Does regeneration REALLY "precede" conversion?

[Semper Fidelis]

Sorry I'm pressed for time Pergie and don't have time to read (but merely skim) what has been written heretofore.

I think to ask for the amount of time is to ask a question that depends. When Nicodemus asked Christ about being born again Christ noted that the Holy Spirit is like the wind. As much as we would like to be able to nail such things down I think it is not possible to do so. It is sufficient to say that when a man receives the Gospel with joy that it is because he has born from above to see and believe.

I believe, though, that regeneration and conversion could occur in a moment in time (one is only a logical priority of the other). As the Word is preached, a man might be born from above and believe during the actual preaching.

Incidentally, I think you might misunderstand what I (or others) might be saying with respect to regenerate infants. I'll be honest with you - I care about regeneration but in the way I care about the wind if I'm sailing. It's critically important to the Church but you can't see it. Even the regenerate act in ways that make us believe they are unregenerate and vice versa. The mongergistic work of God in regeneration and conversion must be guarded lest we ever think that salvation is of us but, within the practice of the Church, it can become dangerous to act on the basis of too much confidence with respect to who we think are regenerate.

The bottom line is that those in the Church who are not under discipline and have been put out of the Church are to be discipled and cared for by the Church. That means that you labor diligently for *all* and not those that you're sure are regenerate.

My children, therefore, are treated like Christians because they are members of the Church in the same way as the adult is. I don't disciple the adult because I *know* he is regenerate or stop discipling him because I *know* he is unregenerate. I disciple him because he is a member of the Church. The goal is the same for both the child and the adult: preaching the Word to them to their conversion and/or sanctification because you never know the exact nature of the saint you are working with.

Thus, witholding the means of Grace from either a child or adult in the Church on the basis of our suspicions is never warranted and undermines the whole effort of discipleship. This means for me that, though the discussion of how long after regeneration conversion might come is interesting but quite immaterial to my responsibilities. I don't know when it happens but I know its fruit.

When people ask for my testimony, I have to honestly say that I don't know the date of my conversion. I used to be a charismatic and thought I knew when I had been baptized in the Holy Spirit but that was in a Roman Catholic Church and I'm not at all certain I even knew a fraction of the Gospel then. All I know is that I once trusted in my self and I know cling to the Cross. It is enough for me to know that was of God and not of myself and, frankly, I don't care the exact date it happened but am grateful to God that it did.

 

[satz]

It appears that though one thing (regeneration) "causes" another (conversion) it is improper to speak of one "preceding" another because that term always brings to mind a chronological procession instead of a logical cause and effect. I do not see any chronological procession here, but only a logical cause and effect.

It still seems to me that regeneration/conversion are a packet deal and no lapse of time occurs between the two.

While there is not a direct bible verse that addresses the relationship between regeneration and conversion, I think the bible clearly attributes the two things to two separate causes, which leads us to believe they are two logically separate events.

Regeneration is described as the work of the holy spirit, while conversion is the work of human gospel preachers. Alternatively, we might say that while in conversion God uses the means of human preaching, in regeneration he operates completely by his power alone.

Since regeneration must be present before conversion can occur, I believe the two events to be chronologically separate as well. Regeneration is the raising of a spiritually dead human being to new life, conversion is the process by which that born again man believes the gospel.

You say that the two must be a package deal, but could you tell us why you think that must be?

 

[Pergamum]

You mentioned: There are examples of regeneration happening well before hearing the word, and there are examples of it happening together.

Please give me the examples that have regeneration happening well before the hearing of the Word.

Take Paul's journeys. The Holy Spirit directed him to every place he went. There he made converts by preaching, it is known as the "Expectation of the Nations" where the Holy Spirit preceedes/goes ahead of the messenger of God and opens the eyes of the elect for them there. And since I believe that the effectual call coincides with the regeneration of the elect in certain instances, look at the example of Christ calling James and John. Zebedee and the hired hands were with them on the boat, yet Christ said "Follow Me" and only James and John followed, this is becasue the Holy Spirit moved them only to respond.





I will admit I do not dissect in such a way. chronological vs logical is deaf to my ears, but thats me. Botice Paul says Faith comes by hearing the word, not regeneration.

