Proof Regeneration Precedes Faith

[Guest]

That is just what I was thinking..

There is no interaction with what I offered, and such gives me no encouragement to really continue.

I commented on Colossians 2:12-13, Titus 3:5, Romans 8:8 John 20:21 and John 3 as well as the heart being purified by faith (Acts 15:9). I don't recall you responding to my explanations of these passages. I honestly do want Calvinistic responses to the points I made. You brought some of these points up and they were commented on by myself and others, I don't know what else can be done besides that.

You did interact with how you understand the term "dead", and I appreciate that.

It takes much effort doing these posts.

I hear you there.
That's why I tried to make smaller posts, focusing on one or two scriptures or points at a time.

Peace to you guys Mark, Bob and Jugulum!

[Guest]

Sean,

Your comment: Regeneration isn't an act of the will, it's done by God. Believing the gospel is the first step in salvation, as stated even by Paul in Acts 16:31 so that God will regenerate you by the Holy Spirit.

I agree. Regeneration is not an act of the will. Rather it is a creative act of
of the Holy Spirit upon our "dead" wills enabeling us to "hear, recieve and repent" so that we will believe the Gospel. You would agree it is a "resurrection' ! Thus being made alive, faith in our Lord Jesus Christ is the "fruit" of the Spirit. Not the fruit of Bob, Steve or Sean. Not of your will or mine. But by the Spirit. Period. In this sense, in the New Birth we are entirely passive. It's all by grace!

Grace to you in Him,
Bob

[Guest]

Thus being made alive, faith in our Lord Jesus Christ is the "fruit" of the Spirit. Not the fruit of Bob, Steve or Sean. Not of your will or mine. But by the Spirit. Period. In this sense, in the New Birth we are entirely passive. It's all by grace!

Grace to you in Him,
Bob

Sure, the new birth is passive, after belief.

Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise

You can't bear the fruit of the Spirit until you first believe the gospel of salvation. It is then you are given the Holy Spirit. Unless you see conversion as: receive the Holy Spirit-then believe-then receive the Holy Spirit. I don't find this sequence biblical, yet it's what you are alluding to as normative regeneration.

And again you make no comment on the passages that state belief comes before the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Which is what qualifies (according to Calvinism) someone as "pleasing to God" (Romans 8:9)

I don't see how keeping with the biblical statements quoted here throughout this thread that faith comes first means it's not of grace, especially since the bible states otherwise: Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace (Rom 4:16)

[Guest]

You can't bear the fruit of the Spirit until you first believe the gospel of salvation. It is then you are given the Holy Spirit. Unless you see conversion as: receive the Holy Spirit-then believe-then receive the Holy Spirit. I don't find this sequence biblical, yet it's what you are eluding to as normative regeneration.

And again you make no comment on the passages that state belief comes before the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Which is what qualifies (according to Calvinism) someone as "pleasing to God" (Romans 8:9)

A quick comment on your language of the activity of the Holy Spirit. I definitely agree with you that we receive the Holy Spirit and are indwelled by the Spirit after conversion--after we are justified through repentance and trust in Christ. As far as I know, that question is not a significant Calvinist/Arminian distinctive.

In my experience with Reformed teaching, I have never heard the pre-conversion work of the Spirit described as "indwelling" or "receiving" the Holy Spirit. Rather, the work of the Holy Spirit before conversion is something like fixing up a broken-down house before you move in. Being sealed be the Spirit might be compared to the move-in date. The fruit of the Spirit is all the evidence that someone actually lives in the house--lights turn on and off, toys are left in the yard, the lawn is regularly mowed, etc. But...It's also like renovation. You can see construction going on--building a deck in the back, installing a shed, improving the landscaping.

As far as I know, neither side believes that when the Holy Spirit draws unbelievers, working in their hearts to move them toward repentance, that He is indwelling them. The difference there is over whether that work is always effectual, or sometimes fails due to the unwillingness of the individual. And more relevant to this topic, another difference is whether that drawing process is what's referred to by "new life" or "taking out a heart of stone and putting in a heart of flesh", or whether new life is given at or subsequent to conversion.

