Regeneration Before Faith Proof Texts (XIII)

Proof Text #6 - Acts 16: 14 

"Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul." (nkjv)

Some Calvinists use this verse to uphold the idea that sinners are given spiritual life prior to, and in order to, believe the gospel. But, this is far from the truth. First of all, this woman was already a worshipper of God, and therefore, likely already regenerated. In fact, she was a participant in prayer with other women. By this fact alone the text cannot be interpreted as teaching an ordo salutis as respects faith and spiritual life. Further, the opening of the heart cannot allude to being regenerated or born again. At most it means that God was influencing Lydia to give attention to what Paul preached. This influence of the Spirit occurs not only with those who are lost and being led to hear the gospel but also with those already saved. God continues to open the heart of the believer to hear preaching.

Said Spurgeon:

"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." 

Not all Calvinists reject the idea of "prevenient grace." Spurgeon, a five pointer, did not. Nor do I. Not that I believe in prevenient grace in the same way some Arminians do, however. Still, there is grace that precedes regeneration and conversion and in the case of Lydia we have an example of it. 

Spurgeon said:

"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." 

That is the way I understand it. To think that the opening of her heart was regeneration, rather than a preparation for it or for conversion, has no clear cut proof. It is a very weak argument for the born again before faith view and if this is the best that advocates of that view have, then it is very weak indeed.

Spurgeon also said: 

"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."

 

This is where many Hyper Calvinists err. They do not believe that there are any preparatory acts of God before regeneration. This is because they have defined regeneration narrowly and equated it with the first act of God on a sinner in bringing him to it. 

Spurgeon said:

"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." 

That is my view exactly.

Spurgeon said:

"Note, concerning her conversion, in the third place, that it took place in the use of the means. On the Sabbath she went to her gathering of her people. Although God works great wonders and calls men when they are not hearing the Word, yet usually we must expect that being in the way, God will meet with them." 

But, means is the thing the Hyper Calvinist wants to eliminate from the work of regeneration. Spurgeon said: "that address it was which was the means in God's hand of opening her heart." Some Hypers believe that the opening of the heart preceded hearing Paul preach, so that his preaching was not the instrument. But, Spurgeon did not. In fact, several translations translate the text in such a way that it is obvious that the opening of the heart occurred while Paul was preaching. Of course, the influence of the Spirit, during preaching, is distinct from preaching, as our forefathers taught (especially in their debates with Alexander Campbell). Still, the influence occurred in conjunction with the word preached. 

Spurgeon said:

"Note again, for we will only hint at these things rather than dwell upon them, that it was assuredly a work of grace, for we are expressly told, “whose heart the Lord opened.” She did not open her own heart. Her prayers did not do it; Paul did not do it; the Lord himself must open the heart, to receive the things which make for our peace. To operate savingly upon human hearts belongs to God alone." 

Again, I agree. The success of the gospel depends upon God opening the heart. He must "give the increase" (I Cor. 3: 7). He must prepare the heart.

Spurgeon said:

"We think it meet, according to Scriptural warrant and example, to speak to you, and exhort you to arise from the dead that Christ may give you life; but we remind you, and trust you never may forget it, that all the work must always be of the Holy Spirit, and of him alone. I am told, in preaching the gospel, to command you to “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” But well I am aware, and may you be aware of it too, that faith is the gift of God. Though the Scripture bids us say, “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil”—though it cries, “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him,”—though our Saviour himself puts it, “Strive to enter in at the strait gate. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life;” yet we know that salvation is neither by your striving, nor by your labouring, nor by your reformings and amendings, but that all these are the fruit of an inward and mysterious work which the Holy Ghost alone can perform. Give unto God the glory if you have been converted, praise him alone—"Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord.” He alone can cut the bands which fasten the heart; he alone can put the key into the hole of the door and open it, and get admittance for himself. He is the heart’s master as he is the heart’s maker, and conversion in every case is the Lord’s work alone."

Spurgeon also said:

"...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)

In conclusion I say that there is no proof from Acts 16: 14 for the born again before faith view.

Regeneration Before Faith Proof Texts (XII)

Proof Text #5 - Rom. 8: 6-8 

"So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." (vs 8-10)

I wrote on this previously in my posting "Regeneration In Romans" (here). I will begin by citing what I wrote in that posting.

