Problems in Divorcing Conversion From Regeneration (7)

Next, Dr. James White addresses the question as to whether the great Catholic apologist, Thomas Aquinas (died 1274), taught the born again before faith view. He begins by saying:

"I will be brief here as I’m not usually in the habit of defending Thomas Aquinas. But to say that he did not hold to regeneration preceding faith is not correct. The following citations are from the First Part of Book Two, Question 113 of his Summa Theologica.

In Article 8, he stated that the “infusion of grace” is the cause and “naturally prior” to “whatever is required” for justification.

On the contrary, The cause is naturally prior to its effect. Now the infusion of grace is the cause of whatever is required for the justification of the ungodly, as stated above (Article [7]). Therefore it is naturally prior to it."

Surely White knows that Aquinas believed that regeneration occurred in water baptism, just as Augustine. Aquinas in Summa Theologiae, Second Part, "Question 66. The sacrament of Baptism," wrote (emphasis mine):

"He also sets down two things as pertaining to the ultimate reality of the sacrament—namely, “regeneration” which refers to the fact that man by being baptized begins the new life of righteousness; and “enlightenment,” which refers especially to faith, by which man receives spiritual life, according to Habakkuk 2 (Hebrews 10:38; cf. Habakkuk 2:4): “But (My) just man lives by faith”; and Baptism is a sort of protestation of faith; whence it is called the “Sacrament of Faith.”" 

Notice that Aquinas says that it is by faith that a man receives spiritual life and in baptism regeneration occurs. So, for White or Sproul to say that Aquinas taught that sinners are regenerated or born again before faith or baptism is false. Just because Aquinas says that grace is infused before a sinner wills to be saved does not mean that the infusion of grace was regeneration, but it was what preceded an eventual regeneration. Aquinas also believed that when Jesus spoke of being born again "of water and of Spirit" (John 3:5) that the water was baptism and he also believed that "the washing of regeneration" (Titus 3:5) denoted being regenerated in water baptism.

In Question 68 Aquinas wrote the following about being born of water is a reference to water baptism:

"On the contrary, It is written (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Again it is stated in De Eccl. Dogm. xli, that "we believe the way of salvation to be open to those only who are baptized."

And he also wrote:

"But for this end is Baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be incorporated in Christ, by becoming His member: wherefore it is written (Galatians 3:27): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ." Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men."

Here are plain statements that show that Aquinas did not believe that regeneration or rebirth precedes faith. So, when White tries to read into Aquinas his view (that regeneration precedes faith) from the fact that Aquinas says grace must be given or infused prior to faith, or prior to willing to be saved, he is misinterpreting Aquinas.

Aquinas also wrote in the same section:

"Reply to Objection 1. At no time, not even before the coming of Christ, could men be saved unless they became members of Christ: because, as it is written (Acts 4:12), "there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." But before Christ's coming, men were incorporated in Christ by faith in His future coming: of which faith circumcision was the "seal," as the Apostle calls it (Romans 4:11): whereas before circumcision was instituted, men were incorporated in Christ by "faith alone," as Gregory says (Moral. iv), together with the offering of sacrifices, by means of which the Fathers of old made profession of their faith. Again, since Christ's coming, men are incorporated in Christ by faith; according to Ephesians 3:17: "That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts."" 

Could anything be more clear? Incorporation into Christ occurs in regeneration, and Aquinas says this incorporation into Christ occurs after faith. A person is not joined to Christ, is not "in Christ," before he believes or receives Christ by faith. 

White wrote further in his commentary on things Aquinas said:

"Following this, he then stated that God’s part “is the infusion of grace” – which is turning man’s free will towards God. Aquinas is speaking of “order” here – the first in line is the infusion of grace and then man’s faith. Now the motion of God the Mover is the infusion of grace, as stated above (Article [6]); the movement or disposition of the moved is the free-will’s double movement; and the term or end of the movement is the remission of sin, as stated above (Article [6]). Hence in their natural order the first in the justification of the ungodly is the infusion of grace; the second is the free-will’s movement towards God."

So, how do the words of Aquinas affirm regeneration before faith? And, if they did, would that not contradict what he plainly said in the citations I gave above? Further, if I understand Aquinas rightly, he does say that God first moves the will, but he also says that the sinner's "free will" also is a mover, so that it is both wills acting together ("double movement") that bring remission of sin and all that is connected with it.

White wrote further:

"If we go back to Article 6, as referenced above, we see that grace is the cause of man’s will leading to faith. 

"The entire justification of the ungodly consists as to its origin in the infusion of grace. For it is by grace that free-will is moved and sin is remitted."

But, for White's inference from the words of Aquinas (in red) to be proof that he believed in regeneration before faith, you would have to have good reason to believe that by "infusion of grace" Aquinas means regeneration. Where is the evidence that this is what Aquinas meant? I have already cited texts like Acts 18:27 where we are told of people who had "believed through grace." That does not equate, however, to mean "believed through the grace of regeneration." White is reading his interpretation into the words of Aquinas. White and Sproul have it in their minds that the first giving of grace to a person has to be regeneration, that there can be no pre-regeneration grace. But, that is an error, and one that Calvin and the old Calvinist Reformers did not believe. I have already shown where Aquinas believed in prevenient grace, grace that precedes salvation.

Dr. Sproul in his article "Regeneration Precedes Faith" (see here) said (emphasis mine):

"No man has the power to raise himself from spiritual death. Divine assistance is necessary. This grace, according to Rome, comes in the form of what is called prevenient grace. "Prevenient" means that which comes from something else. Rome adds to this prevenient grace the requirement that we must "cooperate with it and assent to it" before it can take hold in our hearts." 

Where is the proof that the great apologist for Catholicism disagreed with that? 

White wrote further:

"Then, going back to Article 8 we see that this infusion leading to our wills having faith and our sins remitted relate to God’s justification. In all of it, “grace is the cause of the forgiveness of sin and of obtaining of justice”.

"And since the infusion of grace and the remission of sin regard God Who justifies, hence in the order of nature the infusion of grace is prior to the freeing from sin. But if we look at what is on the part of the man justified, it is the other way about, since in the order of nature the being freed from sin is prior to the obtaining of justifying grace. Or it may be said that the term “whence” of justification is sin; and the term “whereto” is justice; and that grace is the cause of the forgiveness of sin and of obtaining of justice."

(emphasis by Dr. White)

So again, I ask, how does admission that grace precedes faith (as Acts 18: 27 also plainly says) by Aquinas prove that he believed regeneration preceded faith? All Arminians admit that grace precedes faith, but they do not mean that they believe regeneration precedes faith.  

White wrote further:

"And lastly, from his comments on 2 Corinthians 3:3, Aquinas wrote the following. Men’s hearts were “made receptive as a result of filling and understanding”, and then he quoted Ezekiel 36:26.

"It is written not with ink, I say, but with the Spirit of the living God, i.e., by the Holy Spirit, by whom you live and by whose teaching you have been instructed: “In whom you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit” (Eph. 1:13). He suggests where it is written, when he says, not on tablets of stone, as the Old Law, to exclude hardness; as if to say: not in the stony hearts of the hard-hearted, as the Jews: “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit” (Ac. 7:51); but on tablets of human hearts, i.e., hearts opened by charity, and human, i.e., made receptive as a result of filling and understanding: “I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh” (Ez. 36:26)." (emphasis by Dr. White)

Again, these words do not mean what White thinks they mean. Aquinas quotes Ephesians 1:13 which says that being "sealed with the promised Holy Spirit" occurs "after you believed." I also suggest that the writing that God does on the tables of the heart is not done apart from faith. Do we not read in the Bible where God exhorts people to write his word upon their hearts and minds? (Prov. 3: 3; 7:3) The bible is clear that the benefits of the new covenant are received by grace through faith, and having God's word written on the tablet of the heart is one of those benefits. This is the clear message of the Book of Hebrews.

White concludes by saying:

"We have read how Augustine, The Council of Orange, and Aquinas each were relating their belief that the infusion of Grace that we receive prior to coming to faith is an active and effectual infusion leading to “all men gladly assenting”. All who received this infusion of Grace through the removal of the heart of stone would then have faith. Certainly the most compelling statements we have read above were those of Augustine where he clearly established his belief that there must first be an act of regeneration (the turning of the heart from stone to flesh) before a man can come to faith. But Augustine’s clarity may be the most detrimental to Dr. Allen’s assertion here because it is Augustinianism that is a chief villain in this story Dr. Allen is presenting."

