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?"
H said: “If Paul wanted to refer to our being saved as a gift, he would have likely used the masc demonstr., and the means would have remained in tact.”
It is presumptious to think you know how Paul should have said what he wanted to say. The fact is that in various instances (even in which people agree on what Paul means) Paul could have communicated his meaning in a clearer that this or that reader thinks would be clearer. What we have to do is assess what he has actually said and the possible meanings of the constructions he uses.
“In this case, the concetpual referrant would lay greater stress on the concept of a grace by faith salvation, whereas the advernial sense would lay greater stress on the saving action of God and/or our state of salvation.”
Thanks Arminian. I don’t agree, of course, but appreciate you answering the question. I think the elements presented would lay stress on the former regardless of whether it was adverbial or conceptual as you have described it. That’s why interpreting a text in all of its context is so important.
“It is presumptious to think you know how Paul should have said what he wanted to say.”
Perhaps, but it’s a presumption based upon what is most common in Greek grammar as opposed to an odd construction that likely conveys something different than what he intended to much of his audience. If we commonly use English grammar a particular way and then one departs from it by using a less common construction, I would think the scholarly thing to do is to ask, Why?
In any case, it’s getting late, and I’ve stayed in this conversation too long, so we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. I’m really out this time. 🙂 Thanks again.
Hodge,
In light of John Calvin’s comments on Eph. 2:8, 9, (quoted on the previous page), why is it so important to you to claim that faith is the gift? Does the Bible teach this anywhere else?
Jesus said,
“I am the door, if any man enter in he shall be saved” (John 10:10)
“Preach the gospel, he that believeth shall be saved” (Mark 16:16).
“The devil steals the Word, lest they believe and be saved” (Luke 8:12).
Doesn’t Paul tell us,
“It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1Cor. 1:21). (Isn’t that chronology—God saves those who believe).
“The gospel is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes (Rom. 1:16). “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31).
Peter said,
“We obtain as the outcome of OUR FAITH the salvation of our souls” (1Peter 1:9).
HOW DOES THE BIBLE SAY WE ARE SAVED? “We shall be saved by His life” (Rom. 5:10). (“He who has the Son has the life” 1Jn. 5:12; “Christ is our life” Col. 3:4) “Made alive with Jesus Christ, by grace we have been saved” (Eph. 2:5). “He saved us by the washing of regeneration… (Titus 3:5).
John Calvin (from the quote on the preceding page– he didn’t make faith the gift)
“The next question is, in what way do men receive that salvation which is offered to them by the hand of God? The answer is, by faith; and hence he concludes that nothing connected with it is our own. If, on the part of God, it is grace alone, and if we bring nothing but faith, which strips us of all commendation, it follows that salvation does not come from us.”
John Piper stated, “And so when we hear the gospel we will never respond positively unless God performs the miracle of regeneration. Repentance and faith are our work, but we will not repent and believe unless God does His work to overcome our hard and rebellious hearts. This divine work is called regeneration. Our work is called conversion. (John Piper, Desiring God, pg. 49).
Wayne Grudem stated, in BOLD, “I must decide to depend upon Jesus to save me personally… In order to be saved I must decide to depend on Jesus to save me” (Grudem’s Systematic Theology pg. 710).
Did you note these phrases: “Repentance and faith are our work”… “Conversion is our work”… “I must decide to depend upon Jesus to save me personally”
Why are these kinds of phrases only OK coming from a Calvinist?
H said: “I don’t agree . . . I think the elements presented would lay stress on the former regardless of whether it was adverbial or conceptual as you have described it.”
Then it seems like you don’t agree becaue it is inconvenient for your theology rather than because of objective Greek grammar. It should be obvious that a conceptual referent would highlight the concept while an adverbial usage would highlight the verbal or state.
H said: “based upon what is most common in Greek grammar as opposed to an odd construction that likely conveys something different than what he intended to much of his audience”
That is begging the question about his audience’s understanding. It is not an odd construction, but a well recognized one, as its attestation by the grammars shows (yet more: Smyth’s grammar, sec. 1246; Robertson, pp. 704-05). But you questioned if it is even a legtimate one! For the conceptual referent option, Robertson says it is the concept of salvation.
