Problems in Divorcing Conversion From Regeneration (11)

As I stated in the eighth number of this series, those who affirm regeneration or born again before faith (BABF) are forced to interpret any Bible verse that says that sinners are saved by faith as a salvation that does not involve regeneration but a post-regeneration salvation. If however it can be shown that the salvation that is "through" or "by" faith or believing is regeneration, new birth, or quickening from spiritual death, then the proposition of BABF is overthrown. 

The above text clearly involves being quickened from spiritual death. Recently I wrote a two-part series concerning this very point. (See here and here) Elder Fralick has also written several articles on this text and how it relates to our topic of discussion. (This Page here gives several of his articles) The context is dealing with being quickened from spiritual death (verses one and five) and in verse five Paul says "for you are saved by grace" in reference to this quickening and in verse eight he says "for by grace you are saved through faith," talking about the same quickening which is salvation from spiritual and eternal death. 

Does the salvation that results from faith (many texts say this) always exclude regeneration or rebirth? As I stated in a previous chapter in this series, those who believe that regeneration precedes faith (such as Presbyterians as R.C. Sproul or Reformed Baptists as James White) must, similar to the Hardshells, say that all such texts that put salvation after faith, or "by" and "through" faith, must not include regeneration but must be a post regeneration salvation, what the Hardshells call "time salvation," or what Sproul and White would identify as justification, sanctification, adoption, final salvation, etc. However, the salvation of verse five is the same as verse eight and is clearly the quickening. Notice it:

"...even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)...For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God..." (Eph. 2: 5,8 nkjv) 

The word "saved" is used in both verses and verse five identifies the salvation as the quickening or being made alive. In both verses this salvation is "by grace" but in verse eight it is "through faith." Therefore the BABF view is overthrown. Those who say that a person is first quickened and then has faith has reversed Paul's order. Paul does say plainly that people are first created in Christ and then good works follow, saying in verse ten "for we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works." If, however, Paul believed that faith, like good works, followed creation, quickening, or salvation, he would have said "created in Christ Jesus unto faith." However, he said quickened, saved, and created again through faith. He would have also said "for by grace are you saved unto faith" rather than "through faith."

Also, he says "created IN Christ." Creation results from being "in" Christ. How does a person enter into Christ? It is by faith. The scriptures are clear that one enters into Christ by faith, it also being the way Christ is received and enters into a believer. The older Calvinists constantly affirmed this. They often referred to John six where Christ spoke of having life by eating him as the bread of life, by eating his flesh and drinking his blood. As water baptism is a picture of how the believer enters into Christ and partakes of the benefits of his baptism into death and subsequent resurrection, so the Lord's Supper is a picture of how Christ enters into the believer. In each instance faith is the instrument. 

People are in Christ by faith and Christ is in them likewise through faith. In these two posts I show how the scriptures plainly say that people believe "into Christ." (here and here) In the bible we see the words "in Christ" used many times and it is generally conceded that they denote union with Christ. I have already addressed how important it is to see how union with Christ by faith is first in the divine order of salvation, a truth that Calvin emphasized. It is also what is taught in scripture. The apostle Paul 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 nkjv)

Here Paul says that Christ being "in" a person results in that person receiving "life" in his spirit. He also rightly says that spiritual life, in the divine order, is what follows having imputed righteousness or justification. The Bible is full of scriptures that say that Christ is "received" actively and by faith and it is in receiving Christ that Christ is possessed in the inner man. 

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (II Cor. 5: 17 kjv)

Notice that it is in being "in Christ" that a person becomes a new creation. If a person is "in Christ" by faith, and being created anew in Christ follows being "in" Christ, then regeneration or re-creation does not precede faith. Being in Christ, or Christ being in you, is what follows as a result of evangelical faith and repentance or conversion. This is clear in these words of the apostle Paul to the Ephesians:

"Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands—that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." (Eph. 2: 11-12 nkjv)

What "time" does Paul refer to when he speaks of "that time" when the Ephesian believers were "without Christ" and "without God"? Or when he speaks of "once" ("in time past" kjv)? It is the point in time when they were quickened out of death and obtained spiritual and eternal life in Christ, to the time when they were saved "through faith," to the time when they became God's workmanship and his new creation, which is the time when they believed, repented, and became followers of Christ in conversion.

Wrote John Gill (1697-1771) the Calvinist in his commentary on the passage:

"Wherefore remember, that ye be in time past Gentiles in the flesh,.... This, with what follows in the next verse, the apostle puts the converted Ephesians in mind of, in order to magnify the grace of God in their conversion...in the time of their unregeneracy...That at that time ye were without Christ....Or separate from him: they were chosen in him and were preserved in him, and were redeemed by him before; but they were without any knowledge of him, faith in him, love to him, communion with him, or subjection to him, his Gospel, government, laws, and ordinances; and particularly they were without any promises of him, or prophecies concerning him...and without God in the world; without the knowledge of God in Christ; without the image of God, which was defaced by sin; without the grace and fear of God; and without communion with him, and the worship of him; and while they were so they were in the world, among the men of it, and were a part of it, not being yet called out of it..." 

Prior to being converted by faith and repentance the Ephesian brothers were dead in sins, outside of Christ, without the knowledge of God in Christ, etc. Gill identifies this point in time with the conversion of the Ephesians, and he identifies their conversion to their being regenerated and quickened. Gill, in commenting upon Paul's statement to the Corinthian believers - "I have begotten you through the gospel" - said:

"...which is to be understood of regeneration, a being born again, and from above; of being quickened when dead in trespasses and sins; of having Christ formed in the soul; of being made a partaker of the divine nature, and a new creature...he preached Christ unto them, and salvation by him, and the necessity of faith in him; he directed them to him to believe in him, and was the means of bringing of them to the faith of Christ; and it was the power and grace of Christ accompanying his ministry, which made it an effectual means of their regeneration and conversion..."

Gill, in the section "Of Regeneration," in his Body of Divinity, said:

"God the Son has also a concern in regeneration...he quickens whom he will, as the Father does; and it is through his powerful voice in the gospel, that the dead in sin hear and live...with the word of God, and is true both of Christ, and of the Gospel...The Gospel...points out the way of life and salvation to sinners; and is a means of quickening dead sinners, and of ingenerating that faith by which men live on Christ..."

If this is so, and it is, then surely regeneration or quickening occurred through faith in the gospel, for it would be absurd to think that the gospel regenerated people before they believed it. The great Baptist Abraham Booth (1734-1806), also a 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) 

That logic cannot be gainsaid or resisted. It is irrefutable. It would be absurd to think that the gospel or word of God saved people before they believed it.

Paul says that the point in time when they entered into Christ and were quickened from spiritual death occurred when "Christ came (through his emissaries) and preached peace to you who were afar off" (vs. 17) and the result of this preaching is stated: "Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God."

The words "now" and "no longer" and "therefore" are important to notice. The point in time referenced is the same as in the previous verses, being the time when the Ephesians believed in Christ and received him and were then in possession of Christ, joined to him, the time when they heard the voice of Christ in the gospel and by grace were made to believe it. When that occurred they also are said to have become "members of the household of God," i.e. members of the family of God. John Gill was correct to say that it was in preaching the gospel that the voice of Christ is heard and is the means of quickening dead sinners.

