Regeneration Precedes Faith

I just watched the video of Jim McCarty on Ephesians 2:8, and I think he is correct that the neuter pronoun can refer collectively to the concepts preceding it because the preceding statement as a statement is considered a grammatically neutral thing.. But i don't agree that Greek pronouns always have to agree with their antecedents in gender. There are exceptions, however. The most famous one would probably be the use of a masculine pronoun to refer to the Spirit in John 14:26, 15:26, and 16:7,13-14, even though the Greek pneúma is grammatically neuter. The obvious reason for this is that the Holy Spirit is a personal being who is God, and God is always referred to in the masculine. So, conceptually, it is perfectly proper for Jesus to use a masculine pronoun, even though grammatically it isn't a normal usage. For other similar examples you could read Daniel B. Wallace's paper "Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit," where he offers a number of instances for consideration. Wallace makes an important and, I think, obvious point when he says:

In my view, the use of toúto in Ephesians 2:8 is a similar type of exception (even though in this case we are dealing with a demonstrative pronoun). The nearest antecedent in the Greek text (pístis, faith) is that to which the pronoun (toúto) most likely refers, and it uses the neuter because, although faith is grammatically feminine, it is nonetheless a concept that as such is in reality is neither masculine nor feminine, and so the neuter pronoun is used.

For what it's worth, here are some of my own teaching notes on Ephesians 2:8:

Hope this has been helpful in the discussion.

JohnBrian, according to your idea the receiving of life logically precedes the hearing of the Word. So according to your idea, logically the receiving of life is totally separate from the hearing of the Word. However, that idea is contradicted by the following statement of Jesus Christ:

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (Jn.6:63).

Let us look at the verse which speaks of passing from death unto life:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (Jn.5:24).

According to you the sinner passes from death into life before he even hears or believes--despite the fact that the Lord Jesus says that those who hear and believe are "passed from death unto life."

In his commentary on these verses John Calvin says:

"For it would not be sufficient to understand what he formerly taught, that he came 'to raise the dead,' unless we also knew the manner in which he restores us to life. Now he affirms that life is obtained by 'hearing' his word, and by the word 'hearing' he means 'faith,' as he immediately afterwards declares" [emphasis mine] (John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Volume Second, ed. William Pringle [Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library).

JohnBrian, according to your view you have the "hearing" of the gospel logically preceding "believing" the gospel. But here the Apostle Paul reveals that one's regeneration is through a process that is described as being "together" with Christ:

"Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses" (Col.2:12-13).

According to Paul this quickening results after or as a result of forgiveness of sins:

"...hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses."

Therefore the quickening cannot possibly happen until the sinner believes because this forgiveness is entirely dependent upon faith:

"All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name" (Acts 10:43; NIV).

Are you willing to argue that the sinner can be quickened "together" with Christ while he remains defiled by his sins?

ChrisC, the arguments on this thread have been based on the "logical order." See post #12 on this thread.

As Sproul said:

What is the temporal role of conviction? Can the Holy Spirit bring a feeling of conviction to a person through their exposure to the gospel without first (temporally) indwelling a person? Personally, I don't see why He couldn't. After all, Satan can bring feelings of fear and depression on people without indwelling them. Satan can oppress believers but not possess them. So if Satan can bring feelings to people without indwelling them, then why couldn't the Holy Spirit, who is even more powerful than Satan?
I think we have all known of people who we could tell were under conviction, but who, for whatever reason, just would not turn to God for salvation. Perhaps they are worried about their family's reaction, which would be especially true for Muslims who are under conviction, so they don't get saved.

James, to you it may be mere speculation and theory but I believe that the Scriptures reveal in no uncertain terms that "life" or "regeneration" comes as a result of faith. Here the Apostle John says:

"Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (Jn.20:30-31).

It is not until the sinner believes that he receives spiritual life, and the only life that the Scriptures speak of is the life which is in the Son:

"And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son" (1 Jn.5:11).

