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.

 

Regeneration Before Faith Proof Texts (XII)

Proof Text #5 - Rom. 8: 6-8 

"So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." (vs 8-10)

I wrote on this previously in my posting "Regeneration In Romans" (here). I will begin by citing what I wrote in that posting.

There is no doubt that regeneration is alluded to in this passage. It is connected with becoming "in the Spirit," and that is defined as having "the Spirit of God dwell in you." To be "in the Spirit" is to "have" or possess "the Spirit of Christ." How does one who is in the flesh become no longer such? To become "in the Spirit"? If it is not by faith, then we must conclude that unbelievers may have the Spirit and be in the Spirit. But, Paul always taught that both Christ and the Spirit were received by faith. It is when Christ enters into the believer that the believer's own "spirit" is quickened ("is life"). Wrote Paul to the Galatian believers:

"This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (3: 2)

If we receive the Spirit by faith (that comes by hearing the word - Rom. 10: 14-17), and it is the receiving of the Spirit that constitutes one as being "in Christ" and "in the Spirit," then regeneration is by faith.

Some of the born again before faith advocates will attempt to teach their view from the above words based upon what they perceive to be a logical deduction. If while being "in the flesh" (unregenerate) the sinner exercises faith, it is argued, his faith could not be pleasing to God. Or, to state the argument another way, it is argued that one must be "in the Spirit" before he can believe. But, this is not logically deducible from the text. It certainly contradicts what he said in Galatians 3: 2 as we have seen. 

What Paul is clearly saying is that it by "having the Spirit" by faith that one becomes "in the Spirit," and "in Christ," and so walks not after the flesh, and is in fact no longer "in the flesh." Those in the flesh "cannot please God." Yes, but the same thing is said about faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please God." (Heb. 11: 6). It seems clear that these two things are linked together and are inseparable. Faith possesses Christ, possesses the Spirit, and thereby is no longer in the flesh but in the Spirit. As long as a man is an unbeliever, as long as he has not received Christ, he is in the flesh. The moment he embraces Christ he receives life and begins his moral and spiritual transformation.

Being spiritually dead or alive is essentially connected with being either "carnally minded," or "spiritually minded." The mind or understanding is involved in being spiritually alive or dead. The carnally minded are spiritually dead. The spiritually minded are spiritually alive. Those who are in the flesh, or spiritually dead, are carnally minded, and do not love and embrace the truth of God's word. Those who are in the Spirit, or spiritually alive, are spiritually minded, and love and embrace the truth. It is the believer who has a spiritual mind and the unbeliever who has a carnal mind. The carnal mind is at war with God, being anti God. The spiritual mind is the friend of God and his word. The carnal mind is the mind that does not believe God. The spiritual mind believes. The carnal mind of the one in the flesh is opposed to "the law (or word) of God." But, the spiritual mind is in agreement with the word of God.

So, how does the carnal mind become a spiritual mind? It is by believing the word of God. It is by being "in Christ," or by having union with Christ through faith. 

In conclusion we simply say that there is nothing in this text to suggest that going from being "in the flesh" to being "in the Spirit" happens apart from faith.

 

Regeneration Before Faith Proof Texts (XI)

Proof Text #4 - I Cor. 2: 14

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teaches; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." (2: 12-15)

The argument that is made on this passage, by the regenerated before faith advocates, is this: one must become a spiritual man before he can believe the gospel, or "receive the things of the Spirit of God." As long as he is a "natural man" he will not receive spiritual things. He must therefore be made a spiritual man by rebirth before he can be believe. It further argues that being made a spiritual man must occur without the means of the gospel and apart from faith, by the work of the Spirit directly in begetting. However, this is not Paul's intent nor is it deducible from his words.

There is an old scholastic axiom, Qui nimis probat, nihil probat - “He who proves too much, proves nothing." The Hardshells, and others who cite this verse in an attempt to disconnect the experience of regeneration from the experience of faith, and apart from the means of the gospel and word of God, are guilty of violating this axiom. 

By their argumentation on this passage they "prove too much," and therefore "prove nothing at all." In other words, if their "logical reasonings" are correct, then it will prove not only that it is impossible with men for totally depraved sinners to be regenerated and come to faith, but that it is even impossible with God, or logically impossible. 

