John Owen and Common Grace

1616 - 1683

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problems in Divorcing Conversion From Regeneration (9)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

1) Does union with Christ precede or follow faith?

2) Does regeneration precede or follow union with Christ? 

3) Does justification precede or follow union with Christ?

4) Does regeneration precede or follow justification? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strong also wrote:

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

Strong in his section on "Regeneration" wrote:

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

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

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

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

Strong also wrote:

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

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

Strong also wrote:

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

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

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

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

 

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

Yet, Murray also wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reductio ad absurdum

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is another example similar to the text in Hebrews:

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

Here are other examples:

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

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

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

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

Similar Sentences With The "if"or

Biblical Examples of Reductio Ad Absurdum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is my view exactly. Spurgeon said:

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

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

Problems in Divorcing Conversion From Regeneration (8)

I have had many discussions with my fellow Calvinists who believe that regeneration precedes faith or conversion, a view that I do not hold, though I once did when I was a Hyper Calvinist Hardshell Baptist. When I have debated this point with the "born again before faith" (BABF) brethren and had them in a tight space by arguments from scripture and reason that were problematic for this view, they nearly always responded by saying "well, really, faith and regeneration occur simultaneously," or will say "regeneration only precedes faith logically, not chronologically." I find these responses rather amusing. Why? Because they on one hand are the ones who stress the word "PRECEDES" in proclaiming their view. If two things occur simultaneously then it cannot be said that one preceded the other. So, it seems that it is important to ascertain why it is important to them to see regeneration as LOGICALLY preceding faith and why I also agree that it is logically important.

Logically but not Chronologically

The above picture about putting the cart before the horse is designed to emphasize how important it is, in many things, to put things in their proper order. For example, order of operations is important in math and logic. If you don't do things in their proper order you will not arrive at the right answer. For instance, mathematicians follow this order:

1. Parentheses (and other grouping symbols like brackets or fraction bars) are calculated first.

2. Exponents (powers and roots) are calculated second.

3. Multiplication and Division are calculated third, working strictly from left to right as they appear in the problem.

4. Addition and Subtraction are calculated last, working strictly from left to right as they appear in the problem.

Evaluating the expression (3 + 4 x 2) without following the order of operations gives the wrong answer of 14 instead of the correct answer of 11.

The Wrong Way (Working straight from left to right): 1. Add first: (3 + 4 = 7) 2. Then multiply: (7 x 2 = 14) The right way: 1. Multiply first: (4 x 2 = 8) 2. Then add: (3 + 8 = 11) Correct Result: 11

Putting regeneration before faith logically creates many problems. 

First, in regards to union with Christ. There can be no regeneration apart from union with Christ, but this is what is denied by those who say regeneration precedes faith. They have union prior to faith and apart from faith, and apart from a willing choice to unite to Christ. The scriptures, however, clearly teach that union with Christ is by faith. This is what Calvin and the Calvinists of the Reformation stressed and put first in the order of things. Separation from God or Christ, who is Life, is death. Union with God or Christ is life. 

Second, to say that regeneration precedes faith forces those who affirm it to interpret any and all texts that say a person is saved by faith to deny that the salvation is regeneration, and so they say it is a salvation that follows the salvation of regeneration. The Hardshell Baptists do the same thing, saying that any text that speaks of salvation that comes by some act of the sinner or saint cannot be eternal salvation, but a time or temporal salvation which is not necessary for eternal salvation.

Elder Afton Richards wrote a pamphlet in 1956 entitled, "Why I Am A Primitive Baptist." On page 21 he gives a definition of "time salvation." He wrote (emphasis mine): 

"When salvation refers to what God does for man without action on his part, and by the meritorious work of Christ, they know and realize that it refers to salvation in its highest order; preparing one to live with God in glory after death. When salvation is mentioned in connection with the acts of men; or man is to perform some action to bring about a better situation for himself, they know it is to be to the child of God (one freed from the guilt of sin), and refers to a timely deliverance, or something that is for man's benefit while he lives here in the world.""

