Regeneration and justification

Not for long and I would say that the norm would be that they are practically simultaneous. I will say though that if one is regenerated, then it is a guaranteed fact they he will also be justified.

 

I may be a little confused here, but I thought justification is accomplished at the moment of salvation, and I thought that regeneration will occur when my body is redeemed and I get a glorified body. I am still walking around in this same old carcass I got saved in, awaiting that blessed day when it shall be changed. So based on those thoughts I would say no, a person can not be regenerated and not justified.

 

Here's Millard Erickson:

1. Effectual Calling

2. Conversion (Repentance and Faith)

3. Regeneration

4. Union with Christ/Justification

Here's the classic Reformed/Calvinistic ordo salutis:

1. Gospel call

2. Inward call

3. Regeneration

4. Conversion (faith & repentance)

5. Justification

Ok, I omitted Election and Predestination.

Why:

I take my cue from Acts 16:14:

"One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message" (TNIV, emphasis mine).

The Lord has to open a person's heart to respond to the Gospel message. Erickson calls this Effectual Calling and those in the classic Reformed tradition call it Regeneration.

Frankly speaking, it doesn't matter how it's labeled. The important thing is WHAT it is: it's the Lord opening the heart of the sinner to come to saving faith in Christ for salvation.

So in answer to your question: a regenerate person is also a justified, no matter how you slice and dice it.

 

Well then if the regeneration has already occurred and so has the justification, then my answer is still no, a person cannot be regenerated and unjustified. But I think you are baiting a trap, so I'll slink off to the side, and watch someone else fall in:laugh:

 

I think you're right. But I was going from what I read in Erickson theology: what he describes in Effectual Calling is actually what happens in the classic Reformed view of Regeneration.

[QuoteYou brought up something interesting. Does the Lord open our hearts, or our minds...or are these one in the same?[/QUOTE]

Well, Luke says "Heart," Gk. kardia.

 

Well, before Lydia was able to understand her heart had to be opened by the Lord.

What do we call this opening of the heart?

Does it involve the work of the Spirit? Yes, I believe it does.

 

NOW YOU GOT IT, TC!!! The Spirit PERSUADED Lydia -- convicted her and revealed the gospel to her. Notice it was an "opening," not a "changing," of the heart/spirit/mind. Lydia considered the facts and believed and then was regenerated and saved simultaneously.

I believe, TC, that you are closer than ever to a scriptural understanding of salvation. Don't blow it. :laugh:

skypair

 

Naw, sanctification is the indwelling of the Spirit. "Opening" is the persuasion/conviction of the Spirit.

skypair

 

Yes, the Holy Spirit set her apart and opened her heart to understand and believe the Gospel.

 

If the sanctification of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer is effectual, why can't the opening, conviction and conversion be effectual? Why is it that some people vehemently insist that there must be such a dichotomy?

 

Was the "opening" of Lydia's heart effectual to her conversion or was it merely an "attempt" by our omnipotent God that could have failed?

 

The above quote I can agree with, but the question becomes how long from 1 to 5

or the original question was from 3 to 5 I guess

I think I personally would have to put more like:


1. Gospel Call

2. Inward Call

3. Regeneration, Conversion, Justification

 

Morning, Ares, :wavey:

You're basically saying that the HS "set her apart," sanctified her, before she had even heard the gospel. In my understanding of salvation -- Acts 2:38, for instance -- receiving the Holy Spirit the way you suggest means that the person is already saved.

But that isn't how it "went down" at Pentecost, was it? At Pentecost, they heard Peter's sermon and asked "what must we do?" Then came the "actionable" commands --- repent, be baptized in the name of Christ (or "to Christ") on account of your salvation from sin, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. IOW, they understood the gospel way before they were "set apart" by the Holy Spirit.

Now most Calvies want to put the "gift" of the Holy Spirit before the repentance and faith, just as you do, such that everything they get in salvation is a "gift" and there are no "actionable" requirements or "conditions" to "election"/salvation. It's as if salvation is God's gift to give but not your gift to receive. You can have all the blessings of the gifts but if you think you got them because you did anything, then you don't have them in the "Calvie gospel" way.

So free willers who prayed the sinner's prayer while they were "unregenerate" aren't saved? No, not at BB they're not. They just are saved another way. We are very open-minded here at BB, don't ya know! One asked me, "What does it matter which of our ways gets us saved. We both get to the same place in the end, right?"

Well, I will grant that since Adam, there have been more than one "gospel" else those before Christ could not have been saved and those before the law even less so. Do you know what this points up, Ares? It points up the fact that there are 2 salvations: 1) one determines where you will spend eternity and 2) the other determines how you will spend this life (LS or "discipleship salvation"). John MacArthur's notion of salvation is that he assumes you are saved if you live a "disciple-life" as he envisions it. He basically invites you to "make your calling and election sure" thereby proving that you were saved, elected, chosen, etal. already at somewhere/sometime when God put His Spirit of "sight" and "belief" in you. It might have even been the day when you began agreeing with JM's interpretation of scripture that you realized you were saved, eh?

Is that your experience, testimony, Ares?

skypair

 

"Opening" = "persuasion," Ares. As Lydia listened, her spirit (intellect, emotions, and will) compared it to what she had been teaching in her "Bible Study by the River" and slowly, it began to make sense.

Another good word might be "illumination." The Spirit sheds light the Father and the Son. That's His job. He doesn't have to indwell in order to do that. He "almost persuaded" Herrod and Paul said, "I would that thou were not just almost but entirely persuaded!" Herod's "heart's" intellect and emotions were "open" but his "will" was holding back.

And you know, yourself, that this is the true salvation paradigm. "Entirely persuaded" would have been to repent to Christ and receive the Holy Spirit as a result, not beforehand.

skypair