I don't believe that Augustine, Aquinas, nor the Council canons of Orange, said that all who receive grace would become believers, nor that they said that the heart of stone must first be removed before faith is possible. White is misinterpreting those people and twisting what those men meant. If Augustine, as White affirms, "clearly established his belief that there must first be an act of regeneration before a man can have faith," why can White not simply give us where Augustine said that? I have already shown where he said just the opposite. I suggest that White not only reads his view into the writings of the men we have been examining, but he also reads his born again before faith view into the sacred writings. But, more on that in the chapters to follow.

When I did a Google search asking the question - "who taught the regeneration before faith view prior to Calvin" I got the response from AI that said both Augustine and Aquinas. Why was that? I then responded to AI and said - "both Augustine and Aquinas did not believe regeneration preceded faith." AI responded by saying "you are right." The only source AI had for the incorrect view was R.C. Sproul! AI said:

"You are completely correct, and that is an important historical correction. Neither Augustine nor Thomas Aquinas taught that "regeneration precedes faith" in the way modern Reformed theology defines it. The claim that they did is a well-known historical misnomer, largely popularized by modern Reformed theologians like R.C. Sproul. Sproul famously wrote that "Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin...and even Thomas Aquinas" taught that regeneration precedes faith. However, church historians and historical theologians have heavily criticized this reading for anachronistically imposing a later Calvinist framework onto early and medieval church fathers."

AI gives as sources the following: 1) the article I have been critiquing from Sproul "Regeneration Precedes Faith," (here) and 2) the article from Daniel Musick "Faith Precedes Regeneration" (here), and 3) an article from Sproul "The New Birth" (here), and 4) an excellent article from Derek DeMars "Does Regeneration Precede Faith? Examining the Evidence." (here)

The two articles from Musick and DeMars completely refute the born again before faith view and show that this was not the view of Augustine, Aquinas, and the first Calvinist Reformers. The article by Musick was a great help to me in writing these first several chapters in this series. Also, I just read the article by DeMars and I also found it a very good article, expressing my own views generally. Let me cite from some things DeMars said in that article. All emphasis mine, except where words are in red.

“Regeneration precedes faith!” This statement has become a popular slogan among some contemporary Calvinist Christians. It summarizes the theological view that before anyone is able to put their faith in Jesus for salvation, they have to have already been spiritually born again (or regenerated) by a prior work of God within them. Then, and only then, are they capable of exercising faith."

"I’ll explain all this below. But at the start, let me just say to everyone reading this that if you personally lean more Calvinistic, this post is not intended as a tearing-down of Calvinism in general. Please keep in mind from the outset what I just wrote: most Calvinists throughout history have not taught or believed that “regeneration precedes faith!” It’s actually important for you to know that this doctrine is not essential for a Calvinist theological system. And, as I will seek to show below, it is also not biblical."

"For a systematic treatment of this topic by two modern Calvinists who conclude that regeneration does NOT precede faith, see Bruce Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, 264-65, and Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed., 944-59. For much of the below, I’m indebted to the discussion in David Allen, “Does Regeneration Precede Faith?” JBTM 11:2 (Fall 2014)."

"So Where Did This Doctrine Come From? Not only is the Bible against it, but church history also stands against the false notion of regeneration preceding faith. Prior to the Reformation, no one saw this idea taught in Scripture. Even after the Reformation, it was the view of only a small minority. None of the major classical theologians taught it — neither Augustine, nor the early church councils, nor Aquinas. Not even such figureheads of Calvinism as Calvin himself, Beza, Edwards, or Spurgeon taught it! (See Allen, “Does Regeneration Precede Faith?” 48-51.)"

"In other words, the idea that regeneration precedes faith does not come from the clear exegesis of Scripture, nor is it accepted Christian tradition. Rather, it is read into Scripture by a small minority of extreme Calvinists who want the Bible to support their system. It is eisegesis. And it is false."

"Concluding Thoughts. So, here’s the takeaway. If you’re a Calvinist, you could still argue that individual election and an effectual calling precede both faith and regeneration. You can argue from verses like Rom 8:28-30 or 1 Cor 1:26-31 that God effectually and irresistibly calls those whom he has unconditionally elected, and that the effectual call produces faith within the elect so that they can then be saved/regenerated. In that sense, God would still be granting the elect their faith. Non-Calvinists will debate that interpretation and deny the notion of an irresistible call, but you’d at least have a case to present. But don’t say the Bible teaches that regeneration precedes faith. It doesn’t."

"If you're not a Calvinist, don’t let anyone confuse you by throwing a bunch of verses around out of context and trying to say that regeneration precedes faith. Christians can still affirm the reality of spiritual death and our inability to save ourselves without thereby having to deny any human moral agency in salvation."

"And for all of us, remember that one thing we can all agree on is that salvation is by God’s grace through faith. Keep in mind that we are all simply trying to make sense out of how it is that God’s grace saves us, and how it “is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph 2:8-9)."

Amen

Problems in Divorcing Conversion From Regeneration (6)

Dr. James White

Next on "The Council of Orange" Dr. White wrote further in his reply (here) to Dr. David Allen (emphasis mine): 

"Dr. Allen also stated that the Council of Orange (529 AD) did not argue that regeneration preceded faith. But let’s look at a few statements in the Canons. In Canon 5, specifically, we read the affirmation that the Holy Spirit has already begun to ensure that our regeneration and faith will happen because of the actions taking place to allow us to have faith."

If the men who were assembled in the Council of Orange believed as Sproul and White, why did they simply not say "regeneration precedes faith"? Caesarius of Arles (c. 469–542 AD), Bishop of Arles, led the council and he was a man who believed as Augustine. He, like Augustine, believed that people are not saved until baptism. From one of his sermons he said: "Indeed, before our baptism we were sanctuaries of the devil; but after our baptism we merited the privilege of being temples of Christ." (As cited here; emphasis mine) So, White cannot read into what the canons of the council say about the works and graces of God that precede faith and baptism to equate with the tenet that regeneration precedes faith. 

Surely White, like most "Reformed" or Calvinist theologians, believe not only in common grace but in common operations of the Spirit. If so, then his argumentation is invalid. Simply because the canons of the Council spoke of grace preceding and the Spirit operating on dead sinners does not equate to them believing that regeneration precedes faith. So we read where Stephen in his preaching said the following to such sinners: “You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you." (Acts 7: 51 nkjv) We also read where they "rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit." (Isa. 63: 10 nkjv) We also read where God's spirit was "striving with" unregenerate sinners of the antediluvian age. (Gen. 6: 3) 

Professor A. A. Hodge (1823-1886) of Princeton University in "The Westminster Confession: A Commentary" (1870) wrote: "3. That the sole agent in this effectual calling is the Holy Ghost; that He uses Gospel truth as His instrument; and that, while all sinners are active in resisting the common influences of grace before regeneration..." (pp. 170–171, emphasis mine)  You can find this citation available on Monergism.com, a web page dedicated to promoting the born again before faith view. 

Certainly God the Father draws and teaches sinners before they come to Jesus for life and salvation. (John 6: 44-45) It is also the gracious granting of the Father that is the cause of sinners coming to Christ in faith. (vs. 65) So, one can believe that the drawing, teaching, gifting, illuminating of the Father precedes coming to Christ or before regeneration. Augustine, as I have stated, believed in prevenient grace, and like the Puritan Calvinists believed that there were preparations that preceded a sinner being born again. 

As I have said, those who put regeneration before faith push the experience of regeneration back too far and this has created many theological problems. For instance, they must say that conviction of sin must follow regeneration rather than precede it. If they admit that conviction of sin and realization of need for salvation through Christ precedes regeneration, then they overthrow their idea that whatever act God first does towards saving a sinner = regeneration. In chapter four of this series I cited from Stephen Charnock (1628-1680) who said: "The soul must be beaten down by conviction before it be raised up by regeneration; There must be some apprehensions of the necessity of it." John Owen also has said the same. In "Pneumatologia" (1674) he wrote (emphasis mine):

"First, in reference to the work of regeneration itself, positively considered, we may observe that ordinarily there are certain previous and preparatory works, or workings in and upon the souls of men, that are antecedent and dispositive to regeneration. Yet regeneration does not consist in them, nor can it be educed out of them." 