Those of BABF view have a similar rule which says: Any text that says people are saved by faith cannot mean regenerated by faith but must refer to a salvation that follows regeneration. Often this salvation is justification or adoption or sanctification, for their order is 1) regeneration, 2) faith, 3) justification (salvation) or adoption (salvation), etc. However, there is no way that this rule can hold water or endure scrutiny from the word of God. There are many texts that show that being quickened out of spiritual death (which all agree is another description of what occurs in regeneration) is declared to be a salvation that occurs through faith, such as Ephesians 2:8. The context shows that when Paul says "for by grace are you saved through faith" he is specifically talking about being quickened from death in trespasses and sins. 

Third, the BABF view lacks clear statements in the Bible that actually say that regeneration precedes faith. On the other hand, there are many clear statements in the Bible that teach that new life comes through faith. Those of the BABF view rely on invalid inferences, philosophical reasonings or logic, and making assumptions based upon the doctrine to total depravity and what it means to be spiritually dead. 

Fourth, the BABF view wrongly defines regeneration by what God does, his acts, and leaves out any acts of the sinner or any effects of God's acts. The scriptures do not, however, uphold this reasoning or definition. This leads them to also wrongly affirm that in regeneration a sinner is in every way passive and in no way active, but the scriptures do not demonstrate this to be true.

Fifth, the BABF view, by separating faith and repentance or evangelical conversion from the definition of regeneration or rebirth grossly dilutes what regeneration or spiritual life is. It says that a regenerated person is an unbeliever, unrepentant, ignorant of God and the way of salvation, and unenlightened. 

Sixth, the BABF view leads to a denial that the word of God or the gospel is a means in effecting regeneration. The advocates of that view realize this and so have great difficulty in handling those texts that say sinners are born again by the word of God or by the word of truth. They say a person must be first born again before he can savingly hear the gospel and believe it.

Seventh, the BABF view leads to the Catholic doctrine (which is false) that says sanctification precedes justification or is the same as sanctification, but the scriptures show that it is on the basis of justification that regeneration and sanctification occurs.

Eighth, the BABF view has led many of its advocates to give unbiblical definitions to "faith." 

Ninth, the BABF view has led many of its advocates to deny that faith was not only not necessary for regeneration but is even not necessary for justification or final salvation, such as the Hardshell Baptist sect, who it can be argued is the logical result of the BABF view.

Tenth, the BABF view has had a chilling effect on evangelism and on ministers giving passionate appeals to lost sinners to "give their hearts to Jesus," or to pray for salvation as in the sinner's prayer, and to decry "altar calls." They tend to restrict their addresses to those they think have already been regenerated and have spiritual life.

Let the reader understand also that many of the BABF Calvinists do not believe that regeneration (or rebirth) occurs simultaneously with faith. Many of them put a gap in time between regeneration and faith. The Presbyterians do this when they teach that infants are regenerated in baptism and come to faith later in life. 

Of course, many of them see the problem with this, and so will give a definition to faith that has no validity in scripture or reason, so that they may say that infants have faith and so not have the problem of affirming the existence of a regenerated unbeliever, a character the Bible knows nothing about. They call this "faith" of infants "seed faith" or "latent faith," or "root faith," a faith that believes or knows nothing, being non-cognitive, a faith that is dormant in an infant or adult person, like a seed, virus, or parasite. I have written on this much through the years. 

Paedo Baptist theologian Francis Turretin (1623 -1687) wrote the following (as cited here; emphasis mine):

“Although infants do not have actual faith, the seed or root of faith cannot be denied to them, which is ingenerated in them from early age and in its own time goes forth in act (human instrumentation being applied from without and a greater efficacy of the Holy Spirit within)” (Institutes 15.14.13, vol 2, p. 586)."

