Proof Regeneration Precedes Faith

[_SoaringEagle]

Mark,

Thanks for your response and comments on those passages. One thing though, you forgot to comment on the last two scripture examples on that post. (Revelation 2:20-23, Gen. 6:3) Here it is again:

Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. 21 And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. 22 Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds (Revelation 2:20) What was the purpose of God to give Jezebel and those who join her in adultery time to repent if they were in God's divine plan and pre-decision to damn?

In closing, Robert Shank had this to say about this subject in his book Elect in the Son:

My Spirit shall not always strive with man" declared God in the days of Noah (Gen 6:3). If the men of Noah's generation were foreordained to damnation, as Calvinism teaches, in what sense did the Spirit strive with them, since they were fulfilling their foreordained role in refusing the testimony of Noah? 2 Pet. 2:5 - God did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; Who was Noah preaching to? It was those who weren't spared and were punished by the flood because God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. If no man, either elect or reprobate, can resist the will of God, against whom or what is the Spirit striving when He "strives with man"? If there is in man no faculty of decision which God takes into account, any striving of the Spirit that fails to bring man to submission proves God incapable of performance. Any "striving" not intended to bring man to submission would be a farce and prove God hopelessly insincere. If decision rests with God alone, any striving at all is totally phony and superfuous

[_SoaringEagle]

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?

This passage reveals God longing for a particular group of people to fear Him and keep His commandments. This reveals a relational apsect of the Character and heart of God that Calvinism leaves little room for. If one wants to argue that this text is anything other than literal, the burden of proof lies on their shoulders. If this text is literal and God sincerely longs in this way for those two things mentioned, then why would He have a pre-determined "blue-print" for them to be in a state of rebellion. The fact that these creatures here are being rebellious is sufficient proof that God's will is not always done, by His sovereign choice.

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.

Perhaps we are dealing with God's people and not the unregenerate. Nevertheless, Mark, what I feel you and Calvinist adherents fail to acknowledge is when God says "My people did not listen to My voice; Israel did not obey Me." It was His will for them to do so, and His Holy relational desire for them to do so. This is even more emphasized where He says "Oh that My people would listen to Me, that Israel would walk in My ways!" Their disobedience was not desired, intended, nor planned by God by any kind of eternal decree.

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.

Not necessarily. My conclusions do not rule out God's dealings with some who have and will convert because I do not universalize the Scriptural examples like these I have given. I acknowledge that God may influence some to convert in a much more powerful way than others (who convert). This is due to various reasons, like prayer, fasting, evangelizing, giving, and more. I dont take passages like God's dealing with Saul of Tarsus, and Jacob and stretch them to the point where I conclude this is the same way God deals with all of those whom He saves. This is a huermenutics flaw of Calvinism. It really is sad to see.

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?

These texts cannot mean what Cavlinism teaches about "Sovereign" (irresistible) grace, because Irresistible grace is an oxymoron. Love and grace can be rejected or God is guilty of causation/coercion negating human responsibility. Irresistable Grace limits the love of God and makes His holiness arbitrary. We cannot elevate a wrong view on sovereignty above His holiness and love. Reconciliation involves two parties and is not unilateral. These Scriptures I present (among many) is proof.

God is able and willing to save all men based on the finished, efficacious work of Christ. The reason all are not saved is because love and grace can be rejected, by God's sovereign choice to value freedom, love, relationship over brute control. Man, not God, is culpable if they perish.

[_SoaringEagle]

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.

Hello Traveler,
As you know this is a Family Bible Fellowship Forum and this Category of it is the Arminian/Calvinism section. This is a place where we as bible believers discuss this topic. If your unwilling to engage in conversation about "the issue" here (which you say is forever settled in your mind and heart)which would entail presenting Scripture, being challenged in your thinking and beliefs, and responding to others points of view and questions, then perhaps you should follow along on the sidelines. You say:

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.

If we are indeed passive, then their is no relational aspect to reconciliation. There is a relational aspect to reconciliation;as I just said in my last post, reconciliation involves two parties and is not unilateral. Therefore, we are not passive.

JP Holding touches on this a bit in an article of his

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Palmer points to this verse and argues:

A baby never desires or decides to be born. He never contributes an iota to his own birth. In the whole process from conception through birth, he is completely passive and totally unable to control his birth. In a similar fashion, the unbeliever cannot take one step toward his rebirth.

Though this relates to the "U" aspect of TULIP as well as "T", let's consider it now. I asked here at one point whether Palmer is getting his biological facts straight; I have never understood that a baby is a totally passive bystander in the birth process, but rather, does a little struggling of its own instinctually, which would rather poke a hole in Palmer's analogy, since no one thinks instincts have anything to do with conversion. As it turns out, a science-minded reader has told me that, indeed, Palmer is wrong: A baby even determines when it will be born, for it secretes a hormone that induces labor.