So, again, being "worked on" by the Spirit doesn't mean you have been given the Holy Spirit.

(Obviously, this post isn't an exegetical argument, just a clarification.)


Steve: I understand better what you meant.

[Guest]

Sean
You won't believe the Gospel unless there has been a prior work of the Spirit upon you! "No one can (no ability) come to Me except the Father draw him". I don't think Jesus could have made it any simpler.
Peace.

[_SoaringEagle]

Does the New Birth Precede Faith?
David Kirkwood

Piper connects irresistible grace with the new birth on page 11 of his booklet, and states that God sovereignly regenerates us, which results in our having faith. The only scriptural support he offers for this view is 1 John 5:1, which he quotes from the Revised Standard Version: “Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.” Piper’s argument is that John’s words, “has been,” indicate that faith in Jesus is the evidence that one “has been,” prior to his having faith, born again.

This is pathetic exegesis. John is not revealing that the new birth precedes faith, but is simply describing one result of faith in Jesus.

John’s clear purpose in writing this verse was not to establish the order of the process of salvation, but to state one of the main points of the theme of his entire first epistle, which is “the evidence of the true Christian.” John repeatedly lists three tests that one must pass in order to validate his authentic relationship with God: (1) he must love the brethren, (2) he must keep Christ’s commandments, and (3) he must believe that Jesus is the Christ. In the verse under consideration (1 John 5:1), John touches on the third test, just as he does in other places in his epistle (see 1 John 2:18-27; 4:1-6, 14-15; 5:5, 10, 13).

Clearly, John did not believe that regeneration precedes faith. He wrote at the close of his Gospel: “But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:31, emphasis added). Neither did Jesus believe that regeneration preceded faith: “While you have the light, believe in the light, in order that you may become sons of light” (John 12:36, emphasis added). Neither did Paul: “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:26, emphasis added).

Incidentally, the NASB translation of 1 John 5:1 does not contain the past tense upon which Piper’s interpretation rests: “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is [not has been] born of God.” Piper’s interpretation of 1 John 5:1 is another imaginary needle in the haystack.

[Guest]

OK, two quick comments.

This is pathetic exegesis. John is not revealing that the new birth precedes faith, but is simply describing one result of faith in Jesus.

No, he is not describing a "result of faith" in 5:1--that is, he is not revealing that new birth is the result of faith. I don't see anything in that passage that can be construed as "faith leads to birth". He is describing a necessary correlation. As Steve said, an evidence. If you see someone believing, you know they're born of God.

Comparison to 2:29 and 3:9 does make me think he's describing the results of new birth, but Steve's suggestion that John is referring to a pattern of life is credible, at first glance. (I.e., an Arminian could say that the decision to repent and trust in Christ is within the power of unregenerate man, but that a consistent lifestyle of belief can only come through rebirth.) I have to think about it some more.

So, I would say it definitely describes an evidence. It may describe a result of birth (as Piper argued), but maybe not. And it definitely doesn't describe a result of faith. It either leaves the question open, or leans the Calvinist direction.

Incidentally, the NASB translation of 1 John 5:1 does not contain the past tense upon which Piper’s interpretation rests: “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is [not has been] born of God.” Piper’s interpretation of 1 John 5:1 is another imaginary needle in the haystack.

Eh? Did he really just base an argument over tense entirely on comparing two English translations? Why not look up the tense in Greek? Which, as Mark pointed out above, is perfect.

"The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated."
NETBible

[_SoaringEagle]

Interesting Jugulum! So what are your thoughts towards the two paragraphs that you didn't comment on? (ie. 1) John's clear purpose, 2) Clear John did not)?

[Guest]

Please, interpret this post as a collection of half-baked reflections from someone who doesn't have it all figured out.

Interesting Jugulum! So what are your thoughts towards the two paragraphs that you didn't comment on? (ie. 1) John's clear purpose, 2) Clear John did not)?

Well, my last comment should indicate that I basically agree with (1)--at least that the point John is making concerns evidence. The wording of the specific statements could still establish order, so that doesn't close the case, but it's obviously relevant.