Also, what about the coming to Christ that a sinner does BEFORE they are regenerated? Many sinners pray much for salvation before they are finally saved. It appears that there is a pre-regeneration ploughing in the soil of the soul that the Holy SPirit does before he regenerates/converts a man, such that often one's conversion appears very gradual and one cannot even tell at what point one was born again.

Exactly my point perg. But it is not a pre regeneration, it is regeneration. No sinner comes or ever will come to Christ on His terms without the promptings of the Holy Spirit. Many do come to enquire who this Man of Nazareth is. To see His miracles, to hear Him speak, but yet are hardened each time they hear the Word. Are we to assume the 5000+ He fed are all elect? I do not remember when I was born from above. So I would be a perfect example of what you said. I cannot pinpoint my "Spiritual birthday."

I disagree with your assumption that prayer brings salvation perg. Our prayers are never said to save us, our repentance is never said to save us, be careful becasue this smacks of arminianism and puts ones salvation in their efforts. Perhaps you did not mean it as such.

I am prepared to defend the existence of a class of sinners called "Seekers" or "Enquirers" that the Holy Spirit seems to be working in gradually - though they are not yet saved. It appears then, that the dead soul is quite active.

Again:

"A doctrine of total depravity that excludes the possibility of faith must also exclude the possibilities of hearing the Word, giving serious application to divine truth and praying for the Holy Spirit for conviction and regeneration. The extreme Calvinist deals with a rather lively spiritual corpse after all." [Roy L. Aldrich, "The Gift of God," Biblio-theca Sacra, July 1965, pages 248-253].


Do you believe in a doctrine of Seeking or the existence of Seekers or Enquirers, who have "awakended" souls?

You and Mr Aldrich will be kicking against the pricks here. Regeneration is not a process, you are either dead or alive, there is no in between. Honestly perg, this is the error of the Wesleyan prevenient grace, now scripture does speak of a preceedign grace of preparation of the elect, but Aldrich and yourself appear to be saying the Holy Spirit puts one in the state of having the ability to be saved, yet may not. There is no example of a dead soul following Christ for a period of time, then gradually being saved. Regeneration is instantaneous.

[/QUOTE]


END OF QUOTE


Ha, it seems that if anyone questions the mechanics of regeneration on this board, they get people trying to remind them of the basics of the doctrine. It is not as if I do not believe that regeneration is the cause of conversion. I believe in no such prevenient grace of Wesleyan error.


But, I am asking about the chronological separation of the two, which I see nowhere in Scripture.

The ONLY seperation that I see logically drawn from Scripture between regeneration and conversion would be the logical neccessity of elect infants dying to be regenerate even without outward evidencesof conversion - but if we believe in childhood faith then this would appear that reg/conv are not even separate then if babies really do, in fact, sings prasies from their mother's breasts and have an infant faith.



Too, regeneration happens at a moment in time, but the Holy Spirit often gradually lpoughs the soil up to that moment. Many people do begin to come to Christ who are not yet regenerated it appears. Nicodemus met Jesus at night to hear him. This seems to be a pre-regeneation grace that began to pulll Nicodemus to Christ.

And the many who came to Paul or Jesus enquiring seemed not all regenerate already.

The Holy SPirit ploughs the soil slowly sometimes. You yourself said, "...now scripture does speak of a preceeding grace of preparation of the elect.."....

,,,..there you go! You just agreed with me!



Finally, again, many "dead souls" are quite alive in their seeking as the Spirit begins to work in them. It does appear that the HS creates "Enquirers" or "seekers" and that these are awakened and take an interest in religion and begin to pray and seek, even before conversion through the Holy SPirit's drawing. I.e. the Spirit does not merely ZAP people cold, but he warms some corpses slowly (though, again, regeneration occurs at some moment in time and is not in itself a process but an event)...

 

[elnwood]

While there is not a direct bible verse that addresses the relationship between regeneration and conversion, I think the bible clearly attributes the two things to two separate causes, which leads us to believe they are two logically separate events.

Regeneration is described as the work of the holy spirit, while conversion is the work of human gospel preachers. Alternatively, we might say that while in conversion God uses the means of human preaching, in regeneration he operates completely by his power alone.