Oh and elsewhere, in his Word Pictures, Robertson says that the conceptual option has the referent as “the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part,” pretty much exactly as I have explained it and you have objected to!
Let me restate that the conceptual referent option does not support a reference to every specific aspect of the preceding phrase, but to the concept described by the phrase as a whole, which is salvation by grace through faith, with salvation as the gift, grace as its basis, and faith as the means by which the gift/salvation is received. Moreover, Hodge has repeatedly said that if Paul wanted to modify the verb (you are saved) he should have used a clearer construction. But the same point could be made against his position. If Paul wanted to indicate that each element of the preceding phrase is a gift and “not of yourselves”, then he could have done so by clearly stating it. The two most likely grammatical options for the referent in Eph 2:8 simply do not support the Calvinist view. I’ll cite yet another scholar on this in the next post.
Oh, and another scholar who says that the conceptual option is just as I have described it: Hoehner’s commentary on Ephesians, pp. 343-44: “in the present context, touto refers back to 2:4-8a and more specifically 2:8a, the concept of salvation by grace through faith. . . . “is not of yourselves,” express that salvation does not have its origin or source (ek) with humans. . . . In the present passage, the gift of God does not refer to “faith” but rather it refers to [the] whole concept of salvation. . . . In conclusion, the “gift” is that which is outside of ourselves and is to be received. Therefore, the gift of salvation has its origin in God, its basis is grace, and it is received by means of faith.”
[…] and Eve who were serving as our federal representative before God you just might be a pelagian. cf. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/02/regeneration-prcede-faith/ […]
Does Regeneration Precede Faith?
No.
I’m kind of late to this party but here’s my 2 cents; Read Acts 8:4-24, the story of “Simon the Magician” from Samaria, it seems that he believed and got baptized when he heard the gospel:
Acts 8:12-13 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.
But it appears (judging by Peter’s statement) that he was not yet born again, although seemingly capable of understanding his condition and his immediate need for prayer. (see verses 20-24)
I think the misunderstanding on the Arminian side is the differentiation made between natural born children of God and adopted children. Christ is the “only begotten Son of God.” In contrast, we received the, “Spirit of adoption” Ro 8:15.
A child must be born first to be adopted. And a mother does not adopt her child after giving birth. not to mention, no one adopts a dead person, which we all agree is man’s spiritual condition.
1 John 5:1 “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God” ESV (Also, this is the clearest translation considering the greek tensing in the sentence structure)
That should be enough.
But John 1:12-13:
The right to become children of God is granted to those who “believe” (that is adopted children of God Rom 8:15). THe word believe is in the active tense meaning that the exercising of a person’s will is leading to becoming children of God.
does this then conflict with the next verse? The next verse says that the were born (in the Aortist tense which is past tense) not of human decision…
As Paul would say… “Certainly not!”
The verb ‘born’ is the in aortist passive. Meaning that the person is not involved in the process, or, that the person is only receiving the action and not in anyway associated with its reception.
The difference between the active and passive is such:
Active: I drove to the store.
Passive: I was driven to the store.
So we see that they cannot be referring to the same event b/c person cannot be driven to the store and drive to the store at the same time. So a person cannot be doing something actively leading to the rebirth and be a passive agent at the same time.
Please consider this reading for download:
http://www.archive.org/details/articlesofsynodo00syno
It is a translation from States General who held the Synod.
After reading I was surprised by the odious origin in which arminian doctrine has its roots. 10+ years of Arminius and followers disturbing the peace, dividing the church, and refusing to test their…
… heterodox doctrine with Scripture.
After 6 months and over 150 meetings, going line by line through both sides. The orthodox view, (calvin was dead before the term calvinism was applied) was upheld and the the arminian view was declared as heresy. Then, one of the arminians was beheaded for his role in the prolonged and cowardice conduct that harmed the church, and the rest put in prison for life. One of the men, instead of serving his prison time, decided to escape from prison and flee. He must not have taken the Pauline model of glorying in being a “Prisoner for Christ.”
