Proof Regeneration Precedes Faith

[Guest]

It seems to me this is a most important idea in support of Calvinism. I am requesting the Calvinists provide scriptural proof that regeneration precedes faith. What is the very best verse or passage in support of the idea? Do you find it plainly stated anywhere? Or do you believe it is taught by necessary inference? Where? Or is it supported by various scriptures, which, taken together, make it a clear teaching? Or does your philosophical view necessitate that scriptures be understood in a way that supports the doctrine?

I look forward to your answers.

[Guest]

The key phrase in Paul's Letter to the Ephesians is this:

"...even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have you been saved)" (Eph. 2:5).

Here Paul locates the time when regeneration occurs.
It takes place 'when we were dead.'

With one thunderbolt of apostolic revelation all attempts to give the initiative in regeneration to man are smashed.
Again, dead men do not cooperate with grace.

Unless regeneration takes place first, there is no possibility of faith.

This says nothing different from what Jesus said to Nicodemus.

Unless a man is born again first, he cannot possibly see or enter the kingdom of God.

If we believe that faith precedes regeneration, then we set our thinking and therefore ourselves in direct opposition not only to giants of Christian history but also to the teaching of Paul and of our Lord Himself.

Mark

[Guest]

Does regeneration necessarily precede conversion?

The answer to the question is “yes,” but before explaining why this is so, the terms “regeneration” and “conversion” should be explained briefly.

Regeneration means that one has been born again or born from above (John 3:3, 5, 7, 8). The new birth is the work of God, so that all those who are born again are “born of the Spirit” (John 3:8 ESV here and henceforth). Or, as 1 Pet 1:3 says, it is God who “caused us to be born again to a living hope” (1 Pet 1:3). The means God uses to grant such new life is the gospel, for believers “have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God” (1 Pet 1:23; cf. Jas 1:18). Regeneration or being born again is a supernatural birth. Just as we cannot do anything to be born physically—it just happens to us!—so too we cannot do anything to cause our spiritual rebirth.

Conversion occurs when sinners turn to God in repentance and faith for salvation. Paul describes the conversion of the Thessalonians in 1 Thess 1:9, “For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God.” Sinners are converted when they repent of their sins and turn in faith to Jesus Christ, trusting in him for the forgiveness of their sins on the Day of Judgment.

Paul argues that unbelievers “are dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph 2:1; cf. 2:5). They are under the dominion of the world, the flesh, and the devil (Eph 2:2-3). Every one is born into the world as a son or daughter of Adam (Rom 5:12-19). Therefore, all people enter into this world as slaves of sin (Rom 6:6, 17, 20). Their wills are in bondage to evil, and hence they have no inclination or desire to do what is right or to turn to Jesus Christ. God, however, because of his amazing grace has “made us alive together with Christ” (Eph 2:5). This is Paul’s way of saying that God has regenerated his people (cf. Tit 3:5). He has breathed life into us where there was none previously, and the result of this new life is faith, for faith too is “the gift of God” (Eph 2:8).

Several texts from 1 John demonstrate that regeneration precedes faith. The texts are as follows: “If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him” (1 John 2:29). “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God” (1 John 3:9). “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God” (1 John 4:7). “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whomever has been born of him” (1 John 5:1).

We can make two observations from these texts. First, in every instance the verb “born” (gennaô) is in the perfect tense, denoting an action that precedes the human actions of practicing righteousness, avoiding sin, loving, or believing.

Second, no evangelical would say that before we are born again we must practice righteousness, for such a view would teach works-righteousness. Nor would we say that first we avoid sinning, and then are born of God, for such a view would suggest that human works cause us to be born of God. Nor would we say that first we show great love for God, and then he causes us to be born again. No, it is clear that practicing righteousness, avoiding sin, and loving are all the consequences or results of the new birth. But if this is the case, then we must interpret 1 John 5:1 in the same way, for the structure of the verse is the same as we find in the texts about practicing righteousness (1 John 2:29), avoiding sin (1 John 3:9), and loving God (1 John 4:7). It follows, then, that 1 John 5:1 teaches that first God grants us new life and then we believe Jesus is the Christ.