Since regeneration must be present before conversion can occur, I believe the two events to be chronologically separate as well. Regeneration is the raising of a spiritually dead human being to new life, conversion is the process by which that born again man believes the gospel.

You say that the two must be a package deal, but could you tell us why you think that must be?

I don't think there are two separate causes. God causes everything, and he causes them in a particular order.

Ordo salutis from Monergism.com:
Monergism :: Ordo Salutis
1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification.

From Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology:
Election, The gospel call, Regeneration, Conversion (faith and repentance), Justification, Adoption, Sanctification, Perseverance, Death, Glorification

All of these things are ordained by God to work his purpose of salvation, Note in both of these that the gospel call precedes regeneration. In other words, God initiates regeneration following a gospel call, and this regeneration produces a response of faith and repentance to the gospel call. They all work together.

Those who say regeneration can occur apart from the gospel call are declaring an exception to the generally accepted Reformed Ordo Salutis.

Again, the problem that I have with separating regeneration and conversion is the insistence that regeneration, and not conversion (faith and repentance) is required for salvation to account for regenerated infants without knowledge to exercise faith. Faith is credited as righteousness.

Therefore, if there is no gospel call, there is no content of faith, there is no faith, there is no imputed righteousness, and there is no salvation. As Paul writes in Romans 10:13: "'Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.' How then will they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?"

 

[Pergamum]

It appears that though one thing (regeneration) "causes" another (conversion) it is improper to speak of one "preceding" another because that term always brings to mind a chronological procession instead of a logical cause and effect. I do not see any chronological procession here, but only a logical cause and effect.

It still seems to me that regeneration/conversion are a packet deal and no lapse of time occurs between the two.

While there is not a direct bible verse that addresses the relationship between regeneration and conversion, I think the bible clearly attributes the two things to two separate causes, which leads us to believe they are two logically separate events.

Regeneration is described as the work of the holy spirit, while conversion is the work of human gospel preachers. Alternatively, we might say that while in conversion God uses the means of human preaching, in regeneration he operates completely by his power alone.

Since regeneration must be present before conversion can occur, I believe the two events to be chronologically separate as well. Regeneration is the raising of a spiritually dead human being to new life, conversion is the process by which that born again man believes the gospel.

You say that the two must be a package deal, but could you tell us why you think that must be?

Ha, my question is the same - why do we try to separate these events into two chronologically? Tell us why you think that must be?


Yes, I agree that regeneration is not the effect of conversion. Conversion must occur in a live soul. BUt I do not see any temporal separation between the two in Scripture - unless we logically prove that this must be so for infants to be saved (i.e. regenerated even though too young to be willfully converte). The two seem to be a package deal.


WHy do I say this?


ONe reason is that we often try to splice where the Scripture does not splice.


Example 1: Which comes first, faith or repentance? Which causes the others?

Example 2: Why do we try to logically order the thoughts that are inside the mind of God as is to prove that God thought first to create the Elect, then ordain the fall, etc.....ie all the infra-supra debates over what the eternal God conceived of FIRST. (the only order I see if from Ephesian 1 and this infra-supra talk is a "useless controversy" as Dabney writes)



Again;
From clear NT witness, where is there ever a gap between regeneration and conversion?

 

[satz]

Ha, my question is the same - why do we try to separate these events into two chronologically? Tell us why you think that must be?

I’ll try to answer… although I may end up repeating stuff I already said.


As I said before, logically they are two events. One is the act of a sinner being born again. The other is the act whereby the born again man believes the gospel. Since they are two distinct occurrences, shouldn’t the onus be on the one who tries to say they are not separate chronologically to prove it? Which are the verses that say regeneration and conversion always occur together?


Regeneration is an act of the Holy Spirit alone, man’s will, whether the sinner believing or a christian preaching, is not involved.

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

The work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration is independent of the external gospel ministry. It may very often work in conjunction with gospel preaching, but I do not see that it is bound to do so, either absolutely, or normatively. Certainly I do not see that the Spirit uses the gospel to regenerate – it is all done by its own power.

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Again, regeneration does not involve the will of man at all, whether the will of the sinner in believing the gospel, or the will of someone else in preaching it.

John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.


