# The Ordo revisited



## Scott Bushey (May 15, 2005)

I have been thinking deeply lately about the ordo. According to reformed orthodoxy, justification comes after conversion. This means that it is possible that men can be regenerated & converted without yet being justified. Matt's chart on the order shows _conversion_ as a process. Within the formula (conversion), justification occurs. This seems more to me as realistic. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Arch2k (May 15, 2005)

Easton's Bible Dictionary:



> Conversion
> The turning of a sinner to God (Act_15:3).
> In a general sense the heathen are said to be "œconverted" when they abandon heathenism and embrace the Christian faith; and in a more special sense men are converted when, by the influence of divine grace in their souls, their whole life is changed, old things pass away, and all things become new (Act_26:18). Thus we speak of the conversion of the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:19-34), of Paul (Acts 9:1-22), of the Ethiopian treasurer (Act_8:26-40), of Cornelius (Acts 10), of Lydia (Act_16:13-15), and others. (See REGENERATION.)



I've always thought of conversion as including both repentance and faith (consequently justification also).



> This means that it is possible that men can be regenerated & converted without yet being justified.



In a logical sense yes. In a chronological sense, I would say that regeneration and faith (conversion) happen simultaniously in time. Pink uses the illustration of a blind man's eyes being opened for the first time. As soon as his eyes are opened (regeneration), he sees (faith). Logically, it must occur in this order, but chronologically it is simultanious. Justification would occur in a like manner following the gift of faith.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Easton's Bible Dictionary:
> 
> 
> ...



Jeff,
Are you saying that the ordo is instantaneous? Chronology implies time.

Whatever the case, as I said, the refomed view is that regeneration and conversion happen before justification; this is where I am struggling.

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco (May 15, 2005)

Scott,

I think we have been over this before - it is NOT a chronological order, but a logical order.

Conversion = faith + repentance

As soon as one repents and has faith in Christ, he is justified. It is instantaneous (in that respect).


----------



## smhbbag (May 15, 2005)

ditto to Fred.....I view it much like the approach we all take to the infra/supra debate - it's about logical order, not necessarily chronology.



> As soon as one repents and has faith in Christ, he is justified. It is instantaneous (in that respect).



nail on the head

and I first typed a long post talking about Pink's illustration of spiritual sight - then I saw Jeff had referenced the same much more succinctly. Note to self: read the thread before writing


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 15, 2005)

Fred,
Sorry to belabor the point. Still working through this in my mind.

Maybe I am thinking too much; trying to redefine the wheel..........

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Scott,
> 
> I think we have been over this before - it is NOT a chronological order, but a logical order.
> ...



Fred,
But scripture shows instances of chronology, i.e. John the baptist and the statement by Christ in John 3.

Is a man saved before he is glorified? If so, is that chronological?

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 15, 2005)

Scott,
Without trying to be too pigheaded about it, I would say that the logic of the order implies a kind of succession (or chronology). But it's not the succession of extended time; it is the a single process, as Matt describes. With regard to regeneration and faith, the second folows necessarily from the first, like sight happens when the eyes are first opened. The eyes open and _then_ one sees. There is succession there, chronology if you will, but its not like one gets regenerated, and then down the line sometime faith and repentance happen along, taking their sweet time. The first implies the second _necessarily._

The same is true with conversion and justification. The second happens when the first does, but the second doens't happen without the first. Again, succession and chronology are present, but not time and gaps. They are like bricks or blocks set next to one another. The next stage of the process is not arrested after the prior has been completed. Thus, it never occurs that a converted person is not immediately justified. _That would invove a distinct change in the function of the process._ It would be a _different_ process from the one to which we are accustomed. I don't think it ever happens (or has happened) differently. At least, that's the way I see it...


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Scott,
> Without trying to be too pigheaded about it, I would say that the logic of the order implies a kind of succession (or chronology). But it's not the succession of extended time; it is the a single process, as Matt describes. With regard to regeneration and faith, the second folows necessarily from the first, like sight happens when the eyes are first opened. The eyes open and _then_ one sees. There is succession there, chronology if you will, but its not like one gets regenerated, and then down the line sometime faith and repentance happen along, taking their sweet time. The first implies the second _necessarily._
> 
> The same is true with conversion and justification. The second happens when the first does, but the second doens't happen without the first. Again, succession and chronology are present, but not time and gaps. They are like bricks or blocks set next to one another. The next stage of the process is not arrested after the prior has been completed. Thus, it never occurs that a converted person is not immediately justified. _That would invove a distinct change in the function of the process._ It would be a _different_ process from the one to which we are accustomed. I don't think it ever happens (or has happened) differently. At least, that's the way I see it...



Bruce,
What Matt meant is that the term conversion compartmentalizes all the ingredients. Not that they can't happen without any extended time.

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 15, 2005)

Scott, perhaps a little volume by John Girardeau would be helpful called, Federal Theology, It's Import and Regulative Influence. 

In that book, he argues that the Ordu is grounded first of all in the federal headship of Christ. We are first justified "virtually" in Christ as our covenant head, and then "actually" in time when faith is produced. Regeneration and faith and therefore actual justification are grounded in and naturally follow that virtual justification in our covenant head. That's a very short summary, but it's all I have time for at the moment. Check out the book though.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 15, 2005)

Scott,
My questions would be (and I know I'm not "getting" your point exactly; I'm sorry): regarding regeneration, an event, one moment you're dead, the next alive, right? There's really no "inbetween" is there?

Regarding Conversion (repentance & faith), once you can see (have new life), won't you see? Where's the gap? Is your question one that asks, "Does this faith/repentance component sometimes _take time_ to complete, or develop to the point where Justification is warranted?"