“Most assuredly," said Jesus, "I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live." (John 5: 24-25 nkjv)

It is obvious that the point in time Paul alludes to in Ephesians chapter two is the time he referred to in chapter one when he wrote in verse nineteen about the Ephesians being made believers by the almighty power of God. It is the time when the Ephesians believed in Christ, when they were converted. It could not be a prior time when they were regenerated secretly and apart from faith, for Paul could not know that point in time. Paul spoke of some who he said were "in Christ before me." (Rom. 16: 7 kjv) He could not know this if he did not see conversion as regeneration. Wrote the same apostle to the Corinthians:

"Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you are disqualified." (II Cor. 13: 5 nkjv)

I believe it ought to be quite obvious that being "in the faith" is at the same time when Christ is in the believer and the believer is in Christ.

Not only is it clear that the quickening of Ephesians chapter two is "through faith" but many other passages that speak of being saved by faith cannot exclude quickening or regeneration. Wrote Paul:

"and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." (II Tim. 3: 15 nkjv)

When those of the BABF view read such passages they must say that the salvation that is through faith excludes quickening, regeneration, rebirth, etc. 

In the third chapter of Ephesians Paul said: "in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him." (Eph. 3: 12 nkjv) Access into what by faith? Is it not access to Christ and salvation in all its fullness? John Gill in his commentary wrote:

"In whom we have boldness and access,...Into the holy of holies, to the throne of grace there, and to God the Father, as seated on it: Christ is the way of access; union to him gives right of access...and this access is not local but spiritual; it is by faith, and so is peculiar to believers; and the confidence with which it may be had, arises from its being by the faith of Christ; not that faith which Christ himself had, and exercised as man, but that of which he is both the object and author; or that by which souls believe in him for acceptance, for righteousness, for pardon, for every supply of grace, and for eternal life and happiness." 

Amen to that!

Does God Deceive People?

"And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel." (Eze. 14: 9 kjv)

Many Bible teachers and students are puzzled by the Lord saying “I the Lord have deceived that prophet." Does God do that? Is not Satan called the deceiver? (Rev. 12: 9, etc.) 

We also read of a case where Jeremiah, the Lord's prophet, says these words: 

"Then I said, “Ah, Lord God! Surely You have greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem, Saying, ‘You shall have peace,’ Whereas the sword reaches to the heart.” (Jer. 4: 10 nkjv)

"O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived: thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me." (Jer. 20: 7 kjv)

We might argue that Jeremiah was wrong to think this way about his God. However, in the above text in Ezekiel it is LORD God himself who says he has deceived false prophets. So, how do we harmonize this with the fact that God is a God "who cannot lie"? (Numb. 23: 19; Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:17-18) 

Notice also that God not only deceives the prophet but destroys him for being deceived. That seems to be the work of an unjust tyrannical god. 

Some Bible commentators explain this to mean that God merely permits prophets to be deceived. But, this is to be doubted as the meaning, but is accepted by some due to the cognitive dissonance such a statement produces and is a way to exonerate God from being the one who directly caused the deception. I find this explanation interesting, especially coming from those who deny that God is the cause of all things, or has decreed or predestined all things, for if they allow that God's permitting sin means he causes sin, then they ought not to be objecting to Calvinists who assert that God is the cause of all things, including sin. 

However, God could have prevented the tempter's entrance into Eden. Since he did not, he may be considered a contributing cause of Eve being tempted. A "contributing cause" (or contributing factor) is a condition, event, or action that helps bring about a result, increases its likelihood, or makes it more severe, but is not the immediate or direct or the efficient cause of the action. Further, God is "the first cause of all things," the cause of all other causes, of all secondary causes. We might also call God the "material cause" of all things (though he is not a physical being, but spiritual), one of the four causes identified by Aristotle. I discuss these four causes in my series on predestination (here) and where I used this chart:

This is what Paul taught when he said of God: "For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things." (Rom. 11: 36) "Of him" sees God as the first or material cause, "through him" sees him as the instrumental cause, and "to him" as the "final cause." "Of" or "from" him is from the Greek word "ek" which means "out of" and "through" is from the Greek preposition "dia" which denotes instrumentality, and "to" or "unto" is from the preposition "eis" which means into, unto, for the purpose of. So, all things are from God, and through God, and for or unto God, for his own ends and purpose. 

In the Garden of Eden Satan came and deceived the woman into disobeying the express command of God not to eat of the tree of forbidden knowledge. We also learn that God considers it wrong to permit evil when it is in our power to prevent it. Notice this text in support of this assertion:

"Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols." (Rev. 2: 20 nkjv)

However, God allowed Satan to enter the Garden and he allows everything that occurs and it would not occur without him permitting it. So, why is he not to blame? Many think he is for this very reason. He knows who will be murdered, so why does he not prevent it? Why did he not kill Hitler and save millions from death? So, if God deceived the prophets by permitting them to be deceived, one still has a problem explaining why God allowed such to occur.

Other Bible commentators explain the text to mean that though God is the one who is doing the deceiving, and not by simply allowing it, yet it is just and right since it is done by way of punishment for sin, just as his hardening of hearts is likewise a judicial hardening done for habitual sin committed. That is likely the case. Hardening refers to a judicial act by which God as judge hardens the hearts of individuals for persistent resistance to his will and which leads to a further state of spiritual insensitivity and rebellion. This is a case where God says to such incorrigible stubborn sinners "just be that way then!" or "have it your way then." Or, as we read where he will say to some in the day of judgment - "He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still." (Rev. 22: 11 nkjv) Similarly we read of this divine judgment upon those who stubbornly reject God and his law:

"But when I speak with you, I will open your mouth, and you shall say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God.’ He who hears, let him hear; and he who refuses, let him refuse; for they are a rebellious house." (Eze. 3: 27 nkjv)

We also read where Lord God acted this way towards those who refused him over and over again:

"Just as it is written: “God has given them a spirit of stupor, Eyes that they should not see And ears that they should not hear, To this very day.” And David says: “Let their table become a snare and a trap, A stumbling block and a recompense to them. Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see, And bow down their back always.” (Rom. 11: 8-10 nkjv)

The Lord also said in another of his Oracles of judgment:

“But My people would not heed My voice, And Israel would have none of Me. So I gave them over to their own stubborn heart, To walk in their own counsels." (Psa. 81: 11-12 nkjv)

For God to do these things in declaratory judgment causes the wicked ones described to be further deceived, for to be blinded, deafened, given over to their own stubborn hearts, will lead to the results mentioned, that they will "walk in their own counsels," be blinded or deceived, and be left alone by the Lord. So the Lord declared:

“For Israel is stubborn Like a stubborn calf; Now the Lord will let them forage Like a lamb in open country. “Ephraim is joined to idols, Let him alone." (Hosea 4: 16-17 nkjv)

Not only is God telling others to "let them forage like a lamb in open country" but to "let them alone," things which God himself does in judgment and which brings them disastrous effects. Translators are not uniform in how they translate part of this text, with some translating as "can the LORD now feed them like a lamb in a broad pasture?" (esv) "now the LORD will feed them as a lamb in a large place" (kjv). Many like the ESV translate the words as a question. The KJV says that "the LORD will feed them..." In the latter case the words would suggest doing them good rather than evil. 

