The "Cannot" in Total Depravity

"whatever is not of faith is sin"

Romans 14: 23

"But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."

My ministerial friend, now deceased, Bob L. Ross of Pilgrim Publications, author of several scholarly books, had a blog titled "Calvinist Flyswatter," even though he was himself a Calvinist. In this blog he would swat the flies of extremism among many Calvinists, such as those who say that "regeneration precedes faith," or say that the word of God or the Gospel was no means in effecting regeneration, or who went to extremes in their views on the Calvinist doctrine of "total depravity" or "total inability." This is one reason why he loved Charles Spurgeon so much, for Spurgeon also was often swatting the flies of Hyper Calvinism. 

Many of these extreme Calvinists said that regeneration must precede faith because a totally depraved sinner has no ability to believe or repent and so must be given that ability via regeneration. The error in this line of argument, however, is in the failure to see that "without faith it is impossible to please God" and that "whatever is not of faith is sin." (Heb. 11: 6, Rom. 14:23) Faith is the ability. When faith is given the sinner then has the ability to please God. Before a person believes there is no power to believe. If a person were regenerated and yet had no faith in Christ, as some teach, he would still be unable to please God, would still be in the flesh, as Paul said:

"For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God." (Rom. 8: 6-8 nkjv)

As long as a person is an unbeliever he is under wrath (John 3: 36). If he is regenerated before he believes, then he is an odd character, being regenerated and yet under wrath. Until the mind becomes spiritually minded in faith, a person is "in the flesh." 

Also, depraved man's "cannot" is not physical but moral and spiritual. Many great Calvinists have insisted on this distinction. I have written several posts on this point and cited those Calvinists on this point, men such as Jonathan Edwards, A.W. Pink, A.A. Hodge, and others. Here are some sample citations:

A. W. Pink, a favorite author to read for many Hardshells, wrote (emphasis mine):

"Second, fallen man’s inability is moral, not physical or constitutional. Unless this is clearly perceived we shall be inclined to turn our impotence into an excuse or ground of self-extenuation. Man will be ready to say, "Even though I possess the requisite faculties for the discharge of my duty, if I am powerless I cannot be blamed for not doing it." A person who is paralyzed possesses all the members of his body, but he lacks the physical power to use them; and no one condemns him for his helplessness. It needs to be made plain that when the sinner is said to be morally and spiritually "without strength," his case is entirely different from that of one who is paralyzed physically. The normal or ordinary natural man is not without either mental or physical strength to use his talents. What he lacks is a good heart, a disposition to love and serve God, a desire to please Him; and for that lack he is justly blamable."

And,

"For the sake of those who desire additional insight on the relation of man’s inability to his responsibility, we feel we must further consider this difficult but important (perhaps to some, abstruse and dry) aspect of our subject. Light on it has come to us "here a little, there a little"; but it is our duty to share with others the measure of understanding vouchsafed us. We have sought to show that the problem we are wrestling with appears much less formidable when once the precise nature of man’s impotence is properly defined. It is due neither to the absence of requisite faculties for the performance of duty nor to any force from without which compels him to act contrary to his nature and inclinations. Instead, his bondage to sin is voluntary; he freely chooses the evil. Second, it is a moral inability, and not physical or constitutional."  ("The Doctrine of Man’s Impotence," Chapter 9-Affirmation, see here)

Jonathan Edwards, in his book "Freedom of the Will," SECTION IV., under the heading "Command and Obligation to Obedience, consistent with moral Inability to obey," wrote:

"What has been said of natural and moral Necessity, may serve to explain what is intended by natural and moral Inability. We are said to be naturally unable to do a thing, when we cannot do it if we will, because what is most commonly called nature does not allow of it, or because of some impeding defect or obstacle that is extrinsic to the will, either in the faculty of understanding, constitution of body, or external objects. Moral Inability consists not in any of these things; but either in the want of inclination, or the strength of a contrary inclination, or the want of sufficient motives in view, to induce and excite the act of the will, or the strength of apparent motives to the contrary. Or both these may be resolved into one; and it may be said in one word, that moral Inability consists in the opposition or want of inclination. For when a person is unable to will or choose such a thing, through a defect of motives, or prevalence of contrary motives, it is the same thing as his being unable through the want of an inclination. or the prevalence of a contrary inclination, in such circumstances, and under the influence of such views."

It must be noted how Edwards uses the term "natural" in the above words. He does not deny that the lack of inclination and disposition to obey God is "natural" in the sense that it is inbred in the soul, but he uses the term in the sense of what is "physical" or "constitutional."

Edwards continues:

"It cannot be truly said, according to the ordinary use of language, that a malicious man, let him be ever so malicious, cannot hold his hand from striking, or that he is not able to show his neighbor kindness; or that a drunkard, let his appetite be ever so strong, cannot keep the cup from his mouth. In the strictest propriety of speech, a man has a thing in his power, if he has it in his choice, or at his election: and a man cannot be truly said to be unable to do a thing, when he can do it if he will. It is improperly said, that a person cannot perform those external actions which are dependent on the act of the will, and which would be easily performed, if the act of the will were present. And if it be improperly said, that he cannot perform those external voluntary actions, which depend on the will, it is in some respect more improperly said, that he is unable to exert the acts of the will themselves; because it is more evidently false, with respect to these, that he cannot if he will: for to say so, is a downright contradiction: it is to say, he cannot will, if he does will. And in this case, not only is it true, that it is easy for a man to do the thing if he will, but the very willing is the doing; when once he has willed, the thing is performed; and nothing else remains to be done. Therefore, in these things to ascribe a non-performance to the want of power or ability, is not just; because the thing wanting is not a being able, but a being willing. There are faculties of mind, and capacity of nature, and every thing else sufficient, but a disposition: nothing is wanting but a will." (see here)

A. A. Hodge, in his "Outlines of Theology," wrote:

"16. What distinction is intended by the theological terms, natural and moral ability?

By natural ability was intended the possession, on the part of every responsible moral agent, whether holy or unholy, of all the natural faculties, as reason, conscience, free will, requisite to enable him to obey God s law. If any of these were absent, the agent would not be responsible. By moral ability was intended that inherent moral condition of these faculties, that righteous disposition of heart, requisite to the performance of duty. Although these terms have been often used by orthodox writers in a sense which to them expressed the truth, yet they have often been abused, and are not desirable. It is evidently an abuse of the word to say that sinners are naturally able, but morally unable, to obey the law; for that can be no ability which leaves the sinner, as the Scriptures declare, utterly unable either to think, feel, or act aright. Besides, the word “natural,” in the phrase “natural ability,” is used in an unusual sense, as opposite to moral; while in the usual sense of that word it is declared in Scripture that man is by nature, i.e., naturally, a child of wrath."  (A.A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, page 272, as cited in calvinandcalvinism.com, see here)

Andrew Fuller also argued the same.

Why can lost sinners not come to Christ? Or not believe in him or repent? Why can they not understand or receive the things of the Spirit? Why can they not please God? Why can they not hear the gospel? 

Does this "cannot" of dead sinners mean that they cannot understand what the words "thou shalt not kill" means? Does it mean that they cannot believe in the existence of God? 

Elder Gilbert Beebe, one of the leading elders who helped to create the "Old School" or "Primitive" Baptist church, in "WHAT IS THE GOSPEL AND TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED" from the "Signs of the Times" periodical (February 15, 1869) said: "To call on dead sinners to repent and believe the gospel implies ability in them to do so." That statement is a foundational principle of Pelagianism. Years ago when I wrote that Hardshellism was both Hyper Calvinism and also Pelagian in certain ways, one brother responded by saying that it was impossible for a person to be both. However, that is not true. One of the leading principles of Pelagianism is that any command of God implies ability to obey it, and if God commanded men to do what they could not do, then God would be cruel and unjust. 

In my post titled "An Example of Hardshell Pelagianism" (See here) I cited from the late Bob L. Ross of Pilgrim Publications and his book "History and Heresies of Hardshellism" who wrote:

"Pelagianism: What Is It?