Upon believing the gospel the sinner is made alive by being completely identified with the Lord Jesus Christ:

"Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph.2:5-6).

This quickening or giving of life is identified with "salvation," and salvation is the result of faith:

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Ro.1:16).

Upon believing the sinner is baptized by the Holy Spirit into the death of the Lord Jesus and at the samer time is baptized into His Body:

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit" (1 Cor.12:13).

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?" (Ro.6:3).

In order to cling to their false theology the Calvinists must invent another regeneration which precedes the one which brings eternal life, a life which is in the Son.

I was just reading through some of the posts that I hadn't read completely. I had never heard of this distinction between regeneration and conversion. I had always heard them both used in a way synonymous with salvation. If a man is converted many times in his life, does the very first experience of conversion have to happen at the same time as regeneration, or can there be a delay? Spurgeon mentioned conviction, which is a term I had a question about in another thread. There are so many similar threads that I can't keep track of them. Can a person who is regenerated resist their conviction? I suppose they can, or why would they have to be converted over and over again? Does there even have to be conversion as long as there is regeneration? Is Spurgeon just using the term conversion in the same way we would use confession, which is something God wants Christians to do over and over again? If a person does feel convicted about their sins, does that mean they have already been regenerated, even though they may not yet have taken any steps to deal with their conviction?

Pastork, what you say did not even address the main issue. Let us look at the verse in question and the one which follows it:

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph.2:8-9).

Here the "gift" is said to be "not of works." Are we supposed to believe that Paul is here refuting the idea that "faith" can be had by doing works? Of course that is not the error which Paul is trying to correct. There is nothing in the Scriptures that even hints that anyone was ever teaching a false doctrine that "faith" can be obtained by doing works. That is because that makes no sense at all!

The error which he is correcting is the idea that "salvation" can be obtained by "works." That has been a false teaching since the beginning so it was this idea that Paul was refuting when he said that the "gift" was "not of works."

It makes no sense whatsoever to argue that Paul was saying that "faith" is not of works because no one in their right mind would ever argue that "faith" can be obtained by doing "works" of one kind or another. So when you say that you believe that the "gift" is faith then you must argue that Paul was refuting the idea that "faith" can be obtained by doing "works."

Is that what you think?

I was hoping that I might finally get an intelligent answer for a change.

We are supposed to believe that Paul was saying that "faith" is not of works as if someone was actually making the argument that one can obtain faith by doing works!

However, it makes perfect sense to you. For some reason that does not surprise me.

I was wondering about the "prepatory work" that McMahon mentioned. I looked at the article and saw this paragraph:
It may be said and commented that even though there is a conviction of sin, and that men are made enlightened to the reality of the person, office and work of Christ, that they may not be saved. Felix trembled before Paul, and many were made partakers of the Holy Spirit and of the blessings of the age to come as recorded in Hebrew 6, but these were, in fact, still lost (Acts 24:25; Hebrews 6:1-8).

So McMahon here is saying that conviction and illumination happen before regeneration, right? If they were illuminated, but were, in fact, still lost, that means God must illuminate people while they are remaining dead, right?

I read the paper and while the author properly identified the grammatical parts he makes both assertions (as does Piper) and conclusions that are not warranted by either the grammar or context and makes an elementary error in his hermeneutic with regard to context and with respect to the use of the present tense of "believes" and the perfect of "have been born".

I will have more time this weekend to deal with the flaws of the paper but they are much more evident than you may imagine. The arguments sound good but the author makes some critically erring assumptions from the intent of the grammar, its construct and the context.

I said what I did because I have seen no legitimate responses to (1) that article, (2) Snoeberger's journal article.
I've read Erickson's Systematic Theology on the issue, but his arguments are already address by the DTS journal.

