Problems in Divorcing Conversion From Regeneration (13)

One of the problems with the born again before faith (BABF) view is in its identifying the first thing that God does in leading to salvation as regeneration, thereby denying that there are any pre-regeneration or preparatory acts, steps, or means prior to salvation. Thus they see the very first "initiatory" act of God as being regeneration, denying that there is any prevenient grace (grace that precedes salvation). They often falsely charge others who deny the BABF view (among both Arminians and Calvinists) with denying that God is the one who initiates salvation rather than the sinner or any other man. Only the Pelagians would sometimes argue that the sinner initiates his own salvation. So, that is not the issue. It is a red herring. Rather, the question is whether there are any preparatory steps or means that occur prior to salvation and whether the means are always successful in actually saving or regenerating sinners, and why it is successful in some but not in others.

The Puritans were Calvinists who agreed with Calvin and Beza in denying that regeneration preceded faith and in affirming that there are preparatory things that occur prior to regeneration, and that these preparations are not salvation or evidences of salvation. I write at length about this in my ongoing series "Prevenient Grace." (began in April of this year; See archives) I have articles yet to add to this series in which I have numerous citations to make from Dr. Joel Beeke, expert on Puritan Calvinism, who cites extensively from the Puritans on their belief in things that must precede regeneration. The above book in the heading is a great source for such citations, with co-author Smalley.

Are there no preparations for being saved or regenerated? Are there no means thereunto, as the born again before faith (BABF) folks tend to deny? The Bible teaches that there are indeed things that generally occur prior to being saved, born again, or coming to faith in Christ. We may call these things preparations, steps, means, inducements, or graces of God.

Things God Does Prior To Salvation 

(including regeneration or new birth) 

1. God makes known the law and the gospel

2. The Father draws and pulls

3. The Father speaks to the heart

4. The Father teaches

5. God opens the eyes to see

6. God opens the ears to hear

7. God gets a sinner's attention by opening the heart 

8. God awakens sinners in regard to the things of God

9. The Spirit convinces sinners of sin and lost condition

10. God enlightens or informs sinners

11. God calls the sinner through the gospel

12. The Spirit influences hearts and minds

Those of the BABF view want to say that regeneration precedes all of these things. Doing so, however, makes the most wicked sinners and even unbelievers to be regenerated living children of God. It has also led to some of them becoming Universalists or almost so, saying, like the Hardshell Baptists, that only a small few are going to Hell. Many of the things listed above occur in the lives of many who are never saved, as we will see. On the other hand, the above things generally occur previously to regeneration in those who come to be saved. 

Many people experience influences from the Spirit and word of God but who are never saved. By "influence" I mean inducing, urging, impacting, persuading, swaying, coaxing, pressuring, or otherwise acting upon a person's thoughts and feelings. We see this influence operative in the preaching of Stephen the martyr. Stephen said the following in that sermon: "You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you do always resist the Holy Spirit." (Acts 7: 51 nkjv) Resisting the Holy Spirit logically requires that the Spirit is actively exerting an influence, force, conviction, upon an individual prior to his being saved. In physics, resistance cannot exist without a counter-force; to resist the Spirit therefore implies that the Spirit is exerting a force or influence. A person cannot push back against divine influence or nudging unless that is present and operative on that person. 

Those of the BABF view and the Hyper Calvinists often resist (pun intended) acknowledging that the Spirit exerts influence unto salvation in any who are not eventually saved or in those not of the elect. So, rather than acknowledging this fact they will argue that this fact does not annul the truth of the doctrine of effectual calling or "irresistible grace" (which is true) and say that the words of Stephen simply show that it is the nature of dead sinners to so resist. That also is true, but it does not address the issue which says that the Spirit does exert influence on the hearts and minds of dead sinners for the purpose of showing them their need of salvation and of the way of salvation. The question is, does this influence precede salvation? And the answer is yes. The idea that sinners must first be saved or regenerated before they can be positively influenced by the Spirit is not biblical. 