What was to develop in the Anti-Mission movement, after the 1827 Kehukee Declaration and the 1832 Black Rock Address, was the subtle use of an old philosophy known as "PELAGIANISM." [For a study of Pelagianism, see B. B. Warfield's Two Studies in the History of Doctrine and Augustine's Anti-Pelagian Writings in the fifth volume of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series, Eerdmans' edition].

Pelagianism held that God bestowed on man the "capacity for his will and work" and that man's capacity, or ability, "come from God alone." This "capacity" was "implanted in us by God," according to Pelagius, a fifth century British monk after whom this school of thought is named. While Hardshellism is certainly not Pelagian on the matter of man's nature in relation to the effect of the Fall of Man, it has adorned the old Pelagian concept of "command implies ability" in a new garb, format, for "package." What Pelagianism says of man in his natural state, Hardshellism merely shifts to man in a supposed "regenerated" state, before faith.

CAMPBELLISM, the "twin" of the Hardshells, in essence also holds to Pelagianism and is more in line with pure Pelagianism on the natural state of man, as Campbellism denies inherited depravity. But Campbellism holds, in common with Hardshellism, the basic, practical theory of Pelagianism that "command implies ability."

In Pelagianism and Campbellism, man naturally has the capacity and ability from the Creator to do whatever is commanded, the fall of Adam notwithstanding. In Hardshellism, man is similarly endowed by God, but not naturally; according to Hardshellism, this ability is imparted in what they regard as "regeneration."

The practical application made by Hardshells of various commands, such as repentance and faith, is consistent with the Pelagian theory that the command implies the ability to fulfill the command."

"Logically, then, according to Hardshellism, the "dead alien sinner" is so disabled that he must have "life" implanted in him so as to capacitate the sinner with the ability to obey the commands. This is their rationale for denying that the Gospel is to be addressed to "dead alien sinners."

Hardshellism defends its theory on the grounds of carnal "logic" (see Sarrels' Systematic Theology, page 328). And on the grounds of purely physical logic, without a consideration for Divine Revelation, who can deny their "logic" that the "dead" must be made alive BEFORE they can give any evidence of life? Who denies that you won't get a "dead fish" to bite the bait?

"But -- if we incorporate Divine Revelation, as given in the Scriptures, are we shut up to the Hardshell version of Pelagianism? We trow not, for there are numerous instances of commands which do not imply ability. Also, command often is simply indicative of responsibility and divine purpose, and does not necessarily imply ability."

"The case of Ezekiel's "dry bones" in chapter 37 does not imply the ability of the bones to hear and respond to the preaching Ezekiel. Rather, the design of this scene is to focus on God's power resting upon or accompanying His Word.

The case of Lazarus' being commanded to "Come forth" from the dead did not imply ability in Lazarus (John 11). This case demonstrates that God's Word, accompanied by His efficient power, can raise the dead thru His command.

The case of the man with the withered hand being told to "stretch forth thine hand" did not imply ability on his part (Matt. 12:13). This again shows that God's power rests upon His Word and has creative results."

"The case of the Law as defining man's moral responsibility does not imply man's moral and spiritual ability to comply. Though man is fallen and is under the influence of his depravity, he is nonetheless responsible to be righteous."

"The exhortation for believers to "be perfect" as the Father in Heaven is perfect (Matt. 5:48) is a statement of our "standard," not a statement of ability."

"Illustrations such as this could be multiplied. They are contradictory to the Hardshell "logic" which is applied to Gospel-related commands. Based on numerous Scriptures which assert the "connection" between the Holy Spirit and the Word, the Gospel, and the Truth, the Power of God is upon His Revelation and it brings to pass His purpose (Isa. 55:11). God's commands become God's enablings under His own efficient power."

One minister who lived in the time of Gilbert Beebe and who opposed Beebe and his cohort Elder Samuel Trott, on several issues, such as on their denial of the eternal sonship of Christ and its connection with the Trinity, and on Two Seedism, and their ideas on regeneration, was Elder John Clark, founder and editor of Zion's Advocate periodical (begun in 1854). He wrote the following as cited by me in the same post where I cited from Ross:

"But some object and say, Why preach repentance to dead sinners? They can neither hear, see nor understand. That is true; that they hear not, see not, understand not, so far as the preacher is concerned or is able to effect them; but why did the prophet call upon the dry bones to hear the word of the Lord? He answered, “And I prophesied as I was commanded.” That was authority then for all who feared God, and it is still the authority for all such. This objection, however, will lie against all the exhortations and admonitions to the saints as it does against addresses to the ungodly, for the Christian has no more power than the unbeliever. The difference between them is not in the power, but in the will; as it written: "To will is present with me, but to perform that which is good I find not.”"

The theory that we must preach to men according to the power they possess to obey is sublimated Arminianism, and yet; the advocates of it are very fraid of being called Arminians. Christians know, however, by the word of his grace, and by the revelation of that word in their hearts, when it comes in power and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance, that Christ’s word is true which says, “Without me you can do nothing.” The Spirit takes the word of Christ and shows it to his people, and thus it is verified in the experience.

To preach to men upon the ground that they have power to do what is commanded, or to refuse to preach to them because they have not the power, shows that the confidence is in the flesh and not in God; that they depend upon the will of the flesh and not upon the power God, and that is the very essence, double refined, of Arminianism.

The minister of Christ does not preach to any class of men upon the consideration of their ability or inability. He has the sentence of death in himself, and therefore cannot trust in himself; and he has no confidence in the flesh of any other, but his confidence, his faith and hope, is in God, from whence alone are his expectations."

("What To Preach and How To Preach" Written by John Clark in Zion's Advocate--August 1875)

I have also shown in previous writings how the Hardshells make fools out of Jesus and other men of God for they preached to dead sinners who were totally depraved and unable to believe and repent apart from divine grace.

In this post (here) I cited from the late Elder Sonny Pyles who said the following in one of his sermons:

"It would be just as ridiculous to go down in  Virginia or Kentucky and start yelling at the rock and the mountains as it would be for me to preach the gospel to an alien sinner never born again of the Spirit of God."

"It would be just as foolish to go over to the shopping center, walk up to a brick wall and start saying "by grace are ye saved through faith" - and people would think I was a moron."

In response to this Hyper Calvinistic and Pelagian view I wrote the following:

Further, if it can be shown that Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles, preached the Gospel to alien sinners, will this not make them fools and heretics, using Sonny's criterion?  Did they preach to "brick walls" when they appealed to the hearts and minds of lost souls?  Sonny thinks so.  And, if so, then he must acknowledge this, reductio ad absurdum.  One or two things is true.  Either Christ preached to stony hearts (unregenerate) or he did not.  If he did, then Sonny must acknowledge that Christ did wrong, and was a fool, and that Christ was no Hardshell.

He must also say that it was foolish for God to tell Ezekiel to go and preach to the dry dead bones! He must also say that Ezekiel was a fool for doing so.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LVIII)

In the previous two chapters we began to look at what Elders S.F. Cayce and his son C.H. Cayce had to say about several tenets of Two Seedism. Let us begin this chapter by citing further from Elder C.H. Cayce and his editorial titled "Two-Seedism" from the April 30, 1912 issue of "The Primitive Baptist." Cayce wrote:

"The doctrine of eternal Two Seedism is that in the work which we call regeneration, an eternal child, or eternal spirit, comes down from God out of heaven and takes up its abode in the Adam man, and remains in the Adam man until the man dies; then that eternal child goes back to God where it came from, and the Adam man goes to the grave and remains there forever. Thus the Adam man is not a subject of salvation. It is also taught that there are two families in the flesh - that Cain was a child of the devil by ordinary generation, and that Seth was a child of God by ordinary generation - that there are two families existing in the flesh - the family of God and the family of the devil, and that these two families have continued to exist all along from then until now. This is their teaching, although we have not learned how the devil got his family across the flood. These are some of the teachings of the Two Seed system, which we think are enough to show that the system is false."