Since regeneration can, and sometimes does occur apart from gospel preaching, chronologically there can be a time gap, for the spirit first regenerates, then a preacher brings the gospel to the regenerate man for him to believe and obey. In fact, I would say chronologically there is always a time gap, even if sometimes the gap may be a matter of seconds.

Again;
From clear NT witness, where is there ever a gap between regeneration and conversion?

I think there is.

John the Baptist was regenerated before birth (Luke 1:15), but was only converted later.

Cornelius was pleasing God, which an unregenerate man cannot do before he met Peter and was converted by him (Acts 10).

Lydia was described as a worshipper of God (Acts 16:14), which unregenerate people cannot do, before Paul met her and converted her with the gospel.



I am aware that this position lends itself more to fatalism and lukewarm attitudes towards evangelism. However, the possible abuse of something does not make it untrue.

Hope that was understandable...

 

[py3ak]

Yes, again,...

What does it mean to "precede"...and how much of a lapse of time...if any?

Does a nanosecond work for you? Those God calls, He also justifies. If the time lapse, so to speak, isn't addressed in Scripture, why would we think it's important?

 

[Pergamum]

HA! A nanosecond.......hmmmmm..

I have changed my theology and am now a "Nanosecondarian".


Satz et al:

Just how do we treat Cornelius, Lydia and John the Baptist jumping around in his mother's womb?

 

[Amazing Grace]

1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification.

From Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology:
Election, The gospel call, Regeneration, Conversion (faith and repentance), Justification, Adoption, Sanctification, Perseverance, Death, Glorification

All of these things are ordained by God to work his purpose of salvation, Note in both of these that the gospel call precedes regeneration. In other words, God initiates regeneration following a gospel call, and this regeneration produces a response of faith and repentance to the gospel call.

But this is not how Paul said it. Perhaps Wayne Grudem does, but not The Apostle Paul.

30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

The Calling is the regeneration. Paul is not talking about a general call here, only the effective call of regeneration.

 

[satz]

HA! A nanosecond.......hmmmmm..

I have changed my theology and am now a "Nanosecondarian".


Satz et al:

Just how do we treat Cornelius, Lydia and John the Baptist jumping around in his mother's womb?

I think they do show that people can be regenerated, and then there is a time gap between that event and their believing the gospel.

 

[elnwood]

Again;
From clear NT witness, where is there ever a gap between regeneration and conversion?

I think there is.

John the Baptist was regenerated before birth (Luke 1:15), but was only converted later.

Cornelius was pleasing God, which an unregenerate man cannot do before he met Peter and was converted by him (Acts 10).

Lydia was described as a worshipper of God (Acts 16:14), which unregenerate people cannot do, before Paul met her and converted her with the gospel.

I would dispute these examples. I believe that each of these examples, with the possible exception of John the Baptist, were both regenerated and converted.

We must remember that Acts is a transitory period. People could have been regenerated and converted without knowing the full gospel revealed. Otherwise, none of the Old Testament believers were converted. Cornelius and Lydia were worshippers of the true God in the same way that believing Jews in the Old Testament were.

As for John the Baptist, I am not convinced that the Spirit causing John the Baptist to leap means that he was in fact regenerated. This is pre-Pentecost. The Spirit moved through non-believers (such as Saul) as well as true believers.

But even granting that John the Baptist was in fact regenerated in the womb, I would suggest that he was regenerated because he had received a special gospel call and had faith. This is the way Paul received the gospel, and I've heard stories of people-groups isolated from gospel preaching who received special revelation of the gospel through dreams and believed.

In short, I don't see any compelling reason why regeneration, conversion, faith and repentance ever have to be separated in time. I've also not seen a response as to why the hypothetical "regenerated but unconverted infants" are saved when they have no faith that can be credited as righteousness.

 

[py3ak]

HA! A nanosecond.......hmmmmm..

I have changed my theology and am now a "Nanosecondarian".

Excellent. Let's start a cult.

 

[Pergamum]

Woohoooo..."Cult Leader" always looks good on a resume...

I am already a Tri-Clavian and believe in Pre-umbilicalism!




Triclavian: 3 nails were used on the Cross
Pre-umbilicalism: Adam had a belly button even though he had no mommy. We must fight those hereticals post-umbilicals!