That is what the canons of the Council of Orange was saying and for White to interpret them as affirming that they believed that the first operation of the Spirit upon the hearts of sinners = regeneration is a case of his reading into their words his own theology. If the attendees of the Council really believed as White, they would have simply said "regeneration precedes faith."

White wrote further:

"The Council of Orange made a firm stand that we cannot even begin to have faith without “infusion” or “inspiration” of the Holy Spirit. This is not merely some type of prevenient grace – it is effective." 

To this comment I repeat what I have already said. You cannot say that a person believes in regeneration before faith by that person believing that the Spirit operates on the hearts of dead alien sinners. Where do the canons say that every person who has the Spirit operating on them is immediately regenerated by that operation? The scriptures I cited above show this idea is false. Further, the Council was echoing the views of Augustine who did believe in prevenient grace, which grace is effective in the case of the elect but not so in the case of those not chosen to salvation. 

White wrote further:

"In Canon 3, we read that it’s God’s grace which makes us pray." 

Yes, but all grace is not saving grace. Grace does precede regeneration. The first Calvinists of the Reformation all taught this. The Puritans, men such as William Ames, William Perkins, John Owen, Stephen Charnock, all believed in preparations leading up to being saved or regenerated. They believed in a Calvinistic paradigm of prevenient grace. Also, the words "God's grace makes us pray" does not equal "God's grace makes us regenerate and then makes us pray." 

White wrote further:

"Canon 4 says that our will to be cleansed from sin comes from the Holy Spirit." 

That statement is true, but how does that mean that the several canons were intended to mean regeneration precedes faith? Again, that is eisegesis. Who is the "our"? If it is saved people, then it cannot be used as proof of the born again before faith view. If it is unsaved people, then it cannot mean that the people desiring cleansing were already regenerated, for regeneration involves cleansing ("the washing of regeneration") and why would they pray for such cleansing if they were already clean? 

White wrote further:

"Finally, Canon 7 is basically the definition of total depravity – man cannot “make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life” unless through the infusion of the Holy Spirit our hearts are illuminated." 

Notice White's saying "is basically." I have already called attention to how White, in citing from the words of the Council would say "in other words" Augustine taught that regeneration precedes faith. This is White's attempt to misrepresent or misinterpret the words of Augustine and the authors of the Canons of the Council of Orange. The above words cannot be interpreted to mean that the authors believed that regeneration precedes faith. First of all, they put making the right choice as an act of the sinner which occurs before salvation. But, White believes that regeneration involves no acts of the sinner, no choice to be saved or to obtain eternal life. That is not what the above canon states.

Does illumination precede regeneration or follow it? Is a sinner totally passive in being illuminated? Do we define illumination (or enlightenment) by the cause (the Spirit or word of God) to the exclusion of the effect? If we do then we have a person illuminated before he is actually illuminated, which is nonsense.

White wrote further:

"And lest we wish to accuse The Council of Orange of universalism, they stated that the Holy Spirit “makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth”. In other words, “all men” who have been illumined by the Holy Spirit will then have faith. This, my friends, is regeneration."

When White says "this, my friends, is regeneration" and "in other words" he is again reading his views into the text of the canon. Further, I don't think that it is a Bible teaching that only saved people have been illuminated. I believe that White, like Sproul, believes that those described in Hebrews 6: 4-6 were not ever truly regenerated believers and yet one of the things said of them is that they were "enlightened" and "made partakers of the Holy Ghost." So, that overthrows what he said above. Every saved person has been enlightened but not every enlightened person has been saved. In describing false Christians in Hebrews chapter ten we read: "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins." (vs. 26) Peter in his second epistle speaks of the same false brethren as having "escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" and who "have known the way of righteousness" (vs. 20-21). I feel certain that what the canon cited simply says is that all those who have been illuminated by the Holy Spirit can credit the Lord for it.

White wrote further citing the following canons and made few comments on them but simply put in bold letters the parts he believed taught that regeneration precedes faith:

"CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism-if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles..."

"CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit…"

How can White say that the canons teach that regeneration precedes faith when in Canon five they plainly say "the regeneration of holy baptism"? Any honest person should see that the canons affirmed that both faith and baptism precedes regeneration. Canon seven also speaks of eternal life coming as a result of making the right choice. They say salvation is a result of choosing to be saved by Christ. Most Christians agree and is why they sing - "Oh happy day that fixed my choice on thee my Savior and my God!" "Happy Happy Day when Jesus washed my sins away!" Yes, we can only credit God and his gracious working for our thus choosing, as Paul said - "for it is God who works in you to will and to do of his good pleasure." (Phil. 2:13)

White then makes this conclusion:

"It is very common for Dr. Allen to assert that a historical figure or document said one thing but then to find out that it’s actually condemning Allen’s belief."

I find that highly ironic and comical because it is White, like Sproul, who does what he accuses Allen of doing!

In the next chapter we will finish our look at Dr. White's proof that Aquinas believed that regeneration precedes faith. After that we will proceed to examine the several problems that arise from asserting that regeneration is distinct from evangelical conversion, problems that I enumerated in the first chapter of this series. 

Problems in Divorcing Conversion From Regeneration (5)

In the previous chapter I showed where the late Dr. R.C. Sproul misrepresented the facts about the leading Calvinists of the sixteenth century as it relates to what they believed about the ordo salutis. In chapter four of this series I cited these words of Sproul:

"When I began to wrestle with the Professor's argument, I was surprised to learn that his strange-sounding teaching was not novel. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield - even the great medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas taught this doctrine...Aquinas insisted that regenerating grace is operative grace, not cooperative grace. Aquinas spoke of prevenient grace, but he spoke of a grace that comes before faith, which is regeneration."

In another place Sproul also said (emphasis mine):

"The Reformers taught not only that regeneration does precede faith but also it must precede faith. Because of the moral bondage of the unregenerate sinner, he cannot have faith until he is changed internally by the operative, monergistic work of the Holy Spirit. Faith is regeneration’s fruit, not its cause." ("Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will," pages 23)

I have shown this claim to be false. I have cited from several of the leading Reformers, such as John Calvin himself, Theodore Beza, Heinrich Bullinger, the Belgic and French Calvinist confessions, etc. I feel certain that Sproul knew this. So why did he say what he said? I believe he was playing the role of a Sophist who uses false tactics to win a debate. He gives a false narrative, a willful misrepresentation of what the first Reformers believed on the ordo salutis. As we will see, Dr. James White, another fervent apologist for the born again before faith view, makes the same baseless claims as did Sproul. 

In this chapter I want to begin by showing that Dr. James White has similarly done what Sproul did in giving a false narrative and interpretation of the views of certain Calvinistic theologians of the past, and also of some others who it is contended also believed their view. I stated that this is a common thing with those of that view. It is very common with the Hardshell "Primitive Baptists," who agree with White, as I have shown in many posts. They too will give a false interpretation of the writings of great Baptists of the past. 

In my series "Reviewing Ivey's Work" (beginning in August, 2011; See the archives) I showed the falsities of Elder Michael Ivey, who wrote a "revisionist history" in his book  "A Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptist Faith and Practice" (1994). He would quote from old Baptists of the past and then reinterpret what they said to make it appear that they agreed with his Hardshell tenets, one of which is to say that sinners are regenerated before and without faith. He did this with the writings of Elders John Clark and Obadiah Holmes, the elders of the first (or possibly the 2nd) Baptist church in America. Ivey wrote the following at the beginning of that work:

"This work relies upon distinctions of primitive and reformed doctrine to identify groups. Specifically, Baptists which believed in election and predestination, and also believed that a saving faith is imparted prior to actual new birth in regeneration, I identify as holding to reformed theology." (as cited in the first chapter of my series; See here)

He also wrote:

"In 1638 primitive doctrine was the doctrine of Dr. John Clarke, pastor of Newport Baptist Church in Rhode Island, the first Baptist church constituted in America. It was also believed by the Separate Baptists led by Shubal Stearns and Daniel Marshall according to their statement of belief in 1758."

Of course, I showed where Clark and his associate, Elder Holmes, did not believe sinners were born again before faith, and did actually believe that the gospel or word of God was a means thereunto, a tenet denied by the Hyper Calvinist Hardshells. Not only did Elders Clark and Holmes not believe as the Hardshells but neither did Shubal Stearns and Daniel Marshall. It is ironic that Ivey would say - "Sometimes histories were written with a polemic attitude, to indict some group or defend oneself"! That is because he does this very thing, and is what Sproul and White are also doing. In my post titled "John Clark & Obadiah Holmes Hardshells?" (See here) I show how Ivey tries to make Clark and Holmes to say what they did not say.

