Proof Regeneration Precedes Faith

[Guest]

John 3 specifically mentions believing first.


To the contrary brother! But feel free to lay out your exegesis.

Steve Gregg already has:

John 3:3 “Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot SEE the kingdom of God." (NASB


On the matter of Nicodemus not "seeing" the kingdom without being regenerated, it is necessary not to misunderstand the idiom of "seeing" as John uses it. You have interpreted the word "see" to mean "understand, comprehend, BELIEVE." This is not the likely sense in which the term is used in this context.

At the end of the same chapter, John says, "He that does not believe shall not SEE life" (John 3:36).

Jesus, later said, "if anyone keeps my word, he will never SEE death" (John 8:51). His adversaries understood the idiom and rephrased it "shall never TASTE death"(v.52).

It is clear that "SEE" is being used in these cases as synonymous with the idea of "experience." Thus the statement that, without rebirth, Nicodemus cannot "see" the kingdom, means exactly the same thing as the statement two verses later which uses the phrase "enter the kingdom." The expressions are interchangeable.

Calvinists and non-Calvinsts alike believe that one must be born again in order to experience the kingdom, but the non-Calvinist asks, "What must one do in order to be born again?" Nicodemus asked the same question, when he said, "How can these things be?"

The answer of Jesus was that which is everywhere affirmed in scripture: "Whosoever believes...shall have everlasting life [that is, “shall be regenerated,” apparently as a consequence of believing]."

Jesus did not say, "Whosoever has everlasting life shall believe." This idea is never found in scripture, and would be a helpful thing for one of the writers to have informed us about, since the concept is otherwise so counterintuitive. It is, perhaps, the absence of any such statement in scripture that kept the church from ever believing such things until Augustine, by mixing Greek philosophy, introduced the strange concept.

You are right in observing that Jesus expressed surprise that Nicodemus, the teacher of Israel did not grasp such things. This astonishment resembles Jesus’ marveling at the lack of faith of the people of Nazareth (Mark 6:6). If people are naturally incapable of perception and faith, what is there to marvel at?

Jesus' astonishment indicates that He would have expected this man (though as yet unregenerated) to be capable of grasping this truth when it was told to him. In this, as in many other points, Jesus did not act as one who holds Calvinistic convictions about the universal dullness of the unregenerate. That a religious leader should be so obtuse is surprising (even to Jesus), but not unprecedented nor without modern parallels.

[Guest]

Mark,

I have gleaned several statements you have made in your various posts on this thread:

Is not exercising faith something that is good and pleasing to God?
Yet, in the flesh (unregenerate man) we cannot please God.

And

You are arguing that the natural man can do good, especially to have the ability to exercise faith and repentance toward God.
You are simply wrong about that, and such a belief offends God and exalts man, regardless of what you may think.
Now, if I am right here and you are wrong, what are you going to do about it? Seriously!

And

Regeneration precedes asking, for “asking” shows a prior work of God upon the sinner, through the normal means of hearing and being taught the scriptures, namely hearing the Gospel of their salvation.

And

Joh 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

And

Consider Lydia,
Act 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

Did Lydia believe before her heart was opened or after? Before people repent, there is the work of the preaching of the gospel, (whole of Acts 2) and “if” accompanied by the work of the Holy Spirit, (which here in context, He is working see vs 2, 17 and 18 ) results in hearts being changed.

-This “heart” work is the prior work of the Spirit.
-This work produces an effect upon all for whom receive it.
-This work leads to regeneration, which is the New Birth.
-The new birth, leads immediately to repentance and faith, which leads to justification and conversion.

It is a logical concurrence, but may last just a few seconds.

And

Let me spell it out even more plainly for you.

Faithful Preaching may lead to conviction (whilst necessarily being attended by the Holy Spirit) leads to regeneration on whom the “Wind” blowing “wherever” it wishes, which then leads to conversion which includes faith and repentance.

And

In Greek, Luke employs different verb tenses to emphasize God’s work in salvation. In this translation, the changes in tense are italicized: “While Lydia continued to listen, God once for all opened her heart to have her apply her mind to the things that were being said by Paul.” Conclusively, God is the author of her salvation.

If I am understanding you correctly, you are not typical of some pedobaptists who believe in infant baptism/regeneration and then adult conversion.