But, the context is one of judgment. I think the NKJV is correct. Two times God says "let" such and such be the case. We saw this same word above in Romans chapter eleven where LORD God says "let their table become a snare and a trap" and "let their eyes be darkened." We should understand the word "let" to mean the same thing as when the Lord said in creation "let there be light." So, it may very well be that when the Lord says that he has deceived a prophet who is forsaking the one true God he means that he has said "let him be deceived." It is a judgment for God to say "let them forage in an open country." In that situation they would as sheep not be under the protection of a shepherd, but would rather be in peril of wolves and lions. 

We have another similar case of this in these words of the Lord:

“As for you, O house of Israel,” thus says the Lord God: “Go, serve every one of you his idols—and hereafter—if you will not obey Me; but profane My holy name no more with your gifts and your idols." (Ezekiel 20: 39 nkjv)

When God says to those who had forsaken him "go and serve everyone of you his idols" he is not saying this to mean that this is what he actually wants, but is said sarcastically, or as I said previously, is a case where God is simply saying "okay, be that way then" or "have it your way then." God says to the stubborn refusers -  "okay be deceived then." "Go serve your idols" is akin to "Ephraim is joined to idols, let him alone."

The prophet Micaiah describes a vision in heaven where God asks a divine council how to entice King Ahab into battle, because God in judgment has determined that Saul be slain as a result and be removed as king. God therefore authorizes a "lying spirit" to go into the mouths of Ahab's prophets to deceive him. Notice the story:

"19 Then Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by, on His right hand and on His left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will persuade Ahab to go up, that he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?’ So one spoke in this manner, and another spoke in that manner. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ 22 The Lord said to him, ‘In what way?’ So he said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the Lord said, ‘You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.’ 23 Therefore look! The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the Lord has declared disaster against you.” (I Kings 22: 19-23 nkjv)

Here is a case where the prophets of Saul, "his prophets," "these prophets of yours," not God's prophets, are deceived by a "lying spirit" being given permission of the Lord to deceive them and in deceiving them Saul himself would also be deceived and thus would result in his destruction. 

We also see where in the days of the Apocalypse when the Antichrist or lawless one, the little horn of Daniel, is revealed and becomes dictator or tyrant over his global Satanic kingdom. Wrote the apostle Paul:

"8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (II Thess. 2: 8-12 nkjv)

Notice that this "strong delusion" (deception) is not arbitrary or without just cause. It is sent on those who refused God and instead accepted Antichrist as their God and who believed "the lie" and who are thus condemned for not believing the truth and for having pleasure in unrighteousness.

In the old testament we see where God suffered false prophets to come among his people and to attempt, and sometimes to succeed, in deceiving them. Notice it:

“If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’—which you have not known—‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul." (Deut. 13: 1-3 nkjv) 

The time under the Antichrist will likewise be a test for mankind. (Rev. 3: 10)

"Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth." (nkjv)

Deception in War 

Deception in War is generally accepted as a valid military strategy to protect lives and win battles, and the Bible contains several examples where God's people used ruses or where strategic military deception was seemingly approved or commanded. In Joshua 8:2–7 God instructs Joshua to set an ambush against the city of Ai, using a feigned retreat to lure the enemy out. In Judges 7 Gideon uses torches, pitchers, and strategic shouting to make the Midianite army believe the Israelite forces are much larger than they are. Rahab lied to protect Israelite spies in Joshua 2, an act praised in the New Testament (Hebrews 11:31) for her faith. 

In WWII the British were experts in ways to deceive the Nazis. In Operation Overlord the allies under General Eisenhower made the Nazis believe that the allies would land at Pas-de-Calais and this sub-operation was called Operation Fortitude. They landed at Normandy beaches where they were least expected. General George Patton was placed in command of the fake army in southeastern England to convince the Germans a major attack was coming across the shortest point of the English Channel. The Allies used inflatable rubber tanks, wooden aircraft, and fake landing craft made of canvas and scaffolding to trick German reconnaissance flights. This deception saved the lives of many allied soldiers.

When someone is defiant against God, who is a willful determined enemy of his, as is Satan, it is perfectly just and right for God to deceive him.

Sometimes we also justify deceiving others for other good purposes. We often do this when having surprise birthday parties. We will tell the person, whose birthday it is, various lies to get him to be in the place of the party and to keep him from knowing in advance what has been planned for him.

The point is this: God does not deceive as does Satan. He does not deceive for the same reason. It is God's desire that "all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth" (I Tim. 2:4). But, for some, God has said he will deceive them, and in the way and for the purpose I have shown.

Problems in Divorcing Conversion From Regeneration (10)

The above citation from Dr. R.C. Sproul contradicts his view that regeneration or rebirth precedes faith. His order is 1) regeneration, 2) faith, 3) justification, 4) sanctification. It contradicts this order because initial sanctification occurs in regeneration. Louis Berkhof in his Systematic Theology wrote:

"At the same time regeneration is the beginning of sanctification. The work of renewal, begun in the former, is continued in the latter, Phil. 1:6." (Chapter X "Sanctification")

Considering what is said to occur in the experience of regeneration, sanctification cannot be excluded. If it is a receiving of a new divine nature, how can this exclude holiness? If it is being conformed to the image of Christ, how can this exclude holiness? If it is obtaining a new heart and spirit, how can this exclude holiness? When does a person become holy? Who can imagine being regenerated without being made partakers of Christ's holiness? Paul says that the "new man" that is created in regeneration is "created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness." (Eph. 4: 24) 

In his article on "Regeneration" (here) Sproul wrote:

"Though regeneration is a one-time act in which God renews the nature, will, mind, and heart of the elect, it is the fountainhead of progressive sanctification. The transformation of the nature is the beginning of the restoration of the whole man in union with Christ. The seed of sanctification is implanted in the souls of believers in their new birth."

So, since regeneration is the beginning of sanctification, then logically Sproul and the BABF folks affirm that sanctification precedes justification, which is not logical, biblical, nor the teaching of the first Reformers of the Calvinist tradition. 

In "Dead to Sin, Alive to God" (Part two) (See here) Sproul said:

"We have not been justified by our holiness or through our holiness, but we are justified for the purpose that we might grow into conformity to the image of Christ. So, we are not justified by our sanctification; we are justified in order that we may progress in our sanctification." 

But, since holiness or sanctification is begun in regeneration, and faith and justification follow, then it is not true that "we have not been justified by our holiness" or "not justified by our sanctification." 

Got Questions web page is a popular web site promotes the born again before faith (BABF) view. You can see that ordo salutis on this page (here). Yet on this web page (here) the authors say: "Regeneration begins the process of sanctification wherein we become the people God intends us to be (Romans 8:28–30)." 

Charles Spurgeon in "Morning and Evening," for July 4th morning, in "The Tool of Sanctification" and the text "Sanctify them in the truth" (John 17:17), rightly said: "Sanctification begins in regeneration." 

I have numerous articles showing that the first Reformers and the Bible too have said that sanctification and regeneration logically follows justification. See my post "Sanctified in Regeneration" (here). In that post I cited Dr. John Gill, predecessor of Spurgeon, who said in his Body of Divinity, in the section on Sanctification, that 

"The foundation of "sanctification" is laid in "regeneration...in regeneration and sanctification, the Lord circumcises the heart, or regenerates and sanctifies it." 

The Bible tells us that sinners are "sanctified by faith in Christ Jesus" (Acts 26:18).