In the book of Genesis we read where the Spirit of God was "striving" with those wicked people who all died in the flood as a judgment upon their sins. (Gen. 6: 3) These people are called "the world of the ungodly." (II Peter 2:5) What was the nature and purpose of this striving? This striving was done through the preaching of Noah. (I Peter 3: 19) John Gill, who is often accused of being a Hyper Calvinist (mostly a false charge) and of denying that the word or gospel of God was a means in effecting salvation (which is also false), said the following in his commentary on Genesis 6:3:

"...this is to be understood of the Holy Spirit of God, as the Targum of Jonathan, which agrees with 1 Peter 3:18 and to be thus interpreted; that the Spirit of God, which had been litigating and reasoning the point, as men do in a court of judicature, as the word signifies, with these men in the court, and at the bar of their own consciences, by one providence or by one minister or another, particularly by Noah, a preacher of righteousness, in vain, and to no purpose; therefore, he determines to proceed no longer in this way, but pass and execute the sentence of condemnation on them..."

It is therefore an error to say that regeneration must be defined as the first initiatory act of God intended to effect regeneration. Gill's successor was first John Rippon and then Charles Spurgeon. Here is what Spurgeon wrote on preparations that precede regeneration in "Things that Accompany Salvation" (See here; emphasis mine):

"3. We will begin, then, with the advance guard that has accompanied Salvation or rather gone before it. We shall then come to those who immediately precede it, and then we shall notice those who accompany it by its side, and conclude by noticing the rearguard attending upon this Salvation of our God."

Spurgeon did not believe that the first act of God in initiating salvation was salvation, for he believed in preparations and in prevenient grace. He said further:

"For, before he can be made whole, he must be spiritually killed, the sword must pierce him, and must slay all his selfishness before he can be brought to the Lord Jesus. Then another body of them carry with them axes, with which they cut down the thick trees of our pride and abase the goodly cedars of our righteousness. There are with them those that fill up the wells with stones, and break up all the cisterns of our carnal sufficiency, until we are driven to despair, having all our hopes despoiled. Then come those who, with brazen trumpets, or with trumps of ram’s horns—like those who once razed Jericho level with the ground—do blow a blast, so shrill and dread, that the sinner thinks that even the yells of hell itself could not be more terrible. Then come those who with lances pierce the spirit through and through; and in the rear are the ten great guns, the artillery of the law, which, perpetually fire upon the wounded spirit until it does not know what it is, nor what it does...Before a man can be truly converted, he must suffer great agony of spirit; all our self-righteousness must be laid level with the ground, and trampled like the miry streets. Our carnal hopes must, every one of them, be cut in pieces, and our refuges of lies must be swept away with the hail of God’s anger. The law of God will appear terrible to the sinner when he is first convicted of sin...This Thundering Legion always precedes Salvation. More or less of terrors every man must feel before he is converted. Some have less, some have more; but there must be some measure of this terrible law work in the soul, or else Salvation is not come to a man’s house...unless this broken heart has come within your bosom you cannot be made partakers of Christ. The heart must first be pounded in the mortar of conviction, and beaten in pieces with the pestle of the law, or else it never can receive the grace of the Comforter in all its plenitude. Are you broken hearted today? Are you sorrowful at this very hour? Be of good cheer, Salvation is not far behind. When there is once a broken heart there is mercy very near. The broken heart is the prelude of healing. He who kills will make whole; he who wounds will bind up; he who struck will cure. God is looking on you with love, and will have mercy upon you." 

In the list of things that precede regeneration I put hearing the gospel or word of God number one. The only ones who will deny that the gospel is a means in regeneration are the Hardshell Baptists and the Paedobaptists among the Presbyterians who teach that the children of believing parents are regenerated in infancy when baptized and in that case the gospel was not a means. The Bible clearly teaches that the preaching of the gospel is a means in the new birth. Peter said believers have been "born again by the word of God" (I Peter 1:23) and James said that "he (God) has begotten us with the word of truth" (James 1:18) and Paul said "I have begotten you through the gospel" (I Cor. 4:15). Paul is also clear about this in his letter to the Romans, saying:

"13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” 14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (10:13-17 nkjv)