It is interesting to all historians of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists to notice that in the early part of the twentieth century that several tenets of Two Seedism were still being debated among them. In several posts of former years I have cited the following words from Elder Sylvester Hassell, written near the end of the nineteenth century:

"...the heathenish perversions of Scriptural truth set forth by Eld. Daniel Parker, of Tennessee, about 1835, in his pamphlet called "My Views on the Two Seeds," have corrupted Primitive Baptist doctrine more, and rent off more members and churches from our fellowship, than any and all other causes combined. In the census of 1890, the Two-Seed Baptists claim to have 333 churches and 9,932 members in 33 States, the largest membership being 2,019 in Texas, 1,270 in Tennessee, 1,230 in Arkansas, 965 in Kentucky, 840 in Mississippi, 668 in Missouri, 641 in West Virginia, 538 in Alabama, 330 in Georgia, and from 10 to 194 in each of 14 other States. (The entire number of Primitive Baptists in the United States is probably about 100,000.) I am glad to have evidences that, at least in some sections, there is a strong tendency among the Two-Seed Baptists to renounce all the Parkerite corruptions of truth, and to return to the simple faith of the gospel. May it please the God of Israel soon to dispossess all their minds of the blighting Satanic delusions with which their churches have been cursed for nearly sixty years."" (The Two Seed Heresy The Gospel Messenger--March 1894) 

"It would be impossible to tell how many changes and forms, each one inconsistent with itself, with the others, and with the Scriptures, Two-Seedism has assumed during that period."

Cayce in the above words gives a limited description of Two Seed tenets. What he says about Two Seedism is true as regards that segment of Two Seeders known as Two Seed in the Flesh Predestinarian Baptists though not Two Seed in the Spirit Predestinarian Baptists. Daniel Parker held the latter view, not believing that it was by physical generation or procreation that children of God or children of the Devil were produced, but by a spiritual generation through sin. Also note how there were still many Two Seed churches, said Hassell, at the end of the 19th century. He does not mention the fact, however, that even among his own fellowship of "Primitive Baptist" churches that there still remained many remnants of Two Seed ideology: And, as we will see further from the early 20th century writings of Cayce, there were still battles going on over Two Seed ideas.

In chapter twenty eight of this series I cited from history professor John G. Crowley and his book "Primitive Baptists of the Wiregrass South" (1999), who is himself a "Primitive Baptist," who said on page 133 of that book that one could still find Two-Seed doctrines expounded by today's "Primitive Baptists," "if one knows where to go and what to listen for." (page 133) We can see that in several ways, as we have seen. In the first couple decades of the twentieth century Elder Cayce is still having to deal with remnants of Two Seedism still existing within the denomination.

In an editorial titled "The New Birth" for the December 12, 1916 issue of "The Primitive Baptist," he wrote:

"The following article was written by Elder F. A. Chick, and was first published in the Primitive Monitor of February 15, 1890, and was copied on the editorial page of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of September 13, 1894. Elder R. W. Thompson was editor of the Monitor when the article appeared in that paper, and is still the editor of that paper. This article shows what position our father occupied at that time, and what this paper stood for then."

Apparently there were still debates going on in 1916 about whether Cayce, like others, held to some tenets of Two Seedism. Cayce denied any change of views and cites what was published by his father in the "Primitive Baptist" periodical for September 13, 1894 to prove it. He cites from the article by Elder Chick on one of the Two Seed tenets dealing with what is meant by "old man" and "new man" in the writings of the apostle Paul. In previous chapters we have seen what the Two Seeders believed about the significance of these terms, and how it was a hotly debated point. 

Chick wrote (emphasis mine):

"First, you ask me what I understand by the terms old man and new man."

"First, I desire to call attention to this one consideration, viz.: that the “new man” is not addressed and told to put off the old man, neither is the “old man” addressed and told to put on the new man. But Paul is addressing his brethren...And he says to these believing men and women that they should do this, or that have done this, viz.: have put off the old man and have put on the new. Here, if I may so speak, are three men instead of two. But, indeed, the expression, old man and new man, are simply figurative expressions for the two opposing principles which every believer finds dwelling in his own heart and waging ceaseless warfare there. We are not to suppose for a moment that the apostle means that we are to understand by these terms two fully developed men, with soul, body and spirit in each, and both dwelling in us, you and I, who constitute a third distinct man or woman. It seems to me that anyone who has the slightest acquaintance with the use of figures of speech would see at a glance that the apostle had no such meaning as this." 

I believe Chick is right in his interpretation. The "new man" is not an eternal child of God who was begotten in Christ from eternity, nor does it denote a part of a man that has been regenerated, nor is it anything implanted within a man. The "old man" is the person who is lost in sin and who is guided by his own understanding and by the world, having the world's values and beliefs about God and morality. The "new man" is the person who has been converted to Christ and who is guided by the Spirit and word of God and has Christ as his example.

In another editorial titled "The Inner and Outer Man AN OLD EDITORIAL" for the February 6, 1917 issue of his paper Cayce wrote:

"It has been charged that we have changed - that we are not advocating now what we advocated a few years ago. We publish the article below to show that we have not changed - that we believe now just exactly what we did when the following article was written by our father, Elder S. F. Cayce, and published in THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST of August 19, 1892. C. H. C. 

THE ARTICLE 

"The text which speaks of the children being partakers of flesh and blood will be found in (Hebrews 2:14)...The term, "partakers of flesh and blood," then, has no reference whatever to the work of regeneration nor to anything done at that time, but is only expressive of the kind of characters Jesus came to save - not eternal spirits, but sinners, "partakers of flesh and blood, those embraced in the covenant of grace and heirs according to promise..."

Recall what we observed about Hebrews 2: 14 and its interpretation by Elder Gilbert Beebe and how he thought that it taught that not only did Christ preexist before his incarnation, so too did the people of God preexist in Christ before their incarnation. Elder S.F. Cayce rightly rejects that view saying the text "is only expressive of the kind of characters Jesus came to save - not eternal spirits."

S.F. Cayce wrote further:

"Having shown that we understand this term, "partakers of flesh and blood," to be expressive of the kind of characters Jesus came to save, or of the condition His covenant people are in, or who they are, I will next give the three places in which Paul uses the expression "inner" or "inward" man, in one of which it will be observed that he also uses the term "outward" man, and of course the idea of such a term (outward or outer man) is conveyed in the other quotations also, as the inner or inward man is mentioned. "For I delight in the law of God after the inward man." (2) (Romans 7:22). "For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day." (II Corinthians 4:16). "That He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man." (Ephesians 3:16). A careful reading and examination of these verses, and their connection, will certainly show that Paul was referring to two natures, or two principles, possessed by the child of God, one of which he calls the inner or inward man and the other the outward man. Not that there are two persons (or men) dwelling in the body, it (the body) being only a hull or dwelling place for the two; that is not it at all. But the child of God, having been born of the flesh first, born of Adam, has a nature or principle about him that is of the flesh or of Adam, and this Paul calls the outer man, and as he has been born of God, born again, he has also another principle, nature, or disposition about him, which Paul calls the inner or inward man. Especially does the apostle make it plain in (Romans 7) (entire chapter) that this is what he means by the expressions, inner, or inward, man and outward man. Having been born of Adam and afterwards born of God, Paul, like all others who have been born again, was a complex being had a principle or disposition that was common to his nature as a child of Adam and also another principle or disposition that was the result of "being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever, are "by nature children of wrath, even as others."

I don't think that the "inner man" and the "outer man" denote the same thing as Paul's "old man" vs "new man." We have addressed this issue in previous chapters. In other words the "inner man" is not simply another title for "new man" and "outer man" is not simply another title for "old man." The following text makes this clear:

"Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day." (II Cor. 4: 16 nkjv)

Here it is clear that the "outward man" is the physical body that houses the soul and spirit. The "inward man" is the incorporeal part of man, denoting his soul and spirit. The term "old man" denotes the man who is unsaved, the man who was "shapen in iniquity" and "conceived in sin." (Psa. 51: 5) That old man is ruled by self, by Satan, by sin, and by the ungodly world. Paul described him as being "dead in tresspasses and sins" and who "walks according to the course of this world" and "according to the prince of the power of the air" and according to "the spirit that now works in the sons of disobedience" and who "conducts himself by the lusts of the flesh" and is governed by "the desires of the flesh and of the mind" and who is "by nature a child of wrath." (Eph. 2: 1-3 nkjv)

On the other hand, the new man is the man who now has Christ living in him and governing him, and who is steadily being conformed to the image of Christ. We addressed how these terms, old man and new man, are used and defined in scripture in chapters fourteen and fifteen. The "new man" is the ideal man, or "the perfect man," as exhibited in the man Christ Jesus. So Paul wrote:

"till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." (Eph. 4: 13 nkjv)

"Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me." (Phil. 3: 12 nkjv)

S. F. Cayce wrote further:

"All this shows that Paul not only calls that new principle or disposition which we receive in being born of God the new man, but he admonishes us to live after, or follow, its leadings or promptings and to keep in subjection the leadings or promptings of the old principle or disposition, the leadings of the outward man. And Peter also would teach the same lesson in his instruction to the sisters of the church, (Pet 3:3) (I Peter 3:3-4): Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price."