In my post "Hassell on Faith" (here) I cited from Elder Sylvester Hassell's editorial "Faith and it's Relation to Salvation" in "The Gospel Messenger" for May, 1898. He was a leading apologist for the Hardshell "Primitive Baptists" in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In his paper he wrote the following about this "latent faith":

"Even in that fear of the Lord which is the beginning of wisdom, and in evangelical repentance towards God for sins against Him, there is latent or hidden faith, just as there may be in a liquid a dissolved and unseen solid; and this latent faith, while it does not comfort, yet does some­thing even more important in humbling the soul and caus­ing it to hate sin..."

In this post (here) I give citations from others who have believed the same, and is a view held by Hyper Calvinists and Paedo-Baptists. So, these brethren of the BABF view do not say that regeneration and faith are simultaneous, but affirm that there is a gap in time between the two, sometimes a gap of many years. The Hardshell Baptists even teach that most of the regenerated never come to have biblical faith (belief) in the one true God, in his word or gospel, and not in Christ. 

I have cited from Dr. Wayne Grudem, present day theologian who promotes the BABF view and has also indicated that faith does not always immediately exist with being regenerated. Wrote Dr. Grudem:

"Using the verses quoted above, we have defined regeneration to be the act of God awakening spiritual life within us, bringing us from spiritual death to spiritual life. On this definition, it is natural to understand that regeneration comes before saving faith. It is in fact this work of God that gives us the spiritual ability to respond to God in faith. However, when we say that it comes "before" saving faith, it is important to remember that they usually come so close together..." (Systematic Theology By Wayne A. Grudem - page 702)

In this post (here) of mine I cited from one of Grudem's sermons on regeneration. I wrote:

"Dr. Grudem, in his sermon on "Regeneration," said that he made a profession at twelve years of age but that he thinks he was born again or regenerated before that time. He also says that he does not know when he was regenerated, just that it preceded his trusting in Christ.

He said:

"So, it looks like from the Bible, from a theological sense, that this regeneration comes before, usually, just a few seconds before saving faith."

You can read other posts I have written on Grudem defending BABF. (See here, here, here)

I have also heard Grudem not only say that there is a gap of a few seconds between regeneration and faith but said that it may be a week or more. In the above citation from his Systematic Theology he says that faith and regeneration "usually come so close together," showing that he does not believe that they are always simultaneous. So, during the gap in time between faith and regeneration, we have a man who is regenerated or born of God but who is still condemned (not justified) and has "the wrath of God abiding on him." (John 3:36) We also have a person who is regenerated but who has not yet come to Christ, or been joined to him. We also have a person who has not yet been saved, for people are saved by faith. 

Two Stages to Birth

Many Calvinists have held to the view that spiritual birth, like physical birth, has two meanings. First, birth may denote the time when conception in the womb occurs. Second, birth may denote the time when the child in the womb is delivered from the womb. In this case there is indeed a gap in time between these two phases of birth.

In "Quickening Is the Initial Operation of the Spirit," A.W. Pink (1886-1952), a leading apologist for Calvinism and author of many books, wrote:

"In earlier years we did not ourselves perceive the distinction which is pointed by John 6:63 and 1 Peter 1:23: the former referring unto the initial act of the Spirit in "quickening" the spiritually-dead soul, the latter having in view the consequent "birth" of the same. While it is freely allowed that the origin of the "new creature" is shrouded in impenetrable mystery, yet of this we may be certain, that life precedes birth. There is a strict analogy between the natural birth and the spiritual: necessarily so, for God is the Author of them both, and He ordained that the former should adumbrate the latter. Birth is neither the cause nor the beginning of life itself: rather is it the manifestation of a life already existent: there had been a Divine "quickening" before the child could issue from the womb. In like manner, the Holy Spirit "quickens" the soul, or imparts spiritual life to it, before its possessor is "brought forth" (as James 1:18 is rightly rendered in the R.V.) and "born again" by the Word of God (1 Pet. 1:23)."

