# Regeneration Precedes Faith Temporally (In Time)?



## Alexander (Aug 5, 2017)

So, I am not a Primitive Baptist. I am a Particular Baptist and hold to the London Baptist Confession. Nevertheless, I still get confused over multiple things I see in the Bible. It seems as if certain people were born again/regenerated/quickened _long before_ they even heard the Gospel and believed. For a few examples that this website (letgodbetrue.com) lists...



> *The Bible gives examples of sinners *
> *saved without any conditions.*
> 
> 
> ...



What would you say about examples like that? Particularly Cornelius and John the Baptist.


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 5, 2017)

You are referring to a logical order, not temporal.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 5, 2017)

Alexander said:


> So, I am not a Primitive Baptist. I am a Particular Baptist and hold to the London Baptist Confession. Nevertheless, I still get confused over multiple things I see in the Bible. It seems as if certain people were born again/regenerated/quickened _long before_ they even heard the Gospel and believed. For a few examples that this website (letgodbetrue.com) lists...
> 
> 
> 
> What would you say about examples like that? Particularly Cornelius and John the Baptist.


Is Regeneration the same as salvation?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 5, 2017)

In the Presbyterian/paedo fold, it is not unreasonable (especially since scripture shows examples of and it is God's prerogative) to subscribe to such treatments. Even though we all would agree that the sign and thing signified are not one and the same, this does not mean that God cannot use water to regenerate his sheep and sometimes He does. Consider Abraham was considered righteous even before receiving the sign. If God wills it, he can do this with an elect child in the womb or an elect adult, prior to hearing the gospel message; after all, a gospel message that is heard by an unregenerate man is not efficacious.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 5, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Is Regeneration the same as salvation?



Yes and no. Many profound men of the past use the term regeneration interchangeably with the whole ordo; meaning, that yes it means salvation. However, if we look at the order of salvation, there is much more than just regeneration when it comes to salvation.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 5, 2017)

Faith is the bridge which connects us to Christ. 

We ought not to expect to ever meet a faithless-but-regenerate person out there.

Regeneration is prior logically...this doesn't mean it occurs first. As Spurgeon said, when God moves the wheel, all the spokes move at once.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jw (Aug 5, 2017)

Without regeneration, there can be no _saving_ faith. 

"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


----------



## Herald (Aug 5, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Faith is the bridge which connects us to Christ.
> 
> We ought not to expect to ever meet a faithless-but-regenerate person out there.
> 
> Regeneration is prior logically...this doesn't mean it occurs first. As Spurgeon said, when God moves the wheel, all the spokes move at once.



I agree with the Spurgeon quote. I have always had a hard time accepting the notion that someone people were regenerated years before they exercised saving faith.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 5, 2017)

*The instrumentality of Faith
*
Chapter 14, “Of Saving Faith”, in both the Westminster Confession of Faith as well as the 1689 Confession of Faith, summarizes the role of faith as an instrument through which God saves the Elect: "The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word..."

The Belgic Confession (Article 2) explains further:

“Therefore we justly say with Paul, that we are justified by faith alone, or by faith without works. However, to speak more clearly, we do not mean that faith itself justifies us, for it is only an instrument with which we embrace Christ our Righteousness. But Jesus Christ, imputing to us all His merits, and so many holy works which He hath done for us and in our stead, is our Righteousness. And faith is an instrument that keeps us in communion with Him in all His benefits…” 

Below is an explanation concerning the instrumentality of faith that I sent to one Primitive Baptist man who vigorously denied this truth, calling it a form of “works-righteousness.” Examine my explanation yourself to see if it accords with Scripture:
_
“The Elect are justified by or through faith (Rom. 1:17; 3:25, 28, 30; 5:1; Eph. 2:8; Gal. 2:16; 3:11, 24; Phil 3:9). 
Faith is not the reason or ultimate grounds for the Elect’s justification. We are not saved because of our faith or on the grounds of our faith, as if we can produce a certain sufficient measure of this substance from within ourselves which God would then honor and allow us into heaven. This would be to make faith into a meritorious act and our work of producing enough faith of sufficient quality to be a work of righteousness, able to commend us before God. This would be yet another form of works-righteousness. 

This may be part of your zeal in denying “duty-faith” – your legitimate desire to guard against any form of “works-righteousness.”

However, though we are not saved because of our faith, faith is the instrument through which God’s Elect are united to Christ. The expressions are thus—dia pisteos, ek pisteos, and pistei, which can all be translated as “by means of” or “through” faith. 

Faith is the instrument which lays hold of Jesus. God, through free grace, enables a person to believe. It is a gift of grace, yet God does not believe for the man; the man must believe. 

Therefore, being an instrument and channel, faith does not come at some later time after a person is united to Christ, but a person is united to Christ by faith itself. Therefore, though it is proper to speak of a logical priority of regeneration over faith/conversion, God monergistically taking initiative to move the man, let us not mistake a logical priority with a chronological one; there is no perceptible chronological gap in time, nor are there any who are regenerate but who have yet to exercise saving faith. Everywhere we see faith we will see the new birth, and where we see the new birth we will see faith. 

Again, Ek pisteos (“by” or “from” or “out of” faith) describes faith as that which logically precedes a person’s justification. Faith is the gift of God which is given to us so that we may cling to Christ, though it is never the efficient or ultimate cause of justification, the dative use of the noun pistis being used in an instrumental sense (see also Rom. 3:28).”_

Likewise, not only faith but repentance as well, is an essential grace-gift that the Elect must possess for salvation. Though faith and repentance are not produced within ourselves by our own merits, we still must possess these gifts of grace, wrought by the work of Christ for His Elect on the Cross, for us to see heaven. 

Thus, we see that an “instrument” is not the effective cause of a thing, and that God unites us to Christ by the instrumentality of faith upon the hearing of the Word. To believe these things is not “works-righteousness” but are truths defended both biblically and historically.
*

The error of placing regeneration chronologically prior to faith: *

Placing regeneration at some point in chronological time prior to faith is another error.

Perhaps this error is an understandable reaction to the prevalent error in many churches today. Many falsely believe that mankind summons up some measure of man-produced faith, which then commends them to God in such a way that God then grants them the new birth. Thus, our faith produced from within causes God to regenerate us in a synergistic cooperation. Thus, man’s initiative is critical in salvation.

This common view is contrary to Scripture, which speak of a divine monergism, whereby God is the one who initiates the work as well as completes it (Philippians 1:6). Thus, the new birth, regeneration, is the cause and not the effect of our faith. Thus, many sovereign grace theologians rightly defend the logical priority of regeneration over faith.

However, some have mistaken a logical priority with a chronological one. Instead of seeing regeneration/conversion as a “package deal” even as God takes the initiative, some have defended a scheme of salvation whereby regeneration occurs chronologically first and then faith comes later (in time). 

The truth is this: There are no regenerated people walking around that lack faith. We should not expect to encounter faithless persons who nonetheless possess regenerate souls. God moves the wheel, yet all the spokes of the wheel turn at once. A logical priority does not necessitate a gap in chronological time. Some Primitive Baptists speak of regenerate people walking around that just need to know that they are already regenerate. However, if you are saved, you surely know it – now – through faith in Christ.


----------



## Alexander (Aug 6, 2017)

jwithnell said:


> You are referring to a logical order, not temporal.


I'm actually not


----------



## Alexander (Aug 6, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Is Regeneration the same as salvation?


I wouldn't equate the two if regeneration precedes faith chronologically. Nevertheless, the Scripture says we are saved by the washing of regeneration and I would say that is only reconcilable with justification by faith if they are simultaneous.


----------



## Alexander (Aug 6, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> *The instrumentality of Faith
> *
> Chapter 14, “Of Saving Faith”, in both the Westminster Confession of Faith as well as the 1689 Confession of Faith, summarizes the role of faith as an instrument through which God saves the Elect: "The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word..."
> 
> ...


Now, I thought that was an amazing response. Let me ask you. How would you deal with Cornelius? Doesn't it seem that he was regenerated before he believed the Gospel?


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 6, 2017)

Alexander said:


> Now, I thought that was an amazing response. Let me ask you. How would you deal with Cornelius? Doesn't it seem that he was regenerated before he believed the Gospel?



“And they of the circumcision that believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 10:45).

Acts 11:13-14, "send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter,
Who will tell you words by which you and all your house WILL be saved."

“If then God gave unto them the like gift as he did also unto us, WHEN WE BELIEVED on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could withstand God?” (Acts 11:17).

“And God, who knoweth the heart, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit, even as he did unto us and he made no distinction between us and them, CLEANSING THEIR HEARTS BY FAITH.” (Acts 15:8-9).


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 6, 2017)

You appear to be engaging what is classically called _ordo salutis _in reference to soteriology. By removing temporality, it allows observations regarding what scripture reveal as a man is given a heart of flesh and new life. Nowhere does the scripture reveal man as partially saved. He is regenerated, hence able to respond in faith. From a human perspective, this is all at once. From a logical perspective, election, calling, regeneration, faith, and so forth, follow a logical order.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 6, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> *The instrumentality of Faith
> *
> There are no regenerated people walking around that lack faith. We should not expect to encounter faithless persons who nonetheless possess regenerate souls.



This rails against the Paedo principle that infants can be saved in the womb or at the baptismal font if God so wills-and He does at times. If one needs to hear the gospel, i.e. Rom 10 for conversion, it would seem quite possible that there are people who are regenerate, yet not converted as they must hear the gospel, one they can now clearly see, i.e. John 3, after they are given eyes; and this may happen years later when the infant has some cognizance.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Steve Curtis (Aug 6, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> This rails against the Paedo principle that infants can be saved in the womb or at the baptismal font if God so wills-and He does at times. If one needs to hear the gospel, i.e. Rom 10 for conversion, it would seem quite possible that there are people who are regenerate, yet not converted as they must hear the gospel, one they can now clearly see, i.e. John 3, after they are given eyes; and this may happen years later when the infant has some cognizance.