In the above list I also mentioned how the drawing and teaching of the Father precedes regeneration. On that I will enlarge upon in the next chapter. Concerning items five through nine I will say this for now. Those of the BABF view err when they argue that the giving of eyes and ears are regeneration and therefore precede the opening of the eyes and ears. They also argue that the "opening" of Lydia's heart, a prerequisite to her giving attention to the preaching of Paul and her believing the gospel, was her regeneration. This too is an error for her regeneration occurred either before Paul appeared to the group she was praying with or when she believed Paul's preaching. I wrote at length on the dispute over this issue in this post (here). I cited from Spurgeon who rightly saw the opening of Lydia's heart as a preparation for regeneration and not regeneration itself. I cited these words from him on that text (Acts 16:14):

"We do not well if we forget the prevenient providences which work before our conversion, to bring us unto that spot where God was pleased to manifest himself unto us." 

"Observe next, that in Lydia's case there was not only preventing providence, but there was also grace in a certain manner preparing the soul. The woman did not know the Saviour; she did not understand the things which make for her peace, yet she knew many truths which were excellent stepping-stones to a knowledge of Jesus." 

"She worshipped God; worshipped him in sincerity; worshipped him looking for the coming of the Messiah, Israel's consolation; and so her mind was prepared for the reception of the gospel. Doubtless, dear friends, in many of us there was a preparation for Christ before Christ came to us in quickening grace."

"Still, dear friends, we ought to ascribe all this preparatory work to sovereign grace, for grace—free favour does much in which no grace of effectual salvation is perceptible. I mean that before grace renews the heart there is grace preparing us for grace; grace may be setting the mind in activity, clearing us from prejudice, ridding us of a thousand infidel and sceptical thoughts, and so raising a platform from which divine grace conducts us into the region of the new life. Such was the case of Lydia, such is the case of many; providence and grace co-work before the effectual time is come." 

"...although the Lord opened the heart, Paul’s words were the instrument of her conversion. The heart may be opened, and willing to receive, but then if truth enter not, what would be the use of an open door? But God always takes care to open the heart at a time when the messenger of mercy shall be going by, that the heart may give him admittance." ("Lessons from Lydia’s Conversion" - here)

A man cannot be said to have been regenerated, born again, or quickened until he has actually seen with his opened eyes and actually heard with his opened ears and actually received with his opened heart. I will have more to say on these things in upcoming chapters.

A Debater, Sophist, or Persuader?

Oftentimes when I have been arguing (that is not a bad word by the way) with others on some Bible doctrine or interpretation and I am leaving my opponent of the contrary view unable to answer an argument, I hear him say "I see why you are such a good debater." When I hear that I find myself trying to figure out what that means. Does he mean I am a good Sophist who simply knows how to win an argument even if it is defending what is not true? Or, does he mean I am a good persuader? I hope it is the latter, but oftentimes it is not, but is rather a way for the defeated opponent to deal with his cognitive dissonance and inability to meet the arguments or proofs that refute his view and a way to divert attention away from the argument that overthrows his viewpoint. 

All the great men of God in the Bible were great persuaders, people skilled in argumentation and debate. Why? Because they had God-given wisdom, and because they knew their subjects well. So we read these words of Jesus to his appointed ambassadors: "I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries will not be able to contradict or resist." (Luke 21: 15 nkjv)

Jesus was the master who was able to refute every argument his adversaries brought to him. The apostle Paul was like his master in this regard. Anyone familiar with his apologetic writings will know this to be the case. 

Who can read the sermon of Stephen in Acts chapter seven and not see where he spoke with the kind of wisdom Jesus said he would give to his messengers, for Stephen's opponents, rather than rebutting his arguments took up stones to stone him. We see this today in those on the liberal, socialist, communist left who do not want to debate but simply want to kill or otherwise silence their opponents, as was the case in the murder of Charlie Kirk.

Scripture notes that Stephen's opponents "could not withstand (resist kjv) the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking" (Acts 6:10), forcing them to resort to false accusations and murdering him. He made powerful arguments from scripture and reasoned logic that refuted his opponents. They should have opted to acknowledge their defeat and changed their minds and beliefs. 