This was the view of most of the Hardshell ("Primitive" or "Old School") Baptists in the 19th century. My Old Baptist Test blog is full of articles from them to show that they believed the same.

Hardshell founding father, Elder Samuel Trott (1783-1866), wrote (emphasis mine - SG):

"Thus in the new birth there is a striking correspondence to the natural birth; to each there is a seed implanted, and then a quickening by which life is manifested. And when the natural child is brought to the birth, the sorrows of the woman in travail, the fetus being broke loose from that by which alone it had been hitherto nourished, strongly represents the agonies and the killing by the law belonging to the second birth." ("THE NEW BIRTH" From "SIGNS of the TIMES" - Vol.21 - 1853 - Writings of Elder Samuel Trott, pages 404 - 409)

In chapter fifty two of my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" I give numerous citations from Elders Gilbert Beebe (1800-1881) and Samuel Trott where they elaborate on this paradigm. (See here)

John Hendryx of monergism.com (a web site that promotes BABF view), also advocates the view of Pink and the founding fathers of Hardshellism, and wrote:

"I. Regeneration is described as a spiritual new birth.

1. This is affirmed in the following New Testament passages: John 1:12-13; 3:3-8; I Corinthians 4:15; Philemon 10; James 1:18; I Peter 1:3,23; I John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1,4,18.

2. The embryonic stage of regeneration is what is called "quickening", and it is the work of the Holy Spirit alone.

3. The final stage of regeneration is delivery or birth, and it is the work of the Holy Spirit in dependence upon the Word as a means. Consequently, the spiritual knowledge conferred by illumination is the spiritual content or revelation (holy Scripture)."  ("Biblical Regeneration and Affectional Theology," see here)

In this post (here) I cited from Hardshell elder James F. Poole (now deceased) who wrote the following:

"There is first, conception, then development, travail, and birth; in that order, and life exists within all these essential stages that bring a new creature into the sinful world of the dying.

This first birth, we are sure, is a mirror image of the spiritual birth."

("The Remnant" - September –– October 1992

"For a spiritual birth to take place there must be a spiritual begetting. Thus the one who begets and the begotten are of one substance.

We would observe that in nature there is a travail before the birth, and usually much agony in bringing forth. There is usually great travail in spiritual birth.

Could anyone question that there is life before birth? The birth then did not give that which was conceived life! No! the birth only made manifest the life that existed previous to its wondrous introduction into the world."

In this post (here) I cited from Dr. J. P. Boyce (1827-1888), founder and first president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who wrote the following in his Systematic Theology, chapter 33, on "Regeneration and Conversion" (emphasis mine):

"The word apekuesen is used in James 1:18, and means to bring forth or bear young, and there evidently means to bring to the condition of sonship."

"However much James 1:18 suggests a different aspect of the work, namely, the bringing forth that which has been begotten, still it so nearly connects that idea with the begetting as to create doubt if the whole work may not be virtually involved."

Boyce is correct to say that James has in mind "the whole work" when he speaks of "bringing forth" in birth. He is denying that spiritual birth, like natural birth, has its stages. Boyce continues:

"From the Scriptural teaching we see that the whole work of Regeneration and Conversion is included under the one term regeneration."

"The whole work is thus spoken of, however, because God is operative from the beginning to the end, but this does not prove that he does not operate differently in one part from what he does in the other."

"The Scripture teaching is that God operates immediately upon the heart to produce the required change, by which it is fitted to receive the truth, and mediately through the word in its reception of that truth."

"He operates immediately upon the heart to prepare the way for the truth."

In this post (here) I cited from J.C. Philpot (1802-1869) and his article "The Authority and Power of the Word upon the Heart" where he also wrote a denial of the views of Pink, Trott, and the Hardshells, etc:

"We need not therefore enter into the controversy about the difference between begetting and being born again, as if the new birth exactly corresponded with the old, and as if the analogy could be precisely carried out between natural and spiritual generation. Figures (and this is a figure) must not be pressed home to all their logical consequences, or made to fit and correspond in all their parts and particulars. It is sufficient for us to know that the mighty change whereby a sinner passes from death unto life, (1 John 3:14,) is “delivered from the power of darkness, and translated into the kingdom of his dear Son,” (Col. 1:13,) is by the power of the word of God upon his soul."

