I John 5: 1 Again

"Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law." (Rom. 13:8 nkjv)

"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him." (I John 5: 1 esv)

This will be a follow up to my previous post on I John 5:1 wherein I answered the argument of those who say the text teaches that people are born again before they believe in Christ. That view is promoted by many such as Dr. James White and Dr. R.C. Sproul. It is expressed by Dr. Matthew Barrett in his Internet article titled "DOES REGENERATION PRECEDE FAITH IN 1 JOHN?" (See here) In the Introduction he wrote (emphasis mine):

"In 1 John 5:1, the action in the perfect passive indicative (regeneration) precedes and causes the action in the present active participle (faith). The result is clear: God‘s act of regeneration precedes belief. As John Stott explains,

"The combination of the present tense (believes) and perfect tense [has been born] is important. It shows clearly that believing is the consequence, not the cause, of the new birth. Our present, continuing activity of believing is the result, and therefore, the evidence, of our past experience of new birth by which we became and remain God‘s children."

He then gives citations from other theologians who argue the same way. In this post (here) I give what James White said in support of this argument. 

In reply to this line of argument I call attention to the above text in the heading of this article. In that text the words "the one loving has fulfilled the law" (Rom. 13:8) is a case where "the one loving" is a present tense participle and "has fulfilled" is a perfect tense. So, in structure it is the same as "the ones believing that Jesus is the Christ" (I John 5:1), which is a present tense participle, and "has been born of God," which is a perfect tense.

We are told by those who promote the born again before faith view that "has been born" must precede the believing of the participle. However, if that is so, then in the text of Romans 13:8 the fulfilling of the law occurred before the loving of the participle. But, clearly that is not what the apostle intended to say. Rather, he was saying that the fulfilling of the law was the result of loving others with the love of God.

What think ye? 

Additional Thoughts on I John 5: 1

This posting will be a follow up to my previous posting - "I John 5: 1 & The Ordo Salutis" (here). Other writings on this text are "Hardshell Proof Texts II" (here) and "White On I John 5: 1" (here).

"Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him." (I John 5: 1)

Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται

Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων = the ones who are continually believing (present active nominative participle)

ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται = out of the God have been begotten (made children of God) (perfect indicative passive)

It cannot be insisted that the Greek tenses for both "believing ones" and "begotten" prove conclusively that the birth precedes the initial act of faith in Christ. Many Greek scholars affirm this (even those who are inclined to believe that the tenses of those two words lend credence to the born again before faith view), acknowledging that this is not necessarily so, not a universal rule. Is it possible that the Greek construction allows for the idea that the birth precedes and causes the believing? Yes, but can it be shown conclusively that this is the case in this text? No. Neither side can rely on the Greek tenses of the participle and verb to determine which of the two (believing and being begotten), if any, precedes the other. Most, from both sides of the debate, agree that faith and birth go together so that one does not exist without the other.

"All the ones believing that Jesus is the Christ" is the subject, a participle (verb functioning as a noun or as a substantive) and "is born of God" is the predicate, containing a statement about the subject. 

"Believing" Is Not Initial Believing

Why does John not speak of "believing" in the same tense as "begotten"? He could have said "the ones who have believed have been begotten," in which case the tenses would be the same or perfect tense. Further, had John written it that way it would have been a true statement. But he did not write it that way. Could it not be because John did not want to focus on the initial act of believing but rather upon continual believing? Is it not because John knew about "temporary" believers, those who "believe for a while and then fall away"? (The heretics John has in mind in this epistle fell away and this showed that they were not real believers who continued in the faith, says he) He would not give any assurance to those who believe once but who failed to continue believing and so speaks of those who are continual believers in contrast to shallow or thorny ground believers, who are not such. That is my view, however it is argued by some that "whoever is believing that Jesus is the Christ" does refer to the one time act of faith that begins the life of a believer. I do agree that present tense verbs and participles do not always denote continuous action (linear) and can function like the aorist tense and be functionally punctiliar. However, the idea of action in motion, or linear, is most frequent, as most scholars seem to agree. 

The "believing" of "the believing ones" does not exclusively refer to the first act of faith, to the time when a person initially "becomes" a believer (when the soul receives Christ), but to believing that is continuous or linear, and thus "believing" is set it in contrast to the being "begotten," which is a one time act, not linear, not continuous, though its effects are linear and regular.