How can we say that those infants do not have faith? Simply because they aren't cognizant, as we understand that in the material world? The WCF understands Scripture to make clear provision for those who are, in fact, _*not*_ able to hear the gospel and yet are saved (10.3):

_Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated *and saved* by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. *So also* are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word._

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 6, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> How can we say that those infants do not have faith? Simply because they aren't cognizant, as we understand that in the material world? The WCF understands Scripture to make clear provision for those who are, in fact, _*not*_ able to hear the gospel and yet are saved (10.3):
> 
> _Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated *and saved* by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. *So also* are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word._



Just to round things out, the 1689 LBCF confesses the same thing exactly, in chapter X.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 6, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> How can we say that those infants do not have faith? Simply because they aren't cognizant, as we understand that in the material world? The WCF understands Scripture to make clear provision for those who are, in fact, _*not*_ able to hear the gospel and yet are saved (10.3):
> 
> _Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated *and saved* by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. *So also* are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word._





VictorBravo said:


> Just to round things out, the 1689 LBCF confesses the same thing exactly, in chapter X.



Let me clarify: In one sense, I agree-forgive me for not clarifying that out of the shoot; in another sense, I disagree:


In regard to these citations in the WCF and LBC:
These citations presuppose certain things: For instance, that these 'elect' infants will not live passed infancy or the womb
or, deaf and dumbness-where an elect person does not possess cognizance and never will.

Since men are saved the same way, those that are predestined to live beyond the scope of what I said above, they MUST be saved in the same way as everyone else. The above are not typical and hence, God must act supernatually in these cases. 

It tells us in Rom's 10:



> 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith _cometh_ by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.



You might ask, "Who is to say God/Christ Himself doesn't bring the gospel message to some people-he has the right to do so!" God has ordained that this is the Preachers job. I will grant you, nothing ties the hands of God/Christ-but it would be not typical if He did so as the means of grace is in preaching and that is how men are saved, by hearing the word preached; 



> and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent?



The above portion shows that a preacher brings the message to the capable. As well, it shows a sending...

So, yea, in the cases of an elect person(s) not being able to mentally ascend to any spiritual truth from regeneration (seeing), due to the idea that they do not have the capacity and never will, i.e. deaf, dumb, death in infancy, these, God/Christ goes to personally, bringing the tidings of good news to them as to not frustrate the decree of God in the elect; otherwise, it is how the scriptures show.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 6, 2017)

No work, no understanding, no act of belief can save us -- it is by grace alone. The scriptures indeed say God will cause the deaf to hear and the dumb to sing, by supernatural grace. I would not consider the pre-birth child or the handicapped to be exceptions, but rather normative for all of us. As fallen humans, we have more in common with the weakest of men. Only by giving us a new heart can we have faith, trust in God, or sing his praises. That is true of all fallen image-bearers.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 6, 2017)

jwithnell said:


> No work, no understanding, no act of belief can save us -- it is by grace alone. The scriptures indeed say God will cause the deaf to hear and the dumb to sing, by supernatural grace. I would not consider the pre-birth child or the handicapped to be exceptions, but rather normative for all of us. As fallen humans, we have more in common with the weakest of men. Only by giving us a new heart can we have faith, trust in God, or sing his praises. That is true of all fallen image-bearers.



No one ever said anything to attack the doctrine of justification by faith alone; Reality is, men must accept, men must repent, men must receive and men must believe. They must, of course by God's power and grace toward dead sinners by regeneration and conversion, ascend to biblical facts about Christ and their sin and this is only done by hearing the gospel message and God's miraculous power and grace.


----------



## timfost (Aug 6, 2017)

There are some obvious problems with the writings in the OP. 



> We have already shown in the previous five proofs that God's elect are saved fully and infallibly without conditions. But let us add to these proofs with specific examples of such from the Bible.



Election is unconditional. Salvation is conditioned on faith/repentance. The above conflates the two.



> What about John the Baptist? He leaped for joy in his mother's womb at the presence of Jesus, and he did so by the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:15, 44). Joy is a fruit of the Spirit and an evidence of eternal life, so we know John was saved before he was born (Gal 5:22; Rom 8:14-15; I Pet 1:8).



John was regenerated and had faith before he was born. The assumption that a baby is not able to exercise faith limits the instrumental cause of our justification (faith) to our human intellects.



> What about Cornelius? He feared God, which no unsaved man does (Rom 3:18); and he gave alms and prayed acceptably to God (Acts 10:1-4). And this was true before hearing the gospel or being baptized. Peter revealed by the Spirit he was already accepted with God (Acts 10:34-35).



He heard enough of the gospel. He was reading Isaiah! Men of faith had the gospel in the OT (Gal. 3:8). This is not proof of salvation apart from faith at all!



> What about Lot? He loved Sodom more than righteousness, and he ended up incestuously with his daughters in a cave (Gen 13:12; Gen 19:14, 16, 20, 36). Yet we are taught by the Spirit Lot was a just and righteous man, saved by the glorious grace of God by Christ's obedience (II Pet 2:7-9).



Again, where does it say that he had no faith? Certainly he was very weak in faith.



> What about the rich young ruler? Though he chose his riches over Christ, Jesus loved him; and he went away sorrowful - two marks of a man with eternal life (Mark 10:17-27). Jesus hates the wicked (Ps 5:5; Matt 7:23); and only spiritual men desire to follow Christ. Riches are a strong obstacle to obedience; but salvation by an omnipotent God is easy even in such cases.



The writer has equated "love" with "election." This is only a problem for those who believe that God does not have any kind of love for unbelievers or those who He determines to pass by in His decree. This is simply a false dichotomy that is demonstrably unscriptural.



> What about Israel in the wilderness? They ate and drank spiritually of Jesus Christ, which is to have eternal life (I Cor 10:1-4); but they were disobedient and rebellious (I Cor 10:5). Yet God chose them, chastened them, called them children, and loved them (Deu 7:6-8; 8:5; 14:1; 33:1-3).



In this section, covenant individuals is conflated with covenant people. Sometimes scripture talks about election of individuals and election of a community. An elect community is not necessarily made up of 100% elect individuals.



> What about blinded Israel? Paul declares that a portion of elect Israel was blinded to the gospel, so that though they were enemies of the gospel, they were beloved in election (Rom 11:25-32).



Same problem as above.



> What about infants? There is no doctrine of salvation on earth that consistently and Scripturally provides for infants, except the truth of unconditional salvation. Since eternal life is entirely by God's grace in Jesus Christ, dying elect infants are saved the same way as all other sinners.



Again, faith is not depended on a verbal confession. The confession is the fruit of faith for those able to speak. This is no proof that infants cannot or do not have faith.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 6, 2017)

Tim,
As I said above, 'faith comes by hearing the word of God'. Yes, God can give faith to infants outside of the normal means of grace, i.e. He Himself going to the individual, but why would He when He has ordained and decreed that it happens under the preaching of the word by His ordained servants, especially in cases where the individual is decreed to live a fruitful, full life?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 6, 2017)

I believe it beneficial to make mention of the calls: Inward vs outward. God can call inwardly men (regeneration) and then at a later time, under the preaching of the word, call the person outwardly (conversion). So, if you are saying that God calls infants to Himself, outside of the outward call, that would be problematic in my opinion. If you make the distinction and that is what you mean towards those infants that are decreed to live a fruitful, full life, I can agree with the idea of 'seed faith'. But the washing of water, i.e. the word (by the Preacher) will be the germinating factor and bring about life to that seed.


----------



## Alexander (Aug 6, 2017)

timfost said:


> There are some obvious problems with the writings in the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Right. I agree. Thank you for your response. Question: While it is true that infants in the womb might have faith, they certainly don't have NT faith in the Gospel, right?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 6, 2017)

Alexander said:


> Right. I agree. Thank you for your response. Question: While it is true that infants in the womb might have faith, they certainly don't have NT faith in the Gospel, right?



There is only one type of faith.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alexander (Aug 6, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> There is only one type of faith.


What do you mean? Of course faith always consists of understanding and assenting. I agree. But the object of the faith changes. The object of the faith for the infants in the womb, was it the Gospel? Thanks brother.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 6, 2017)

Yes, When we're speaking of salvation, no matter who it is, it has to be faith in the gospel message alone as it only saves.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 6, 2017)

Consider the infant dying in the womb; God comes to that infant, regenerates the individual, preaches the word to them and converts them. This child, prior to entering glory will have a better theology onboard than any of us while we still breath. Surely, they understand the gospel better than we do, even now.

Luke 18:27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.


----------



## timfost (Aug 6, 2017)

Alexander said:


> Right. I agree. Thank you for your response. Question: While it is true that infants in the womb might have faith, they certainly don't have NT faith in the Gospel, right?



How would NT faith differ from OT faith? If a) faith is in God and b) Jesus is God, the only difference would be the quantity of knowledge to which we assent, not a different object of faith.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 6, 2017)

The case of Lazarus raised is helpful for observing (by an outstanding and extraordinary physical miracle) the _ordinary-miraculous _event of a soul given life. The word of Christ is performative, it gives what it commands: faith in that word, which the now-living ears hear, and obey. How did the once-dead ears hear anything? The word forced a hearing upon them, and a wonderful gift it was.

So, the word acts as a means--what we call the ordinary means of grace. Not because the words are ordinary, but because God attaches his promise to them, and asks ordinary people to employ them; and he will then use them for his ends. Also,"ordinary" because the divinely chosen means are not "flashy" or aimed at the "gifted."

We need to have care that extraordinary miracles of given-faith are not leveraged against the ordinary means of grace. It is not to be expected by any of us that regenerated people are just living among us, but not exercising faith. What are they "seeing" with the eyes of the soul, then? They aren't living with their spiritual eyes closed. That is no different from blindness. A newborn baby is struggling to see, he's not got his eyes glued shut; and if he did, it would be the same as being blind, for all it mattered.

If I, as a Presbyterian, appeal to John the Baptist for proof that infants can believe; it is not for establishing or proving that what might happen is standard-operating-procedure. It is for establishing God's freedom, and offering a rational justification (if one were needed) for baptizing an infant. We actually do that by commandment, and not on a presumed rationalist basis.

But, if God begins a work of spiritual life in an infant on the day he's baptized--a work that takes in realtime maybe 10yrs, for example--we still identify the time of his exercised-faith as his "new birth." It's the difference between conception and parturition. The mysteries of life and spiritual-life are beyond us. What about still-birth? We use these sorts of analogies to help us draw distinctions between those who seem to start a life with Christ, but fall away.