Apollos is described as an eloquent man and "mighty in the Scriptures" (Acts 18:24) and he spoke with great fervor and "vigorously refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus" (Acts 18:28).

Of the apostle Paul's debates we read:

"1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas." (Acts 17: 1-4 nkjv)

"After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth...And he reasoned (dialegomai) in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded (peithō) the Jews and the Greeks." (Acts 18: 1,4)

"8 And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. 10 And this continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks." (Acts 19: 8-10 nkjv)

Paul debated. Paul discussed. Paul argued. Paul persuaded. However, he did not quarrel, nor did he become bombastic, prideful, nor did he debate simply because he enjoyed verbal sparring, nor did he follow the rhetorical methods of the Sophists. In fact, Paul said much in his letters to the Corinthian Christians in condemnation of the tactics of the Sophists. (See this page here that gives some of my articles on this from my series "God's Elect or World's Elite?" which has its own blog; See link on this web page) I cited from a good book by Bruce W. Winter titled "Philo and Paul among the Sophists" which explored how the Apostle Paul interacted with and rejected the rhetorical and cultural influence of first-century Greek Sophists in Corinth. We have many Sophists today, being people who, for hire, try to win a debate for personal gain. We see them among lawyers in courtrooms where an attorney is not trying to find the truth but to help his client win a case, whether the client is right or wrong. We also see it in politicians.

Believers are told to "always be prepared to give an answer (Greek "apologia", apology or rational defense) to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." (1 Peter 3:15) Believers are also warned to "avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless." (Titus 3:9) Paul told Timothy that a servant of the Lord "must not be quarrelsome, but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed." (2 Tim. 2:24–25) He also warned against having an "unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words (logomachies), which produce envy, dissension, slander, [and] evil suspicions." (1 Tim. 6:4) 

Paul condemns "debate" (kjv) n Romans 1:29 and "debates" (plural) in I Corinthians 12:20, but by that word (Greek word "eris") is meant contention, strife, wrangling. It is translated as "contentions" (plural) in I Cor. 1:11). It is also translated by the word "variance" (Gal. 5:20) and "rivalry" (Phil. 1:15 in many translations) where Paul spoke of some who "indeed preaches Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will" (Phil. 1: 15 nkjv); And, LORD God speaks of such vicious wranglings when he said: "Indeed you fast for strife and debate, And to strike with the fist of wickedness." (Isa. 58:4 nkjv) It is the kind of debate where opponents "bite and devour one another" with their words. (Gal. 5:15) James spoke of this kind of unholy debate when he asked "Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members?" (James 4: 1 nkjv)

All this does not mean that we must, when in debate with those who are heretics or who stubbornly resist a truth of the Bible, never speak boldly and "call a spade a spade," i.e. to speak the truth frankly, directly, and plainly, without beating around the bush or using polite euphemisms—even if the truth is harsh, uncomfortable, or unpleasant, and to not be "mealy-mouthed."  Paul spoke of the need to sharply rebuke certain opposers of biblical truth when engaging with them in debate, saying:

"Therefore I write these things being absent, lest being present I should use sharpness, according to the power which the Lord hath given me to edification, and not to destruction." (2 Cor. 13:10)

"This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith." (Titus 1:13)

Notice that Paul's sharp (cutting) words are not intended to destroy an opponent, but to destroy his false reasoning and beliefs and thereby to build him up (edify). 

I don't believe that I have debated with others for the wrong reason or with the wrong motive, God being my witness. I recall years ago when I saw my error in believing that people were regenerated apart from hearing the gospel and before faith in it and the truth that sinners are born again by faith that I found myself being the target of hateful remarks from those Calvinists who believed that error. I was talking with Bob L. Ross of Pilgrim Publications, a Calvinist and lover of Spurgeon and one who fought with James White and others who held to that view, how I was being so treated and he said "welcome to the club." 

I also used to follow Kent Brandenburg's blog, a man who is an able minister of the gospel, and I made a comment about not believing the book of Esther was inspired and a minister named Thomas Ross, a KJV onlyist and Landmark Baptist, and he raked me over the coals for this and said I was going to Hell for denying Esther's inspiration. 