There is no doubt that regeneration is alluded to in this passage. It is connected with becoming "in the Spirit," and that is defined as having "the Spirit of God dwell in you." To be "in the Spirit" is to "have" or possess "the Spirit of Christ." How does one who is in the flesh become no longer such? To become "in the Spirit"? If it is not by faith, then we must conclude that unbelievers may have the Spirit and be in the Spirit. But, Paul always taught that both Christ and the Spirit were received by faith. It is when Christ enters into the believer that the believer's own "spirit" is quickened ("is life"). Wrote Paul to the Galatian believers:

"This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (3: 2)

If we receive the Spirit by faith (that comes by hearing the word - Rom. 10: 14-17), and it is the receiving of the Spirit that constitutes one as being "in Christ" and "in the Spirit," then regeneration is by faith.

Some of the born again before faith advocates will attempt to teach their view from the above words based upon what they perceive to be a logical deduction. If while being "in the flesh" (unregenerate) the sinner exercises faith, it is argued, his faith could not be pleasing to God. Or, to state the argument another way, it is argued that one must be "in the Spirit" before he can believe. But, this is not logically deducible from the text. It certainly contradicts what he said in Galatians 3: 2 as we have seen. 

What Paul is clearly saying is that it by "having the Spirit" by faith that one becomes "in the Spirit," and "in Christ," and so walks not after the flesh, and is in fact no longer "in the flesh." Those in the flesh "cannot please God." Yes, but the same thing is said about faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please God." (Heb. 11: 6). It seems clear that these two things are linked together and are inseparable. Faith possesses Christ, possesses the Spirit, and thereby is no longer in the flesh but in the Spirit. As long as a man is an unbeliever, as long as he has not received Christ, he is in the flesh. The moment he embraces Christ he receives life and begins his moral and spiritual transformation.

Being spiritually dead or alive is essentially connected with being either "carnally minded," or "spiritually minded." The mind or understanding is involved in being spiritually alive or dead. The carnally minded are spiritually dead. The spiritually minded are spiritually alive. Those who are in the flesh, or spiritually dead, are carnally minded, and do not love and embrace the truth of God's word. Those who are in the Spirit, or spiritually alive, are spiritually minded, and love and embrace the truth. It is the believer who has a spiritual mind and the unbeliever who has a carnal mind. The carnal mind is at war with God, being anti God. The spiritual mind is the friend of God and his word. The carnal mind is the mind that does not believe God. The spiritual mind believes. The carnal mind of the one in the flesh is opposed to "the law (or word) of God." But, the spiritual mind is in agreement with the word of God.

So, how does the carnal mind become a spiritual mind? It is by believing the word of God. It is by being "in Christ," or by having union with Christ through faith. 

In conclusion we simply say that there is nothing in this text to suggest that going from being "in the flesh" to being "in the Spirit" happens apart from faith.

A Wise Proverb - Invite Criticism

"In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines." (Prov. 18: 17 niv)

"The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him." (nkjv)

Those believers, especially of the ministry, who refuse to hear criticism or dialogue with others of contrary opinions, do not follow the advice of Solomon. 

In all the debates, the discussions, dialogue, etc., that I have had with others who disagree with me on a bible doctrine I have invited to come and cross examine me. Oh that our Hardshell brothers would heed this advice!

Today they seem "set in their ways" and have no desire to be cross examined in their views. Sad indeed. They stubbornly refuse to listen to those who disagree with them. They would rather try to ignore or cancel such cross examination.What are they afraid of? If what they are contending for is so clearly sustained in scripture, then why shun such investigation? For myself I am always open to be corrected. 

Promoting Controversies?

The following is a reprint of my posting in the Baptist Gadfly for Oct. 7, 2008 (here)

"These promote controversies rather than God's work—which is by faith." (I Timothy 1: 4 NIV)

We ought rather to either

1. Avoid certain controversies.

2. Settle certain controversies.

Being a "Calvinist" ought not to be equated with being a lover of controversies.

Let us not "miss the mark" when it comes to our service to the Lord and his people. Too many Calvinists get sidetracked, thinking their chief aim is to protect Calvinism, seeing it as the pearl of great price, and to convert others to the doctrines of grace. But, this misses the mark. The Calvinist is often more interested in converting other believers to their beliefs rather than preaching the gospel to unbelievers. He will spend far more energy and time in trying to move believers from one church to his own. I am not denying that this is often necessary, but it ought not to take the place of preaching to those who are lost. That is why I like Spurgeon. He did not miss the mark in this regard. Why not spend a little more time preaching to unbelievers? 

The Morning Star Is Rising

I can feel it, my brothers. Can you? The "morning star" is arising in my heart and the heart of many other believers. That morning star will arise in the hearts of believers who are "alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord." See my posting "Morning Star Rising" (See here) Brothers and sisters, buckle your seat belts! We are in the time of the end. Better make your calling and election sure. The "hour of trial" is commencing soon when all will be tried and tested. (Rev. 3: 10) I expect God to bless his remnant in those dark days of wrath and judgment and he will empower them. We will no longer say as did Gideon.