Don: I am intrigued about your view of special revelation and the Gospel coming to people in dreams. Tell me more.

 

[py3ak]

I also think "cult leader" does better as an explanation for your jail time than "wrong place, wrong time".

Well, we have a 3 point doctrinal platform: on to the gun stashing!

 

[elnwood]

Don: I am intrigued about your view of special revelation and the Gospel coming to people in dreams. Tell me more.

I don't have too much to add to the conversion-through-dreams phenomena, but dreams, whether to the patriarchs, or the parents of Jesus, or Cornelius, seem to be one medium of God conveying his message directly to his people. Paul, certainly, had the gospel given to him directly.

I have heard stories of missionary endeavors that discovered tribes who either already had the gospel related to them through a dream, or had a dream preparing them to listen to the message that was going to be brought to them. I cannot personally verify these stories, but I am not surprised by them.

I think the book of Romans is clear that general revelation cannot save, but only condemn, and that salvation comes through faith in the gospel by special revelation. Again, if there is no content of faith, there is no faith, and if there is no faith to credit as righteousness, there is no imputed righteousness or salvation.

Sola Fide!

 

[Pergamum]

In some parts of the Muslim world people report having dreams of Jesus and then seeking out a Bible or a CHristian teacher. Fully 10-20% of Muslim-background Christians report this. I have recorded the testimonies of some. Should we look at this as a Cornelius-type experience, a pre-salvation leading of the Holy Spirit the prepares souls for the Word of God?

 

[elnwood]

In some parts of the Muslim world people report having dreams of Jesus and then seeking out a Bible or a CHristian teacher. Fully 10-20% of Muslim-background Christians report this. I have recorded the testimonies of some. Should we look at this as a Cornelius-type experience, a pre-salvation leading of the Holy Spirit the prepares souls for the Word of God?

Well, I guess there are three ways to look at it: a) they were regenerated and converted when they exhibited faith from what they were given in the dream, b) they were being led by the dream, but not regenerated and converted until they encountered a Christian teacher, or c) they were regenerated after the dream to seek God, and not converted until they encountered a Christian teacher.

I've stated numerous times in this thread why I'm uncomfortable with c). b) is certainly possible, but I favor a). For example, in Hebrews 11:8, Abraham is said to have exhibited faith by obeying God and going out from his own land (referring to Genesis 12). He was told that he was going to be a great nation, but there is not yet information of a promised seed or a sign of circumcision.

In the same way, I think Muslims that have a dream about Jesus and seek out a Christian teacher are exhibiting faith. I think this is genuine saving faith. Hebrews 11:1-2 says "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the convictions of things not seen, for by it the men of old gained approval." But in addition, God is faithful to bring his people to a fuller knowledge of the gospel by leading them to Christians to minister to them as Cornelius was led to Peter and Paul was led to Ananias.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Pergie,
Perhaps it would help to understand that the reality of regeneration preceding faith though true in every case is experienced and manifested in various ways. For instance, it's entirely possible that Cornelius was already regenerate and believing through the OT types and shadows, but was yet waiting to hear the full mystery of the gospel like the disciples of John or any other OT believers living during the transition time from old to new. Or it may be, that Cornelius was under conviction of sin and prepared by the law of Moses but had not yet experienced regeneration until Peter came and preached to him. There may be some people who don't manifest much outward fruit right away. They just start gradually releasing their grip on the world, and finally make profession. I can think of one family member who was much like that. Some may be traumatic like Paul. With children, the case tends to be a more gradual process of fruit bearing if they are converted at a young age. So even though we can say that regeneration and faith are instant as far as chronology are concerned, the manifestation and experience of that reality may vary depending upon the circumstances of the person.

 

[shelly]

time between regeneration and conversion

Are y'all saying that God drawing someone to himself is regeneration?

If that is the working definition of regeneration; then I would say that I was regenerated about 6 months before I was actually converted. God was drawing me and I began to seek Him whereas before I had consciencely "decided" I had had enough of playing the good little Christian and I was sick of the mask. I wanted nothing to do with God and even less to do with "Christians" who were so stinkin' perfect. I totally go for the irresistible grace.