So, I don't think it is I who debates simply for the love of debating nor that I debate in a manner Christ would not approve. I think people say "you are a good debater" when they don't know how to refute my rebuttal of their views and saying this seems to be a way to stop the debate. I think people should simply say "you make some good points--please give me time to think them over and we will discuss them later."

Problems in Divorcing Conversion From Regeneration (12)

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" (Eph. 1: 3 esv)

Since "every spiritual blessing" is to be found only "in Christ," then the only way to have those blessings is by obtaining them in Christ. Entering into Christ results in obtaining all these blessings. Even though faith precedes entering Christ, being the means thereunto, yet even that spiritual blessing is a result of it being given "in Christ" on behalf of those chosen to salvation before the beginning of creation. So Paul wrote:

"...God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began." (II Tim. 1: 8b-9 nkjv)

Of course, Christ did not exist at this time, for "Christ" means "Messiah" and being such required that he be of the seed of Abraham, be a human, and this did not occur until the Son of God became incarnate and was born of the virgin Mary, in fulfillment of the protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15. Nor did those who were given grace in Christ (the elect) actually exist then, though they did exist in the mind of God. There are those who have believed that Christ in his human nature did exist from before the world began, yea, from eternity, and also have believed that the elect actually preexisted then. Those known as the Two Seed Primitive Baptists have held to this view and have used the above text as a proof-text. All others rightly understand Paul to mean that in "purpose" or in his plan God the Father gave to the Son of God gifts of grace to bestow upon those so chosen. Faith is one of those gifts. 

The grace of faith being actually given in time to the chosen is the means by which an actual living vital union is effected between Christ and the chosen ones. Once in Christ, every spiritual blessing is obtained, including spiritual life, justification, forgiveness, redemption or salvation, eternal life and immortality, an everlasting inheritance in the city of God and new heavens and earth. Though the verse in the heading sums it all up by saying that all spiritual blessings are to be found or obtained in Christ, yet it is good for us to notice some texts that focus on some of those particular blessings.

Things that are In Christ

Not only in Ephesians 1: 3 but also in Paul's letter to Philemon he calls attention to "every good thing which is you in Christ Jesus." (Philemon 1:6) In the new testament we read of "grace that is in Christ," of "faith that is in Christ," of "life in Christ," of "truth being in Christ," and of the "love which is in Christ," and of "hope which is in Christ," of "salvation which is in Christ," and of "redemption which is in Christ," and of there being "no condemnation to those who are in Christ," and of "liberation from the law of sin and death which is in Christ," and of being "created anew in Christ," of "consolation in Christ," and of "perfection in Christ."  

In such verses the Greek word for "in" is "en" and generally denotes in, on, at, by, with, or among. Sometimes it may carry the meaning of "by" and be used in an instrumental sense. Most often it denotes a fixed position in space or time.

Being "in Christ" or "in God" is compared to being "in Adam." By discerning what it means to be "in Adam" we may learn what it means to be "in Christ" who is "the second Adam," not that they are in every way alike, however. Paul plainly says that "Adam is a figure of him who was to come," i.e. Christ. (Rom. 5: 14) He also said "as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." (I Cor. 15: 22) In this verse we see where the preposition "in" (en) means "by." However, it may also carry the meaning of "all who are represented by Adam" versus "all who are represented by Christ." So, union with Adam brings death and condemnation, while union with Christ brings new life, eternal life, and justification. We have already noticed Paul's words that spoke of the one "who unites himself with the Lord" and thereby becomes "one with him in spirit" (I Cor. 6: 17). 

In the previous chapter we saw where the apostle Paul in Ephesians 2:11-12 spoke of how people are "without Christ" and "without God" before their conversion, before they believed and repented. He said that when they were converted that they were then "no longer strangers and foreigners" to the Commonwealth of Israel and the "covenants of promise." They became citizens when they entered into Christ by faith, as Paul said in Philippians 3: 20 - "our citizenship is in heaven." In Ephesians chapter three he also spoke of Gentile believers as "fellow heirs of the same body" with the believing Jews and "partakers of his promise in Christ through the gospel." (vs. 6) If this is an effect by the gospel, then it can only mean by hearing and believing the gospel.