Regarding Justification, once you have life and are actively seeing spiritually (i.e. believing), Why might God refrain from announcing pardon? What purpose would that serve? Isn't that assurance of pardon the sweet blessing of conversion?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 15, 2005)

To make it even more confusing, all of these things are decided and "true" and "real" in eternity past. I was justified thousands of years ago, in Christ, eternally speaking. Makes your head spin!


----------



## Craig (May 15, 2005)

Weren't we justified before the foundation of the world?

Justification is something we were decreed...are declared, then truly are made upon glorification. The ordu is _how we understand conversion/justification._ Isn't it most helpful in avoiding error, not in showing a progressive experience? If not, then the "process" would become a work...people would try to recreate the process to become justified.

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by Craig]


----------



## fredtgreco (May 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Craig_
> Weren't we justified before the foundation of the world?
> 
> Justification is something we were decreed...are declared, then truly are made upon glorification. The ordu is _how we understand conversion/justification._ Isn't it most helpful in avoiding error, not in showing a progressive experience? If not, then the "process" would become a work...people would try to recreate the process to become justified.
> ...



Craig,

The Confession is very helpful here:



> God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, (Gal. 3:8, 1 Pet. 1:2,19"“20, Rom. 8:30) and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise for their justification: (Gal. 4:4, 1 Tim. 2:6, Rom. 4:25) nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them. (Col. 1:21"“22, Gal. 2:16, Tit. 3:4"“7)
> 
> The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XI, 4



The ordo is about the actual experience of justification. Eternal justification is an error, and a dangerous one.


----------



## Arch2k (May 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Craig_
> Weren't we justified before the foundation of the world?
> 
> Justification is something we were decreed...are declared, then truly are made upon glorification. The ordu is _how we understand conversion/justification._ Isn't it most helpful in avoiding error, not in showing a progressive experience? If not, then the "process" would become a work...people would try to recreate the process to become justified.
> ...



Craig,

You are confusing virtual justification, with actual justification. Virtual justification is the DECREE to justify, while actual justification is the PRONOUNCEMENT of justification, or the decree coming to pass. 

All decrees are in the mind of God before the foundation of the world, and all his decrees then come to pass in a moment in time. Important to distinguish.

For more discussion, check out THIS thread on eternal justification:


----------



## Arch2k (May 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Scott,
> 
> I think we have been over this before - it is NOT a chronological order, but a logical order.
> ...


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Scott,
> My questions would be (and I know I'm not "getting" your point exactly; I'm sorry): regarding regeneration, an event, one moment you're dead, the next alive, right? There's really no "inbetween" is there?
> 
> ...



Bruce,
Correct. But between those components, Gods decree, the outward call, regeneration, justification, there may be an obvious time frame that occurs, as in Johns example. What I said about Matt was that Matt acknowledges the idea of a gap as well as him seeing all these components as a process known as _conversion_. This is different from the typical reformed view as in that view, they see conversion as an actual component with justification following conversion. This is my contention.

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 15, 2005)

Jeff,
Same question I posed to Fred, I will pose to you:

Is a man saved before he is glorified? If so, is that chronological?


----------



## Arch2k (May 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Jeff,
> Same question I posed to Fred, I will pose to you:
> 
> Is a man saved before he is glorified? If so, is that chronological?



A man is ALWAYS converted (logically AND chronologically) before he is glorified. However, there are many parts of the ordo that DO happen with a time gap seperating them. Sanctification is a life long process for the Christian.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 15, 2005)

Jeff,
The reason I am asking you is because you _ditto'd_ Freds statement:



> I think we have been over this before - it is NOT a chronological order, but a logical order.


----------



## Arch2k (May 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Jeff,
> The reason I am asking you is because you _ditto'd_ Freds statement:
> 
> ...



In the area of regeneration and conversion (faith + repentance), I do not believe there is a time gap between them. As soon as one opens the eyes, they see.

This is not to say that every element in the ordo is that way. Some obviously have a time gap.

Also, I ditto Fred, because the ordo is developed as a logical order, not chronological. 

The ordo answers the question:

In what order MUST the steps of salvation play out in the christian life?


----------



## fredtgreco (May 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Scott,

Just because one aspect of the ordo admits of a chronological order, does not mean that the entire ordo must be chronological. Would you say that there is a time when man has faith in Christ and yet is still bound for hell?

Also, I have said this before, it is VERY dangerous to try and make a normative Biblical case from the extremely scanty and exceptional nature of the experience of John and Jeremiah.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> ...



Scott, you are getting overly technical here.

Let me give another example:

The typical reformed ordo clearly distinguishes between justification and adoption. Does that mean that there can be a time gap between the two? A time when a sinner is justified by God but not good enough to be his child? No.  mh. ge,noito


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Fred,
I am not saying that in every case, the ordo is chronological. What I am saying is scripture validates my premise. The ordo does allow for chronology and to reject the idea is error. 

You ask:


> Would you say that there is a time when man has faith in Christ and yet is still bound for hell?



In the divided sense, they are. In the compound, they are not!
Was John the baptist justified while in the womb? No! However, via Gods decree, these men whom are elected to justification will fulfill that decree.



[Edited on 5-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 15, 2005)

> In the area of regeneration and conversion (faith + repentance), I do not believe there is a time gap between them.



Jeff,
The scriptures disagree with you. We have John, Jeremiah and Sampson as examples.

Show me scripture to refute the premise.

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 15, 2005)

> Scott, you are getting overly technical here.



The problem with the church today, Fred, is that its undertechnical.

Everyone, take a little time and read Van Mastrichet's "copy" of Turretin's ideas, which are "copies" of Calvin, et. al. Edwards thought Van Mastricht was THE BEST book outside the bible. Van Mastricht demonstrates MOST EFFICIENTLY that the ordo is time oriented, and that can remain a gap within the order of salvation at different points. 

It would be crazy to assume that "justification and glorification" are instantaneous. They are most definitely chronological. To wonder whether adoption and justification happen at the same time is simply to ask if adoption can HAPPEN (i.e. time oriented question) before "justification" if you say NO, then they are time faceted.

