# Does regeneration precede faith?



## Pilgrim

Lane Keister says no: 



> Regeneration happens simultaneously with justification, not before it. I have excellent antecedents in the Reformed faith for thinking so: John Calvin, Richard Gaffin, Sinclair Ferguson, and the entire WTS faculty. Calvin believes that union with Christ is the basic soteric category in which all other things are comprehended. Within that broad category, there are justification type benefits and sanctification type benefits that occur simultaneously with God’s gift of faith to the believer. On this basis, I reject utterly the view that justification depends on a prior infusion of grace in regeneration. The infusion and the imputation occur simultaneously, neither one dependent on the other, neither one separated from the other in any way, including time. The mechanism of justification differs radically from the mechanism of sanctification. This simultaneity is at the very least hinted at in WLC 77. I realize that some Reformed authors place regeneration before faith in time. I do not see any biblical passages that teach this. On the contrary, when regeneration happens, faith is present. Similarly, when faith is present, justification has also happened. Hence, faith lays hold passively (because the righteousness is extra nos, although ours by right of union) of Christ’s righteousness in justification, and actively (because it includes a real, actual righteousness in the believer) lays hold of Christ in sanctification by the power of the Spirit.



While I haven't done a lot of study in this area lately, I have been thinking a little about this issue and tend to agree with Lane here at this point. 

Thoughts?


----------



## bookslover

Well, and just off the top of my head, from God's side, the elect are justified from all eternity in His mind. From the human side, a person must be regenerated so that he can exercise faith in Christ (also a gift from God [Ephesians 2]). Once he believes, justification is his - God pronounces Him justified.

So, it seems to me that regeneration must precede justification - since no person can do anything of spiritual worth until his heart of stone has been replaced with a heart of flesh. 

This is looking at it from the human side, of course.


----------



## Herald

Whether it happens simultaneously or not, the event transpires so quickly as to make the passing of the components without separate distinction. I don't believe there are regenerate individuals who have waited days, months or years before they have exercised saving faith.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Pilgrim said:


> Lane Keister says no:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regeneration happens simultaneously with justification, not before it. I have excellent antecedents in the Reformed faith for thinking so: John Calvin, Richard Gaffin, Sinclair Ferguson, and the entire WTS faculty. Calvin believes that union with Christ is the basic soteric category in which all other things are comprehended. Within that broad category, there are justification type benefits and sanctification type benefits that occur simultaneously with God’s gift of faith to the believer. On this basis, I reject utterly the view that justification depends on a prior infusion of grace in regeneration. The infusion and the imputation occur simultaneously, neither one dependent on the other, neither one separated from the other in any way, including time. The mechanism of justification differs radically from the mechanism of sanctification. This simultaneity is at the very least hinted at in WLC 77. I realize that some Reformed authors place regeneration before faith in time. I do not see any biblical passages that teach this. On the contrary, when regeneration happens, faith is present. Similarly, when faith is present, justification has also happened. Hence, faith lays hold passively (because the righteousness is extra nos, although ours by right of union) of Christ’s righteousness in justification, and actively (because it includes a real, actual righteousness in the believer) lays hold of Christ in sanctification by the power of the Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I haven't done a lot of study in this area lately, I have been thinking a little about this issue and tend to agree with Lane here at this point.
> 
> Thoughts?
Click to expand...


Hi Chris, Board 
I couldn't resist this one..........

If Lane is referring to _conversion_, I agree; If he literally means regeneration, I disagree.


----------



## Herald

Scott Bushey said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lane Keister says no:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regeneration happens simultaneously with justification, not before it. I have excellent antecedents in the Reformed faith for thinking so: John Calvin, Richard Gaffin, Sinclair Ferguson, and the entire WTS faculty. Calvin believes that union with Christ is the basic soteric category in which all other things are comprehended. Within that broad category, there are justification type benefits and sanctification type benefits that occur simultaneously with God’s gift of faith to the believer. On this basis, I reject utterly the view that justification depends on a prior infusion of grace in regeneration. The infusion and the imputation occur simultaneously, neither one dependent on the other, neither one separated from the other in any way, including time. The mechanism of justification differs radically from the mechanism of sanctification. This simultaneity is at the very least hinted at in WLC 77. I realize that some Reformed authors place regeneration before faith in time. I do not see any biblical passages that teach this. On the contrary, when regeneration happens, faith is present. Similarly, when faith is present, justification has also happened. Hence, faith lays hold passively (because the righteousness is extra nos, although ours by right of union) of Christ’s righteousness in justification, and actively (because it includes a real, actual righteousness in the believer) lays hold of Christ in sanctification by the power of the Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> While I haven't done a lot of study in this area lately, I have been thinking a little about this issue and tend to agree with Lane here at this point.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Chris, Board
> I couldn't resist this one..........
> 
> If Lane is referring to _conversion_, I agree; If he literally means regeneration, I disagree.
Click to expand...


Who is this stranger amongst us?


----------



## greenbaggins

It should be noted that the reason I am stressing the simultaneity of regeneration and faith is that we cannot say that infusion precedes imputation. Of course, it is not strictly necessary to conclude that imputation is dependent on infusion even if infusion came first (which would commit the post hoc, ergo proper hoc ("after this, there because of this") fallacy). However, the dangers are evident in Wilson's position, in my opinion.


----------



## Herald

bookslover said:


> Well, and just off the top of my head, from God's side, the elect are justified from all eternity in His mind. From the human side, a person must be regenerated so that he can exercise faith in Christ (also a gift from God [Ephesians 2]). Once he believes, justification is his - God pronounces Him justified.
> 
> So, it seems to me that regeneration must precede justification - since no person can do anything of spiritual worth until his heart of stone has been replaced with a heart of flesh.
> 
> This is looking at it from the human side, of course.



Richard, you have a human side?


----------



## Greg

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Scott Bushey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lane Keister says no:
> 
> While I haven't done a lot of study in this area lately, I have been thinking a little about this issue and tend to agree with Lane here at this point.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Chris, Board
> I couldn't resist this one..........
> 
> If Lane is referring to _conversion_, I agree; If he literally means regeneration, I disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is this stranger amongst us?
Click to expand...


Could it be? Doth mine eyes deceiveth me?


----------



## danmpem

In regards to the original post, there have been disagreements with the very definition of regeneration within the Reformed and Augustinian circles. I also believe that supra's and infra's will reason it out differently as well.


----------



## Greg

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Whether it happens simultaneously or not, the event transpires so quickly as to make the passing of the components without separate distinction. I don't believe there are regenerate individuals who have waited days, months or years before they have exercised saving faith.