If they have made elementary errors, then it should be fairly easy to demonstrate, as opposed to asserting. I look forward to reading your critique. As I am convinced "faith" finds its ultimate source in God's grace, the issue over the logical place of regeneration does not affect me as much. However, if regeneration does precede faith, then that only serves to strengthen the argument. Again, I look forward to reading your critique. However, I have not had much time, lately, to interact on this forum or any other.

Caleb,

I am beginning the roast now, I hope it will be finished today.

Without citing the references, in sort, It is my understanding, a sanctification takes place before the repentance, and repentance in order to have the faith, and the faith in turn does precede the regeneration. It is that being set apart by God which precedes faith which is confused with the regeneration which is wholly of God, and not caused by our faith, that faith which in fact precedes the regeneration.

Yes, in that I understand regeneration to explicitly refer to the new birth (John 1:12, 13. John 3:3. 2 Corinthians 5:17.)

I think it is fair to say I do not agree with the Calvinist interpretation and use of the term regeneration as for a cause for faith. Had the argument been repentance precedes faith, as Paul wrote Timothy, ". . . if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; . . . ." (2 Timothy 2:25.) God causing the change of mind or view resulting in faith, with that I would agree.

I think your post #2 gives an example of what I disagree on:

So in this post it says the very thing I do not agree as a correct understanding.

It is simply that I find the Calvinist supposition of a kind of regeneration before and in order to have faith untenable. The reason for faith is recognized truth (John 17:17; Romans 10:17), not some supposed regeneration.

Thank you for explaining the Calvinist view. I find it untenable on this issue, the use of the term regeneration to explain the spiritually dead coming to faith. I believe the new birth is the spiritual regeneration of the spiritually dead. And faith in God's truth precedes that regeneration. (John 1:12, 13.) As I understand regeneration (born of God) it is the conversion.

Secondly, in dealing with the opposing texts Snoeberger performs a rather interesting feat. He states about being saved:

And I agree, in fact let me add to this. While as a package term it cannot be reduced to mean “being regenerated” are you, Mark Snoeberger, about to suggest it does not include being regenerated? Let’s see where this leads.

And the answer to this is found in Snoeberger fairly assessing that all references to salvation, in their varying terms, sometimes means to emphasize a certain aspect of the “soteriological process” (a process eh?). That is, as Snoeberger says:

Yet he adds:

So then, if this is the case (I disagree but Snoeberger asserts this, not me) then what is the argument for regeneration before faith if it is being conceded it is “impossible” to find a consistent placement? This is a startling claim in light of this dogmatic exercise.

Then Snoeberger attempts to treat a common syllogism which states:

Interestingly he does not argue the syllogism, rather he argues that other soteriological elements do not fit the syllogism, hence regeneration cannot. He says:

Well there is a reason why regeneration cannot be listed with these, because they aren’t listed in the Bible as being so. You simply do not get to add to a list of things stated as being done in eternity past, such as election, and get to add to it other elements of salvation in order to make an argument!

The final element of Snoeberger’s argument against the antithetical passages to which I will respond come with his treatment of “passages expressing faith or repentance unto life”. Snoeberger asserts:

First, while strict synonyms have a role to play they are not always required. For example, if I say I had my leg cut off, I also am saying I had my foot cut off. Foot and leg are not synonyms but by saying one thing I am also saying the other.

Demanding as a prescription that of “strict synonyms” is a precipitous theological expectation which Snoeberger should know does not serve Reformed Theology or Calvinism well at all. In fact, may I remind him of a statement within one of his arguments he makes, later in his paper, in discussing faith?

But further, let me ask a very critical question to Snoeberger or anyone else wishing to argue that because of “imprecision” all passages cited that speak of “believe and you will have life”, do not include regeneration. Are you really, really suggesting that where terms such as “life”, which is possessed after one believes (per the cited passages), in no way, ever, should be viewed as including regeneration? Are you really making this argument? If so, begin the exegetical task of proving such an assertion. Do your homework and demonstrate this very exotic claim.