Ligonier.org web page was the creation of R.C. Sproul and it promotes the BABF view. In this article (here) they give an article by Sinclair Ferguson (teaching fellow, vice-chairman of Ligonier Ministries, and Chancellor's Professor of Systematic Theological Seminary) titled "What it means to be in Christ" and in it he says things which betray the BABF view, as we will see. Ferguson wrote (emphasis mine):

"But now by faith, we are no longer in Adam. We have been translated and are now in Christ...by the ministry of the Spirit, he unites us to Himself by faith, and we come to share in all the benefits and blessings of His work. All that he has done for us is now ours, and we receive it all because we are in Christ." 

Since it is true that it is by faith that people are "now in Christ," then regeneration cannot be prior to faith, for then we would have to affirm that in being regenerated or born of God there is no union created. Ferguson rightly says that it is by faith union with Christ, by being "in Christ" by faith, that "we come to share in all the benefits and blessings of his work." Ferguson however, in another article on the same web site titled "Which comes first in our salvation, faith or regeneration?" (See here) contradicted what he wrote in the above citation, writing the following:

"I think it's very clear that in order to come to faith, first of all, God has to give us a new heart. And that is really what John had said in the prologue to the gospel as well, that those who came to believe in Him were born not of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but born of God. John 1:14"

So, Ferguson has this order: 1) regeneration, 2) faith, 3) union with Christ. Anyone should see the logical consequences of such an order. First, it is against scripture. Second, it is against what he wrote previously. Third, it says a man may be regenerated apart from being "in Christ" or united to him. Fourth, he has one of the chief benefits of salvation (regeneration) not coming as a result of union with Christ.

The order should be faith, then union with Christ or being in Christ, then regeneration. That was the view of Calvin as we have seen and of the first Calvinist Reformers. Further, to say that the new heart produced in regeneration precedes faith is to deny that the new heart is a heart of faith and that is absurd. In Hebrews we read of the "evil heart of unbelief" (3:12) and its counterpart must be the good heart of faith. 

As for John 1:12-14 teaching that people are born again before faith, that is absolutely not what the text says. The text clearly says it is those who "received" or "believed" Christ that were given the blessed privilege to "become the birth children of God." They were "born of God" when they received Christ and entered into Christ and when Christ entered into them.

Martin Lloyd Jones (1899-1981), well known popular theologian and proponent of the BABF view, in a sermon on Ephesians 2:8 (available to read here), said the following (emphasis mine):

"As we think of faith we must be careful, therefore, to view it in this light. Faith is not the cause of salvation. Christ is the cause of salvation. The grace of God in the Lord Jesus Christ is the cause of salvation, and I must never speak in such a way as to represent faith as the cause of my salvation. What is faith then? Faith is but the instrument through which it comes to me. ‘By grace are ye saved, through faith.’ Faith is the channel, it is the instrument through which this salvation which is of the grace of God comes to me. I am saved by grace, ‘through faith’. It is just the medium through which the grace of God bringing salvation enters into my life. We must always be extremely careful, therefore, never to say that it is our believing that saves us. Belief does not save. Faith does not save. Christ saves—Christ and His finished work. Not my belief, not my faith, not my understanding, nothing that I do—‘not of yourselves’, ‘boasting is excluded’, ‘by grace, through faith’."

Notice the contradiction in his saying that "faith" is no "cause" of salvation but then says that faith is the instrument or channel by which salvation is experienced. Does he not know that an instrument or means or condition is a cause? It is not the only cause, not even the primary cause, but to deny that it is no cause at all is what we would expect from the Hyper Calvinists of the Hardshell Baptist variety. He also says that we should never say that "our believing saves us" and "faith does not save us." Unbelievable. The writers of the new testament have a different view. In forgiving a woman of her sins Christ said to her: "your faith has saved you." (Luke 7: 50) In Hebrews 3:18-19 Paul says people could not enter God's rest "because" of their unbelief (lack of faith), affirming that it is "because" of belief or faith that entrance into God's eternal rest is obtained. All the verses that say salvation is "through" or "by" faith say faith is a cause. These kinds of statements are the result of affirming that people are saved before and apart from faith.