We are not speaking here about decrees. We are speaking about the redemption of a man in..........TIME.

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## Arch2k (May 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > In the area of regeneration and conversion (faith + repentance), I do not believe there is a time gap between them.
> ...



I guess I do not understand how they are examples. Can you explain? Is this because they were regenerate from the womb? If so, you might throw David in the mix. I guess I assume that they had the gospel preached to them and they were regenerated and believed like anyone else, but I could be wrong.

Is your question involving if regeneration happens mediately or immediately? I believe that the Word of God is always the instrument God uses to regenerate a sinful soul. It is sharper than any two-edged sword and able to raise the spiritually dead to life!

Even if this is not the case with these four individuals, I would appeal to a miricle such as these (immediate regeneration) as the exception, and not the norm.



> WCF 5:3
> God in His ordinary providence maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them at His pleasure.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 15, 2005)

Jeff,
Yes, let's add David. These are examples of individuals whom were regenerate, possibly before birth. For instance, John was regenerate in the womb. Saving faith and repentance had not yet occured to complete the process. John was elect, hence the decree was that John would in fact live a full life. That life was ordained in that John would be converted later under the preaching of Gods word.

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Arch2k (May 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> For instance, John was regenerate in the womb. Saving faith and repentance had not yet occured to complete the process.



Do we have any scriptural evidense that he didn't have saving faith until later? Or was he born with saving faith? Is it possible that John's mother spoke the gospel to him and he had faith in the womb?



> Psa 22:9 Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts.
> Psa 22:10 On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother's womb you have been my God.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 15, 2005)

No one has yet to produce any Scriptural evidence or an example of a space in time between faith and/or repentance and justification. That was what started the ball rolling.

The distinction between glorification and justification, and the _possible_ regeneration of some very few in the womb are not germane to that discussion.

Of course, I would agree (as Matt posits) that to state that two things happen at the same time is to make a statement of a temporal nature. But it is a massive leap to say that because I can speak of two things in a temporal nature, that there is necessarily the possibility of a gap.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



What is the biblical process?

Regeneration:
Deu 29:4 Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. 

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

Men have eyes to see and ears to hear now........

The conversion process completed:
The preached word.

Rom 10:14 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? 

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


Elect children, dying in infancy would not fall within the scope of the above........

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 15, 2005)

Van Mastricht writes:

Regeneration confers the spiritual life in the first act only

The spiritual life is bestowed by regeneration only in the first act (or principle), not in the second acts (or operation) understood either as habits or exercises. For as by natural generation a man receives neither the habits nor acts of reasoning, speaking, or writing, but only the power, which under proper circumstances, in due time, comes forth in act, so also in regeneration, there is not bestowed upon the elect any faith, hope, love, repentance, etc. either as to habit or act, but the power only of performing these exercises is bestowed, by which the regenerate person does not as yet actually believe or repent, but only is capacitated thereto. Wherefore the unregenerate are emphatically said to be unable either to see , as referring to the understanding, or to enter, referring to the will, into the kingdom of God.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 15, 2005)

> No one has yet to produce any Scriptural evidence or an example of a space in time between faith and/or repentance and justification. That was what started the ball rolling.



"...and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb..."

At what point, in the womb, did John exercise cognitive belief based on biblical propoistions?

Can we all say together -  "At no time!" 

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## fredtgreco (May 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > No one has yet to produce any Scriptural evidence or an example of a space in time between faith and/or repentance and justification. That was what started the ball rolling.
> ...



And there is no Biblical evidence of having the Holy Spirit and not being regenerate? (Saul??)

And where would be the Biblical evidence of John's subsequent faith?

And you want to frame a doctrine based on a single case, of a prophet of God, who is called by our Lord the greatest born of woman?

Should we then make Paul's conversion normative?


----------



## AdamM (May 15, 2005)

An unjustified person is by definition under the wrath of God, so are we going to say that a person can have renewed nature (regeneration) and yet still be under the wrath of God for even the blink of an eye? How can a person with a new heart, a renewed nature still hate Christ (and refuse to flee to Him in faith and repentance?)


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by webmaster_
> ...



Fred,
We are not basing the idea on one case. We have David, Jeremiah & Samson as well........


----------



## fredtgreco (May 15, 2005)

I don't see how Samson applies at all here.

David is not true either: 

Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

So we are left with Jeremiah, again another prophet of God. There are a whole boatload of assumptions being made here.

The key is to answer Adam's question above.

And still no one has answered my question as to how one can have faith in Christ (which does unite one to Christ by the way) and not be justified.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 15, 2005)

I believe my quote above from VanMastricht answers that...........


----------



## raderag (May 15, 2005)

To me it seems rather easy.

We are regenerated, and we are being saved through faith.
You drop a weight, and it is falling.

Both happen instantly.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 15, 2005)

> And there is no Biblical evidence of having the Holy Spirit and not being regenerate? (Saul??)



Are you saying that John the Baptist and Jeremiah, and any others God may have done this with, were not regenerated inthe womb?

What does it mean, then, to be "filled with the Holy Spirit?" (I'm sure you don't mean Saul was filled this way.)

Was Saul filled?

1 Samuel 11:6 Then the Spirit of God *came upon* Saul when he heard this news, and his anger was greatly aroused.

This is likened to the distressing spirit as well:

1 Samuel 19:9 Now the distressing spirit from the LORD *came upon* Saul as he sat in his house with his spear in his hand. 

Is this the same as:

Luke 1:67 Now his father Zacharias was *filled with the Holy Spirit*, and prophesied, saying:

Acts 4:8 Then Peter, *filled with the Holy Spirit*, said to them, "Rulers of the people and elders of Israel:

Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all *filled with the Holy Spirit*, and they spoke the word of God with boldness.