And if you are not arguing this then you have a problem with your argument and your initial premise.

I won’t labor here though because I want to deal with the follwing point. Here Snoeberger says, “the point of the passages is not to announce logical priority within an ordo salutis” (the passages he is talking about are the ones that speak of "repentance or faith unto life"). Well, I do not necessarily agree but for the sake of argument let's say this is true.

This still does not remove the fact that if the passages contain a logical ordo salutis, we certainly are obligated to identify it. Hence, such an argument is impotent, especially in light of Snoeberger’s own words in defense of using 1 John as evidence for his view of ordo salutis where he quotes Brookes to make a point:

So, if the point of the passages that appear to reject Snoeberger’s position aren’t “to announce logical priority within an ordo salutis”, we may not invoke such passages as arguments…but… when the purpose of his passages are also admittedly not “to prove an ordo salutis ” it’s fine for him to make his appeal with them? Eh?

P.S. Snoeberger makes an assertion about faith as being defined in this manner:

I unreservedly take issue with the claim that faith requires an “emotional assent” and that emotional assent is in view with “nearly all evangelicals”. Now it should be noted that he does qualify his definition of faith with the footnote stating that:

Even with Dallas not in view, I certainly challenge his view that “emotional assent” being necessary for faith is affirmed as an undeniable and indivisible element of faith and that this is common in nearly all evangelical definitions. I am wondering of Snoeberger has fully considered the implications of such a claim.

So, now having dealt with the portion of Snoeberger’s paper which I give appropriate credit to for having given treatment to opposing texts, I wish to move onto Barrett’s arguments for regeneration before faith.

I hope to have some time in the future to interact. Questions do come to mind. I am seeking to better follow what you are communicating and what you believe.

You clearly take issue with "emotional assent". Are you "merely" questioning the validity of his largely-encompassing statement, as applicable to "nearly all evangelicals"?

Are you also going further and relating your own position on the matter?

(not on the evangelical level, but on a personal level) Are you "personally" holding that emotional assent is not a matter of the definition of faith in the Bible?

Is that how you see the teaching of Scripture?

Also, how would you define "emotions"?

Would you agree that "faith" is more than just volition and cognitive knowledge?

Certainly, you are not required to answer this barrage of questions; I am just seeking to better understand you position, so as to be better able to assess it. Thanks.

First, yes I question the validity of his statement as largely-encompassing for "nearly all evangelicals" (even with Dallas Theological Seminary in mind). Secondly, yes I am also going further and relating my own position on the matter, one that I believe can be found in rather substantial volume within Evangelical theology.

I will reply to the latter portion of the post in the next few days.

First off, are you saying that the opening of Lydia's heart is the same as getting a "new heart"? I suppose one could tie those together, but there does seem to be a semantic difference between an "open" heart and a "new" heart. Luke 24:44-45 says, 44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. In this passage, the disciples had their understanding opened. Does this mean that the disciples did not have a new heart until Luke 24? I'm just wondering if having one's understanding opened is really exactly the same as getting a new heart and new life. After all, they didn't even have the indwelling of the spirit yet.

In post 36, you stated, "I had not actually thought about the work of conviction and illumination. Reading McMahon's article I think that he is saying that both of those come before regeneration, as part of the process of leading individuals to salvation."
You also said, "The conviction and illumination may take some time, and might be different for every believer. There is a point in the conversion process when the Holy Spirit takes away the blindness and the individual expresses faith."
So is the Calvinist idea of regeneration that of a "process" which may take time between the illumination and the coming to faith? That is what you seemed to say in post 36.

Also, I have a question about Lydia. She was someone who "worshipped God" before she even heard Paul. Was her worship of God completely worthless before hearing Paul? Were people in the Old Testament who worshipped God doing so while completely blind, deaf, and without life? Did sight and hearing and spiritual life only come to people after Christ's death, thus making regeneration a term that should be used only for New Testament saints? I'm just curious about that.