Another reason that John does not speak in the past tense about believing ("those who have believed") is because he wants to focus on the life of faith, and not on initial believing. The way to avoid doing this is to speak of "believing" linearly, as ongoing faith, on the practice and habit of believing, and not on the initial act that began the practice of believing. With this in mind we may therefore translate as equivalents these expressions: "the ones who are practicing believers" or "the ones living a life of faith." So, in this case, John is saying that the life of a Christian begins with a birth. But, does it not also in scripture say that the believer's life begins with faith? We can say that the Christian life begins both with a birth and with faith. 

All this is said to show that even if we allow that the grammar affirms that birth precedes continuous believing, for this I allow, this does not equate with saying that the birth preceded the initial act of faith (that brought union with Christ). It likely means that the birth preceded the ongoing life of faith, not initial believing, or when faith is first given or begotten. In agreement with this said Dr. David Allen:

"Furthermore, with respect to 1 John 5:1, contextually the simple initial act of believing is not under consideration by John. John is talking about the ongoing life of faith as a believer. Obviously, the new birth precedes the ongoing life of faith. But that is something altogether different from saying the new birth precedes the initial act of faith." (See here) 

The same is true with I John 2: 29 that says "every one that does righteousness is born of him." It is the same Greek construction as I John 5: 1. "Everyone that does" could also be translated as "everyone who is doing." But, "does" may be alright and preferred, depending upon the kind of present tense/aspect are the words "doing/does" and "believing," for there are several kinds as we will shortly mention. Beginning a life of righteousness is coextensive with being born of God. But, so too does it begin when faith is begotten, as the apostle will speak about in the immediate verses following verse one. "Without faith it is impossible to please God." At the first act of faith righteousness is accounted or reckoned to the guilty sinner, and makes him righteous in the sight of God and his law. 

Again, it is a truth that "everyone who is living righteously has been born of God." But, this is a far cry from supporting the idea that birth precedes faith. Both faith and regeneration, along with the abiding presence of Christ and the Spirit, are required to live righteously. There are causes of faith and there are effects of faith. Is birth or regeneration alone sufficient without faith to please God or live righteously? Faith is everywhere in the bible the instrument of union with Christ, and regeneration follows union. A similar statement about doing righteousness are these words: 

"But in every nation he that fears (present participle) him, and works (present participle) righteousness, is (present) accepted with him." (Acts 10: 35)

Here the same thing is said as in I John 2: 29 except that for "is begotten" Luke has "is accepted." 

So, we grant that the birth precedes doing righteousness. And we grant that birth precedes the life of faith. But, that is not the same as saying that regeneration is not by faith in its beginning. 

The Tense From The Author's Perspective

Dr. Allen said "the timing of the perfect tense ‘have been born’ is relative to John’s writing of the epistle, rather than relative to ‘believes’." 

Tenses for verbs and participles may be chosen by the writer or author to reflect the time aspect of events or happenings from his standpoint (at the time of his writing). The perfect indicative of "begotten" represents an action occurring prior to the time of the author's utterance of the fact. 

There are Christians who persevered in their believing and there are those who fell away in the epistle of John, who did not abide in faith or continue believing. John says something about those who were not of this class of believers, but rather of that class of believers who persisted in their belief of the word of God, of those who habitually believe that Jesus is the Christ. John is observing things from his point in time and the people he wishes to make a predicate statement regarding are people who are characterized in their creed and conduct as believers, and people who do not quit believing and adhering. He says of them as a class that they "have been born of God." What other tense could he possibly use? 

He could have used the present tense for "is begotten" and if viewed linearly then the birth would be seen as a process rather than as a one time act (a view held by many, including Baptists who saw birth as a process from conception to birth). But, this also would have given the idea that maybe such believers were not yet fully born and fail to foster assurance of present salvation. He could have used the aorist present or aorist perfect tense and if the latter, then it would simply be an affirmation that regular believers were born of God without any idea as to the time when it occurred. It would then be only simple statement of fact that it had occurred sometime in the past. But, this too would not be acceptable for the aorist perfect does not allow for effects of that past event to be continuing in the present. The aorist simply states the fact that an action has happened. It gives no information on how long it took, or whether the results are still in effect.