When you said "-The new birth, leads immediately to repentance and faith, which leads to justification and conversion." I understood you to be saying the Gospel had been preached prior to regeneration, otherwise there would be no immediate faith (nothing to be believed). You also said "Faithful Preaching may lead to conviction (whilst necessarily being attended by the Holy Spirit) leads to regeneration" which also leads me to believe you connect the preaching of the Gospel in some way to regeneration. If I understand your view, regeneration does not occur ex nihilo, but the Gospel is a concommitant. Is this your view? Would this be correct in your view, in the case of both Lydia and Cornelius?

[Guest]

Thanks fellas for the replies.
Due to some current time constraints, I shall work on perhaps a final response, trying to present an overall conclusion of what has transpired between us, so I shall post as soon as possible. (The next few days God willing!)

Again, I thank you all for the discussions we have had.

Mark

[Guest]

regeneration does not occur ex nihilo, but the Gospel is a concommitant. Is this your view? Would this be correct in your view, in the case of both Lydia and Cornelius?

Yes, and I really appreciate your perceptiveness here Homer!

Regeneration comes through "means".
The normal means is gospel preaching attended by the Holy Spirit!

Another means, may be Baptism in infancy, but not apart from the means of the regenerating work of the Spirit of God, and certainly no child is guaranteed regeneration at their baptism. That is normative reformed Covenant theology!

Baptism signifies both a promise and a seal of the Covenant promises for God to save all those who trust in the Saviour.

There is a small but vocal minority who teach some kind of baptismal regeneration at Baptism, even if implicitly. I am not one of them.

Mark

[Guest]

regeneration does not occur ex nihilo, but the Gospel is a concommitant. Is this your view? Would this be correct in your view, in the case of both Lydia and Cornelius?

Yes, and I really appreciate your perceptiveness here Homer!

Regeneration comes through "means".
The normal means is gospel preaching attended by the Holy Spirit!

Another means, may be Baptism in infancy, but not apart from the means of the regenerating work of the Spirit of God, and certainly no child is guaranteed regeneration at their baptism. That is normative reformed Covenant theology!

Baptism signifies both a promise and a seal of the Covenant promises for God to save all those who trust in the Saviour.

There is a small but vocal minority who teach some kind of baptismal regeneration at Baptism, even if implicitly. I am not one of them.

Mark

[Guest]

Mark,

Thanks for your reply. I hope you can continue the discussion at least a bit longer.

You wrote:

regeneration does not occur ex nihilo, but the Gospel is a concommitant. Is this your view? Would this be correct in your view, in the case of both Lydia and Cornelius?


Yes, and I really appreciate your perceptiveness here Homer!

Given your comments in various posts and what you affirm in the cases of both Cornelius and Lydia, that neither were regenerated until the arrival of Peter and Paul respecively bringing the Gospel message to them, I do not see how you can maitain your ground that the unregenerate can do no thing good and pleasing to God prior to regeneration.

Prior to the time, on your own abmission, of Cornelius' regeneration, scripture says this of him, Acts 10:1-4:

1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment, 2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always. 3 About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God coming in and saying to him, “Cornelius!”
4 And when he observed him, he was afraid, and said, “What is it, lord?”
So he said to him, “Your prayers and your alms have come up for a memorial before God.


I find it most difficult to believe the prayers and alms of Cornelius, described by the angel as having come up before God as memorial (same term used by Jesus to describe the act of the woman who annointed Him with expensive oil!), were regarded by God "like filthy rags". Surely not!

The reformed position on the inabilty of the unregenerate to do any good thing appears to be an artificial one. If the only thing that can be classed as "good" is an act that brings God glory, then how are a Christian's good deeds, done anonymously, considered "good" in that sense when the recipient , and indeed people in general, are unable to know whether an infidel or Christian did the good deed? I am fully aware that people often do good deads for the wrong motive, but it is, I believe, quite possible for an unbeliever to act compassionately, motivated by mercy,and not for selfish reasons.

I believe when scripture speaks of the inability of the unregenerate to do good, it is in reference to the inability to do good, for the right reason(s), as an on-going practice, not an individual act.

God bless, Homer

[_Sean]

Hi Mark, I'll keep it short this time.

Hi again Sean,

First of all, the passage is speaking about believers who were previously dead.