Lo, “a bad tree does not bear good fruit” Matt 7:18
Article of the Synod (Ch 3; article 11-12) (Scott, pg 108)
“But when God performs His good pleasure in His elect, or works in them true conversion, He not only provides that the gospel should be outwardly preached to them, and that their mind should be powerfully illuminated by the Holy Spirit, that they may rightly understand, and judge what the…
“… Things of the Spirit of God; but He also, by the efficacy of the same regenerating Spirit, pentetrates into the innermost recesses of man, opens his closed heart, softens the obdurate heart, circumcises his uncircumcised heart, infuses new qualities into his will, makes that which had been dead alive, that which was evil good, that which had been unwilling willing… and leads and strengthens it, that, as a good tree , it may be able to bring forth good works. (12) And this regeneration, which is so much declared in Scripture, a new creation, a resurrection from the dead, a giving of life, which God without us (that is, without our concurrence, worketh in us. And this is by no means effected by the doctrine alone sounding without, by moral suasion, or by such a mode of working, that after the operation of God (as far as he is concerned) it should remain in the power of man, to be regenerated or not regenerated, converted or not converted; …
… But it is manifestly an operation supernatural, at the same time most perful, and most sweet, wonderful, secret, and ineffable in its power, according to the Scripture (which is inspired by the same Author of this operation) not less than, or inferior to, creation, or the resurrection of the dead: so that all those, in whose hearts God works in this admirable manner, are, certainly, infallibly, and efficaciously regenerated, and in fact believe. And thus their will, being now renewed, is not only influenced and moved by God, but being acted on by God, itself acts and moves. We wherefore, the man himself, through this grace received, is rightly said to believed and repent
(14) Thus, therefore, faith is the gift of God; not in that it is offered to the will of man by God, but that the thing itself is conferred on him, inspired, infused into him. Not even that God only confers the power of believing, but from thence expects the consent, or the act of believing: but…
that he, who worketh both to will and to do, worketh in man both to will to believe, and to believe itself, and thus works all things in all.
(15) This grace God owes no one. For what can be owe to him who is able to give nothing first, that he may be recompensed [4]. Nay, what can he owe to him, who has noting of his own by sin and a lie?
Verse substantiation:
[1]: Deut. 30:6. Psa 110:3. Jer 31:33 Jer 32:39, Ezekiel 11:19, Ezekiel 36:25-26. Zech 12:10. Matt 11:25-26. John 1:12-13. John 3:3-6. John 6:44-45. John 6:62-65. Eph 2:4-5. Phil 1:13. Col 1:12-13. 1 Thess 2:13-14. Titus 3:4-6. 1 Peter 1:3. 1 Peter 2:9-10.
[2] John 5:21-25 Rom 6:4-6. Rom 8:2. 2 Cor 5:17-18. Gal 6:15. Eph 1:19-20. Eph 2:6-10. Col 2:12-13. Col 3:1
[3] Jer 31:18-19. Acts 3:19. Acts 5:31-32. Rom 8:13. 2 Timothy 25-26. 1 Peter 1:22.
[4] Rom 11:35
Message from the moderator: Please read blog rules regarding spamming comments. One comment should be sufficient. Thanks.
one last thing. If a person reads Rom 9 and holds the exact objections that Paul anticipates his view of election and reprobation will produce, there is a pretty good chance your on the wrong side
I’m not saying that I don’t love my arminian brothers. I love them, and in fact attend a church that is mostly arminian. The only reason I go there is because of the fellowship with them.
However, my view of the arminian doctrine is another story. The doctrinal system has been judged unbiblical, the authors of the doctrine known to be morally questionable, unwilling to tolerate and coexist with the orthodox beliefs, and were unwilling to stand on scripture alone; not clearly presenting themselves and their beliefs in writing till forced to do so.