Acts 13:9 Then Saul, who also is called Paul, *filled with the Holy* Spirit, looked intently at him

Ephesians 5:18 And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be *filled with the Spirit,*

??




> And still no one has answered my question as to how one can have faith in Christ (which does unite one to Christ by the way) and not be justified.



I thought the question Scott had was if a person could be regenerated, and not justified at the same moment? Or in another way, someone could not be "converted" and justified (bad use of terms In my humble opinion) at the same time.

[Edited on 5-16-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> What is the biblical process?
> 
> Regeneration:
> ...


Where in any of these Scripture is regeneration spoken of apart from faith? Regeneration is being brought back to life. To argue that you can be regenerate and not have faith is like saying you can be born without life, without a heart beat or breath. The new birth is like physical birth. Once you are born, you live, you breathe. When you have been brought back to life you your heart beats. 

How are you defining regeneration Scott?


----------



## The Lamb (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I have been thinking deeply lately about the ordo. According to reformed orthodoxy, justification comes after conversion. This means that it is possible that men can be regenerated & converted without yet being justified. Matt's chart on the order shows _conversion_ as a process. Within the formula (conversion), justification occurs. This seems more to me as realistic.
> 
> Thoughts?




There is no possible way a man can be converted and not justified. Regardless who has confessed that.

The Holy Spirit prepares the heart. Quickens if you will. Makes alive. Kuyper calls this preparatory Grace. Once made alive He is justified in Gods eyes. Then repentance, faith and conversion follow.

Look at Paul. He said he was chosen from his mothers womb by God. But lived a life of hater of Christ. Can one be chosen of God and yet not be an elect? Not possible.

Paul hated God, but God did not hate him. Pauls life of Christian hating was part of Gods plan to raise him up to show He will have mercy on whom He will.

How one can be justified after conversion is an impossibility. For what is conversion? Does this mean that God hates the person until the converesion process is complete? Is it ever complete? Who determines this?


----------



## blhowes (May 16, 2005)

What a fascinating thread! Very thought provoking.

I realize that, as Fred said, we shouldn't build a doctine on isolated cases in the scriptures. As a baptist, that has always been my way of thinking. Having said that, with regard to what the Bible says about justification, it would seem to me that looking at these isolated cases is beneficial. With regard to justification, I would think what's true for the bulk of scripture would also be true for the isolated cases, and vice versa - otherwise, there would be two ways of being justified.

In light of what AdamM said about an unjustified person by definition being under the wrath of God, how do we then reconcile what Fred said:



> _Originally posted by Fred_
> As soon as one repents and has faith in Christ, he is justified. It is instantaneous (in that respect).



...with what the Westminster confession says about infants dying in infancy:

III. 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.

Since it appears that infants can't demonstrate repentance and faith in Christ, then it seems, in my mind anyway, there are two ways to reconcile the ideas:

1. Faith and repentance, though necessary for justification of adults, is not necessary for infants.
2. Faith and repentance (and therefore justification) are fruits of regeneration, that are present in everybody who is regenerated. Infants dying in infancy are unable to demonstrate that they have faith and repentance, but would if they could.

I would tend to lean toward choice 2. 

BTW, and not to get too far off topic, but I noticed a difference between the Westminster and the Baptist confessions, and I was curious:

*Westminster: *"Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ,..."
*Baptist:* "Infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit;"

Did those who wrote the baptist confession believe that all infants are saved? It appears so from the wording.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> Since it appears that infants can't demonstrate repentance and faith in Christ, then it seems, in my mind anyway, there are two ways to reconcile the ideas:
> 
> 1. Faith and repentance, though necessary for justification of adults, is not necessary for infants.
> 2. Faith and repentance (and therefore justification) are fruits of regeneration, that are present in everybody who is regenerated. Infants dying in infancy are unable to demonstrate that they have faith and repentance, but would if they could.


Actually it's neither one Bob. You have to start the chain back further with the work of Christ as our covenant head. Regeneration, faith, and actual justification are all fruits or consequences of our virtual justification in Christ. They are the natural outworking by the Spirit of the benefits Christ inherited for us. So it doesn't matter that an infant may not hear the gospel with his ears, somehow mysteriously, if he is in Christ, he will be regenerate, apprehend the gospel and believe and be actually justified, because Christ has secured that blessing for him. His works as prophet, preist, and king are fully accomplished in all the elect, whether an infant or adult.

[Edited on 5-16-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## The Lamb (May 16, 2005)

Is it possible we can regroup this thread with specific questions again? IT is digressing.


----------



## Arch2k (May 16, 2005)

It seems like people are making alot of assumptions that infants in or out of the womb are unable when regenerated to believe the gospel. If this is the case, I would like to know where in scripture this is deduced from. Until then, I still think that it is more plausable that regeneration happens by means of the gospel, and faith is a necessary, and immediate consequence thereof.


----------



## The Lamb (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> It seems like people are making alot of assumptions that infants in or out of the womb are unable when regenerated to believe the gospel. If this is the case, I would like to know where in scripture this is deduced from. Until then, I still think that it is more plausable that regeneration happens by means of the gospel, and faith is a necessary, and immediate consequence thereof.




Gospel regeneration is an old idea. I believe it is false Jeff. "gospel regeneration", presents the preached gospel as the means that God employs to call dead sinners to life in Christ. The sinner, according to the gospel-means position, must hear and believe the gospel in order to be born again. He must make a conscious decision for Christ if he will be saved. I believe that this position is in error.


The Gospel-means position does not adequately satisfy the tension between Total Depravity and the act of believing.