In that post I cited from "The Last Will and Testimony of Obadiah Holmes" where Holmes gives article twenty-three of the confession of the church in Newport, wherein both Clark and Holmes affirmed the following:

"I believe that although God can bring men to Christ and cause them to believe in Him for life, yet He has appointed an ordinary way to effect that great work of faith which is by means of sending a ministry into the world to publish repentance to the sinner and salvation, and that by Jesus Christ. They that are faithful shall save their own souls and some that hear them."

In article twenty-nine of Holme's confession, we read:

"I believe that as God prepared a begetting ministry, even so does He also prepare a feeding ministry in the church, who are a people called out of the world by the word and Spirit of the Lord, assembling themselves together in a holy brotherhood, continuing in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, breaking bread and prayer."

Thus it was a blatant falsehood, unworthy of a Christian historian, for Ivey to say:

"From Elder Holmes confession of faith it may be concluded he held firmly to the doctrines of sovereign grace. Not only so, but his theology is best described as primitive, rather than reformed. Elder Holmes was not a Calvinist."

He tried to say that Clark and Holmes did not believe the gospel was a means in regeneration and did not believe that faith preceded regeneration, nor that it was even necessary for salvation, even though the writings of both clearly show otherwise. Sproul and White do the same thing when they speak of the Reformers agreeing with them on the ordo salutis.

Dr. James White, another apologist for the born again before faith view, which is surely Hyper Calvinistic, also wrote affirming that men such as Augustine and the Reformers that, we spoke about in the previous chapter, believed that regeneration preceded faith. You can read White's argumentation in proof of his assertion (here). His polemic is titled "Augustine, Aquinas, and The Council of Orange: A response to David Allen" and he begins with the following citation from Dr. Allen's book "Liberating Romans from Reformed Captivity" where Allen wrote:

"However, a historical look reveals that prior to the Reformation, no one in church history appears to have argued for regeneration preceding faith—not Augustine,[444] not the Council of Orange,[445] and not Aquinas.[446]"

I think Allen is right, meaning that finding people in the Christian community who believed and wrote their view that regeneration precedes faith is scarce or non-existent. There may have been people who believed it but we have no historical evidence to demonstrate it. As I stated in the previous chapter those of the born again before faith view want others to believe that this has been the view of the church throughout history and was the view of Calvin, Luther, and other Predestinarians of the Reformation (16th century). That is, of course, a false narrative, a misrepresentation, a revisionist history. I showed in the previous chapter that Calvin, Luther, Beza, Bullinger, etc. did not believe that sinners were born again before faith but were born again by faith. There are many others I could have cited also. This blog and my Baptist Gadfly blog are full of such citations from Calvinists who believed as did Calvin.

White wrote the following under the sub-heading "David Allen’s definition of “regeneration” (emphasis mine):

"In the Fall 2014 edition of the “Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry”, Dr. Allen gave a brief, definitional statement of “regeneration”. He stated:

Part of what it means to be “dead” is to be unbelieving. How can one have a new heart (regeneration) apart from faith? Here, Dr. Allen says that regeneration is when we “have a new heart”.

This, of course, calls to mind passages like Ezekiel 11:19 and Ezekiel 36:26. Having this understanding that having a new heart is synonymous with regeneration, let us proceed."

Why would Dr. White find fault with the statement that the dead, unregenerate heart is a heart of unbelief? I find that bewildering and stunning, and revealing also. Allen is right in his affirmation that the new heart is a believing heart. Obviously White does not believe this, and so he must believe that the new heart is a "heart of unbelief." (Heb. 3: 12) After all, that is why he constantly affirms that regeneration (getting a new heart) PRECEDES faith. Logically, therefore, a regenerated or new heart remains a heart of unbelief.

White said further:

"In his work On The Predestination of the Saints, after 2 chapters of preliminaries written back to Prosper and Hilary, Augustine wrote what he “ought first to show”. And that was that faith is the gift of God. “As if faith were not given to us by him.”" 

Of course faith is the gift of God, but that is not the issue! Calvin and Beza, like I do, believed that faith was the gift of God and yet believed it preceded regeneration because it was the medium or instrument for uniting a soul to Christ. White is changing the subject, being an "artful Dodger." 

White said further, citing these words of Augustine, saying "Let’s look now at a few statements from Augustine’s On Grace and Free Will:

"For of these he says, “We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.” Now he does not here speak of that creation which made us human beings, but of that in reference to which one said who was already in full manhood, “Create in me a clean heart, O God;” concerning which also the apostle says, “Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God.” We are framed, therefore, that is, formed and created, “in the good works which” we have not ourselves prepared, but “God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” It follows, then, dearly beloved, beyond all doubt, that as your good life is nothing else than God’s grace, so also the eternal life which is the recompense of a good life is the grace of God; moreover it is given gratuitously, even as that is given gratuitously to which it is given."

So, where in this citation does Augustine say that regeneration or being created in Christ precedes faith? He does affirm that good works follow salvation. Also, just because Augustine or others say that grace is given before salvation does not equate to meaning that regeneration precedes faith. It is odd that White cites these words of Augustine since Augustine cited the words of king David who prayed "Create in me a clean heart, O God." Here we see a person praying for God to create a new heart in him. 

Dr. White wrote:

"And we read the following later in the same work. There is a cause of our faith. In discussing the same verse (Romans 10:14-21), on page 114 David Allen stated that “the cause of faith is said to be the hearing of the word of God.” However, this is not the assertion of Augustine below. Augustine stated that “the spirit of grace, therefore, causes us to have faith.”

For “how,” says he, “shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed?” [Romans 10:14] The spirit of grace, therefore, causes us to have faith, in order that through faith we may, on praying for it, obtain the ability to do what we are commanded. On this account the apostle himself constantly puts faith before the law; since we are not able to do what the law commands unless we obtain the strength to do it by the prayer of faith."

The immediate problem with White’s ideology concerning God’s grace and his interpretation of what Augustine said is his thinking that the word "grace" is to be equated with regeneration. Augustine and Calvin, etc., believed that grace is given to many who are never saved, calling this "common grace." I believe even White believes in common grace, so he believes that unregenerate people enjoy common grace but are not regenerate, so that disproves his idea that having grace always means being born again. Also, Augustine believed in "prevenient grace." In my series on "Prevenient Grace," chapter fifteen (See here), I showed this to be true. The Calvinist Reformers of the Reformation spoke of "the means of grace," referring to the word of God or the sacraments. Are not the means of grace also graces, and what are given and received before the saving grace of regeneration? Is having the gospel not having grace? In the first chapter of my series (here) on Prevenient Grace I cited from the great Calvinist Charles Hodge (1797-1878) who said (emphasis mine): 

"...the means of grace, are the means by which, or in connection with which, the influence of the Spirit is conveyed or exercised. By common grace, therefore, is meant that influence of the Spirit, which in a greater or less measure, is granted to all who hear the truth. By sufficient grace is meant such kind and degree of the Spirit’s influence, as is sufficient to lead men to repentance, faith, and a holy life. By efficacious grace is meant such an influence of the Spirit as is certainly effectual in producing regeneration and conversion. By preventing grace is intended that operation of the Spirit on the mind which precedes and excites its efforts to return to God. By the gratia gratum faciens is meant the influence of the Spirit which renews or renders gracious. Cooperating grace is that influence of the Spirit which aids the people of God in all the exercises of the divine life. By habitual grace is meant the Holy Spirit as dwelling in believers; or, that permanent, immanent state of mind due to his abiding presence and power. Such is the established theological and Christian usage of this word. By grace, therefore, in this connection is meant the influence of the Spirit of God on the minds of men." (Systematic Theology, volume II, Chapter 14, under "Vocation," and under "common grace") 

So, Hodge did not define "regeneration" to mean any enjoyment of grace. He rightly said that there is grace given prior to regeneration. In that same first chapter I cited from J. L. Packer, well known theologian, who wrote the following in his work titled "Regeneration" (Available to read here):

"The Reformers reaffirmed the substance of Augustine's doctrine of prevenient grace, and Reformed theology still maintains it." 