In this post (here) I cited much from Samuel Hopkins (1721 –1803) who did much to promote the BABF scheme and it led him to deny that the word of God or light therefrom was a means in regeneration. His views came to be known as a "new divinity" or "Hopkinsianism." I wrote about this extensively in this post (here). Here are some citations from that article with my words of introduction to them:

The following work by an able historian demonstrates that the view of the "hybrids" is a novel doctrine among Calvinists, a "New Divinity." The following citations are from "Theology in America: Christian Thought from the Age of the Puritans to the Civil War" by E. Brooks Holifield. This "New Divinity" is also sometimes called "Hopkinsianism." Holifield wrote (emphasis mine - SG):

"Conversion required regenerating grace, and this truth too the New Divinity had misunderstood. First, the Edwardeans had insufficiently appreciated the "common work of the Spirit of God preparatory to a saving faith." Hart believed that Hopkins allowed for "no preparatory work of the Spirit," but Hemmenway saw that the problem lay in differing understandings of preparation. The difference was visible in the readiness of the Old Calvinists to talk of degrees of preparation, to claim that some of the unregenerate might be "more prepared than others." The New Divinity could tolerate no such idea of progress in the unregenerate state, no such gradualism in the religious life. The Old Calvinists also said that the same means of grace that prepared the heart also produced its regeneration; the New Divinity denied that means ever regenerated anybody."

"To the Old Calvinists, one of the worst errors of the Hopkinsians was their failure to recognize that regeneration occurred through illumination of the mind by the means of grace. A recurring theme in Old Calvinist polemics was the assertion that "all judicious Calvinist divines" believed that "conversion or regeneration is wrought by light, by the moral power of divine truth." In the Old Calvinist order of salvation, the Spirit first illumined the mind with a "common doctrinal understanding and belief of truth." This truth brought a sense of guilt, a fear of punishment, and an affecting view of the holiness and mercy of God; and the assent to truth moved the will toward a heartfelt consent and faith. How, the Old Calvinists asked, could the will ever consent to anything without first understanding it? Only the conviction that faith came "through the truth" made such means of grace as sermons and meditations worth defending." (pg. 154-55)

"The debate over the promises of salvation furnished the context in which Hopkins employed the New Divinity distinction between regeneration and conversion. Expanding on a point that Edwards had once made in reference to infants, Bellamy concluded in 1750 that regeneration preceded conversion, which he defined as an exercise of the heart that flowed from a new direction. Hopkins used the same distinction to counter Mayhew. He argued that God regenerated the sinful by laying a foundation in their mind by which they could discern the excellence of Christian truth and embrace the gospel with their hearts. This regeneration was an "unpromised favor," a divine work, immediate, instantaneous, and imperceptible. The conditional promises of the New Testament-do this and you will be saved-were directed to men and women who were regenerate but not yet converted. They still had to turn to repentance, faith, and holiness. This turn constituted their conversion, and in it they were active."

In the 19th century a Dutch Reformed theologian carried the newly created banner of the "New Divinity."  Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), in his work "The Work of the Holy Spirit," promoted the "regenerated before faith" error.  In section XXIII. of chapter four, on "Regeneration and Faith," Kuyper's views are stated. Kuyper wrote:

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

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

In each of these three God performs a wonderful and mysterious work in man's inward being. From God proceed quickening, conversion, and sanctification, and in each God is the Worker: only with this difference, that in the quickening He works alone, finding and leaving man inactive; that in conversion He finds us inactive, but makes us active; that in sanctification He works in us in such a manner that we work ourselves through Him."