Because man is totally depraved, he does not have the ability to believe. I Corinthians 2:14 says, "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned." The context of I Corinthians 2 describes two different types of people, "the natural man" (v. 14) and "he that is spiritual" (v. 15). Because the natural man has no spiritual capacity ("neither can he know them"), he cannot grasp the spiritual message of the gospel. The spiritual man, on the contrary, has the ability to discern spiritual things (v. 15). Paul clearly establishes the principle in this passage that a change of nature must precede the ability to receive the gospel. Spiritual life must be given before one can understand the "spiritual thing" which is the gospel.

Jesus does not say that the man who hears and believes will get everlasting life, but that he already has it - "he is passed from death unto life." His belief is the evidence of his spiritual resurrection.

It is not that the unregenerate merely will not believe. He cannot believe. It is not merely that he refuses to respond. He doesn't have the ability to respond to the gospel call. Jesus asked, "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because you cannot hear my word...He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God" (Jno. 8:43,47). This verse declares that an individual who has not experienced a change of nature is utterly incapable of a believing response to the gospel


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 16, 2005)

I have yet to hear a comment on my quote from Peter VanMastricht........


----------



## The Lamb (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I have yet to hear a comment on my quote from Peter VanMastricht........



Scott. Can you gather in the thread and ask some specific questions please. What about the article? And what are the questions that prompted you to start this thread


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 16, 2005)

Joseph,
without sounding disrespectful, please read over the posts. I am not able to invest a lot of time now; I am at work.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I have yet to hear a comment on my quote from Peter VanMastricht........



I believe your quote is not on point for the discussion. It is essentially saying that faith is an actual action of man, even though it is the product of the work of the Spirit. Forgive me, but this is Reformed theology 101.


----------



## The Lamb (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Joseph,
> without sounding disrespectful, please read over the posts. I am not able to invest a lot of time now; I am at work.



Me too. That is why I asked you to do it!!!!!!!!!!!! I did read some of the posts, but they seem to be incorporating 100 ideas.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Fred,
Don't be condescending; I am on point. You don't like the topic, stay out! You expressed that we have already gone this way before and implied you didn't want to go over the same stuff again. Well, for me this is important. You say it is Theology 101, yet in the other breath you say I am being too technical.

VanMastricht is saying that regeneration provides the capacity for the rest of the components of conversion.

So, from what you are saying here, Van Mastricht is an idiot, as well as Edwards, and Turretin. You would then have to add calvin in on the mix because VanMastricht uses Calvins notes on his ideas..........


----------



## fredtgreco (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Scott,

I am not being condescending. Now you are the one jumping to conclusions. I never said that the quote was bad, or that the person was an "idiot." I simply said that the quote dealt with a basic of reformed theology - which is important (crucial even) and good. I have no doubt that Calvin, Edwards and Turretin also believe that regeneration is a work of the Spirit that must be followed by an act of man (faith and repentance), that is the fruit of the work of the Spirit.

But what I do not see is that this quote (or any other material) says that there can be a gap in time between conversion (faith & repentance) and justification. The quote at hand is only about regeneration, not conversion (faith & repentance). You were talking about both:



> This means that it is possible that men can be regenerated & converted without yet being justified.



If what you are saying is that a gap in time can occur between *regeneration* and justification, I can agree with that. But there can be no gap between conversion and justification.

It might be that I have been missing what you were saying - I am just poking my head in during study breaks.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 16, 2005)

Honestly, it sounding as if theology 101 is being _tossed out_ by everyone else. I'm really confused as to what you guys are saying.

Let me use an illustration.

4 guys are in the congregation. They are all unsaved. The Holy Spirit, during the sermon, regenerates them (i.e gives them a new heart). For sake of illustration, Guy 1, Guy 2, Guy 3, Guy 4.

Guy 1 is an intellectual. He grasps things rather quickly. From the Gospel sermon preached, he beleives the message (now that he has a new heart) _after_ he gained the new heart and places faith in Christ, and is justified. It took Guy1 1 minute to put the pieces together. He beleived after having a regenerated heart 1 minute later.

Guy2 is a semi-intellectual. He grasps thiings sorta fast. From the Gospel sermon preached, he beleives the message (now that he has a new heart) _after_ he gained the new heart and places faith in Christ, and is justified. It took Guy 2 10 minutes to figure out the message and put the pieces together. He beleived after having a regenerated heart 10 minutes later. Not as fast as guy 1.

Guy 3 is not very intellectually astute at all. It takes him quite a while to really understand the Gospel message. Let's say 2 hours later. From the Gospel sermon preached, he beleives the message (now that he has a new heart) _after_ he gained the new heart and places faith in Christ, and is justified. It took Guy 3 2 hours to figure out the message and put the pieces together and exercise faith in what he heard. He beleived, just as the others, and ont he same message, but it simply took him longer. Not as fast as guy 1 or 2 by a long shot. Faith comes by hearing, and so he really has to understand it in order to exercise faith to believe what he heard.

Guy 4 is a moron. He is simply not smart. He does not have the intellectual amunition to think through things well and is a bit slow. He is regenerated, just like the others, but th preacher has to sit with this guy for a week, to explain and rexplaint he sermon and the Gospel before he gets it. 

Now each guy, in TIME, has a certain AMOUNT of time pass before they beleived, thought hey were regenerate. 

If someone thinks that doesn't work, then they are going to have a hard time explaining how regeneration preceedes faith.

I'm not really sure why this is so difficult. Read through Turretin on Faith and Regneration, or Calvin on Eternal Decree/Predestination/Secret Foreknoweldge. Or for that matter, again Van mastricht who summariezed everything helpfully.

If John 3:3 = regneration, then Eph 2:8-9 explain subsequent acts.
Regenration (which is grace) through faith ---> to justification. As instantaneously you want to make it, its still chronological in time. It would happen, as Aquinas and Edwards said, moment by moment (how ever long you want a moment to be).

Is this still hard to understand, or is this not Reformed Theology 101?
Do you give the Arminian a TIME statement when you tell them regeneration preceedes faith?

