Regeneration Precedes Faith

[G. N. Barkman]

Steve, I doubt that this is the defining doctrine that divides Calvinists and Arminians. I am under the impression that Arminians generally assert belief in justification by faith alone . But the order solutis is a clear dividing line.

We are justified by faith, but we are not regenerated by faith. We are regenerated so that we can exercise the faith that justifies.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean justification by faith is the divide between Calvinists and Arminians but as the essence of Reformed teaching (if there is an essence). Sproul claimed the essence of Reformed teaching is that regeneration precedes faith. I think he’s wrong on the teaching and the essence.

At the time of the Reformation, justification by faith alone was one of, if not the most important teaching in opposition to errors of Rome. However, regeneration preceding faith was also a big issue. Martin Luther’s “The Bondage of the Will” was written to refute the error that man has a will that is able to choose Christ without a prior enlivening by the Holy Spirit. So a pretty good case can be made for Sproul’s assertion from the standpoint of Reformation history.

However, if Sproul was speaking of contemporary issues, his statement has even stronger support. Arminianism teaches that faith precedes regeneration, whereas Reformed doctrine teaches the exact opposite. Man does not believe because he cannot believe. “No one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father” (John 6:65)

Certainly the Father draws, the Spirit works, etc. I still don’t see regeneration. It’s the wrong word. See above. I don’t think Calvin believed it. Many Calvinists might believe it. But Calvinism does not hold exclusive claim to Reformed teaching. I’ll take the simplicity of the gospel.”Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.”

Anecdotally I asked two Westminster-trained Reformed friends to define the essence of Reformed teaching. Neither mentioned regeneration precedes faith and neither believes it. Even if Sproul were right on the teaching, which I don’t concede, he’s wrong on the essence.

I hope you will break this to them gently, but if your friends do not believe that regeneration precedes faith, they are not reformed, no matter what they may call themselves.

As to Calvin, I’m positive he did believe this. However, I’m on vacation, and away from my library, so can’t document that at the moment.

It’s not surprising that those who do not believe regeneration precedes faith also don’t believe it’s the essence of reformed doctrine, especially if they consider themselves reformed. But I believe that R. C. Sproul is more knowledgeable about this than the average person.

On one thing we agree. Sproul IS now much more knowledgeable than the average person. Whether he WAS right about this is another question. I’ve been in and around Reformed circles enough to know you don’t get to decide who is and who isn’t Reformed based on this question. On board and heading out. Enjoyed the interaction.

“This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” - Gal. 3:2

The answer is “neither” if you follow Sproul. You received the Spirit and THEN got the hearing of faith. Why? Because you deduced that a dead man cannot do anything, as if a lifeless corpse is analogous to spiritual deadness. It isn’t. Spiritually dead men do respond by suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. (Rom. 1:18)

Paul asserts in Gal. 2 that one must exercise faith in order to receive the Spirit (i.e. be regenerated). This corresponds to Rom. 1:16; Jn. 5:24, etc. Also, if regeneration precedes faith then you cannot be justified by faith ( as was Abraham e.g. Rom. 4:3), since being regenerated is the sign of acceptance with God, vis a vis, justification.

Still on tarmac. Great points. Glad to read your comments before takeoff.

I was just curious enough to google this, and here is the result I found:

(1) Total Depravity—Man in his natural state is dead in trespasses and sins.

It is the ancient conviction of the Christian church that man—being dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1, 5)—cannot save himself. Yet how often man has tried to do something to bring about his own salvation! But Jesus said, “Apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). It is for this reason that the Bible says that God alone is the author of man’s conversion. Any man who hears the gospel is commanded by God to accept it. He is free to accept it. But—and this is the whole trouble—he is not able to accept it, because he does not have the holy desire or will to do so. “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil” (Jer. 13:23).

Man’s sinful nature, and this alone, makes it impossible for him to do anything to bring about his own salvation. As Jesus once said, “With man this is impossible …” (Matt. 19:26). It is impossible for those who are dead in sin to receive Jesus Christ as he is freely offered in the gospel. How thankful we ought to be, then, that Jesus went on to say, “… but with God all things are possible.”

The Reformed faith teaches that man’s ability has suffered drastic change as a result of his fall into sin. He was originally both free and able to do the will of God. But “by his fall into a state of sin,” he has “wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto” (WCF, IX:3; italics added).

God did not take away from man the liberty to do good. So far as God is concerned, man is still free to do good. But he is not able to do good; in fact, he is “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil” (WCF, VI:4). This is what the Scripture teaches, when it says, “The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so” (Rom. 8:7). Man’s depravity, in other words, is total by nature.

Doesn’t seem like the OPC takes a position like the one Sproul does, probably because it doesn’t really need to. There’s interplay there, but in my opinion it’s like trying to separate out yellow pigment from blue pigment in already mixed up green paint.

[Kevin Miller]

Can a person feel the conviction of the Holy Spirit without being regenerated first?

So if these spiritually dead people were “cut to the heart,” does that mean they were already regenerated before they asked “What shall we do”? I’ve always understood “cut to the heart” to be a phrase indicating conviction, but that they weren’t saved until they followed Peter’s directions.

One of the problems with these type discussions is the imprecise way we customarily used the word “saved.” Think about this statement. “I have been saved. I am being saved. I shall be saved.” Each phrase is an accurate statement, yet the word “saved” has many different meanings. So to say, “I must believe in order to be saved” means exactly what? I must believe in order to be regenerated? I must believe in order to be justified? I must believe in order to be sanctified? I must believe in order to go to heaven? Calvinists agree with all but the first statement. I’m afraid we are talking past each other much of the time. We must be more precise about which aspect of salvation we have in mind.

I agree with GNB that the usual Calvinist position is that regeneration precedes faith. However, not all Calvinists held to that view. Moreover it seems to contradict the Scriptures I quoted above. Another passage it collides with is John 9:38-39:

He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.”

But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Does leprosy in Scripture consistently illustrate sin and the cleansing of leprosy consistently illustrate salvation?

[Lee]

Does leprosy in Scripture consistently illustrate sin and the cleansing of leprosy consistently illustrate salvation?