Blog News Update

My wife was recently hospitalized again for pneumonia. She is home now and over that. She has overcome pneumonia twice now. She is still battling chronic lung disease, having emphysema and a return of her cancer. She is getting infusions every three weeks for immunotherapy. She has not had any severe side effects and the last CT scan of her lungs showed that her cancer had decreased quite a bit. However, she is still degenerating and has spells where she can't breathe. She has increased her oxygen supply over the years and is now between 5 and 6 on her oxygen machine. Thanks to all who have prayed for her.

As for me, I too have serious health problems. I have had pulmonary fibrosis now for five years and so have outlived many who had this disease. My brother died a year ago from the same disease and had it for twelve years. I have learned that the longest anyone has lived with it is fifteen years. I had a heart attack in 2022 and had a heart stent put into my coronary artery. I take blood pressure medication because I have had very high blood pressure in the past. Over the past few months I have had severe headaches. I had a CT scan done a couple days ago of head and neck and the results showed no tumors or blood clots but did show some arterial plaque. 

I am planning to try to finish up some series. I have a few more chapters to write in my series on Two Seedism. I may add a few chapters to my series on Prevenient Grace. I also need to write on the Pale Horse of the Apocalypse, having written on the white, red, and black horses. I also want to finish my series on identifying the two witness prophets of the Apocalypse, showing that one of them is the apostle John. I also have some finishing chapters for my long series "God's Elect or World's Elite." Each of these series has its own blog and the links to them are on this blog. I also have several hundred drafts for articles and will be working on some of those. I want to write on the fall of the angels and on Genesis chapter six about the mating of the sons of God with the daughters of men and of the giant offspring from this union. 

Thanks for all your prayers and support. Over the past few months we have had over three hundred thousand page views on the blogs. We do not get many comments, however, though we used to get several. The Hardshells no longer make comments. Many of our readers are from other countries and perhaps this is the reason. We do have a translator for the blogs so that people can read posts in their own language. I pray regularly for all blog readers, asking God to bless those who read to be edified and taught truth. I regularly ask the Lord to correct me if I have erred in my interpretation of his word. I have also invited criticism and disagreement from those who read, so long as they keep their comments friendly. Many more write me e-mails than make public comments. I suspect that we have many followers who remain anonymous. 

Romans 5:12 and "Born in Sin"

Back in about 1992 I had a debate with Pat Donahue (we had several over the years) of the "Church of Christ" on the doctrine of "original sin" and whether all are born in sin. Pat has been sending me e-mails of some of his arguments he is still using with others in debate over this subject. Several of them have been on this issue. In his latest Donahue wrote:

""Born In Sin" Proponents’ Proof Texts Turn On Them: One of their primary proof texts in my “born in sin” debates is Romans 5:12. It is true the first part of the verse teaches sin was introduced into the world through Adam; we can read about that in Genesis 3; before Adam and Eve’s first sin, there was no sin in the world. But that has nothing to do with what is at issue. The second part of the verse has everything to do with it. It reads “death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned,” and proves conclusively the “born in sin” concept is dead wrong. According to Rom 5:12b, we don’t die spiritually because of Adam’s sin; each man spiritually dies because each man sins. We all die because of our own sin. “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” (Ezek 18:20a)."

From these words I see that Pat is still arguing that the "death" of Romans chapter five does not include physical death, but is strictly dealing with spiritual death. That is one of his errors. He has to take that position, which was the position of the heretic Pelagius, who said that physical death was a natural and inevitable part of biological life, not a punishment for Adam's sin. But, that view is very far removed from what the Bible teaches. Pat believes that the reason infants die in infancy is not because they are judged as guilty of Adam's sin. He believes they are born without sin, and therefore need no salvation. This error led him into many tight spots theologically. 

First, because he must exclude all who die in infancy or as small children from "the world" that Christ came to save, and yet he often defined "world" as the whole human race. So, when Paul speaks of "the world" being "guilty before God" (Rom. 3: 19) Pat says this is not the whole human race. When he argues against "limited atonement" or the idea that Christ did not die for all men he will mention texts such as I John 2: 2 where it is said that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the "whole world." In debate with him on this I mentioned how he himself limits the atonement and the meaning of "whole world" by excluding all who die in infancy.

Paul teaches that all human beings are born in sin and under guilt and condemnation as a result of Adam's sin, his sin being imputed to all his posterity, for they were all "in him" seminally and representatively. Paul also says that this paradigm operates in justification, that just as all who Adam represented sinned in him when he sinned, so all who Christ, the second Adam, represented were justified in him. Just as Adam's sin was imputed to his posterity, so Christ's righteousness is imputed to all the elect or all who he represented. In I Cor. 15: 22 Paul says "as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." This death cannot exclude physical death because physical death is what is focused upon in that chapter. 

The text in Romans five says "death passed upon all men for all have sinned." Death passes upon all human beings, including those who die as infant children, and so they must have sinned in some way, and that way was by sinning in Adam. Pat wants to say that infants die even though they are not sinners. He wants to say that "for all have sinned" means all have personally sinned, but that is a mistake. One proof of this is in Paul's words in II Cor. 5: 14 where he said: "if one died for all, then all died." That verse says that when Christ died, all he represented died in him. More on that shortly.

Simply put, Paul teaches in Romans chapter five that just as all who Adam represented are condemned and die by Adam's one act of disobedience, so all who Christ represented are justified and live by Christ's one act of obedience, and that as all have Adam's sin imputed to them so all have Christ's righteousness imputed to them. Pat's paradigm is different. He says that just as all are condemned as sinners and die by their own individual transgressions so all are justified and made righteous and live again by their own individual obedience and righteousness. Paul taught that we are condemned by the act of another and are justified by the act of another. Pat teaches that we are condemned by our own acts and are justified by our own acts. Two totally different paradigms. I'll take Paul's over Pat's.

Exegeting the Text

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned."

In Romans 5:12 Paul begins a long continuous comparison (known theologically as the "Adam-Christ typology"). The Protasis (The Condition/Action) is in verse twelve: "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man [Adam] and death through sin..." The Apodosis (Consequence) is in verse 18 where Paul says: "...so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men." Verses 13-17 are generally put in parenthesis by translators for good reason (although in the Bible there are no parentheses) because in those verses Paul offers explanatory comments about the protasis. 

Paul's design is to show how sinners are justified from sin by showing how they were made sinners and condemned, for he believes the modus operandi is the same in both cases. His thesis is: as all who were represented in Adam are condemned and die (both physically and spiritually) as a result of the one act of disobedience of that one man, so all who were represented in Christ the Second Adam are justified and made alive (both physically and spiritually) as a result of the one act of obedience of the one man Christ.

He also says that though the modus operandi is comparable in regard to the way all come under condemnation through Adam's transgression and come to be justified through Christ's righteousness, yet he also points out areas where they are not exactly the same, and is why he says "But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many." (vs. 15) The dissimilarity is seen in the fact that what Christ accomplished by his obedience does "much more" good than what evil consequences Adam's disobedience brought to pass. Paul also points out some other dissimilarities in verses 16-17 when he wrote:

"And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ."

Again, the good that comes from what Christ did far exceeds the evil that comes from what Adam did. But, the similarities are the focus. After all, Paul's thesis is that "Adam is a figure of him who was to come" i.e. Christ. Now let us read the words without the parentheses.