We don't know the moment God begins his regenerating work in his elect. But we don't make it our business to judge of a man's regenerated state. We are justified by grace through faith. Effectual calling produces repentance and faith which unites us to Christ. Justification and sanctification (also called vivification, showing that it is whole-cloth with regeneration, hence those terms being applied in bygone days to the whole life of faith) these two are the two-fold benefit of union with Christ. It is all BY FAITH.

Faith may be great or small, but its saving nature is by virtue of its Object. All that is necessary is a child-like, even infant-like faith; but it has to be in Christ. Or there is no salvation. Without faith, it is impossible to please God. It is really useless to talk about allegedly regenerated people who have been given no sight of Christ.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 6, 2017)

timfost said:


> How would NT faith differ from OT faith?



No difference-one faith, one gospel



> If a) faith is in God and b) Jesus is God, the only difference would be the quantity of knowledge to which we assent, not a different object of faith.



Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, _saying_, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

The same faith that was proclaimed in Gen 3:15 is the same gospel we have. One cannot be saved if their belief is monotheistic, i.e., Judaism.


----------



## timfost (Aug 6, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Tim,
> As I said above, 'faith comes by hearing the word of God'. Yes, God can give faith to infants outside of the normal means of grace, i.e. He Himself going to the individual, but why would He when He has ordained and decreed that it happens under the preaching of the word by His ordained servants, especially in cases where the individual is decreed to live a fruitful, full life?



I'm talking about covenant children. They _are_ under the preaching of the word. How God uses that hearing is His prerogative, but we know from examples like John the Baptist that he rejoiced in the presence of Jesus prior to being able to speak or verbally confess.

Does that clarify?


----------



## timfost (Aug 6, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> No difference-one faith, one gospel
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We're agreeing, right?

The only thing I would clarify is that, as I understand it, we are monotheistic as are Muslims and Jews. The obvious difference is we are trinitarian and believe the God of the _whole_ Bible. The Muslim god is a different god. Judaism separates the Godhead and denies Christ. This is ultimately not the God of any part of the Bible.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 6, 2017)

timfost said:


> I'm talking about covenant children. They _are_ under the preaching of the word. How God uses that hearing is His prerogative, but we know from examples like John the Baptist that he rejoiced in the presence of Jesus prior to being able to speak or verbally confess.
> 
> Does that clarify?



Well, I was responding to this statement:



> Again, faith is not depended on a verbal confession. The confession is the fruit of faith for those able to speak. This is no proof that infants cannot or do not have faith.



Based on what you just wrote-I possibly misunderstood. I agree. Infants can have, as I said, seed faith, but that faith is dormant until the time when the word germinates it and conversion happens under the outward call (preaching).

Rom 10:17 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 6, 2017)

timfost said:


> We're agreeing, right?
> 
> The only thing I would clarify is that, as I understand it, we are monotheistic as are Muslims and Jews. The obvious difference is we are trinitarian and believe the God of the _whole_ Bible. The Muslim god is a different god. Judaism separates the Godhead and denies Christ. This is ultimately not the God of any part of the Bible.



Agreed.


----------



## timfost (Aug 6, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Rom 10:17 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.



Agreed.

"And since we have the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, “I believed and therefore I spoke,” we also believe and therefore speak..." (2 Cor. 4:13)

I'm only trying to say that the faith precedes speaking. In children, the time frame may be longer.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 6, 2017)

timfost said:


> Agreed.
> 
> "And since we have the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, “I believed and therefore I spoke,” we also believe and therefore speak..." (2 Cor. 4:13)
> 
> I'm only trying to say that the faith precedes speaking. In children, the time frame may be longer.



I guess what you are saying and where I again misunderstood has to do with the faculty of verbalizing. I see now you are referring to the idea that one will not necessarily speak of the gospel and Christ *as a true witness *until that time when one actually has faith. Agreed.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 6, 2017)

Tim,
I just perused the thread again. This was the quote from you that I had issue with-this may help both of us:



> Again, faith is not depended on a verbal confession. The confession is the fruit of faith for those able to speak. This is no proof that infants cannot or do not have faith.



As I said, in my opinion, one can be regenerate as an infant and even have seed faith-however, conversion requires the outward call to which the regenerated respond to by ascending to biblical facts. It is not that these biblical facts save, but it is part and parcel of the gospel call. Could a man be saved without knowledge of his sin and his eternal destiny from them? Or not knowing what Christ did and accomplished? Can an infant ascend to these facts or confess Christ? Can they do the math? I am not saying that information saves. It does not. But the components of the gospel warrant those items that are inherent with salvation.


----------



## timfost (Aug 6, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Tim,
> I just perused the thread again. This was the quote from you that I had issue with-this may help both of us:
> 
> 
> ...



Hmm...

I'm not sure what "seed faith" is for lack of biblical example. The scripture also doesn't give us a minimum requirement of knowledge to which we must assent to be saved. I guess I'd rather stick to the requirements for salvation listed in scripture and leave the working of that out in the life of infants and young children to God.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 6, 2017)

Here are some excerpts from Turretin on the subject:



> I. Concerning the subject of faith a question is moved as to infants. There are two extremes: (1) in defect, by the Anabaptists, who deny all faith to infants and under this pretext exclude them from baptism; (2) in excess, by the Lutherans, who, to oppose themselves to the Anabaptists, have fallen into the other extreme, maintaining that infants are regenerated in baptism and actually furnished with faith, as appears from the Mompeldardensi Colloquy (Acta Colloquy Mantis Belligartensis [1588], p. 459). “The round assertion of our divines is that actual faith is ascribed to infants with the most just right” (Brochmann, “De Fide Justificante,” 2, Q. 10 in Universae theologicae systema [1638], 2:429).
> 
> XIII. Second proposition: “Although infants do not have actual faith, the seed or root of faith cannot be denied to them, which is ingenerated in them from early age and in its own time goes forth in act (human instruction being applied from without and a greater efficacy of the Holy Spirit within).” This second proposition is opposed to the Anabaptists, who deny to infants all faith, not only as to act, but also as to habit and form. Although habitual faith (as the word “habit” is properly and strictly used to signify a more perfect and consummated state) is not well ascribed to them, still it is rightly predicated of them broadly as denoting potential or seminal faith. Now by “seed of faith,” we mean the Holy Spirit, the effecter of faith and regeneration (as he is called, 1 Jn. 3:9), as to the principles of regeneration and holy inclinations which he already works in infants according to their measure in a wonderful and to us unspeakable way. Afterwards in more mature age, these proceed into act (human instruction being employed and the grace of the same Spirit promoting his own work by which that seed is accustomed to be excited and drawn forth into act).
> 
> ...


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 6, 2017)

I had dinner tonight with a 15-year-old girl who has never said more than maybe one word. Yet she has sat under sound preaching her whole life. What does she understand? What faith can she assent? Is she potentially more "saved" now than when she was an infant and had "seed faith" (a term that I don't recognise from either the Bible or the cobfessions). Yes, one would expect a believer to confess Jesus is Lord, and that is rightly a requirement for participation in the Lord's table. But to insist that the _ability_ is a requirement for a full and living faith doesn't reflect the Bible's teaching.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Aug 6, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Here are some excerpts from Turretin on the subject:



Yes, I've read some of the arguments and agree with Jean that they are speculative. The Bible describes measures of faith, weak faith, etc. It seems prudent to operate on the assumption that infants are saved by genuine faith, though in a lesser measure than adults. The argument for "seed faith" seems to add another faith to the equation that revolves around speculation, not scripture.

Be that as it may, I would like to not derail this thread, so I won't be speaking any more to infants unless it directly helps the concert of the OP.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 6, 2017)

2Ths.1:3 speaks of faith "growing up" exceedingly. The idea of a "seed of faith" is simply that concept of the smallest faith (like as a mustard seed, Mk.4:31; Lk.17:6) with all the potential an actual seed has. Seeds are watered, they germinate, and they are nourished up into maturity. The metaphor is clearly biblical.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## bookslover (Aug 7, 2017)

Simply put: regeneration precedes faith because spiritually dead people cannot exercise faith for salvation.

God supplies both the regenerated heart and the faith with which to believe.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 7, 2017)

I suggest Googling these terms in relation to what converted men have under their theological belts:

Assensus
Fiducia
Notia


----------



## timfost (Aug 7, 2017)

Scott and Bruce,

I agree with the idea of "seed faith" when it's understood to be a very small measure of faith. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Turretin, but when he says "Although infants do not have actual faith, the seed or root of faith cannot be denied to them..." it seems that he's saying "seed faith" is not "actual faith." This is where I take issue.

Applying it to the OP, it seems that the writer would have a point that salvation can belong to someone without actual faith if we say infants can be saved without actual faith.

Do you understand my concern?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 7, 2017)

timfost said:


> Scott and Bruce,
> 
> I agree with the idea of "seed faith" when it's understood to be a very small measure of faith. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Turretin, but when he says "Although infants do not have actual faith, the seed or root of faith cannot be denied to them..." it seems that he's saying "seed faith" is not "actual faith." This is where I take issue.
> 
> ...



The way I would explain this is that this child is regenerated w/ a capacity for faith-that is that the seed of faith is present and that seed of faith will germinate when the external call makes it effectual.

Seeds that farmers purchase resemble dead seeds until the time when they are watered...is a tobacco seed, tobacco?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 7, 2017)

Scott,
It's probably taking it a step further than you should, to say that such divine "implanting" of a _seed of faith _is just the same as "regeneration." Regeneration is that seed germinating. You could extend the metaphor a bit, to include the means of effectual calling: i.e. the "watering" of the seed so to stimulate it's growth.

But it seems patent to say that the life of regeneration is never the potential life in the seed, but the seed come alive. As you say yourself, the seed before its germination is indistinguishable from a lifeless seed, one that will never grow into anything, for whatever reason.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KGP (Aug 7, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> The case of Lazarus raised is helpful for observing (by an outstanding and extraordinary physical miracle) the _ordinary-miraculous _event of a soul given life. The word of Christ is performative, it gives what it commands: faith in that word, which the now-living ears hear, and obey. How did the once-dead ears hear anything? The word forced a hearing upon them, and a wonderful gift it was.
> 
> So, the word acts as a means--what we call the ordinary means of grace. Not because the words are ordinary, but because God attaches his promise to them, and asks ordinary people to employ them; and he will then use them for his ends. Also,"ordinary" because the divinely chosen means are not "flashy" or aimed at the "gifted."
> 
> ...