Today this system is responsible for millions of false conversions, church weakening, unbiblical growth, a broader reliance on man, belittlement of sin and depravity for humanism that does anything to get a ‘confession’ of faith
“Sola deo gloria”‘s comments are ridled with errors, and I don’t have space to address them all. His distinction between natural spiritual birth and adoption is invalidated when one considers that his view would still have people being born of God and yet not his children. Moreover, as he himself pointed out(!), there is no need for a naturally born child to be adopted. His handling of Greek is totally mistaken. No Greek legitimate scholar would say that the passive voice means the person has nothing to do with the process. Take his car ride example. According to his logic, being driven to the store means one had nothing to do with it, did not ask for the ride, did not agree to go on the ride, etc. Apparently he thinks anyone who gets a ride was just thrown into the car without any say and driven. The Arminian view is not that we lake ourselves God’s children or born again, but that God alone makes us his children in responde to our faith. That’s what we see in John 1:12-13.
thats not what the Synod of Dort saw in John 1:12-13 in 1619. My comments are straight from their decision. The decision that declared arminianism heresy and unbiblical after 6 months and 150+ meetings.
1 John 5:1: Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.
Furthermore, John 3:8: “The wind [pnuema] blows where it wishes…”
In other words, the Spirit is sovereign in dispensing the new birth. He moves where “He wishes.” Not as you would like it to say, “Where men act appropriately.”
John 3:6: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh…”
In other words, no action of the flesh will ever bring forth spirit. but only brings forth flesh. Not as you would like it to say, “Obedience of the flesh brings forth spirit.”
John 6:63: “It is the Spirit that give life, the flesh profits nothing…”
‘profits nothing’ does not equal a little something, or a fraction of something.
A bad does not bear good fruit
The Synod of Dort was not an ecumenical council nor one with wide-ranging authority. It was a regional conference and was truly a Kangaroo court. You might want to check into its history and how it was rigged against the truth. Thankfully, some of the Calvinists who attended were persuaded to become Arminians despite all the political corruption associated with it. You should search on Dort at the Society of Evangelical Arminians (actallu here is a link to such search results: http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&domains=evangelicalarminians.org&q=dort&btnG=Search&sitesearch=evangelicalarminians.org).
1 John 5:1 does not support regeneration as preceding faith, but if anything, faith preceding regeneration (Calvinist James White admits that it seems so in English, but then he mishandles Greek to try and argue against the plain meaning).
Jn 3:8 The Spirit regenerates who he wishes, those who believe!
We believe by God’s resistible grace, not by the flesh. I am mostly out of…
of course you would think its ‘kangaroo,’ but that is simply because what you believe is being rejected. 6 months and over 150+ meeting. Further, it took over 10 years to finally get the remonstrants to come to a any type of meeting. If a person is standing on Scripture, they have no problem coming into the light. Compare their actions to Luther in 1517.
How can a man be born not of human will (John 1:13), and then immediately you conclude, they are born because of human will? hopelessly contradictory.
Here is a new one for you to think about.
John 8:47: “He who is of God hears God’s words, therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.
“of God” = “ek tou theou” or “out of the God”
Matt 1:5: “And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse”
“of Rachab” = “ek tEs Rachab”; “of Ruth” = “ek tEs Ruth”
Same in John 18:37: “out of the truth” ek tEs alEtheias
James 1:18
Are you kidding? But you’re impartial? By your own logic, of course you would ignore the synod of Dort’s injustice and think it wonderful since it champions your doctrine and denounces doctrine you oppose. I would just encourage people to look into the history.
I have answerred your question about John 1:13 more than once in this thread. You just seem to be out of touch with the discussion and typical scholarly exegesis of that text.
Your final point about “of God” is simply irrelevant. It does not support the Calvinistic/your position nor oppose the Arminian view. We are born *of God* by faith in accordance with God’s amazing grace.
I’m sorry, but you have not appropriately answered any of the texts that I have brought forth.
God’s saving grace is not resistible. Take John 6:44. is it not the same ‘him’ that is raised up as is drawn? You would have to twist and bend to say that they are different people. But you’ve done it with all the other texts, why not try it again?
How do you understand God’s sovereignty in Eph 1:11?
How do you understand Isaiah 46:9-11?
