Regeneration Precedes Faith

Chip,

I like what a pastor said once. “If God said it, it matters!”

I believe that God has given us the depth of His Word for a purpose, and we are to mine its depths. If we are in a disagreement, then one of us may be right, or we could both be wrong, but God’s Word does hold the truth. I appreciate a discussion like this because it drives us deeper into the Word and we see the finer detail that we may have overlooked before. I believe that we are instructed to “Test all things; hold fast what is good.” (1 Thess 5:21).

Have a great weekend!

When we consider the preservation by God of the story of the resuscitation of Lazarus from his state of death and its record in Scripture, we must consider the purpose or intent of the event itself and its record in Scripture. It has been asserted here that the resuscitation of Lazarus is either in part or whole an example of our regeneration in the new birth.

It is true that any assertion at any time regarding Scripture can be made, however assertions in and unto themselves are not sufficient (no one has done that I am stating the obvious on which to build). One must also have contextual vetting to support their use of Scripture. This is accomplished in several ways, often with heavy exegesis, sometimes with the plainness of the text or with direct statements in the texts. Also observations can be made about a text that helps us derive from it certain valid principles that can be demonstrated harmoniously within the text itself and throughout Scripture.

In John 11 then, we must go to the text and ask ourselves, does the text provide sufficient information to tell us the intention of the event and its record? Fortunately it does.

The first thing we find is that this death of Lazarus was special; it was not common in its context to all men because it had a specific purpose:

4 When he heard this, Jesus said, “This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it.

The death of Lazarus was for the purpose of God the Son’s glorification which results in the glory of God. The next question then is what is meant by the “glorification of God the Son”. How, specifically, did this occur. This is answered in verse 40-42:

40 Then Jesus said, “Did I not tell you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?”

41 So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42 I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me.”

In other words, people were grappling with the person of Christ. His Messiahship was in question by enough people that God determined the performance of this event would not only result in the glorification of God the Son in showing he indeed was the one with power over life and death but the glory of God altogether. This sign was to vet his commission as God’s Son, the Messiah, sent from God the Father with power of life and death:

25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; 26 and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

Many had not come to the point that the oft maligned Martha came in her eloquent statement about Christ:

27 “Yes, Lord,” she replied, “I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”

And the result of this event was not with the declaration, “See now how it is in the new birth, the order of one’s regeneration”, rather the result of this miraculous resuscitation, which reveals its intention, is found in verse 45:

45 Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him.

The context of this event is quite clear, to record the demonstration of our Lord that he was the Messiah and that from this sign of resuscitating Lazarus back to life he indeed was the one with power of life and death. Therefore we must categorically reject its use as an intended parallel or analogy of part or all of the process of one’s regeneration at the new birth on context alone. It is immediately eliminated. We may not, then, arrest the context and attempt to use it for another purpose, even if some of its parts seem to fit this other context.

A second appeal might come by way of observation. As I said above one might argue that while explicit statements or the context is not about the order or regeneration, we might observe certain things and project from them valid principles. And this is true, if the context were about the issue being raised. Here it is not. But let’s lay that problem aside and pursue it with what would be required to make the analogy fit.

In order for an analogy to fit we must have a certain number of parallels or sameness. By comparison we will find that not even that fits. It is true we might find a few similar elements but that is the best we can do and such a lacking falls significantly short what would be required within theological orthodoxy to sustain such a proposition.

A. Lazarus is resuscitated, brought back to life in his corrupted body. When we are spiritually regenerated we are given an uncorrupted spirit. The correspondence to this is not a corrupted body which is reanimated, rather the reception of our incorruptible bodies at the resurrection. These two events, Lazarus resuscitation and our regeneration, while containing an element or two that are similar, differ fundamentally in their substance.

B. Lazarus is called to walk out of the tomb. If we are making an analogy, the use of walking in Scripture does not pertain to a context of when one is regenerated but the process of maturity in the Lord. Again, the context are similar, possibly, but do not fit upon close examination.

While analogies are not intended to be detailed schematic matches, they must be contextually intended and substantively in possession of correlations that unfold in the narrative without difficulty or ignoring large elements that are lacking harmony with such assertions. This is only a basic and immediate consideration but simply its context and the statements within the text tell us that this is not intended to be analogous of spiritual resurrection so it must be rejected on that alone but even we consider the possibility of an analogy, it fails too greatly in comparison.

Alex,

That was a great post. It stirred my thinking in new ways. We know that Jesus Christ had raised others from the dead before Lazarus. There was a record of Elijah raising the dead. We’re these other records of individuals raised from the dead closer to the time of their decease? We know that Jesus was in the tomb for 3 nights and days, yet the Bible foretold that God would not allow His body to suffer corruption. But Lazarus was different. He had been in the tomb 4 days. His body had suffered corruption. The people were concerned because Lazarus was stinking. He had already succumbed to the corruption. So as you so aptly stated,

The context of this event is quite clear, to record the demonstration of our Lord that he was the Messiah and that from this sign of resuscitating Lazarus back to life he indeed was the one with power of life and death.

I would add, Jesus had the power of life, the power over death and corruption. This demonstrates that God will have no problem raising corrupted bodies to life without corruption/decay one day in the future.

I really like the point that you made that Lazarus did not receive the uncorrupted Spirit as we do in regeneration.

Additionally, I would refute the usage of Lazarus to describe regeneration because men were not regenerated before Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and began to indwell men’s hearts, to give them the gift of eternal life. (1Pet. 1:3, Eph. 3:17; 1John 5:11, 12). Men who lived prior to the resurrection (i.e. Heb. 11) could not be in the state of “Total Depravity”, needing regeneration just to be able to have faith, because they did have faith, and they did things through faith which did please God. All without being regenerated.

Jim,

Something else just dawned on me from verse 45:

45 Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him.

In the midst of our discussion, this verse brings to light something else to consider for all of those dealing with the theological proposition that God regenerates first and from that people accept the truth of our Savior (i.e. believe). Clearly here, no such declaration is made and in fact, quite the opposite is made.

A sign was given through a miraculous event by our Lord and from this sign, “many of the Jews…believed in him”. The sign provided the convincing element to overcome their doubts. What is being attributed as the cause of their belief? A sign or elected regeneration? The sign was the source of illumination, not a preceding regeneration, and from that they believed on Christ.The text clearly attributes the cause of their final convincing to be that of the sign by our Lord in the miraculous resuscitation.

Are we now going to suggest that before the sign was performed, those that believed were actually regenerated even then resulting in their belief? I doubt there exists a single commentary offering this interpretation anywhere but that would be the only option for those proposing regeneration occurs before one believes when we prescribe it here.

And this is one of the calamities with regeneration before faith. On paper, and apart from its thorough biblical prescription, as a rational appeal to pious acquiescence to divine prerogative and sovereignty, this theological construct of regeneration before one believes sounds quite high and has a constructive or rational sense. But its Scriptural application, to me and clearly many others, is an epic fail. And here is one of those examples in this singular verse.

If regeneration as the cause of faith is so vital, so preeminently true, then where is its pronouncement here and in so many like places? But for the sake of accepting that sometimes our doctrines are derived from implied and observed means we are still left with a very plain text asserting something quite contrary to regeneration as the cause of believing.

