Regeneration Precedes Faith

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.

Quote:

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,

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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 wrote:

Kevin Miller wrote:

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 wrote:

[sup ]8[/sup ]Jesus said to him, “Rise, take up your bed and walk.” [sup ]9[/sup ]And 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 wrote:

Kevin Miller wrote:

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 wrote:

...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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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,

Quote:

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.

Quote:

“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:

Quote:

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

Quote:

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:

Quote:

“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 wrote:

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.

John,

Thank you for providing a rather precise demonstration of that to which I was referring in my preceding post. You have denied the passage's prima facie context, simply ignored the meaning of the fact our Lord clearly identified only 1 of 4 as not believing and being saved, ignored that the remaining 3 are identically described as receiving the Word and coming to life (phuo), and now introduced into the parable an element not even present with the attempt to insert the soil's preparation being that of regeneration which is not ever even remotely mentioned by our Lord, not to mention this now requires a new definition and gross departure from the orthodox definition, of "regeneration" and to boot, your system's own definition and use of regeneration! In fact I would say that your response possesses, rather amazingly, all of the outstanding elements of the irrationality (I speak about logic, not personal irrationality) and contradiction I identified in the normal response by those holding to your view that eventually ensue when normally theological harmony is no longer possible regarding biblical prescription.

As to the natural man, I invite you to read my brief article, http://thepedestrianchristian.blogspot.com/2011/02/natural-man-and-under... The Natural Man and Understanding the Gospel . It is not a thorough treatment, btw, so not every issue is covered but it does give you the information you seek which is how the natural man is enlightened as to his sinfulness and the gospel and yes, it is not accomplished naturally.

Excellent work Alex. I am not sure the point some monergists are trying to make. I would guess it is either or both of these:

1. to possibly try to corner the market on that term

2. define everyone else out of existence

The Lazarus story fails to communicate regeneration prior to faith as it was neither the point of the story or consistent with other texts.

Other parables and stories are offered only to be ignored or the force of them lessened by a theological grid.

I wish infralapsarians would spend more time trying to be consistent.