Why does Sproul and his ilk insist that justification logically precedes sanctification? Is it not because he knows that it is the Protestants who insisted on this order in opposition to the Catholics who confounded justification with sanctification? See my series "Justification Unto Life and Regeneration" (beginning here and containing eight articles). See also my post "On The Justification Regeneration Ordo Debate" (here). See also my short series "Justification Precedes Sanctification" (here) See also my post "Justification By Faith Precedes Rebirth" (here). 

Five years ago I wrote a two part series titled "The Logical Difficulty" (See here and here) wherein I called attention to some of the logical difficulties that results from affirming that regeneration precedes faith and conversion. In the first article I cited again from Berkhof who wrote the following in the same section on "Sanctification" (emphasis mine):

"The Reformers in speaking of sanctification emphasized the antithesis of sin and redemption rather than that of nature and supernature. They made a clear distinction between justification and sanctification, regarding the former as a legal act of divine grace, affecting the judicial status of man, and the latter, as a moral or re-creative work, changing the inner nature of man. But while they made a careful distinction between the two, they also stressed their inseparable connection. While deeply convinced that man is justified by faith alone, they also understood that the faith which justifies is not alone. Justification is at once followed by sanctification, since God sends out the Spirit of His Son into the hearts of His own as soon as they are justified, and that Spirit is the Spirit of sanctification." 

He also said:

"...it is necessary to stress the fact over and over again that sanctification is the fruit of justification, that the former is simply impossible without the latter, and that both are the fruits of the grace of God in the redemption of sinners."

If sanctification is the fruit of justification, and if sanctification occurs in regeneration, and if justification is the result of faith, then faith precedes justification, regeneration, and sanctification. 

Not only is there a logical problem in this way, but also in regards to union with Christ by faith.

In "Dead to Sin, Alive to God" Sproul wrote:

"By the Holy Spirit, every person who believes in Christ is then joined to Christ spiritually."

If that is true (and it is) that faith unites a person to Christ, then to say that a person is regenerated before faith is to affirm that he is regenerated while unjoined to Christ, and that is an absurdity.

He also wrote:

"...everyone who believes savingly in Jesus Christ is somebody who has been raised already from spiritual death."

But how can a person receive spiritual life while separated from Christ who is "the Life"? John said "whoever has the Son has life" (I John 5:12). It is absurd to say that a person possesses the Son before he has received or been joined to the Son. Jesus also said that it is by coming to him in faith that life is received. (John 5:40) 

In the article titled "Regeneration" (here) Sproul wrote:

"In the Epistles, regeneration is often represented by language denoting spiritual resurrection in union with Christ (Rom. 6:4–6, 13; Eph. 2:5–6). Union with Christ in His death and resurrection makes regeneration possible."

By these words Sproul flatly contradicts himself. It is amazing that he and his followers are blind to it. He says union with Christ is a necessary pre-condition for being made spiritually alive and we have already seen where he said union with Christ is by faith. No wonder men like Sproul do not want to debate the subject with those who might point out these things.

He also wrote:

"During the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century, one of the great theological battles concerned the doctrine of regeneration. The Reformed vigorously defended the idea that regeneration precedes faith and that it is based on the sovereign working of the Holy Spirit. The Reformed doctrine of regeneration stands in stark contrast to doctrines of both the Arminians and Roman Catholic Church. The Arminian position of regeneration is that a person’s faith precedes his or her regeneration."

I have shown how Sproul has told a falsehood in his statements that the Reformers defended that idea that regeneration precedes faith. A man who utters such falsehoods is not worthy of being given any credibility. It is Sproul who is the one who is aligned with the Roman Catholic church in putting sanctification before justification.

Charles Hodge, the eminent Calvinist theologian, who I have previously cited, wrote: "With the theologians of the seventeenth century conversion and regeneration were synonymous terms." (Systematic Theology Vol. 3 page 12 - See here) 

Why did the first Calvinists or theologians of the 17th century see evangelical conversion and regeneration as the same? Is it not because they saw that this is so with the biblical writers? If the Reformers saw conversion as regeneration, did they not then teach that faith precedes regeneration since conversion is a coming to faith and repentance? Hodge wrote further:

"John Owen, in his work on the Holy Spirit, follows the same usage. The fifth chapter of the third book of that work is entitled “The nature of regeneration,” and one of the heads under this is, “Conversion not wrought by moral suasion only.” “If the Holy Spirit,” he says, “acts no otherwise on men in regeneration or conversion,” then so and so follows. Turrettin, as we have seen, distinguishes between what he calls “conversio habitualis” and “conversio actualis.” -- This is clear and accurate. As these two things are distinct they should be designated by different terms. Great confusion arises from this ambiguity of terms. The questions whether man is active or passive in regeneration and whether regeneration is effected by the mediate or immediate influence of the Spirit must be answered in one way if regeneration includes conversion, and in another if it be taken in its restricted sense. In the Bible, the distinction is generally preserved; μετάνοια, repentance, change of mind, turning to God, i.e., conversion, is what man is called upon to do; ἀναγέννησις, regeneration, is the act of God. God regenerates; the soul is regenerated. In the Romish Church justification is making subjectively just, i.e., free from sin and inwardly holy. So is regeneration. So is sanctification. These terms, therefore, in the theology of that church are constantly interchanged." (emphasis mine)

If conversion by faith and repentance is the same experience called regeneration, new birth, quickening, etc., then it is wrong to say that in regeneration a sinner is completely passive, or that it occurs apart from the means of truth and light, and that it is an experience where only God acts and the sinner's acts are no part of it.

Louis Berkhof in his Systematic Theology wrote the following in his section titled "Regeneration and Effectual Calling" (you can read here):

"Calvin also used the term in a very comprehensive sense as a designation of the whole process by which man is renewed, including, besides the divine act which originates the new life, also conversion (repentance and faith) and sanctification.[Inst. III. 3,9.] 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, [III and IV. 11,12.] and the Belgic Confession seems to speak of regeneration in an even wider sense.[Art. XXIV.] This comprehensive use of the term “regeneration” often led to confusion and to the disregard of very necessary distinctions. 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." 

So, it is either an improvement or refinement of the views of Calvin and the first Calvinist Reformers or it is rather a deterioration or worsening of the doctrine of salvation to deny that conversion is regeneration. For myself I am convinced that they are the same and that great harm has come from denying that they are the same. It has become the Achilles heel of modern day Calvinism. 

One of the arguments against the view that says regeneration precedes faith and justification is to be found in Romans chapter five where the apostle Paul saw a likeness between Adam and Christ, between the guilt, condemnation, estrangement, and depravity or unrighteousness of nature resulting from Adam's transgression and the justification, reconciliation, and new holy nature resulting from Christ's active obedience. In the former case, degeneration of nature is the result of condemnation. Likewise, in the latter case, regeneration of nature is the result of justification. So, Calvinists of the BABF view generally say that regeneration of nature precedes justification but degeneration of nature comes after imputation of guilt and condemnation. 