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

Salvation depends upon faith, and faith upon the hearing of the Word; hence our deceased infants must be lost, for they can not hear the Word. To escape this fearful thought it is often said that the children are saved by virtue of the parents' faith—a misunderstanding which greatly confused our entire conception of Baptism, and made our baptismal form very perplexing. But as soon as we distinguish quickening, as a stage of regeneration, from conversion and sanctification, the light enters."

The Hardshell paradigm identified conception of the embryo with regeneration or begetting, and the time in the womb while the fetus was developing corresponded to the time when a sinner comes to feel guilt and who begins to struggle for deliverance, and the time of deliverance from the womb, or birth proper, corresponded to when the begotten child is manifested or brought forth in conversion. In that paradigm we do have a long gap in time between regeneration and conversion. So, while the person is conceived, begotten, or regenerated, he is still an unbeliever and therefore under the wrath of God. That is an insurmountable problem with this paradigm. What if the child died in the womb, died while regenerated but not yet brought to faith? The Bible says all unbelievers are condemned. 

In this post (here) I wrote the following about those who say spiritual birth has phases like physical birth:

What are the consequences to the belief that there is a gap in time between regeneration (see implantation and germination) and birth?  What are the consequences for making spiritual birth to be, in every way, exactly like physical birth?

The most absurd and unscriptural consequence is that it redefines the nature of regeneration.  

First, it affirms that a person is "regenerate" who is not "born," and this in spite of the fact that regenerate means the same thing as reborn.  It creates a difference where there is no difference.

Second, it affirms that a man is "regenerate" who is yet unsanctified and unjustified, for sanctification and justification, in scripture, are said to be "by faith."  (See Acts 26: 18 & Rom. 5: 1)

Third, it affirms that a man is regenerate, has a changed heart and new nature, but who is yet an unbeliever and impenitent in heart, and who still is condemned and has the wrath of God abiding upon him.  (See John 3: 18, 36)

Fourth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who has not yet taken possession of the Holy Spirit, for the Spirit is "received" (active voice) through faith via the gospel.  (Gal. 3: 2;  Rom. 8: 15) 

Fifth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who has not been forgiven of sins, for forgiveness comes by faith.  (See Acts 26: 18)

Sixth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet in darkness (in the womb) and has not come into the light, whereas the scriptures define the regeneration experience as involving enlightenment. (See II Cor. 4: 6)

Seventh, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet unwashed and unclean, for cleansing is "by the word."  (See Eph. 5: 26)

Eighth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet unconverted, for conversion is by faith.  (See Acts 3: 19)

Ninth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is not yet saved, for men are saved by faith.  (See Eph. 2: 8)

Tenth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who has not yet "received (active voice - by faith) the atonement."  (See Rom. 5: 11)

Eleventh, it affirms that regeneration precedes justification whereas the scriptures are clear that justification is logically first.  (See Col. 2: 13)

Twelfth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet under the power and dominion of Satan.  (See Acts 26: 18)

Thirteenth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet not a child and heir of God.  (the Greek word "teknon" - becoming children involves birth - tek - See Rom. 8: 17)

Fourteenth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet not liberated, for being yet in the womb the infant is still confined.  (See Rom. 6: 18)

Fifteen, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is not yet united to Christ, which is by faith.  (See I Cor. 6: 19)

Sixteen, it affirms that a man is regenerate who has not yet had his person and garments washed in the blood of the Lamb.  (See Rev. 7: 14 - active voice in Greek)

Seventeenth, it affirms that a man is regenerate whose sins have not been propitiated.  (See Rom. 3: 25 where propitiation is "through faith")

Problems in Divorcing Conversion From Regeneration (7)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And he also wrote:

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

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

Aquinas also wrote in the same section:

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

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

White wrote further in his commentary on things Aquinas said:

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

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

White wrote further:

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

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

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

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

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

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

White wrote further:

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

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

(emphasis by Dr. White)

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

White wrote further:

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

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

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

White concludes by saying:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amen