So could it be said that it is more of a logical order of salvation?


----------



## greenbaggins

> Hi Chris, Board
> I couldn't resist this one..........
> 
> If Lane is referring to _conversion_, I agree; If he literally means regeneration, I disagree.



Hmm, could you unpack this one a bit? Are you drawing a distinction in time between the time of conversion and the time of regeneration?


----------



## Herald

Greg said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it happens simultaneously or not, the event transpires so quickly as to make the passing of the components without separate distinction. I don't believe there are regenerate individuals who have waited days, months or years before they have exercised saving faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So could it be said that it is more of a logical order of salvation?
Click to expand...


Greg, you can say that about the _ordo salutis_. But as I said previously, "... the event transpires so quickly as to make the passing of the components without separate distinction."


----------



## bookslover

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Richard, you have a human side?



Only when there's no full moon...


----------



## turmeric

Scott Bushey! Oh, somebody else already said that!


----------



## BobVigneault

Hubub hubub hubub scottbushey hubub hubub hubub scottbushey hubub hubub hubub............... SCOTT BUSHEY!!!!!!!!! (Somebody pinch me.)


----------



## Ron

Certainly there is no temporal delay between regeneration and justification. Notwithstanding, regeneration must precede justification in logical order because as was the case with Christ as the second Adam, the declaration of our righteousness is predicated upon our being _raised_ in Christ from the dead. Accordingly, we are justifed _because_ we have been raised in Christ; yet we are not raised in Christ because we are justified. The logical order must, therefore, be first regeneration, then, justification. 

Ron


----------



## toddpedlar

joshua said:


> Scott Bushey!



Thanks, Josh, for that stirring addition to the discussion 

btw, , Scott!


----------



## Scott Bushey

greenbaggins said:


> Hi Chris, Board
> I couldn't resist this one..........
> 
> If Lane is referring to _conversion_, I agree; If he literally means regeneration, I disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, could you unpack this one a bit? Are you drawing a distinction in time between the time of conversion and the time of regeneration?
Click to expand...


Hi Lane,
I am. In your quote, was the term 'regeneration' being used interchangeably w/ conversion? 

Thanks in advance,

SPB

Todd, Bob, Josh, Greg, Meg. Missed you guys. I'll try to not say anything utterly ridiculous.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Welcome back Scott. Glad to have you back, Brother.

Carry on everybody.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Hi Rich,
Things look 5 x 5 here; Kudos. I don't expect to be posting anywhere near what I used to but I will try and add a few synapses from time to time; Hopefully they will not resemble brain farts. Thanks for the welcome everyone.

As Rich said, 'carry on'.


----------



## Scott1

Dr Sproul, _What is Reformed Theology,_ says, p. 195



> When speaking of the order of salvation (_ordo salutis_), Reformed theology always and everywhere inisists that regeneration precedes fiath. Regeneration precedes faith because it is a necessary condition for faith...It is important to understand, however, that the _order_ of salvation refers to _logical_ order, not necessarily a _temporal_ order...We believe that at the very moment faith is present, justification occurs. There is no time lapse between faith and justification...
> Similarly when Reformed theology says regeneration precedes faith, it is speaking in terms of logical priority, not temporal priority...Hodges and all semi-Pelagians argue that regeneration is a result of faith and dependent on it. This assumes that the not-yet-regenerate person can exercise saving faith." [emphasis in the original]



Reverend Keister, are you differing with this understanding, agreeing with it or "nuancing" it?


----------



## kvanlaan

Yay, Scott's back! 

Other than that: 

Carry on indeed.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Scott Bushey said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lane Keister says no:
> 
> when faith is present, justification has also happened. Hence, faith lays hold passively (because the righteousness is extra nos, although ours by right of union) of Christ’s righteousness in justification, and actively (because it includes a real, actual righteousness in the believer) lays hold of Christ in sanctification by the power of the Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Chris, Board
> I couldn't resist this one..........
> 
> If Lane is referring to _conversion_, I agree; If he literally means regeneration, I disagree.
Click to expand...


18For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous,

But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,


How do these scriptures relate to the subject? Can a regenerated person with faith still be consdiered ungodly or unrighteous? These are whom it says He justifies. 

I have struggled with these verses.


----------



## Barnpreacher

Amazing Grace said:


> Scott Bushey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lane Keister says no:
> 
> when faith is present, justification has also happened. Hence, faith lays hold passively (because the righteousness is extra nos, although ours by right of union) of Christ’s righteousness in justification, and actively (because it includes a real, actual righteousness in the believer) lays hold of Christ in sanctification by the power of the Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Chris, Board
> I couldn't resist this one..........
> 
> If Lane is referring to _conversion_, I agree; If he literally means regeneration, I disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 18For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous,
> 
> But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
> 
> 
> How do these scriptures relate to the subject? Can a regenerated person with faith still be consdiered ungodly or unrighteous? These are whom it says He justifies.
> 
> I have struggled with these verses.
Click to expand...


(What I originally wrote wasn't making sense as I read it. I know what I'm trying to say in my head, but I'm struggling to articulate it.)

All I know is that I wouldn't have been ABLE to believe in Him who justifies the ungodly if He had not brought me out of darkness into light. That's why Jesus said unless you are born again you can't even SEE the Kingdom of God.


----------



## Barnpreacher

Besides the fact that Eph. 2:8-9 tells us faith is a gift of God. How can an unrighteous, dead man have faith unless he has been brought to life? If that's the case then it's actually faith and not the object (Christ) that saves us.


----------



## Pilgrim

Scott Bushey said:


> Hi Rich,
> Things look 5 x 5 here; Kudos. I don't expect to be posting anywhere near what I used to but I will try and add a few synapses from time to time; Hopefully they will not resemble brain farts. Thanks for the welcome everyone.
> 
> As Rich said, 'carry on'.



Welcome back, brother.


----------



## AV1611

greenbaggins said:


> Are you drawing a distinction in time between the time of conversion and the time of regeneration?



I understand regeneration to be a process, in that I am still being regenerated.


----------



## Pergamum

Greg said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott Bushey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Chris, Board
> I couldn't resist this one..........
> 
> If Lane is referring to _conversion_, I agree; If he literally means regeneration, I disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is this stranger amongst us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could it be? Doth mine eyes deceiveth me?
Click to expand...




WASSUP!!!

How's the nursing going. Got more time now to post a bit?


----------



## Pergamum

How many people does anyone here know of who are regenerated and born again but not yet converted?