Isaiah 55:11?
Daniel 4:34-35?
Jeremiah 10:23?
Proverbs 16:4?
God’s will is never resisted, do you remember what Job said in Job 42:2?
How do you understand Acts 13:48?
What about 2 Tim 1:9? Isn’t ‘foreseen faith’ disqualified when he writes, ‘not because of anything we have done?’
So you think everyone got the same grace, but you made the difference in the end b/c of your decision?
Read 1 Cor 1:29-30
Read 1 Cor 4:7
Read 2 Cor 3:5
Your position has more holes than swiss cheese
sola dei gloria,
Just a quick note here. You throw out 12 sections of scripture in your last comment alone and expect someone to answer them in one comment? (That is the rule here–remember?)
And originally you used up seven comments to get your point across. Of course, Arminian or anyone else is not going to be able to answer all of your questions–at least to your satisfaction.
Have you read the 300 plus comments already made here? This subject has already been discussed at length.
I do not necessarily need anyone to answer or comment on the passages. They are straightforward, hardly needing interpretation. These passages are the sort that anyone who is subservient to Scripture would need only to read them to understand and accept what is being said.
But, if someone would like to reply to them, I do believe that its possible in the limited word count.
As far as the seven comments, I thought it would be nice if people could actually read what the Synod of Dort itself declared when it went line by line evaluating the same controversy.
This debate was already settled in 1619, when the semi-pelagians were shut down once again. (see the Council of Orange in 529). A bad tree does not bear good fruit.
However, I realize that it is not spiritually healthy for me to enter into such debates. But in my frailty, it is difficult for me to be restrained.
What can I say, I am a sinner.
I’m sorry Sola, but what you read as so straight forward isn’t seen in the same way by everyone that reads the Bible. It certainly isn’t when you take it and put it alongside many other verses and teachings of the Bible. Then we start to see a lot of problems because it seems you have to contort the “straight forward” meaning of those verses to make them fit in with the “straight forward” meaning you see in the ones you list. That is why the conflict arises.
And very frankly, how in the world do you expect a person to reply to 12 passages of Scripture in l000 characters or less? This short comment that I have made has already used up close to 700 characters. See the problem?
Its straight forward when you read it and say it means what it says. There are no contradictions in the Bible.
Its only becoming ‘contorted’ when a person has traditions that they are forcing the text to conform to.
For example. Take just one of the texts, Eph 1:11.
Notice that all things work for the purpose of God, according to His will. Is there anything that is taking place outside of His will? No, the text explicitly says ‘all things.’
So one says, ‘what about the Jews that resisted the Holy Spirit in Acts 7? what about those who aren’t saved?’
The text explicitly says ‘all things,’ why is a person questioning God? God’s will was seen in their resistance. 1 Peter 2:8. No one has some kind of moral integrity by which they can instruct God. Or that they should see a more morally sound way to treat violently rebellious sinners.
The idea of moral integrity is an oxymoron when applied to human beings. Like saying, “I feel up and scraped my knee.”
Romans 9:21-23. Proverbs 16:4
But I don’t intend to re-share the same things I’ve already said. Just desire to encourage you to think critically about these texts.
Think about this one also: John 17:2-3
Notice, ‘authority over all flesh.’ For what reason does He have this? He says, ‘that He may give eternal life to as many as [God] had given Him.’ What is He giving so that they may have eternal life? He is giving knowledge of Himself and the Father and what they have done in redemption. This knowledge is expressly stated as a gift. It is not a human decision pieced together by a individual given all the apparent evidences and feelings.
Move to John 17:19: For who’s sake did He sanctify Himself? For ‘their’ sake. Lets follow the pronouns, ‘their’ refers back to 17:2, those ‘given.’ What does it mean to sanctify Himself? not to become more righteous, He is God in the flesh. He means to consecrate for the purpose of God. He refers to His crucifixion being for ‘their’ sake = particular…
… But tradition cries out! John 3:16! But what about john 3:16!?