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous." (vs. 12, 18-19)

Notice the words "as" and "even so" and "as" and "so also." Notice also the fact that it is the one sin of the one man that brings death, condemnation, and guilt, and which constitutes all men as sinners. Likewise it is the one righteous act of the one man that brings life and justification and constitutes all believers as righteous.

Pat Donahue's interpretation, and that of his "Church of Christ" brethren, is that Romans chapter five simply tells us the fact that all men are condemned and die by Adam's sin but not how they come to be condemned by that sin. After saying this they will then say that all die because all imitate Adam by personally sinning and it is by imitating Adam that they become sinners. But, if that is true, then we must say that all live again and are justified by imitating Christ. Or, to express it another way, people are condemned by their own acts of disobedience and are saved and justified by their own acts of obedience. But, this imitation view is incorrect for several reasons.

First, Paul says that many die as a result of Adam's sin who did not sin as Adam did. Said he:

"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam."

Pat's view is that death reigns over those only who sinned like Adam.

Second, such a view destroy's Paul's purpose and design, which is to demonstrate that just as people are condemned because of what someone else did (Adam), so people are justified because of what someone else did (Christ, the second Adam). 

Third, Paul says it is by the disobedience of one man that all are made sinners, but Pat's view is that it is by two men's sins that a person is made a sinner, by Adam's sin and the individual's sin. Likewise, Paul says it is by the obedience of one man that any are made righteous, but Pat's view is that it is by the obedient acts of two that a person is made righteous, by the obedience of Christ and by the obedience of that person. 

Fourth, Pat says that Adam simply showed us how to sin and be condemned thereby, and says that Christ simply showed us how to do right and be justified thereby. So, just as we are not condemned by what Adam did, so we are not saved by what Christ did.

Fifth, Pat's view that "all men" who die as a result of Adam's sin are really not all human beings, for he does not believe that physical death is a result of sin, and though many die in infancy it is not because they are sinners, for they are not sinners and need no salvation. So, he does not believe that "all men" means "every human being." Yet, if you debate him on the extent of the atonement, he will say "all men" and "whole world" means "every human being." That being so, he thereby admits that Christ died for those who die in infancy and that fact destroys his idea that infants are not born in sin, for Christ died for sinners. If "all humans have sinned" then this would include infants. But, many infants die without having committed any sin. So, the only way they could have sinned is by sinning in Adam, their representative or proxy.

Sixth, Pat's view denies that a person can be said to have acted in the person of another. He denies that when Adam sinned that all his posterity sinned in him. Yet we read: "And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham." (Heb. 7: 9) If Levi can pay tithes in Abraham, then people may sin in Adam. Further, scriptures plainly say that when Christ died, every believer died, and when he was resurrected, every believer was resurrected. (II Cor. 5: 14; Eph. 2: 4-7) Further, Paul says: "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." (I Cor. 15: 22) Also, as said before, this is in the context of physical death and resurrection. "In Adam" means all who were represented in Adam and who sinned and died when Adam sinned. Likewise, "in Christ" means all who were represented in Christ and who were punished in Christ as their substitute.

Seventh, the Bible says that "all are under sin" and "all have sinned." (Rom. 3: 9, 23) In the same context the apostle says "all the world" is "guilty before God." (Vs. 19) He also said: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom. 6: 23) If we say, as Pat does, that the death of this text excludes physical death, then the "eternal life" of the text must exclude the physical body. Hebrews 9: 27 says that "man" (all human beings) have been "appointed" to die and then after death comes "the judgment." This cannot be spiritual death to the exclusion of physical death. "After that" means "after dying physically." It cannot mean "after dying spiritually." And, the appointment to death is by God and for sin. Further, Paul wrote: 

"So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law." (I Cor. 15: 54-56 kjv)

These verses plainly show that physical death is a penalty for sin. Anyone therefore who dies, or is dying, is a sinner. Therefore, infants, since they often die in infancy, die because they are condemned by the sin of Adam. "This corruptible" means "this corruptible body"; And, "this mortal" means "this mortal body." The "death" therefore of the text is physical death. This is further confirmed by the fact that we see the word "grave" in the text. Further, when the text says "the sting of death is sin" he shows that the death of the body is because of sin. Paul also wrote: "And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." (Rom. 8: 10 kjv) Many commentators agree that by "the body" Paul means the physical body. Paul is saying that since Christ is in the believer's spirit and soul, they have eternal life and will never die, but the physical body will still die, and that "because of sin" yet remaining in the body till the resurrection.

Eighth, we are not our own saviors. If we are damned only by our own sins, then we are saved only by our own righteousness. The scriptures however teach that we do what we do because of what we are. We commit personal sins because we are born in sin and under condemnation and we work righteousness because we have been born again in righteousness and are justified. 

Ninth, it cannot be that Adam is the cause of all being sinners because he showed people how to sin and people follow his example for most sin who know nothing about Adam. It cannot therefore be said that Adam's sin made all men sinners by all men imitating him.

Tenth, if all men are born innocent and pure of sin, it seems as though some would not imitate Adam and sin. The fact that all men sin shows that there is a universal cause bringing about that effect. 

Eleventh, in Romans 5: 15 Paul says it is by the "trespass of one that the many died" and not "many are dying" (linear present tense/action). "Many died" is a Greek aorist indicative which almost universally refers to a past event. The same construction is in II Cor. 5: 14 (which I alluded to previously) where Paul says "if one died for all, then all died." "Died" is also aorist indicative in both cases, in "the one" (Christ) who "died" in the past and the "all" he represented in his death also died when he died. Pat's view, the Pelagian view, does not allow that all men died when Adam sinned and was pronounced dead nor does it allow for the fact that when Christ died all those he represented died.

Twelve, the text plainly says that the one sin of the one man was "unto condemnation" (vs. 16, 18), but Pat's Pelagian view says that Adam's sin was only unto his own individual condemnation. In verse nineteen Paul says - "by the disobedience of the one man the many were constituted (made) sinners." The Greek word "κατεστάθησαν" may be translated as appointed, constituted, or made. It is also an aorist passive verb and this goes against the view of Pat for if people are made sinners by their own acts, an active verb would be used and not a passive verb. 

I suggest that Pat read the excellent commentary on Romans 5: 12-21 by Dr. Charles Hodge (here).

Consequences of "Regeneration Before Faith"

There are only two places in the Bible where the word "regeneration" occurs. Here they are:

"And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matt. 19: 28 kjv)

"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; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3: 5-7 kjv)

With few exceptions, nearly all Bible teachers and scholars agree that in the first passage Jesus speaks not of individual regeneration when a sinner is saved, but refers to the regeneration of the creation that will bring about new heavens and earth. This is what is described in these verses:

"Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began." (Acts 3: 19-21 nkjv)

"For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now." (Rom. 8: 20-22 nkjv) 

The second text above in Titus is agreed by all to be a reference to the initial salvation of a believer. That being so, is there anything in that text that indicates that the "washing of regeneration" occurs prior to faith or evangelical conversion? "No" is clearly the right answer. In the passage the words "saved," "renewed," "washed," and "justified" are used to describe what accompanies regeneration. All these follow faith in Christ as the rest of the Bible says. For instance, Paul says: *"for by grace are you saved through faith." (Eph. 2: 8) The same apostle says that sinners are "justified by faith in Christ Jesus." (Rom. 5: 1; Gal. 2: 16; etc.) The apostle Peter in the Jerusalem council wrote: "So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." (Acts 15: 8-9 nkjv) 

*The passage in Ephesians is talking about being "quickened" (made alive spiritually) with all the other things that occur in conjunction with it. (verse one) But, those who say people are regenerated before faith must deny that the salvation of verse eight is talking about regeneration or quickening and are forced to say that the salvation of that text is a salvation that comes after initial salvation, to final salvation. They do this, not because the context warrants this, but because their man-made proposition forces them to do so. 

Further, the Bible plainly says that Christ is received by faith, that people enter into Christ by faith, that union with Christ is by faith. (Eph. 3:17; John 1: 12; 14: 23) In several posts in the past I have used the following texts to prove that people enter into Christ by faith.