----------



## Ron

Sproul is correct in his conclusion but he's wrong in his defense. He argues that regeneration must precede faith because regeneration is a necessary condition for faith. What it means that regeneration is a necessary condition for faith is that whenever faith exists, it is necessary that regeneration exist. Yet that doesn’t imply that regeneration precedes faith in logical order. After all, it is also true that faith is a necessary condition for regeneration since whenever regeneration exists it is necessary that faith exist too. Necessary conditions do not inform us about logical order. 

I put this up on my site a long time ago because of some confusion coming out of Westminster-west having to do with conditions and causes. 

1. If I'm regenerate, then I'm united to the risen Christ.
2. If I'm united to the risen Christ, then I'm regenerate.

Both 1 & 2 are true, yet neither proposition implies the logical order of union with Christ and regeneration. Nonetheless, in both cases the consequent is a necessary condition for the antecedent; so in 1 what is indexed to the necessary condition, namely union with Christ, is that which logically follows its sufficient condition, regeneration. Most Reformed Christians do not have a conceptual problem thinking in terms of regeneration as being a "condition" for union with Christ (since they appreciate that regeneration is logically prior to union with Christ, or the means by which one becomes united to Christ). In 1, what type of "condition" is regeneration? Well, it's a sufficient condition in 1. Accordingly, if in 1 regeneration is a sufficient condition for union with Christ, then that which follows in the proposition, namely union with Christ, must be a necessary condition for regeneration - since the state of affairs of regeneration cannot exist without union with Christ. It is necessary, in other words, that union with Christ exist if regeneration exists. Causality and logical order is not even in view.

If I'm justified, then I have good works. Which is to say, good works are a necessary condition for one who is in a state of justification. Such a statement, although true, would be rather uninteresting to one who is inquiring as to whether another believes that good works are the cause or grounds of his justification.


----------



## toddpedlar

Ron said:


> Sproul is correct in his conclusion but he's wrong in his defense. He argues that regeneration must precede faith because regeneration is a necessary condition for faith. What it means that regeneration is a necessary condition for faith is that whenever faith exists, it is necessary that regeneration exist. Yet that doesn’t imply that regeneration precedes faith in logical order. After all, it is also true that faith is a necessary condition for regeneration since whenever regeneration exists it is necessary that faith exist too. Necessary conditions do not inform us about logical order.



I cannot agree here. If thing A is a "Condition" of thing B, then thing A is a state of being which must be present if thing B is to come about. The word "condition" means "prerequisite". B cannot come about if the condition A is not present. You seem to be putting Sproul's argument away by defining the word "condition" differently and then using that different definition to dispute with his use of the same word (and different definition than you). You're using the word "condition" as "correlative", which is not at all the same thing.

In this way I am not sure I can entirely agree with Lane - an unregenerate person cannot come to faith; I have little problem agreeing that the gift of regeneration being essentially simultaneous with the exercise of faith - but being finite persons, I think that it would be normal for there to be an actual physical delay between the two. When Jesus healed the blind man, were his eyes working before he actually saw 'men walking like trees'?


----------



## blhowes

Scott Bushey said:


> Hi Rich,
> Things look 5 x 5 here; Kudos. I don't expect to be posting anywhere near what I used to but I will try and add a few synapses from time to time; Hopefully they will not resemble brain farts. Thanks for the welcome everyone.
> 
> As Rich said, 'carry on'.


Welcome back, Scott. What a blessing/shock it was to be reading the thread and come across your posts. THAT made my day!


----------



## PastorTim

I think we may be splitting hairs. They occur simultaneously in the temporal, yet regeneration is the cause of justification. We might ask, How can one thing cause another when they occur at the same time? Think on fire if you will. At the moment you have fire you have heat, but yes, we may also say that the fire is the cause of the heat.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

"Regeneration happens simultaneously with justification, not before it."

This is contrary to Scripture. Christ was exceedingly clear about this in John 3.

See my short article on it here: The Tract Series: John 3:1-10, and the Regeneration of the Spirit

"Unless a man IS born again he cannot SEE..." Regeneration (the "IS") must be present before one SEES (or as John uses it "spiritually perceives").

Reformation teaching, including Calvin (so I don't know where Lane is getting his ideas that Calvin tuaght otherwise) taught regeneration preceding faith.

Yes, it can be simultaneously, but, for example, in children, or babies that are converted, the seeds of faith are planted but may not have sporuted yet. 

Without first being regnerated, there would be no susequent faith, and no subsequent justification or declaration about thier righteous standing in Christ.

Regeneration is the POWER to perform the acts themseleves of faith and sanctifying works.

Van Maastricht defines it this way:

"What is intended by regeneration? The thing intended by regeneration is only that physical operation of the Holy Ghost whereby HE begets in men who are elected, redeemed, and externally called, the first act or principle of spiritual life, by which they are enabled to recieve the offered Redeemer, and comply with the conditions of salvation."​ 
Calvin says much about children, for example, being regenerated but not understanding anything by faith yet:

They seem to think they produce their strongest reason for denying baptism to children, when they allege, that they are as yet unfit, from nonage, to understand the mystery which is there sealed, viz., spiritual regeneration, which is not applicable to earliest infancy. Hence they infer, that children are only to be regarded as sons of Adam until they have attained an age fit for the reception of the second birth. But all this is directly opposed to the truth of God. For if they are to be accounted sons of Adam, they are left in death, since, in Adam, we can do nothing but die (Rom. 5:12f). On the contrary, Christ bids them be brought to him (Matt. 19:14). Why so? Because he is life. Therefore, that he may quicken them, he makes them partners with himself; whereas these men would drive them away from Christ, and adjudge them to death.
​Calvin says:

But how, they ask, are infants regenerated, when not possessing a knowledge of either good or evil? We answer, that the work of God, though beyond the reach of our capacity, is not therefore null. Infants who are to be saved (and that some are saved at this age is certain) must, without question, be regenerated by the Lord. ...Many He certainly has called and endued with true knowledge of Himself, by internal means, by the illumination of the Spirit, without the intervention of preaching. [John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Vol.11, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmanns, 1962), p. 541,542]​Calvin says that regeneration is a renewing in order to see clearly:

"‘He cannot see the kingdom of God’ means the same thing as entering into the kingdom of God, as the context soon indicates. But people who think ‘the kingdom of God’ means ‘heaven’ are mistaken. It is rather the spiritual life, which is begun by faith in this world and daily increases according to the continual progress of faith. So the meaning is that no one can be truly united to the church and be reckoned among the children of God until he has first been renewed.” (John: Calvin, Commentaries, p.66).
​


----------



## Contra_Mundum

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Scott Bushey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Chris, Board
> I couldn't resist this one..........
> 
> If Lane is referring to _conversion_, I agree; If he literally means regeneration, I disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is this stranger amongst us?
Click to expand...