Honest truth, I read this thread from the start, and on the post before this i began to think about Lazarus and how regeneration is in essence a resurrection in a persons life commanded by God through his Word, and how that relates to the discussion up to that point. I formulated my thought just in time to start reading this post of yours; it was like having my mind read to me almost.

You said it better than I would have of course, which was an additional bonus. Good response.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 8, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Scott,
> It's probably taking it a step further than you should, to say that such divine "implanting" of a _seed of faith _is just the same as "regeneration."



Sorry if I sent that message-I don't believe that regeneration and the S of F are one and the same-they are entirely different.



> Regeneration is that seed germinating.



I see the S of F 'germinating' upon the watering from the word, i.e. the external call of God. Regeneration happens and then those that are not able to rationalize that which regeneration brings are left with S of F that will germinate soon after upon the preaching of the word.



> You could extend the metaphor a bit, to include the means of effectual calling: i.e. the "watering" of the seed so to stimulate it's growth.



I believe I had in previous posts. 



> But it seems patent to say that the life of regeneration is never the potential life in the seed, but the seed come alive. As you say yourself, the seed before its germination is indistinguishable from a lifeless seed, one that will never grow into anything, for whatever reason.



Regeneration guarantees that the seed will germinate, eventually. I agree that it is not 'the potential life in the seed', but is surely is the guarantee of it. One cannot have faith without regeneration and one cannot be regenerated without the capacity for faith in seed form or one that has germinated under the preached word.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 8, 2017)

Herald said:


> I agree with the Spurgeon quote. I have always had a hard time accepting the notion that someone people were regenerated years before they exercised saving faith.


Would not the regeneration that comes from God by necessity then cause the person to exercise saving faith into Jesus at same time then? Like 2 sides of the same coin? As regeneration proceeds saving faith, but to us would appear to have been done at the same time?


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 8, 2017)

Alexander said:


> I wouldn't equate the two if regeneration precedes faith chronologically. Nevertheless, the Scripture says we are saved by the washing of regeneration and I would say that is only reconcilable with justification by faith if they are simultaneous.


I have seen these two as being flip side of the same coin, as God grants to His chosen ones in Christ to have a new heart towards Jesus, and right then saving faith is exercised towards Jesus to complete salvation process.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Aug 8, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Would not the regeneration that comes from God by necessity then cause the person to exercise saving faith into Jesus at same time then? Like 2 sides of the same coin? As regeneration proceeds saving faith, but to us would appear to have been done at the same time?


Essentially, yes. To follow the Lazarus theme, imagine God granting new life to him while he was dead (regeneration) and then calling to him, "Come forth!" Is there any conceivable scenario where Lazarus would choose to stay bound in burial clothes in a dank, dark tomb for a while, rather than urgently and determinedly hopping out (that's always how I envision the bound Lazarus emerging from the tomb!) in response (faith) to the call of his Lord?
Yes, regeneration precedes faith - but faith will always follow instantaneously (if we can even, in fact, assign even a momentary temporal sequence).


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 8, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Would not the regeneration that comes from God by necessity then cause the person to exercise saving faith into Jesus at same time then? Like 2 sides of the same coin? As regeneration proceeds saving faith, but to us would appear to have been done at the same time?



Yes and no. It depends. it could be a seed of faith; as mentioned, when one has faith, they have to have faith in something-which depends on the light coming on as information is revealed (john 3). 

Google these terms:
Assensus
Fiducia
Notia


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 8, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> Essentially, yes. To follow the Lazarus theme, imagine God granting new life to him while he was dead (regeneration) and then calling to him, "Come forth!" Is there any conceivable scenario where Lazarus would choose to stay bound in burial clothes in a dank, dark tomb for a while, rather than urgently and determinedly hopping out (that's always how I envision the bound Lazarus emerging from the tomb!) in response (faith) to the call of his Lord?
> Yes, regeneration precedes faith - but faith will always follow instantaneously (if we can even, in fact, assign even a momentary temporal sequence).



Consider an infant in the womb-how do u apply this rationale practically to an infant in the womb or in it's infancy?
It has to be as i have shown.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 8, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I have seen these two as being flip side of the same coin, as God grants to His chosen ones in Christ to have a new heart towards Jesus, and right then saving faith is exercised towards Jesus to complete salvation process.



This would fall under John 3 (as I have mentioned). Not everyone who is regenerated is converted as conversion is dependent upon a man knowing the gospel, i.e. sin and it's affect, repentance, belief in Christ, acceptance, to receive, etc.

Surely a man can be regenerated under a condition of having no absolute knowledge-thats what regeneration is for-to open the mind and heart to truth. But conversion takes the external call from the preacher and the person ascending to the truths of scripture in regard to the good news-he needs to rationalize what is 'good' about the good news and ascend to these facts.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 8, 2017)

*knowledge does not save. But the person who is saved, will have the minimum onboard of these truths.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Aug 8, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Consider an infant in the womb-how do u apply this rationale practically to an infant in the womb or in it's infancy?
> It has to be as i have shown.


I believe that the elect infant, regenerated, *has* saving faith. Why would we say that he/she cannot have faith? Without faith, it is impossible (not merely more difficult) to please God. If the infant is saved, God is pleased. If God is pleased, there must be faith. We must take care not to superimpose material "rules" for faith/trust/belief onto supernatural categories. No one - *no one* is saved without faith in Christ (though how that is accomplished in elect infants and those incapable of hearing the Word preached is a mystery).


----------



## Steve Curtis (Aug 8, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Not everyone who is regenerated is converted


Now, that is something I have never heard before - certainly not from someone claiming to subscribe to Reformed theology!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Aug 8, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Not everyone who is regenerated is converted as conversion is dependent upon a man knowing the gospel, i.e. sin and it's affect, repentance, belief in Christ, acceptance, to receive, etc.


Scott,

I am not sure what you are trying to say here, given Eze. 36:26. Are you saying that _all elect are regenerated_ but _not all regenerated are converted_? What then is the eternal destiny of the latter? Are they among the elect? Or are you referring to the progress of the elect's walk of faith?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 8, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> Now, that is something I have never heard before - certainly not from someone claiming to subscribe to Reformed theology!



How are men converted? Can infants be converted? Consider that the gospel has internal and external distinctions. Inward call (the HS) vs outward call (the preached word). What exactly does the preached word (external call) accomplish?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 8, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Scott,
> 
> I am not sure what you are trying to say here, given Eze. 36:26. Are you saying that _all elect are regenerated_ but _not all regenerated are converted_? What then is the eternal destiny of the latter? Are they among the elect?



I don't believe I have said anything that would rail against Ezek 36. All the elect remain enemies (in a divided sense) of God until that time when they ARE 'regenerated'. *All* the elect will be regenerated and converted in God's timing. When u consider that all regenerated individuals have seeds of faith onboard, it is more palatable.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Aug 8, 2017)

Just to clarify: do you believe that there could - even hypothetically - be one regenerated person in hell?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 8, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> I believe that the elect infant, regenerated, *has* saving faith.



In what I woould call, a divided sense. Can one have saving faith if one has no idea what they have faith in?



> Why would we say that he/she cannot have faith? Without faith, it is impossible (not merely more difficult) to please God.



ROM 10:17 Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God-this verse is clearly having to do with the preached word by God's vessel on Earth.



> If the infant is saved, God is pleased.


 
No argument here-I am a Paedobaptist 



> If God is pleased, there must be faith.


 
As I said....



> We must take care not to superimpose material "rules" for faith/trust/belief onto supernatural categories. No one - *no one* is saved without faith in Christ (though how that is accomplished in elect infants and those incapable of hearing the Word preached is a mystery).



Correct. 'No one is saved without faith in Christ'. Is it our faith or Christ's faith? Can an infant ascend to biblical facts? 
*I want to qualify again the above statement-Infants dying in infancy and the handicapped i.e. those that will never be able to comprehend, God/Christ goes to those individuals on His own terms, in a way that is only supernatural and imparts biblical truths/preaches to these individuals. However, this is not typical nor the norm as men who are called to live a fruitful life MUST have the internal call and external call to be converted.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 8, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> Just to clarify: do you believe that there could - even hypothetically - be one regenerated person in hell?



Of course not. I just said:


> *All* the elect will be regenerated and converted in God's timing.



John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Aug 8, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> *All* the elect will be regenerated and converted in God's timing.


Scott,

I am trying to parse what you are saying. Help me out a wee bit.

Given the quote above, and this:

"Not everyone who is regenerated is converted as conversion is dependent upon a man knowing the gospel, i.e. sin and it's affect, repentance, belief in Christ, acceptance, to receive, etc."

Then am I correct to assume you mean that 
"not everyone who is regenerated is converted at the moment of regeneration but will be converted in God's timing"

*or *are you drawing some distinction between the elect and the regenerated, as in

"not everyone who is regenerated is converted, as only the elect will be regenerated and converted"


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 8, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Regeneration guarantees that the seed will germinate, eventually. I agree that it is not 'the potential life in the seed', but is surely is the guarantee of it. One cannot have faith without regeneration and one cannot be regenerated without the capacity for faith in seed form or one that has germinated under the preached word.


I'm quite unsatisfied with this _abstraction _which is here going by the name "regeneration." Regeneration IS new life. _Liv*ing.*_ A man exists, he was generated. He was dead. Now he lives, he's regenerated.

Life that requires breathing does not go on if there's no breathing. There's no living, if there's no breathing. There's no such thing as a living creature, that is not also a breathing creature. There is no such thing as a regenerated creature, which is not also a believing creature. So, if there's a living person, even in utero, he's a believer.

I'm quite content with the idea of an extended process of "bringing a dead thing to life." That is "regeneration" or "regenerating." But that man IS NOT YET regenerat*ed* (an accomplished fact), until he's breathing/believing. Spank that baby so it fills its lungs and cries with a breath!

What of the baby in the womb, the John the Baptist or the Jeremiah? God will work how and when he wills. I think he can (and does) use baptism itself (only administered in faith), at least as the first drop of his mercy, and copious measures of water-of-the-word. We're not able to see a seed's germination, no man can see that. What we observe is: what looks like life to us, what looks like the exercise of breathing, of faith.

But the idea of a living person (of any age) just waiting for some shock to start him breathing--alive, but not growing, not really living apart from having an active thought or something--no, this is not helpful. It is too abstract; there's nothing there that relates to real physical life.

