Does regeneration precede faith?

[toddpedlar]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

back Scott Bushey.

 

[Ron]

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]

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]

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]

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]

*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.

??? You lost me...

 

[Brooktree]

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]

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.

________________________________________

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]

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,
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.

________________________________________

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.

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]

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.

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.

________________________________________

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.