In the previous chapters I cited R.C. Sproul who claimed that "Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield - even the great medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas taught this doctrine" that regeneration precedes faith. I have shown how this is not true. Let me cite further from Jonathan Edwards. In the Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume one, chapter two, THE EVIDENCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN FROM WHAT THE SCRIPTURE TEACHES OF THE APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION, Edwards wrote (emphasis mine):

"I. If we compare one scripture with another, it will be sufficiently manifest, that by regeneration, or being begotten, or born again, the same change in the state of the mind is signified with that which the scripture speaks of as affected in true repentance and conversion. I put repentance and conversion together, because the scripture puts them together, Acts iii. 19. and because they plainly signify much the same thing...In the change which the mind undergoes in repentance and conversion, is attained that character of true Christians which is necessary to the eternal privileges of such. Acts iii. 19. ”Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.” And thus it is in regeneration; as is evident from what Christ says to Nicodemus...Add to this, that regeneration, or a being born again, and the renewing (or making new) by the Holy Ghost, are spoken of as the same thing, Tit. iii. 5. “By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”" (Available to read here)

So, we see that even in 18th century Calvinism, represented by Edwards, that the prevailing view was that regeneration and conversion were the same experience. If conversion is regeneration, and since Sproul and the BABF folks all teach that conversion is by faith and by some activity of the sinner, then Edwards must be seen as affirming that faith precedes regeneration. As we saw in previous chapters, it was men like Samuel Hopkins (1721 –1803)  and Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) who represented the growing view of Turretin. It was the view that more and more was accepted by the new Baptist sect of "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists. 

Edwards wrote further: 

"V. It is abundantly manifest, that being born again, spiritually rising from the dead to newness of life, receiving a new heart, and being renewed in the spirit of the mind, are the same thing with that which is called putting off the old man, and putting on the new man...As Dr. T. confesses, “that to be born again, is that wherein are obtained the habits of virtue, religion, and true holiness;” so how evidently is the same thing predicated of that change, which is called putting off the old man, and putting on the new man! Eph. iv. 22-24. “That ye put off the old man, which is corrupt, &c. and put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” And it is most plain, that this putting off the old man, &c. is the very same thing with making the heart and spirit new."

If it is true that the putting off of the old man and the putting on of the new man describes regeneration, then it cannot be argued that a sinner is totally passive in regeneration, for he is exhorted to do the putting on and putting off, just as he is exhorted by God to circumcise his heart, to make himself a new heart, etc., as in Ezekiel 18: 31 and Jeremiah 4: 4. See my post on this "Make You A New Heart" (here) and "Circumcise in Heart" (here) and "Passive or Active?" (here)

So Edwards himself agreed, writing:

"II. The change which a man undergoes when born again, and in his repentance and conversion, is the same that the scripture calls the circumcision of the heart...That circumcision of the heart, is the same with conversion, or turning from sin to God, is evident by Jer. iv. 1-4. “If thou wilt return, O Israel, return unto me. Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and put away the foreskins of your heart“ And Deut. x. 16. ”Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff-necked.” Circumcision of the heart is the same change of the heart that men experience in repentance; as is evident by Lev. xxvi. 41. “If their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they accept the punishment of their iniquity.”

"Many other things might be observed, to show that the change men pass under in their repentance and conversion, is the same with that of which they are the subjects in regeneration.—But these observations may be sufficient."

"III. This inward change, called regeneration, and circumcision of the heart, which is wrought in repentance and conversion, is the same with that spiritual resurrection so often spoken of, and represented as a dying unto sin, and a living unto righteousness."

"This inheritance is the same thing with that kingdom of heaven, which men obtain by being born again, according to Christ’s words to Nicodemus; and that same inheritance of them that are sanctified, spoken of as what is obtained in true conversion. Acts xxvi. 18. “To turn them (or convert them) from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sin, and inheritance among them that are sanctified, through faith that is in me.”

This is the biblical view and the view of Calvin and the first Calvinists of the Reformation.

Edwards wrote further:

"VI. I observe once more, it is very apparent, that being born again, and spiritually raised from death to a state of new existence and life, having a new heart created in us, being renewed in the spirit of our mind, and being the subjects of that change by which we put off the old man, and put on the new man, is the same thing with that which in Scripture is called being created anew, or made new creatures."

This is true, but lost sinners are exhorted to make themselves a new heart, to put on the new man, and to be renewed. On exhortation to be "renewed" see these texts (Rom. 12: 2; Eph. 4: 22-24). Sometimes this work of renewing, like circumcision of heart, is spoken of as a work of God and wherein the sinner is passive, however, at other times such work is seen as a work the sinner is to do by calling upon God to do it.

It was in response to such passages that Dr. Alvah Hovey (1820-1903) wrote:

"The simple fact is, that man is both active and passive in regeneration. The first series of texts brings to view his activity; the second, his passivity. Man is active in thinking upon the truth, in exercising his sensibilities in relation to it, and in giving up his heart to God; he is passive in that he is acted upon by the truth, and also by the Holy Spirit. He both acts and is acted upon."  (See "Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible" By John W. Haley, Alvah Hovey - Here)

Edwards wrote further:

"Col. iii. 9, 10. “Ye have put off the old man—and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge, after the image of him that created him.” So Eph. iv. 22-24. “That ye put off the old man, which is corrupt, &c. and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” These things absolutely fix the meaning of 2 Cor. v. 17. “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”

"I put repentance and conversion together, as the Scripture puts them together, Acts iii. 19, and because they plainly signify much the same thing. The word metanoia (repentance) signifies a change of the mind; as the word conversion means a change or turning from sin to God. And that this is the same change with that which is called regeneration (excepting that this latter term especially signifies the change, as the mind is passive in it), the following things do show…" (Original Sin, 362; Read here)

By "repentance" Edwards, like Calvin, meant regeneration. So, he puts regeneration and conversion together, a thing which the BABF Calvinists do not do. He also says that he does this because this is what the Bible writers did. He does say that the "latter term" "regeneration" "especially signifies" that part of the process wherein a sinner is passive. In this he is speaking in the language of some Calvinists theologians of the BABF view. But, as we see, he, like John Gill, like J.P. Boyce, etc., does not define regeneration strictly so as to exclude conversion or the activity of the sinner.

John Gerstner, of the BABF stripe, comments on these words of Edwards, saying:

"This is a rather unfortunate and unscientific way of proceeding. While it is true that Scripture tends to use these different terms synonymously, there are significant differences." (See here)

What an awful commentary on both Edwards and the Biblical writers! Gerstner admits that the Scriptures use the terms conversion and regeneration synonymously and then says that they are not the same!

John Owen and Common Grace

1616 - 1683

I recently watched a video of a brother who presented a case for saying that John Owen did not believe in "common grace." When I watched it I knew Owen did in fact espouse the belief in common grace. So, I listened for the evidence. He did not give any citation where Owen denied a belief in common grace. What he did was cite from Owens where he affirmed that the good things the non-elect are given in life serve only to increase their condemnation. 

There are many citations that could be given where Owen stated clearly his belief in common grace. Here are a few. First, Owen wrote (emphasis mine):

"But the best of common grace or gifts that may be in men unregenerate are but products of the providence of God, ordering all things in general unto his own glory and the good of them that shall be heirs of salvation. They are not fruits of electing eternal love, nor designed means for the infallible attaining of eternal salvation. (2.) The graces of those that are regenerate have a manifold respect or relation to the Lord Christ, that the common graces of others have not...Now, the common grace of unregenerate persons, whereby they are distinguished from other men, whatever it be, it hath not this especial relation to the oblation and intercession of Christ. Common grace is not the procurement of especial intercession...Now, although the common gifts and graces of men unregenerate are effects of the power of the Holy Ghost wrought in them and bestowed on them, as are all other works of God’s providence, yet it doth not work in them, as received by them, to dwell in them and abide with them, as a never-failing spring of spiritual life...And thus it is with the saving grace that is in a regenerate, and those common graces that are in others which are not so. " (From his sermon Exposition upon the Psalm 130; See here)

In "The Display of Arminianism" (Available to read here) Owen wrote:

"Fourthly, Concerning grace itself, it is either common or special. Common or general grace consisteth in the external revelation of the will of God by his word, with some illumination of the mind to perceive it, and correction of the affections not too much to contemn it; and this, in some degree or other, to some more, to some less, is common to all that are called. Special grace is the grace of regeneration, comprehending the former, adding more spiritual acts, but especially presupposing the purpose of God, on which its efficacy doth chiefly depend."