So, the perfect tense for "begotten" is the only possible way of expressing that action, especially as it relates to those who of the believing class. Such a perfect tense verb when used with a gnomic present subjunctive participle does not indicate, in this case, that the action of being born preceded the action of believing. 

The perfect tense of "begotten" indicates a completed action or existing state relative to the time of the speaker or writer. So John is telling his readers that the new birth of all those continually believing that Jesus is the Christ is completed. This serves John’s overall purpose of allowing his readers to know that they have eternal life by providing them tests. Do I have ongoing faith? Yes? That means I was born again at some time in the past.

Gnomic & Universal Present 

"All thinking people (present active) have come to realize (perfect passive) this truth." 

This sentence is structured just as I John 5: 1. Do we mean by the above sentence that realization occurred before and caused the thinking? No; And the reason is that "thinking people" is a gnomic present tense, a universal present. So too in I John 5: 1. So we can say "all thinking people" means "all thinkers of the past, present and future." 

Greek professor Daniel Wallace wrote the following about the "gnomic present":

“The gnomic present is distinct from the customary present in that customary present refers to a regularly recurring action while the gnomic present refers to a general, timeless fact…The gnomic present is generally atemporal.”

That is probably the case with I John 5: 1 and I John 2: 29. Said Wallace further:

"Further, the present participle, especially in such formulaic expression Πᾶς ὁ + present participle and the like, routinely belong here." (Greek Grammar here)

Πᾶς ὁ + present participle is what we have in I John 5: 1 and Wallace says such expression "routinely belongs" to such a gnomic class of present tense. 

The gnomic present is the present tense used to make a statement of a general, timeless fact. It does not say that something is happening, but that something does happen. The action or state continues without time limits. An example of this is in 2 Cor 9: 7 - "God loves [as a general, timeless fact] a cheerful giver." The gnomic present is used to express a universal truth, a maxim, a commonly accepted fact, a state or condition which perpetually exists, and a very widespread practice or custom. 

Wallace (pp. 615-616) continues, “Many substantival participles in the NT are used in generic utterances" and says that "most of these instances involve the present participle." I John 5: 1 is an example of this kind of substantive participle. I John 5: 1 was a maxim in John's day and it has continued to be such since within the Christian community. 

Thus, by "all believing persons" we may interpret as "all who have believed in the past, present, or future have been born of God." And, such a structure does not affirm that the birth occurred prior to and caused the believing. John certainly understood that the believers he was encouraging were not only presently believing but that they had been believing for quite awhile. The universal aspect of the present tense in such gnomic presents would include the idea of a past believing as well as the present continuation of that believing. Thus we may view the words of John as saying "all who have believed and are still believing now have been born of God." In this case there is no precedent in time between believing and being born. 

There are also what are called "Broad-Band Presents," where the present tense is used to describe an action that, begun in the past, continues in the present, though the emphasis is on the present time. Luke 15: 29 - "I have served you (present) for these many years." Here the present tense includes the past tense. There is also the "Iterative Present," where the present tense may be used to describe an event that repeatedly happens. There is also the "customary" or general present which denotes lifestyle, what is customary. The customary present is used to signal either (1) an action that regularly occurs or (2) an ongoing state. The action is usually iterative, or repeated, but not without interruption. Luke 18:12 I [customarily] fast twice a week. 1 John 3: 6 "No one who lives in him keeps on sinning [as a lifestyle]." There is also what is called the "Durative Present" and is an action or a state of being which began in the past and is described as continuing until the present. Again, that may very well be the kind of present in I John 5: 1.

If "whosoever is believing" is a gnomic present participle or a durative present, then we should view the words in this manner - "whoever has in the past believed and continues to believe has been born of God." "Whoever is believing" therefore does not exclude the idea of past believing. We cannot construe John to be saying "whoever is now believing (but not in the past) has been born of God." 

Also, John's intention is not to say that birth produces faith (for this would be to contradict what he elsewhere taught in agreement with other apostle's teachings). 

The structure of John's maxim, as well as John's intent, was not to show that the birth produced the faith but to show that both are coterminous. Where there is ongoing faith there is begotten status, and where there is begotten status there is faith. This is because they are inseparably joined and so we say that whoever has faith has experienced new birth and whoever has experienced the birth has faith. In other words, where there is no faith there is no birth, and where there is no birth there is no faith.