"And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and is believing on him (eis-unto him), may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:40)

"Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye may be believing on him (eis-unto him) whom He hath sent." (John 6:29)

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that is believing on (eis, unto) Me is having everlasting life. I am that bread of life." (John 6:47-48)

Another text that clearly affirms this truth is this:

"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me." (Rev. 3: 20 nkjv)

In my recent post "Union With Christ By Faith" (here) I cited Dr. A.H. Strong who correctly said:

"...because faith, and not repentance or love or hope is the medium or instrument by which we receive Christ and are united to him."

I also cited from the catechisms of the 1647 Westminster Presbyterian Confession and the 1689 London Baptist Confession of faith, which both said:

Q. 34. How does the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?

A. The Spirit applies to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling. 

Those Calvinists who affirm that regeneration precedes faith do not believe these older Calvinist confessions. They believe that Christ enters a sinner's heart and unites himself with the sinner before the sinner comes to faith in Christ, before the sinner "receives" Christ or the Holy Spirit. Some of them will try to say that sinners receive Christ and the Spirit passively. However, the Greek word for "receive" is nearly always in the active voice, not in the passive voice. Paul plainly says that the Spirit is received by faith in these words:

"This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?...that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." (Gal. 3: 2,14 nkjv)

The same apostle said:

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." (Rom. 8: 9 kjv) 

So, in order to become one of Christ's sheep, one of the children of God, or to be born again, a sinner must receive Christ and the Spirit. Christ and the Spirit are received by faith. Ergo, faith precedes regeneration.

How do sinners "become partakers of Christ"? (Heb. 3: 14 nkjv) It is by receiving Christ, and receiving Christ occurs when a sinner believes or trusts in Christ for salvation. (John 1: 12: 6: 65)

John Gill on Hebrews 3:14 makes a most bewildering statement, saying -- "The phrase is expressive of union to Christ, which is not by faith on man's part, and by the Spirit on Christ's part." 

But how can he deny that Christ is received by faith seeing this is so plainly stated in so many places in scripture? John 1:12 clearly says that "to as many as received him, to them gave he power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name." Here we see that receiving occurs in believing and that being made children of God by spiritual birth follows that receiving. If sinners receive Christ by faith, then they did not possess him before faith, and therefore were not spiritually alive or regenerated before faith. The apostle John said -- "whoever has (possesses) the Son has life" and "whoever does not have the Son of God does not have eternal life." (John 5: 12) 

In commenting upon Ephesians 3: 17 and the apostle's statement that Christ dwells in hearts by faith Gill wrote the following:

"...the means by which he dwells is faith; which is not the bond of union to Christ, nor the cause of his being and dwelling in the hearts of his people; but is the instrument or means by which they receive him, and retain him, and by which they have communion with him..."

Again, I find this bewildering. It really does show that Gill had Hyper Calvinistic tendencies. The above comments by this eminent theologian are unworthy of his level of intelligence. He contradicts himself in those few words. He denies that faith is the bond of union that believers have with Christ but then says that faith is the means by which Christ dwells in them. He says faith is the means by which Christ dwells in believers and then says faith is not the cause of his dwelling in them! If it is a means then it is an instrumental cause, and he even admits that faith is the means or instrument by which they receive Christ.

In commenting upon Galatians 3: 2 and receiving the Spirit by faith, Gill wrote (emphasis mine):

"...received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? This question supposes they had received the Spirit; that is, the Spirit of God, as a spirit of wisdom and knowledge in the revelation of Christ; as a spirit of regeneration and sanctification...for by "faith", is meant the Gospel, and particularly the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ's righteousness; and by "the hearing" of it, the preaching of it, the report of it, Isaiah 53:1 which, in the Hebrew text, is "our hearing", that by which the Gospel is heard and understood. Now in this way the Spirit of God is received; while the Gospel is preaching he falls on them that hear it, conveys himself into their hearts, and begets them again by the word of truth..."

I find this commentary likewise stunning. Gill, unlike the Hyper Calvinists who deny means in regeneration, believes that sinners are regenerated or born again by means of the gospel. But, here he seems to suggest that the Gospel regenerates a man before he believes the gospel. That is absolutely absurd. So Abraham Booth (1734-1806), another leading Calvinist, wrote:

"Regeneration must precede faith. This, though assumed as a certain fact:, may be justly doubted: for the page of inspiration does not warrant our supposing, that any one is born of God, before he believes in Jesus Christ; or, that regeneration is effected by the Holy Spirit, without the word of grace." ("Glad Tidings to Perishing Sinners," page 122) 

Gill also even says that the Spirit that is received by the hearing of faith is "a spirit of regeneration"! Consider also what Romans 1: 16 affirms. It says that "the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes." The gospel does not save or regenerate before it is believed.

In his commentary on Galatians 3: 14 and Paul's statement that sinners receive the promise of the Spirit through faith Gill wrote:

"...that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith...by "the promise of the Spirit" may be meant, either by an "hypallage", the Spirit of promise, who opens and applies the promises; or the Spirit promised, not as a spirit of regeneration, conversion, and faith; for, as such, he cannot be received by faith; Since, antecedent to his being so, there can be no faith; but rather as a spirit of adoption, in respect to which he is said to be received, Romans 8:15..." 

Here he makes verse fourteen of Galatians chapter three to contradict verse two of the same chapter! Further, why did he not simply give the same interpretation as in verse two? The plain reading of both passages, however, says that the Spirit is received by faith, and this includes a "spirit of regeneration."

When the writer of Hebrews says that believers have been made "partakers of Christ" he adds these words: "if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end."

By these words we see that "the beginning" of the Christian life, the beginning point when a person becomes joined to Christ and partakes of him, begins with a "confidence" in Christ, and this word entails faith and trust. Faith and confidence in Christ is what initiated union with Christ and it is what preserves that union. And, true faith, faith begotten of God, faith that is a fruit or product of the Spirit of God, will remain steadfast to the end. So the apostle John affirmed when he wrote:

"For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith. Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?" (I John 5: 4-5 nkjv)

"We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him." (vs. 18)

In my post titled "John Skepp and John Gill" I cited from Skepp's book "Divine Energy or the Operations of the Spirit of God upon the soul of man in his effectual calling and conversion, stated, proved, and vindicated ... being an antidote against the Pelagian error." (See here) Skepp was in the presbytery that ordained Gill to the ministry. In that post I also cited from Hanserd Knollys (1598-1691) who was instrumental in the conversion of Skepp. Here are some excerpts from Skepp on how faith is the way sinners are united to Christ and converted (regenerated).

In commenting upon Rev. 3: 20 Knollys wrote:

"If any man hear my voice, and open the door.] That is in the Ministry of the Word, and open the door of his heart, by a willing consent to accept his offers of Grace upon Gospel-Terms. [I will come in to him, and will sup with him and he with me.] This is a great encouragement unto them to answer his earnest desire, and gracious Invitation to open their Hearts, and to admit him entrance, by promising them, First, Union with him; [I will come in to him.] Secondly, Communion with him; [and sup with him, and he with me.] By supping together, we may understand the mutual fellowship between Christ and their Souls, in the sacred Ordinances of God, 1 John 1. 3."  (Hanserd Knollys, An Exposition of the Whole Book of the Revelation (London, 1689), p. 59–60)

"Thus faith, by the affections, carries the soul forth to Christ. But, besides this, it has Fourth act, and that is to receive Christ, according to that text, To as many as received him, to them he gave 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," John i. 12, 13. And again, As ye have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him," Coloss. ii. 6."  (pg. 52)