This will become apparent by asking one simple question: Does the unregenerate sinner (natural man) receive any spiritual thing in being born again? Does he not receive what is spiritual when he receives the Spirit of God? If a sinner cannot receive the Spirit of God till he is first made a spiritual man, then his being made spiritual cannot be because he has received the Spirit. His receiving the Spirit cannot happen until after regeneration. In this case, there can be no "receiving" at all in regeneration. But, that is against numerous scriptures. It is against the verses cited above for he speaks of "receiving" not only spiritual things, but the Spirit himself. 

Is the life "received" in the new birth not "spiritual" life? Let us ask another similar question: Does the dead sinner (natural man) receive spiritual life in regeneration? Who can deny it? But, if the natural man (dead sinner) receives not spiritual things till he is first made spiritual, then his becoming spiritual cannot be because he has received spiritual life. Such reasoning forces us into such circular reasoning. At some point a lost sinner does in fact receive the Spirit and spiritual things in order to become spiritual. If pressed too far, such reasoning will find us denying that anything spiritual is received in being regenerated. 

What the apostle is teaching is that the "natural man," the "psychikos" man, the man relying upon his own soul's thinking and feelings, upon his own instincts, will not receive the Spirit nor the things of the Spirit. He must, by the grace and power of God, be brought to disregard his own thinking, and to listen to what his spirit is being taught by the Spirit and word of God. 

The truth the sinner needs is not natural to him, is not in him already (so that it only needs to be brought forth), but must come from without him. (This is in direct opposition to those in the New Age Movement who say the truth is present "within" and so no one needs to look elsewhere)

The way the Hyper Calvinists and Hardshells interpret this text, Paul's purpose is to affirm that the lost sinner has no physical ability, no faculties, for receiving spiritual things. Thus, he sees the words "the natural man receives not," and the affirmation that such "cannot understand (know) the things of the Spirit," as a physical inability. He thinks of a man who has no faculty for being able to "receive." But, if this is so, how can he receive spiritual life? Or, the Spirit of God? 

When Paul speaks of "the one who is spiritual," in contrast to the one who is only "natural," how does one become spiritual according to Paul? Is it not by receiving the Spirit of God? Were they spiritual before they received the Spirit of God? Of course not. Yet, this must be the conclusion of those who teach that the lost sinner, the natural man, cannot receive the Spirit till he is first made spiritual. Further, by this logic, becoming spiritual cannot in any sense be the result of receiving the Spirit, as we have already stated. In fact, there can be no receiving at all in being made spiritual, or spiritually alive, by this logic.

Paul says that we who have become spiritual and spiritually alive, have first received the Spirit, and then we come to know the things of the Spirit. We could also say that it is when the gospel is heard and received that we come to know the things of the Spirit. The revelation of the gospel is not the result of philosophy or rational thinking, nor based upon reason or natural revelation. It's source is in God the Holy Spirit. The truth of the gospel is not the result of human discovery. 

In Corinthians there are three aspects of the nature of man. I elaborate on these in this posting (here). There is the "natural (soulish or sensual) man," from the Greek word for "soul" (psychikos). This is the man guided by his reason, by his senses, by his feelings and intuition. This man follows and is governed by his human self. Then there is the "fleshly" man, the man who is governed by the "soma" (body), by his physical needs and pleasures. The man who is strictly guided by these aspects of his being will never find saving truth, will never accept the gospel revelation. That is because the Spirit and the gospel are foolishness to the carnal and natural aspects of his being (I Cor. 1: 18). It is to man's "spirit" (pneuma) that the gospel appeals. 

Further, man's spirit, like his soul and flesh, is not able to accept the spiritual truth of the gospel unless the Spirit of God operate upon it. Upon the soul and flesh the Spirit does not appeal or operate upon. Once the spirit of a man is operated upon by the Spirit, in conjunction with the gospel (which gospel contain the words of life), he is thereby enabled to know spiritual truth; After this the Spirit and word will control his spirit and his spirit will control his soul and body.

Today we hear people say "I am a soul man." Culturally this means a man who loves "soul music." But, to Paul, a soul man was a natural, sensual (Jude 1: 19), earthly, physical man. 

Let us not forget that Paul defines a "spiritual man" as one who has in fact received the Spirit of God and the things of the Spirit, especially the gospel and word of God. Unbelievers are not spiritual men. 