Further, the citation White gives from Augustine is not to be interpreted to mean that Augustine is denying that the word of God is a means, a gracious means, unto salvation. Augustine said that faith is a means for obtaining saving grace. (See chapter 25 of "A TREATISE ON GRACE AND FREE WILL BY AURELIUS AUGUSTIN, BISHOP OF HIPPO ADDRESSED TO VALENTINUS AND THE MONKS OF ADRUMETUM, AND COMPLETED IN ONE BOOK. WRITTEN IN A. D. 426 OR A. D. 427. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Ed. Philip Schaff"; available here) In that chapter Augustine wrote of "the grace which comes through the faith of Jesus Christ."  The citation being discussed by White is from the same work, from chapter 28 titled "Faith is the Gift of God." 

Grace precedes salvation indeed. So we read of those who "had believed through grace." (Acts 18: 27) Also, in the statement "saved by grace through faith" (Eph. 2:8) we see how grace precedes. But, saying grace precedes is not the same as saying that regeneration precedes. Faith is itself a grace. The salvation that results from faith is a grace too. Also, in chapter 33 Augustine speaks of both "operating grace" and "cooperating grace." There are those false professors or hypocrites who "insult the spirit of grace" (Heb. 10: 29), a grace that they had in the gospel but which did not regenerate them. The apostle Paul even asked people to "receive not the grace of God in vain" (II Cor. 6: 1) and speaks of those who had "fallen away from grace" (Gal. 5: 4), all which shows that having grace does not equate with being regenerated. Ergo, White's argument is invalid.

Why is Dr. White denying what Allen said about the word of God being a cause of faith and insinuating that Augustine did not agree with Allen on this? Yes, Augustine did say that the cause of the faith was "the spirit of grace" but saying that does not negate the word also being the thing that produced the faith. Did not Paul conclude "so then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God"? (vs. 17) Surely White knows that an effect can be the result of more than one cause. It is interesting that Augustine speaks of "the spirit of grace" and I just called attention to those who did insult to the "spirit of grace"!

Many Calvinists of the born again before faith view often use a faulty methodology to support their ordo salutis. When quoting Augustine and the reformers, they attempt to show that they agree with them by showing that those theologians spoke of things God does in the lives of sinners before they believe as if this means that they believed that regeneration preceded their believing.

White wrote further:

"Again, from the same work, we read the following where Augustine asks the perennial question: why do we pray for people to believe “if faith is simply of free will, and is not given by God”? Augustine believes that God turns the will of man to faith." 

So, how does belief that faith is a gift of God equate with the proposition that regeneration precedes faith? White surely knows that faith being a gift of God does not imply that regeneration precedes faith. Calvin and Beza did not think so, nor do I. God gives faith which then becomes the medium for union with Christ and which then becomes the immediate cause of being saved, regenerated, born again, quickened from spiritual death, etc. Yes, God did the "turning" but White wants to say a man is turned before he actually turns, for he defines regeneration by what God does, by the causal divine acts that produce it, to the exclusion of the effects, wherein a person actually turns, actually is changed, actually believes and repents, actively is converted, actively comes forth from the dead. White would do well to listen to what the great Calvinist theologian A.A. Alexander wrote on this point. I have often cited these words of Professor Alexander (1772-1851) who said:

"Curious inquiries respecting the way in which the word is instrumental in the production of this change are not for edification. Sometimes regeneration is considered distinctly from the acts and exercises of the mind which proceed from it, but in the Holy Scriptures the cause and effect are included; and we shall therefore treat the subject in this practical and popular form." (A Practical View of Regeneration Archibald Alexander [Published in The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, volume 8 (1836)] (Available to read here)

Was Lazarus quickened from the dead when Christ uttered the words "come forth" or when Lazarus actually came forth? 

White continued:

"The heart of stone being taken away is what we simply refer to as “regeneration”. Augustine said that God took away man’s heart of stone in order to give faith to men. Augustine refers to the heart of stone being taken away by God so that men can even have a good will to turn to God by faith. This is a pretty clear example of Augustine saying that God has regenerated man by removing the hardened heart and that then God gives man that faith. Remember, for Dr. Allen having a new heart is synonymous with regeneration."

Where did Augustine say that God took away a man's heart of stone prior to giving him faith? I suggest that Augustine said no such thing. White is reading his interpretation into the words of Augustine. That is evident when White says "this is a pretty clear example of Augustine..." If he wants a clear example of Augustine affirming that regeneration precedes faith, why does he not cite where Augustine said that? In chapter three of this series I cited these words of Augustine:

"We are united by faith, quickened by understanding. Let us first adhere to Him through faith, that there may be that which may be quickened by understanding."

That is a "clear example" to show that Augustine believed that faith preceded quickening. Further, as I have said, it is well known that Augustine believed that regeneration occurred after faith in water baptism. Surely White knows this. So why is he saying that Augustine believed regeneration occurred before faith and before water baptism?

Further, I am sure that Augustine agreed with what Allen said, that the new heart is a heart of belief. 

White wrote further giving us the following citations from Augustine:

"And finally from the same work we read the following. Augustine says that it is actually God who stirs man’s spirit to come to faith. God does through man’s will “whatsoever He wishes to perform through them”."

"Both statements to be sure are true, because they both came by their own will, and yet the Lord stirred up their spirit; and this may also with equal truth be stated the other way: The Lord both stirred up their spirit, and yet they came of their own will. For the Almighty sets in motion even in the innermost hearts of men the movement of their will, so that He does through their agency whatsoever He wishes to perform through them — even He who knows not how to will anything in unrighteousness."

How do these words of Augustine show that he believed that regeneration preceded faith? Simply because he says that the Lord was the author of faith? Does Augustine not say that it was by both the will of God and the will of the sinner that they "come" to Christ for life and salvation? Is that not denied by White? Further, surely White knows that Augustine believed that regeneration occurred in water baptism, and thus he could not possibly believe regeneration precedes faith.

White concludes by saying:

"From just a few passages in one work by Augustine, I have demonstrated that he taught that a person could not exhibit faith without God first “stirring up their spirit” and first turning their heart of stone to a heart of flesh. In other words, Augustine taught that regeneration precedes faith."

Quite frankly, such argumentation from White is unbecoming of him. By his words "in other words" White is putting words into the mouth of Augustine, grossly misinterpreting Augustine's words. He is putting his own spin on the words of Augustine and this is grossly dishonest. On what basis can White say that because God first stirs up the spirit of a sinner, as a step to producing faith, that this stirring equates with regeneration? White is frequently, in his debates, criticizing his opponents for their eisegesis, their reading things into the text rather than bringing things out of the text (exegesis). White should follow his own advice for he is clearly reading things into the words of Augustine. Why is he doing this? Especially when he ought to know that Augustine is on record as saying that a sinner is quickened by faith? I think he is behaving as a Sophist, making arguments from faulty premises simply to try to win a debate. 

I will continue to review White's baseless claim that the people mentioned by Dr. Allen believed that regeneration preceded faith in the next chapter.

Pluck Out Your Eyes?

"27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell." (Matt. 5: 27-30 nkjv)

“If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire." (Matt. 18: 8-9 nkjv)

Many years ago my beloved father, God rest his soul, called me and asked me my interpretation about what Jesus was teaching when he said the above words. I responded by basically saying: 

"Jesus was showing us that our problem is not in our eyes, hands, feet, or any other physical member of our bodies. The problem is in our hearts. That is the source of our sins. Cutting off the hand or plucking out the eye will not cure us of our propensity to sin." 

Father was a minister and theologian and he replied: "that's okay, good," or something to that effect. Jesus in Matthew chapter five spoke of sinning "in heart" before uttering the above words. People without eyes still lust. People without hands can still steal or do what is wrong. What people need is a new heart and I don't mean a physical heart. By heart I mean what the scriptures mean. The heart is the core of a person's psychological being, the place of his thoughts, where his choices originate. Jesus said:

"16 So Jesus said, “Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. 20 These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.” (Matt. 15: 16-20 nkjv)

Here Jesus corrects an error or excuse that many people put forth about why they sin. A drunkard will sometimes blame the liquor he drinks for his bad behavior, when the fault is in his choice to become intoxicated. An adulterer will sometimes play the victim, saying that he was enticed or seduced. Etc. No, the problem with your sin and your evil ways is a result of your depraved and unbelieving and impenitent heart. You need a new heart and spirit and the only way you will ever obtain it is by going to Dr. Jesus and sincerely asking him to save you from your sins.

The "if" in Matthew 5: 29 is what is called a "first class condition," meaning it is true or assumed to be true for the sake of argument. We use this when we are reasoning about a given truth claim or proposition. It is an "if, then" type of reasoning.