Okay wait, so after I type all this out, Fred then agrees!
"If what you are saying is that a gap in time can occur between regeneration and justification, I can agree with that. But there can be no gap between conversion and justification."

Isn't this what we were talking about???????

John the Baptist is REGENERATED and LATER has FAITH -----> Justification!

Alrighty then - we are all up to Speed!


----------



## fredtgreco (May 16, 2005)

I agree with your comments about the guys, Matt.

Where I am confused, and it is probably my fault, is that I thought you and Scott were saying two things:

1.

Regeneration -- possible time --> Faith -- at the same time --> justification

AND

2. 

Regeneration -- possible time --> Faith -- possible passage of time --> justification

I can agree with 1, but not with 2.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 16, 2005)

I believe we have NOW answered Adams question.


----------



## AdamM (May 16, 2005)

Let me get this straight, so you are saying it is possible for a person with a renewed nature to be under the wrath of God (unjustified?)

How can a person with a renewed nature do anything but turn to Christ in faith and repentance? Unless we want to say that the renewed nature can still hate Christ and despise His work, it is impossible. So can the renewed nature hate Christ?


----------



## fredtgreco (May 16, 2005)

Adam,

I think what I am saying here is that it is possible for a person to go through a short period of time in which he comes to an understanding to express faith. I would not say that he hates the work of Christ, but rather that he has not expressed faith yet.


----------



## Arch2k (May 16, 2005)

At this point in time, I have the similar questions as Adam.

The guy1, guy2, guy3, guy4 example seems to be looking at regeneration and faith in the gospel etc. as a process that takes an amount of time based upon a guys intelligence level. Maybe this is not what you mean to convey, but the analogy at least seems to break down at this point.

As I understand it, God is the one doing the work and therefore regeneration and faith is something given to man. I don't see this as something he gives to man over the span of 2 minutes, 10 minutes or however long of a period, but more instantaneously. 

It's hard for me to think of a person having a new nature (even if it is just 10 minutes!) and still not being found in Christ! Is there a time limit anyone could put between regeneration and faith? Could it span a lifetime? I don't think anyone would go that far.

Using the analogy of Christ raising lazarus, as soon as Christ called him from the grave, his nature (physical in this case) was raised from the dead (regeneration) and then he lived (faith). If this analogy holds, there can be no time gap between regeneration and faith. If not, I am interested to hear where I am missing it.


----------



## The Lamb (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> Let me get this straight, so you are saying it is possible for a person with a renewed nature to be under the wrath of God (unjustified?)
> 
> How can a person with a renewed nature do anything but turn to Christ in faith and repentance? Unless we want to say that the renewed nature can still hate Christ and despise His work, it is impossible. So can the renewed nature hate Christ?




I will say it is impossible for one to be regenerated and yet not justified. The renewed nature cannot hate Christ. and neither does God hate thosse whom He regenerates.


----------



## The Lamb (May 16, 2005)

> Using the analogy of Christ raising lazarus, as soon as Christ called him from the grave, his nature (physical in this case) was raised from the dead (regeneration) and then he lived (faith). If this analogy holds, there can be no time gap between regeneration and faith. If not, I am interested to hear where I am missing it.



Well if faith cometh by hearing, then I believe the parable of the soils gives evidence of a possibel time lag. The soil was regenerated prior to the Word. We do not know how long, but it was. The Word itself does not have the power to convert a soul from life to death. Without preparing the heart of us by the Holy Spirit, we can sit under 1000 sermons, and it will have no lasting effect if any.

This is the difference between an effectual call and general call. All whom are effectually called are regenerated and justified. 


The new birth, contrary to what is commonly taught, is something done not merely "œfor" but "œin" man, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Some believe that the subject is active in the new birth, and the Spirit employs the Word as God´s means of accomplishing regeneration. But the subject, according to Scripture, is spiritually dead, blind, deaf, and dumb. Thus, the sinner is passive, spiritually speaking; but he is actively engaged in sinful acts. If he cannot cease from sin (II Pet. 2:14), then he is filled with all unrighteousness. He not only commits things worthy of death, but has pleasure in those who perform such evil deeds (Rom. 1:29-32). The Holy Spirit, therefore, must quicken the passive spirit of the sinner making him sensitive to the call of the gospel. Sensitivity to the gospel is the fruit of regeneration. Scriptures classify this as conversion.


Quickening is an immediate and creative act: "œAnd you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2:1). No instrumental means are used with God´s creative act. The word does not produce life, but it is effective in those who possess life. Life is responsive to living things. Nicodemus was told that he had to be born again before he could see. Once the faculty of sight is given, the recipient is guided by the word to repentance and faith.



[Edited on 5-16-2005 by The Lamb]


----------



## AdamM (May 16, 2005)

> Adam,
> 
> I think what I am saying here is that it is possible for a person to go through a short period of time in which he comes to an understanding to express faith. I would not say that he hates the work of Christ, but rather that he has not expressed faith yet.



Fred, I do see what you are saying, but I would rather put it in terms of a person who possesses saving faith, but that that faith may not come to full expression until later. I think we are in agreement that the implications are very troublesome if we allow the ordo to become more then a logical order and it would be a position outside the mainstream of Reformed thought on the subject. I do grant that Edwards thought ran along those lines, but I think it is an example where his speculative approach was unhelpful. John Murray is much, much more helpful.

For what it's worth, imagine person "A" who is regenerate, but not yet justified gets hit by a truck and squashed. Does he go to heaven? Could we theoretically have a regenerate person burning in hell, because they did not turn to Christ in faith and repentance? 

I also see troubling aspects involving our doctrine of union with Christ. Does regeneration involve union with Christ? If it does, can a person at any time be united to a partial Christ? Could I be united with Christ and not at the same time be justified, sanctified & etc? I'm sure you get my drift.


