Regeneration Precedes Faith

[Kevin Miller]

Lee wrote:

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

I’m not sure it does in every instance, but there is a strong pattern. Do you think the accounts of the cleansing of leprosy relate to the order of faith and regeneration?

I like your observation “…there is a strong pattern.”

If leprosy is a “strong pattern” of illustrating sin, and cleansing is an equally strong pattern for illustrating salvation, then there are some significant ordo salutis issues in regard to this thread.

Naaman, a leper we have all heard excellent (and probably not so excellent) sermons on in regards to salvation, is a prime example. The ordo salutis presented there is purely rational, pragmatic obedience (try it; what can it hurt?; and you’re already here), cleansing, and then belief followed up with worship.

Was it important that Naaman believed? Absolutely. Does the order that resulted in that belief matter? Not even a little bit. Maybe we should spend our evangelistic efforts in combing scripture for the methodology that we know resulted in belief and apply that and less time postulating on murky theology that, while it may be important to our particular theological bend, in the end does practically little to evangelize those that need the cleansing in the first place.

Douglas Wilson in an article titled The Protestant and Evangelical Future used the phrase “resurrecting grace.”

When the time came for each of us to be converted, the Spirit quickened us with a resurrecting grace.

That may actually be a better term than “regeneration,” as the latter term causes quite a bit of confusion for the non-Calvinist, The point in using either term is that since we are dead in sin, and unable to raise ourselves from our spiritual deadness, our resurrection must be external.

Jesus told Nicodemus that he needed to be re-born, and Nicodemus understood that Jesus was saying that such was impossible. The story of Lazarus physical resurrection illustrates that the command by Jesus carried with it the life-giving power for Lazarus to obey the command.

In salvation it is the act of God in resurrecting us from a spiritually dead state, that enables us to believe, so this resurrecting grace necessarily precedes faith.

p.s. Wilson’s article is not specifically about the subject , but is nonetheless a worthy read.

p.p.s. MacArthur opened the 2013 #ShepConf with a sermon on Nicodemus and is worth a listen.

If you are already resurrected, what’s the point of faith? Especially faith that is not your own? You are nothing more than an arbitrarily selected automaton in that system.

doesn’t make much sense to me

You called?

If God’s sovereign, what the point of prayer? If God is sovereign, what the point of evangelism? The point to all these questions, that appear illogical to some, is that this is the way God designed it. His word reveals these truths to us. To reject what God has revealed because it doesn’t seem logical is brash audacity. God is glorified when we believe Him. In our sinful state, we do not believe Him, not indeed can we. God grants us life so that we can believe, and in believing, we bring Him glory.

the problem is that everyone says the Bible reveals their system. Yet apparently God-fearing men have differing systems. And we continue to debate the same points ad nauseum, each side claiming that God revealed their system. I just wish those who have received the “Doctrines of Grace” would admit that their system is based on interpretation at points, not revelation. I think both systems have strengths and weaknesses, but both are flawed in that they attempt to force an interpretation on to various passages. I just don’t buy it. (BTW, I’d really like to see an actual Bible verse that says I am resurrected without believing.)

[Don Johnson]

the problem is that everyone says the Bible reveals their system. Yet apparently God-fearing men have differing systems. And we continue to debate the same points ad nauseum, each side claiming that God revealed their system. I just wish those who have received the “Doctrines of Grace” would admit that their system is based on interpretation at points, not revelation. I think both systems have strengths and weaknesses, but both are flawed in that they attempt to force an interpretation on to various passages. I just don’t buy it. (BTW, I’d really like to see an actual Bible verse that says I am resurrected without believing.)

This is exactly right. I occasionally get frustrated because I can sometimes see both systems in the Bible and ultimately both do have their strengths and weaknesses. I’ve resigned myself on several theological issues to have to accept a system that has flaws, simply because it seems to be the best choice out of several flawed systems.

[TylerR]

Yet, why do orthodox Christians believe it? Because of a systematic synthesis of the Biblical data. Why do some Christians believe in a Reformed soteriology? The same thing.

Yes, but that is not the same thing as saying, “the Bible clearly reveals” Calvinist systematics. It doesn’t. It’s an interpreted position (far less sure than the Trinity). My point is, why are advocates of Calvinism always talking as if their system is explicitly revealed? At least have the humility to simply say, “I think this is what Scripture teaches, but I realize that others interpret the same passages differently.”

[TylerR]

Because that would be silly. You don’t feel the same way in reverse, do you? You said called this “illogical theology,” above!

No, I have no problem with disagreement, or calling the other side illogical. The objectionable thing that is the assumption that a system like Calvinism is clearly revealed. If it were so clear, all Christians would agree. All Christians agree on the Trinity. They don’t on Calvinism. So a little humility is in order.

Is that this whole “Calvinism vs. Arminianism” debate is one of Satan’s best tools for creating divisions and trouble within the body of Christ.