 

Regeneration Before Faith Proof Texts (X)

With this posting I will begin looking at those texts which the apologists for the regeneration before faith view offer as proof texts for that view. I have already given twelve affirmative arguments or proof texts which prove the opposite view, that regeneration or rebirth follows union with Christ, and union is by faith. 

Looking at those affirmative arguments a number of things are evident. First, they give direct expressions from the scriptures that affirm that regeneration is by faith, and secondly they are not based upon supposed logical deductions from scripture or doctrine. 

Proof Text #1 - I John 5: 1

I have already examined this text and shown that it did not prove that faith followed being born of God. See these two postings (here and here).

Proof Text #2 - John 1: 12-13 

Some contend, as I noted in my affirmative arguments on this passage, that "were born" shows that the divine birth preceded the receiving and the believing, but this we have shown to be false. "Received" is Aorist and so is "were born." 

Proof Text #3 - John 3: 3 

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3: 3 KJV)

"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (vs. 5) 

In the years when I believed that regeneration preceded faith I never used this verse in an attempt to prove it, as others have tried to do. This proof text for that view is very weak, yea, wholly untenable. So, how do the above texts prove the born again before faith view? What is the argument on it from this text?

Wrote one author on the subject (See here):

"Calvinists lay great stress on the word “see”. They argue that one cannot believe in Christ until one first “sees” the Kingdom. They believe that “seeing” must precede “believing”. Since one cannot “see” the Kingdom of God until one is born again, then it would seem logical that one cannot believe what they “see” until they are born again. This is the more significant Calvinist argument. But will it stand up to scrutiny?"

Again, let me say that when this author (like many others) says "Calvinists lay great stress on the word 'see'" and says the "Calvinist argument," he is wrong to say that this is true of all Calvinists. He should say "some Calvinists," or Hyper Calvinists.  But, he does give us the argument that the Hyper Calvinists make on the above texts. 

The question that we must address is this: What does Christ mean when he speaks of "seeing" the kingdom of God? Is the "seeing" the "believing"? Though people often say "seeing is believing," that is not true in the above text. Jesus spoke of those who, although having "seen" him, the king of the kingdom, yet did not "believe." (John 6: 36) 

"Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20: 29)

It is my contention that "seeing" the kingdom has the same meaning as "entering" the kingdom. Jesus used both words to describe that entrance into the kingdom. When do we enter the kingdom? It is after we are born again, but it is also after we believe. There are two aspects or phases of entering the kingdom. One occurs in conversion and one occurs at the end of the age. The former is referred to in these words:

"He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love." (Col. 1: 13)

The latter is referred to in these words:

"Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." (II Peter 1: 10-11)

In order to enter or see the kingdom, either in time or at the end of time, one must be born again. But, he also must believe and repent, as the scriptures testify in many places. In the discourse of Christ to Nicodemus, Christ will emphasize the necessity of both the new birth and faith in the Messiah. He links those two together and makes them inseparable.

Is Christ teaching Nicodemus about the relation between faith and birth in the above words? Is he telling Nicodemus that he must be born again before he can believe? As we will see, this is not the case. In fact, in the remaining words of John chapter three, Christ will tell Nicodemus that he must believe in order to have life, eternal life. He must look in faith to Christ crucified as the dying Israelites looked to the brazen serpent on the post in order to be delivered from eternal and spiritual death.

Was Nicodemus Born Again?

Was Nicodemus born again when he came to Christ at night? How is such a question pertinent to the ordo salutis in regard to faith and rebirth? If Nicodemus was not born again, if he is spiritually dead and cannot therefore understand anything Christ is saying to him, then why is Christ talking to him about the kingdom of God? If he cannot see (understand) anything about the kingdom till he is born again, then Christ is acting foolishly to try to get him to see and understand. Christ's words are "spirit" and "life" (John 6: 63), and these spiritual words are addressed to a spiritually dead man, who it is said, cannot understand the new birth till he is born again. 

At least our Hardshell brothers recognize this incongruity because they all affirm that Nicodemus was already born again though he did not know it. This view, however, does not seem to be held by others of the born again before faith view. It is held by some who contend that no old testament believer was born again, no not even the apostle Peter, till after the death and resurrection of Christ and the inauguration of the new covenant. These see Nicodemus as not born again and is why Christ says to Nicodemus "you must be born again." If he were already born again, then Christ would not have said "Nicodemus, YOU must be born again." Further, Nicodemus did not even know anything about being "born again." Can people be born again who know nothing about it? Our Hardshell brothers believe so. 