As for (2) I'm not convinced that any of the three verses tell us what John and Paul thought about the order of faith and new life--or, more generally, whether faith is a gift. None of them clearly say, "If you believe, then God will subsequently regenerate you/cause you to be born again."

Partly my problem is with the array of metaphors being used. I really don't know to what extent they're supposed to be equivalent. In Galatians 3, Paul is talking about receiving inheritance--that's when he uses the "sons of God" language. Elsewhere he talks about adoption, which I think is equivalent to receiving inheritance. In general, when I see the word "son", am I supposed to read that as a reference to being born again? Or to adoption? To receiving inheritance? Are they supposed to be entirely equivalent? And can a phrase like "sons of God" be used without reference to any of those metaphors? Can it just be a means of description, like "son of perdition"?

Are all the metaphors of new life, eternal life, sonship, inheritance, adoption, and new birth supposed to be equivalent, or can they refer to various aspects of the salvation process? Could "regeneration" refer to the drawing work of the Spirit in one place, while "born again" or "give new life" or "give eternal life" refers to later workings of the Spirit? For that matter, could the same word or metaphor be used in different ways at different times? After all, "salvation" can variously refer to past, present, or future events. "Justification" doesn't seem to mean quite the same thing in Paul's epistles and in James'.

It's complex, and I need a lot more study. And as I study, I'm not going to insist on one definition of "regeneration/new life/born again/adoption" which I can use to interpret every passage that uses any of this language. I'm more directly concerned with how an author is using the language in the particular context. That doesn't mean I think we should read each passage in a vacuum, just that we shouldn't be too insistently rigid.

And yes, I do think it's valid to expect that a single author will be more consistent, so comparing between John's writings was a valid tool. But neither of the two passages that Kirkwood pointed to use the same language. So...I need to figure out whether the language is supposed to be equivalent. Which, again, needs more study.

OK, I think this needs to be my last post for the weekend; I have a lot of work to get done for school, and I keep letting myself wander off into this diverting discussion.

[Guest]

It seems to me this is a most important idea in support of Calvinism. I am requesting the Calvinists provide scriptural proof that regeneration precedes faith. What is the very best verse or passage in support of the idea? Do you find it plainly stated anywhere? Or do you believe it is taught by necessary inference? Where? Or is it supported by various scriptures, which, taken together, make it a clear teaching? Or does your philosophical view necessitate that scriptures be understood in a way that supports the doctrine?

I look forward to your answers.
_________________
A Berean

Dear Homer and others who support the idea that faith precedes regeneration!
As Bereans, I shall expect you to be like them, in that they searched the scriptures to see if these things be so!

I wish to strongly express my sadness that pretty much every refutation I have thus far provided, has not been countered with much counter refutation. I have answered nearly all that has been asserted, and yet find little response to my responses, that being the arguments I provide.

It is one thing to stick to your guns and simply plod on with more scriptures which seemingly support your position, but another thing entirely to

1/ Refute my argument
2/ Exegete the scriptures I provide
3/ Exegete the scriptures you provide
4/ Harmonise all scripture together
5/ Provide a positive presentation for faith precedes regeneration.

Thus far, I see no serious interaction. Plently of assertion, scripture verses and doggedly clinging to libertarian free will, but little exegesis of both texts nor positive presentation of your doctrine.

I know this sounds harsh, but I honestly state these things with a clear conscience.

Now if someone here wishes to do the work of going over anything I have said in context, and providing a well laid out argument against anything, then please feel free to do so.

Line by line is the best method. That is what I try to do most of the time and have done so for 4 years since first engaging the forums on the internet.

If I have missed something (Sean?) please forgive me and patiently re--present what I missed. When threads get longer, I kind of loose track at times. I am not deliberately ignoring anything

I shall await the challenge and hang around longer in order to kick this football around some more.

How Steve can say with a straight face that Homer has not been provided a response is simply amazing to me personally, but I digress.

Sean and Derek seem to grasp some of the perspectives better than others in my opinion, but even there, sometimes things are brought up that do not actually belong in the Arminian/Calvinist debate, ie We agree!
Be that as it may, I have enjoyed the interaction thus far.

Mark