jn 3:16). Now, back to the context of Eph. 2:8. Paul just previously proclaimed that a person who had been made alive with Jesus Christ had been saved (Eph. 2:5-“made alive with Jesus Christ, by grace YOU HAVE BEEN SAVED)!
God’s Gift= Jesus Christ=Holy Spirit= Eternal Life= Salvation
Jesus Christ coming to live in the heart of a man gives him eternal life, and both saves and regenerates a man. Faith precedes Jesus dwelling in a man’s heart (Eph. 3:17), faith precedes eternal life, and faith precedes salvation (Rom. 10:13; Acts 16:31). We are saved through faith. Faith is not the gift given to us by God.
Do you have another passage that teaches “faith is a gift”?
Hodge,
Look carefully at Paul’s declaration in Eph. 2:5
“Made alive with Jesus Christ, by grace YOU HAVE BEEN SAVED.”
Note this is past tense. WE HAVE BEEN SAVED when we have been made alive with Jesus Christ. Reformed proponents say “made alive with Christ” = regeneration. And as you said, regeneration and salvation are simultaneous occurances.
Fortunately, Paul tells us specifically what comes prior to being made alive with Jesus Christ/regenerated/saved. “Whosoever will call upon the name of the Lord SHALL BE SAVED” (Rom. 10:13). Calling upon the name of the Lord precedes being saved/regenerated/made alive with Jesus Christ!!! And believing precedes calling upon the Lord: “How shall they call upon Him whom they have not believed?” Therefore, Biblically a man is believing and calling upon the name of the Lord before they are regenerated!
Outside of doctrinal presuppositions, do you have a biblical basis for placing regeneration prior to faith?
Jim and Hodge have been debating a passage in Ezekiel. I agree with Hodge that it promises regeneration. However, this and other texts like it are very problematic for the Calvinist position and support the Arminian position that faith precedes regeneration as the means by which it comes in that it receives God’s free gift of regeneration. For The Old Testament promise of regeneration in such OT texts is for the New Covenant community. And one only becomes a member of the New Covenant, and therefore enjoys its promises and blessing, by faith! The OT promises regeneration to those in the New Covenant. But one only enters the New Covenant by faith. Therefore, one receives regeneration by faith.
I have long found Calvinist appeal to these types of passages strange. They actually undermine the Calvinist position and bolster the Arminian one, not least the one that stands behind Jesus’ discussion of new birth in John 3.
“God clearly rewards those who seek him. Are you seriously suggesting that this means we merit God’s favor by seeking him? That would clearly be unbiblical. ”
Yes, it would, which is why the faith must be unmerited as well. It must be gifted instead of something we produce. If it isn’t then we set up a contradiction in the Bible. We gain X when we have Y. X is not merited. Therefore, Y must not be something we perform to get X. Otherwise, X is merited by Y, since not all are given Y, but only those who have X.
“It appears like linguistic gymnastics to try and get around the obvious problem this is for your theology.”
No, I think you just don’t understand my theology. That’s OK, but let me explain it by asking this: Did Joseph’s brothers work toward bringing about the deliverance of Egypt/Israel in their throwing him into a pit? Yes, they did. Did they purpose to do that? No, they did not. It was God working through them that did it, yet they were doing it.
So I’m trying to make a biblical distinction here. Men seek God in the sense that their thoughts and actions lead to their moment of faith/regeneration/entrance into salvation; but they do not purpose to seek God. It is God who is doing it. So there is a distinction between what men are doing and what men are purposing to do. I think the Romans text is talking about what men do in and of themselves. They do not seek God (purposely). So perhaps we should use the terminology that God leads them to Himself more than they are seeking him because that seems confusing to you.
“The sending of something in the mail precedes its reception.”
Yes, that was a bad example. I’m the king of bad analogies, so I was thinking more of grace and faith as coming from God and my receiving it in a moment; but we can lose that analogy. 😉
“Well, that is an improper use of Eph 2:8-9 according to its Greek grammar (since Dan Wallace is connected to this site, see his Greek grammar on the passage) but that doesn’t matter since I and most Arminians view faith as a gift, but like most gifts, not an irresistible one, not one we have no choice about.”