I began to investigate Calvinism because the church we were visiting used SS material from Desiring God. Why did I even care? Why did I spend so much time reading and asking questions in real life and on the puritanboard? And it was a lot of time. I honestly don't remember sleeping much at all for months on end. I'd go to bed at 1:00 or so; lay there with my mind spinning with it all and then get up again. I'd finish up the night falling asleep on the couch while listening to sermons online.

I do remember the point in time that I stopped resisting God and let go of unforgiveness and desire for vengence. I'm not saying that I decided to "get saved", but I did repent of those particular sins and especially ones reguarding my unwillingness to even want God. Up until that point I had been praying that God would make me want to want Him. (To clarify: I didn't want to want God; but I knew I should at least want to want God, so I prayed that God would change my "want to") I believe this is the point when I was converted. God had been drawing me and I had been seeking Him because of it.

It was all God. From my personal experience and understanding of terms I would say I was regenerated at the point I began seeking God and then converted when I repented; and that the time was about 6 months apart.

 

[Pergamum]

Hey all:

I would like to object that the actual drawing process is regeneration. It appears that God draws some before regenerating them.

About Cornelius, I would like to assert that Cornelius was not regenerate before Peter came, because Peter says Today salvation has come to this house, doesn't he?


It appears that God drew him and aquainted him with a teacher, after which he received the Word gladly and was saved.

If the actual drawing is regeneration, then we could conclude that many tribals whom God is preparing for salvation are already actually saved. Many have dreams and seek out teachers. But they have not yet heard the Word of God or the name of Christ or the real Christ from the Scriptures.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Hey all:

I would like to object that the actual drawing process is regeneration. It appears that God draws some before regenerating them.

About Cornelius, I would like to assert that Cornelius was not regenerate before Peter came, because Peter says Today salvation has come to this house, doesn't he?

I don't know if that can be asserted concerning Cornelius. Consider this:

Romans 5:5-8

5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Acts 10:1-4
1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment, 2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always. 3 About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God coming in and saying to him, “Cornelius!”
4 And when he observed him, he was afraid, and said, “What is it, lord?”
So he said to him, “Your prayers and your alms have come up for a memorial before God.

Cornelius was clearly of the category of "God-fearer" who already worshipped the God of Israel. It is also clear that his worship of God, both in terms of the nature of prayers and the manner of his alms-giving, was approved of God. The manner of his life is presented as a clear allusion to the memorial sacrifices that were said to please God's nostrils. If Cornelius had a heart set on the things of the flesh then he could not please God.

I believe what Cornelius lacked was the same thing that Apollos lacked - the fully revealed object of his faith. It's sort of the same thing for Simeon in Luke 2.

30 For my eyes have seen Your salvation
31 Which You have prepared before the face of all peoples

It's not as if Simeon lacked faith but the object of his faith had not yet arrived. To place people like Cornelius, Apollos, Simeon, and Anna into a general category of the unregenerate, completely unaware of the things of God, would be to place the entire panaplea of OT Saints in the same category. They looked forward but the substance of their faith was precisely the same. Cornelius was blessed, along with his household, to hear that the object of their faith was at hand.

 

[Pergamum]

Hmmm...

Interesting.

In Acts 11:13 says:

13And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;

14Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.


It appears that Cornelius was saved during Acts 10, through the witness of Peter, as per verse 14 and not before.


But....

.. your quotation of Simeon in Luke 2 strengthens your point.

Maybe I should start a new thread on Cornelius?

 

[christiana]

Which is first, the new birth, or faith, or repentance? Nobody can tell which spoke of
a wheel moves first; it moves as a whole. The moment the divine life comes into the
heart, we believe: the moment we believe, the eternal life is there. We repent because
we believe, and believe while we repent. (C.H. Spurgeon)

 

[Pergamum]

SO, SPurgeon would say that there is no chronological difference...not even a milisecond between faith and repentance. It all happens as one packet.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

All Reformed folks agree that regeneration produces faith and repentence. There is some disagreement, depending how broadly or narrowly you define repentance, as to whether faith or repentance come next after regeneration. Some just compromise and say simultaneously.

Also to comment on the drawing aspect, regeneration is a sovereign act bestowing new life. Everything up until that point is preparation by the Spirit for regeneration. But the experience of this act may not necessarily be as discernable within the context of the drawing work.