Jones said further:

"Surely the whole point of the first three verses of this chapter is to show that no other position is at all possible. How can a man who is ‘dead’ in trespasses and sins save himself? How can a man who is an ‘enemy and alienated in his mind’, whose heart is ‘at enmity against God’ (for that is what we are told about the natural man), how can such a man do anything that is meritorious? It is impossible." 

"How can a man who is dead" do anything to be saved? Answer: by the power of God's word and Spirit as Paul said in the context (Eph. 1:19). It happens when the gospel comes to dead sinners "not in word only but in power and in demonstration of the Spirit." (I Cor. 2:4; I Thess. 1:5) People "come" to Christ for life (John 5:40; 6:37) and the "coming" of the texts is doing something. The coming is indeed a result of the Father's drawing and teaching (or revelation). So, it does not imply that the coming was done by a sinner's innate power. Further, as I have shown, in the very text Jones is talking about Paul plainly said that the salvation from death (quickening) is "by grace through faith." Let us put the key verses together that illustrate how wrong is the carnal reasoning of Jones and those of the BABF view.

"and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places" (1: 19-20)...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) 

So, dead sinners are made to believe in Christ, to receive him into their hearts, by the mighty power of God and as a result they are raised from spiritual death to spiritual life in Christ. 

Jones said further:

"The first thing that happens to us, the apostle has told us in verses 4 to 7, is that we have been ‘quickened’. New life has been put into us. Why? Because without life we can do nothing. The first thing the sinner needs is life. He cannot ask for life, for he is dead. God gives him life, and he proves that he has it by believing the gospel. Quickening is the first step. It is the first thing that happens. I do not ask to be quickened. If I asked to be quickened I would not need to be quickened, I would already have life. But I am dead, and I am an enemy, and I am opposed to God, I do not understand, and I hate. But God gives me life. He has quickened me together with Christ. Therefore, boasting is entirely excluded, boasting of works, boasting even of faith. It must be excluded. Salvation is altogether of God."

No, "the first thing that happens to us" is not the quickening! Why do I say that? Because Paul says the salvation from spiritual death via quickening is "through faith." This is in keeping with other texts, such as when Christ said to dead sinners - "you will not come unto me that you might have life" (John 5:40); And in what the apostle John said when he said "whoever has the Son has life" (I John 5: 12). The word "has" (ἔχων (echōn) denotes possession, as when Christ says "whoever has ears." Christ is possessed when he is "received" willingly. John spoke of this when he wrote: "to as many as received him to them he gave the privilege to become the children of God" (John 1:12). Paul wrote of this receiving when he wrote: 

"For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?" (I Cor. 4: 7)

Jones is also wrong when he says "without life we can do nothing." Why? Because we have already seen how one must receive Christ, who is "the way, the truth, and the LIFE" (John 14:6), in order to have life, so receiving precedes obtaining life, just like coming to Christ precedes obtaining life as we saw. (John 5:40) Even in the context of chapter two of Ephesians Paul spoke of the dead "walking" in sins and "fulfilling" their sinful desires. (verse two). If the dead cannot do anything then why does he say, via his messages to them, "awake you who sleep and arise from among the dead and Christ will give you light"? (Eph. 5: 14) Why did Christ throughout his ministry preach to the spiritually dead and tell them what they must do to be saved? The dry dead bones in Ezekiel chapter 37 were very active in coming together and being clothed again with flesh before the breath of life entered into them. 

Jones, like his fellow BABF Calvinists, carries the idea of spiritual death to an extreme. First of all, people who have died are not really dead in every respect, because they have an immortal soul. They are dead only in their bodies. So, when Jesus spoke to Lazarus saying "Lazarus, come forth," he was not merely addressing his flesh but his spirit which was conscious in Sheol. And, the text says "he came forth," and in Greek the word for "come" and "came" is in the active voice which means Lazarus was active in it and not merely passive. After all, he is the one who did the coming. 