I’m glad it doesn’t matter because both you and Jim are wrong here. I’m not saying that only faith is the antecedent of touto. My point is that it is neuter and the neuter, when not having a specific antecedent, refers back to the entire phrase. So the whole point I am making is that ALL of it is the gift: the grace, the faith, and the salvation we are given. None of it is from ourselves. Grace is a gift. Faith is a gift. Salvation is a gift. And it’s all the one gift, in the one package, as I’ve been arguing. Both Grudem and Dan verify this as the best option, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about, unless you though I was saying pisteos is the sole antecedent.
Jim,
“Note this is past tense. WE HAVE BEEN SAVED when we have been made alive with Jesus Christ. Reformed proponents say “made alive with Christ” = regeneration. And as you said, regeneration and salvation are simultaneous occurances.”
Actually, it’s a present stative with a perfect passive participle, not a “past tense,” but it’s neither here nor there because you are still trying to get a chronological order out of bunch of statements that are not meant to be in chronological order. I believe salvation begins at the point of regeneration, not that they are simultaneous terms. I would hope my salvation continues on a lot longer than my regeneration. So yes, at what point to we receive salvation? At the point of faith/grace/regeneration. It’s all at once and to us, through the means of faith. We can’t see grace or regeneration, so Paul is giving us what we can see and do as that which describes the means of the rest. This doesn’t mean it comes first in the order.
“And one only becomes a member of the New Covenant, and therefore enjoys its promises and blessing, by faith! The OT promises regeneration to those in the New Covenant. But one only enters the New Covenant by faith. Therefore, one receives regeneration by faith.”
Except that according to the NT the OT saints also received salvation through faith. The text seems clear, and ironically, it actually does give us a logical order. God regenerates SO THAT His people are able to obey His commands. The person who posits a faith that does not have regeneration as its logical precedent is saying that the gospel command can be obeyed before regeneration is given. So the greatest command of all–the one that actually saves as opposed to any other command–the hardest one to obey–can be obeyed pre-regeneration. That’s not what I would take from this.
I’m getting busy with other things at the moment (I have to test out of a Theological German course next week and am in the middle of writing a book on inerrancy), so I’m going to have to bow out. Thanks for the discussion, Gentlemen.
Arminian (#42),
“The OT promises regeneration to those in the New Covenant.”
This is the key point. Regeneration is a NT work of God. There was no regeneration in the OT. This is the nail in the coffin for Reformed Theology. The false assumption of Reformed theologians is no man can have faith unless they have been regenerated. The Reformed theological system logically (not Biblically) is built upon this wrong assumption. The testimony of the Scriptures refutes this assumption. Hebrews 11, explicitly states, “Without faith it is impossible to please God”. NOT—“Without regeneration it is impossible to have faith to please God”. The Old Testament contrasts men of faith with fools. Fools say in their hearts there is no God. These fools will not have faith in God, and without faith they will not please God. Unregenerate men in Hebrews 11 did have faith, and through their faith they did please God. They did look forward to the promises that would be given in the New Covenant, and through faith they too would be saved/regenerated by Jesus Christ.
Jesus said, “Even so MUST the Son of Man be lifted up; that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life”. Eternal life is the life of the New Birth, given to us when the risen Lord Jesus Christ comes to dwell in our hearts to save us.
Hodge,
“God regenerates SO THAT His people are able to obey His commands” (#47).
This is a major contention of your doctrine. Can you actually support this statement from the Scriptures?
…
…
You also stated, “I believe salvation begins at the point of regeneration”, (post #46)
Do men need to call upon the name of the Lord before they are saved? Or does God save them so they will be enabled to call upon the name of the Lord? Tell me from your perspective, when was the Philippian jailor regenerated? Before or after he asks Paul, “Sirs what must I do to be saved?” Paul tells him to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Was he saved/regenerated before he asks his question, before he knows what to do—“believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved”? Or was he saved/regenerated after he called upon the name of the Lord?
IMO, you have to ignore the detail that God has given us in His Word to hold on to your view. And you also have to make many assumptions that are not taught in the Word of God.