Problems in Divorcing Conversion From Regeneration (4)

Those Calvinists who diverged from Calvin and the older Calvinists and began to restrict what is involved in being regenerated or born again have done much harm, although they thought that they were improving or refining Calvinism. I also showed in the previous chapters that the first ablest apologists for Calvinism (also known as "the doctrines of grace") believed that regeneration was by faith, resulting from a faith union with Christ. Before I begin to address the several problems that arose from Calvinists who divorced evangelical conversion via faith from regeneration I want to take a look at what a couple of the leading apologists for the born again before faith view (men such as the late Dr. R.C. Sproul and Dr. James White, a man who is well known for his hundreds of debates), said about the views of the first Calvinists of the Reformation as well as Augustine and Aquinas. 

In an article titled "Regeneration Precedes Faith" by the late Dr. R.C. Sproul, a champion of the view that regeneration precedes faith (available to read here), Sproul wrote the following (emphasis mine):

"One of the most dramatic moments in my life for the shaping of my theology took place in a seminary classroom. One of my professors went to the blackboard and wrote these words in bold letters: "Regeneration Precedes Faith." 

"When I began to wrestle with the Professor's argument, I was surprised to learn that his strange-sounding teaching was not novel. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield - even the great medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas taught this doctrine...Aquinas insisted that regenerating grace is operative grace, not cooperative grace. Aquinas spoke of prevenient grace, but he spoke of a grace that comes before faith, which is regeneration."

This is a common, yet baseless, claim by Calvinists who espouse the born again before faith view. The Calvinists Sproul mentions, with the exceptions of Thomas Aquinas the Catholic, and Luther the Lutheran, did not believe that a person was born again before faith, and neither did Aquinas or Luther. I have already cited from Luther who said that sinners are born again by faith, which is also what John Calvin said. Neither did Augustine teach it. I cited from Augustine in the previous chapter and showed that he did not believe sinners were born again before faith. Augustine even believed that believers were born again in water baptism. Neither did Jonathan Edwards or George Whitefield teach the born again before faith view. Sproul makes such statements and gives no evidence to support his claim. He is deceiving people about the history of this view among Reformation Calvinists or Predestinarians. Sproul then wrote:

"These giants of Christian history derived their view from Holy Scripture. The key phrase in Paul's Letter to the Ephesians is this: "...even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have you been saved)" (Eph. 2:5). Here Paul locates the time when regeneration occurs. It takes place 'when we were dead.' With one thunderbolt of apostolic revelation all attempts to give the initiative in regeneration to man are smashed. Again, dead men do not cooperate with grace. Unless regeneration takes place first, there is no possibility of faith."

Why did Sproul not cite from the above "giants" where they said what Sproul said? Further, Ephesians 2: 5 that speaks of being made alive spiritually does not exclude faith preceding salvation from spiritual death. In verse eight Paul says - "for by grace are you saved through faith." That salvation is the salvation of verse one and five which is salvation from spiritual death. Sproul is not getting his argumentation from scripture when he says "dead men do not cooperate with grace." He is reading his ideas about what it means to be spiritually dead into the text and not deriving them from the text. It is this view of things that led the born again before faith Calvinists to deny that the word of God is a means in regeneration, the view which is stated in the oldest Calvinist confessions. Because of their erroneous ideas about spiritual death they say that God must first give spiritual life apart from his word or gospel in order for anyone to hear and believe the word or gospel. That is what the Hardshell Hyper Calvinists teach.

Further, as a Calvinist who believes as Calvin, Beza, Luther, et al., that sinners are born again by a God given and created faith, and union with Christ thereby, I dislike Sproul's choice of the word "cooperate" when he says "dead men to not cooperate with grace." I rather prefer other words, such as "actively respond to grace." The dry dead bones in Ezekiel being used by God to raise them to life shows that the dead bones responded to the prophesying of Ezekiel but I would not call that cooperating. Perhaps it would be better to say that dead sinners are active in their coming to life and not merely passive. It is interesting that this is so in the case of the raising to life of dead Lazarus. 

"And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go."  (John 11: 43, 44)

"Came forth" is from the Greek word "exēlthen" (from ek and erchomai) and is third person second aorist indicative active. Why is this in the active voice? Is not being resurrected supposed to be all passive? The "coming forth" was 1) a command addressed to Lazarus's spirit, which was conscious in the realm of the dead, to leave that realm and to enter his body, and 2) for his reunited spirit and body to exit the tomb. In my series on sinners being both passive and active in being raised to spiritual life I address this issue. The Calvinists of the born again before faith view went to extremes when they said that in the whole of regeneration a sinner is completely passive but becomes active in conversion after his regeneration. 

I also reject Sproul's idea that dead sinners receive no grace prior to salvation (or regeneration). I know he believes in "common grace" which is enjoyed by unregenerate sinners. I also know that he rejects "prevenient grace," although common grace is a case of prevenient grace. See my ongoing series "Prevenient Grace." Many Calvinists believe that some grace is given prior to being saved.

Sproul and others of his ilk will not allow that sinners experience any grace leading to salvation prior to obtaining regenerating grace. That is not the view of the older Reformation Calvinists, or of the Puritan Calvinists. They taught that there were common operations of the Spirit which preceded salvation (and in the case of the elect these operations were effectual graces), such as being "awakened" to see one's lost condition and need of salvation, of being convicted of sin by the law or by the gospel, etc. They also rightly saw how hearing the gospel of salvation was a being given divine grace. See my series "Awakened Sinners." 

Stephen Charnock (1628-1680) wrote the following in "Efficient of Regeneration" (read here):

"The soul must be beaten down by conviction before it be raised up by regeneration; There must be some apprehensions of the necessity of it. Yet sometimes the work of regeneration follows so close upon the heels of these precious preparations, that both must be acknowledged to be the work of one and the same hand. Paul on the sudden was struck down. and in a moment there is both an acknowledgement of the authority of Christ, and a submission to his will, when he said, 'Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?' Acts ix. 6. The preparation of the subject is necessary, but this preparation may be at the same time with the conveyance of the divine nature: as a warm seal may both prepare the hard wax, and convey the image to it, by one and the same touch."

Conviction of sin and recognition of one's need of salvation through Christ is certainly a grace that precedes regeneration. The error of Sproul and his ilk is that they have regeneration occurring "too soon" in the things leading to regeneration. Some of them, like the Hardshell "Primitive Baptists," push it so far back that they say that anyone who is convicted of sin is already regenerated even before he ever believes in Christ. Charnock speaks of "preparations" for regeneration as did the Puritan Calvinists and as did Jonathan Edwards. See my series "Prevenient Grace." 

Said George Whitefield in agreement:

"Conviction will always precede spiritual conversion. You may be convicted without being converted, but you cannot be converted without being convicted." ("Repentance and Conversion" - SEE HERE)

Wrote Thomas Boston  in agreement (emphasis mine): 

"Some have sharp convictions for a while: but these go off, and they become as careless about their salvation, and as profane as ever, and usually worse than ever; "their last state is worse than their first," Matt. 12:45. They get awakening grace—but not converting grace; and that goes off by degrees, as the light of the declining day, until it issues in midnight darkness."  (here)

John Owen (1616-1683) addresses the subject in the third volume of his Works in a section entitled, "Works of the Holy Spirit Preparatory Unto Regeneration." Owen writes:

"Ordinarily there are certain previous and preparatory works, or workings in and upon the souls of men, that are antecedent and dispositive unto it [i.e. regeneration]. But yet regeneration doth not consist in them, nor can it be educed out of them."

What grace is given to sinners before their regeneration? First, as stated, those who hear the gospel and the gracious invitations of Christ to sinners to come to him for salvation are receiving grace, and some will not be saved by having that grace, while others, the elect, will see that the grace of the gospel will bring them to the grace of salvation. Paul often called the gospel a grace of God, even saying "the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." (Titus 2: 11) All men enjoy some degree of "the goodness of God" and this is an instance of grace that God desires that it leads them to repentance. (Rom. 2: 4) All who were blessed to hear the Son of God preach "marveled at the gracious words that proceeded out of his mouth." (Luke 4: 22) To experience "godly sorrow" is a result of grace, especially when it "brings that repentance that leads to salvation." (II Cor. 7: 10)

Jesus taught that spiritual life and salvation are the result of coming to him. He also taught that prior to this coming God the Father taught the dead sinner and drew him to Christ. (John 6: 44-45) So, we cannot say that the first receiving of grace is regeneration as Sproul and the born again before faith Calvinists want us to believe.