“Were dead”, meaning “without the Spirit of God”.

So here we have former unbelievers who are without spiritual life, living in the flesh, and in their sins.
Then we read that they “were made alive”.

Now if words mean anything, we have these persons who are described as being “dead” in their sins, and then they are “made alive”.

Being made alive cannot in any sense involve the one who is dead, making themselves alive, for then the text could not say “who were made alive”.

This being “made alive” is an outside force actively operating upon a Non-active force. A force that is a Spiritually dead force, but active and very much alive in it's trespasses and sins.

So how about this in it's larger context:

Colossians 2:12 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

Is not "through faith" mentioned? Are these verses not mentioning regeneration? It appears that faith is in place when regeneration occurs, not something that comes as a result of it.


While you have consistently argued that regeneration comes before faith, you are arguing it by asserting that "dead in sin" means people cannot, through the gospel and conviction of the Holy Spirit have the ability to believe (or not) leading to regeneration. Yet I still don't see (other than your asserting it) that regeneration comes before belief because I have not seen scripture revealing this, nor do I see the use of the term "dead" or "slave" to mean what you claim, since scripture uses these terms in a less absolute manner.

You also mentioned Romans 8:8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Yes, Paul is stating that those without the Spirit lack the resource to live a life pleasing to God. If man could do this on his own, why would he need a savior? This passage does not, however mean that a natural man cannot do good in any degree, even before God (vertical). We see this with Cornelius (a passage you haven't explained) and others. Is it good enough? No! This passage does not suggest that man cannot (upon hearing the Gospel and being convicted by the Holy Spirit) repent and ask for mercy for their sins. This is the very thing the unregenerate needs to do as Jesus has commanded. This is what the Gospel calls for. Which brings up the question: If one has to be regenerated first, why would he cry out to God for this after he has already received it? Certainly one would be thankful, but why be baptized for the remission of sins if this has already been done before believing? If Colossians 2:12-13 are about a pre-faith condition then why did Peter tell the crowd to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins if their sins were remitted already as Colossians 2:13 states? Does it not make more sense that Peter was thinking of the concept spelled out in Colossians 2 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God. Again, is this not regeneration? Is not faith already present for regeneration to occur?

It would seem that these people were able to make a choice to believe so that regeneration could occur: buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God.
Is this choice to believe pleasing to God? Not in the sense Romans 8:8 is speaking about because simply believing is not what God is seeking, but rather God is seeking a life where man is living by the Spirit. This pleases God.

Romans 8:12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

So this is what is pleasing to God. I don't see how it can be contended that if one believes God before regeneration that this would be pleasing to God in the sense Rom 8:8 is explaining, since in context it's not any one time thing that can please God but rather a walk of life, where the deeds of the body are put to death and man is led by the Spirit. This is the contrast of walking in the Spirit and walking in the flesh.

Look at the Corinthians:
1 Cor 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; for you are still carnal.

So are these Corinthians pleasing to God? They were "babes in Christ", but carnal. Yet Paul affirms that they are converts.

So let's look again at Romans 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Interesting that Paul didn't have a problem believing that the Corinthians were "in Christ" yet also "carnal" even though in Romans 8 Paul says the carnal mind is enmity against God and cannot please God, yet these carnal Corinthians are in Christ as Paul tells us in chapter one:

1 Cor 1:4 I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God which was given to you by Christ Jesus, 5 that you were enriched in everything by Him in all utterance and all knowledge, 6 even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you, 7 so that you come short in no gift, eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 8 who will also confirm you to the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

[Guest]

Homer

If I may inject a thought about Corneilus' regeneration. 1) It was noted he was a "God fearer". This suggests to me a prior work of the Spirit before his conversion was evident. I will assume at least, he understood from his fellowship with the Jews (those to whom God entrusted with his oracles as Paul states in Romans) the Law and the Prophets, Israel's hope of restoration and deliverence by the Messiah. So at least some "ground work " was laid as a foundation by the Spirit. 2) In Jn 12:20, "Greeks"
(gentiles like Cornelius) were requesting to see Jesus. Jesus relates this to his impending death. 3) In vs 32 of ch 12; Jesus proclaims when he is lifted up, WILL DRAW all men to himself.
When Cornelius was "called" through his vision to hear the gospel from Peter, his regeneration was made evident by his conversion. So really it was Cornelius repsonding only because of IMHO, a prior work of the Spirit
upon him. He did not initiate the vision. He did not of his own "will" seek out for Christ and the gospel. He was drawn and directed by the Spirit.
His regeneration was completed unto his conversion by the Spirit.