Paul says we are "sons of God by faith in Christ." (Gal. 3: 26) They are sons by birth, but the birth that makes sons is by faith. 

John said "to as many as received him to them gave he the right to become the children of God." (John 1: 12) Here clearly birth follows believing and receiving, that is to say, it follows union with Christ."Becoming children" (tekna denoting one begotten) of God follows receiving Christ. It must be so because faith is the medium of union with Christ.  

A similar present active participle are the words "ho baptizon" = "the baptizing one" or "the Baptist." But, that is what may be said at any time, even at times when John was not presently baptizing. It would include his practice of baptizing, whether in the past or present, or future. So we may view the present participle of I John 5: 1 similarly and say "the believing ones" and this would not exclude their past believing. 

The conclusion of all this leads us to say that if we allow that the present tense nominative active participle, a substantive, "the ones believing" (ὁ πιστεύων) includes past believing, then the argument for the past tense of "begotten" (have been begotten) becomes null and void.

Born Through The Preached Word

"Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever...Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you." (I Peter 1: 22,23,25)

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth." (James 1: 18)

The apostles taught that being born of God, being born of the Spirit, is by means of the word of God preached, by the word of truth, or as Paul says "begotten through the gospel" (I Cor. 4: 15). John taught the same truth, not eliminating hearing the word of God as the instrument of their birth. This being so we may read I John 5: 1 as follows: "Whoever is believing has been born of God through the word of truth and God." It is all the same Greek structure. Born "of" God but "by" or "through" the word (logos or discourse or preaching). The source of the new birth is God and his Spirit and the instrument of it is the word, especially the word preached. 

But, how through the word? Apart from believing the word? Are unbelievers also begotten through the word preached? If anyone is begotten by the word he is begotten because he believes it. Many hear the word of the gospel and who do not believe it. They were not born again by the word of God heard by them. This being true, I John 5: 1 cannot contradict it, which is what the born again before faith view affirms in their insistence that the birth precedes the faith in that passage. This is why many of them are forced into affirming that the word of God is not a means in the new birth but is only a means after birth for post birth salvation.

Faith Is Born Of God

"For whatever is born of God overcomes the world: and this is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcomes the world, but he that believes that Jesus is the Son of God?" (vs 4-5)

In these verses which follow our main text (I John 5: 1) are some pertinent things to observe in regard to how to interpret verse one. We notice how what is said about being "born of God" is also said about "faith." Victory and overcoming are ascribed to both the new birth and to faith. Also, both persons and their faith are "born or begotten of God." Were the people begotten before faith was begotten? If so, would that not be two births rather than one? Would it not be better to say that the people themselves, in their souls and spirits, were born of God at the same time that faith was born in them? 

 

I John 5: 1 & The Ordo Salutis

Dr. David Allen (a notable Traditionalist scholar) in the footnotes wrote (see here): 

1 John 5:1 First John 5:1 states: “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God . . .”29 “Whoever believes” is a present tense participle. “Born” is a perfect tense verb. Some Calvinists suggest the perfect tense indicates completed past action with continuing results and draw the conclusion that faith is the result of being born again. The argument is that the verb “born” is in the perfect tense denoting an action that precedes the faith in the participle “whoever believes.” 

 

This is an unwarranted and erroneous interpretation. Consider two examples. John 3:18 states: “He who believes is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already. . .” “He who believes” is a present participle. “Not condemned” is a perfect tense verb. Yet, here it is clear that the “believing” precedes “not being condemned.” Consider 1 John 5:10, “he who does not believe God has made Him a liar. . .” “He who does not believe” translates a present participle. “Has made” translates a perfect tense verb. Here again, the perfect tense verb, “making God a liar,” is a result of the present participle, “not believing,” not its cause.

The use of the perfect tense in Greek provides no support for the notion of regeneration preceding faith.30 To suggest otherwise is to fail to distinguish between tense and aspect in Greek verbs and verbals.

Furthermore, with respect to 1 John 5:1, contextually the simple initial act of believing is not under consideration by John. John is talking about the ongoing life of faith as a believer. Obviously, the new birth precedes the ongoing life of faith. But that is something altogether different from saying the new birth precedes the initial act of faith. John’s use of “born” nowhere precludes the possibility of faith preceding regeneration. One may argue for regeneration preceding faith, but one cannot argue against faith preceding regeneration. The most that can be said from the Greek present participle and perfect tense verb combination is that the actions are contemporaneous.