In an Internet article titled "Union with Christ Is at the Heart of Reformation Theology" by Matthew Bingham (See here at Crossway.org), Bingham rightly shows, as have others, such as Richard Muller, how Calvin and the first Calvinists put union with Christ by faith first in their ordo salutis. He wrote (emphasis mine):

"And Bunyan was not alone in this thinking. Whether we examine pioneering sixteenth-century Reformed theologians such as John Calvin and Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–1562), post-Reformation thinkers such as Jerome Zanchi (1516–1590) and Theodore Beza (1519–1605), or English divines such as William Perkins (1558–1602) and William Ames, the conclusion is the same: union with Christ is the controlling idea from which flows the entirety of our redemption.2 Union played a central role in the theology of the English Puritans, for whom it has been described by one historian as “the existential nerve” of their piety.3 Likewise, among twentieth-century and contemporary Reformed theologians, union with Christ continues to function as the key to rightly aligning justification, sanctification, and the very idea of an authentically Christian spiritual life: “Union with Christ is really the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation not only in its application but also in its once-for-all accomplishment in the finished work of Christ.”4"

I have been an ardent defender of the views of these "giants" of Calvinism because they rightly stuck with the scriptures and saw that 1) union with Christ must take precedence to all aspects of salvation, and 2) that union with Christ is by faith. The Calvinism of Sproul and those Calvinists who say regeneration precedes faith does not follow this order. They rather say that union with Christ precedes faith, that it is effected in regeneration apart from faith. Thus, they deny that union is by faith. I used to believe that regeneration precedes faith when I was a Hardshell Baptist Hyper Calvinist. However, I am happy that I came to see the truth about union with Christ by faith. I therefore have come to agree with Calvin and the older Calvinists in believing in this logical order:

1. God given and created faith in Christ

2. Justification, reconciliation, imputation, forgiveness

3. Regeneration, renewal, rebirth, new creation, transformation, sanctification

Bingham wrote further:

"Why has this doctrine been so important for Reformed theologians? Surely in large part it emerged organically, for as the Reformers pursued a theology driven by the principle of sola Scriptura, they couldn’t have helped but notice the centrality of union in the biblical texts themselves: “Once you have had your eyes opened to this concept of union with Christ, you will find it almost everywhere in the New Testament.”5"

Sproul, in the citation above, says that he believes that regeneration precedes faith because this is what is taught in scripture. However, Calvin and the older Calvinists did not agree with this, nor do I. Rather, the scriptures clearly teach that union with Christ by faith is first in order.

Bingham wrote further:

"But perhaps above all, union takes a central place in Reformed theology because of the way it effectively solves the puzzle of precisely how justification and sanctification relate to each other. Both blessings are necessarily present in the life of every believer because both blessings flow from the same source: Christ himself and our Spirit-wrought union with him. In a classic passage from his Institutes, John Calvin explains this as the believer’s “double grace” (duplex gratia): Christ was given to us by God’s generosity, to be grasped and possessed by us in faith. By partaking of him, we principally receive a double grace: namely, that being reconciled to God through Christ’s blamelessness, we may have in heaven instead of a Judge a gracious Father; and secondly, that sanctified by Christ’s spirit we may cultivate blamelessness and purity of life.8"

I have repeatedly shown how the later Calvinism of Sproul and his ilk created a huge theological problem when they said things happen in this logical/chronological order: 1) regeneration, 2) faith, 3) justification, 4) sanctification. You see by this order that they deny that regeneration is a sanctifying experience and since it is such, they then put sanctification before justification, a thing the first Calvinists rightly opposed, but which was the teaching of the Catholic church.

Bingham's sources:

1. John Bunyan, Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners (Glasgow: Porteous and Hislop, 1863), 90–92. 

2. Richard A. Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 202–43.

3. R. Tudur Jones, “Union with Christ: The Existential Nerve of Puritan Piety,” Tyndale Bulletin 41, no. 2 (1990): 186–208, https://doi.org/10.53751/001c.30522

4. John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1955), 161. See also Michael S. Horton, Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007); Richard Gaffin, “The Work of Christ Applied,” in Christian Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic, ed. Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016).

5. Anthony A. Hoekema, Saved by Grace (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), 64.

6. Elsie Anne McKee, “Reformed Worship in the Sixteenth Century,” in Christian Worship in Reformed Churches Past and Present, ed. Lukas Vischer (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 7.

7. Ulrich Zwingli, Selected Works, ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972), 2:217. 

Sproul states that Jonathan Edwards of the eighteenth century taught that regeneration preceded faith. Yet this also is not true, at least for adults. In this post (here) I cited Edwards who plainly said that union with Christ is by faith and that all the aspects of salvation followed from that union. Here are some excerpts:

"So remission of sin, and inheritance among them that are sanctified, are mentioned together as what are jointly obtained by faith in Christ, Acts xxvi. 18. “That they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them that are sanctified, through faith that is in me.” Both these are without doubt implied in that passing from death to life, which Christ speaks of as the fruit of faith, and which he opposes to condemnation, John v. 24. “Verily I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”"

"This relation or union to Christ, whereby Christians are said to be in Christ, (whatever it be,) is the ground of their right to his benefits. This needs no proof; the reason of the thing, at first blush, demonstrates it. It is exceeding evident also by Scripture, 1 John v.12. “He that hath the Son, hath life; and he that hath not the Son, hath not life.” 1 Cor. i.30. “Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us–righteousness.” First we must be in him, and then he will be made righteousness or justification to us. Eph. i.6. “Who hath made us accepted in the beloved.” Our being in him is the ground or our being accepted. So it is in those unions to which the Holy Ghost has thought fit to compare this. The union of the members of the body with the head, is the ground of their partaking of the life of the head; it is the union of the branches to the stock, which is the ground of their partaking of the sap and life of the stock; it is the relation of the wife to the husband, that is the ground of her joint interest in his estate; they are looked upon, in several respects, as one in law."

"And thus it is that faith is the qualification in any person that renders it meet in the sight of God that he should be looked upon as having Christ’s satisfaction and righteousness belonging to him, viz. because it is that in him which, on his part, makes up this union between him and Christ. By what has been just now observed, it is a person’s being, according to scripture phrase, in Christ, that is the ground of having his satisfaction and merits belong to him, and a right to the benefits procured thereby. The reason of it is plain; it is easy to see how our having Christ’s merits and benefits belonging to us, following from our having (if I may so speak) Christ himself belonging to us, or our being united to him. And if so, it must also be easy to see how, or in what manner, that in a person, which on his part makes up the union between his soul and Christ, should be the thing on the account of which God looks on it as meet that he should have Christ’s merits belonging to him."

Professor Richard A. Muller is an American historian of theology and professor emeritus at Calvin Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He wrote a book titled "Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation." He shows that the first Calvinists of the Reformation put union with Christ by faith first in the order of salvation. There is an excellent short video on YouTube titled "Did the Ordo Salutis Replace Union with Christ?" which addressed what Muller said in Chapter 7 "of Calvin and the Reformed Tradition." (Listen to it here)

So, when you hear Calvinists of the "born again before faith" stripe say that "the Reformers" of the 16th century believed that regeneration precedes faith, don't let them get away with saying that without challenging them to prove it. Did Sproul not know better? Was he giving a false narrative?

Problems in Divorcing Conversion From Regeneration (3)

Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575) 

Bullinger was a leading Swiss Reformer, successor to Huldrych Zwingli as the chief pastor and Antistes in Zürich, and one of the most prolific and influential theological writers of the 16th-century Reformation. We have already seen where John Calvin and Theodore Beza believed that sinners were born again or regenerated by faith and yet were the great leaders of Calvinism at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. In a separate post (here) I wrote several years ago I showed that Martin Luther, though not a Calvinist, yet a denier of "free will" and a predestinarian, also believed that sinners were born again by faith. In his Preface to the Letter of St. Paul to the Romans, Luther wrote (emphasis mine): 

"Faith is a work of God in us, which changes us and brings us to birth anew from God (cf. John 1). It kills the old Adam, makes us completely different people in heart, mind, senses, and all our powers, and brings the Holy Spirit with it. What a living, creative, active powerful thing is faith!" (As cited here)

And, in his commentary on Galatians Luther wrote: 

"Paul as a true apostle of faith always has the word "faith" on the tip of his tongue. By faith, says he, we are the children of God. The Law cannot beget children of God. It cannot regenerate us. It can only remind us of the old birth by which we were born into the kingdom of the devil. The best the Law can do for us is to prepare us for a new birth through faith in Christ Jesus. Faith in Christ regenerates us into the children of God. St. John bears witness to this in his Gospel: 'As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." (John 1:12.).'" 