I agree with what Jesus said in Jn 6:44. "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me DRAWS him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Blessings in Him'
Bob

[Guest]

Quote:
Is that not what scripture teaches, or are you going to “yet again” argue something about man being able to resist the Holy Spirit's conviction if the man so chooses?

Will you dare to suggest that when God decides to convict a man of sin, righteousness and judgement, then the man has the power and ability to resist God?


What does the bible suggest?

Oh that they had such a heart in them, that they would fear Me, and keep all My commandments always, that it may be well with them and with their sons forever! (Deut. 5:29).

This passage only affirms that man will not submit to God, which Calvinism consistently teaches!

It is not addressing when God Himself decides how He deals with those He calls. We go to other passages for this, don’t we?

But My people did not listen to My voice; and Israel did not obey Me. So I gave them over to the stubbornness of their heart, to walk in their own devices. Oh that My people would listen to Me, that Israel would walk in My ways! I would quickly subdue their enemies, and turn My hand against their adversaries (Ps. 18:11-14).

It’s interesting to notice that He said His people did not listen to His voice. They weren’t made alive yet. They were “dead in their trespasses”

There is no warrant here to assume that every single one of them was unregenerate, just as a side. Some were regenerate as God has always had a “remnant according to grace.”, and therefore has an application to real believers in disobedience, again as a side.

But, same can be said here as I stated in my answer above!
Why “read into” these texts the idea that man can resist God when God Himself is particularly dealing with an individual? That is classic eisogesis.

Yet He sent prophets to them, to bring them back to the Lord; and they testified against them, but they would not listen. (2 Chronicles 24:19)

Same again.
Your assumptions rule out God working with individuals when He particularly overrides a particular man’s enmity against Himself, as scripture elsewhere certainly teaches. Calvinism harmonises scripture, Arminianism sets scripture at odds with itself. It is sad to see.

And the Lord God of their fathers sent warnings to them by His messengers, rising up early and sending them, because He had compassion on His people and on His dwelling place. 16 But they mocked the messengers of God, despised His words, and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against His people, till there was no remedy. (2 Chronicles 36:15)

Same again brother, why do this with scripture?
Is it to harmonise scripture and theology or is it to doggedly cling to your libertarian free will?
Think long and hard about what I am trying to get you to see?

So will I choose their delusions, And bring their fears on them; Because, when I called, no one answered, When I spoke they did not hear; But they did evil before My eyes, And chose that in which I do not delight." (Isaiah 66:4)

Same again!

Assumptions = These texts cannot mean what Calvinism teaches about irresistible grace, because man has libertarian free will!

Can you not see the error in your presuppositions?

You need to first of all,
1/ Prove libertarian free will from scripture, then
2/ Reconcile such a philosophical idea with the whole of scripture,
3/ Otherwise you have no basis upon which to even begin to quote these and other passages against reformed theology.

You have the challenge, please feel free to take it up!

Quote:
John 3 specifically mentions believing first.


To the contrary brother! But feel free to lay out your exegesis.


Steve Gregg already has:

John 3:3 “Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot SEE the kingdom of God." (NASB


On the matter of Nicodemus not "seeing" the kingdom without being regenerated, it is necessary not to misunderstand the idiom of "seeing" as John uses it. You have interpreted the word "see" to mean "understand, comprehend, BELIEVE." This is not the likely sense in which the term is used in this context.

That is simply not true, and if I am right about this and reformed theology right about this, then Arminianism has much to really answer for. See Strongs

G1492 εἴδω
eidō -------- i'-do
A primary verb; used only in certain past tenses, the others being borrowed from the equivalent, G3700 and G3708; properly to see (literally or figuratively); by implication (in the perfect only) to know: - be aware, behold, X can (+ not tell), consider, (have) known (-ledge), look (on), perceive, see, be sure, tell, understand,

I also want the reader to “note very carefully” what transpires in the next few comments.

At the end of the same chapter, John says, "He that does not believe shall not SEE life" (John 3:36).