Exactly Alex. The usage of this story as a picture of regeneration preceding faith is just special pleading. When you consider the other stories in John which would actually defy the point some on here are trying to make, it is all the more reason to reject their “picture” of regeneration.

Those who have argued regeneration preceding faith have simply presented a position, and then found an example (a bad one at that).

Jim C.

Sorry it took so long to get back to you - life just got in the way.

While I agree that death might sometimes be used to designate the abode of the dead, I do not agree it is always, or even normally, to be understood this way. Your entire post, 123, completely ignores the spiritual use of death, seen throughout the Bible from the fall on. You seem to be lumping all uses of the word into one meaning, and frankly they just don’t fit.

Now, let me try to clarify what I have been saying about sheol. Post 124 is still looking for too much detail. It is simply the abode of the dead. Each of the verses you cite is completely understandable is you substitute “abode of the dead” or “residence of the deceased” for sheol. Sometimes it references the grave, sometimes the eternal dwelling place of the soul. It is simply a general term refernecing the place one goes when this life is over. Per your final paragraph, yes Christ tasted death. He died - physically - then he overcame death and rose again. He was not the captive of death. This is the sense of Acts 2:27. See how it is translated int eh Amplified Bible - “For You will not abandon my soul, leaving it helpless in Hades (the state of departed spirits), nor let Your Holy One know decay or see destruction .” (Ac 2:27 Amplified)

Now, I reiterate the still unanswered question regarding legal status. We know OT saints were redeemed by faith, just like NT saints. We also know Jesus Christ was the lamb reckoned slain from the foundation of the world. The promise was as effective to save OT saints before its temporal occurrence as it was to save NT saints after its temporal occurrence. (God is atemporal, transcending time) It is only on the basis of this one event that either group can be redeemed by a holy God. We know NT saints go immediately to heaven upon death - 2 Cor 2:5-8. If it is insufficient to fully redeem OT saints and get them to heaven before the temporal event, on what legal basis is a holy God justified in granting temporary or partial reprieve? IOW, if they are not saved, why are they not condemned? Conversely, if they are judged by the merit of Christ’s death to be justified before the law and no longer condemned, then why only half way saved. Legally, this half-way redemption is unscriptural.

Chip,

Can you give me your Biblical support for the following statements which you expressed with such certainty?

1. We know OT saints were redeemed by faith, just like NT saints.

Where in the Bible does it say that anyone was redeemed by faith?

2. We also know Jesus Christ was the lamb reckoned slain from the foundation of the world.

Where does the Bible say that the Lamb was “reckoned slain from the foundation of the world”? Rev. 13:8, and 17:8 are both speaking about the Book of Life, which was written before the foundation of the world. The owner of the book was identified- “of the Lamb Slain”.

Rev 13:8

8 And all who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.

NASB

3. The promise was as effective to save OT saints before its temporal occurrence as it was to save NT saints after its temporal occurrence.

4. God is atemporal, transcending time

How did God take men whose sins were “as scarlet” and “as crimson” and make them “as white as the snow” prior to the death, shed blood, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

You said:

Sometimes it references the grave, sometimes the eternal dwelling place of the soul. It is simply a general term refernecing the place one goes when this life is over. Per your final paragraph, yes Christ tasted death. He died - physically - then he overcame death and rose again. He was not the captive of death. This is the sense of Acts 2:27. See how it is translated int eh Amplified Bible - “For You will not abandon my soul, leaving it helpless in Hades (the state of departed spirits), nor let Your Holy One know decay or see destruction .” (Ac 2:27 Amplified)

Do we agree that Acts 2:27 is speaking specifically about Jesus Christ, the only man undefiled by sin?

It speaks of His SOUL (not abandoned to Hades/Sheol/place of the departed dead)

It speaks of His BODY (not left in the grave to decay)

Can you explain to me your understanding of what happened to Jesus’ soul when He died on the cross?

Chip,

I’m sorry for throwing so many questions out there. In retrospect, it would be better to stay focused. I do not understand what you are saying here. Would you please help to clarify my understanding by answering the question in bold?

You said:

Quote:

Sometimes it references the grave, sometimes the eternal dwelling place of the soul. It is simply a general term refernecing the place one goes when this life is over. Per your final paragraph, yes Christ tasted death. He died - physically - then he overcame death and rose again. He was not the captive of death. This is the sense of Acts 2:27. See how it is translated int eh Amplified Bible - “For You will not abandon my soul, leaving it helpless in Hades (the state of departed spirits), nor let Your Holy One know decay or see destruction .” (Ac 2:27 Amplified)

Do we agree that Acts 2:27 is speaking specifically about Jesus Christ, the only man undefiled by sin?

It speaks of His SOUL (not abandoned to Hades/Sheol/place of the departed dead)

It speaks of His BODY (not left in the grave to decay)

Can you explain to me your understanding of what happened to Jesus’ soul when He died on the cross?

Jim,

I guess the lag time has gotten to you too. :) Most of the questions you asked here were already asked (by you) and answered in post 109.

Now, I have been answering questions for some 30 posts, but the question I have been asking remains unanswered. Before we go any further, please provide your thoughts on the legal status of OT saints at death. I will restate it again:

We know OT saints were redeemed by faith, just like NT saints (Heb 11 [esp verse 39]; James 2:23; 2 Pet 2:7). We also know Jesus Christ was the lamb reckoned slain from the foundation of the world (i.e. efficacious for redemption) (Rev. 13:8 [Greek scholarship is somewhat divided on the construction of this verse, though the majority agree the grammatical structure indicates it is the Lamb slain from the foundation rather than the book which was from the foundation - see Barnes, Jamison, Faucet and Brown] ; Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Pet 1:19-20). The promise was as effective to save OT saints before its temporal occurrence as it was to save NT saints after its temporal occurrence. (God is atemporal, transcending time) It is only on the basis of this one event that either group can be redeemed by a holy God. We know NT saints go immediately to heaven upon death - 2 Cor 2:5-8. If it is insufficient to fully redeem OT saints and get them to heaven before the temporal event, on what legal basis is a holy God justified in granting temporary or partial reprieve? IOW, if they are not saved, why are they not condemned? Conversely, if they are judged by the merit of Christ’s death to be justified before the law and no longer condemned, then why only half way saved. Legally, this half-way redemption is unscriptural.

Chip,

Help me to understand your view of “what happened to the soul of Jesus Christ when He died?” As I try to think through what the various possibilities might be, they do not seem to make sense with the verse we are addressing (Acts 2:27).

Thanks,

Jim

.

.

I entered the discussion after you dismissed Paul’s contention that there was a place (not heaven) where God kept the souls of OT believers while they awaited the redemption and salvation that God had promised. I gave you an overview of Scripture that spoke about men’s souls needing to be delivered from Sheol, or redeemed from Sheol. If they were in heaven they would not need to be delivered or redeemed. With a broad brush you seemed to sweep away the discussion. It seemed that you tried to circumvent the discussion. Yet, it seems to me there is some inconsistancy with your explanation and some of the details contained in the word of God regarding men’s souls after death. I would really like to understand how you interpret some of these verses before you expand the discussion in a completely different direction on this thread. Perhaps you could begin a different thread for this different discussion.