This calls for an  . We must get to the bottom of this one.

_Who was that masked man?_ All he left was this *silver bullet*.


----------



## Ron

Sproul states: Regeneration precedes faith because it is a necessary condition for faith...

Ron’s comment on Sproul: Sproul is correct in his conclusion but he's wrong in his defense. He argues that regeneration must precede faith because regeneration is a necessary condition for faith. What it means that regeneration is a necessary condition for faith is that whenever faith exists, it is necessary that regeneration exist. Yet that doesn’t imply that regeneration precedes faith in logical order. After all, it is also true that faith is a necessary condition for regeneration since whenever regeneration exists it is necessary that faith exist too. Necessary conditions do not inform us about logical order. 

Todd replies to Ron: I cannot agree here. If thing A is a "Condition" of thing B, then thing A is a state of being which must be present if thing B is to _*come about*_. 

Ron replies to Todd: If what you mean by something to “come about” is that it is “caused” then you are not correct. That’s a common misconception. Necessary and sufficient conditions are not concerned with causality. In logic one proposition (e.g. regeneration) is a necessary condition of another (e.g. faith) when the second (e.g. faith) cannot be true while the first is false (e.g. regeneration). To borrow from your terms: Regeneration is a state of being which must be present for faith _to be present_. That much is true.

Sproul's argument is that regeneration precedes faith because it is true that regeneration is a necessary condition for faith. He does not argue that regeneration causes faith, if for no other reason than causality presupposes the temporal and Sproul makes the point that he's not talking in temporal language but in logical language. The reason his argument is invalid is because necessary conditions are not concerned with logical or temporal order. They’re simply concerned with states of affairs. It is no less true that regeneration is a necessary condition for faith than it is true that faith is a necessary condition for regeneration. Neither ever exists without the other so they are necessary conditions for each other. Consequently, by positing one is a necessary condition of the other, Sproul gets no closer to arguing the logical order of the two.

The reason regeneration is logically prior to faith is because one has faith because he is regenerate; whereas one is not regenerate because he has faith. 

With respect to Lane's position, he's talking about regeneration and justification, not faith. My guess is that he sees no logical order between regeneration and justification because regeneration is not the cause of justification and justification is not the cause of faith. Notwithstanding, I think there is a logical order (regeneration preceding justification) simply because I am justified because I've been baptized into Christ (akin to the work of regeneration), whereas it is not true that I'm baptized into Christ because I'm justified. The work of regeneration is logically primitive. Moreover, if regeneration precedes faith and faith precedes justification, then regeneration precedes justification. 

Ron


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Matthew,
I don't think there's any doubt that Lane affirms the logical necessity of certain pieces of the matter taking precedence over the other. In fact, in his post he writes "when regeneration happens, faith is present. Similarly, when faith is present, justification has also happened." Despite affirming a simultaneity, _one still cannot write this sentence "backward"_ if the intent is to describe links of dependency.

Unless I am making a false inference, I think Lane is appealing to the reality that _even in the case of a regenerated infant,_ possessing only the "seed" of faith, that justification belongs to him *at the instant of regeneration*, and not just at some later moment when he consciously embraces gospel propositions. Justification doesn't "wait" somewhere while conversion may be taking its sweet time. Conversion is a stage that may take a while to perfect, and its transition into lifestyle sanctification is seamless (because repentance and faith never stop their exercise).

I.e., Justification is not contingent upon even one (the very first) _act_ of *obedient* faith. Imputation of righteousness is based on the fact that one CAN see/believe and THAT such faith looks to Christ the object, rather than on the explicit motions of that sight/faith. Of course, that faculty of faith is "operational" even if rudimentary as soon as we are "awakened." Furthermore, its involuntary state continues purely passive--as the blinking eyes open, in looking to Christ (in its first experience of seeing) he sees him because that's what people with spiritual eyes do. He is also the Light that illuminates all the other things we see, and the "world" in which we walk as children of it.

Without question, it is *faith in the object, Christ,* that lays hold of justification (Christ's work justifies). But it's not the "will" to look at Christ and understand him that is the justifying faith. It is the fact that God made him into a "seer" with eyes, with sight, and therefore he "sees," which justifies. This seems eminently biblical, and it doesn't really deny any Scripture priority that I can tell. And it would appear another way of arguing against a FV or other finding a place for "obedience" respecting justification.


----------



## greenbaggins

Bruce has me pegged pretty well, I'd say. I am very uncomfortable saying that there is temporal order in the ordo. Logical order is distinct from that. So, as Bruce said, while I do not believe that regeneration happens, and then faith some time later, I still think that regeneration causes faith. Call it an instantaneous causation, if you will. There is no time lapse between regeneration and faith.

Let me quote Calvin about what I mean (and this is the same tack that Gaffin takes in his essay in the recent Theological Guide to Calvin's Institutes). By the way, it should be noted that this quotation comes at the very beginning of book 3 of the Institutes, which is the book dealing with how we obtain saving grace. So, the quotation in question is foundational for Calvin's entire soteriology: 

And the first thing to be attended to is, that so long as we are without Christ and separated from him, nothing which he suffered and did for the salvation of the human race is of the least benefit to us. To communicate to us the blessings which he received from the Father, he must become ours and dwell in us. Accordingly, he is called our Head, and the first-born among many brethren, while, on the other hand, we are said to be ingrafted into him and clothed with him, all which he possesses being, as I have said, nothing to us until we become one with him. (3.1.1, from the Beveridge translation) 

What I mean, then, is that union with Christ is the central soteric benefit. Until we are united to Christ, we have no benefits. When we are, all of them come simultaneously. Even though some are logically dependent on others, there is no temporal order. We receive justification and sanctification at the same time, even though one of them is instantaneous and the other is a process. Regeneration is the beginning of sanctification, but it does not come before faith. It comes as the beginning of faith. Faith is what unites us to Christ, and therefore faith lays hold of the whole Christ, justification and sanctification. This is Calvin's doctrine, and it is what I believe the Bible teaches (as a close study of Ephesians 1 will prove).


----------



## PastorTim

we are justified by the faith we receive upon regeneration. We cannot receive faith before regeneration. The very act of God in our being born-again justifies us. The justification cannot come later by some act of ours. What time frame is there between being born-again (regenerate) and justified. Are we still unrighteous in His eyes while being regenerated by His Spirit. What is our eternal fate if we die in between. If we are not yet justified then are we not condemned.
Simultaneous, yet regeneration is the cause. As I sadi before like fire and heat. Simultaneous but fire is the cause o0f the heat.