Lets think critically. Look at how John uses the term ‘world.’ See John 12:19. Did the world really come to Jerusalem? Boy, it must have been crowded. All the Indians rowing up with canoes, Chinese people arriving, etc. What about John 18:20. Did Jesus really speak openly to the world? Really the whole world in 3.5 years?
Look at John 3:16-17. The use of the ‘world’ in the 17 expresses God’s purpose. “But that the world through Him might be saved.” John 6:39. How did Jesus see God’s purpose? “This is the will… that of all He has given Me I should loose nothing.”
Move to John 6:51: “which I shall give for the life of the world.”
So for who does He mean by ‘world?’ it can mean the system of the world, as a unit in space. or those ‘given’ in verse 39. But either way we read it, we know expressly that Christ is sanctifying Himself for those given to Him. the elect. John 17:2. John 17:19
Think about it. May God continue blessing you, now and forever.
Of course the Bible does not contradict itself! That is why Calvinism is false, because it contradicts the plain meaning of so many passages of the word of God. Jn 1:12-13 is just one of them, which clearly reveals faith as prior to regeneration, something I believe I have demonstrated in the lengthy discussion here and you seem to have ignored.
You have come in and used what has been called the “machine gun hermeneutic” (see http://evangelicalarminians.org/Glynn.the-machine-gun-hermeneutic), a faulty method of arguing that begs the question at issue by simply listing or quoting a bunch of verses of Scripture without attending to their context, etc. You list a bunch of passages and claim I should be able to address how your use of them is wrong and give the right interpretation of them in one 1000 character (not even word) post, yet you took 3 posts just to respond to someone who pointed out how unreasonable that is. I could throw a list of verses at you, but that’s not helpful
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Your statement of calvinism being false is ridiculous.
Your interpretation of John 1:12 is immediately contradicted by very the next verse, John 1:13. If a man is still in the flesh, because he has not been regenerated, his decision to believe is in the flesh. But the verse clearly states, “nor of the will of the flesh” or “Not by human decision” (NIV). But then you say, it was because of your decision to believe. Your view is also contradicted by John 3:6. John 6:63.
This is why arminianism was declared an incorrect view of scripture in 1619.
I have only one last question. So God gave everyone the same grace, but at the very end He left it up to you? Then, you, seeing the glory of Christ, and your need for a savior, believed and repented? So you make yourself different from the unsaved?
1 Cor 1:29-30
1 Cor 4:7: “For who makes you differ from another?”
2 Cor 3:5
Col 1:12-13
Faith is a gift: John 17:2-3. Phil 1:29. Eph 1:19. Rom 12:3.
Repentance is a gift: Acts 5:31. 2 Tim 2:24-26
God bless you, and thank you for this interesting discussion.
Yes, I think we will have to agree to disagree.
I have addressed your argument about Jn 1:12-13 earlier in this thread. You shoudl read my comments.
You again utilize the machine gun hermeneutic here, which is really a fallacious way to make an argument. You generally take those verses out of context and assume a certain, faulty understanding of them. I would encourage you to look at good, solid, scholarly exegetical materian on these passages.
Arminianism was declared an incorrect view of Scripture by a kangaroodort with an incorrect view of Scripture, not because of truth; rather it was error.
Faith is a gift, but one we have to receive like most gifts.
May God bless you and lead you in his truth.
Ad hominem slanders are a much worse form of fallacious argumentation than some idea you made up called ‘machine gun hermeneutics.’
But it was a “kangaroo court:” ad hominem
I’ve read the history of that Synod, as released by the authority of the States General, translated from Latin by Thomas Scott (1831). It only becomes clear from reading the history that the arminians are the morally questionable characters. after 10+ years of dodging and evading instead of standing on Scripture. It appears that it is you who has mischaracterized and twisted that Synod for your own use. Its like a criminal being found guilty and telling all the inmates ‘I didn’t do it!’
‘But he uses ‘machine gun hermeneutics:’ red herring & ad hominem
The reason it feels like a ‘machine gun’ is because of the volume of Scripture that is available to flood against you.