The broader context of John’s writings indicate he would not teach that regeneration precedes faith and elsewhere teach that faith is a condition for life as he does in John 20:31. This precludes the possibility of regeneration preceding faith. 

Three conclusions, then, are in order: 

 1. There is no Biblical text that connects faith and regeneration in a grammatical structure that prescribes an order that supports regeneration preceding faith. Nor is there any statement in Scripture which precludes faith preceding regeneration. 

2. There are biblical texts connecting faith and regeneration that support faith preceding regeneration. 

3. There are texts that would seem to preclude the possibility of regeneration preceding faith. There is no Scripture anywhere that directly says regeneration precedes faith. That is a theological deduction made by some Calvinists that is driven more by their system than it is by Scripture. The Scripture says things like, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved,” as Paul said to the Philippian jailor in Acts 16. 

Notice this narrative:

Who is the one who has been born of God? The one who is a believer. "Has been" is past tense but "is" present tense. 

Who has made God a liar? Gospel deniers are they. "Has made" is past tense, but "are" is present tense. But, in that sentence structure there is no implication that believing followed the birth.

Thus, we speak all the time after this fashion.

 

Don't You Have To Have Life Before Faith?

This is a question I recently heard a Hardshell ask. The answer that was given was "yes, but there is not generally a gap in time between regeneration (coming to life) and conversion (coming to faith)."

My answer to the question would have been far different. How so?

My Answer

There can be no life apart from Christ because he is "the life." John said "whoever has the Son has life." How does one obtain life from Christ? He gets life by coming to Christ as Christ said "you will not come to me that you might have life." As Christ is the vine, one must be in the vine to receive life from the vine. One must become one with Christ to partake of him as "the life." When Christ is received life is received. Life results from faith union, from receiving Christ.

Our Baptist forefathers, such as those who endorsed the London and Philadelphia confessions, taught that the believer had no power to believe at the moment prior to faith. They said that often. But, if regeneration and spiritual life precede faith, then power to believe does exist prior to faith. Those who say faith is not possible till life is first granted take an unbiblical position. Life is not received till Christ is received, and receiving Christ is all the same as believing in Christ.

What think ye?

 

Regeneration Before Faith Proof Texts (summation)

With this post I will summarize my thoughts on this series.

I presented twelve affirmative arguments to show that regeneration and spiritual life follow union with Christ by faith. I do not see how anyone can overthrow them. They also represent the views of the first Reformers, such as Luther and Calvin, and also of such great men as John Owen and the signers of the 1689 London Confession of faith. Because these affirmative arguments or proofs from holy scripture are so strong, it accounts for the fact that very few of the Hyper Calvinists want to take on the task of disproving them. 

After giving the affirmative case I then looked at the main scriptures and arguments used by the born again before faith advocates use to prove their view. I showed that none of them taught their proposition. 

I have shown how regeneration and conversion are viewed in scripture as denoting the same initial salvation experience and have affirmed that those later Calvinists and Reformers who divorced regeneration from conversion, gave to the term "regeneration" a strict narrow meaning (which is not biblical), and who then spoke of two kinds of regeneration, one narrowly defined and one broadly defined, and thus caused a theological slippery slope, leading to Hyper Calvinism and an apostasy from true Calvinism and of the Reformed doctrine of Protestants. The narrow kind of regeneration was divorced from faith and repentance, or from conversion, but the new testament clearly defines regeneration as conversion. It only knows of regeneration broadly defined.

I also in a series preceding this series showed how logically justification preceded sanctification, which latter included regeneration and all spiritual and moral transformation. I showed that both the Bible and the first Reformers emphasized that justification was by faith, by evangelical faith in Christ, and that following faith and justification, the sinner received spiritual life and a new nature. 

I also have shown that the first Reformers, in keeping with the teaching of scripture, taught that all spiritual blessings followed union with Christ and union was by faith.  But, the Hypers, in divorcing faith from regeneration, taught that union with Christ preceded faith, thus denying that union was by faith. On this the later Reformers, or Hyperists, would speak contradictorily, saying in one place that union is by faith, and then in another teach that regeneration (union) precedes faith.