I believe that this discussion belongs on this thread because there are those of us who believe that there was no Biblical regeneration (see below) or salvation prior to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We are contending that God kept men “safe” while they were waiting for their redemption which would come through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. It seems to me that this is the only consistent interpretation of the verses which speak of men’s souls in death. I am wanting to test my understanding of these Scriptures. And I am seeking to understand how you interpret these verses and test the consistency of this interpretation. (If you are amenable).

FYI I believe: (not for discussion yet, just helping you understand where I am coming from)

BIBLICAL REGENERATION: God sending the gift of His Son, Jesus Christ, into the hearts of men to dwell (Eph. 3:17), to give them the gift of eternal life (1John 5:11, 12), the gift of salvation (Eph. 2:5).

Jesus Christ the Last Adam became the life giving Spirit (1Cor. 15:45). Without Jesus Christ in us there is no new life (1John 5:12). Men are saved by His life (Rom. 5:10); men are saved by regeneration (Titus 3:5); and when men are made alive with Jesus Christ, by grace they have been saved (Eph. 2:5). No man is “made alive with Jesus Christ” without having Jesus Christ dwelling in him. A person is saved when they are made alive with Jesus Christ. Faith preceded Biblical regeneration for thousands of years. Faith precedes Jesus coming to dwell in men’s hearts (Eph. 3:17). Faith precedes the reception of eternal life (lots of verses!), and faith precedes salvation (lots of verses!) When a man is supposed to examine himself to see if he is in the faith, there is only one test (see the context!)— “that Christ is in you!” unless you fail the test! (2Cor. 13:5)

On the Day of Pentecost Jesus (who became High Priest) began to baptize men into His Body, they became members of His Body (His Church). They became priests under the new covenant, and temples of God (God the Father and Jesus Christ now dwell in the hearts of men, and make themselves “one” spirit with men. The Father and Son did not do that before the cross, but Jesus did pray for this before the cross. The blood had to be shed which could cleanse men of their sins, and the sacrifice had to be offered in the heavenly holy place which could make men holy— ready for the indwelling presence and union with a holy God.) God predestined what men would receive “in Christ”, but no man was placed “in Christ” before the Day of Pentecost.

I came into this discussion, “Regeneration Precedes Faith”, quite late. In closely reviewing some past posts, I was reminded of a question that I always wondered about…

In Post #9 JohnBrian stated (highlighting mine):

In John 5:24 we see a process, which begins with hearing and ends with eternal life. There is no everlasting life prior to believing “in Him who sent Me,” and hearing the word is a prerequisite to believing. Hearing precedes believing and believing precedes eternal life. What verse 24 does not address is the whom that is capable of hearing. For that we must go back to verse 21.

John 5:21 NKJV wrote:

For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will.

Here we note that the Father raises the dead and gives life to those He has raised. So the order of this process is – Father raising the dead to life, those now raised hear the word, believe, and are promised everlasting life. The phrase “passed from death into life,” summarizes the process. Those who were once spiritually dead have been raised by the Father, which provides them with hearing ears, leading to belief and eternal life.

.

.

Is it true that “the Father raises men to life providing them with hearing ears” and those who are raised have the capacity to “hear the word”? Is it true that there is a difference in capacity of hearing between the unregenerate and the regenerate?

.

I have always wondered…

Can an unregenerate man spiritually perceive the truth of the gospel?

Can an unregenerate man “hear the gospel”?

Can an unregenerate man understand the gospel?

.

Is hearing the gospel really necessary for an individual to come to Jesus Christ in faith? How much of the gospel must one hear and understand? What is the basic gospel message must one “hear” and “understand”, and how long does it take a “preacher” to present this ‘bare minimum message’?

.

Then JohnBrian seemed to change his message. Later in Post #9 he stated:

I believe that regeneration and faith are simultaneous activities, with regeneration being the cause and faith being the effect, I don’t believe an individual can be regenerated and them sometime later exercise faith.

.

And in Post #10 he stated:

.

I don’t know any monergist who would say that an individual can be regenerated without simultaneously expressing faith. There is no time gap between regeneration and exercise of faith

.

.

If regeneration is necessary to bring forth the hearing, but if at the exact same moment a person is regenerated he is expressing saving faith, then did the individual actually hear any of the gospel?

.

Is the message of the gospel really important? Or, is the gospel just a vehicle for God to use to give a gift of saving faith, and a vehicle to use to call the unregenerate into a state of instantaneous believing? Is this new believer, now believing the message which moments before he couldn’t even perceive the spiritual truth of the message, or even really hear, or understand the message?

.

Is everyone regenerated in a gospel presentation? Is it possible for someone to be regenerated/come to faith in Jesus Christ in isolation from other people, where the gospel isn’t even present?

.

Thanks for any interaction that would help me understand this seeming contradiction!

[Jim C] I believe that this discussion belongs on this thread because there are those of us who believe that there was no Biblical regeneration (see below) or salvation prior to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We are contending that God kept men “safe” while they were waiting for their redemption which would come through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. It seems to me that this is the only consistent interpretation of the verses which speak of men’s souls in death.

Jim,

This is exactly why I ask the question. It is foundational to this issue. What you present is contra-scriptural and logically inconsistent. You have no basis for God’s partial preservation of sinners in this unorthodox system you espouse. I will restate the question yet again.

What is the legal foundation for God to provide a half-way measure for people in the OT. We know OT saints were redeemed by faith, just like NT saints (Heb 11 [esp verse 39]; James 2:23; 2 Pet 2:7). We also know Jesus Christ was the lamb reckoned slain from the foundation of the world (i.e. efficacious for redemption) (Rev. 13:8 [Greek scholarship is somewhat divided on the construction of this verse, though the majority agree the grammatical structure indicates it is the Lamb slain from the foundation rather than the book which was from the foundation - see Barnes, Jamison, Faucet and Brown] ; Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Pet 1:19-20). The promise was as effective to save OT saints before its temporal occurrence as it was to save NT saints after its temporal occurrence. (God is atemporal, transcending time) It is only on the basis of this one event that either group can be redeemed by a holy God. We know NT saints go immediately to heaven upon death - 2 Cor 2:5-8. If it is insufficient to fully redeem OT saints and get them to heaven before the temporal event, on what legal basis is a holy God justified in granting temporary or partial reprieve? IOW, if they are not saved, why are they not condemned? Conversely, if they are judged by the merit of Christ’s death to be justified before the law and no longer condemned, then why only half way saved. Legally, this half-way redemption is unscriptural.

If you believe OT believers went to heaven when they died, can you answer this question that Chip will not answer?

.

What happened to the Soul of Jesus Christ when He died on the cross?

.

We are asking this question in reference to Acts 2:27, which is a quote from Psalm 16:10.

“Thou wilt not abandon MY SOUL to Sheol, nor allow thy Holy One to undergo decay.”

.

Peter said this verse was written by King David, specifically referencing Jesus Christ (Acts 2:31)

This is the information Chip has provided so far.

Post #107

Acts 2:27 is a reference to

Acts 2:27 is a reference to the grave, hence the avoidance of corruption (i.e. decay). As I said, I believe it is simply a general term without complete development used to denote the abode of the dead, the place where dead people reside. The NT provides the fuller explanation.