Further, your view of faith as a gift that we must accept is truly bizarre. So a thought accepts a thought? isn’t the thought that accepts christ simply faith? But now to maintain your view, you created a pre-faith that must accept the real faith that we express to be saved. I have never heard of such a thing. Isn’t it just easier to say that the trust we express is worked in us by God?
Immanuel.
Sola,
I don’t have the time to get into any discussion on your machine gun attack here–and I agree–that is what it is. As Arminian said, we could throw a whole bunch of verses on the table too.
And you really should go and read what has already been written here rather then expect someone to spend hours rewriting it.
But the most ridiculous thing I am seeing is you accusing Arminian of ad hominem attack. For crying out loud, go back and read that first seven comment volley you unleashed and see what you find there. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
And to top it all off, you spoke of an Arminian that was beheaded and got on the case of another one that escaped from prison because “he evidently didn’t take Paul’s example of being a prisoner for Christ.” And then stated that “a bad tree produces bad fruit”.
So I guess it is honorable to behead someone for a religious matter and throw someone in jail, but escaping is dishonorable? Frankly…
Cheryl,
I simply offered a history lesson on the Synod as reported by the people who lived it, read the download I offered for yourself. That is not ad hominem, that is reality. Its calling a spade black.
I realize it is a different time now, then back then. Do you understand that? They didn’t live worshipping religious tolerance saying, ‘whatever people feel you know, its a free country.’ They were not religious liberals. Christ was everything. Christ was the only thing. They stood up for the Christ of the Bible and took it seriously (over 6 mnth, 150+ meetings). They worried about the youth because Arminius was a professor at Lyden.
The first seven comments I wrote where directly quoted from the Synod’s declarations.
They church extended the arminians offers of toleration over and over again. But guess what? the arminians continually slandered the orthodox view, publicly, privately, and especially in sermons. It was because of their continual disturbance and unwillingness to come to mediation that caused all the problems. A person was beheaded and person in prison… its a work of the time. Do you know how many protestants died in the 30 year war after the reformation. The Catholics killed baptists by drowning them in water. Put your mind in context.
Immanuel.
And btw, i purposely separated “A bad tree bears bad fruit” from that person who escaped prison. Connecting it therefore with the next section as an intro to the Synod’s findings.
Ad hominem slanders are a much worse form of fallacious argumentation than some idea you made up
A few sentences later:
It only becomes clear from reading the history that the arminians are the morally questionable characters.
Haha 🙂
Ron,
I’m referring to the arminians, or, remonstrants who lived during the time of the Synod of Dort. Not every arminian. The judgment of ‘morally questionable’ was delivered in writing by the States General who penned the report. They described their actions in space and time. I explained why they where morally questionable. But it is not their morality that discounts their doctrine, and I never said that. I was only providing the reality that Arminian was so clearly twisting in order to discount the Synod’s ruling.
The only fact that discounts their doctrine is the court decision that deemed the theology as heresy in 1619. I don’t care if the defendant is Stalin or a nobel peace winner, all that matters is the court decision. Biblical calvinism supported, arminianism rejected.
And btw Cheryl, the reason why arminians don’t throw any verses on the ‘table’ is because the supporting verses don’t exist in context. If they did, the Bible would be errant.
Read the download i posted.
But it is not their morality that discounts their doctrine, and I never said that. I was only providing the reality that Arminian was so clearly twisting
I’m sorry to have to say this, but you are being dishonest. Before Arminian became involved you said the following:
The doctrinal system has been judged unbiblical, the authors of the doctrine known to be morally questionable . .
The obvious implication here is that we should not adopt the Arminian position on regeneration because of some negative character traits possessed by certain Arminians in the past. You therefore blatantly commit ad hominem. Whether or not you choose to admit as much is unimportant to me.
Silly statements like, “the reason why arminians don’t throw any verses on the table is because the supporting verses don’t exist in context. If they did, the Bible would be errant” are exactly why I’ve said that the “new Calvinism” is often just the “new fundamentalism”.
Ok, I played the hypocrite. I’ll admit it. Its this bizarre idea of ‘machine gun’ hermeneutics that got to me.