If I put all these chapters in these series together into one book, and titled it "The Ordo Salutis Debate" and published it, how many would read it? Knowing the answer, I have simply put it out there in a blog for any to read who really want to know the answer to this hotly debated question. I invite any to show where I have erred in my writings on this subject. 

What think ye? 

 

Regeneration Before Faith Proof Texts (XIV)

Proof Text #7 - Eze. 36: 25-27 

24 For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. 28 Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God. 29 I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. I will call for the grain and multiply it, and bring no famine upon you. 30 And I will multiply the fruit of your trees and the increase of your fields, so that you need never again bear the reproach of famine among the nations. 31 Then you will remember your evil ways and your deeds that were not good; and you will loathe yourselves in your own sight, for your iniquities and your abominations. 32 Not for your sake do I do this,” says the Lord God, “let it be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel!” (Eze. 36: 24-32 nkjv)

First, the context shows that this regeneration, this giving of a new heart and spirit, is specifically directed to members of the Israelite nation. It has reference to what God will do in the end for the remnant of the nation. That it is applicable to Gentiles even now is not doubted. In fact, it is applicable to all who believe in Christ and repent of their sins. That it is pictured as being wholly the work of God I do not doubt. God says "I will" and "you shall." It is an unconditional promise. The thing that we must determine is what role, if any, faith and repentance play in this promised salvation. Does the above description of salvation and regeneration exclude evangelical conversion? 

In the conversion of the apostle Paul on the road to Damascus we have an individual example of God doing what he had promised to do in the above passage. In that Damascus road encounter with the risen Lord the apostle Paul was brought to faith and repentance. This was his regeneration. It did not exclude his conversion. Paul also, in writing of this experience, said that it was a pattern to them who would, like him, believe to everlasting life. 

"However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life." (I Tim. 4: 16)

On the Ezekiel passage Dr. Gill comments:

"Our countryman, Mr. Mede, thinks that the sense is, that the conversion of the Apostle Paul was a pattern of the conversion of the Jews in the latter day; and his thought seems to be a very good one: the apostle's conversion is a pledge and earnest of theirs, and showed that God had not cast away all that people; and carries in it some likeness and agreement with theirs: as his, theirs will be in the midst of all their blindness and unbelief; and when they have filled up the measure of their sins; and they will be a nation born at once, suddenly, and by the immediate power and grace of God, without the ministry of the word, which they will not hear: thus they will be converted as he was, and become as hearty lovers and friends of the Gentile churches."

When Gill says that Paul's conversion was "without the ministry of the word," he means as preached by human messengers of the gospel during the moment of his conversion. He certainly knew the gospel. He knew what the Christians said about Christ. He had heard Stephen's sermon. So, though it was without the word, i.e., apart from hearing it at the time of his conversion by a preacher, yet he heard it directly from the Lord. Paul left the Damascus road encounter a believer that Christ was the Messiah, the Son of God. Thus, his regeneration, his obtaining a new heart and spirit, occurred at the same time as his conversion, at the time when he was made a believer by sovereign grace and love. 

But, he agrees with Mede that it is talking about "the conversion of the Jews in the latter day." Notice how he calls it "conversion," by which he also includes regeneration. But, as stated, it also is true of Paul, yea, of every Christian, be he Jew or Gentile, when they are converted by faith. 

Another verse that shows that the conversion/regeneration of Paul was a picture of the final conversion of the Jews en mass is this one:

"Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time." (I Cor. 15: 8)

I believe that Paul is saying that he was seemingly born again prematurely, ahead of time (Greek τῷ ἐκτρώματι - aborted). It does not mean that he was born of God late, as some translations suggest. Rather it is like an abortive delivery, denoting that it was before the expected time. On this text Dr. Gill wrote: "it seems best to understand him of an abortion, a miscarriage, or birth before its time." 

In respect to the time of his conversion, in comparison with the first apostles, his conversion and apostolic ordination, he was born later than they. But, in respect to the Jews at the end of the age, just prior to the coming of the Lord, he was born before them. His words "last of all" may give credence to the view that his conversion (birth) was past the "due date" of his expected birth. No doubt both ideas are true. As respects his birth as an apostle in comparison to Peter, James, John, etc., he was born late. As respects his birth in comparison with the end time Jews, he was born ahead of time. 