In fact, I once heard a Hardshell preacher (who came from the Missionary Baptists) say about the words of Christ addressed to Nicodemus ('you must be born again') that it was an affirmation that Nicodemus was born of God. As an illustration he mentioned meeting someone and saying "you must be John Doe," meaning, it appears to me, from what I have heard about you, and from your appearance, that you must be him. Or, we might use another example as when someone speaks a lot about medicine in our hearing and we say "oh, you must be a doctor." So, Christ would be saying "you must be Nicodemus, and born of the Spirit." This is of course an extremely novel interpretation, of which the Hardshells are infamous. It is ridiculous, to say the least. 

No, rather, Jesus said to Nicodemus, "you must be born again." If he meant simply to talk about the new birth with someone who is already born again, and understood the new birth, then he would have spoken the words in the third person, not in the second person, saying in other words, "people must be born again." So, if it is true (and it is) that Nicodemus had not been born of the Spirit, then he was yet spiritually void of life, or spiritually dead. 

It is clear that he had no faith as yet in Christ, and as such was not joined to him. Being not yet united to Christ, who is "the life" (John 14: 6), Nicodemus was dead. There was no marriage or "tying of the knot" between Nicodemus and Christ at this time. Christ would later in this same discourse, in directly addressing Nicodemus, tell him that eternal life (from rebirth) would be given to those who believe in him. He told him this because faith in Christ would be the means of this rebirth, for obtaining spiritual life, a life that is not only unending but superlative in every way. It speaks of both the quality and the quantity of that life which comes through faith and the new birth.

So, at the time when Christ speaks to Nicodemus he is not a believer, has not been born of God through the gospel. If "faith is given in regeneration" (as most Hardshells have affirmed), then Nicodemus was not regenerated while he was yet an unbeliever in Christ. 

In one posting on this text I wrote the following to show how "seeing" the kingdom means the same thing as "entering" the kingdom (see here):

But, let me cite A. T. Robertson and another passage or two that refutes this view (as did D. A. Carson).

""He cannot see the kingdom of God" (ou dunatai idein tˆn basileian tou theou). To participate in it as in Lu 9:27. For this use of idein (second aorist active infinitive of hora) see Joh 8:51; Re 18:7." (A. T. Robertson - "Word Pictures in the New Testament")

To show that the word "see" means to experience I cited the following texts:

"I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God." (Luke 9: 27 NIV)

"I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death." (John 8: 51 NIV)

Even at the end of Christ's discourse to Nicodemus Christ uses the word "see" again, saying:

"He that believes on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him." (John 3: 36)

Though the Greek word for "see" (opsetai) is not the same as in the above verses, yet it has the same meaning. Notice that the "seeing" follows faith. The one who believes will be given eternal life and will "see life" in the age to come. To "see" or experience eternal life one must believe and must be born again.

D.A. Carson wrote (emphasis mine and cited previously here):

“To a Jew with the background and convictions of Nicodemus, “to see the kingdom of God” was to participate in the kingdom at the end of the age, to experience eternal, resurrection life. The same equivalence is found in the Synoptics (cf. Mk. 9:43, 45 ‘to enter life’, parallel to 9:47 ‘to enter the kingdom of God/); it is particularly strong in the Fourth Gospel, where ‘kingdom’ language crops up only here (3:3, 5) and at Jesus’ trial (18:36) while ‘life’ language predominates. One of the most startling features of the kingdom announced in the Synoptics is that it is not exclusively future. The kingdom, God’s saving and transforming reign, has in certain respects already been inaugurated in the person works and message of Jesus.” (D.A. Carson, The Gospel According To John, P. 188)

We could cite many other verses to show that "see" means to experience or partake. 

One writer on the ordo salutis, in his writing on the subject, cited leading proponents of each side in this debate. He then says this (See here emphasis mine):

"I find myself more in agreement with Lewis Chafer, John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie, Paul Enns, and many others who teach that regeneration occurs either just after faith in Christ, or at the same time. This discussion is not intended to resolve the issues surrounding the ordo salutis. Though I love and appreciate the writings of theologians such as R.C. Sproul, John Piper, Wayne Grudem, J.I. Packer, John Frame, and many others, yet I am unconvinced—at least at this time—by their arguments that regeneration precedes faith in Christ. My current position is based more on the evidence of Scripture rather than well-crafted theological arguments."