But I rather think the analogy Palmer draws is stretched anyway. The metaphor of new birth is appropriate; how else would the idea of a new creation be better expressed? In order for this argument to work, Palmer has to show that there was no better analogy available which would have illustrated both a new creation and a active choice behind the matter. Otherwise, he is simply stretching the analogy for his own purposes -- and we may next ask questions like, "What is conception analogous to?" !

[Guest]

Hi SE

Thanks for your response. I didn't intend to be taken as so closed minded on the subject. I enjoy the discussion. When I said I had a settled mind on the matter of regeneration, I meant I did not initiate it. Looking back into my life after my conversion, I saw a distinct pattern the Lord used to draw me to himself. I did not know it at the time. I was not raised in the Church. No evangelist or believer shared or preached the Gospel to me. Really, my experience was not unlike Cornelius'. More on that later if you like. I do not identify myself as either a Calvinist or an Arminian, although they have both made significant contributions to the Body of Christ. I am merely a Christian trying like you and everyone here to understand better and follow our common faith in Jesus. I like things simple without being simplistic. I trust the Holy Spirit to help me understand what I need to believe for my salvation in Christ, the rest well, I'll have to leave to the experts.

I would like to try and answer your question though:


You asked: ""What is conception analogous to?"

My answer, The Parable of the Sower. Prior to conception, seed is scattered, not unlike the human fertilization of an egg. And BTW, your other comment about the baby's secretion of a hormon to facilitate its own birth, I hardly think is a good metaphor. A child to be born into the world doesn't self generate. We are speaking of re-generation. You and I did not initiate our own birth according to the flesh anymore than we did our own new birth into Christ's Kingdom. We were passive at that point.
My Greek Lexicon cites the word born, born again, born from above is in the passive voice as in Jn 1:13, 3:3-4,5,6. It brings God all the glory and is truly by grace. Great indeed is the mystery of our faith!

Peace to you in Jesus,
Bob

[_SoaringEagle]

A child to be born into the world doesn't self generate. We are speaking of re-generation. You and I did not initiate our own birth according to the flesh anymore than we did our own new birth into Christ's Kingdom. We were passive at that point. My Greek Lexicon cites the word born, born again, born from above is in the passive voice as in Jn 1:13, 3:3-4,5,6. It brings God all the glory and is truly by grace. Great indeed is the mystery of our faith!

Regeneration is monergistic. God alone can regenerate man by the Holy Spirit. However, salvation has a synergistic element. Our response of repentant faith to the convincing and convicting work of the Spirit is an essential condition. We cannot save ourselves, but God does not force Himself on us. It is a reciprocal reconciled love relationship, not a unilateral foisting on us. Passive voice does not prove regeneration precedes faith. Salvation is initiated and provided by God, but we must subjectively appropriate His provision. Many refuse to come to Him that they may have life, though they could have.

[Guest]

Hello SE,

Your statement "Passive voice does not prove regeneration precedes faith."

Well I think in a sense it does. Regeneration is the new birth "from above" that imparts new life enabling us to respond in a relationship with God. Therefore faith follows as the result not the cause of our new birth. This is what makes our hope such a wonderful gift, IMO. Paul said well in Eph 2:8-10. The Prophets did as well: EZ 36, Jer 31. To be created in Christ suggests the his prior work upon us who believe. To be given a new heart
results in being moved to follow God and his decrees. He does not force us
Forced love is rape. God is not a rapist. No, He gives us his life that we may live in eternal relationship with him. Without the Spirit, we are dead! Dead means separated from the life that God bestows.

[Guest]

Mark,

Thanks for your response and comments on those passages. One thing though, you forgot to comment on the last two scripture examples on that post. (Revelation 2:20-23, Gen. 6:3) Here it is again:

Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. 21 And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. 22 Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds (Revelation 2:20)

What was the purpose of God to give Jezebel and those who join her in adultery time to repent if they were in God's divine plan and pre-decision to damn?

Seriously, these are the types of questions that can lead to Open Theism.

A failure to recognise a couple of interpretative rules, when exegeting scripture.

1/ Scripture teaches both, that a person must repent, and that God enables “elect” sinners to repent.

That is the first point, that scripture teaches both.

“All that the Father “gives me”, Joh 6:37a = Election of some sinners.

“shall come to Me”, Joh 6:37b = Irresistibly are drawn, meaning "cannot" not come!

“and the one who comes to Me” Joh 6:37c = Willingly come, really repent and believe!

“I will in no way cast out.” Joh 6:37d = Shall never perish!

2/ In order to harmonise scripture, we can go one of three directions.