Forget this notion of "time-lag." Use the idea of process. Jesus healed one blind man instantaneously; another he healed by a two-stage process. Use the planting metaphor; use the germination/eruption illustration. Use the new birth metaphor; use the conception/parturition illustration.

But there's no benefit from bearing this idea around that there are spiritually alive people carrying on who are just waiting for the proper stimulus.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 8, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> Essentially, yes. To follow the Lazarus theme, imagine God granting new life to him while he was dead (regeneration) and then calling to him, "Come forth!" Is there any conceivable scenario where Lazarus would choose to stay bound in burial clothes in a dank, dark tomb for a while, rather than urgently and determinedly hopping out (that's always how I envision the bound Lazarus emerging from the tomb!) in response (faith) to the call of his Lord?
> Yes, regeneration precedes faith - but faith will always follow instantaneously (if we can even, in fact, assign even a momentary temporal sequence).


I have read those who seem to hold with a person can be regenerated for a period of time, even years, before real conversion, and just do not see the evidence for that, for God seems to have it all worked out so that he grants new hearts knowing they will be hearing the good news now.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 8, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I'm quite unsatisfied with this _abstraction _which is here going by the name "regeneration." Regeneration IS new life. _Liv*ing.*_ A man exists, he was generated. He was dead. Now he lives, he's regenerated.
> 
> Life that requires breathing does not go on if there's no breathing. There's no living, if there's no breathing. There's no such thing as a living creature, that is not also a breathing creature. There is no such thing as a regenerated creature, which is not also a believing creature. So, if there's a living person, even in utero, he's a believer.
> 
> ...


Are you saying that God regenerates some infants while being baptized? The part of the spark/start od something was what I was asking about in your post.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 8, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> How are men converted? Can infants be converted? Consider that the gospel has internal and external distinctions. Inward call (the HS) vs outward call (the preached word). What exactly does the preached word (external call) accomplish?


Does God require infants to have saving faith before he can save them, in the sense of not holding their sin debts against them, as Jesus dies to cover them in that state?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Aug 8, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I have read those who seem to hold with a poerson can be regenerated for a period of time, even years, before real conversion, and just do not see the evidence for that, for God seems to have it all worked out so that he grants new hearts knowing they will be hearing the good news now.



_converslo_: conversion; viz., the work of the Holy Spirit according to which the intellect and the will of the sinner are turned toward God in contrition and faith. Conversion can be distinguished into: (1) _conversio passiva sive habitualis_, passive or habitual conversion, commonly called regeneration (_regeneratio_), in which the will, passively, without any motion of its own, receives by grace alone the habit or disposition (_habitus_, q.v.) toward repentance and new life in Christ. Because the work of the _conversio passiva_ begins in God and passes to the human subject, it is also called _conversio transitiva_, transitive conversion, a conversion that passes over from one being to another. (2) _Conversio activa sive actualis_, active or actual conversion, commonly called conversion (_conversio_) without modifier, in which the regenerated will actually and actively turns toward God; i.e;, the human side of conversion, the actual repentance or _metanoia. _Because the _conversio activa_ is confined to the human subject, it is sometimes called _conversio intransitiva_, intransitive conversion, or conversion that does not pass over from one being to another. _Conversio activa_ is sometimes also called _regeneratio secunda_, a second or further regeneration, belonging to the renovation (_renovatio_, q.v.) of the individual.

The scholastics also define conversion in relation to its _termini_, or limits. The _terminus a quo_ (q.v.) of conversion in a formal sense is sin itself, sin as such, while in an objective sense it is the specific objects of or reasons for sinning peculiar to the individual sinner. The _terminus ad quem_ (q.v.) of conversion, formally considered, is faith in Christ; objectively considered, God, to whom the repentant return in and through Christ. *The orthodox deny* the concept of a _homo renascens_ (q.v.), or *man in process of being reborn in conversion*, and therefore all notion of a middle condition (_status medius_) between the two termini of conversion. In other words, *conversion is not a process*. Thus _conversio transitiva_ is immediately effective as _conversio intransitiva_, _conversio habitualis_ immediately resultant in _conversio actualis_. The divine work and the turning of the human heart are inseparable and are distinguished only in terms of the subject of the operation.

Source: Richard Muller. _Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology_ (p. 83).​


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 8, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> _converslo_: conversion; viz., the work of the Holy Spirit according to which the intellect and the will of the sinner are turned toward God in contrition and faith. Conversion can be distinguished into: (1) _conversio passiva sive habitualis_, passive or habitual conversion, commonly called regeneration (_regeneratio_), in which the will, passively, without any motion of its own, receives by grace alone the habit or disposition (_habitus_, q.v.) toward repentance and new life in Christ. Because the work of the _conversio passiva_ begins in God and passes to the human subject, it is also called _conversio transitiva_, transitive conversion, a conversion that passes over from one being to another. (2) _Conversio activa sive actualis_, active or actual conversion, commonly called conversion (_conversio_) without modifier, in which the regenerated will actually and actively turns toward God; i.e;, the human side of conversion, the actual repentance or _metanoia. _Because the _conversio activa_ is confined to the human subject, it is sometimes called _conversio intransitiva_, intransitive conversion, or conversion that does not pass over from one being to another. _Conversio activa_ is sometimes also called _regeneratio secunda_, a second or further regeneration, belonging to the renovation (_renovatio_, q.v.) of the individual.
> 
> The scholastics also define conversion in relation to its _termini_, or limits. The _terminus a quo_ (q.v.) of conversion in a formal sense is sin itself, sin as such, while in an objective sense it is the specific objects of or reasons for sinning peculiar to the individual sinner. The _terminus ad quem_ (q.v.) of conversion, formally considered, is faith in Christ; objectively considered, God, to whom the repentant return in and through Christ. *The orthodox deny* the concept of a _homo renascens_ (q.v.), or *man in process of being reborn in conversion*, and therefore all notion of a middle condition (_status medius_) between the two termini of conversion. In other words, *conversion is not a process*. Thus _conversio transitiva_ is immediately effective as _conversio intransitiva_, _conversio habitualis_ immediately resultant in _conversio actualis_. The divine work and the turning of the human heart are inseparable and are distinguished only in terms of the subject of the operation.
> 
> Source: Richard Muller. _Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology_ (p. 83).​


So saving faith placed into Jesus always will flow forth from God regeneration? As the fruit of that event now happening?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 8, 2017)

Patrick,
To be clear, many theolgians use the terms 'regeneration' and 'conversion' interchangeably. They are not one and the same; in this conversation I am obviously not using them in that way, hence that must be considered in evaluating what I am saying.

Consider Jesus' words with Nicodemus. Is the implication that the order is chronological or logical here?

I believe it would be as well beneficial to say a few things on the ordo salutis: I hold to the idea that the ordo is logical in it's order; however, I do not believe it cannot be chronological at times, given the obvious, i.e. Infants that are regenerated cannot be converted as they cannot process what they see yet. In an earlier post, when I cite Turretin and when he speaks of 'seeds of faith', I believe he is seeing it in the divided sense; that being, a (f)aith that is present in microcosmic form, that is yet to be germinated and become (F)aith; The external call is what waters these non-germinated seeds, else what does the external call actually do then? It does have a specific application and that is more than just calling people to come to the Lord. Just like the internal call, this external call is given by a human, but carried along via the HS. It is the power of the HS that makes the human word, effectual. I would add, I believe that in most cases, the logical order of the OS happens all at once. Most people sitting under the gospel or church goers have the appropriated truths onboard already. I don't believe, based on what I have said about infants that we have to believe in a logical order in the absolute sense as this would grind against infants being regenerated in infancy or the womb.

I asked this earlier: How are men converted? Is it our faith or Christ's? Is it Christ who repents or is it the man? Who believes and if the man believes, what does he believe? What does he repent of? To say that men can be converted without any of this information onboard is suspect. Granted, the information does not save, but the gospel is called good news for a reason-it is news. News has information attached. Regeneration allows for the mind and heart to appeal to information-to ascend to biblical facts and weigh them out. The call is important-why do we have an external call and what does that call actually accomplish? We all understand that the internal call regenerates, but what of the external? The call by the preacher is the appealing to the elect to come to Christ. Can a man come and not know who it is who they are coming to?

Bruce,
You write:


> Regeneration IS new life. _Liv*ing.*_A man exists, he was generated. He was dead. Now he lives, he's regenerated.



Where have I denied this? In my description of the order, have I said that the man or infant that is regenerated and not yet converted under the external call is dead? Upon regeneration, these people have seeds of faith present-they are alive! As well, if you prefer the word, 'process', I have no issue with that. I believe any process requires time, however.

Would apostle Paul say a man is justified by regeneration?
Would the apostle Paul say a man is justified by faith?

The man is not justified by regeneration, but by faith. Faith comes by the hearing of the word....

John 3 is chronological....


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 8, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I have read those who seem to hold with a person can be regenerated for a period of time, even years, before real conversion, and just do not see the evidence for that, for God seems to have it all worked out so that he grants new hearts knowing they will be hearing the good news now.



John 3 is chronological...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 8, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Are you saying that God regenerates some infants while being baptized? The part of the spark/start od something was what I was asking about in your post.



Yes. If God wills, he may regenerate anyone at anytime He wills and decrees.

See WCF ch 28


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 8, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> So saving faith placed into Jesus always will flow forth from God regeneration? As the fruit of that event now happening?



If a man is regenerated, He will come to faith.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 8, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Are you saying that God regenerates some infants while being baptized? The part of the spark/start od something was what I was asking about in your post.


I'm just a man, and I don't know what God knows, and he does not explain the Spirit's work in a given individual, see Jn.3:8.

What I know is: God uses particular means (intermediaries) to accomplish his purposes. He bears witness to his works in his verbal word, and in his appointed signs or visual (more broadly, sensory) word. Whether fast (to the point of instantaneous) or slow (as the beginning of an extended process)--I'm not in the position to judge of it--I can say that God _communicates _to some infants via the touch of the water (that he appointed, and appropriates).

To say God could not do so is tantamount to denying that a mother is able to _communicate _to her infant better by touch than by words containing propositions rationally comprehended. I affirm the latter as clear and undeniable; therefore I affirm God could do so.