I agree. If we base our ordo salutis on what is expressly stated in scripture, rather than on "well-crafted" arguments from logical deductions, we will see that faith precedes rebirth. He said further:

"Biblically, there are numerous passages that place faith as the necessary prerequisite to having new life, or regeneration. It is written, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16), and “This is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life” (John 6:40). In these and other instances, “eternal life” is given after we believe in Jesus as our Savior. Faith is never the cause of our salvation, but rather, the means by which we receive it. Scripture clearly states, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph. 2:8-9)."  

Again, I agree and have so stated this in this series.

There are other things that Christ said were equally necessary for entering or partaking of the kingdom. Said Christ:

“Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 18: 3)

It seems that conversion involves being born again. One must be converted and born again to enter and see the kingdom. Of the preaching of Christ to the multitudes, which included those who were spiritually dead, we have these words from Mark's gospel.

"Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.” (Mark 1: 14-15)

Obviously Christ operated upon the belief that the people who he commanded to repent and to believe were not all spiritually alive. 

"And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus." (Acts 19: 8-9)

Paul spoke to many in the synagogue, many of which were not born again, not spiritually alive. Yet he speaks to them about the kingdom of God. The point to be made is that people see or perceive things about Christ and his kingdom before they believe and are born again but do not, however "see" or participate in the kingdom until the end of the age. That men are instructed in the kingdom before they are born again and converted, and before they enter it is seen in this text:

"Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which brings forth out of his treasure things new and old." (Matt. 13: 52)

Thus, sinners like Nicodemus are taught spiritual things, taught about the gift of eternal life and of being accounted worthy of the kingdom, and this before they believe and are born again. Therefore, all the "seeing" in this sense does not follow salvation, but much precedes it. Sinners are "born unto the kingdom" and they likewise are "instructed (discipled) unto the kingdom." 

That faith is required for rebirth and for entrance into the kingdom is also taught in these words:

"Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?" (James 2: 5)

Besides being born again of the Spirit (and by the word preached), and being chosen, one must also be "rich in faith" in order to obtain inheritance in the eternal kingdom.

Of the kingdom of God Paul wrote:

"The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." (Rom. 14: 17)

Joy and peace follows both faith and rebirth. (Rom. 15: 13) Joy and peace, as well as new life, is in Christ Jesus and is partially enjoyed in this life, but fully when the kingdom comes in its fullness at the coming of Christ and the resurrection and glorification of believers. 

In conclusion it is clear that "seeing" and "entering" of the kingdom is promised to all who believe and are born again and there is nothing in these words that teach that one must be born again before he can have faith. Also, to rely upon such texts and argumentation from it to support the born again before faith view shows that the advocates of this view have no express statements of scripture affirming it, but have to rely upon giving to the word "see" a strange and novel interpretation. 

 

Regeneration Before Faith Proof Texts (IX)

Gal. 3: 26 (Proof Text #12) 

"For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." (nkjv)

Some translations give "children of God" rather than "sons of God." In my writings, particularly on  biblical "adoption" or "son placement," I have shown how the term "son" was used generally to denote not a birth son, but a birth son who has, through growth into adulthood, become "son" in the highest sense, being at that time more in the image and likeness of the father than when in childhood. So, if it is referring to becoming a full grown son, then it does not relate foremost to becoming a child or birth son. However, I do believe that both aspects of becoming sons are under consideration. So Ellicott says in his commentary:

"The translation “children” here is unfortunate, as the point to be brought out is that the Christian is no longer in the condition of “children,” but in that of grown-up “sons.” The pre-Messianic period bears to the Messianic period the same relation that a childhood or minority bears to full age. The Christian, as such, has the privileges of an adult son in his Father’s house. He is released from pupilage, and has received his freedom."

In my writings on this in my series on "adoption" (Greek 'huiothesia') I have discussed what Paul says in the Galatian epistle about how "adoption" or (son placement) takes place at the time of "the redemption of the body" (Rom. 8: 23) and is the time when the fully grown and perfected sons (and daughters) are placed into their allotted inheritances. Faith is necessary to become full grown sons, perfected, fully conformed to the image of Christ the Son. But, it is also necessary for being born a son or daughter. 

