Regeneration Before Faith

Where you and I disagree is what regeneration is. I believe regeneration to mean born again, spiritually alive, saved forever. You believe regeneration is an enlightenment, an enabling to have faith, and that salvation follows after.

And as I have shown, some Calvinists have taught that an infant can be regenrated for many years, and yet not old enough to place faith in Christ and be saved. This is where we absolutely disagree. This from an associate of R.C. Sproul;

This would be regeneration without the word of God, an infant cannot understand God's word.

Spurgeon did not believe this. He preached faith to the unregenerate. He understood regeneration to be born again, spiritually alive, and saved.

So, you see here, Spurgeon departs from traditional Calvinistic belief. He rightly teaches that he was to preach to the unregenerate, and that the unregenerate must believe to be regenerated. This is not what you believe.

As Spurgeon said, why do you need to preach Christ to someone who is already born again? Why do you need to give medicine to someone already healed? Yet, this is what you believe, you believe a person must already be regenerate before he can even have the ability to believe on Jesus and be healed of his sin.

This is our difference.

 

Jesus flatly denies that the fallen man has the power of will to come, choose or beleive in the gospel. "NO MAN CAN COME TO ME." If man had not lost the power of will to come, choose and believe in the fall Jesus would never have had the need to say these words. Therefore Man's power of choice for God and the gospel was lost in the fall.

Paul says that the gospel can come "in word ONLY" (1 Thes. 1:5) and so it does not "carry power" with it.

Since man has no ability or power to choose to come or believe in the gospel it would take more than mere "carried power" to save that kind of person - It would require ENERGIZED power to actual reverse the inability that Christ says is in every man so that "NO MAN CAN COME."

 

Jesus nowhere teaches that a man is unable to come. Oh, he said some were unwilling, but that is not the same as unable.

And it is ridiculous to say that unregenerate man cannot come to Christ, it is shown numerous times in the scriptures.

John 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

You must have faith to come to Jesus, and you do not get life from Jesus until you come. So faith precedes regeneration.

Healings in the scriptures were a picture of salvation. Men came to Jesus who were blind, lame, lepers, possessed by devils... Yet they could come and did. And all who came to him were healed.

Matt 9:27 And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us.
28 And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord.
29 Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.

This is an amazing story. It says two blind men followed Jesus. Now how in the world could they do that? It is certain they had to ask much assistance to follow Jesus around. And note that they already believed him to be the Christ, the promised Son of David (they believed the scriptures).

And note that Jesus first asks them if they believe he is able to heal them. Were they healed when he asked this? No. But they believed and then he healed them. God's grace is poured upon those who believe, but you refuse to see the numerous examples of this shown in scripture.

These men could not heal themselves, just as sinners cannot heal themselves. But they can come and believe in Jesus, and if they do he will heal them. This is shown over and over again in scripture. You refuse to see these many examples because you have been brainwashed by false doctrine.

 

First, let us distinguish between God's eternal purpose of grace that precedes time and space and the application of grace in time and space. Obviously God's purpose of grace precedes the application of grace.

Second, let us distinguish between regeneration and justification. They are not the same and anyone who says they are simply have not done their homework. The first has to do with the condition of your inward man while the latter has to do with you position before God in heaven.

In regard to justification or your access into STANDING or POSIITON of grace provided in the person and work of Jesus Christ you access that "through faith" or the exercise of the will to choose to come to faith in the provision proclaimed in the gospel.

In regard to regeneration this is an act of God's will alone that totally excludes your will altogether (Jn 1:13; James 1:18; 2 Cor. 4:6) as it is an act of CREATION (Eph. 2:10; 4:24; Col. 3:10). This is the bestowal of God's sanctifying grace by the power of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 2:5) upon His elect that provides a new believing heart (Ezek. 36:26-27; 2 Cor. 3:3-6) and therefore produces faith in the elect. Since regeneration is never completed apart from justification there is a cause and effect relationship between regeneration and conversion to the gospel so that we are "saved by Grace (Eph. 2:8 refering to verse 5 - quickening) whereby we are created "in Christ Jesus" (v. 10) by the sovereign will of God which we experience "through faith" in conversion. The quickening is accomplished through God empowering the gospel as the effectual and quickening call out of darkness into the light of the gospel of Christ.

The oldest and most popular confessions of Faith among ancient Baptists clearly state that repentance and faith are inseparable fruits of regeneration.

I know you don't like this but it is the truth whether you like it or not.

 

I'm sorry, but everything you said there is just a plain invention of man. You make salvation a convoluted mouse trap.



I don't get it, the gospel is simple. Jesus said come unto me. The scriptures say whosoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved. The gospel is simple, anyone can understand it and perform what God said if he chooses to do so. But you make it a complicated mess that requires a PhD to understand. I think that is the whole idea, to impress people.

Look, I'm sure Spurgeon understood salvation as well as you (probably much better) and he defined regeneration as being "saved"

Jesus said the moment we believe we pass from death to life.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Notice you first have to hear God's word, so a baby cannot be regenerated as R.C. Sproul's associate wrote. Once you hear God's word and believe it you instantly pass from death to life.