----------



## The Lamb (May 16, 2005)

> For what it's worth, imagine person "A" who is regenerate, but not yet justified gets hit by a truck and squashed. Does he go to heaven? Could we theoretically have a regenerate person burning in hell, because they did not turn to Christ in faith and repentance?



Impossible that one of Gods chosen will end up in Hell. 



> I also see troubling aspects involving our doctrine of union with Christ. Does regeneration involve union with Christ? If it does, can a person at any time be united to a partial Christ? Could I be united with Christ and not at the same time be justified, sanctified & etc? I'm sure you get my drift.



The effect of the Spirit´s work in regeneration is union with God. Union with Christ is a great and impenetrable mystery; it should be defined in order to keep us from falling into serious error.

This union was planned in God´s eternal decree with His Son and the Spirit . thus, a relation was established between the Father and those given to Christ in the covenant of redemption. All subsequent relations spring from this eternal covenant (Heb. 13:20, 21).



As Adam carried all the children of men in the loins of his flesh, so Scriptures teach that when Jesus Christ died and rose, we died and rose with and in Him.


The union is actually effected when the elect are regenerated. Union actually takes place when, in the time of love, the Spirit implants the principle of life in the souls of those for whom Christ died. Until regeneration, the mystic union was hidden in the eternal purpose of God.

The consciousness of the union of the regenerated comes through the exercise of faith. Consciousness of this union must be distinguished from regeneration. The faculty of faith, which was implanted in regeneration, may not immediately manifest itself in conscious faith and conversion. For example, a child possesses its mother from the first moment of his existence; but a conscious enjoyment of this possession is awakened and increased after birth. Therefore, the conscious enjoyment of our union with Christ is awakened and increased after the new birth. Even though we are some time coming to a conscious understanding of our union with Christ, the subjective union itself existed from the time of regeneration.



Regeneration signifies a new birth. God first makes man new by giving him a new heart (Ezek. 36:26). The new commandment itself is not new, but it is new to the regenerated man because he possesses a new understanding (I John 2:7). New life, which is the fruit of regeneration, must be cultivated and grow before it becomes a mighty tree of righteousness (Ps. 1:1-3). Years may pass before the stature of manhood is reached. Even though the Christian possesses a new heart, life, standing, commandment, and state, there are many glorious new things awaiting him in the future. They are a new body, name, robe, song, and home.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> Fred, I do see what you are saying, but I would rather put it in terms of a person who possesses saving faith, but that that faith may not come to full expression until later. I think we are in agreement that the implications are very troublesome if we allow the ordo to become more then a logical order and it would be a position outside the mainstream of Reformed thought on the subject. I do grant that Edwards thought ran along those lines, but I think it is an example where his speculative approach was unhelpful. John Murray is much, much more helpful.


This is how I think of it. Just because Faith is not expressed or even understood immediately doesn't mean it's not there. Faith is the immediate result of regeneration, just as life is the immediate result of birth, even though the baby may not cry immediately. 



> For what it's worth, imagine person "A" who is regenerate, but not yet justified gets hit by a truck and squashed. Does he go to heaven? Could we theoretically have a regenerate person burning in hell, because they did not turn to Christ in faith and repentance?


This objection is pointless since we all believe in the soveriegnty of God here. 


> I also see troubling aspects involving our doctrine of union with Christ. Does regeneration involve union with Christ? If it does, can a person at any time be united to a partial Christ? Could I be united with Christ and not at the same time be justified, sanctified & etc? I'm sure you get my drift.


Me too. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the concept of union with Christ. There's different senses to it and it can get confusing.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 16, 2005)

> Fred, I do see what you are saying, but I would rather put it in terms of a person who possesses saving faith, but that that faith may not come to full expression until later. I think we are in agreement that the implications are very troublesome if we allow the ordo to become more then a logical order and it would be a position outside the mainstream of Reformed thought on the subject. I do grant that Edwards thought ran along those lines, but I think it is an example where his speculative approach was unhelpful. John Murray is much, much more helpful.





> This is how I think of it. Just because Faith is not expressed or even understood immediately doesn't mean it's not there. Faith is the immediate result of regeneration, just as life is the immediate result of birth, even though the baby may not cry immediately.



Patrick,
What is your take on what Jesus meant to Nicodemus when he said that a man must be regenerated before _he can see_ the kingdom of God? Also, an infant has the capacity to speak, even at birth. But can he speak?



> For what it's worth, imagine person "A" who is regenerate, but not yet justified gets hit by a truck and squashed. Does he go to heaven? Could we theoretically have a regenerate person burning in hell, because they did not turn to Christ in faith and repentance?





> This objection is pointless since we all believe in the soveriegnty of God here.





> I also see troubling aspects involving our doctrine of union with Christ. Does regeneration involve union with Christ? If it does, can a person at any time be united to a partial Christ? Could I be united with Christ and not at the same time be justified, sanctified & etc? I'm sure you get my drift.





> Me too. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the concept of union with Christ. There's different senses to it and it can get confusing.



There is such a thing as virtual union and actual, i.e. the elect have a vitrtual union, but not _actually_ until the time that they are regenerated etc.


[Edited on 5-16-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> I agree with your comments about the guys, Matt.
> 
> Where I am confused, and it is probably my fault, is that I thought you and Scott were saying two things:
> ...



Definitely agreed my brother! We must have been talking past one another.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 16, 2005)

> It's hard for me to think of a person having a new nature (even if it is just 10 minutes!) and still not being found in Christ!



I would too!

A person with a new nature IS in Christ. He simply, now, needs to acknoweldge it by faith. 

Having faith IN Christ, after regeneration is simply demonstrating the former. Being justified by Christ is again consequent to being IN Christ IN _regeneration._


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> Patrick,
> What is your take on what Jesus meant to Nicodemus when he said that a man must be regenerated before _he can see_ the kingdom of God? Also, an infant has the capacity to speak, even at birth. But can he speak?