Commented Matthew Henry in his commentary:

"Having accepted Christ Jesus as their Lord and Saviour, and relying on him alone for justification and salvation, they become the sons of God."

Many who are KJV onlyists believe that the KJV translators were inspired in their translation. But, if that is so, then we should accept their translation of Galatians 3: 26 which has "children" instead of "sons." This translation is more detrimental however to the born again before faith view. To become children of God involves being "born of God" (or 'begotten'). At least with the use of "sons" the born again before faith view may argue that becoming sons by birth is without faith, but becoming full grown sons is by faith. I do not agree with this, believing rather that becoming "sons" includes both ideas.

Actually, it is easy to see how Galatians 3: 26 is stating much the same thing as John 1: 12-13, verses we have already noticed. 

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the children of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." 

Here "children" is used and is the proper translation (Greek being tekna rather than huio). The Greek word "teknon" (child) denotes one who is such by a birth and denotes a physical relation, or natural union, with the parents. 

Thus both the apostle John and the apostle Paul both affirm that it is "by faith" that we become the children or sons of God. This overthrows the born again before faith view.

Thus far I have presented twelve affirmative arguments for the view that faith precedes spiritual life. In the next postings in this series I will begin to look at those texts of scripture that are offered in support of the regenerated before faith view. 

I invite all who hold to the born again before faith view to come and take the negative in respects to the twelve affirmative arguments I have presented. I would invite James White, John Piper, John MacArthur, or any Hardshell, to come and disprove our proofs. 

 

Regeneration Before Faith Proof Texts (VIII)

Eph. 3: 6-7 (Proof Text #11) 

"...that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power." (Eph. 3: 6-7 nkjv)

In order to become a "fellow heir," and a member of the "body" of Christ, and a "partaker of his promise in Christ," one must come to hear and believe the gospel. In order that a sinner "should be" such, he must come in contact with the gospel message. But, if becoming a partaker of Christ and God's "promise in Christ" is through the gospel, then one must believe that gospel. No one is partaker of salvation who is an unbeliever. Further, this "promise" is the promise of salvation, which must include regeneration or rebirth.

"These words are best taken as qualifying all the three former terms. The joint-heirship, membership, and participation had their objective ground and reason in Christ Jesus, and were made the actual possession of these Gentiles by the medium or agency of the Gospel that was preached to them." (Expositor's Greek Testament) 

The gospel presents Christ and the plan of salvation. When sinners hear this message and believe it, they become heirs, members of the body of Christ (union with Christ), and partakers of the promise of salvation. Said another commentary:

"in Christ] Only in vital union with Christ was the promise to be inherited. It was inextricably involved in Him." (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges) 

Yes, salvation results from vital union with Christ. The preaching of the gospel is the means of bringing about this union. This is because it is the medium for producing faith.

Now, let us notice some other passages that are similar to the above verses from Ephesians, particularly from the Galatian epistle.

"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." (Gal. 3: 13-14)

The "promise of the Spirit" is the supreme "blessing." The Abrahamic promise certainly included the promise of life eternal. To receive the Spirit is to receive Christ and "the spirit of Christ." This is when and how union with Christ is effected. So Paul asked in verse one of this chapter:

"This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (Gal. 3: 2)

In both these passages we see the word "receive." Believers "receive the promise of the Spirit" and "receive the Spirit." The word is in the active voice in the Greek. Also, there are added the words "through faith." The Spirit of God and spiritual life are "received through faith." The Spirit of God and/or the spirit of Christ is the "spirit of life." There is no spiritual life apart from receiving the Spirit of life. Said the prophet Job: "The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life." (Job. 33: 4) The Lord Jesus also said:

“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life." (John 6: 63)

When one receives the Spirit and "the words" of Christ he is quickened. By receiving the words of Christ one receives life. There can be no life to a sinner who has not received the Holy Spirit, and "the Spirit of Christ," and "the words which are spirit and life."

The apostle Paul spoke of "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus," saying that it is such Spirit that makes believing sinners "free from the law of sin and death." (Rom. 8: 2) Deliverance or redemption from spiritual death comes through receiving the Spirit and the words of Christ. Till the moment of faith a sinner is held as a prisoner to "sin and death." 