Post#120

Sheol is sometimes clearly used in the OT to reference the grave, where the body of the deceased decays. It is also sometimes clearly a reference to the place of the afterlife, where the soul goes when it departs the body. My point is that we should read the OT with a realization that their understanding was partial, murky if you will.

The bold highlight is mine. I wanted to make this point first: Do we agree that it doesn’t matter what OT writers understood, everything they wrote was inspired by our all knowing God, and His Word is His means of revealing truth to us.

About Acts 2:27

It seems there are four possibilities, of what happened to the soul of Jesus Christ.

A. Sheol = Grave.

Jesus soul remained in His body on the cross. His soul was laid in the grave, and arose with His body three days later. (Which post #107 seems to point to.)

B. Sheol = Heaven.

Jesus soul went to heaven when he died upon the cross.

If Sheol=heaven was the destination of Jesus’ soul, then why is there the strange reference to His soul not being abandoned in Sheol?

C. Sheol = Hell

Jesus soul went to the place of torment, where Chip said the rich man was sent.

D. Sheol =the waiting place for OT believers, like King David, known as “Abraham’s Bosom” or “Paradise”. This was a place that men were waiting to be redeemed from.

Ps 89:48

What man can live and not see death?

Can he deliver his SOUL from the power of Sheol ?

NASB

Ps 49:15

5 But God will redeem my SOUL from the power of Sheol ;

For He will receive me.

.

.

C & D were both rejected by Chip. If the answer is B, then what did God mean when David foretold that God would not abandon His SOUL to Sheol? If the answer is A, then why did Jesus’ soul remain in the grave?

.

.

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS:

And in “D” above, (Ps. 89:48), who couldn’t deliver his SOUL from the power of Sheol? If Sheol =heaven, then would the SOUL need to be delivered from its power? If Sheol does not = heaven, then where was the SOUL which needed to be delivered from the power of Sheol ? (Ps. 49:15): And who knew that God would redeem his SOUL from the power of Sheol? If Sheol=heaven, then why would he need to be redeemed from heaven? What was this place, Sheol, that he needed to be redeemed from? If he knew that God would receive him, could he really be in heaven? If Sheol=heaven, then didn’t God already receive him? If Sheol=hell, would God redeem him and receive him?

[Jim C] If you believe OT believers went to heaven when they died, can you answer this question that Chip will not answer?

.

What happened to the Soul of Jesus Christ when He died on the cross?

.

We are asking this question in reference to Acts 2:27, which is a quote from Psalm 16:10.

“Thou wilt not abandon MY SOUL to Sheol, nor allow thy Holy One to undergo decay.”

.

Peter said this verse was written by King David, specifically referencing Jesus Christ (Acts 2:31)

Actually Jim, only one of is avoiding answering questions here. Way back in post 133, I answered your question on Acts 2:27.

Chip Van Emmerik wrote: Per your final paragraph, yes Christ tasted death. He died - physically - then he overcame death and rose again. He was not the captive of death. This is the sense of Acts 2:27. See how it is translated in the Amplified Bible - “For You will not abandon my soul, leaving it helpless in Hades (the state of departed spirits), nor let Your Holy One know decay or see destruction .” (Ac 2:27 Amplified)

Unfortunately, the question I have been asking since at least post 91 has been studiously avoided. I will ask it AGAIN.

On what legal basis does your treatment of OT people rest? We know OT saints were redeemed by faith, just like NT saints (Heb 11 [esp verse 39]; James 2:23; 2 Pet 2:7). We also know Jesus Christ was the lamb reckoned slain from the foundation of the world (i.e. efficacious for redemption) (Rev. 13:8 [Greek scholarship is somewhat divided on the construction of this verse, though the majority agree the grammatical structure indicates it is the Lamb slain from the foundation rather than the book which was from the foundation - see Barnes, Jamison, Faucet and Brown] ; Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Pet 1:19-20). The promise was as effective to save OT saints before its temporal occurrence as it was to save NT saints after its temporal occurrence. (God is atemporal, transcending time) It is only on the basis of this one event that either group can be redeemed by a holy God. We know NT saints go immediately to heaven upon death - 2 Cor 2:5-8. If it is insufficient to fully redeem OT saints and get them to heaven before the temporal event, on what legal basis is a holy God justified in granting temporary or partial reprieve? IOW, if they are not saved, why are they not condemned? Conversely, if they are judged by the merit of Christ’s death to be justified before the law and no longer condemned, then why only half way saved. Legally, this half-way redemption is unscriptural.

Chip,

You stated,

Jim,

This is exactly why I ask the question. It is foundational to this issue. What you present is contra-scriptural and logically inconsistent. You have no basis for God’s partial preservation of sinners in this unorthodox system you espouse.. I will restate the question yet again.

The belief that OT saints did not go to heaven when they died, is not unorthodox, contra-scriptural, or logically inconsistent with the teachings of the Bible. But this belief does not line up with the assumptions of the Reformed system of theology.

I tried to answer all of your questions that you keep reposting in post #108. I did not enter this discussion until post #104, where I asked you many different questions which help to point out inconsistencies with your view, which you did not answer. I truly want to understand what you think happened to Jesus’ soul when he died, and how you reconcile the issues I raised in #140.

I am hoping to “kill two birds with one stone” with a quote from a message preached by John MacArthur. First I hope to demonstrate that John MacArthur taught that OT believers did not go to heaven when they died, but they went to heaven after Christ’s death on the cross. He interprets Ephesians 4 as Christ leading OT saints to heaven. The excerps are long, but the message was over 12 pages long. Later I will match the pertinent points of his message to the various questions you keep posting. Here is the web address for the message that I am quoting.

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/1621_The-New-Covenant-Part-3?q=she…

This message is from “The New Covenant” Part 3, Hebrews 9:15-28, by John MacArthur, Sept. 24, 1972 He preached this message before I was even a Christian!

People inevitably will ask, in a question and answer time, “How were people in the Old Testament saved?” They were saved by the shed blood of Jesus Christ. They were saved by the death of Christ on their behalf. Read it again. “For this cause He is the mediator of a new covenant.” What cause? “That by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they who are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” By His death, then, He brought redemption to those under the first covenant.

Messiah became the mediator not only in order that He might pay the penalty of sinners who lived since the cross, but that He might pay the penalty of sinners who lived long before the cross. When Jesus died, He gathered up all the sinners from the beginning of time to the end of time in that one sacrifice. That’s the point that He’s making.

Now when you look at the Old Testament don’t be confused and think that the sacrifices took away sin. They did not take away sin. They were merely acts of obedience that showed that faith was legitimate. And they were symbols of an act that would satisfy God. And that’s why, as I told you before, the Old Testament saints never really entered the presence of God until the death of Jesus Christ. When they died in the Old Testament, they went to a place called Sheol, a place called Hades. There they remained, I believe, until the death of Jesus Christ. And we’ll say more about that in a moment.

So the sacrifice of Christ, then, is retroactive, as is the Day of Atonement sacrifice in Jewish history. You know, on Yom Kippur last Monday, when they went through the ritual of symbolic sacrifice that atoned for sin, that was retroactive for the sins of the past year. And so the death of Christ was retroactive clear back to Adam.