We see the same truth in Acts 16:14. First God opens Lydia’s heart and the consequence is that she pays heed to and believes in the message proclaimed by Paul. Similarly, no one can come to Jesus in faith unless God has worked in his heart to draw him to faith in Christ (John 6:44). But all those whom the Father has drawn or given to the Son will most certainly put their faith in Jesus (John 6:37).

God regenerates us and then we believe, and hence regeneration precedes our conversion. Therefore, we give all the glory to God for our conversion, for our turning to him is entirely a work of his grace.

[Guest]

Or does your philosophical view necessitate that scriptures be understood in a way that supports the doctrine?

This is our charge against the Non Calvinist...

Mark

[Guest]

Please feel free to provide a response to the following exegetical study.

http://tartantalk.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/430

[Guest]

Tartanarmy,

Since you responded with this first:

The key phrase in Paul's Letter to the Ephesians is this:

"...even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have you been saved)" (Eph. 2:5).

Here Paul locates the time when regeneration occurs.
It takes place 'when we were dead.'

With one thunderbolt of apostolic revelation all attempts to give the initiative in regeneration to man are smashed.
Again, dead men do not cooperate with grace.

I will comment on this passage first. I take this "thunderbolt" as your very best passage. I am wondering if you skipped over part of Ephesians.

In chapter 5:1 and following, Paul admonishes the Ephesians to avoid certain behaviors that will cause them not to inherit the Kingdom of God (compare Galatians 5:19-21). He then goes on to urge them, v. 14, "Awake, you who are sleep, arise from the dead, and Christ will give you light." You should know that the Greek word for dead, nekros, is exactly the same in Ephesians 2:1, 2:5, and 5:14. How then does Paul urge them to do something synergistically in 5:14 which according to you, if you are consistent, must be a monergistic act of God? You informed us "dead men" do not cooperate with grace, of which you have no proof.


In Colossians 2:11-13 we read:

11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins[a] of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,

This passage certainly seems to indicate that baptism, at least normatively, is the occasion of the new birth. Notice, if you will, "buried with Him in baptism", "raised with Him through faith", and then "made alive together with Him". When does this passage, on any fair reading, indicate the new birth occurs? With this the entire early church agreed. I defy you to find even one early church father who had a different belief than this. How did those who had learned at the feet of the Apostles get it completely wrong, every one of them?

Again consider Romans 6:1-11:

1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Here Paul speaks of the old man, spiritually dead, being raised to new life in Christ at the time of baptism. All three passages speak of the new birth in the same way: with Christ. We are baptized into Christ. I suppose the early church fathers didn't have the time or inclination to sort this out, the most basic of doctrines.

Do not get me wrong, I am not a baptismal regenerationist in the Roman sense, but believe that baptism is normatively when God acts. Indeed He is the chief baptizer.

[leeweiland]

Homer,

I want to let Mark answer you fully since this exchange is primarily between you and him, but I would like to make one passing observation. When Paul mentions what many theologians feel is an early Christian hymn regarding those who awake from sleep or spiritual death, I am not sure why this has to be taken synergistically? When Ezekiel prophesied to the dry bones, God told him to tell the bones to "Hear the Word of the Lord". Then God told Ezekiel that He would cause breath to enter them, and that therefore, they would live.

If we were to press the metaphor, we cannot seriously expect something dead, or nekros, to do much of anything. Paul may tell these people to arise, which God commands men everywhere to do, to repent and believe in the gospel, but He understood that it was God who must "grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, that they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will".

[Guest]

David,

When Ezekiel prophesied to the dry bones, God told him to tell the bones to "Hear the Word of the Lord". Then God told Ezekiel that He would cause breath to enter them, and that therefore, they would live.

How would this have any relevance to the point at all; in one case we have physically dead people and in the other we have the spiritually dead, a metaphor, I believe, for separation from God? Calvinists always press the metaphor too far, prove too much. It is a mere assumption that the spiritually "dead" can make no response at all.

The passage in Romans 3:10-12 that is tirelessly recited by Calvinists to prove inability to respond to the gospel prior to regeneration says nothing about an individual act but refers to an ongoing practice.

