Regeneration Precedes Faith

[Alex Guggenheim] Caleb,

I am halfway through. I can edit and publish the first half if you wish which is almost exclusively a response to the Snoeberger paper or I can finish the second half which treats Barrett’s paper and then publish the entire response. let me know what you would like but the entire response will not be ready until Monday more than likely. My weekend responsibilities are upon me and I will be taxed greatly until Sunday afternoon.

Alex

Feel free to do whatever you like. Those articles are not small, and I can imagine how much work it takes. I know what it is like to be busy: there right now! Monday, or whenever, I will definitely read it and think it over for a while.

[JohnBrian]

[Paul S] 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.

Are you using the term regeneration as synonymous with salvation?

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

[JohnBrian]

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

As I established in my article (which I link to in post 1) Calvinists do not use the terms synonymously. That appears to be why Calvinists are routinely critiqued for affirming the notion of regeneration before faith.

Calvinists DO NOT affirm the notion that conversion precedes faith, because an affirmation of that makes no sense. If one is converted before faith, then faith is unnecessary!

p.s. post 4 has a downloadable pdf of my blog article

p.p.s post 21 has a Spurgeon quote where he differentiates between the terms regeneration and conversion.

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:

[JohnBrian] In my article I quote from both Spurgeon and Piper regarding 1 John 5:1. The Spurgeon quote is in the previous post. Here is what Piper wrote:

[Piper] That’s plain in 1 John 5:1: “Everyone who believes [that is, has faith] that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.” Having been born of God results in our believing. Our believing is the immediate evidence of God’s begetting.

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.

Caleb,

Due to the restraints of posting in forum I will not be able to match the breadth of either paper but I will address what I believe to be missteps, a couple that I categorized as elementar, in the approach to regeneration as being necessitated before one believes the Gospel, an in particular to Barrett’s appeal to 1 John as the coup de grace. This first post I will deal with Snoeberger’s argument with an initial reference to Barrett, then in my second post I will approach Barrett’s argument.

http://blogmatics.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/does-regeneration-precede…] Does Regeneration Precede Faith in 1 John? Matthew Barrett

http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2002/Snoeberger.pdf] THE LOGICAL PRIORITY OF REGENERATION TO SAVING FAITH

IN A THEOLOGICAL ORDO SALUTIS by Mark A. Snoeberger

Barrett beings his paper with a classic Calvinistic proof text technique and an unsubstantiated premise:

We begin by considering 1 John 5:1, which John Piper calls ―the clearest text in the New Testament on the relationship between faith and the new birth,1

What a fantastic way to begin, by simply announcing by way of John Piper (btw I know there are a lot of Piper fans here and with all due respect, John Piper may speak your language of spirituality but as an exegete he has repeatedly demonstrated that he is very pedestrian and his exegetical miscarriages have produced, too often, still born teachings of which he mildly, at best, has repented. So citing John Piper as a source isn’t exactly an exegetical foundation that doesn’t already have issues) that here we have “the clearest text in the New Testament on the relationship between faith and the new birth”.

Mind providing an argument for this or am I to understand that I am simply to accept this without argument? Mr. Barrett, this isn’t how we make theological discovery or argument, by simply elevating a text over all others without argument so as to begin by reigning supreme and making your argument in the context of a superior seat. Possibly you are expecting me to read Piper’s publication on the matter and accepting it before reading yours, I don’t know but you certainly are demanding from your readers an unqualified assertion.

If you want to argue the merits of the exegesis of 1 John 5:1, go ahead, but you aren’t going to qualify it, without argument , as the “clearest text in the New Testament on the relationship between faith and the new birth” while the reasonable eyes and watchful minds pay attention.

• So what texts stand in the way of this one and all others in 1 John that Barrett alludes to as the supreme location of Scripture on the matter?

How about what Snoeberger cites?