I don't want to put words in JohnBrian's mouth, but I think one point is missing in his and Kevin's discourse. I don't believe there is a perceptible time lapse between regeneration, faith, and salvation. As was stated earlier in the thread, in a timeline these events occur essentially simultaneously. What is being argued is the logical order of events - the cause and effect in salvation.

Honestly, I'm not exactly sure that I affirm the concept of regeneration as the initial act, even if called something else. After all, the "something else" would have to mean "to give life" or it wouldn't even be the same concept as regeneration. As I said, I affirm illumination, but illumination is not the same SOMETHING as regeneration. I affirm a "drawing" as in John 6:44. "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him." One could be drawn toward God without being life/unification with God, so I don't think "drawing" is the same SOMETHING as regeneration. One could be given some sort of enabling grace without being given life/unification with God. You see, there are a number of SOMETHINGS God could do, which could give man the ability to have faith without having to be given life/unification first.

Okay, this example of Lazarus allows me to ask you some questions about the life that is produced by regeneration. I see three distinct stages in the example.
1. Lazarus comes to life in the tomb. (What kind of life is this? In the account, it is physical life, but you are using this account as an illustration of the gaining of spiritual life. So is it spiritual life that he gains in the tomb?)
2. Lazarus exits the tomb. (I take it that this DOING of something is meant to be analogous to faith, right?)
3. Lazarus experiences a "complete" union with Christ, his sisters, and the living community. (Does this mean that his regeneration that he experienced in the tomb was "incomplete" in some way? Is there such a thing a partial regeneration?)
I recognize that you are desiring people to recognize that there is a distinction to regeneration as the initial act of God and that we should not look at regeneration as simply a synonym for salvation itself. What I need to know is if there are some distinctives to this distinction that make regeneration different from salvation itself. Your example of Lazarus makes it look as if you are teaching a logical order of regeneration, then faith, then full regeneration. I could completely understand that logical order if the initial act of God was a restoration of ability rather than a full union with Christ. That is why I asked you specifically, "Are Calvinists defining the "initial act of God" as regeneration=restoration-of-ability instead of regeneration=gaining-of-spiritual-life?" The answer you gave me made it seem as if you yourself are defining regeneration as synonymous with salvation itself. You stated, "I think it includes both! Man is spiritually dead. God gives him spiritual life. His eyes and ears are open, and he embraces the One who has given him the life. The complete process is salvation."
So this is the question to which I need an answer: When is regeneration, which is the giving of spiritual life, logically complete? Is it complete at the initial act, or is it only complete after faith?

Well being born over was the prerequisite to seeing the kingdom of God (which is in heaven). As it was OT saints would go to the upper compartment of sheol, not heaven upon death. OT saints didn't go to heaven until after Christ's ascension into heaven to be mediator.

Comment?

Luke 16:19-31. Luke 16:31: Deuteronomy 32:22; Psalm 86:13. Abraham with Lazarus in his arms in the upper compartment with the rich man in the lower comparment were God's anger kindles a fire in the earth.

The OT saved/saints were looking forward to the cross. Wasn't until Christ ascended into heaven as mediator that the OT saints and NT saints would go to heaven. Jesus who went into Paradise went into the upper compartment of Sheol/Hades. (See Acts 2:29-31. Ephesians 4:7-8.) Paul mentions Paradise in/as the third heaven. (2 Corinthians 12:2-4. cp 2 Corinthians 5:8.) Salvation in the OT was looking forward to the cross even as our salvation is looking back. Salvation has always been by grace, and the living word of God was as always leading men to repentance. (Romans 10:17. Hebrews 4:12.)

King David was saved, and had the Holy Spirit to never leave him. But David was not yet regenerated with eternal life, as evidence that he commitied murder of Uriah. (see 1 John 3:15, ". . . ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.")