Second, being dead to God means separated from God who is life. So the prophet said - "your iniquities have separated between you and your God." (Isa. 59:2) So, when the Prodigal Son was separated from his Father and communion with him, he is said to be "dead." (Luke 15: 32) 

No, the first thing in the order of salvation is faith. However, prior to faith God is at work in producing faith, but this pre-regeneration work of God is not yet regeneration. So, before "coming" to Christ in John chapter six (which is when a sinner receives life) we see the work of the Father in "drawing" and "teaching" the alien sinner. The older Calvinists all taught that the Holy Spirit first convinces dead sinners of their condemned sinful condition and need of salvation before they come to Christ and are saved. This is what theologians call "conviction of sin." So Stephen Charnock (1628-1680) said (emphasis mine): 

"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 (1616-1683) 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." 

So, Jones is wrong to say that "the first thing" is quickening. What about hearing the word of God? Does that not precede being saved? No wonder that those of the BABF view often come to deny that the gospel or word of God is a means in quickening dead sinners.

Jones said further:

"Paul says: ‘We are his workmanship’! It is God who has done something, it is God who is working; we are His workmanship. Not our works, His work."

So, those Calvinists who deny the BABF view don't agree with this? Are they ignorant of this basic truth? Men such as Calvin, Beza, Charnock, etc.? I could say that my heart surgery was the work of the heart surgeon. But, I am the one who consented to it and put my trust in him to do it.

Jones said further:

"So, I say again, it is not our good life, and all our efforts, and hoping to be a Christian at the end, that makes us Christians." 

So Calvin could not believe this because he taught that sinners were born again or regenerated by faith?

Jones said further:

"But let me go further. It is not our decision, our ‘deciding for Christ’, that makes us Christians either: that is our work. Decision does come into it, but it is not our decision that makes us Christians. Paul says we are His workmanship. And thus, you see how grievously our loose thinking and our loose speaking misrepresent Christianity!" 

Where in the Bible is it said that people are not saved through a choice? Do people not choose to believe, to come to Christ, to call upon the name of the Lord? Are people saved against their wills then? Did not Paul say that salvation is the result of God working in people "to will"? (Phil. 2:12-13) When people decide not for Christ, is that an act of the will? (See I Peter 2:4-7)

Jones said further:

"I remember a very good man—yes, a good Christian man—whose way of giving his testimony was always this: ‘I decided for Christ thirty years ago and I have never regretted it’. That was his way of putting it. That is not Paul’s way of describing becoming Christian. ‘We are his workmanship!’ That is the emphasis. Not something I have gone in for, not something I have decided, but something that God has done to me. He might better have put it like this: Thirty years ago I was dead in trespasses and sins, but God began to do something to me; I became aware of God dealing with me; I felt God smashing me; I felt the hands of God re-making me. That is Paul’s way of putting it; not, I decided, not, I went in for Christianity, not, I decided to follow Christ, not at all. That comes in, but that is later."

It is this kind of defense of Calvinism, or pseudo Calvinism, that leads people away from it. It is an example of Calvinists going to an extreme in their fighting against Arminianism. Notice this story of what happened in the ministry of the apostle Paul:

"King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you do believe.” Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.” And Paul said, “I would to God that not only you, but also all who hear me today, might become both almost and altogether such as I am, except for these chains.” (Acts 26: 27-29 nkjv)

According to Jones Paul was wrong to try to "persuade" Agrippa to be a Christian! Or perhaps Jones would be led to say that being persuaded does not involve the will?

This same order (of faith preceding regeneration) is taught in many other texts. For instance, the apostle Paul also wrote:

"buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." (Col. 2: 12 nkjv)

This "raising" is a quickening or making alive. Yes, it is the work of God, but it was a result of dead sinners putting their trust in God and his ability to raise them out of spiritual death. 

Some of the BABF folks, when this text is brought to them as a refutation of that view, will often say - "well, if you take that view, then you must say that it is in baptism that the quickening occurs." However, that is not so. And, even if it was, the text still says "raised through faith." Barnes in his commentary wrote: "Wherein also - In which ordinance, or by virtue of that which is signified by the ordinance." See my article on Col. 2: 12 (here) Paul is saying that the resurrection to spiritual life through faith is pictured in the rite of baptism.

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!