The argument that faith precedes regeneration exists in three lines:

(1) passages expressing faith or repentance unto salvation,

(2) passages expressing belief and repentance unto life, and

(3) passages expressing employment of the Word unto regeneration

And then he lists them in their categories (btw, these passages sure do add up quickly and one might observe, from the on start, that it is going to be a curious thing to learn just how NONE of these passages that speak so plainly are really putting faith before regeneration) :

Passages Expressing Faith or Repentance unto Salvation

Acts 16:31 Romans 10:9, Romans 10:13, Ephesians 2:5, 8, 2 Thessalonians 2:13

Passages Expressing Faith or Repentance unto Life

John 3:15–16„John 5:24–25, John 5:40, John 6:40, John 11:25, John 20:31, Acts 11:18

1 Timothy 1:16

Here are the some very consistently used passages that function as what Snoeberger and Barrett would consider texts which represent the antithesis of their assertion that regeneration precedes faith. Snoeberger properly identifies them and gives them some treatment, but he seems to suffer under it as a necessary nuisance to his overall position. Obviously that is a description based on my opinion but it is founded in his part of his treatment of the texts in the following ways:

Snoeberger states about these texts regarding faith preceding regeneration that they are “unwarranted for two reasons”.

First he deals with Acts 2:21, 16:31, and Romans 10:9, 13 which refer to being saved as a future event in relationship to believing. In other words, both logically and chronologically they position believing before being saved which is why being saved, in these passages, is in the future tense. Now, look at his argument and tell me if this justifies such a robust and dogmatic response that regeneration precedes faith and remember this is the negative of his argument, that is the premise of his assertion is in part, based on what he claims are weaknesses in the texts used by those asserting otherwise (here he is addressing the future tense of the verb “saved” bold mine):

The fact that the verbs …are cast in the

future tense in Acts 2:21, 16:31, and Romans 10:9, 13 does not demand

that they are cast in future time. It is plausible to identify the use

of the future tense here as Stanley Porter’s “timeless future,”49 in which

absolute time is undetermined, yielding only a vague association. Note for instance, one of Porter’s examples: In Romans 6:5, 8 Paul indicates

that we shall be in the likeness of his resurrection and shall live, even

though context clearly indicates that we already are raised and are alive

(vv. 4, 11). As Porter notes, the future tense does not indicate future

time; rather, “the syntactical evidence can be used in fact to argue just

the opposite, that Paul sees the ‘resurrection’ of the believer already

present once he is ‘planted’ or ‘dead’ to Christ.”50 If this is the case in

the passages in view in this study, then there is no temporal

Not to be disrespectful but I want to ask, much like the television commercial of late….REALLY? REALLY? What do I mean by really? I mean to ask if Snoeberger really is this lacking of an argument that he invokes “plausibility” which is a very passive and clearly weak appeal upon which, in part, his declarative doctrine rests.

But worse is the attempt to justify ignoring the logical and temporal order of these passages by calling on the use of the future in both a present and future context claimed from another passage that is not the equivalent contextual use! Porter is right; the future can include the present, at times, but not always and in the passages cited referring to faith and being saved, there is no exegetical or contextual justification for attempting to say this is a case, whereas in the passages where it is used that way, it clearly stands out to the reader. And is Snoeberger really suggesting we view all related passages this way when the future is used? Really? All of the normative future uses of all the antithetical texts are now conveniently relegated to the “timeless future”? Wow!

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

If “being saved” (all five passages in view use the passive voice of

σώζω) is sometimes viewed as an eschatological event, it cannot be

reduced to mean “being regenerated.” Instead, the Scripture-writers

seem to use the verb broadly, as a generic or “package” term.

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:

sometimes the verb references the early phases of the soteriological process…sometimes its end in glorification…and still other times the entire salvation process.

Yet he adds:

Thus it is impossible to find a consistent placement of “salvation” in a biblical ordo salutis.

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:

A: Faith results in salvation broadly defined.

B: Regeneration is an aspect of salvation broadly defined.

C: Faith results in regeneration.

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

The implication is that since “salvation” follows faith, every aspect of

salvation must likewise follow faith. But this is theologically untenable.

For instance, election does not follow faith; the efficacious call does

not follow faith—and surely no one could deny that these are both

aspects of salvation. There is no reason why regeneration cannot be

listed with these. With this in mind it is easy to spot the failure of the

syllogism above: it does not preclude the possibility that some aspects

of salvation precede faith. It only states that many benefits of salvation

are realized after one believes.

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:

It is impossible to deal with each of these texts individually, nor, in

fact, is the list exhaustive. However, a detailed exegetical study for each

is unnecessary for two reasons: (1) the “life” described in these verses is

not a strict synonym for regeneration, and (2) the point of the passages is not to announce logical priority within an ordo salutis.

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?

Admittedly, no precise synonym for faith appears in this verse; however, a class of activities that includes faith is mentioned: acts of the human will.