This web page (here) gives numerous other citations from Owen on common grace.

When Peter said that husbands and wives are partakers of the "grace of life" he is speaking of common grace. (I Peter 3:7) 

I would disagree with Owen that common graces and gifts of God are not intended to incite sinners to seek the Lord and his salvation. I think when Paul said that "the goodness of God" is intended to "lead to repentance" (Rom. 2: 4) that this shows this to be the case. 

Problems in Divorcing Conversion From Regeneration (9)

"Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him."

There is some debate over the expression "he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with him." Are the words "is joined" passive or middle voice?

In Koine Greek, the present middle and present passive forms of verbs and participles look identical. So, the only way to know whether "is joined" is middle or passive is by other factors, such as the context. The middle voice in Koine Greek indicates that the subject acts as both the agent (doer) and the primary focus or beneficiary of the action. In other words it is something a person actively does and does for his benefit, doing it by himself and for himself.

The problem with saying the present participle is passive voice is the fact that this interpretation will not work with the first use of the participle in verse sixteen where we read of one who is joined to a harlot. Surely we cannot say that such sexual sins are done passively. A person chooses to do so and unites himself with a whore. So, likewise, a person who is joined to the Lord and becomes one with him likewise is active in uniting himself and does it with the purpose of benefiting himself thereby. 

Of course, it is possible that a marital union may be both active and passive, both in different senses, but not so in joining oneself to a whore in fornication. In marriage a man and a woman consent to unite themselves together in marriage and yet when they are formally or legally joined we hear the preacher say - "What God has joined together." By this we mean that God agrees to the union and certifies or confirms it. So, in this case we see where there is active joining by the parties and a joining where God is the one who is doing the joining.

The main point however is this, what I mentioned in the previous chapter: One must first be joined to Christ by faith before he can be regenerated, born again, quickened, justified, forgiven, sanctified, or washed of sin by the blood of Christ. And, since we are discussing the logical order of things in salvation, it is quite logical to say that union with Christ is first in any ordo salutis, and that it is by faith that sinners unite themselves to Christ. It is illogical to say that union with Christ is by faith and also to say that regeneration precedes faith. Calvin was right to say that as long as a person is separated from Christ, disjoined from him, there is no life, justification, or any other aspect of salvation. Christ is life, and to be disconnected from him is to be dead. That is logical. The union is brought to effect in the birth but the birth is the immediate result of faith, as both Calvin and Luther said - "we are born again by faith." It is not logical to say union with Christ is by faith but that being born of God is before faith. In that case union is not by faith. 

When Paul speaks of those who are joined to Christ (in Greek the word means glued together), when does he contemplate that such happened in the lives of the members of the church of Corinth? When they were supposedly regenerated as infants? When they were regenerated at some unknown point in time without knowing it, when it occurred at some unknown time unbeknownst to them? Or, is it not rather clear that he is referring to the time when they were joined to Christ by faith, or were converted? Is it not that time that Paul speaks about when he says to the Corinthians - "For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ" (II Cor. 11: 2b nkjv)? So, how and when is a sinner wedded to Christ? Can a person be married to Christ apart from his choice to be married? Can a person be married to Christ and not know he is married? Paul wrote to the Roman Christians about their marriage to Christ in these words:

"Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God." (Rom. 7:4 nkjv)

Some Hyper Calvinists want to say that the bride of Christ was married to Christ before the world began by that act of the Father choosing those who would be the bride (the elect), being a prearranged marriage. However, the above texts show this not to be the case. Why would Paul espouse or betroth the believers in the church of Corinth to Christ if they were already married to him? Their betrothal was of course their day of conversion through Paul's ministry among them, and Paul was the one who arranged the "get together." Paul introduced the Corinthians to Jesus. 

The Greek word for "betrothed" ('espoused' kyv) is "harmozō," which is not the usual word for being engaged in marriage (as in Matt. 1: 18; Luke 1: 27; 2:5 concerning the engagement of Mary and Joseph), and is used only here in the new testament. Its root meaning is to be "joined" or "fit together" and is used by carpenters joining wood beams together as well as joining a man and woman together in marital union. So, the point is this, union with Christ occurs by faith in conversion and of which the one who introduces a sinner to Christ by informing about Christ is the medium of his salvation. The union was not something that occurred to the Corinthian believers apart from their faith or choice to be so united to Christ. 

In this post (here) on "Union With Christ" I began by asking these Questions: 

 

1) Does union with Christ precede or follow faith?

2) Does regeneration precede or follow union with Christ? 

3) Does justification precede or follow union with Christ?

4) Does regeneration precede or follow justification? 

I then affirmed this proposition - "Union with Christ is by Faith." I also cited the above text (I Cor. 6:17) about being joined to Christ. The only ones who will answer question number one by saying "it precedes faith" - are those who are Hyper Calvinists or semi-Hyper who say that sinners are "born again before faith" (BABF). 

The Westminster shorter catechism asked the question (#30) - "How doth the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?" The answer given is - 

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

Likewise, "Keach's Catechism" of the 1689 London Baptist Confession likewise asked and 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."

In that same article I cited from H.B. Smith (1815-1877) in his Systematic Theology who wrote (SEE HERE - emphasis mine): "This union is at the ground of regeneration and justification." That is the view of Calvin and the first Calvinists of the Reformation. It is the view I firmly believe and contend for. It is a truth denied by those of the BABF view, men such as the late R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur, and of James White and John Piper (although the latter has actually taken both views at times and has said that union with Christ is by faith). 

R. L. Dabney (1820-1898), well known theologian, wrote the following in "Union To Christ Effectuates Salvation"(emphasis mine):

"The instrumental bond of the union is evidently faith—i. e., when the believer exercises faith, the union begins; and by the exercise of faith it is on his part perpetuated. See Eph. 3:17; John 14:23; Gal. 3:26–28. First God embraces us with His electing and renewing love; and we then embrace Him by the actings of our faith, so that the union is consummated on both sides. One of the results, or, if you please, forms, of the union is justification. Of this, faith is the instrument, "for being justified by faith, we have peace with God." The other form is sanctification. Faith has the instrumental relation to this also; for He "purifieth our hearts by faith;" "faith worketh by love;" and it is the victory which overcometh the world." (Chapter 38: Union to Christ - See here)

Dabney rightly says that justification, like regeneration, follows faith union Christ. In so doing he is taking the position of Calvin and Beza and the authors of the 1689 London Baptist Confession.

Wrote the great A. H. Strong (1836-1921) in his Systematic Theology  (emphasis mine):

"The consequences of union with Christ may be summarily stated as follows:

(a) Union with Christ involves a change in the dominant affection of the soul. Christ's entrance into the soul makes it a new creature, in the sense that the ruling disposition, which before was sinful, now becomes holy. This change we call Regeneration.