And, as I said, before Christ died, salvation was on credit. Payment was made at Calvary. And I believe that…Ephesians, some of you asked this. Let me just look at it with you for a minute. Ephesians 4:8 and 9 tells us that it was at the death of Christ that He then took these Old Testament saints, who couldn’t have full access until He opened the way, and took them to God. Ephesians 4:8. “Wherefore He saith, when He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive and gave gifts unto men. Now that He ascended,” verse 9, “what is it but that He also descended first into the lower parts of the earth.”

And we believe that Jesus, when He died, went down into Sheol, gathered the Old Testament saints, their spirits, and ushered them into the presence of God, so that they had to be waiting until perfect sacrifice was made on the one final day of atonement, and then were ushered into the presence of God. The Old Testament saints, then, who were called, could not inherit their promises until sins were done away. That’s what it says at the end of verse 15. They were under the first testament, but it was only by His death that they were able to inherit their promises. The first covenant couldn’t bring them to God’s presence.

Now, what is the…it says at the end of verse 15 “the eternal inheritance.” What is that? Well, it certainly has to be salvation. It has to be all that salvation is, and it came to them in the fullest sense. Total access to God, perfection in the sense it’s used in Hebrews, came when Jesus died.

We inherit God! We are “heirs of God” (Rom. 8:17). The eternal inheritance men receive after the death of Jesus Christ is: Jesus Christ! - the gift of eternal life, given to men when Jesus Christ comes to dwell in a man’s heart (1John 5:11, 12; Eph. 3:17). This is the work of God that saves a man, and regenerates a man (Eph. 2:5; Titus 3:5).

Jesus Christ=eternal life=salvation=regeneration

[Jim C] I tried to answer all of your questions that you keep reposting in post #108. I did not enter this discussion until post #104…

Jim, I just reread post 108. You gave several reasons why you do not accept my position. I did not see any answer to my question. You still have not positively dealt with the legality of a half-way redemption in the OT. Even if you had not read any posts before you entered the conversation, I just checked and counted six (6) times I have asked this same question of you directly since you have joined the conversation.

Unfortunately, the question has been studiously avoided AGAIN. I will ask it AGAIN. For sake of simplicity, you may want to focus on the bolded portions.

On what legal basis does your treatment of OT people rest? We know OT saints were redeemed by faith, just like NT saints (Heb 11 [esp verse 39]; James 2:23; 2 Pet 2:7). We also know Jesus Christ was the lamb reckoned slain from the foundation of the world (i.e. efficacious for redemption) (Rev. 13:8 [Greek scholarship is somewhat divided on the construction of this verse, though the majority agree the grammatical structure indicates it is the Lamb slain from the foundation rather than the book which was from the foundation - see Barnes, Jamison, Faucet and Brown] ; Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Pet 1:19-20). The promise was as effective to save OT saints before its temporal occurrence as it was to save NT saints after its temporal occurrence. (God is atemporal, transcending time) It is only on the basis of this one event that either group can be redeemed by a holy God. We know NT saints go immediately to heaven upon death - 2 Cor 2:5-8. If it is insufficient to fully redeem OT saints and get them to heaven before the temporal event, on what legal basis is a holy God justified in granting temporary or partial reprieve? IOW, if they are not saved, why are they not condemned? Conversely, if they are judged by the merit of Christ’s death to be justified before the law and no longer condemned, then why only half way saved. Legally, this half-way redemption is unscriptural.

Jim, this point is foundational to the position you are trying to take. I will not continue this discussion with you until you provide an answer.

[Chip Van Emmerik] On what legal basis does your treatment of OT people rest? We know OT saints were redeemed by faith, just like NT saints (Heb 11 [esp verse 39]; James 2:23; 2 Pet 2:7). We also know Jesus Christ was the lamb reckoned slain from the foundation of the world (i.e. efficacious for redemption) (Rev. 13:8 [Greek scholarship is somewhat divided on the construction of this verse, though the majority agree the grammatical structure indicates it is the Lamb slain from the foundation rather than the book which was from the foundation - see Barnes, Jamison, Faucet and Brown] ; Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Pet 1:19-20). The promise was as effective to save OT saints before its temporal occurrence as it was to save NT saints after its temporal occurrence. (God is atemporal, transcending time) It is only on the basis of this one event that either group can be redeemed by a holy God. We know NT saints go immediately to heaven upon death - 2 Cor 2:5-8. If it is insufficient to fully redeem OT saints and get them to heaven before the temporal event, on what legal basis is a holy God justified in granting temporary or partial reprieve? IOW, if they are not saved, why are they not condemned? Conversely, if they are judged by the merit of Christ’s death to be justified before the law and no longer condemned, then why only half way saved. Legally, this half-way redemption is unscriptural.

Chip,

If you don’t mind, could I ask you a question about an assumption I see in your paragraph here? At least I think i am seeing it. Do you believe that EVERYTHING about New Testament saints is also true about Old Testament saints since the both groups of saints are relying upon an event that was effective from the foundation of the world? For example, do you believe that ALL Old Testament saints were indwelt by the presence of the Holy Spirit? I don’t believe that they all were, but we can’t label the ones who weren’t indwelt as “half-way” saved. They were fully saved, but they just did not have all the benefits that were provided to saints who were alive after Christ’s death. Couldn’t the physical presence of God in heaven also be one of those benefits that was not provided to all men until the resurrection of Christ. Residing in Sheol rather than heaven does not make an OT saint “half-way” saved any more than living without the indwelling Holy Spirit made them “half-way” saved.

Kevin,

That’s a good question. No, I don’t think everything is the same. No, I don’t believe OT saints were indwelt by the Holy Spirit in the same way as NT saints. However, I think these are apple to oranges comparisons. As a dispensationalist, I believe God has worked with His people in different ways at different times.

However, man’s depraved state is universal. Condemnation is the default position in every dispensation. A holy God must have some grounds, some propitiation, to justify sinful man and remain just Himself. The cross is the sole basis of justification for sinners, whether they are looking forward to the cross or backward to the cross. Residing in some half-way state after death is a half-way salvation. Either the cross is sufficient to save OT saints or they remain condemned. There is no justification for them NOT being in heaven after death - unless someone wants to advocate a decision making process for OT saints after death once the work on the cross was completed. Of course, these is entirely heretical. As I said earlier, this whole concept of a half-way stopping place grew out of the Catholic doctrine of purgatory and migrated to protestant denominations.

Chip,

We seem to be talking past each other. JohnBrian suggested that we move the discussion of what happened to the souls of OT believers when they died, to another thread. I will take your paragraph which expresses your concerns to the new thread.

BTW, I hope you did see that John MacArthur did make the case for OT believers waiting somewhere other than in heaven (Sheol/Abraham’s Bosom/Paradise) for Christ to come to redeem men, and be The Way so that men could come to the Father through Him.

Jim

Kevin,

You did a great job focusing on the essential issue. I hope that you will follow us to the other thread and continue to help to distill the facts to the most critical ones and use your gift for asking great questions.

Jim

Matt 9:12-13 says:

12 But when He heard this, He said, “Those who are well don’t need a doctor, but the sick do.

13 Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice. For I didn’t come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Alex has demonstrated that Lazarus is a poor example of proving regeneration prior to faith. This text however meets the necessary requirements to give an accurate picture.