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:

While A. E. Brookes concedes that John’s purpose in this verse is not specifically to prove an ordo salutis, he adds, “Incidentally, the tenses make it clear that the Divine Begetting is the antecedent, not the consequent of the believing.”

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:

The term faith scarcely needs defining. Nearly all evangelicals affirm

that saving faith includes three elements: (1) intellectual knowledge

of, (2) emotional assent to, and (3) unreserved, volitional trust in

the accomplished redemptive work of Christ as revealed in the Scriptures.

31

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:

but these elements are common in nearly all evangelical definitions and

explanations of faith apart from the Dallas school

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.

[Alex Guggenheim]

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.

[JohnBrian]

[Alex from post 54] In other words, both logically and chronologically they position believing before being saved which is why being saved, in these passages, is in the future tense.

I think you have just affirmed the entire point of my article.

You seem to be directly equating the word regeneration with the word salvation, in that believing precedes salvation. No Calvinist (that I know) would argue that salvation precedes faith.

John,

Your quote is out of context. I was responding to an assertion by Snoeberger and my response was not attempting equate regeneration (an element of salvation) and salvation (the comprehensive term or what Snoeberger called the “package-term”). So no, I would not be affirming your position.

[Caleb S]

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?

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.

[JohnBrian] James P. Boyce was the first president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, KY). In http://reformedreader.org/rbb/boyce/aos/chapter32.htm Regeneration and Conversion , Chapter 32 of his http://www.amazon.com/Abstract-Systematic-Theology-James-Boyce/dp/09785…] Abstract of Systematic Theology (also .99 for Kindle!), he writes:

At the outset of a discussion of these two subjects we are met by the question, whether they are not one and the same thing. They are unquestionably so intimately associated that it is difficult to separate them and point out the distinctions between them. The Scriptures connect the two under the one idea of the new birth, and teach that not only is regeneration an absolute essential in each conversion, but that in every intelligent responsible soul conversion invariably accompanies regeneration. It is not strange, therefore, that they are often confounded. Yet, after all, the Scriptures also teach that regeneration is the work of God, changing the heart of man by his sovereign will, while conversion is the act of man turning towards God with the new inclination thus given to his heart.

I have yet to see an objection to regeneration-preceding-faith which argues that Calvinists should not use the term regeneration in the way it is described by the above writers!

I come at this discussion without having much previous knowledge of the way Calvinists use terminology. The way I’ve looked at regeneration and conversion is pretty much the way Boyce describes when he says “They are unquestionably so intimately associated that it is difficult to separate them and point out the distinctions between them. The Scriptures connect the two under the one idea of the new birth.” I mean, doesn’t regeneration itself carry with it the idea of a “new birth”? If a person has experienced the “new birth,” then they are a member of the family of God and have eternal life. In my eyes, that is salvation. Yet Calvinists try to make this narrow distinction to the word regeneration that most people do not carry with them when they use the word regeneration. So if I have any objection to regeneration-preceding-faith it is that such a claim requires a definition of regeneration which most average Christiains do not identify with.

And I’m not saying such a definition is necessarily wrong. After all, I use a more narrow definition of the word “miracle” than other people may use when discussing whether God still does miracles today. I’m still trying to decide, though, whether the way Calvinists use regeneration makes sense based on the Scriptures I know which use the word regeneration.

[JohnBrian]

[Kevin Miller] Yet Calvinists try to make this narrow distinction to the word regeneration that most people do not carry with them when they use the word regeneration.

So you understand how Calvinist’s use the term - that’s good - as most of the critiques of the position (at least that I have encountered) miss that understanding. Their criticism is then based on their usage of the term rather than the Calvinist usage of the term.

Whether Calvinist’s should use the term in the way we do - “to express the initial divine act” (Hodge) - is a fair question. Should we use a different word, and/or is there a word that would better express our understanding of that “act”?

It would certainly be less confusing if a different word was used. The average Christian uses regeneration in the same way they would use “born again” which is typically used as a synonym for salvation. I suppose “illumination” doesn’t go far enough, since that just means “to shine light on,” but perhaps Calvinists could declare that “illumination” means more than light shining and actually means “the initial divine act.” I suppose I could do with a little further understanding of the “act” itself in order to come up with a word for it. Do Calvinists believe that this “act” is when the Holy Spirit indwells the person? If that is the case, then “indwelling” could be used, and then we would have the conversation about whether indwelling precedes faith.