----------



## Scott Bushey

PastorTim said:


> we are justified by the faith we receive upon regeneration. We cannot receive faith before regeneration. The very act of God in our being born-again justifies us. The justification cannot come later by some act of ours. What time frame is there between being born-again (regenerate) and justified. Are we still unrighteous in His eyes while being regenerated by His Spirit. What is our eternal fate if we die in between. If we are not yet justified then are we not condemned.
> Simultaneous, yet regeneration is the cause. As I sadi before like fire and heat. Simultaneous but fire is the cause o0f the heat.



For the sake of clarity, can we establish the difference between the term 'Regeneration' and 'Conversion'. I am getting the feeling that the term is being used in this thread interchagably even though the ordo clearly distinguishes between the two components. We need to establish this for the sake of the thread. As I have said many times before, conversion is NOT regeneration and regeneration is NOT conversion.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

back Scott Bushey.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

PuritanCovenanter said:


> back Scott Bushey.


----------



## Ron

Contra_Mundum said:


> Matthew,
> I don't think there's any doubt that Lane affirms the logical necessity of certain pieces of the matter taking precedence over the other. In fact, in his post he writes "when regeneration happens, faith is present. Similarly, when faith is present, justification has also happened." Despite affirming a simultaneity, _one still cannot write this sentence "backward"_ if the intent is to describe links of dependency.
> 
> Unless I am making a false inference, I think Lane is appealing to the reality that _even in the case of a regenerated infant,_ possessing only the "seed" of faith, that justification belongs to him *at the instant of regeneration*, and not just at some later moment when he consciously embraces gospel propositions. Justification doesn't "wait" somewhere while conversion may be taking its sweet time. Conversion is a stage that may take a while to perfect, and its transition into lifestyle sanctification is seamless (because repentance and faith never stop their exercise).
> 
> I.e., Justification is not contingent upon even one (the very first) _act_ of *obedient* faith. Imputation of righteousness is based on the fact that one CAN see/believe and THAT such faith looks to Christ the object, rather than on the explicit motions of that sight/faith. Of course, that faculty of faith is "operational" even if rudimentary as soon as we are "awakened." Furthermore, its involuntary state continues purely passive--as the blinking eyes open, in looking to Christ (in its first experience of seeing) he sees him because that's what people with spiritual eyes do. He is also the Light that illuminates all the other things we see, and the "world" in which we walk as children of it.
> 
> Without question, it is *faith in the object, Christ,* that lays hold of justification (Christ's work justifies). But it's not the "will" to look at Christ and understand him that is the justifying faith. It is the fact that God made him into a "seer" with eyes, with sight, and therefore he "sees," which justifies. This seems eminently biblical, and it doesn't really deny any Scripture priority that I can tell. And it would appear another way of arguing against a FV or other finding a place for "obedience" respecting justification.



Brother,

This is music to my ears. I might hold to a different logical order, but my main hope is that we would all see that infants are indeed justified and they have faith when they are regenerated. Question: Would Lane or you call such an instance "justification through faith"? I would. 

Ron


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> *Van Maastricht *defines it this way:
> 
> "What is intended by regeneration? The thing intended by regeneration is only that physical operation of the Holy Ghost whereby HE begets in men who are elected, redeemed, and externally called, the first act or principle of spiritual life, by which they are enabled to recieve the offered Redeemer, and comply with the conditions of salvation."​



This is the way I understand it. There is a logical cause/effect relationship between regeneration and faith that stands, although they may be temporally simultaneous.

Although Calvin used the term regeneration as a life-long process beginning with the new birth and including sanctification, Van Maastricht defines it the way it is used today. And to Scott Bushey's question, I see _conversion_ to be broader than regeneration.



> WCF X.2. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, *until, being quickened and renewed *by the Holy Spirit, *he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace *the grace offered and conveyed in it.



In the WCF wording, if regeneration may be equated to quickening/renewing, then regeneration (enabling) precedes faith (embracing or beholding).

I don't think this is in conflict with anything Lane or Bruce have said. The issue seems to be with the FVers that make justification dependent on acts of faith that follow in time -- contra the WCF below:



> WCF XI.1 Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies; not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, *or done by them*,


----------



## servantofmosthigh

*sitting back, enjoying _"__soda__  __and popcorn__  __and beer__ (oh, wait. I'm a Baptist minister. I don't drink beer) ,"_ and watching the show...


----------



## Scott1

> Dr Sproul, supra
> 
> Regeneration precedes faith because it is a necessary condition for faith...It is important to understand, however, that the order of salvation refers to logical order, not necessarily a temporal order...We believe that at the very moment faith is present, justification occurs. There is no time lapse between faith and justification...






> greenbaggins
> Lanesterator Minimus





> Bruce has me pegged pretty well, I'd say. I am very uncomfortable saying that there is temporal order in the ordo. Logical order is distinct from that. So, as Bruce said, while I do not believe that regeneration happens, and then faith some time later, I still think that regeneration causes faith. Call it an instantaneous causation, if you will. There is no time lapse between regeneration and faith.



So, for the non-theologians among us, do you agree with Dr Sproul's statement above?

Are you saying faith is conditioned on regeneration in a logical order sense but in practice is simultaneous with it?


----------



## holyfool33

Regeneration precedes faith Romans 3 states that unregenerate men are dead in there sins. Therefore one must be taken from spirtual death to spirtual life then faith comes because you have had your stoney heart removed. The Regeneration precedes Faith argument has been getting rather heated thanks to Bob L. Ross and his blog.


----------



## Brooktree

bookslover said:


> Well, and just off the top of my head, from God's side, the elect are justified from all eternity in His mind. From the human side, a person must be regenerated so that he can exercise faith in Christ (also a gift from God [Ephesians 2]). Once he believes, justification is his - God pronounces Him justified.
> 
> So, it seems to me that regeneration must precede justification - since no person can do anything of spiritual worth until his heart of stone has been replaced with a heart of flesh.
> 
> This is looking at it from the human side, of course.



_____________________________

Hi bookslover,

What you say makes sense to me from more than just the human side. I have never heard that distinction before. It's completely new to me. The Bible teaches us in John 3:3, ". . . Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." And in verse 5, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
There Jesus is making a reference to Ezekiel 36:25-27, "I will sprinkle clean water on you . . . "
Some of this Scripture you have referred to in your Post, and then you finish with the reference to Ephesians 2 which I assume you mean Ephesians 2:4-10.

All of which is Scriptural!

What I don't understand is your bottom line: "This is looking at it from the human side, of course."