The question: _When does God start working on a man (a sinner) to make him whole?_ is seldom perfectly clear from the human vantage point. Is it at the first instant the gospel-word comes to him? Some men's testimony is that their gospel-awareness remained zero for years, whatever spiritual word they may have experienced in that time. We have no certainty if that preliminary work did anything or lots of things.

But upon a later hearing, the Spirit's work of conviction began to bring him to a sight of his sin and misery. We may be able to mark some aspect of this transformation as a kind of "beginning" of his becoming a Christian. But just as the "quickening" of a child in the womb (the first sign of life, when the mother feels the baby move for the first time) is marked as a beginning of sorts, but is actually long past the real beginning at conception; neither can we say how wise we were to the Spirit's sealing and regenerating work.

For many of us, we cannot draw a line across the timeline of our personal history, when we passed from death-to-life. We know it had to happen: the Bible tells me so. The ministry of God's grace to us was publicized in our baptism (as an infant) and was carried on for years by the Word of grace, so that we were not conscious of a time before we knew that 1) we were sinners; 2) we needed a Savior; 3) Christ is that Savior.

To my knowledge, I personally have never questioned these facts. My understanding of all of them, and of the entire Christian Faith, has grown fuller and deeper over decades of life. My Savior means more to me today, than when I first professed my faith publicly. But I was not less redeemed in time past--starting whenever the moment was I became spiritually alive--than today.

Was it when I was baptized? I don't know; that's not for me to know, or if it was before or after. I only know--as sure as I know I am a child of God--that when I was baptized, God made a witness in the world of men that he also sealed me as his property in the spirit realm. Theology teaches me this, not experience. What my faith confesses _now _tells me what happened _at another time_. 2Tim.2:19, "Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: “The Lord knows those who are His.”

All I mean to affirm here is that from the beginning of my life, God has borne to me witness _without pause _(!) of "salvation through *faith* *which* *is* *in* *Christ* *Jesus*," 2Tim.3:15. And that includes the day I was baptized, and the means of it. And my faith does not rest in either the beginning of that work, or the sum of it; nor in my earliest profession of confidence in it. It is in this: that Christ IS my Savior, today; and will be henceforth. He who has *begun* a good work in me will *complete* _it_ until the day of Jesus Christ. This I believe.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 8, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Upon regeneration, these people have seeds of faith present-they are alive


This, again, sounds like you're affirming what previously you repudiated: that regeneration and the planting of faith-like-a-seed are indistinguishable.

Are there _regenerated people, _who are not yet _believing people?_ How can they be alive in the Spirit, and yet not believing? Can a man be alive in his flesh, yet not breathe?

The temporal priority of regeneration does not translate to the establishment of a "gap" of indeterminate temporal length (greater/less) until faith. Like there's a temporal priority to turning the key in the ignition, and thence a spark that ignites the engine; life to the engine means the beast starts breathing; and that breathing makes the thing run (alive).

If you want to talk about that _process _that starts with sliding the key into place; or starts with whatever wrestling it takes to get the key to fit; and then to turn in the cylinder against a protest; and then the chugging of a starter motor that doesn't quite seem to want to turn efficiently, but you feel like you're coaxing it to gogogoGO! There are cases where it seems like getting that person to see by faith what is right before him is a real travail. There's suspense for us, who are waiting for that new birth to come forth. Are those "signs of life?"

You can call all that process *regeneration* if you aren't distinguishing between the _effectual call _and its effect on the man being effected. But the man isn't _regenerat*ed*_ until he's believing. And when he's a believer, then he's regenerated.

WSC 30: "Q. 30. How doth the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?
A. The Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working *faith* in us, And thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.

WCF XIII _Of Sanctification_
1. They who are effectually called and regenerated...​
It's so much better to identify that _process _of bringing to new-life as the work of effectual calling.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 8, 2017)

> This, again, sounds like you're affirming what previously you repudiated:



Can you quote me please?



> Are there _regenerated people, _who are not yet _believing people?_ How can they be alive in the Spirit, and yet not believing?



Having the capacity to believe and actually believing are not one and the same-unless of course you are willing to say that it is Christ's belief imparted to regenerate men or Christ's faith....



> You can call all that process *regeneration* if you aren't distinguishing between the _effectual call _and its effect on the man being effected. But the man isn't _regenerat*ed*_ until he's believing. And when he's a believer, then he's regenerated.



Bruce,
Obviously, you are not following me. Yes, there are regenerate people who are not believing people. What do u think Christ meant when he said that one 'must be born again before he can SEE the kingdom of God'? Sight brings information to the brain to be processed. Can an infant that is regenerate, believe? if so, what do they believe in? The scriptures clearly show that our belief must be in Christ. Christ does not believe for us. Being reborn is a light bulb coming on so the regenerate man can process the things of the kingdom. If one is a believer, he believes in something. Christ does not believe for us; nor repent, accept, receive, etc. and we don't just have an empty belief. You say, "But the man isn't _regenerat*ed*_ until he's believing." I ask you then, what exactly does the regenerate infant believe?

I say, you have collapsed conversion into regeneration. Upon belief, men are converted. Regeneration allows for the data to hit the heart and stick.

Your citation of the WSC does not rail against anything I have said; An infant has seed faith-it is not germinated; that faith is dormant-yes it is faith, but asleep. Can God work faith in this infant? The outworking of faith is fruit. This takes time and won't occur in this child's life until the external call waters the seed. Of course, an adult with mental capacity is different. The seed is planted upon regeneration and as the external call is made effectual, the seed watered and the man converted. That man's faith will produce fruit.

In regards to the citation in the WCF; the divines use the term 'regeneration' to refer to the whole of the order of salvation. They never use the term conversion or converted-this is what I referred to in an earlier post. So, when reading the document, one needs to read between the lines on the idea of the ordo as they do not address it.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 8, 2017)

No, Scott, I don't have to go with Christ doing the believing for anyone. Nor am I collapsing conversion into regeneration. I'm saying faith (a standard element of conversion) is as normal to regeneration as breathing is to a functioning cardiopulmonary system.



Scott Bushey said:


> what exactly does the regenerate infant believe?


He believes of Christ what he knows of him. And he knows of him comparably to what he knows of his own mother, for Christ makes himself known. Ps.22:9, "Thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts." That may be *primitive *hope, but it's still hope.

His mother has limits respecting what she may communicate to him, limits of hers and limits of his. Christ has none of those limits, and he can overcome the child's natural limits.

The child is given the spiritual sight necessary to apprehend Christ. The instinct to cling to Christ in the spirit is as natural to a regenerated child as his fleshly instinct would be to cling to his mother. This faith grows, is sharpened and deepened by the appointed means over time.

I am able to distinguish between the capacity to do something, and doing it. But what's happening in your proposal, is that elements crucial to the literal analogy are being suspended, for a theory of not merely distinguishing but actually inserting a temporal "gap."

It does not _fit _the description of _life _to say that the living thing is not _exercising_ a necessary function for that life: such as breathing. There's an element of absurdity to saying that a man is alive, he just hasn't started breathing yet and maybe won't for... a couple weeks? a decade?

Spiritual living is an analogy that people in the 1C (and before) would grasp by applying what they knew about living in the body. There were no artificial life-support systems then, or suspended animation--something between life and death. They did know pregnancy, gestation, and birth. They could stretch the analogy over that condition. But still, the business of life and death is binary, there's no in-between.

I haven't brought in any discussion of "fruit," because we aren't dealing that far along in this matter of the ordo and historia salutis. A man who has been regenerated--no more dead but living, not on his way but there--is a believer; his faith is saving him.

(btw, the West.Stds. use the term "convert/converted/converting" in the familiar sense 2X in WCF.9, 1X WSC 89, 3X WLC 4 & 191; and "conversion" in WLC 159)

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 8, 2017)

Charles Hodge:



> Knowledge is said to be the effect of regeneration. Men are renewed so as to know. They are brought to the knowledge of the truth; and they are sanctified by the truth.



Charles Hodge, _Systematic Theology_, vol. 2 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 256.



> The Protestants did not deny that men coöperate in their own conversion, taking that word in the sense in which the Romanists used the term (and the still broader term _justificatio_), as including the whole work of turning unto God. No one denies that the man in the synagogue coöperated in stretching out his withered arm or that the impotent one at the pool was active in obeying the command of Christ, “Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.” But the question is, Did they coöperate in the communication of vital power to their impotent limbs? So Protestants do not deny that the soul is active in conversion, that the “arbitrium a Deo motum” freely assents; but they do deny that the sinner is active and coöperating in the production of the new life in the exercise of which the sinner turns to God.



Charles Hodge, _Systematic Theology_, vol. 2 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 718.

The 2nd statement proves that men cooperate in conversion (which is distinguishable from regeneration where men do not participate) the fact they they are collating and processing information the enlightened mind now sees unto conversion.

Eph 1:17 
17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: 18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, 19 And what _is_ the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, 20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set _him_ at his own right hand in the heavenly _places_, 21 Far above all kprincipality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: 

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Eph 1:17–21.

Notice how Paul builds upon the enlightneing of the eyes here. Obviously an instance of regeneration...Hodge agrees:



> The great majority of commentators, Greek as well as Latin, Protestant as well as Catholic, ancient as well as modern, understand the passage to refer to the conversion or regeneration of believers. This general consent is _primâ facie_ evidence of the correctness of this interpretation.



Charles Hodge, _Systematic Theology_, vol. 2 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 695.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 8, 2017)

> He believes of Christ what he knows of him.



What does the infant know of him?

Can a man be saved less he repent? Can a man be saved if he knows nothing of sin? Can a man be saved that doesn't understand that God is 3 in 1 and that Christ is a sacrificial lamb for sin? Please make the distinction between regeneration and conversion here.



> And he knows of him comparably to what he knows of his own mother



Being in the medical field all of my life, I believe this is disputable....Consider those infants that are given up for adoption-do they know the mother that adopts them is a surrogate?



> Christ has none of those limits, and he can overcome the child's natural limits.



I don't disagree but conversion happens under the preaching of the word-the external call and hence, Christ limits that which He gives unto the infant. Have you ever met a infant who understands the gospel? How about a 3 or 4 year old?
Do you believe Christ does this with adult converts as well? He gives information? Or does He validate that which the adult has heard in the past and verify it spiritually to the persons heart and mind so the mind now accepts biblical truth? There is a difference.

