The Ordo revisited

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

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

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

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

What is the biblical process?

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

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

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

The conversion process completed:
The preached word.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

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


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

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

Van Mastricht writes:

Regeneration confers the spiritual life in the first act only

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

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

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

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

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

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

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by webmaster]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by webmaster

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

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

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

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

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by webmaster]

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

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

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

Should we then make Paul's conversion normative?

 

[AdamM]

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by webmaster

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

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

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

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

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by webmaster]

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

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

 

[fredtgreco]

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

David is not true either:

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

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

The key is to answer Adam's question above.

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

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

 

[raderag]

To me it seems rather easy.

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

Both happen instantly.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

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

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

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

Was Saul filled?

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

This is likened to the distressing spirit as well:

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

Is this the same as:

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

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

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

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

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

??

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

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

[Edited on 5-16-2005 by webmaster]

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
What is the biblical process?

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

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

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

The conversion process completed:
The preached word.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

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

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

How are you defining regeneration Scott?

 

[The Lamb]

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

Thoughts?

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

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

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

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

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

 

[blhowes]

What a fascinating thread! Very thought provoking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would tend to lean toward choice 2.

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

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

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

 

[Puritan Sailor]

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

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

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

[Edited on 5-16-2005 by puritansailor]

 

[The Lamb]

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

 

[Arch2k]

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

 

[The Lamb]

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

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


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

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

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

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

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

 

[The Lamb]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
I have yet to hear a comment on my quote from Peter VanMastricht........

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

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

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
I have yet to hear a comment on my quote from Peter VanMastricht........

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

 

[The Lamb]

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

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
I have yet to hear a comment on my quote from Peter VanMastricht........

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

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

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

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

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
I have yet to hear a comment on my quote from Peter VanMastricht........

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

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

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

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

Scott,

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

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

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

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

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

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

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

Let me use an illustration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alrighty then - we are all up to Speed!

 

[fredtgreco]

I agree with your comments about the guys, Matt.

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

1.

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

AND

2.

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

I can agree with 1, but not with 2.

 

[Scott Bushey]

I believe we have NOW answered Adams question.

 

[AdamM]

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

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

 

[fredtgreco]

Adam,

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

 

[Arch2k]

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

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

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

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

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