"Fifth place, faith has another distinct act peculiar to it, as justifying and saving; and that is, believing on him, by trusting in, and relying on him called also leaning, staying, and committing the soul to him by the way of dependance as giving itself wholly up to him, both as King and Saviour and so it is an act of the heart, soul, or whole man yet principally it is here an act of the will and this may be called the perfecting and completing act forasmuch as now, and not before, the act of faith, as it deals with Christ for life, and ventures on him for salvation, is completed and perfected and this is that act which is properly the uniting act of faith, whereby the soul, giving itself up with full consent, is now united to Christ in the conjugal tie, or marriage-union because now the soul, as the damsel in marriage, gives itself up to, and joins heart and spirit with the Lord: and as in marriage, new union and relation commences, whereby two are made one flesh so in this act of faith, the soul joins itself to the Lord, so as to be one spirit," Cor. vi. 17- And here we are to distinguish between spiritual vital union, which is the Spirit's act upon the soul; and this conjugal union which is effected only by faith. And so likewise, as to new covenant-interest, the first part of the title arises out of that grace, that was settled upon all the elect, by way of covenant, as Grace was given us in Christ before the world began," Tim. 1. and the purchased title, which Christ, by his death, procured for all his these also are distinct and prior to this marriage, interest, and title but as jointure, though promised, agreed to, and sealed before marriage, yet takes not place in due form of law, until the couple are actually married, even so the believing soul's manifestative and declared right and interest in these covenant-blessings and privileges, are now justly said to commence and take place, as in due form of law even as our Lord has declared, "that he who believeth is passed from death to life," John v. 24 for now it is, that, as in marriage, the condition or state is actually changed, and all conjugal relation and interest begin and the soul, who is thus joined to the Lord, has just and undoubted open right and claim to all the blessings of the new covenant."  (pg. 53-54)

Further Consequences of the Born Again Before Faith Error

One error leads to another. This is true in this ordo salutis debate also. I have a separate blog devoted to the ordo salutis debate. (See here)

1. The view that says that in regeneration or initial salvation the sinner is entirely passive led to affirming that regeneration precedes faith.

2. The view that says a biblical command or imperative implies ability to obey the command led to the view that regeneration precedes faith.

3. The view that says regeneration precedes faith led to a denial that the gospel or word of God is a means in regeneration.

4. The view that says regeneration precedes faith led to Hyper Calvinism and the belief that only those who show signs of regeneration are commanded to believe and repent.

5. The view that says regeneration precedes faith led to a denial that unregenerate sinners are offered salvation by the gospel.

6. The view that says regeneration precedes faith led to Hardshellism, the most extreme form of Hyper Calvinism, and to their view that people may be regenerated and know not God nor Christ, but remain polytheists.

7. The view that says regeneration precedes faith led to the idea that regeneration precedes justification, logically and chronologically, which is the Catholic view, but not the biblical or historic Calvinist view. It has this order: passive regeneration, faith, justification. 

8. Since regeneration entails sanctification, and it precedes faith, and since faith precedes justification, therefore the regeneration before faith view leads to the Catholic view that sanctification precedes justification.

Broad vs. Restricted Regeneration

Many Calvinists today, especially those who are Hyper Calvinists, or who lean much in that direction, have done much harm by their coming to redefine biblical "regeneration" in a narrow, highly restricted, or limited manner, so as to exclude evangelical conversion. This they do when they say that sinners are "regenerated or born again before faith," or before conversion. The older Calvinists, however, did not do this, but saw biblical regeneration or rebirth as including conversion. I have many posts on this point wherein I give witness to this by many scholars of historic Calvinism. Truly in this debate the devil is in the definition.

I take the view that initial salvation, whether it be called salvation, quickening, resurrecting, regenerating, renewing, re-creating, rebirth, washed, forgiven, justified, sanctified, converted, etc., is talking about what occurs when a person believes in Jesus Christ and accepts his teachings, and repents of his sins, which is what we generally call conversion. When the apostles wrote in their letters about the salvation of those believers to whom they addressed, they all refered to what took place when they were converted, when they believed and repented. They do not view regeneration as something that took place before believers were converted. All the references to initial salvation in the Bible describe it in terms of conversion. I challenge anyone to prove this is not so.

Some of my Calvinists brothers who believe in the "born again before faith" error say that regeneration is one side of the coin of salvation and conversion is the other side. But, this analogy totally divorces one from the other. Further, which side has justification? Forgiveness? Sanctification? Union with Christ? Etc.?

The idea that "regeneration" is defined in scripture as excluding conversion is totally unfounded. No one is regenerated till he has been converted, before he has believed and repented, before he has been united to Christ by receiving him, or by his entering into Christ and by Christ entering him. These things occur together. It would be ridiculous to say that my wife was joined to me in marriage before I was joined to her in that union. Yet, this is what those who teach that sinners are born again or regenerated before faith are forced to believe. They are also forced to deny that the Bible teaches that union with Christ is by faith.

My blogs are filled with scripture references that show that a sinner is united to Christ, or enters into Christ, when he receives Christ or believes in Christ. Marriage is one of the ways the Bible writers use to illustrate this union. Becoming members of Christ's body is also another way. Another way is by eating Christ's body and drinking his blood, for Christ is the living bread and whoever eats that bread by faith, by believing and mentally feasting upon him, becomes one with him. Water baptism is a picture of our entering into Christ (Rom. 6: 1-4) and the Lord's Supper (Communion) is a picture of Christ entering into those who believe in him. The "regenerated before faith" view must say that a person enters into Christ, and Christ enters into a person, before he partakes of Christ, before he is joined in marriage to Christ.  

I have shown in many articles how it was a later invention among Calvinists with Hyper Calvinistic tendencies who narrowed the definition of regeneration so that it excluded evangelical faith and repentance (i.e. conversion). See for instance "Regeneration - Broad and Narrow?" (here). In another article in my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" titled "Chpt. 111 - Mediate or Immediate?" (here) I cited from Dr. Archibald Alexander, a Calvinist, who wrote:

"Evangelical repentance, conversion and regeneration, are substantially the same. They all signify a thorough change of views, affections, purposes and conduct; and this change is every where declared to be essential to salvation."

This is the historic or original view of the Reformers and Calvinists of the sixteenth century and is what is stated in their oldest confessions of faith. It was the view of John Calvin. In that chapter I gave many citations that the reader is encouraged to review. In it I made this comment about the first Calvinists of the Reformation:

"They all taught that scripture did not distinguish between regeneration and conversion."

I gave some examples from Calvinists who admit this fact. I cited from Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) and his writing "The Work of the Holy Spirit," wherein he promoted the "regenerated before faith" error. In section XXIII of chapter four, on "Regeneration and Faith," Kuyper's views are stated. He wrote (emphasis mine):

"We answer: The Holy Spirit may perform this work in the sinner's heart before, during, or after the preaching of the Word. The inward call may be associated with the outward call, or it may follow it. But that which precedes the inward call, viz., the opening of the deaf ear, so that it may be heard, is not dependent upon the preaching of the Word; and therefore may precede the preaching."

"If I designate the whole conscious work of grace from conversion until death, "regeneration," without any regard to its mysterious background, then I may and must say with the Confession (article 24): "That this faith, being wrought in man by the hearing of the Word, and the operation of the Holy Spirit, doth regenerate him and make him a new man."

"Hence God's work of grace runs through these three successive stages:

1st. Regeneration in its first stage, when the Lord plants the new life in the dead heart.
2d. Regeneration in its second stage, when the new-born man comes to conversion.
3d. Regeneration in its third stage, when conversion merges into sanctification.

"Describing it still more closely, we say that in the first stage of regeneration, that of quickening, God works without means; in the second stage, that of conversion, He employs means, viz., the preaching of the Word; and in the third stage, that of sanctification, He uses means in addition to ourselves, whom He uses as means."

By "the confession" he means the Belgic Confession (1561). You can read Kuyper's work (here). The citations are from chapter twenty one titled "Regeneration the Work of God." 

We see how accepting the proposition that "regeneration or rebirth precedes faith" leads to the denial that the word of God or preaching of the gospel is a means in regeneration. This is what Kuyper affirmed in the above citation and in taking that position he admits that it is not the traditional or Orthodox view of the Calvinist or Reformed faith and its confessions.