Bullinger, as we will see, agrees with Calvin, Luther, and Beza, writing these words (emphasis mine), taken from his sermons, which are available to read (here):

"But we briefly and truly affirm that by true faith, a man lives, is happy, attains to the chief goodness, is conjoined to the chief goodness, and is also justified: so that God dwells in us, and we in him; and by faith we are both happy and blessed. What, I ask you, could have been spoken more excellently, worthily, or divinely, touching true faith? For see that faith quickens us, makes us happy, and joins us to the chief goodness, so that He 1 in us, and we in him, may live; and faith also fully justifies us."

Spiritual life comes to dead sinners by faith. As a result of faith God dwells in a believer and a believer enters "into Christ." This is denied, however, by those later Calvinists who said that regeneration, being "in Christ," having spiritual life, precedes faith.

Bullinger wrote further:

"Faith quickens or makes alive. For "the just lives by faith." 3 Paul very often in his writings alleges this out of the prophets. The same Paul also says, "The life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." Gal 2.20 Faith joins us to the eternal and chief goodness, and so it makes us enjoy the chief goodness, so that God may dwell in us and we in God. For the Lord Jesus himself says in the gospel, "He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, so also I live by the Father, and he that eats me shall live by me." Joh 6.56-57" (pg. 56 FIFTH SERMON: ONLY ONE TRUE FAITH)

Again, very clear denial of the regeneration before faith view. As long as a sinner is detached or unjoined from Christ, who is life, he remains dead. So the apostle John taught, saying "whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son does not have life." (I John 5:12) Christ must be "received" by faith, he must be "partaken" of by faith, as Jesus said, "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of God and drink his blood you have no life in you." (John 6: 53) As the first Reformers of the Calvinist tradition taught, Christ is eaten by faith and is when sinners become "partakers of Christ." (Heb. 3:14) So Christ taught that it is by believing in him that they enter into him, are "in him." (See my post on that here)

Bullinger wrote further:

"The very same God also wills that we obtain and have life in us, and that we have it no other way than by faith. For the apostle Paul taught that Christ dwells in our hearts by faith. Eph 3.17 Moreover, the Lord himself also witnesses, and says, "He that eats me shall live by me." Joh 6.57 But you know, dearly beloved, that to eat Christ is to believe in him. And therefore, we knit up this place with these words of St. Peter: "All the prophets bear witness to this Christ, that whoever believes in him shall receive forgiveness of sins through his name." Act 10.43" (pg. 61 1-6. SIXTH SERMON: JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH)

That is the historic Calvinist position. Later Calvinists altered these views and began to teach that spiritual life and resurrection are first given to sinners to make them believe. They thought that they were improving the views of Calvin, Beza, Luther, etc., "refining" Calvinism, as if it were a science like physics, that is constantly being refined. I rather think that the new testament writers, following Christ, warned of how the original pure doctrine of the church would be corrupted, not refined as time went on.

Bullinger wrote further, confirming what I just showed from scripture:

"Faith alone — by which we believe in Christ, who was lifted up for the remission of our sins, and in whom alone our life and sure salvation assuredly consists — is the only thing that quickens us, who are already dying by the envenomed sting of Satan, which is sin...By faith we are made partakers of Christ."

"For by faith, Christ dwells and lives in us...Only those who believe and trust in him, are made partakers of this redemption. For whoever receives Christ Jesus by true faith, through the preaching of the gospel, are thereby justified; that is, they are acquitted from their sins, sanctified, and made heirs of eternal life." (pg. 511 4-1. THE FIRST SERMON: OF THE GOSPEL.)

When Paul said "whatever is not of faith is sin" (Rom. 14: 23) he intimates that "all is by faith." Yet, this is denied by Calvinists who say that regeneration and obtaining spiritual life precedes faith. Bullinger, like Calvin, Beza, and others in their time, taught that justification, regeneration, quickening, forgiveness or remission of sins, sanctification, were all "by faith." 

William Perkins (1558–1602) was a towering influence in the English Reformed movement and similar movements in the European Continent and New England. Dr. Joel Beeke, expert on Perkins and the Puritans, wrote the following on his web page (See here) citing Perkins who wrote (emphasis mine):

 

Q. But how mayest thou be made partaker of Christ and his benefits?

A. A man of a contrite and humble spirit, by faith alone apprehending and applying Christ with all his merits unto himself, is justified before God and sanctified….

Q. How doth God bring men truly to believe in Christ?

A. First, he prepareth their hearts, that they might be capable of faith, and then he worketh faith in them. 

 

Q. How doth God prepare men’s hearts?

A. By bruising them, as if one would break a hard stone to powder; and this is done by humbling them (Ezek. 11:19; Hos. 6:1–2).

Q. How doth God humble a man?

A. By working in him a sight of his sins, and a sorrow for them.”4

In "A GOLDEN CHAIN or, The Description of Theology Containing the order of the causes of Salvation and Damnation, according to God’s Word," originally published in 1592 (you can read here), Perkins wrote the following about union with Christ (emphasis mine):

"The bond of this union. This union is made by the Spirit of God applying Christ to us; and on our parts, it is, by faith, receiving Christ Jesus offered to us. And for this cause, it is termed a spiritual union...An actual living member of Christ is every one elected, who being grafted into Christ by faith and the Spirit, feels and displays the power of Christ in him."

"God executes this effectual calling by certain means. The first means is the saving hearing of the word of God, which is when that word is preached outwardly to someone who is both dead in his sins, and does not so much as dream of his salvation. Eze 16.6, When I passed by you, I saw you polluted in your own blood, and I said to you, when you were in your blood, you shall live. Isa 55.1, Ho, every one that thirsts, come to the waters, and you who have no silver, come, buy and eat; come I say, and buy wine and milk without silver, and without money. Joh 1.12, As many as received Him, to them he gave this privilege, that they should become the sons of God; namely, to those who believed in His name."

"It is first of all, the Law showing a man his sin, and the punishment for it, which is eternal death. Afterward, the Gospel, showing salvation by Christ Jesus, to those who believe."

"Christ is received when each individual person particularly applies to himself, Christ with His merits, by an inward persuasion of the heart." 

This was also the teaching of the first Particular Baptists of the early 17th century. John Spilsbury (1593-1668) taught this same thing when he wrote the following in his personal confession of faith (which I wrote about in this post here):

"I believe that God of his grace, in his own time, effectually calls such as shall be saved to the knowledge of the truth, who is said, of his own will to beget us by the word of truth: in which work of grace, nature is as passive, as a child in the parents begetting of it; and so God by His Spirit works faith in the hearts of all such to believe in Christ, and his righteousness, only for justification. And thus they are made righteous before God in Christ, and so conformable to the will of God the Father through the Son; and also made holy through the work of regeneration, and the holy Spirit of grace dwelling in them; yet all such have still, as long as they live here in the flesh, remaining in them, an old man, that original corruption, the flesh that wars against the spirit, which hinders them in their obedience both to God and to man, and many times draws them to that which is evil, and contrary to their intentions; yet all of them shall through Christ overcome, and safely be brought to glory at last."

The word "thus" shows that he believed, as John Calvin, that both justification and regeneration follow union with Christ by faith. The views of Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, Perkins, and Spilsbury were also the views of Augustine (354-430) who wrote (emphasis mine):

"'But,' saith He, 'there are some among you that believe not.' He said not There are some among you that understand not; but He told the cause why they understand not 'There are some among you that believe not,' and therefore they understand not, because they believe not. For the prophet has said, 'If ye believe not, ye shall not understand.'(2) We are united by faith, quickened by understanding. Let us first adhere to Him through faith, that there may be that which may be quickened by understanding. For he who adheres not resists; he that resists believes not. And how can he that resists be quickened?" (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series 1, Volume 7, St. Augustine, Harmony of the Gospels, Homilies on the Gospel of John, "Tractate XXVI, Chapter VI. 60-72," 288; as cited here)

Notice that quickening follows faith. Spiritual life is received by faith. This is denied, however, by the Hyper Calvinists and those who say that regeneration or spiritual life precedes faith.