The Narrow Path Ministries

Regeneration Precedes Faith
Dr. R.C. Sproul


One of the most dramatic moments in my life for the shaping of my theology took place in a seminary classroom. One of my professors went to the blackboard and wrote these words in bold letters: "Regeneration Precedes Faith."

These words were a shock to my system. I had entered seminary believing that the key work of man to effect rebirth was faith. I thought that we first had to believe in Christ in order to be born again. I use the words in order here for a reason. I was thinking in terms of steps that must be taken in a certain sequence. I had put faith at the beginning. The order looked something like this:

"Faith - rebirth -justification."

I hadn’t thought that matter through very carefully. Nor had I listened carefully to Jesus’ words to Nicodemus. I assumed that even though I was a sinner, a person born of the flesh and living in the flesh, I still had a little island of righteousness, a tiny deposit of spiritual power left within my soul to enable me to respond to the Gospel on my own. Perhaps I had been confused by the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Rome, and many other branches of Christendom, had taught that regeneration is gracious; it cannot happen apart from the help of God.

No man has the power to raise himself from spiritual death. Divine assistance is necessary. This grace, according to Rome, comes in the form of what is called prevenient grace. "Prevenient" means that which comes from something else. Rome adds to this prevenient grace the requirement that we must "cooperate with it and assent to it" before it can take hold in our hearts.

This concept of cooperation is at best a half-truth. Yes, the faith we exercise is our faith. God does not do the believing for us. When I respond to Christ, it is my response, my faith, my trust that is being exercised. The issue, however, goes deeper. The question still remains: "Do I cooperate with God's grace before I am born again, or does the cooperation occur after?" Another way of asking this question is to ask if regeneration is monergistic or synergistic. Is it operative or cooperative? Is it effectual or dependent? Some of these words are theological terms that require further explanation.

A monergistic work is a work produced singly, by one person. The prefix mono means one. The word erg refers to a unit of work. Words like energy are built upon this root. A synergistic work is one that involves cooperation between two or more persons or things. The prefix syn -

means "together with." I labor this distinction for a reason. The debate between Rome and Luther hung on this single point. At issue was this: Is regeneration a monergistic work of God or a synergistic work that requires cooperation between man and God? When my professor wrote "Regeneration precedes faith" on the blackboard, he was clearly siding with the monergistic answer. After a person is regenerated, that person cooperates by exercising faith and trust. But the first step is the work of God and of God alone.

The reason we do not cooperate with regenerating grace before it acts upon us and in us is because we can- not. We cannot because we are spiritually dead. We can no more assist the Holy Spirit in the quickening of our souls to spiritual life than Lazarus could help Jesus raise him for the dead.

When I began to wrestle with the Professor's argument, I was surprised to learn that his strange-sounding teaching was not novel. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield - even the great medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas taught this doctrine. Thomas Aquinas is the Doctor Angelicus of the Roman Catholic Church. For centuries his theological teaching was accepted as official dogma by most Catholics. So he was the last person I expected to hold such a view of regeneration. Yet Aquinas insisted that regenerating grace is operative grace, not cooperative grace. Aquinas spoke of prevenient grace, but he spoke of a grace that comes before faith, which is regeneration.

These giants of Christian history derived their view from Holy Scripture. The key phrase in Paul's Letter to the Ephesians is this: "...even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have you been saved)" (Eph. 2:5). Here Paul locates the time when regeneration occurs. It takes place 'when we were dead.' With one thunderbolt of apostolic revelation all attempts to give the initiative in regeneration to man are smashed. Again, dead men do not cooperate with grace. Unless regeneration takes place first, there is no possibility of faith.

This says nothing different from what Jesus said to Nicodemus. Unless a man is born again first, he cannot possibly see or enter the kingdom of God. If we believe that faith precedes regeneration, then we set our thinking and therefore ourselves in direct opposition not only to giants of Christian history but also to the teaching of Paul and of our Lord Himself.


From the book, The Mystery of the Holy Spirit, Tyndale House, 1990

Thanks, SE-- i've always like good ol' R.C. but tell me this-- if RC is right, how much time has to elapse between "regeneration" and "faith?" if it is something like .5 milliseconds, then i dont see what the big deal is. in other words, might God not "regenerate" someone because they are "getting ready" to have faith in the next second or so? just wondering.

please excuse my ignorance of the finer points of calvinism.

TK

I enjoy R.C. too but his assertion that:

The key phrase in Paul's Letter to the Ephesians is this: "...even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have you been saved)" (Eph. 2:5). Here Paul locates the time when regeneration occurs. It takes place 'when we were dead.'

Those spiritually dead folks do all sorts of things, some are more moral and generous than some believers, they also seek after spiritual things, but often the wrong kind.

Paul also says, Romans 1:16; "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek". And Romans 10:17; "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God".

There is not one word in the passage cited in Ephesians the locates regeneration prior to faith.

It seems Mr. Sproul does not give the gospel much credit; it takes a miracle (regeneration) for it to be believable.

After Peter's first sermon, his audience was "cut to the heart" and asked Peter what they had to do. He told them to repent.

was the "cutting to the heart" just conviction, or was it a regeneration happening, or was it faith taking hold? conviction usually happens because you believe what you are hearing is actually the truth, i.e. you have faith in what is said. you can then either act on what you hear, or not. in the case of Peter's audience acting on what they heard meant to repent. i have a very hard time putting regeneration ahead of faith.

paul said that "faith comes from is what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ." Jesus's first preaching was "repent and believe the gospel." it just seems logical that true faith is what sparks regeneration. switching it around creates some sticky problems.

TK

TK & SE,

It is my belief that there are two aspects in repentance: change of mind and turning about your life (reformation). When they heard Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost they were "cut to the heart", i.e., repented in the sense of changing their minds. This is shown by their question "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Peter urged upon them repentance of the other kind, an "about face" which would entail following Jesus. He then informs them if they assent, they will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, i.e., be born of the Spirit (= regeneration).

It makes no sense to me to understand Peter's command to repent to refer to a change of mind when they so obviously had realized Peter's statement, "...God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ", was the truth.

The narrative of Peter's sermon is a good demonstration of "faith comes by hearing". There is power in the word. "The words I speak to you are spirit and they are life, John 6:63.

Good explanation, Homer. I agree with you.

TK

After Peter's first sermon, his audience was "cut to the heart" and asked Peter what they had to do. He told them to repent

John told his listeners to repent and be baptised yet the Holy Spirit had'nt come down yet so would'nt it seem that man can repent on his own. Then to seal us we need the Holy Spirit as they say "to seal the deal."

John told his listeners to repent and be baptised yet the Holy Spirit had'nt come down yet so would'nt it seem that man can repent on his own.

I'm not sure I am understanding you. John's baptism was a "baptism of repentance", i.e. it had the meaning of repentance. How could it have been a baptism of repentance if they were unable to repent?

Homer wrote:

John told his listeners to repent and be baptised yet the Holy Spirit had'nt come down yet so would'nt it seem that man can repent on his own.

I'm not sure I am understanding you. John's baptism was a "baptism of repentance", i.e. it had the meaning of repentance. How could it have been a baptism of repentance if they were unable to repent?

I think that's precisely what Steve is saying. Re-read his post:

STEVE7150 wrote:John told his listeners to repent and be baptised yet the Holy Spirit had'nt come down yet so would'nt it seem that man can repent on his own. Then to seal us we need the Holy Spirit as they say "to seal the deal."

I think that's precisely what Steve is saying. Re-read his post:

Thanks Ely yes "would'nt it seem" meaning men did repent before the Holy Spirit came down which would be impossible if the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity were true, would it not?