In this same chapter Paul also states the following:

"But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe." (Galatians 3: 22)

Whatever "the promise" is in this verse (and in this chapter) it is "by faith" and only given to "those who believe." What will the regenerated before faith advocates do with such verses? If they hold on to their man made propositions, they will force themselves into affirming that "the promise" or "the promises," of this epistle, exclude quickening (regeneration or rebirth). They have to do this, not because it is contextually warranted, but because they must so interpret it in order to preserve their proposition. But, what they should rather do is to discard their proposition (that says life comes before faith) and accept the plain statements of scripture instead. 

Even in the above singular verse, we see how spiritual life, yea, eternal life, is not excluded from being included in the promise. Before receiving the promise by faith, as a believer, the sinner is "shut up under sin." That is in keeping with what we just observed from Romans 8: 2. Sinners, before they believe and receive are held in bondage to spiritual death, under the power of "sin and death." Notice also these words of the apostle relative to receiving the promise of salvation.

"And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise." (Galatians 3:29) 

So, how does one become a possession of Christ? When does he possess us and own us for his own? Is it not when one possesses Christ and takes Christ as his own? As the believer takes possession of Christ, Christ in return takes possession of the believer. Belonging to Christ is a term that speaks of union with Christ. That Christ takes possession of the believer when the believer receives Christ, the Spirit, and the words of Christ, is the clear teaching of this chapter and epistle. One passage that entails the act of Christ in taking possession of the believer concerns being "sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise." Wrote Paul:

"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." (Eph. 1: 13)

The Good News Translation captures the idea of "taking ownership" in "sealing," giving us this free translation:

"And you also became God's people when you heard the true message, the Good News that brought you salvation. You believed in Christ, and God put his stamp of ownership on you by giving you the Holy Spirit he had promised."

We "belong" to the Lord through being "sealed with the Spirit." It is when we believe that we are marked as the Lord's property. It is then that we belong to Christ. In some passages we find the words "they who are Christ's." (I Cor. 15: 23) When does Christ own us and make us his "peculiar people" (or "special possession" - I Peter 2: 9 & Titus 2: 14)? It is when we are "sealed" upon believing. In regeneration God takes ownership of us, or seals us. Therefore, as sealing follows believing, so too does regeneration or rebirth. While in unbelief and spiritual death we do not belong to Christ, but rather are "slaves" or the property of, sin and Satan. We might also say that death owns us. But, when we are saved by faith we become Christ's property, his blood bought or redeemed slaves.

Notice also from the text that the sealing of the Spirit is connected with obtaining "the promise." He is received as "the Holy Spirit of promise." The promise of spiritual and eternal life is included and cannot be excluded.

Membership in the Body of Christ

The phrase “the Body of Christ” is a common New Testament metaphor for the Church or for all who are truly saved. The Church is called “one body in Christ” in Romans 12: 5, “one body” in 1 Corinthians 10: 17, “the body of Christ” in 1 Corinthians 12: 27 and Ephesians 4: 12, and “the body” in Hebrews 13: 3. The Church is clearly equated with “the body” of Christ in Ephesians 5: 23 and Colossians 1: 24.

One must become a member of the body of Christ, or his church, to be saved or born again. Membership in the body of Christ denotes vital union with Christ, "the head of the body." There is no life outside of the body, outside of union with Christ. When one is united to Christ by faith he is then incorporated into the body of Christ. This body is not the local church, although it is presumed that members of the visible church or body of Christ are also truly joined to Christ. If they are not, then, though they be in the visible body, they are not really in the body. 

As we cannot know for sure who is truly a saved member of the visible body, for there are many pretenders, so we cannot fully see the true body of which the local church is a type. Thus, we refer to the "mystical body of Christ" or "the invisible body." The visible body is the group of all professed baptized believers. The invisible body is the group of all those truly joined to Christ in heart and spirit, or by faith union. 

The union of the believer with Christ is not only symbolized by the metaphor of a human body, but also by the marriage union. (Rom. 7: 4; I Cor. 6: 17) It is in the marriage union that both the husband and wife take possession of each other, when they own each other as it were. Marital life and communion follow marital union.

So, in conclusion, we see how the promise of new life in Christ is the result of faith.