[JohnBrian]

[Kevin Miller] I suppose I could do with a little further understanding of the “act” itself in order to come up with a word for it.

These verses describe it:

[Ezekiel 36:26] I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

[Acts 16:14] Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.

It is the act of God opening the eyes of the spiritually blind, opening the ears of the spiritually deaf, raising the spiritually dead to life. In all of these God is the SOLE cause of the sight, the hearing and the life (I thought to write FIRST cause, but that would indicate that there is at least a SECOND cause).

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.

[Caleb S] [

Also, how would you define “emotions”?

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

Before defining emotions please allow me to ask, are you seeking a simple answer such as a one or two word synonym or a comprehensive definition?

As to “faith” I am assuming we are talking about faith with respect to the Bible. And my first response would be to have anyone arguing that faith requires emotions, to demonstrate where in Scripture this is asserted. I do not believe it is.

Faith, per the Scriptures, is believing and this involves our comprehension and acceptance as true, that which is stated in Scripture. As far as the human element is concerned, yes, I would limit it to cognitive functions and our wills. Now it is clear that we are not merely, as humans, a cognition and volition. We also have accompanying these exercises (cognition and volition) things such as emotions, respiratory functions, circulatory functions and so on. For example, I cannot believe something if I do not have my circulatory system functioning. When the blood flow to the brain ceases I immediately become unconscious and begin dying. But the Bible does not include this as a necessity for me to believe, yet it is. Why? Because such things are understood to be present, yet though present they are not what is in view when and where the Scriptures address believing, itself.

Emotions are no different. It is generally understood that emotions are going to be present. In fact, it is understood so much that language is used in describing our responses that reflect its presence. The question is not, are emotions present? Yes, they are, rather, are emotions required for one to believe?

Again, I submit that emotions, while real and with a purpose in mind just as our nervous system enables our brain to function, our respiratory system and circulatory systems enables us to be animated, are not essential to believing. And those asserting emotions are necessary to believing the gospel, I would challenge to provide a prescriptive argument that this is always and exhaustively essential.

Now, let me say something. I am quite aware that emotions, in their role, do enhance the experiences of people with regard to their cognitive process. That is a person may recognize their embarrassment but then experience from that cognitive conclusion an emotional response that makes them more aware, possibly greatly aware, of their faux pas. And because of the discomfort of the heightened stimulus he or she may be prompted to more carefully audit the situation and form a more proper evaluation of who, what why and how.

And this may be true of our guilt of sin and the process of a man or woman becoming aware of their position before God as condemned and in need of salvation. But remember, the embarrassment or the awareness is a cognitive conclusion. The emotions that follow act as enhancers but they are not “determiners” or “thinkers”, they do not provide a platform for evaluation, only for stimulation. The “feelings” or emotions that the person experienced were not a cognitive process, rather they were based on a cognitive process.

But even with severe emotional responses, such a man or woman is still free to throw off all their previous considerations and simply reject what even their mind concluded to be true and their emotions responded to.

But what I also know happens is that a man or woman hears the gospel and does not consider his or her emotional response. They may have one but their emotions are tepid, they are not a source of motivation for them. They consider the facts and respond.

The two constants in both cases and in all cases are:

Recognition of the truth through the exercise of the mind.

The exercise of human volition to accept as true that which they have considered and upon which they have made a conclusion.

And these two constants are, what I believe, always reflected in all calls in Scripture for us to believe. These are the two constants and the fundamentally essential elements with regard to faith and the human ingredient that must be present. All other elements may or may not be present at varying times but are not essential to belief.

Now, do understand that as we speak we are speaking only in the context of the operation of the human being without consideration as to the other element in the exercise of our faith, namely the Spirit of God. I am sure you know this but for anyone reading I wanted to make sure this qualifier is included.

John,

I am not clear what you are saying but let me be clear.

1. Salvation is not a precise synonym for one of its elements, namely regeneration.

2. However, salvation always has in view or included regeneration (one of its elements), though it may not be the emphasis of its contextual use in a certain passage, it is not apart from its presence. An example is the human body. I may refer to the human body which includes the human arm. I may not identify a specific part of the body called the arm but when I refer to human body it includes the arm.

Also, I may refer to the human arm and apart from exceptional circumstances such as a case when it has been severed which would normally be presented with this context being clearly the case, when I refer to the human arm I do so, not apart from the human body but with the human body.