John 5:6-7:

5 One man was there who had been sick for 38 years.

6 When Jesus saw him lying there and knew he had already been there a long time, He said to him, “Do you want to get well?”

The man was sick and unable to help himself. He confessed his helplessness in verse 7. His condition was hopeless. Only Jesus could help this man.

[James K] Matt 9:12-13 says:

12 But when He heard this, He said, “Those who are well don’t need a doctor, but the sick do.

13 Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice. For I didn’t come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Alex has demonstrated that Lazarus is a poor example of proving regeneration prior to faith. This text however meets the necessary requirements to give an accurate picture.

John 5:6-7:

5 One man was there who had been sick for 38 years.

6 When Jesus saw him lying there and knew he had already been there a long time, He said to him, “Do you want to get well?”

The man was sick and unable to help himself. He confessed his helplessness in verse 7. His condition was hopeless. Only Jesus could help this man.

So in John 5:6-7. was the man able to have the desire to be helped before Jesus helped him? According to Calvinist thought, he wouldn’t even be able to recognize his hopelessness before the healing.

Much of Calvinist thought today is a reflection of John Owen calvinism, which was barely not hyper calvinism.

The text speaks for itself. If he didn’t want help, he wouldn’t have been there to get the help. He said no one had helped him. That could only mean that he wanted it.

A person can desire help from their current spiritual condition and still not make a move toward God. They just move away from God in a different direction.

JohnBrian,

I am hoping in this context you will answer some questions. I did post this earlier, but it seems to have been overlooked.

You stated, “the Father gives ‘hearing ears’ leading to belief.” And, ” hearing the Word is a prerequisite to believing.” You then go on to expain “who is captable of hearing” - those who have been regenerated. Here is the context of those quotes from post #9.

In John 5:24 we see a process, which begins with hearing and ends with eternal life. There is no everlasting life prior to believing “in Him who sent Me,” and hearing the word is a prerequisite to believing. Hearing precedes believing and believing precedes eternal life. What verse 24 does not address is the whom that is capable of hearing. For that we must go back to verse 21.

John 5:21 NKJV wrote:

For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will.

Here we note that the Father raises the dead and gives life to those He has raised. So the order of this process is – Father raising the dead to life, those now raised hear the word, believe, and are promised everlasting life. The phrase “passed from death into life,” summarizes the process. Those who were once spiritually dead have been raised by the Father, which provides them with hearing ears, leading to belief and eternal life.

Are you contending that there is a difference in the “capacity to hear” between the unregenerate and the regenerate?



Can the unregenerate man spiritually perceive the truth of the gospel?

Can an unregenerate man “hear the gospel”?

Can an unregenerate man understand the gospel?



Is “hearing the gospel” a necessary component for an individual to come to Jesus Christ in faith? If so, how much of the gospel must one “hear and understand”? What is the essential basics of the gospel which must be “heard” and understood?

Then, you seemed to change your message in the same post. You stated later in post #9,

I believe that regeneration and faith are simultaneous activities, with regeneration being the cause and faith being the effect, I don’t believe an individual can be regenerated and them sometime later exercise faith.

And in post #10 you added to this concept:

I don’t know any monergist who would say that an individual can be regenerated without simultaneously expressing faith. There is no time gap between regeneration and exercise of faith

If, as you contend, ‘the dead’ need to be raised to life to obtain the capacity to “hear the Word”, and if that newly raised person is expressing faith the instant that he is regenerated, then did he ever “hear” any of the gospel?

Is the message of the gospel really important? Or, is the gospel just a vehicle for God to use to give a gift of saving faith, and a vehicle to use to call the unregenerate into a state of instantaneous believing?

Is this new believer actually trusting in a message that he didn’t even have the capacity to hear just a moment before?

Is everyone regenerated during a gospel presentation? If not, did they ever “hear” the gospel before they are simultaneously born again believing?

My former Reformed pastor said he first placed his faith into Jesus Christ when he was all by himself, locked in a bathroom. Is that really possible? Where was the “Gospel call”? If it is possible, then when did he “hear the gospel”, if one can’t “hear” until he is regenerated? How was “hearing the Word” a prerequisite to believeing?

This view seems to have many incongruities. I hope you will answer my questions.

Thanks,

Jim C

[JohnBrian]

[Kevin Miller] So in John 5:6-7. was the man able to have the desire to be helped before Jesus helped him? According to Calvinist thought, he wouldn’t even be able to recognize his hopelessness before the healing.

Just to re-emphasize – the man DID recognize his physical hopelessness before the healing. Jesus was not asking for permission to heal him, He was forcing the man to recognize that there was never going to be healing in the pool.

[John 5:8-9 NKJV] ⁸Jesus said to him, “Rise, take up your bed and walk.” ⁹And immediately the man was made well, took up his bed, and walked.

Thirty eight years looking in the wrong place for his healing, and in a moment restored to full health at the irresistible command of Jesus. Physical infirmity cannot resist the healing command of God and neither can spiritual death. All those whom God commands to life and health MUST obey.

I just want to be clear about whether you think the infirm man is or is not a good illustration of salvation. He was recognizing his hopelessness for 38 years before he was healed, so what is the timeframe of “regeneration” in the account of the infirm man?

[JohnBrian]

[Kevin Miller] I just want to be clear about whether you think the infirm man is or is not a good illustration of salvation. He was recognizing his hopelessness for 38 years before he was healed, so what is the timeframe of “regeneration” in the account of the infirm man?

It IS a good illustration of salvation, but I don’t know what the timeframe of regeneration is, and am not sure that is even important. Any and all healing is a sign of regeneration, whether it is deafness, blindness, raising of the dead, curing leprosy. God has the power over sickness, disease, death and exercises that power without requiring the permission of the one receiving the miracle.

The synergistic view, while acknowledging that God has all power, insists that God is limited to doing what man is willing for Him to do.

I’m not sure I would go so far as to say that “any and all healing is a sign of regeneration.” What about Luke 6:17-19? Those verses say:

17 And He came down with them and stood on a level place with a crowd of His disciples and a great multitude of people from all Judea and Jerusalem, and from the seacoast of Tyre and Sidon, who came to hear Him and be healed of their diseases, 18 as well as those who were tormented with unclean spirits. And they were healed. 19 And the whole multitude sought to touch Him, for power went out from Him and healed them all.

Would you say that all the people who were healed in this account were also all regenerated? Can we use all of Christ’s healings as pictures of regeneration? It seems to me that people often followed Christ just for the healings or the feedings but their hearts had not really been changed.

[JohnBrian]…that C Michael Patton would stop getting ideas for his articles from reading my blog[/sarcasm]

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/02/regeneration-prcede-faith] DOES REGENERATION PRECEDE FAITH?

How can anyone be expected to receive the Gospel, which is spiritual, in an unconverted state? The person must first become spiritual—the person must first be regenerated.

A good illustration to describe this way of thinking is physical birth. As a baby cries out only after it is born, so also believers cry out in faith only after God has regenerated them.