Regeneration is necessary for faith. We need a new heart. That does not mean it takes any amount of time after regeneration for one to believe. Regeneration is that point where we are renewed in our mind and will such that we embrace Christ by faith immediately (i.e effectual calling). It may take time for that to be expressed or even recognized by the believer in himself. But it's still there. It's impossible for one brought back to life to not live. It's a contradiction.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> Patrick,
> What is your take on what Jesus meant to Nicodemus when he said that a man must be regenerated before _he can see_ the kingdom of God? Also, an infant has the capacity to speak, even at birth. But can he speak?





> Regeneration is necessary for faith. We need a new heart. That does not mean it takes any amount of time after regeneration for one to believe.



I'm not saying it does. I AM saying that in some instances, it occurs. See Matt's analogy above. See the quote from VanMastricht I provided. 



> Regeneration is that point where we are renewed in our mind and will such that we embrace Christ by faith immediately (i.e effectual calling).



Not in every case........

Rom 10:14 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? 

You didn't answer my question about what Jesus meant when he questioned Nicodemus?




> It may take time for that to be expressed or even recognized by the believer in himself.



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

How could John have had faith in the womb?



[Edited on 5-17-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > Regeneration is that point where we are renewed in our mind and will such that we embrace Christ by faith immediately (i.e effectual calling).
> ...


I don't see how this verse support your position at all. Of course faith comes by hearing, but usualy regnereation accompanies that as well through effectual calling accompaning that general call in the preaching. 


> You didn't answer my question about what Jesus meant when he questioned Nicodemus?


I thought I did. Jesus was teaching him that he needed to be regenerate to understand and believe savingly. 



> How could John have had faith in the womb?


How could he leap for joy if he did not rejoice in Christ by faith? What did he rejoice in? I don't know how it happened but it did. Probably through some extraordinary means, just as it would have to be for any infant to die in infancy. John's actions can only be explained by his faith. Only faith rejoices in Christ. You cannot be regenerate and not embrace the one who has brought you from death to life. Again, as already pointed out, Lazuras responded when the power of Christ accompanied the word. There was no time gap. Jesus called and Lazuras arose and obeyed. It was immediate from the effectual call.


----------



## Arch2k (May 16, 2005)

to Patrick

Good points


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 17, 2005)

Patrick,
You ask: 


> How could he leap for joy if he did not rejoice in Christ by faith?



Solely an assertion! In fact, you have to fight the scriptures. The scriptures say that faith comes by hearing the word of God. In the case of the elect infant whom God has decreed will die in infancy, it is not a conundrum; God goes to that individual; He must! In the case of John, it was decreed that John would live a full life. Gods normal means of grace is by the preached word, through Gods preachers (see Romans 10). 

You add:


> I thought I did. Jesus was teaching him that he needed to be regenerate to understand and believe savingly.



Specifically, Jesus is saying that unless you are regenerated, you cannot SEE the kingdom of God. 

Regeneration brings sight, sight then brings understanding. You have just proven my point. There is a time gap between regeneration and processing of information. God does not provide the information along with the sight. The information is conveyed by Gods people.

Isaiah speaks of the blindness:

Isa 6:8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me. 

Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. 

Gods word says that understanding brings conversion. Understanding requires time. 


God regenearates. People process information with their eyes and ears; conversion occurs. The ultimate healing takes place.

You have your right to your opinion. It is not I alone whom hold to this view. In fact, it is the reformed view. The ordo has segments. Segments denote time (even a nanosecond can be measured). Don't take my word for it; ask Fred and Matt; I know you trust them, they have degree's. Far be it for some lay-person to instruct you academics. Both Fred and Matt have admitted that there are possible gaps between regeneration and faith. 



[Edited on 5-17-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Patrick,
> You ask:
> 
> ...


No more an assertion than your view of the passage. We are both interpreting that passage with presuppositons already about John's state. My assertion is based on the grounds that there was no other reason for John to leap for joy. I didn't say he never heard the word but that he heard it extraordidarily. He did have a miraculous birth after all. Why not a miraculous or extrordinary new birth? Without knowing that Christ had saved him in some sense there is no reason for John to leap for joy. This is why you can't build doctrines on these special narrative cases. You and Matt seem to be binding knowledge to the cognitive development of the brain. But the saints in heaven have no physical brains at the moment. Yet they know Christ more fully than we. Knowing Christ is bigger than just the capacities of our physical bodies. 



> You add:
> 
> 
> > I thought I did. Jesus was teaching him that he needed to be regenerate to understand and believe savingly.
> ...


Regeneration brings life. What is the response of that new life? Faith is that "seeing" and "hearing" spoken of which embraces the truth. That's what effectual calling is all about. You cannot see unless you have been brought back to life. 


> Isaiah speaks of the blindness:
> 
> Isa 6:8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.
> 
> ...


Understanding does require time normally. Which is why I dropped the view of presumptive regeneration. But you also must remember that the Holy Spirit is preparing our minds and hearts for that change. This is that prepatory work of the Spirit. We don't need regeneration to understand truth. Even the demons believe and tremble. We need regeneration to renew our mind and will to embrace the truth by faith. Regeneration enables us to move from a general intellectual knowledge to a trust in that knowledge (i.e faith). 



> God regenerates. People process information with their eyes and ears; conversion occurs. The ultimate healing takes place.


As I said before, people don't need regeneration to process information. They need regeneration to be enabled to embrace that information savingly by faith. It is regeneration which enables one to move from "Christ died for sinners" (general knowledge) to "Christ died for me" (faith). Hopefully I'm making myself clearer.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 17, 2005)

> Understanding does require time normally. Which is why I dropped the view of presumptive regeneration.



Regeneration is not conversion; conversion requires understanding. That facet of the ordo requires time. Based upon that, I have no idea why you would abandon PR, if that was the reason.


[Edited on 5-17-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------