Why does God enlighten the eyes and mind if it has no value? Why is the faith of a regenerated infant a seed? It seems as if you are collapsing the idea of having an efficacious capacity and having everything one needs unto salvation, even the infant. Yes, the infant can be saved; yes he or she can be regenerated, but conversion takes information-information that warrants those things that come with the gospel. No man is saved that doesn't repent, believe, accept, receive etc. etc. etc.



> I'm saying faith (a standard element of conversion) is as normal to regeneration



Have I argued against that?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Aug 8, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> So saving faith placed into Jesus always will flow forth from God regeneration? As the fruit of that event now happening?



Yes.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Aug 8, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Patrick,
> To be clear, many theolgians use the terms 'regeneration' and 'conversion' interchangeably. They are not one and the same; in this conversation I am obviously not using them in that way, hence that must be considered in evaluating what I am saying.


Scott,

I have asked very plain and specific questions:
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-temporally-in-time.93418/page-3#post-1140236

Rather than ask me to consider how you are using terms, could you at least answer the questions?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 8, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Can a man be saved less he repent? Can a man be saved if he knows nothing of sin? Can a man be saved that doesn't understand that God is 3 in 1 and that Christ is a sacrificial lamb for sin? Please make the distinction between regeneration and conversion here.


Seriously, Scott, I know you believe "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved." They are brought to spiritual life; they begin their life of faith by being granted spiritual apprehension of Christ. The Spirit teaches them, the same as he teaches the rest of us; just the means are different. Not the content. The speed of their maturity may or may not be improved upon ours.

I haven't proposed that the hope of a regenerate child on his mother's breast is anything but primitive; but it's still *hope*. So, he doesn't know all that faith will call from him, or what appropriate repentance is, or even how to repent. Not one word of what I'm saying implies that a child who is (like JtB or David) infant-and-regenerate, and is yet to grow up into the man he will be, has already a mature hope. He has an infant's hope.



Scott Bushey said:


> Being in the medical field all of my life, I believe this is disputable....


C'mon, Scott. You don't think infants know the sound of their mother's voice before they even come forth? The "bonding" of mother and child was designed by God to begin as soon as the child is born; he's instantly learning in his native and primitive manner, he's suckling at the breast and distinguishing his mother's smell, her feel, her sound from everything else. It isn't as good on day 1 as it will be on day 10; and so? The focal length of a newborn's barely functioning eyes is set at about 8'', the distance between the breast and his mother's face. He starts to memorize her features immediately. I could go on...

As for the essentials of a full conversion, what's interesting respecting the West.Stds. is noting that in the WCF discussion of repentance and faith is saved for after Sanctification; in the WSC, they are taught even later on after the treatment of the Law, and just prior to discussing the means of grace. That is, they generally are not discussed in the treatment of the divine work of the ordo salutis, excepting glorification (comes at the end). Only in the WLC, they are treated: faith after (context of) justification, and repentance again after sanctification.

We know where conversion "belongs," i.e. after the effectual call and regeneration, and before justification. But the two (faith & repentance) are attended to for instruction especially as essentials of the _life of the Christian._ In other words, they are individually treated where they are considered not primarily as the entrance of the Christian life, but chiefly (not exclusively) for its maintenance; particularly as to repentance.

I do not propose that a regenerate infant or child knowledgably and adroitly exercises the faculties of faith and repentance. But here, I would say that such a child has these spiritual faculties, the way a boy or girl has the physical faculties of manhood and womanhood, just not all of them ready for their exercise. Still, however immature, all aspect of life are a functional part of their living system. And at the appropriate time, certain parts come into their proper use.

So also with repentance, a more mature exercise. But faith is spiritual sight, and as much as that is a part of mature manhood, it is yet fit to be exercised and trained starting right away as soon as one is born.

What I'm saying is that regeneration is life, a germinated seed, a sprouted seed. That kernel splits open, and right then it doesn't look at all like a full grown plant. It is immature, but it's still living. It sends up a tiny leaf, and starts to breathe. This is why I said earlier we shouldn't identify planting such a seed with regeneration. It is just a dead thing, mere potential, until it starts to live.

I really don't think I'm confusing or collapsing anything. I'm not making faith's exercise contingent on intellectual maturity (as that might be measured). Notitia may be barely visible, assensus practically implicit, and fiducia nearly everything. What matters is the Object, not the maturity. The more maturity, the more the information-quotient is requisite to a right exercise.

As West.Stds. men, we should not be entirely about the hour of conversion, but whether repentance and faith are becoming more evident as the days of our lives and those of our children go by. Let those capable of marking that hour in themselves make of it what they will.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 9, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Scott,
> 
> I have asked very plain and specific questions:
> https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-temporally-in-time.93418/page-3#post-1140236
> ...





> "not everyone who is regenerated is converted at the moment of regeneration but will be converted in God's timing"



Yes. Sometimes the order happens instantaneously, others, not. All the elect will come to conversion. In the case of the instantaneous, this person has all the characteristics onboard that those that are not instantaneous, do not.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 9, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Seriously, Scott, I know you believe "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved." They are brought to spiritual life; they begin their life of faith by being granted spiritual apprehension of Christ. The Spirit teaches them, the same as he teaches the rest of us; just the means are different. Not the content. The speed of their maturity may or may not be improved upon ours.



When u say 'saved', it takes a different route than the typical due to the situation; one that is irregular. This teaching that you describe, is done due to the condition alone, else God would not need go this route as the infant who is not dying in infancy will live a fruitful, aged life to which the HS will lead after regeneration and the external call of the preacher will convert the person sometimes later after that person ascends to biblical facts.

One cannot be converted outside of an external call. There is only one way men are saved. The treatment of the elect infant dying in infancy warrants the preaching being done of Christ Himself.



Contra_Mundum said:


> I haven't proposed that the hope of a regenerate child on his mother's breast is anything but primitive; but it's still *hope*. So, he doesn't know all that faith will call from him, or what appropriate repentance is, or even how to repent. Not one word of what I'm saying implies that a child who is (like JtB or David) infant-and-regenerate, and is yet to grow up into the man he will be, has already a mature hope. He has an infant's hope.



Glad you believe this. A seed of (f)aith is not (F)aith per se. The distinction needs to be considered. It is the capacity to have (F)aith-eventually.

In regard to the baby cognitively knowing it's mothers voice in utero, I will not argue the point; I will only repeat what I have said that the baby cannot cognitively understand that it hears and understands rightly. Thats the point. It is not intuitively processing the information. In the case of the surrogate mother, this would creat a crushing blow to the child if the voice changed or the scent.



Contra_Mundum said:


> We know where conversion "belongs," i.e. after the effectual call and regeneration, and before justification. But the two (faith & repentance) are attended to for instruction especially as essentials of the _life of the Christian._ In other words, they are individually treated where they are considered not primarily as the entrance of the Christian life, but chiefly (not exclusively) for its maintenance; particularly as to repentance.
> 
> I do not propose that a regenerate infant or child knowledgably and adroitly exercises the faculties of faith and repentance. But here, I would say that such a child has these spiritual faculties, the way a boy or girl has the physical faculties of manhood and womanhood, just not all of them ready for their exercise. Still, however immature, all aspect of life are a functional part of their living system. And at the appropriate time, certain parts come into their proper use.



Again, it sounds as if you are collapsing the terms again here. What u describe is regeneration and not necessarily conversion as conversion would require that the person has ascended to biblical facts; these facts are not vague-see the citation in my previous post from 1 Cor. which helps.



Contra_Mundum said:


> What I'm saying is that regeneration is life



Agreed.



> a germinated seed, a sprouted seed.



I disagree. Is that what Jesus says in John 3? A sprouted seed is one that has had the word to water it. A man cannot have faith in nothing. If a man has life, he is converted and if he is converted already, what is the external call for? An internal call without an external call is no call at all.

Again I ask, have u ever seen a 2 or 3 year old extrapolate on his repentance or faith? They can't.



Contra_Mundum said:


> we should not be entirely about the hour of conversion, but whether repentance and faith are becoming more evident as the days of our lives and those of our children go by.



This is not an issue of 'we', but of the person and the work of the calls of God. Regeneration brings life, conversion completes the process. Rom 10:17 would be a useless statement if in fact all of the attributes of salvation fall on Christ's behalf. In some cases yes, Christ works it out on his own. But typically, that is not how He has made it effectual-this happens under time and the external call. You mention assesus, fiducia and notia-these are not things that the person has the capacity to acquire ( as u put it) -thats nothing but emptiness. A milk jug that is empty has the capacity to be filled, but it is empty. It has absolutely no milk in it. One cannot be saved unless one has ascended to biblical facts, repents of sin, believes, accepts, receives.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 9, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Yes. If God wills, he may regenerate anyone at anytime He wills and decrees.
> 
> See WCF ch 28


That regeneration would be due to Him doing that act apart from the water Baptism though, correct? Not in it as Catholics and Lutherans see it as being?


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 9, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> When u say 'saved', it takes a different route than the typical due to the situation; one that is irregular. This teaching that you describe, is done due to the condition alone, else God would not need go this route as the infant who is not dying in infancy will live a fruitful, aged life to which the HS will lead after regeneration and the external call of the preacher will convert the person sometimes later after that person ascends to biblical facts.
> 
> One cannot be converted outside of an external call. There is only one way men are saved. The treatment of the elect infant dying in infancy warrants the preaching being done of Christ Himself.
> 
> ...


Do babies need to have faith in Jesus though in order to have God save them?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 9, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> That regeneration would be due to Him doing that act apart from the water Baptism though, correct? Not in it as Catholics and Lutherans see it as being?



God can and does regenerate during the rite of Baptism sometimes. It is not the same thing that the Lutherans or RC's hold to.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 9, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Do babies need to have faith in Jesus though in order to have God save them?



Of course. 
When u say, 'save', thats needs qualifying; read up on the order of salvation.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 9, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Of course.
> When u say, 'save', thats needs qualifying; read up on the order of salvation.


They would need to have God grant them saving faith though still as you see it, correct?


----------



## Steve Curtis (Aug 9, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Do babies need to have faith in Jesus though in order to have God save them?


David, knowing some of your background, which you have shared here, I have an idea that this will be another area where you may be surprised to learn that there are those whose views don't fit the typical, broadly evangelical theology. (I know this, because I, too, come out of a broadly evangelical, SBC background).