JohnBrian,

This post here is a good opportunity to ask you about another illustration of regeneration besides the actual birth itself, as your quotation used. Would it be legitimate to use conception as an illustration of regeneration as long as you stipulate that there is NOT a nine month spiritual gestation between conception and the actual birth. That is, take the temporal element out of it for the sake of the comparison. We usually think of conception as the initial act by which God imparts life to a baby, and the baby grows only after it is conceived. We discussed earlier which terms I might like better than regeneration to describe the initial act of God, since regeneration is so often spoken of in terms of the entire salvation experience itself. I think spiritual “conception” would work, since conception is when life is given.

JohnBrian,

You stated,

Let me again define the way in which I am using the term regeneration:

Regeneration is the initial act of God by which He restores to spiritual life the one who is spiritually dead. That one has to be “born again” since Adam (and his posterity) died spiritually after his sin.

Have you considered the fact that the Bible teaches us about another “spiritual death”? I am quoting several prominent teachers to demonstrate that I am not the only person talking about this death. I chose John MacArthur because he has an easily accessible system to access all of his messages. I have also included Wayne Grudem, and I have similar quotes available from John Piper. Please note that each quote clearly places faith prior to our being put to death with Christ.

“We’ve been learning that when you place your faith in Jesus Christ, you are united with Christ, you die with Christ a real spiritual death… Better to put it in the Greek, “Ye were put to death,” and a violent word for death is used. You were violently put to death… And so we died in Christ by the mysterious miracle of our union with Him by grace through faith. And we rise to walk in newness of life.” (John MacArthur, message: Romans 7:1-6)

“John says five times in 1John, “We must be born of God.” And James says, “We have been begotten by God according to His will”. That’s a New Testament principle. We must be recreated. And that’s what happens when we receive Christ, the old man dies, the new man rises. “I am crucified with Christ”, That’s one ego dead, “nevertheless I live” that’s a new life” (John MacArthur, message: “The New Birth” John 3:1-10).

“Romans 6:1-11, and Colossians 2:11-12 place a clear emphasis on dying and rising with Christ (Wayne Grudem, Sytematic Theology, pg. 969)

“Paul sees this present death and resurrection with Christ as a way of describing and explaining the change that the Holy Spirit brings about…It is as if the Holy Spirit reproduces Jesus’ death and resurrection in our lives when we believe in Christ… Here Paul’s references to baptism and faith indicate that our dying and raising with Christ occur in this present life, at the time we become Christians.” (Wayne Grudem, Sytematic Theology, pg. 842).

.

Are you aware how significant this death with Christ is? What do you know about our death with Christ? Why is it essential? What does it do for us?

Is this the scenario from your understanding? Remember I still have the previous questions about whether it is crucial for a person to hear the gospel or not!

“spiritual death” * “God causes regeneration to change many facets of man” * (man needs to “hear the gospel”???) * man now able to exercise free will, is converted” * “put to death with Christ in baptism- crucified with Christ, dead with Christ, buried with Christ”… * (What comes next???)

If a person is “made alive with Jesus Christ” in regeneration (new birth), then what is the source of life that is given after a person is put to death with Christ? Where in the scenerio is a person given eternal life? When in the scenario is the person given the Holy Spirit? When in the scenario is a person given the indwelling of Jesus Christ? One last question: Was there regeneration and eternal life given to OT believers in their lifetime?

Oh yes, and how do you square the declaration of the Sciptures which proclaims that by grace we have been saved when we were made alive with Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:5)? That places salvation prior to faith in that scenerio. Is that Biblical???

While it appears to be quite theological untenable and contextually implausible to offer the resuscitation of Lazarus as an intended analogy of the rebirth or process of regeneration, there is a parable that does provide and opportunity for some insight, one I have personally exegeted rather extensively and one that (apart from the interpretation that cannot be sustained exegetically that only one of the four were actually saved) provides just what we are looking for in both analogy and the presence of our Lord (though we should never consider any portion of Scripture any less Divine, perfect and so on, I cite this because of the earlier context that also involved our Lord Jesus). So let’s take a ramble down parable road and go to the address of Luke 8:4-15.

Here we have our Lord telling a parable of the sower and his seed. And of course we learn that the seed is “the gospel”. This is indisputable. Jesus says it is so. And in the story there are 4 classes of recipients to the gospel. Now, as I said there is another issue that is debated and I do not want to get into that issue particularly, which is whether one or three of the four were saved, rather we need to focus on what causes them to “come to life” or “phuo”.

Remember, the seed is the gospel. It is thrown to the ground and the varying places it is thrown on the earth, we later learn are conditions of the heart. In other words, the earth represents the human heart.

So far we have a sower and the seed (the gospel) and the ground upon which it is thrown (considered the heart which is verified in verse 15 where Jesus calls the ground, the heart). What happens next?

The seed is thrown. In one place it is removed so that the person cannot “believe and be saved” which prevents him from…. coming to life! That’s right, had he believed he would have come to life or phuo, sprang up The ground is called “the way side” or the least prepared kind of soil. The result of this is that the seed is vulnerable to being removed and as is described, the birds come and take it away. This is explained by our Lord as the Devil doing this. The devices and means of the Devil are not brought out by our Lord but as we learn in Scripture, they are many.

The First Thing to Note:

Notice what is not attributed to the “not believing”. Jesus says nothing by way of explanation that these people did not believe either because the Father had not elected them or, as we are discussing, because they failed to phuo (come or spring to life). Rather, they failed to spring to life (this is what we call regeneration) because they did not believe. What was it that was going to give life? The gospel, the seed. Upon its reception it could have given life. It is quite clear here that the absence of life is from not believing, not due to a lack of election or failing to come to life so that one might believe which is exactly backwards in the parable’s order.

Now to the Others

As I said I am not going to belabor the other issue of who was saved and who was not, rather I am going to skip numbers 2 and 3 (but will point out for the record that Jesus only identifies one and one only who did not believe and be saved and the 3 others are described identically as having been phuo(ed) or springing up with the third one using the term sumphuo).

Let’s go to number 4, the one that everyone agrees described someone believing and being saved. Here it is says:

8And other fell on good ground, and sprang up (phuo), and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Interpretation

15But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

Now what happens here? The gospel is sown into the ground and from that ground something springs up. Here we have a definite order, gospel sown into the grown and from it life comes. The seed generates and the plant life arises and in our case the gospel regenerates our spirit. There is no mistaking the order. Gospel sown and life results from gospel reception.

Other Things to Note

So our Lord Jesus gives a parable that clearly, I concede, does not have as it primary objective his relating the order of our regeneration with respect to our believing but as part of its construct, does contain this very thing. One must stop and ask themselves where does regeneration before faith or regeneration in order that one may believe, fit into this parable, particularly to the construct our Lord provides?

Now for me I find some glaring problems with attempting to continue the regeneration before faith position in light of this and such a description is as generous as I can be.

Why didn’t our Lord make it clear that it wasn’t the gospel that gave life but life was given that the gospel might…give life? I mean if you believe in regeneration before faith this is what you are left in describing or interpreting this parable, that life was given so that the gospel could be received so it in turn would give life which makes no sense at all. The absence of some kind of generation or regeneration before the gospel is sown in the construct of our Lord is a rather lethal blow.

And how do proponents or regeneration before faith explain such a gaping theological hole in our Lord’s deliberate construct?

But never minding those question, the most simple observation makes it clear that it is the gospel and its reception (believing) that causes one to “phuo” or spring to life and not the other way around and I doubt we can believe our Lord meant to construct it as such here, rather plainly, and then intimate otherwise in other places.