Its not my fault that the Bible is full of God’s sovereignty Arminian. I swear, to some people Jesus seems to be the only Lord that can’t make anyone do anything. Psalms 24:1.
Jesus said “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me…” John 6:37. How could Christ be so sure? Because God is sovereign over all things. Eph 1:11.
I am accepting of the people who are arminian, I’ve already stated that, and I fellowship with several. But it is the doctrine itself that has a foul stench. Like the bad leaven established though the Council of Trent, which was full of ‘will-worship’ and man-centered romance
Like the bad leaven established though the Council of Trent, which was full of ‘will-worship’ and man-centered romance
In other words, you’re not gaga over the bad romance.
/couldn’t resist
You know Sola, you not only made an ad hominem attack way back there in your seven comment opening salvo–the one you finally admitted to in your last comment after completely denying it to start with– but you have also pretty much accused everyone that disagrees with you of not being “subservient” to Scripture. That is a great way to show Arminians that you are accepting of them as people, don’t you think?
The first Arminians were morally questionable, Arminians today aren’t subservient to Scripture. And to top it all off you basically called all of us liars when you said that we have no verses to “throw on the table”. If you had set out to come up with the worst possible plan to convince us all of the truth of your position, I am not sure you could of done a whole lot better job then what you have managed to do here in the last few days!
Yes, I likely could have formulated a better strategy. But i encourage you, don’t look at the man, look at the Scriptures 🙂
Sola,
OK, so we are not to look to the man, huh?? But isn’t that just what you did when you said part of the reason for rejecting Arminianism was because of the men that believed it?
This conversation is not very productive and I am out of here. You dug yourself in way too deep to be able to get out anytime soon.
I do realize that I’m still a bit in my Calvinist ‘cage-stage.’ But about the remonstrants, I wanted to share what the State General had to say about the men they had to endure for over a decade. And I’m glad I did, because Arminian started to share some bizarre ideas about a ‘kangaroo’ court. After reading the report itself, his view was almost too funny to take seriously.
The reasons why this soteriology should reject it is clear. the Synod rejected it over a 6 month process with over 150 meetings. And ultimately because the Scriptures i provided are alone enough to disprove it multiple times over. You shouldn’t accept arminianism because it has been disproved ad nauseam.
Again, one would almost think you were kidding. You think we should simply accept the account sanctioned by those basically in charge of the merely national synod of one country? Earlier in the thread I gave you a link to various articles about the synod where you can get the truth about the corrupt, politically charged proceedings rather than simply accepting the biased take of the people in charge of it (http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&domains=evangelicalarminians.org&q=dort&btnG=Search&sitesearch=evangelicalarminians.org). It does seem to have truly been truly a kangaroo court and deserves the name kangaroodort.
On the machine gun hermeneutic you have used, I would urge anyone interested to look at the link I gave and see if it does not characterize the way you have argued here. It is almost like the guy had you in mind when hge wrote it! Here ios the link: http://evangelicalarminians.org/Glynn.the-machine-gun-hermeneutic.
I would rather argue that way than like you; not answering any of the texts, but rather dodging them. But i really want to make you comfortable, so I’ll try to go at a pace suitable for you (1 Peter 2:2)
Please respond to these texts and how it fits with arminian theology:
2 Tim 2:25-26
John 10:14-15. With John 10:26-27
John 17:2. With John 17:19.
Surely this is not too hard for you.
Well at least you admit that you use the (faulty) machine gun hermeneutic.
Not answering any of the texts? You jump into this thread after post after post of detailed (for the venue) attention to certain texts relevant to the topic of the OP (the order of faith and regen.), ignore my comments on them, throw out a bunch of texts not necessarily related to the topic of the OP, and demand I interact with many texts in the space of 1000 characters. And now you demand I address new texts, suggesting that I have been dodging your texts, when you have not addressed my comments about the texts we have already been discussing. How about interacting with the mass of comments about the texts we have already been discussing? Or are you dodging those comments because you have no answer to them? I assume you jumped in on the end of the thread and have not bothered to look at what has already been said. Fine, but you should not expect people to repeat everything or get into new stuff with you