Jesus, later said, "if anyone keeps my word, he will never SEE death" (John 8:51). His adversaries understood the idiom and rephrased it "shall never TASTE death"(v.52).

It is clear that "SEE" is being used in these cases as synonymous with the idea of "experience." Thus the statement that, without rebirth, Nicodemus cannot "see" the kingdom, means exactly the same thing as the statement two verses later which uses the phrase "enter the kingdom." The expressions are interchangeable.

Calvinists and non-Calvinsts alike believe that one must be born again in order to experience the kingdom, but the non-Calvinist asks, "What must one do in order to be born again?" Nicodemus asked the same question, when he said, "How can these things be?"

What is being offered here is yet again a predisposition that rests sqaurely upon Libertarianism.

The answer has ignored the meaning of “see” and completely isolates this expression from the preceding statement in John 3:3, namely “unless one is born again”.

That preceding statement in context is crucial in interpreting “see” which follows.

The answer of Jesus was that which is everywhere affirmed in scripture: "Whosoever believes...shall have everlasting life [that is, “shall be regenerated,” apparently as a consequence of believing]."

Jesus did not say, "Whosoever has everlasting life shall believe."

Please notice “exactly” what has been done here above.
Instead of saying what the text says, “unless one is born again”, it is magically changed to “whoever has everlasting life shall believe” as if that is the sense of what Jesus is saying!

Jesus is not teaching the false misrepresentation of reformed theology, that people are believers already, as in have repented, believed and been justified, and then see the Kingdom of God!

No, He is simply saying what the text says.
One is first born again (which is not justification!) meaning one is “Born of the spirit”, that is regeneration, then because of or subsequently, with new “eyes”, the person “sees”, meaning comprehends/believes/understands/experiences the Kingdom of God.

Why Arminians will go to such lengths to turn this simple passage upon it’s head, and make it say the exact opposite ( In believing you will then be regenerate and “see”) I cannot understand, except for the purpose of negating the plain meaning in order to hold onto libertarian free will.

This idea is never found in scripture, and would be a helpful thing for one of the writers to have informed us about, since the concept is otherwise so counterintuitive.

It “is” counterintuitive to the philosophical predetermination to embrace libertarianism regarding the will of the creature. With that, I will agree wholeheartedly.

It is, perhaps, the absence of any such statement in scripture that kept the church from ever believing such things until Augustine, by mixing Greek philosophy, introduced the strange concept.

I demand proof for this accusation from Mr Gregg!
It really is quite silly and offensive to any person who has the ability to read simple sentences and who comprehends basic grammar.

You are right in observing that Jesus expressed surprise that Nicodemus, the teacher of Israel did not grasp such things. This astonishment resembles Jesus’ marveling at the lack of faith of the people of Nazareth (Mark 6:6). If people are naturally incapable of perception and faith, what is there to marvel at?

Man, the marvelling here is not based upon Jesus being surprised!, but rather a derogatory comment in light of this man/people having the law and prophets and every other blessing given to them over their history as Jews, and yet not understanding the New Birth!

Arminians seem to suffer from the same thing ironically!

Mark

[Guest]

Brothers

As this debate rages, for me the issue is forever settled in my mind and heart that it is God's effective regenerative grace that gives us new life.
We are passive. It is a work of God done upon us. No one would argue that our first birth from our parents had anything to do with our participation, desire ,will, ability etc. The new birth is contrasted with our natural birth in this sense. We did not bring ourselves into this world anymore than we bring ourselves into the Kingdom of Christ, the new world. Why then is it so difficult for us to agree upon the fact of Jesus' plain and simple teaching on the matter of regeneration? Pride? I really don't understand this.

"The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit".

"I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen,but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe: how then will you believe
if I speak of heavenly things"?

" All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away".

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day".

"The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and they are Life".

"Yet to all who recieved him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God; children born not of natural descent,
NOR OF HUMAN DECISION, or a husbands will, BUT BORN OF GOD".

"Why is my language not clear to you. Because you are UNABLE to hear what I say".

" My sheep listen to my voice. I know them and they follow me. I give them eternal life and they shall never perish: no one can snatch them out of my hand".

He who has ears let him hear.

Praise God for John's testimony!
Peace in Him, Bob