"Gideon said to Him, “O my lord, if the LORD is with us, why then has all this happened to us? And where are all His miracles which our fathers told us about, saying, ‘Did not the LORD bring us up from Egypt?’ But now the LORD has forsaken us and delivered us into the hands of the Midianites.” (Judges 6: 13)

Is Government the New God? - The Religion of Totalitarianism

The above is the title of a video that just came out and I think everyone should listen to it (especially before it is removed by the cancel culture). To listen to the video go (here)

We are headed to Totalitarianism. It will bring Hell on earth.

Want A Divorce From Jesus?

Any believer who wants to leave following Christ, to obtain a divorce from him, shows that he has never truly been married to and made one with Christ. Anyone who is truly joined to Christ in marital union and has enjoyed the fruits of that union (blessed communion with Christ, marital benefits and joys) will never want a divorce. 

Pat Donahue of Campbellite Fame

Pat Donahue is a leading apologist and debater with the "Church of Christ" (Campbellite) denomination. I have had three or four debates with him. I suppose he has had thousands of debates. I believe he is about my age. Pat and his mentor, Thomas Thrasher, had several debates also with father. When father died they expressed their deep sympathy. They said they loved him (even though they think he is in Hell). I debated both Donahue and Thrasher on eternal security, free will and predestination, and on whether baptism in water is essential for being saved or born again. I also debated Pat on original sin and total depravity. In all these debates I affirmed that a sinner was saved at the point of genuine faith in Christ Jesus. Pat has asked that I hold other debates with him but I have declined, mostly for reasons of age and health. You can go to Pat's web page (here). He has some of the audios of my debates with him from the early 1990s, 2006, etc. My first negative for the "once saved always saved" debate (2006) was very good (I don't mean to brag). Listen to it and let me know what you think. I might transcribe it and post it here.

In a recent e-mail from Pat, he was responding to someone who wrote to him and affirmed that faith in Christ was enough to guarantee salvation, or that a believer was saved at the point of faith union with Christ. Here is what Pat wrote:

Anton thinks passages like John 3:16 teach all we have to do to be saved/forgiven from our sin is believe in Jesus.  But I would like to ask Anton to answer the following questions from the scriptures supplied:

·      Does a believer in Christ have to repent to be saved (Luke 13:3)?

·      Does a believer in Christ have to believe in the resurrection of Christ to be saved (Rom 10:9)?

·      Does a believer in Christ have to confess Christ to be saved (Rom 10:9)?

·      Does a believer in Christ have to call on the name of the Lord to be saved (Rom 10:13-14)?

·      Does a believer in Christ have to be willing to forgive others to be forgiven himself (Matt 6:14-15)?

·      Does a believer in Christ have to believe in God the Father to be saved (John 5:24, Hebrews 11:6)?

·      Does a believer in Christ have to love God to be saved (I Cor 16:22, Gal 5:6, James 1:12b)?

What is my simple response? It is the same now as in those debates.

"But, beloved, we are confident of better things concerning you, yes, things that accompany salvation, though we speak in this manner. " (Heb. 6: 9)

Faith is never alone in the true believer. What accompanies his faith and his salvation is faith in the gospel which includes faith in his death, burial, and resurrection. When he believes, he confesses Christ, calls upon his name, and feels love for the Lord. He also turns and repents when he believes. Superficial faith will not be joined with repentance and confession. But not so with real faith. 

Of course a believer must endure to the end to be finally saved. But, we are talking about initial salvation. There are lots of things that are necessary after rebirth in order to be finally saved in heaven. There are three aspects of salvation. There is initial salvation, continuous salvation, and final salvation in body, or in every way. 

Baptism is a good work and follows faith and salvation. (See Eph. 2: 8-10) 

Nihilism & Its Effects

It is my belief that "nihilism" has infected the minds of Americans as it has most of the world's secularists, who seem to far outnumber those who represent the antithesis of nihilism. So, just what is "nihilism"?

Says Merriam Webster under "Essential Meaning of nihilism": 

1: the belief that traditional morals, ideas, beliefs, etc., have no worth or value 

2: the belief that a society's political and social institutions are so bad that they should be destroyed

There are those today who want to destroy present political states, to cause chaos, in order that they might thereby create a new political and social order. Sadly, there are nihilists in America today who think America is so bad that she needs to be destroyed and a new America created. It is the "burn it all down" mentality. When it is all destroyed, the conspirators want to see the phoenix rise from the ashes. That phoenix is the one world government or empire which will be headed by the lawless one, the Antichrist, the son of perdition, the son of Satan the dragon. 