It appears to me that all of this is spoken from the divine side. It's God's Word.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Brooktree,
Richard (bookslover) is distinguishing between the fact that God has the fullness of his decree--including the whole of our salvation trough to glorification--in his mind from eternity past. Ergo, there is an unrealized aspect of his decree, and therefore of our justification, which remains unrealized until history actualizes it.

Therefore our confession can say, accurately,


> 11:4 God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect (Rom 8:30; Gal 3:8; 1Pe 1:2, 1Pe 1:19, 1Pe 1:20), and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification (Rom 4:25; Gal 4:4; 1Ti 2:6): *nevertheless, they are not justified, until* the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually _*apply*_ Christ unto them (Gal 2:16; Col 1:21, Col 1:22; Tit 3:4-7).


That puts it all together.


----------



## Ron

So when an infant is regenerate, has the seed of faith and is pardoned and considered righteous for Christ's sake, is he "justifed through faith", or must he exercise belief in gospel propositions for that? Come on and say it! He's justified through faith. 

Ron


----------



## MW

Ron said:


> So when an infant is regenerate, has the seed of faith and is pardoned and considered righteous for Christ's sake, is he "justifed through faith", or must he exercise belief in gospel propositions for that? Come on and say it! He's justified through faith.



Elect infants are saved by the faith of the covenant, as is described in Ps. 22:9, 10.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I'm sorry if it seemed like I blew off your question, Ron. I agree that 100% of the elect are justified by grace alone, through faith. Including a regenerated infant. Heb. 11:6.


----------



## servantofmosthigh

joshua said:


> servantofmosthigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> *sitting back, enjoying ... _beer__ (oh, wait. I'm a Baptist minister. I don't drink beer) _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pastor Shin, I was going to have call you out, until I saw that you were jesting! I was gonna expose you on your not-too-long ago blog post about teetotalism.
Click to expand...


??? You lost me...


----------



## Brooktree

PastorTim said:


> we are justified by the faith we receive upon regeneration. We cannot receive faith before regeneration. The very act of God in our being born-again justifies us. The justification cannot come later by some act of ours. What time frame is there between being born-again (regenerate) and justified. Are we still unrighteous in His eyes while being regenerated by His Spirit. What is our eternal fate if we die in between. If we are not yet justified then are we not condemned.
> Simultaneous, yet regeneration is the cause. As I sadi before like fire and heat. Simultaneous but fire is the cause o0f the heat.



_____________________________________

Hi Pastor Tim,

And what part does Repentance play in this entire conversion experience?
John The Baptist came preaching repentance. The people came in large numbers to the Jordan to be baptized and in Matthew 3:2 he said "Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.' 
Verse 11, "I baptize you with water for repentance . . . "

How do these people come with an awareness for the need for repentance since they are not yet regenerated?

And in Luke 5:32, Jesus says, "I have come not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
Now we know that there are no righteous.

Is repentance a part of the conversion process of regeneration, faith, and justification?
or does repentance actually follow the process of regeneration, faith, justification moment? 

I have been meditating on all of these elements and thinking back to my own conversion to Christ some 35 years ago. I find it hard to see a separation of these, yet there is something special about repentance in it all.

We know that without repentance, there can be no true salvation.

Your thoughts please.


----------



## Brooktree

Contra_Mundum said:


> Brooktree,
> Richard (bookslover) is distinguishing between the fact that God has the fullness of his decree--including the whole of our salvation trough to glorification--in his mind from eternity past. Ergo, there is an unrealized aspect of his decree, and therefore of our justification, which remains unrealized until history actualizes it.
> 
> Therefore our confession can say, accurately,
> 
> 
> 
> 11:4 God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect (Rom 8:30; Gal 3:8; 1Pe 1:2, 1Pe 1:19, 1Pe 1:20), and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification (Rom 4:25; Gal 4:4; 1Ti 2:6): *nevertheless, they are not justified, until* the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually _*apply*_ Christ unto them (Gal 2:16; Col 1:21, Col 1:22; Tit 3:4-7).
> 
> 
> 
> That puts it all together.
Click to expand...


________________________________________

I still have touble with the semantics that tend to overrided election from before the foundation of the world. 
Romans 8:29-30, "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstbornabon among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."

According to this Scripture, when were you and I saved?
We were saved in eternity past as you have said above. Now the fact that the world wasn't made yet, we weren't born yet, doesn't have a human side. It's done beforehand. 
Is it only partly done, waiting for us to be born in order to apply it from a human point of understanding, or was it completely done in the efficacious will of God from oustide of time, from eternity?
The answer I give is that "beforehand" from all eternity is exactly what it says. My human realization of the fact doesn't change the fact.

I find the semantics employed earlier to be a confusion of that overwhelming truth.


----------



## Ron

Contra_Mundum said:


> I'm sorry if it seemed like I blew off your question, Ron. I agree that 100% of the elect are justified by grace alone, through faith. Including a regenerated infant. Heb. 11:6.



Oh no, Pastor, I didn't think that. I figured you were on to other things. Thanks for weighing in.

I'm somewhat surprised that so many on Green-B's site seem to recoil at such a doctrine. 

Ron


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Brooktree said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brooktree,
> Richard (bookslover) is distinguishing between the fact that God has the fullness of his decree--including the whole of our salvation trough to glorification--in his mind from eternity past. Ergo, there is an unrealized aspect of his decree, and therefore of our justification, which remains unrealized until history actualizes it.
> 
> Therefore our confession can say, accurately,
> 
> 
> 
> 11:4 God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect (Rom 8:30; Gal 3:8; 1Pe 1:2, 1Pe 1:19, 1Pe 1:20), and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification (Rom 4:25; Gal 4:4; 1Ti 2:6): *nevertheless, they are not justified, until* the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually _*apply*_ Christ unto them (Gal 2:16; Col 1:21, Col 1:22; Tit 3:4-7).
> 
> 
> 
> That puts it all together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> 
> I still have touble with the semantics that tend to overrided election from before the foundation of the world.
> Romans 8:29-30, "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstbornabon among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."
> 
> According to this Scripture, when were you and I saved?
> We were saved in eternity past as you have said above. Now the fact that the world wasn't made yet, we weren't born yet, doesn't have a human side. It's done beforehand.
> Is it only partly done, waiting for us to be born in order to apply it from a human point of understanding, or was it completely done in the efficacious will of God from oustide of time, from eternity?
> The answer I give is that "beforehand" from all eternity is exactly what it says. My human realization of the fact doesn't change the fact.
> 
> I find the semantics employed earlier to be a confusion of that overwhelming truth.
Click to expand...