3. Therefore regeneration, an element of salvation, may be used with special reference to that element of salvation. However its reference is not used with the idea that it is apart from salvation.

There is no part of personal salvation that occurs before one believes (with respect to the context of our discussion). This includes regeneration. Snoeberger was attempting to justify the position that believing must occur through regeneration. Obviously I reject that.

Additionally, he and you assert that faith precedes salvation, no one I know of has gone so far as to say salvation occurs before one believes, though I believe the argument itself, that one is regenerated before believing, is exactly that. So if it is “faith preceding salvation” and that alone to which you are referring then yes, we agree.

But where you and I and Snoeberger and Barrett and whomever else, and I, depart is the view that believing requires or involves an element of salvation, namely regeneration. And your article, to me, seemed to have this theme as its thrust, hence I did not view myself as affirming the article. Now, whatever it is I am missing here I apologize and it would not be redundant to point it out. I am as susceptible as anyone else to missing things from time to time.

[JohnBrian] The point is that God DID SOMETHING to Lydia that caused her to “heed the things spoken by Paul.” In her natural state (that of an unregenerate person) she could not “pay attention” (Acts 16:14 ESV). The synergist affirms that man HAS the ability in his natural state to do what this Scripture states that God did.

Yes, I think that God does SOMETHING. but I really am trying to figure out if regeneration has to be the SOMETHING as opposed to SOMETHING like illumination, which would give one the ability to see.

What he fails to recognize is the effect of Adam’s sin on all of his descendants – spiritual death. God must restore ability, and it is that restoration that Calvinist’s call regeneration

The way I understand it, spiritual death would not simply indicate “lack of ability.” Spiritual death is actually separation from God. Therefore, spiritual life would be full and complete union with God, as opposed to just a restoration of some ability to understand. Are Calvinists defining the “initial act of God” as regeneration=restoration-of-ability instead of regeneration=gaining-of-spiritual-life? If regeneration is being accomplished by God to counter the effects of man’s “natural state,” that is, being dead in sins, then it would have to mean more than just an initial restoration of ability.

[Kevin] So is the Calvinist idea of regeneration that of a “process” which may take time between the illumination and the coming to faith?

No, regeneration is a spiritual event. The process leading up to that event is the 1 Cor. 3:6-8 “planting and watering,” with the “increase” being regeneration.

Since regeneration is the “initial act of God,” then the process of planting and watering must be taking place in the life of an unregenerate person without any act of God accompanying it, right? So what exactly can get planted and watered in a dead person who is unable to understand anything? Does the Word of God have some sort of an effect on people even before they can understand it? What kind of effect would that be? Would people be able to respond in some way to that effect?

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.

Jack,

I was finally taking some to look through this thread again today and only just saw that you had criticized my earlier post. I am sorry it took so long to respond. I assure you I wasn’t avoiding you. I have also paid attention to what some others have said to you here about having already answered the criticism you put to me. This led me to do a search in which I discovered this thread: http://www.sharperiron.org/forum/thread-ephesians-28-what-gift

Having briefly read through that thread, I discovered that your criticism had indeed been fairly well addressed already. But since you put it to me here, I will offer a brief reply of my own.

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.”

The main issue of my post was to discuss the proper antecedent of the pronoun toúto, and since the antecedent in this case must precede the pronoun rather than follow it, I of course dealt with the preceding statement in order to try to ascertain the best likely candidate. I concluded that, no matter how we take it, faith was necessarily included as that which was considered by Paul as a gift of God, whether as a gift in itself or as a part of the whole of salvation by grace through faith. I also gave a number of Scriptural arguments to demonstrate that understanding Paul in this way is perfectly in line with the teaching of Scripture as a whole.

I do not disagree that Paul’s words, “Not of works, lest any man should boast,” should be taken to refer to more than just faith as a gift. I think it best to understand these words as pertaining to the preceding statement as a whole. You seem to want to take these words as referring to the term “gift” in particular, and then argue that it makes no sense to say that it pertains to faith itself as that gift. However, I do not grant your premise here, namely that these words must refer only to the term “gift” rather than the whole preceding statement.

So, although I think the antecedent of toúto is best construed grammatically as referring particularly to faith (allowing also that it may refer to salvation by grace through faith as a whole, inclusive of faith), I see no reason to restrict the referent of the words “Not of works, lest any man should boast,” as you have done. I just don’t think you are recognizing the difference between deciding the referent of a particular pronoun versus the referent of an entire clause within a particular context.

