According to Scripture, regeneration does not take place before belief. Consider the following passages:
John 3:15,16That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise.
Acts 16:30,31-And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Why do Calvinists insist that the new birth (regeneration) takes place before belief? Some, such as Authur Pink, rush to 2 Thess. 2:13-God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. The only problem is this- that verse is not giving the order of salvation. It is clear by the previous passages what the order is.
There are sincere Calvinists that use the phrase “Sola Scriptura” and attempt to live by it. Yet when is comes down to being confronted with clear passages of Scripture, they run to respected authors such as John Piper, John MacArthur, Authur Pink, and John Calvin to quote their works. Some run to confessions and creeds to back up the theory of Calvinism. The question I ask is this, “What happened to “Sola Scriptura?” If they really lived the motto, there would be no question about the order of regeneration and belief. Who is the final authority? Is it God, or man?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
From the get-go, know that I have no desire in discussing anything Calvinistic with you.
The following comments are merely for you to see where you've misunderstood a concept or said something blatantly non-Calvinistic.
As far as this post goes, I ask only one question for you to think about:
How can a corpse bring itself to life?
See...if you truly believe that we're dead in our sins, you would understand the impossibility of a man bringing himself to life and then choosing to be made alive.
Resist the urge to fight with me and just mull over this idea. The only defense presentable is that we're not all the way dead.
I don't buy it.
There...I just saved us from an argument.
:-)
If man is a corpse, how can he make good moral choices? If man is a corpse, how can he even reject God? That man is dead in sins is Biblical. That man is so dead that he cannot even respond to God is not. Where is the Scripture evidence that man cannot respond to God, please?
Jerry
In Eph 2:1, Paul writes "And you hath He quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins". The Greek word translated "dead" is "nekros" which, incidentally, means dead. I have heard of people being barely alive. However, I have never heard of anyone being barely dead. Therefore, when Paul wrote that we were dead in our sins and trespasses, he means that we were completely dead. Since we were completely dead, we cannot respond to God without having been made alive.
Thank you for the blog post and for giving me something to think about.
in Christ
I agree, Joe, that man is dead. But this is where there seems to be a problem. The Bible never places new life before faith. In fact it says the opposite in John 6:47, 11:25, 20:31, Romans 10:9 to name some. The Bible never says man cannot respond, but rather he is unwilling respond. Habakkuk 1:5, Isaiah 7:9, Matthew 18:16 etc.
Think about this- if man is the corspe Calvin called him, then God gives him life, why does he still battle the old corpse nature? Why don't Calvinist take the new life to the extreme they take the old life? I already raised points about a corpse doing good. There is no question that a corpse can made good choices in his state. But according to Calvinism, he cannot make a good choice to turn to God. The view of the corpse is inconsistant and not supported by Scripture.
It is customary to define critical terms before using them in a proposition. Considering the vastness of pneumatology, I can understand why you mistake regeneration for "eternal life" (John 3:15-16), "salvation" (Acts 16:30-31), or "sealing" of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13). These passages do not, however, refer to regeneration. "Re-" means again, "generate" means engender, i.e. to bring into being, with connotations referring to birth; hence the term "born again." This act of the Spirit finds its origin in the will of the Father (James 1:18) through the word of truth (also see 1 Peter 1:23). One must be born of God if one is to see the kingdom of God (John 3:3-8). It is through mercy we are regenerated (Titus 3:5), and does not find a basis in our will or actions (John 1:13, Romans 9:16, Titus 3:5). It is thusly described as monergistic.
But is regeneration effected by belief, or does it effect belief? 1 John 5:1a says " 1Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God..." Unfortunately, the English language doesn't capture the importance of the statement. On the face of it, you might say "See! Belief causes one to be born of God!" However, the reality is that the tense of the verb phrase "is born" is what is called "perfect passive," and "believeth" is "present participle." What this means is that by rules of syntax, the verb phrase "is born" must logically precede "belief." Now, this isn't to say there is a point in time we are spiritually reborn, but without faith. Rather, it means faith depends on whether or not we are born much in the same way justification depends on whether or not we have faith - one who has faith is justified, there is no temporal lapse. But justification depends on faith.
By the way, if you simply want contextual evidence, look no further than 1 John 2:29: "...ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him." Surely you realize we must first be spiritually reborn before we practice righteousness, right? The point is, this verse has the same syntax as 1 John 5:1, i.e. "practice righteousness" is a present participle, and "is born" is a perfect passive. How you translate the order of one is how you must translate the order of the other.
This is how Calvinists see regeneration. One who is spiritually dead cannot please God, but is rather hostile towards Him; he can't even subject himself to God (Romans 8:5-8). The man under sins power can't do good, righteous acts, he doesn't seek or understand God (Romans 3:9-12). How, then, does one come to faith? God must make the first step by drawing us to Him, effectually regenerating us to be willing. This is clearly found in John 6:37-45. The Father gives us to Jesus first, then we come. Clearly a logical progression. Not only that, but ALL of these the Father gives WILL come, and they will ALL be raised the last day. Unless you think Jesus failed to do the Father's will, that's how salvation works. The Father chooses, we come, and we stay.
I would recommend you read "Debating Calvinism." Dave Hunt made the same simple errors you have with regards to the meaning of regeneration. Mostly, though, I hope you pray about the topic, and I hope I cleared some things up for you. God's will be done. Amen.
We both agree on a lot of verses you quoted. Under the final section where you state how Calvinist see regeneration is where the fallacy of said statment is found.
"The man under sins power can't do good, righteous acts, he doesn't seek or understand God (Romans 3:9-12)." If man cannot do good, righteous acts, how do you explain Luke 11: 11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? God calls the gifts father's give children good. Certainly this is not applied only to the elect.
Also "One who is spiritually dead cannot please God, but is rather hostile towards Him; he can't even subject himself to God (Romans 8:5-8)."
The last statement is not found in the mentioned passage. Nowhere does the Bible mention that man cannot respond to God. As I stated earlier, it is the problem of not wanting to.
Your knowledge of the lanquage is evident, however the best reasoning that you gave was read into Scripture or refuted by other Scripture. Nowhere will you ,Calvin ,or Piper cite just one verse that proves it is man's inability to believe.
Post a Comment