(b) Union with Christ involves a new exercise of the soul's powers in repentance and faith; faith, indeed, is the act of the soul by which, under the operation of God, Christ is received. This new exercise of the soul's powers we call Conversion (Repentance and Faith). It is the obverse or human side of Regeneration."

"While in some cases God's preparatory work occupies a long time, there are many cases in which he cuts short his work in righteousness (Rom. 9:28). Some persons are regenerated in infancy or childhood, cannot remember a time when they did not love Christ, and yet take long to learn that they are regenerate." 

Here is where Strong contradicts what he said in the above citations. He says people may be regenerated while infants, apart from any preparation or union with Christ by faith.

Clearly Strong says that faith is first, then union with Christ, then justification, then regeneration. I find that many of those who espouse the BABF view say that union with Christ is by faith. When they say this I am puzzled at such a contradiction for in that case their regeneration while they were unjoined to Christ.

Strong also wrote:

"Luther: "By faith thou art so glued to Christ that of thee and him there becomes as it were one person, so that with confidence thou canst say: ' I am Christ,—that is, Christ's righteousness, victory, etc., are mine'; and Christ in turn can say: 'I am that sinner,—that is, his sins, his death, etc., are mine, because he clings to me and I to him, for we have been joined through faith into one flesh and bone.'" Calvin: "I attribute the highest importance to the connection between the head and the members; to the inhabitation of Christ in our hearts; in a word, to the mystical union by which we enjoy him, so that, being made ours, he makes us partakers of the blessings with which he is furnished." John Bunyan: "The Lord led me into the knowledge of the mystery of union with Christ, that I was joined to him, that I was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. By this also my faith in him as my righteousness was the more confirmed; for if he and I were one, then his righteousness was mine, his merits mine, his victory also mine. Now could I see myself in heaven and on earth at once— in heaven by my Christ, my risen head, my righteousness and life, though on earth by my body or person." Edwards: "Faith is the soul's active uniting with Christ. God sees fit that, in order to a union's being established between two intelligent active beings, there should be the mutual act of both, that each should receive the other, as entirely joining themselves to one another." Andrew Fuller: "I have no doubt that the imputation of Christ's righteousness presupposes a union with him; since there is no perceivable fitness in bestowing benefits on one for another's sake, where there is no union or relation between." (59-84 - Union with Christ By Augustus Hopkins Strong - See here)

Strong in his section on "Regeneration" wrote:

"Man is not wholly passive at the time of his regeneration. He is passive only with respect to the change of his ruling disposition. With respect to the exercise of this disposition, he is active. Although the efficient power which secures this exercise of the new disposition is the power of God, yet man is not therefore unconscious, nor is he a mere machine worked by God's fingers. On the other hand, his whole moral nature under God's working is alive and active."

Strong also said: "Good works are the necessary result of regeneration by union with Christ." He also rightly said:

"Conviction of sin is an ordinary, if not an invariable, antecedent of regeneration. It results from the contemplation of truth. It is often accompanied by fear, remorse, and cries for mercy. But these desires and fears are not signs of regeneration. They are selfish. They are quite consistent with manifest and dreadful enmity to God. They have a hopeful aspect, simply because they are evidence that the Holy Spirit is striving with the soul. But this work of the Spirit is not yet regeneration; at most, it is preparation for regeneration."

Many of the BABF advocates are forced to say that conviction of sin is a result of regeneration. But, such a view is fraught with many logical and scriptural difficulties. First of all, if a person is being convicted by the Spirit of his guilt and condemned state when he is really not such, then the Spirit is convincing a sinner of what is not true, making the Spirit to bear witness to a lie. I wrote about this in these posts (here and here).

Strong also wrote:

"Until the soul gives itself to God from motives of love, it is never saved. And so long as these preliminary motives rule, regeneration has not yet taken place. Bible-reading, and prayers, and church attendance, and partial reformations, are certainly better than apathy or outbreaking sin. They may be signs that God is working in the soul. But without complete surrender to God, they may be accompanied with the greatest guilt and the greatest danger; simply because, under such influences, the withholding of submission implies the most active hatred to God, and opposition to his will...There is a prevenient grace as well as a regenerating grace."

Again, I say, it was a grave mistake for post Reformation Calvinists to define regeneration by the acts of God alone apart from the acts that God's acts cause. In other words, for them to deny that in regeneration a sinner is both passive and active. Even they acknowledge this is true if regeneration is defined broadly so as to include conversion, which is the way the first Reformers and the scriptures define it.

Strong also wrote:

"...union with Christ logically precedes both regeneration and justification; and yet, chronologically, the moment of our union with Christ is also the moment when we are regenerated and justified. So, too, regeneration and conversion are but the divine and human sides or aspects of the same fact, although regeneration has logical precedence, and man turns only as God turns him."

Here we see where even Strong is not immune to inconsistency in his statements on the ordo salutis. In the above he says union with Christ by faith precedes regeneration but then says regeneration precedes conversion. Conversion involves repenting and believing, so how can conversion follow regeneration if, as he has said, regeneration precedes faith? Perhaps he is doing what others do, using the term "regeneration" in a restricted sense of some Calvinist theologies and not in its broad sense, the sense used by Calvin and the Reformers and the one used by the Bible writers. 

John Murray, an advocate for BABF theory, wrote that “union with Christ is...the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation...It is not simply a phase of the application of redemption; it underlies every aspect of redemption.” ("Redemption—Accomplished and Applied," pgs. 201, 205).

In that same post I cited John Murray who said (emphasis mine): "Union with Christ is the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation." (As cited here) He cited John Owen who said in agreement: 

 

"[Union with Christ] is the cause of all other graces that we are made partakers of; they are all communicated unto us by virtue of our union with Christ. Hence is our adoption, our justification, our sanctification, our fruitfulness, our perseverance, our resurrection, our glory." (Ibid)

Yet, Murray also wrote:

“Regeneration is inseparable from its effects and one of the effects is faith. Without regeneration it is morally and spiritually impossible for a person to believe in Christ, but when a person is regenerated it is morally and spiritually impossible for that person not to believe” (cf. John 6:37, 44, 45; pg. 111)."

“The fact that regeneration is the prerequisite of faith in no way relieves us of the responsibility to believe nor does it eliminate the priceless privilege that is ours as Christ and his claims are pressed upon us in full and free overtures of his grace. Our inability is no excuse for our unbelief nor does it provide us with any reason for not believing. As we are presented with Christ in the gospel there is no reason for the rejection of unbelief and all reason demands the entrustment of faith” (pg. 118)."

So, Murray believes that regeneration occurs before faith or union with Christ. That is an absurdity. This, as I stated, is common with those of the BABF view. They will say regeneration precedes faith but union with Christ, like justification, follows faith. So, logically speaking, a person is regenerated apart from union with Christ and is regenerated while still under condemnation and wrath. Murray in saying that regeneration precedes faith contradicts what he said in the above citations, such as when he said union with Christ by faith "underlies every aspect of redemption" and when he cites approvingly the words of Owen who said that union with Christ by faith "is the cause of all other graces that we are made partakers of; they are all communicated unto us by virtue of our union with Christ." If union with Christ by faith is "the cause" of all graces, of all aspects of salvation, how then can regeneration not be reckoned to have likewise been the result of faith?