The DECREE to Justify is not the same thing as ACTUAL Justification. Our salvation was not "actual" with respect to our being, prior to its application, howevermuch real were God's thoughts toward us, in Christ. His thoughts toward us "in Adam" were wrathful.

There are those who argue for "eternal justification." That position is not supported by the Confession. So even if otherwise sound men argue for it, we have not permitted much discussion of the topic here. The Confession mentions three moments of our salvation: decree, cross, application. May I suggest some meditation/reflection on the prooftexts provided by the Westminster divines?

Blessings.


----------



## Ron

Herman Hanko called me an Arminian for arguing against eternal justification! The question I asked him, which I never got an answer to, was whether we were also glorified now but that the reality of our glorification had just not gotten through to our consciences! After all, he said that when we received faith, all that was occuring was that we became aware of our existing standing of justified that preceded our faith. Kinda evacuates any meaning of time.

Ron


----------



## Brooktree

Contra_Mundum said:


> Brooktree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brooktree,
> Richard (bookslover) is distinguishing between the fact that God has the fullness of his decree--including the whole of our salvation trough to glorification--in his mind from eternity past. Ergo, there is an unrealized aspect of his decree, and therefore of our justification, which remains unrealized until history actualizes it.
> 
> Therefore our confession can say, accurately,That puts it all together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> 
> I still have touble with the semantics that tend to overrided election from before the foundation of the world.
> Romans 8:29-30, "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstbornabon among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."
> 
> According to this Scripture, when were you and I saved?
> We were saved in eternity past as you have said above. Now the fact that the world wasn't made yet, we weren't born yet, doesn't have a human side. It's done beforehand.
> Is it only partly done, waiting for us to be born in order to apply it from a human point of understanding, or was it completely done in the efficacious will of God from oustide of time, from eternity?
> The answer I give is that "beforehand" from all eternity is exactly what it says. My human realization of the fact doesn't change the fact.
> 
> I find the semantics employed earlier to be a confusion of that overwhelming truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The DECREE to Justify is not the same thing as ACTUAL Justification. Our salvation was not "actual" with respect to our being, prior to its application, howevermuch real were God's thoughts toward us, in Christ. His thoughts toward us "in Adam" were wrathful.
> 
> There are those who argue for "eternal justification." That position is not supported by the Confession. So even if otherwise sound men argue for it, we have not permitted much discussion of the topic here. The Confession mentions three moments of our salvation: decree, cross, application. May I suggest some meditation/reflection on the prooftexts provided by the Westminster divines?
> 
> Blessings.
Click to expand...


________________________________________

Thanks for your response. When I get through the three books I working on simultaneously, I'll do a review of the Westminster Standards. A good idea for me to refresh the Proofs on this topic.
I was hoping you could weave in an anwser to my question about repentance and its place in this topic.


----------



## PastorTim

if we are called to repent, then God has issued that call, yes? An unregenerated one has no desire to repent, or even to be saved. What would an unregenrated sinner desire about eternal worship of the one he does not want to worship now. This would be "hell" for that person. Repentance is a result of regeneration. When born again we die to the old self and are made new. The act of "turning" from the old things is the act of repentance. The new self despises the desires of the old and become at war. Repentance is the attack we put on the old self. If one is in the old state (carnal) there is no battle, thus no repentance.


----------



## holyfool33

Ron said:


> Herman Hanko called me an Arminian for arguing against eternal justification! The question I asked him, which I never got an answer to, was whether we were also glorified now but that the reality of our glorification had just not gotten through to our consciences! After all, he said that when we received faith, all that was occuring was that we became aware of our existing standing of justified that preceded our faith. Kinda evacuates any meaning of time.
> 
> Ron



Wow Herman Hanko called yo an arminian  that's a badge of og honor where I come from.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Brooktree said:


> Thanks for your response. When I get through the three books I working on simultaneously, I'll do a review of the Westminster Standards. A good idea for me to refresh the Proofs on this topic.
> I was hoping you could weave in an anwser to my question about repentance and its place in this topic.



Conversion = repentance & faith, faith & repentance. Conversion has been called a coin with two sides. Each implies and necessitates the other. In the logically determined _ordo salutis,_ or "order of salvation", we find election, effectual calling, regeneration, *conversion*, justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification. If you note the confessional order of the chapters dealing with these topics, _conversion_, the repentance and faith chapters, are found *following* the others in the overall section dealing with most of these salvation topics, chs. 10-15. This is due to the priority always properly given to God's work, rather than our inclusion in his work.


----------



## servantofmosthigh

joshua said:


> servantofmosthigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pastor Shin, I was going to have call you out, until I saw that you were jesting! I was gonna expose you on your not-too-long ago blog post about teetotalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ??? You lost me...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry, maybe I have you confused. There was this blog here: Should Christians Drink Alcohol (Part 3): Again, No! « Thoughts & Actions and I thought it was yours. I was just pokin' anyway. However, if I confused you for another, then please forgive me!
Click to expand...


Ah, now I get it. Yes, that's my blog. But because your posting was too vague for me, I didn't know what you were talking about.


----------



## Dawie

Without regeneration first I can't think there can be an effectual call, repentance or faith. 

God first plants the seed, the new man into someone, then He calls him, and leads him to repent (deny the old man) and believe (receive Christ).


----------



## moral necessity

I think VanMastricht has it right. Regeneration is the implantation of the new principle. Faith is the fruit of such a principle that comes about over time. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God", but regeneration comes by a direct work of the Holy Spirit in which the Word is not necessary. Yet, regeneration imparts the seeds of such fruit, and guarantees their success as to their blossoming at the appropriate time.

Blessings!


----------



## Archlute

in my opinion, it's just a novel push by Gaffin, Ferguson, Garcia, Tipton, et al to come up with something to publish and get their name out there as if they have found some great insight into Reformed theology, and does nothing but bring more discord into the Reformed camp. It's fuzzy thinking that attempts to obliterate any discussion of the ordo salutis by stamping "UNION WITH Christ" over the top of the entire discussion. Yet, distinctions still must be made. Scripture makes them, and attempting to find passages in Calvin (which may or may not accurately represent either his full thinking on the matter or even the teaching of Scripture) is no better than any earlier attempts at pitting "Calvin against the Calvinists", which is this approach ultimately works toward.

The idea that faith could ever precede regeneration is nonsensical in light of the Scriptural teaching on total depravity. It is also the position of Arminian theologians (not saying that Lane is one at all by that, but merely making an observation of their arguments by which this one may be compared).