But you, as other Calvinists teach, say a man can be regenerated, but not yet believe on Christ. So, you are in effect teaching that a man can be regenerate and yet spiritually dead.

Isn't that what Sproul's associate is saying? He says an infant can be regenerated for many years before he is able to express faith in Christ. So, if this were the case, a man could be regenerated and spiritually dead at the same time.

What a convoluted mess.

 

Just because many famous men believed this false doctrine doesn't make it so. You can find men of genius who believe Catholic doctrine, or the doctrine of the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons.

This false doctrine started primarily with Augustine, and Calvin picked it up from him. It did have a huge influence on the church, but that proves nothing, you could say the same of Catholic doctrine. Actually, Calvinism came out of Catholicism, as Augustine was a converted Catholic.

Augustine taught that sin could be passed down genetically, thus the doctrine of original sin. This was not believed by the church for the first 400 years.

Everyone knows Calvin adored Augustine, and developed his doctrines around Augustine.

But just because many men believed this doctrine does not make it the truth. Many there be that go in the broad gate to destruction.

 

Calvin didn't merely belive it because Agustine taught it. Romans 5:12-19 teaches it. And yet you persist in calling it false doctrine. For shame.

Adored isn't the right word. Calvin appreciated Augustine. He valued his scriptural insights and differed with him on a number of point sas well.

For Calvin the Bible was the source of all truth. Calvin didn't just develop a fondness for Augustine's writings and base his teachings around the man from Hippo.

Be very careful Mr. Winman. You are over the line in your remarks. Those of us who believe that regeneration preceeds faith are not unregenerate. For us to hold to this particular teaching doesn't put us outside the Kingdom of God.You owe us an apology.

 

Romans 5:12 does not teach that sin is passed down from father to son.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

This verse says by Adam sin entered the world, but it does not say his sin passed on to anyone else.

It says death entered by sin. Now that is an altogether different subject. God said if Adam ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, in that day he would die. And he did die that day, spiritual death which means separation from God. This is why Adam hid from God when he heard his voice in the garden.

But now importantly, it next says death passed upon all men (not sin). Why? For (because) that all have sinned.

Death passes on us when we sin. God forbid any son to be put to death for the sin of his father, and forbid any father from being put to death for the sins of his children, but every man was to be put to death for his own sin.

Deut 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

You see this verse through your presuppositions and therefore misunderstand it. It in no way at all says Adam's sin passed upon us.

And if you believe this is saying Adam's sin and death passed upon us, then you must also believe that eternal life passed upon all men because of Jesus's righteousness. Look at verse 18.

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

There is no difference in the words "all" in this verse. If all men are condemned because of Adam's sin, then all men are saved because of Jesus's righteousness. But we know that is not the case, therefore you have interpreted Romans 5:12 in error.

 

Acts 17:30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent.​

All men everywhere - that is the scriptural scope of the gospel message.​

When we try to hard to figure out the details known only to God for the purpose of His own pleasure we get into this difficulty. ​

Some will believe, most won't, but we can't go wrong by aiming for the scope.​

Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.​

HankD​

 

Oh! Jesus said "NO MAN" can come to him but you flatly contradict and correct him to mean "SOME MEN" can't come to him! So "NO MAN" does not mean "NO MAN" but only "SOME MEN". This is the only way you can teach your doctrine, you must revise and correct the Word of God and the Son of God.

 

You are doing the very thing you accuse Hank of! Jesus did NOT say NO MAN could come to Him...He said NO MAN can come UNLESS he is drawn by the Father. As I already pointed out to you, that text does NOT say ANYTHING about who is drawn!

To claim that my God commands ALL MEN to repent without ever giving ALL MEN the ability to do so is preposterous! If I told you to walk towards me or you will die and I tied your legs together so you couldn't, my request is not only stupid, it's down right evil!

 

Hi webdog,

My point is not so much that they are not able but that they are not willing to repent. IMO, we should focus on that alone.

This is the indictment of the Scripture not that they aren't able (cannot) but that they "will not come".

John 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.​

How they got there and why they stay in that state of unwillingness is another story debated for these nearly 2000 years.

But it's not important in the preaching of the gospel because the scope is to "all men everywhere", "let the chips fall where they will" (even though God so loved the world...) - that's cold but that's just the way it is.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

​

HankD

 

Your missing the point that we are engaged over. Winman has said that man did not lose his power to choose God and good in the fall but has this ability. My use of John 6:44 demonstrates man did lose that ability or else Jesus would never have said "NO MAN CAN COME." Of course those that do come are enabled by the Father to come but that very enablement demonstrates Winman's position is erroneous as no enablement would be necessary if fallen man had not lost that enablement in the fall.

 

Oh, I agree they are not willing. They love the darkness rather than the light. Responsibility and accountability require ability, though. If all men everywhere are commanded to repent and are held accountable for not repenting, the ability was there.

 

Hypercalvinists in particular.

 

Wouldn't, couldn't, didn't - Is there really a difference?

HankD