Commented Albert Barnes:

"As of one born out of due time - Margin, Or, "an abortive." Our translation, to most readers, probably, would not convey the real meaning of this place. The expression, "as of one born out of due time," would seem to imply that Paul meant to say that there was some unfitness "as to the time" when he saw the Lord Jesus; or that it was "too late" to have as clear and satisfactory a view of him as those had who saw him before his ascension. But this is by no means the idea in the passage. The word used here (ἔκτρωμα ektrōma) properly means an abortion, one born prematurely. It is found no where else in the New Testament..." 

That the end time conversion of the Jews is to happen miraculously as in the case of the apostle Paul is a view that seems to be the teaching of the scriptures, and many commentators recognize it. Still, the point to emphasize is that his being given a new heart and spirit was not separated from his believing in Christ. That the promise of a new heart and spirit involves conversion (faith and repentance) there can be no doubt. All of the descriptive terminology of the passage involves or implies faith. The salvation experience involves being cleansed and in the bible this occurs by faith in the word of God. It also involves receiving the Holy Spirit and this also occurs by faith. The new heart and spirit is the effect of receiving the Spirit by faith.

The giving of a new heart and the taking away of the heart of stone is not a physical work, but moral or spiritual. This is what many Calvinists fail to understand. A change of heart is not so much different from a change of mind, which is repentance. In fact Paul speaks of the "impenitent heart" (Rom. 2: 5). Surely the new heart is a penitent heart. Paul also speaks of the "evil heart of unbelief." (Hebrews 3: 12) The new heart is a repenting and believing heart. This is the heart God gives or produces in the work of conversion.

Now let us notice this passage dealing with the same saving experience:

“Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord GOD. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. “Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? “For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord GOD. “Therefore turn and live!” (Eze. 18: 30-32 nkjv)

This passage shows that the Hyper Calvinistic interpretation on the passage from Ezekiel 36 is not correct. It shows that repentance and faith are the means for obtaining the new heart and spirit. Do the Hyper Calvinists believe in commanding dead sinners to "get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit"? And, just how do sinners obtain this new heart that is characterized by repentance and faith? It is through union with Christ and that is by faith. Now notice these words of the apostle:

"For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people.” Therefore “Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you.” “I will be a Father to you, And you shall be My sons and daughters, Says the Lord Almighty.” (II Cor. 6: 16-18 kjv)

This text also finds God calling upon spiritually dead sinners, who have hearts of stone, to "come out," and to "separate," i.e., to disattach themselves from the world, and why? So that they might attach themselves to the Lord. Receive the Lord, attach yourself to him, so that God becomes a Father to you, and so that you become his child. Receive Christ and Christ will receive you. 

Yes, God does the cleansing. But, it is a cleansing that is sought by the morally filthy. Yes, their desire for cleansing is of the Lord, but it precedes the cleansing. Yes, God receives the sinner but it follows the sinner receiving Christ; And, again, such a will to receive Christ is the work of God in making him willing to do so. (See Psa. 110: 3; Phil. 2: 13) 

In conclusion we see how the experience described by Ezekiel was a description of evangelical conversion, which always results from faith and repentance, and is not a watered down description of "regeneration," a regeneration that excludes conversion.

 

Regeneration Before Faith Proof Texts (XIII)

Proof Text #6 - Acts 16: 14 

"Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul." (nkjv)

Some Calvinists use this verse to uphold the idea that sinners are given spiritual life prior to, and in order to, believe the gospel. But, this is far from the truth. First of all, this woman was already a worshipper of God, and therefore, likely already regenerated. In fact, she was a participant in prayer with other women. By this fact alone the text cannot be interpreted as teaching an ordo salutis as respects faith and spiritual life. Further, the opening of the heart cannot allude to being regenerated or born again. At most it means that God was influencing Lydia to give attention to what Paul preached. This influence of the Spirit occurs not only with those who are lost and being led to hear the gospel but also with those already saved. God continues to open the heart of the believer to hear preaching.

Said Spurgeon:

"We do not well if we forget the prevenient providences which work before our conversion, to bring us unto that spot where God was pleased to manifest himself unto us." 

Not all Calvinists reject the idea of "prevenient grace." Spurgeon, a five pointer, did not. Nor do I. Not that I believe in prevenient grace in the same way some Arminians do, however. Still, there is grace that precedes regeneration and conversion and in the case of Lydia we have an example of it. 