[leeweiland]

Hi Homer,

I have the flu, and I would appreciate it if you would pray for me. I will try to check back later so that I do not "duck in and out" of the forum, only here to post a response and not to follow-up. By the way, I received a flu shot, so I am especially unhappy about having the flu!

I mentioned Ezekiel only for this reason: God told Ezekiel to command these dead bones, and yet the dead bones (whatever one may believe they represent) were completely passive. As was Lazarus when Jesus said "Rise and come forth". Therefore, the fact that the Lord commands someone to do something does not necessarily imply that they have the power to do so without His enabling (whether monergistically or synergistically). I thought you were making the point that since Paul tells those who are "slumbering" spiritually to awaken, that somehow the necessary conclusion is synergism. I do not think that point can really be proven from that text, since there are other examples, ones that may not answer directly the Calvinism debate, that show that a command does not necessarily imply ability.

One of the reasons that Calvinists quote Romans 3:10-18 is because we see these verses as Paul's premise for the conclusion he reaches in verses like v23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". As I understand it, Paul is not framing an argument where he mentions verses that speak only of some unregenerate people (v10-18 ), and then makes a conclusion of universal scope (v23). Rather, both the premise and the conlcusion are of the same scope, which is why his argument is valid.

It is true that people who are dead in sin make a lot of decisions. But of course, I am not blind, and I understand this. My position is not that people who are dead in sin cannot make any decisions, but rather they will not and cannot make decisions which go against their nature.

I am not going to fill this post with a bunch of verses that I know you have seen before; let me just pick one for example. Although I know that we have discussed this before, in Romans 8:7 we read that "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed it cannot". I understand this verse to be saying that the natural man, which is another translation for "the mind that is set on the flesh", by its nature is at war with God. It is not a matter of simply pointing out a new set of thought patterns and assimilating those to lead to a new lifestyle. Paul says that this man cannot submit to the law of God because it is against his very nature, which is why he cannot in embrace God in his natural state.

Sometimes Romans 6 is pointed to as a rebuttal to this argument (although when I have heard this rebuttal, those offering it have never really answered what they think Paul means by "indeed it cannot" ). The argument says that in Romans 6 we are said to be dead to the flesh and dead to sin, and yet Christians still sin. Therefore, we should not view dead in sin in such a strong manner. My answer to this is that this is comparing apples and oranges. The regenerate man, as is illustrated in Romans 7, knows the law of God but wars with the members of his flesh. He has a new heart, but old sinful habits. True, the temptation of sin is like the last "death-throws" of our old nature which we are being sanctified from, but nonetheless it is still present. The unregenerate man, however, is not like this. He does not have a warring between a circumcised heart and fleshly desires. There is no conflict of natures illustrated in the Scripture like we see for the Christian.

Please also remember that there are different types of freedom of the will. There is a libertarian freedom which I do not believe exists, one where a person can make truly good or bad decisions regardless of their nature, and that they can do so in either direction with equal facility. There is another type of freedom which theologians call "compatible", where people make the decisions they want to, and are not forced into anything, but that these decisions are in line with their nature. This is one explanation which I think explains how God is not the author of sin, and yet the will is in bondage to our unregenerate and sinful nature.

[Guest]

Calvinists always press the metaphor too far, prove too much. It is a mere assumption that the spiritually "dead" can make no response at all.

1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?

I would also point at that no Calvinist that I am aware of presses the metaphor of being "dead" the other way. That is, a Christian being "dead to sin".

The above verse says that we are "dead to sin" but does anyone think that this means total inability to sin? If Calvinists are consistent, they will have to.

Also 1 Peter 2:24

1Pe 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Of course no Calvinists interpret these passages to mean "total inability" to sin. They understand it as our now having a disposition toward righteousness. Our nature has been changed such that we now seek God's way, instead of our own.

Likewise, I would say that one who is "dead in sin" is generally disposed to choose the unrighteous act, and the way of self over God, but this does not show that they are not able to change, should they choose to.

Just an observation, one that comes to mind, but may be flawed (not to my knowledge though).

God bless!