John Calvin, also wrote: "...we are grafted into his body and made one with him by belief of the gospel..." (As cited in this article here)

J. P. Boyce (1827-1888) wrote the following in his Systematic Theology (emphasis mine):

"It holds an important connection with every act and condition of salvation. It is by faith that men come into vital union with Christ, through faith that they are justified." (CHAPTER XXXIV - FAITH - See here)

So, again, another great Calvinist theologian rightly says that faith first unites a sinner to Christ and then follows justification and regeneration and all other aspects of salvation.

In this post (here) I cited John V. Fesko who rote (See here emphasis mine):

"Charles Partee suggested that union with Christ, not predestination, was Calvin’s “central affirmation. Partee presses this point in his later book on Calvin’s theology with a twofold claim. First, though many Reformed theologians contributed to the complex development of the tradition, Partee believes “we can still affirm John Calvin as the greatest systematic thinker among them.” Second, in line with his earlier claim, Partee claims that union with Christ is Calvin’s central teaching. Partee argues that Reformed Orthodoxy departed from Calvin’s teaching: “To put the point briefly and sharply, Calvin is not a Calvinist because union with Christ is at the heart of his theology—and not theirs.”

When I debate with the BABF view I always insist that union with Christ be discussed. I am sure all the readers can see why this would be.

Reductio ad absurdum

Reductio ad absurdum is Latin for "reduction to the absurdity" and is a valid form of argument that disproves a statement or proposition by showing that accepting it leads to a logical contradiction, an impossibility, an absurdity, or a ridiculous outcome. It often leans on the "if, then" logical structure. The bible is full of such arguments. I believe that one of those examples of it in the Bible are in these words of the apostle Paul:

"For as touching those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." (Heb. 6:6 esv) 

This passage has been hotly debated since Paul, who is commonly believed to have written Hebrews, wrote those words. Some say the passage clearly affirms that truly saved people can fall away, apostatize, so as to lose salvation and be forever damned. Others, deny this, some of whom say that the people described are not truly saved people, and some say, as I do, that Paul is arguing reductio ad absurdum, showing what the consequences would be if we assume, for the sake of argument, that saved people can lose salvation. Paul is describing a character that does not exist except in argument or supposition. This is done all the time in debate. For instance, I say to those who believe regeneration precedes faith - "you have a person who exists only theoretically, for there is no such person as a regenerated unbeliever." 

Those who believe that saved people can lose their salvation are often heard saying - "if you cannot lose your salvation, then you have a character who can commit the most abominable acts and still be saved." But, is there really such a character? Or, is he a hypothetical character? 

I chose the above translation from the English Standard Version because it, like some other translations, leaves out the word "if" in verse six. Some translations, such as the KJV, have "if they fall away." Though the "if" is not in the original, many believe that it is implied, and that is probably true. But, it really does not matter. The phrase begins with the participle kai parapesontas (καὶ παραπέσαντας), meaning "and having fallen away" or "and falling away." "If they shall fall away" was chosen by the KJV translators to treat the statement as a hypothetical condition, and indeed it is such, although that is discernible apart from adding the word "if." 

In debate it is a common practice to use hypotheticals, suppositions, "what if" scenarios, or "if, then" type of reasonings in logic. When debating whether a saved person can lose his or her salvation, oftentimes these tactics are used. One side will argue - "if a saved person could lose his salvation, then" such and such absurdity would ensue. On the other side one will argue - "if a saved person cannot lose his salvation, then" such and such absurdity would ensue. In such discussions a debater may say "if we agree for the sake of argument..." The speaker says: "If [X] is true—and let us assume for the moment that it is—then [Y] follows." 

Here is another example similar to the text in Hebrews:

"Had Jesus fulfilled every prophecy concerning the Messiah and was not born in Bethlehem he could not possibly be the Messiah."

Here are other examples:

"For concerning God who is immutably good and cannot lie, and who changed and told a lie, it is impossible for him to return to being immutably good and honest." 

In each case there is no such character. The kind of God described is only a hypothetical being and the argument is an example of reduction ad absurdum. In discussions about the nature and attributes of God we might ponder many different scenarios, such as affirming that "God is love, just, holy, omnipotent, and mutable, not knowing the future choices of free will creatures" (which statement is the case with those who believe in Process Theology or Open Theism). Such a god does not exist, but is completely hypothetical. Another example of a hypothetical is seen in this sentence:

"As concerning those who have been promised and given eternal life and eternally died, it would be impossible for God to be trusted to keep his word and would be a contradiction."

We could also say - "whoever has the only key and loses it, will never unlock the door." 

Similar Sentences With The "if"or

Biblical Examples of Reductio Ad Absurdum

"But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty...For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished." (I Cor. 15: 13-14, 16-17 nkjv) 

In this line of argument by the apostle Paul he is showing the absurd consequences that are entailed in denying the resurrection of Christ. 

In Luke 7:39 Simon the Pharisee thought to himself: “If this man were a prophet, he would know what kind of woman is touching him. She's a sinner!” 

So, in conclusion I say that Paul is using a hypothetical case in the passage in Hebrews chapter six. He is showing how absurd the consequences would be if indeed a truly saved person lost his salvation. I believe this interpretation is sustained by the context. 

First, in verse three Paul says: "let us go on to perfection" and then says "And this we will do if God permits." Here Paul says that he is certain that those who have truly been saved will indeed go on to perfection because it is God's will. Second, he also tells the Hebrews, who he believes are for the most part truly the children of God, "we are confident of better things concerning you, yes, things that accompany salvation." Third, if it is a case that really happens, then no one who lost salvation could be saved again or restored.

There are some who believe in eternal security and the impossibility of a born again child of God to be eternally doomed who explain this passage by saying that the description of the ones who supposedly fall away may be describing false professors who were never truly saved. However, I find that explanation untenable. I wrote against this view in this post (here). I cited Charles Spurgeon who said the following:

"First, then, we answer the question, WHO ARE THE PEOPLE HERE SPOKEN OF? If you read Dr. Gill, Dr. Owen, and almost all the eminent Calvinistic writers, they all of them assert that these persons are not Christians. They say, that enough is said here to represent a man who is a Christian externally, but not enough to give the portrait of a true believer. Now, it strikes me they would not have said this if they had had some doctrine to uphold; for a child, reading this passage, would say, that the persons intended by it must be Christians. If the Holy Spirit intended to describe Christians, I do not see that he could have used more explicit terms than there are here. How can a man be said to be enlightened, and to taste of the heavenly gift, and to be made partaker of the Holy Ghost, without being a child of God? With all deference to these learned doctors, and I admire and love them all, I humbly conceive that they allowed their judgments to be a little warped when they said that; and I think I shall be able to show that none but true believers are here described."

That is my view exactly. Spurgeon said:

"But some one says, "What is falling away?" Well, there never has been a case of it yet, and therefore I cannot describe it from observation; but I will tell you what I suppose it is. To fall away, would be for the Holy Spirit entirely to go out of a man—for his grace entirely to cease; not to lie dormant, but to cease to be—for God, who has begun a good work, to leave off doing it entirely—to take his hand completely and entirely away, and say, "There, man! I have half saved thee; now I will damn thee." That is what falling away is." 

If the six experiences of saved people (as Spurgeon showed in the sermon) do not keep a man saved, then he can never be saved.