I don't want to high-jack this thread, so I encourage you to start a new one if you wish to pursue this line of thought, but the common idea of an "age of accountability" is not biblical. Even babies are sinners, justly condemned apart from saving grace. Further, there is quite an historic debate in Reformed circles as to whether _all_ infants dying in infancy are saved (and, therefore, elect - see Hodge) or whether _only_ elect infants (and, to carry out the logical inference: _not_ non-elect infants) dying in infancy are saved.

Again, if this is not an idea with which you are familiar, I would suggest you start a new thread exploring it. (If, on the other hand, my assumptions are unfounded, I apologize! In that case, disregard this post... and carry on.)


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 9, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> David, knowing some of your background, which you have shared here, I have an idea that this will be another area where you may be surprised to learn that there are those whose views don't fit the typical, broadly evangelical theology. (I know this, because I, too, come out of a broadly evangelical, SBC background).
> Thanks for sharing, as I do tend to see this as Hodgh did, as ehile infants are stillsinners in Adam, and thus guilty before God, the Lord also choose to elect all of them in Christ unto salvation.
> I don't want to high-jack this thread, so I encourage you to start a new one if you wish to pursue this line of thought, but the common idea of an "age of accountability" is not biblical. Even babies are sinners, justly condemned apart from saving grace. Further, there is quite an historic debate in Reformed circles as to whether _all_ infants dying in infancy are saved (and, therefore, elect - see Hodge) or whether _only_ elect infants (and, to carry out the logical inference: _not_ non-elect infants) dying in infancy are saved.
> 
> Again, if this is not an idea with which you are familiar, I would suggest you start a new thread exploring it. (If, on the other hand, my assumptions are unfounded, I apologize! In that case, disregard this post... and carry on.)



I do not hold that infants are not under the Fall if Adam and have Original Sin, and born as sinners, but so tend to see this as Hodge did, as God choosing to elect all of them into Christ, and to be saved by the atonement of the death of Jesus on their behalf. Where I might differ is that I see that as an act of God, and not infants putting saving faith in Jesus.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 9, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> They would need to have God grant them saving faith though still as you see it, correct?



Absolutely. No one is saved apart from faith.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 9, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I do not hold that infants are not under the Fall if Adam and have Original Sin, and born as sinners, but so tend to see this as Hodge did, as God choosing to elect all of them into Christ, and to be saved by the atonement of the death of Jesus on their behalf. Where I might differ is that I see that as an act of God, and not infants purring saving faith in Jesus.



In the cases of infants dying in infancy, it is God bringing both, the inward and external call unto regeneration and conversion.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 9, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> In the cases of infants dying in infancy, it is God bringing both, the inward and external call unto regeneration and conversion.


So the big question would be then does God choose to save all of them, or just the children of saved parents?


----------



## Steve Curtis (Aug 9, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> So the big question would be then does God choose to save all of them, or just the children of saved parents?


This is not really germane to the OP - that is why I suggested that you start a new thread if that was an issue you wanted to explore.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 9, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> So the big question would be then does God choose to save all of them, or just the children of saved parents?



The issue comes down to elect infants only-are all babies that die in infancy elect or is it just *elect* babies and then the other perish. I used to hold to only elect infants. Now, I see that the camp is split on the issue and the arguments for 'all' infants dying in infancy are elect are good arguments as well. So this is one of those things we leave to God. 

One of the issues w/ me was the flood. The scriptures tell us that all in the flood perished. It would be hard to imagine God rescuing infants from the flood being that the scriptures tell us that all perished. But hey, who am I to say?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 9, 2017)

We began (or I got into the discussion) with the proposal that there is a common _regenerated _condition which is absent a living faith; and further, this condition is of indeterminate length sometimes associated with the baptism of infants, and the implanting of faith in seed form. This latter association was expressed so closely, that I assumed in essence the two ideas (regeneration & planting) were being presented as one.

Now with respect to adults, and entirely apart from any baptismal interest, in the third place--in terms what may have come first in the discussion and devolved backwards into the infant connection-- we had introduced on the basis of regeneration-precedes-faith (a sturdy Reformed concept) the proposal that some (many or few) are spiritually alive and carrying on (for a long time or a short time; it is deliberately left _adiaphora_) while living faith is absent. Until conversion, and then faith comes alive.

My issue was, and is, to challenge that _adiaphora _contention. The point seems to be that because regeneration is _distinct from _faith (or conversion) and precedes it necessarily, that the two may be also _separated--_not causally and absolutely, but temporally (minimizing proximate significance) and making regeneration _functionally independent _of faith.

If regeneration can exist for any meaningful length of time _apart from faith, _then it is a *functionally independent *condition. That faith cannot be independent of regeneration is outside the debate; but the debate is on whether regeneration as a fully defined existent can go on existing if faith does not sustain it. We should oppose this idea, thereby raising our estimation of the indispensability of faith to the *regenerated *condition.

And not simply the "presence" of faith, which is to say the "potential" of faith in a seed-form. This is not faith ALIVE. And if not faith alive, then it has no sustaining power for maintaining the divinely imparted life of regeneration. We are left with some sort of suspended-animation state of regeneration; or else the moment-by-moment divine miracle of regeneration maintenance which might on the theory last anywhere from three days to three decades (just picking numbers).

The importance of conversion has been raised. I've not called the subject or its importance into question, by an emphasis on the _active, living presence of faith_ even down to the spiritual motions of regenerated infants in the womb. Regenerated people believe (as I've stated repeatedly) as a matter of course; what I distinguish here I do not separate in any way/shape/form.

Regenerated people also repent, because that's what truly converted people do. They repent _according to the sin of which they are cognitively made aware._ This is why discussion of repentance in the West.Stds. ever takes place in the immediate context of Sanctification. Repentance is to one degree or another tied to the _will _and _affections. _We speak about a "heart of repentance" (see Dt.30:10; 1Ki.18:37; 2Ki.23:25; Jol.2:12f), a disposition to forsake one's own will (the thoughts of his heart, Act.8:22) and have God's instead.

If a very young child has been regenerated, and has a living faith so that we should say he is converted, then he also has a heart that has been given the ability to repent. This is not a natural disposition; we're taught, "the sorrow of the world worketh death," 2Cor.7:10. This child will evidence his disposition to give up his will to God's; but it will not be immediately evident to parents or others, any more than his faith is evident. Putting the religion he is taught into expressions of his own cognitive apparatus, and which others can cognitively recognize, takes the time of development.

This is why we do not admit a baptized child to the Lord's Supper _until _he has made his own profession of faith. With that profession, and lack of scandal (not lack of sin), with some demonstrated awareness of repentance as a way of life, he is ready to take a seat with the rest of them who show the capacity to discern the Lord's body. It is not _when _he experienced regeneration and conversion, but that he _is converted_. He is now believing, now repenting, daily.

John the Baptist did not merely have a seed of faith with the potential to believe. I'm not saying his case was not extraordinary (it was); but the text (Lk.1:44) is plain that he rejoiced. His faith came alive; his seed was germinated. He had a disposition toward his God and Savior (and not away from him), and that _necessarily implies _he was converted in the womb. I don't know if this has ever happened otherwise in all human history. But that does not concern me. JtB's infant-faith was primitive, his repentance was possibly more so. But that child was spiritually alive then, not at age 5yrs or some such.

These issues about the moment a child's faith could possibly be germinated seem to distract from the primary issue. Except for the contention that conversion in its very nature is a matter of the intellect. I am saying: this is not fundamentally the case; but it is a matter of degree, suitable to the individual. Which is why considering the cases of all persons "incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word" is germane.

We do not have to think in spiritual terms of the infant or the handicapped adult _exclusive of _*conversion*. In fact, we should contemplate the mystery of how God does in fact regenerate and *convert* such people. We don't have to arrive at certainty as to _how_ he does his work; but we can rest in the assurance that he _does _for them by means suitable to them. Please, let's not think of them as *unconverted*, due to their cognitive limitations!

Conversion guarantees the existence of spiritual capacities in a man, capacities lacking in the unconverted. How well they are exercised in a given individual is a effect of providence. But he is not prepared for eternal life without conversion. And being converted, he has living faith in the Person of trust. And has such repentance as is meet for him in his capacity.

Regeneration issues in faith (alive), which is constituent of conversion. Faith (alive) sustains the state of regeneration. This was illustrated above by my car-key, engine-running analogy. Get ignition and the engine comes alive; it continues in the live state by "breathing." Cut off the air, and the thing dies. No one is questioning the proper ordo. It is regeneration, followed by faith. I object to the *functional independence *of regeneration, as though the state can exist (apart from ongoing supernatural intervention) if faith does not follow as a matter of course.

Late-conversion for mature minds with ordinary faculties requires all the exercise of a developed cognitive apparatus, an actuated conscience, together with all the divinely supplied capacities without which no true spirituality is possible. There is no debate here. The issue continues to be creation of some "gap" between regeneration and the faith required to sustain it.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 9, 2017)

Bruce,
Thanks for you thorough response. The faith the infant has is alive-it is in seed form. Conversion waters it and assist the growth.I never said the faith that an infant has is 'dead'. I don't believe any scinetist would say that a seed is dead, per se. 

'*Seeds* are plant embryos that will stay *alive* as long as they can on the nutrition stored in the endosperm until which time they are stimulated to germinate, or they run out of nutrients. *Seeds* are 100 % living while grains are the *seeds* that hav lost their viability and are *dead*.'


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 9, 2017)

Scott,
I'm pretty sure no one in the ancient world (or pretty much up through the 18thC) would have thought of an ungerminated seed as _living. _But as potential life. It is the "death of potential" that makes Paul's seed analogy work in 1Cor.15:36. If that seed died in a material sense, nothing would arise from that death.

Seed-of-faith planted in baptism sufficed for some of the early reformers to explain why many should--but not all would--come eventually to a living faith. The equality of baptism implied equal potential for all recipients; the mystery of election explained why some seeds did not germinate.

I have no delight in contending here for contending's sake. But for our active-faith sustaining the divine gift of life (in regeneration) I feel the importance of defending that clear teaching of Scripture.

You are a dear brother.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 9, 2017)

Bruce,
Thank you for your patience and kind words. If you wouldn't mind, I am doing more research and will get back to you shortly as I would like to continue this conversation if you would allow me that grace?


----------