P.S. Forgive the limited editing…time constraints.

Alex,

I appreciate you pointing out the fact that Jesus says that the devil steals the seed of the Word so that people will not believe to be saved (Luke 8:12). Adding to the evidence that you presented to demonstrate that faith comes before new life, I would like to build upon this theme.

There is another very important fact about seed: it needs to die before it brings forth new life. Jesus vividly instructs us in John 12:24. “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abides alone, but if it die, it brings forth much fruit.” Paul reiterates this, “You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies” (1Cor. 15:36). Jesus had to die before He was raised with a life that would never die again. Paul adds, “The Last Adam BECAME the life giving Spirit” (1Cor. 15:45). (If men were already receiving “new spiritual life” by regeneration and the gift of “eternal life” in the OT as Reformed Doctrine teaches, then what other kind of “life” does the Last Adam, who becomes the Life Giving Spirit, give to men? How many different kinds of “life” are there in the Bible: Life in the flesh, new spiritual life given in regeneration, eternal life which some believe were all given in the OT, and then another kind of life given by the Life Giving Spirit? Is this number of different “kinds of life” Biblical? No. There are only two births.) Jesus was the Seed who had to die so that He could become the source of “zoe” life (eternal life) for us. And when Jesus indwells the hearts of men, Jesus is our life, God’s gift of eternal life (Col. 3:4; 1John 5:11, 12). If a man does not have Jesus living inside of him, he does not have life (“zoe”). Jesus told men that He came that they might have life (“zoe”) (Jn 10:10). But first He would give His life (psuche- the kind of life we have in our flesh) for the sheep (Jn 10:11); He would lay down his life (psuche) for the sheep (Jn 10:15, 17). After that Jesus gave men eternal life (zoe) (see Jn 10:28 and more) when He dwelt in their heart.

In the same way, we die with Christ before Christ comes to live in us to give us His life. Paul states, “I have been crucified with Christ… Christ lives in me” (Gal. 2:20). “We have died, and our life is hidden with Christ in God” (Col. 3:3). “The old man passes away… (2Cor. 5:17). “If Christ be in you, the BODY IS DEAD because of sin” (Rom. 8:10). How do we die? Jesus Christ baptizes us into His death (Rom. 6:3). Please refer back to post #163 for some important questions I have asked about this “spiritual death”. (i.e. Why are we made to die with Jesus Christ? What is the significance of this death? These are important truths which seem to be overlooked in the Reformed system.) Also, please note in post #163 well known Reformed teachers proclaim that faith comes before our death with Christ. According to these men, we believe, then we are baptized by Jesus Christ into His death. We are made to die with Christ, before Jesus Christ comes to live in us to give us new spiritual life, God’s gift of eternal life in regeneration.

Men had faith long before Jesus Christ became the Life Giving Spirit.

Faith comes before Christ dwells in our hearts (Eph. 3:17)

Faith comes before men receive eternal life (lots of verses), the life given in regeneration.

Faith comes before salvation (lots of verses) and we are saved when Jesus Christ comes to dwell in our hearts to give us eternal life in regeneration.

Made alive with Jesus Christ by grace YOU HAVE BEEN SAVED (Eph. 2:5)

He SAVED US BY the washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5)

SAVED BY His life (Rom. 5:10)

In Christ,

Jim C

P.S. I am still hoping that people will answer the questions in post #163.

P.S. As a side note:

A critical question in the arsenal of Reformed proselytizers is “Why do some people believe while others do not?” To all of the men who have used this line I would ask: “What seed have you ever sown that brings forth a harvest the day that it is planted?” In this analogy we simply need seed sown into the ground (the hearts of men). Seed does what God designed it to do. (“My Word will not return unto Me void, without accomplishing what I desire” Is. 55:11). Therefore the enemy tries to steal away the Word so that it will not do what God designed: that they should believe and be saved (Luke 8:12). “How shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without regeneration? No! That’s not what the text says. Rather, “How shall they hear without a preacher?” (Rom. 10:14).

Paul builds upon this analogy. “I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth” (1Cor. 3:6). Jesus adds, “One sows and another reaps” (John 4:37). So there is the Seed (The Word), the sower, those who water, and God causing the growth, and eventually a reaper. In this analogy, the gospel could have been preached months, weeks, or even days before, a person places their trust in Jesus Christ. A person can be completely alone when they place their trust in Jesus Christ, as a good friend of mine did alone one night on a pier. Or in a car as C.S. Lewis did:

“CS Lewis tells the story of his own conversion: “I know very well when, but hardly how, the final step was taken. I was driven to Whipsnade one sunny morning. When we set out I did not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and when we reached the zoo I did. Yet I had not exactly spent the journey in though. Nor in great emotion” (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, pg. 702)

In contrast, if Reformed assumptions are true, then everybody could only come to faith in Christ during a gospel presentation (If the Gospel Call=the vehicle for irresistible grace=regeneration).

[Jim C]

P.S. I am still hoping that people will answer the questions in post #163.

Jim,

Thanks for your response. What you recognize and what others recognize is the contradictory or irrationality of the “rationalism” of the system (and its subsets) we are discussing. That is, while it advances itself primarily in a philosophical/rationalistic framework, often arguments (particularly with respect to what is known as the TULIP doctrines and related doctrines or its interaction with those doctrines) become irrational or contradictory when faced with having to prescriptively harmonize its tenets with the rest of Scripture. And here, with the parable of the sower, we have a good case of this inability to prescriptively harmonize one (or more) of these tenets. We have the Gospel before life. It is plain and simple. The construct which our Lord Jesus uses is indisputable, it would seem.

But to the student and Teacher of such a system, prima facie rarely actually confronts their doctrinal schematics. This is because its use of rationalism (primarily or essentially that upon which Augustinian/Reformed/Calvinistic systems base their views and then engage in proof-texting and exegesis to validate their views) offers such construct which permits the view that so long as one can respond, no matter how seemingly irrational or contradictory, they have fairly maintained their position. And clearly not every response is contradictory or irrational, that is not being asserted nor to what degree they are made in this manner, rather I am making a point here with this parable, because this really is where one ends up if they insist life or regeneration occurs before the seed (the Gospel) is planted and life occurs from it. No where in the parable is there life before the seed (the Gospel) gives life. Again, this position would require the following interpretation: “God gives life to the ground so that it may receive the seed in order to have life”. Obviously ludicrous. But it will be argued and no doubt has in many places, ultimately denying what is prima facie or plain as a desert sun in the parable and ultimately forcing the person holding to the objectionable position to contort the text or deny its fundamental properties and context.

As to the last point, just a short note. I am not sure the predominant (but not exclusive) Reformed assumption would strictly require the view that someone can only come to faith in Christ during a gospel presentation, even with the position that the Gospel Call is the vehicle for their doctrine of irresistible grace which as you cite, equals regeneration. I do agree that this Reformed formula does need qualifying by those who use it in light of this but I imagine their response would be that the Gospel Call, which is regeneration first, can happen some time later after they have heard the Gospel and as they recall it in their mind they are regenerated and then believe. Of course I don’t buy that but I am just suggesting how they may respond. But this is not my main objective in responding.