Spurgeon said:

"Observe next, that in Lydia's case there was not only preventing providence, but there was also grace in a certain manner preparing the soul. The woman did not know the Saviour; she did not understand the things which make for her peace, yet she knew many truths which were excellent stepping-stones to a knowledge of Jesus." 

That is the way I understand it. To think that the opening of her heart was regeneration, rather than a preparation for it or for conversion, has no clear cut proof. It is a very weak argument for the born again before faith view and if this is the best that advocates of that view have, then it is very weak indeed.

Spurgeon also said: 

"She worshipped God; worshipped him in sincerity; worshipped him looking for the coming of the Messiah, Israel's consolation; and so her mind was prepared for the reception of the gospel. Doubtless, dear friends, in many of us there was a preparation for Christ before Christ came to us in quickening grace."

 

This is where many Hyper Calvinists err. They do not believe that there are any preparatory acts of God before regeneration. This is because they have defined regeneration narrowly and equated it with the first act of God on a sinner in bringing him to it. 

Spurgeon said:

"Still, dear friends, we ought to ascribe all this preparatory work to sovereign grace, for grace—free favour does much in which no grace of effectual salvation is perceptible. I mean that before grace renews the heart there is grace preparing us for grace; grace may be setting the mind in activity, clearing us from prejudice, ridding us of a thousand infidel and sceptical thoughts, and so raising a platform from which divine grace conducts us into the region of the new life. Such was the case of Lydia, such is the case of many; providence and grace co-work before the effectual time is come." 

That is my view exactly.

Spurgeon said:

"Note, concerning her conversion, in the third place, that it took place in the use of the means. On the Sabbath she went to her gathering of her people. Although God works great wonders and calls men when they are not hearing the Word, yet usually we must expect that being in the way, God will meet with them." 

But, means is the thing the Hyper Calvinist wants to eliminate from the work of regeneration. Spurgeon said: "that address it was which was the means in God's hand of opening her heart." Some Hypers believe that the opening of the heart preceded hearing Paul preach, so that his preaching was not the instrument. But, Spurgeon did not. In fact, several translations translate the text in such a way that it is obvious that the opening of the heart occurred while Paul was preaching. Of course, the influence of the Spirit, during preaching, is distinct from preaching, as our forefathers taught (especially in their debates with Alexander Campbell). Still, the influence occurred in conjunction with the word preached. 

Spurgeon said:

"Note again, for we will only hint at these things rather than dwell upon them, that it was assuredly a work of grace, for we are expressly told, “whose heart the Lord opened.” She did not open her own heart. Her prayers did not do it; Paul did not do it; the Lord himself must open the heart, to receive the things which make for our peace. To operate savingly upon human hearts belongs to God alone." 

Again, I agree. The success of the gospel depends upon God opening the heart. He must "give the increase" (I Cor. 3: 7). He must prepare the heart.

Spurgeon said:

"We think it meet, according to Scriptural warrant and example, to speak to you, and exhort you to arise from the dead that Christ may give you life; but we remind you, and trust you never may forget it, that all the work must always be of the Holy Spirit, and of him alone. I am told, in preaching the gospel, to command you to “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” But well I am aware, and may you be aware of it too, that faith is the gift of God. Though the Scripture bids us say, “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil”—though it cries, “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him,”—though our Saviour himself puts it, “Strive to enter in at the strait gate. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life;” yet we know that salvation is neither by your striving, nor by your labouring, nor by your reformings and amendings, but that all these are the fruit of an inward and mysterious work which the Holy Ghost alone can perform. Give unto God the glory if you have been converted, praise him alone—"Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord.” He alone can cut the bands which fasten the heart; he alone can put the key into the hole of the door and open it, and get admittance for himself. He is the heart’s master as he is the heart’s maker, and conversion in every case is the Lord’s work alone."

Spurgeon also said:

"...although the Lord opened the heart, Paul’s words were the instrument of her conversion. The heart may be opened, and willing to receive, but then if truth enter not, what would be the use of an open door? But God always takes care to open the heart at a time when the messenger of mercy shall be going by, that the heart may give him admittance." ("Lessons from Lydia’s Conversion" - here)

In conclusion I say that there is no proof from Acts 16: 14 for the born again before faith view.