Abraham Booth (1734-1806), another leading Calvinist, wrote:

"Regeneration must precede faith. This, though assumed as a certain fact:, may be justly doubted: for the page of inspiration does not warrant our supposing, that any one is born of God, before he believes in Jesus Christ; or, that regeneration is effected by the Holy Spirit, without the word of grace." ("Glad Tidings to Perishing Sinners," page 122) 

This is quite logical. If it is true that sinners are born again by the word of God (I Peter 1: 23, etc.), then obviously it can only be such by believing it, for it would be absurd to say that it regenerated a person who rejected it.

Dr. W.G.T. Shedd, a leading Calvinist with Hyper Calvinist leanings, agreed with Kuyper. Shedd in his Dogmatic Theology wrote (emphasis mine):

"The Holy Spirit employs means in conviction, in conversion, and in sanctification but not in regeneration. The appointed means of grace are the Word, the sacraments, and prayer. None of these means are used in the instant of regeneration, first because regeneration is instantaneous, and therefore there is not time to use them, secondly because regeneration is a direct operation of the Holy Spirit upon the human spirit." (Vol 2, page 506)

Since the view that affirms "regeneration before faith" leads to, or entails, a denial of the word of God as a means in regeneration, we can overthrow that view by showing that the scriptures teach that regeneration is effected by such means. These scriptures do teach means, as the older Calvinists taught:

"Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever...Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached unto you." (I Peter 1: 22-23, 25 nkjv)

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." (James 1: 18 kjv)

"For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." (I Cor. 4: 15 nkjv)

In my article "PaedoBaptist Shedd on Regeneration & Means" (here) I cited from Shedd as follows.

In "Various Uses of the Term Regeneration"  (See here) Shedd wrote (emphasis mine):

"The term regeneration has been used in a wide and in a restricted sense. It may signify the whole process of salvation, including the preparatory work of conviction and the concluding work of sanctification. Or it may denote only the imparting of spiritual life in the new birth, excluding the preparatory and concluding processes. The Romish church regards regeneration as comprehending everything in the transition from a state of condemnation on earth to a state of salvation in heaven and confounds justification with sanctification. The Lutheran doctrine, stated in the apology for the Augsburg Confession and in the Formula of Concord, employs regeneration in the wide meaning, but distinguishes carefully between justification and sanctification. In the Reformed church, the term regeneration was also employed in the wide signification. Like the Lutheran, while carefully distinguishing between justification and sanctification, the Reformed theologian brought under the term regeneration everything that pertains to the development as well as to the origination of the new spiritual life. Regeneration thus included not only the new birth, but all that issues from it. It comprised the converting acts of faith and repentance and also the whole struggle with indwelling sin in progressive sanctification." 

"This wide use of the term passed into English theology. The divines of the seventeenth century very generally do not distinguish between regeneration and conversion, but employ the two as synonyms. Owen does this continually (On the Spirit 3.5), and Charnock likewise (Attributes, Practical Atheism). The Westminster Creed does not use the term regeneration. Instead of it, it employs the term vocation or effectual calling. This comprises the entire work of the Holy Spirit in the application of redemption. Under it belongs everything pertaining to the process of salvation, from the first step of conviction of sin to the act of saving faith in Jesus Christ (cf. Fisher, On the Catechism)."

So, Shedd admits that it was not the original view of Calvin or the first Calvinists of the Reformation to deny means in regeneration nor to see regeneration as distinct from evangelical conversion.

Dr. Louis Berkhof (1873-1957), well known biblical scholar, of the Dutch Reformed faith, wrote the following (emphasis mine):

"The word 'regeneration' is not always used in the same sense. Our Confession uses it in a broad sense, as including even conversion. At present it has a more restricted meaning." ("Calling and Regeneration" - See here)

Why did the older Calvinists and their confessions say that regeneration includes conversion? Is it not because they saw that this was how the Bible defined or explained it?

He also wrote:

"Several seventeenth century authors fail to distinguish between regeneration and conversion, and use the two terms interchangeably, treating of what we now call regeneration under vocation or effectual calling. The Canons of Dort also use the two words synonymously, and the Belgic Confession seems to speak of regeneration in an even wider sense. This comprehensive use of the term "regeneration" often led to confusion and to the disregard of very necessary distinctions." 

So, why did they not distinguish regeneration from conversion? Is it not because they saw, as I do, that in the scriptures regeneration was a sinner's evangelical conversion, the result of his faith? Did not Calvin say that sinners are born again by faith? Did he not say that regeneration was by faith? See these posts where I give citations from Calvin and others which show this to be true: (here, here, here).

Berkhof continued:

"For instance, while regeneration and conversion were identified, regeneration was yet declared to be monergistic, in spite of the fact that in conversion man certainly co-operates. The distinction between regeneration and justification had already become clearer, but it gradually became necessary and customary also to employ the term "regeneration" in a more restricted sense. Turretin defines two kinds of conversion: first, a "habitual" or passive conversion, the production of a disposition or habit of the soul, which, he remarks, might better be called "regeneration"; and, secondly, an "actual" or "active" conversion, in which this implanted habit or disposition becomes active in faith and repentance. In present day Reformed theology the word "regeneration" is generally used in a more restricted sense, as a designation of that divine act by which the sinner is endowed with new spiritual life, and by which the principle of that new life is first called into action. So conceived, it includes both the "begetting again" and the "new birth," in which the new life becomes manifest. In strict harmony, however, with the literal meaning of the word "regeneration" the term is sometimes employed in an even more limited sense, to denote simply the implanting of the new life in the soul, apart from the first manifestations of this life." (See THE USE OF THE TERM "REGENERATION" IN THEOLOGY - here)

"DEFINITION OF REGENERATION. From what was said in the preceding respecting the present use of the word "regeneration," it follows that regeneration may be defined in two ways. In the strictest sense of the word we may say: Regeneration is that act of God by which the principle of the new life is implanted in man, and the governing disposition of the soul is made holy. But in order to include the idea of the new birth as well as that of the "begetting again," it will be necessary to complement the definition with the following words. . ."and the first holy exercise of this new disposition is secured."

This view makes a distinction between being "regenerated" and being "born again." This is what many believe, affirming that spiritual birth is exactly like physical birth. Physical birth has three distinct stages. First there is implanting of the seed and its germination in the female womb (or egg), then there is a living human being and a period of time spent developing in the womb, and finally a deliverance from the womb or birth proper. The three stage model of birth, as in the Old Regular or Primitive Baptists of the 19th century, saw birth as a process that included (as it also does in natural birth) three stages. Under this view (also held in modern times by men such as A.W. Pink) the planting of the seed is regeneration, the time in the womb is the time spent under conviction of sin, and the time of delivery (emergence) from the womb is birth proper. I have written on this view in several articles. This post (here) is one example and where I give several citations from those who espoused it.

However, many of those Calvinists who believe that regeneration precedes faith will say that regeneration and rebirth are the same. So they will affirm that not only is regeneration before faith but rebirth of the Spirit is also before faith. This is what they argue from I John 5: 1, saying that the text says that people believe in Christ after having been born of God. Of course, that is not what the text is saying. See my posts on that text here and here. 

Many of those Calvinists who affirm that regeneration or rebirth precedes faith and conversion will agree that this was a view that was developed by later Calvinists and will say that its restricted definition helped to make things clearer. But, that is a mistake. Rather, I firmly believe, it made things less clear and produced much confusion and was a departure not only from Calvin and the older Calvinists but was a departure from what the scriptures teach. It certainly led to a denial that the gospel and word of God was a means in effecting regeneration or rebirth. It also led to Hyper Calvinism and to the idea that the gospel is not to be addressed to the unregenerate and that offers of salvation are not to be given to all men in preaching. This is what the Hardshell Baptists teach. It also led them to say that heathen, pagans, and believers in many false gods, may nevertheless be regenerated and born of the Spirit!

In the Bible conversion and regeneration are the same experience. I would encourage the reader to view this blog (here) where I have most of my articles on the ordo salutis. I deal with all the arguments of those who argue for "regeneration before faith" and I give scriptural arguments against that view. 

Another error that the regeneration before faith view led to was that they then taught that regeneration (which includes sanctification) logically precedes justification. But, this creates all kinds of difficulty, and is the view of the Catholics. I have written many posts on this difficulty also. The ordo salutis blog also has many articles dealing with this difficulty. See this post (here) as an example.