----------



## Herald

moral necessity said:


> I think VanMastricht has it right. Regeneration is the implantation of the new principle. Faith is the fruit of such a principle that comes about over time. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God", but regeneration comes by a direct work of the Holy Spirit in which the Word is not necessary. Yet, regeneration imparts the seeds of such fruit, and guarantees their success as to their blossoming at the appropriate time.
> 
> Blessings!



I don't understand this, having never read Van Mastricht. Regeneration is "the implantation of the new principle"? Regeneration is not a principle, it's an organic change brought about by the Spirit of God. It _results _in a change of affection (from the things of the world to the things of the Spirit), not simply a principle change. 



> Faith is the the fruit of such a principle that comes over time.


What type of faith are you referring to? Saving faith or sanctifying faith (which are both from the same source)? Regeneration and saving faith, while existing in order, nonetheless are so indistinguishable that to attempt to separate them "over time" is futile.

If I have misunderstood terms, please feel free to correct me.


----------



## moral necessity

North Jersey Baptist said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think VanMastricht has it right. Regeneration is the implantation of the new principle. Faith is the fruit of such a principle that comes about over time. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God", but regeneration comes by a direct work of the Holy Spirit in which the Word is not necessary. Yet, regeneration imparts the seeds of such fruit, and guarantees their success as to their blossoming at the appropriate time.
> 
> Blessings!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand this, having never read Van Mastricht. Regeneration is "the implantation of the new principle"? Regeneration is not a principle, it's an organic change brought about by the Spirit of God. It _results _in a change of affection (from the things of the world to the things of the Spirit), not simply a principle change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith is the the fruit of such a principle that comes over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What type of faith are you referring to? Saving faith or sanctifying faith (which are both from the same source)? Regeneration and saving faith, while existing in order, nonetheless are so indistinguishable that to attempt to separate them "over time" is futile.
> 
> If I have misunderstood terms, please feel free to correct me.
Click to expand...


Bill,

Right, regeneration is not a new principle, but the act of infusing a new principle, and that of the principle of holiness, or of God, into our souls, whereby we now act according to that principle. This causes what you speak of with regard to a new affection, yet we still retain the old affection at the same time because we still have the old nature or principle of sin within us. With regard to faith, I'm referring to both saving and sanctifying faith, for, in my mind, it all flows, as you say, from the same source. I tend to think that regeneration and saving faith are distinguishable, just as the birth of a child and their first expressions of thoughts and words are distinguishable. The one leads to the other, but the second is the fruit of the first, and happens at a different time for different people. I don't see the necessity to lump them in to something that occurs simultaneously. Why would such a conclusion have to be drawn?

Blessings to you!


----------



## Scott1

> Archlute
> Puritanboard Junior
> 
> 
> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> in my opinion, it's just a novel push by Gaffin, Ferguson, Garcia, Tipton, et al to come up with something to publish and get their name out there as if they have found some great insight into Reformed theology, and does nothing but bring more discord into the Reformed camp. It's fuzzy thinking that attempts to obliterate any discussion of the ordo salutis by stamping "UNION WITH Christ" over the top of the entire discussion. Yet, distinctions still must be made. Scripture makes them, and attempting to find passages in Calvin (which may or may not accurately represent either his full thinking on the matter or even the teaching of Scripture) is no better than any earlier attempts at pitting "Calvin against the Calvinists", which is this approach ultimately works toward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While trying, by God's grace, to attribute good motives toward my fellow man, and particularly those of the household of faith, I am inclined to share your concern.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> Dr Sproul, supra
> 
> Regeneration precedes faith because it is a necessary condition for faith...It is important to understand, however, that the order of salvation refers to logical order, not necessarily a temporal order...We believe that at the very moment faith is present, justification occurs. There is no time lapse between faith and justification...
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> greenbaggins
> Lanesterator Minimus
> 
> Quote:
> Bruce has me pegged pretty well, I'd say. I am very uncomfortable saying that there is temporal order in the ordo. Logical order is distinct from that. So, as Bruce said, while I do not believe that regeneration happens, and then faith some time later, I still think that regeneration causes faith. Call it an instantaneous causation, if you will. There is no time lapse between regeneration and faith.
> 
> So, for the non-theologians among us, do you agree with Dr Sproul's statement above?
> 
> Are you saying faith is conditioned on regeneration in a logical order sense but in practice is simultaneous with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> __________________
> 
> I'm stuck in this discussion.
> 
> I think Reverend Keister has answered my two questions thoroughly but I am unable to explain it to a layman. It seems to me one cannot think of faith as not flowing, albeit immediately, from regeneration. Logical order.
> 
> I am not sure about this "union with Christ" concept. It seems like it has come out of nowhere in terms of being the over-arching way we look at salvation in the Scriptures. The concept's pre-eminance seems, vaguely, at least associated with "Federal Vision," a theology which is serious error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that faith could ever precede regeneration is nonsensical in light of the Scriptural teaching on total depravity. It is also the position of Arminian theologians (not saying that Lane is one at all by that, but merely making an observation of their arguments by which this one may be compared).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I am understanding this correctly, Reverend Keister is not saying that faith precedes regeneration in actual time, they are simultaneous. In logical order, however, I think he is saying that regeneration does precede faith.
Click to expand...


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

> I don't understand this, having never read Van Mastricht. Regeneration is "the implantation of the new principle"? Regeneration is not a principle, it's an organic change brought about by the Spirit of God. It results in a change of affection (from the things of the world to the things of the Spirit), not simply a principle change.



I don't think referring to regeneration as "the implantation of a new principle" takes away from the concept. What VanMastricht is talking about is indeed a fundamental organic change in our nature. Therefore our nature is renewed or changed by the implantation of this divine principle -- from which saving faith issues forth.

Dispensationalists are known for describing regeneration as the implantation of a new nature which co-exists along side (and separate from) the old nature. In my humble opinion, ascribing man with "two natures" can be unorthodox if not handled carefully. Strictly speaking, Christ alone has two natures.


----------



## Dawie

Gomarus said:


> In my humble opinion, ascribing man with "two natures" can be unorthodox if not handled carefully. Strictly speaking, Christ alone has two natures.



Hi Gomarus. This is just my personal opinion on the matter - I'll try to be careful 

The old man and new man co-exist in a person and are at war:

Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. 

Gal 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 
Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 
Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. 

Paul's description:

Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Our two natures after regeneration, spirit (new man) and flesh (old man), are a type of Christ's being. And Christ's being is a type of his regenerated child.


----------



## Dawie

From the PRCA website:

1. What are the steps in the order of salvation?
Regeneration, calling, faith, justification, sanctification, preservation, and glorification.


----------