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?

No, what I think was made clear in my post, namely that I think people can try to make faith itself out to be a work. And I think Paul says that no part of salvation - not even faith - can be conceived of as a work in the sense that he uses the term, i.e. as a meritorious contribution by man to his own salvation. This is why I quoted Jerome as I did (in obvious agreement with him):

The early church father Jerome (c. A.D. 347-420), commenting on the words, “and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God,” rightly concludes: “Paul says this in case the secret thought should steal upon us that ‘if we are not saved by our own works, at least we are saved by our own faith, and so in another way our salvation is of ourselves.’ Thus he added the statement that faith too is not in our own will but in God’s gift” (ACC, Vol.8, p.).

Regeneration is the new birth (John 1:13. 1 John 5:1)

What takes place before faith is repentance which God gives (Acts 5:31, Acts 11:18, Acts 16:14, 2 Timothy 2:25.)

And faith comes through hearing God’s truth (Romans 10:17. John 17:17.)

And God’s grace is received through faith (Ephesians 2:8.) And that faith is not of ourselves but by reason of God’s truth.

So faith does precede regeneration. But God’s intervention precedes our faith, in God giving us the ability to accept the truth so to repent to believe.

[JohnBrian]

[Kevin] Yes, I think that God does SOMETHING. but I really am trying to figure out if regeneration has to be the SOMETHING as opposed to SOMETHING like illumination, which would give one the ability to see.

So you affirm the concept of regeneration but would prefer for it to be called something other than regeneration?

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.

[Kevin] Spiritual death is actually separation from God. Therefore, spiritual life would be full and complete union with God, as opposed to just a restoration of some ability to understand.

Again, let me use Lazarus resurrection as an example. Christ command to him to come forth was the power that stopped and reversed the natural process of decay. He came to life inside the tomb. BUT, his union with Christ, his sisters, and the living community was not complete UNTIL he exited the tomb. It was not enough for him to be alive in the tomb, the tomb is for the dead, not for the living. He had to DO something AFTER he returned to life - exit the tomb.

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?

[JohnBrian]

Our salvation is completely a gift from God.

[Paul S] So faith does precede regeneration. But God’s intervention precedes our faith, in God giving us the ability to accept the truth so to repent to believe.

Disagree/Agree. (and we were doing so well there!) Obviously disagree with your first sentence, but agree with your second. What you describe in the second sentence is what Calvinists refer to as regeneration!

I think Calvinist use of the term “regeneration” is not Biblical. I suspect the disagreement is deeper that just the use of the term. Truth si the basis of any kind of faith. I believe we would agree spiritual truth the lost are blind. There are two factors, the noetic effect of the knowledge of evil. And the phenomena of the dominion of Satan over the lost (2 Corinthians 4:3,4.).

So do you believe God’s word is so impotent that the spiritually dead must be regenerated to hear it?

How were the saints of the OT “regenerated” to receive God’s grace? Since they were not partakers of the promise (Luke 24:49. Hebrews 11:39, 40.)?

[JohnBrian]

[Paul S] How were the saints of the OT “regenerated” to receive God’s grace? Since they were not partakers of the promise (Luke 24:49. Hebrews 11:39, 40.)?

This post by C Michael Patton touches on the issue of OT saints regeneration.

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/01/is-the-new-birth-in-the-o… IS THE NEW BIRTH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT? OR WHY WAS CHRIST SO HARD ON NICODEMUS IN JOHN 3:10?

While Christ’s rebuke of Nicodemus was harsh, it is nothing less than a rebuke for a failure to acknowledge the utter helpless condition that all of humanity faces outside of Christ. The new birth was just as necessary for people in the Old Testament is it is for all people.

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?

Really, Paul? An upper compartment? Curious where you get this. Why not to heaven?

[Chip Van Emmerik] Really, Paul? An upper compartment? Curious where you get this. Why not to heaven?

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.

What about the second question - why send OT saints to a second compartment instead of directly to heaven? On what grounds were they judicially spared condemnation? Are these not the same grounds by which they are provided eternal salvation? What grounds are there for a spiritual halfway house?

[Chip Van Emmerik] What about the second question - why send OT saints to a second compartment instead of directly to heaven? On what grounds were they judicially spared condemnation? Are these not the same grounds by which they are provided eternal salvation? What grounds are there for a spiritual halfway house?

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.)