-A,B,C,D/ Reformed/Calvinism teaches that man repents as a result of regeneration, and thereby harmonises both aspects of scripture, comparing with scripture. No contradiction, and no redefining of God.

-Open Theism negates God in having meticulous control over all events and even Omniscience itself is redefined from orthodox Christianity, therefore, sinners have libertarian free will to obey or disobey God, with regards to repentance, faith and salvation.

-Arminians will not present a God who does not know everything (Omniscience) but will negate God in having meticulous control over all events, (SEE NOTE BELOW) and they will pit scripture against scripture, in order to hold to libertarian free will, creating contradictions within scripture.

(Note, Arminians will hold to God knowing all things, which means what we do next week, next year etc is fixed and certain, which cannot be changed, thereby destroying Libertarian free will!
Arminians live with this fact, but at least Open theists are consistent at this point, in denying God as having exhaustive foreknowledge!)

Rev 2:21 And I gave her time that she might repent of her fornication, and she did not repent.

What was the purpose of God to give Jezebel and those who join her in adultery time to repent if they were in God's divine plan and pre-decision to damn?

Apart from eschatological ramifications as to who or what Jezebel is, the answer to your question is God did not grant her repentance.

He puts up with all sinners to a point. In this case, a very very long time.
But if He does not grant repentance to some sinners, then none shall repent.
It is that simple.

More to come
Mark

[Guest]

Hello Traveler,

To put it quite simply, I have not been able to find clear biblical teaching that regeneration occurs before belief. If I could be presented with a persuasive case I would certainly believe it. However, it seems that the new birth comes as a result of placing trust in God (faith). I certainly understand Calvinistic reasoning, but like a berean I'm searching for clear cut evidence to see if these things are so.

Now, with the passages you have already cited you may wonder why I don't find them convincing. I don't find them convincing because they don't say that being born again is what causes one to have the ability to believe. (I am convinced that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes, and I do believe in conviction by the Holy Spirit prior to belief)

In John 3 for example, in the context of being born again it seems to mention belief in Christ as the requirement;

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

Is not entering the kingdom of God by being born again (mentioned in John 3: verse 3 and 5) equated with entering into "life", meaning eternal life?

It seems to be, if you follow Mark 9 verses 43-47;

43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed...45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame...47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire

If entering into life is equated with entering the Kingdom of God, then why in John 3 would it be any different?

It seems that Calvinist have a hard time pinning down passages that show regeneration before belief. I don't know of one passage that demonstrates this doctrine. On the other hand the scripture is replete with examples of salvation coming by faith and not by being converted "first".

Here is one example:

Acts 16:30
And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved...”

What about regeneration? Titus 3 states: "He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit"

I don't see the text stating that belief is the evidence that you are already saved (regenerated) but rather believe and you will be saved.

So what about the assertion that our heart need to be changed before faith is possible. It seems that Acts 9 says otherwise;

"So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith."

Isn't purifying our heart regeneration? If a changed heart is regeneration then would this passage not mean 'regenerating their hearts by faith'?

Maybe I'm just a simpleton but when we are commanded to believe for remission of sins, and remission of sins is mentioned as a result of regeneration (per earlier discussions in this thread) from Col 2:13 being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses. If this is regeneration, and it includes having your sins forgiven, then, per Peter, this comes by faith and not before. Acts 10:43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”.

[Guest]

In closing, Robert Shank had this to say about this subject in his book Elect in the Son:

My Spirit shall not always strive with man" declared God in the days of Noah (Gen 6:3). If the men of Noah's generation were foreordained to damnation, as Calvinism teaches, in what sense did the Spirit strive with them, since they were fulfilling their foreordained role in refusing the testimony of Noah?

Yet again, command does not imply human ability. The Holy Spirit striving does not imply human ability either.

The Ten Commandments, likewise, speak of what we ought to do but they do not imply that we have the moral ability to obey them. (Rom 3:20, 5:20, Gal 3:19,24), nor can we be perfect as is our Heavenly Father is, yet we are commanded to be as He is. Command does not imply human ability.

Besides, all that is said here is that God shall not always strive with man, as He has done with His Prophets etc, but will one day no longer show mercy and longsuffering with those in the flesh.

Therefore, even this passage supports the teaching that God indeed, shows mercy to some, but one day, enough will be enough, just like in the days of Noah, but believers, just like Noah, will be spared in the end through His long suffering of all the elect in time.

For God is longsuffering towards His elect, not wishing that any of them shall perish, but that all given to the Son by the Father from eternity, shall be saved. God will show mercy to whomever he will show mercy, and who He wills to harden, He will harden, all to the glorious grace of God.

Mark

[Guest]

Sean, for your consideration,

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.

Mark