What is going on now in the world is a conspiracy of the world's Luciferian elite in which they are doing the preliminary bulldozer work to set it all up. 

"Nihilism" is based on the Latin word for "nothing" which is "nihil." It denies God, saying "God is dead." Nihilistic thinking is seen in the writings of Dostoevsky. Wrote one (See here):

"There’s a famous passage from “The Grand Inquisitor” section of Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov in which Ivan Karamazov claims that if God does not exist, then everything is permitted. If there is no God, then there are no rules to live by, no moral law we must follow; we can do whatever we want. Some philosophers, like Jean-Paul Sartre, have assumed that Ivan is right; without God there is no moral law that tells us what we ought to do. But is Ivan right? If God does not exist, then can we do what we wish? Another way to put the question is, does ethics require God?"

When I was in college I took a course on Existentialism and I read Dostoevsky's works along with others who wrote on the philosophy. 

Nihilism and Existentialism are kin. This way of thinking about the world and the meaning of human life is summed up in these words: "The meaning of it all is that there is no meaning." It is an extreme form of skepticism and promotes pessimism although some claim that there is such a thing as "optimistic nihilism," but such is an oxymoron. For myself I see this nihilistic utopia comically envisioned in the song "Rock Candy Mountain" (famous in the movie "Oh brother where art thou?"). The lyrics are as follows:

One evening as the sun went down
And the jungle fire was burning
Down the track came a hobo hiking
And he said, "Boys, I'm not turning"

"I'm headed for a land that's far away
Besides the crystal fountains
So come with me, we'll go and see
The Big Rock Candy Mountains"

In the Big Rock Candy Mountains
There's a land that's fair and bright
Where the handouts grow on bushes
And you sleep out every night

Where the boxcars all are empty
And the sun shines every day
And the birds and the bees
And the cigarette trees

The lemonade springs
Where the bluebird sings
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains

In the Big Rock Candy Mountains
All the cops have wooden legs
And the bulldogs all have rubber teeth
And the hens lay soft-boiled eggs

The farmers' trees are full of fruit
And the barns are full of hay
Oh, I'm bound to go
Where there ain't no snow

Where the rain don't fall
The winds don't blow
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains

In the Big Rock Candy Mountains
You never change your socks
And the little streams of alcohol
Come trickling down the rocks

The brakemen have to tip their hats
And the railway bulls are blind
There's a lake of stew
And of whiskey too

You can paddle all around it
In a big canoe
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains

In the Big Rock Candy Mountains
The jails are made of tin
And you can walk right out again
As soon as you are in

There ain't no short-handled shovels
No axes, saws nor picks
I'm goin' to stay
Where you sleep all day

Where they hung the jerk
That invented work
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains

I'll see you all this coming fall
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains

This song depicts a utopia for the lazy, the lawless, for those who are hedonistic. Heaven for such folks is a life where they don't have to work, can party all the time, where they can live to indulge the flesh. 

So that I do not make this posting so long, I will save the rest of my thoughts on this subject for a second entry, possible a third. 

In conclusion I say that what we see occurring now in the world is the result of nihilistic thinking, the result of having concluded that "God is dead." But, God is not dead, and he will soon show up in wrath upon this evil generation. You better get into the ark (Christ) before the flood of divine judgment comes.

Regeneration Before Faith Proof Texts (XI)

Proof Text #4 - I Cor. 2: 14

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teaches; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." (2: 12-15)

The argument that is made on this passage, by the regenerated before faith advocates, is this: one must become a spiritual man before he can believe the gospel, or "receive the things of the Spirit of God." As long as he is a "natural man" he will not receive spiritual things. He must therefore be made a spiritual man by rebirth before he can be believe. It further argues that being made a spiritual man must occur without the means of the gospel and apart from faith, by the work of the Spirit directly in begetting. However, this is not Paul's intent nor is it deducible from his words.

There is an old scholastic axiom, Qui nimis probat, nihil probat - “He who proves too much, proves nothing." The Hardshells, and others who cite this verse in an attempt to disconnect the experience of regeneration from the experience of faith, and apart from the means of the gospel and word of God, are guilty of violating this axiom. 

By their argumentation on this passage they "prove too much," and therefore "prove nothing at all." In other words, if their "logical reasonings" are correct, then it will prove not only that it is impossible with men for totally depraved sinners to be regenerated and come to faith, but that it is even impossible with God, or logically impossible. 

This will become apparent by asking one simple question: Does the unregenerate sinner (natural man) receive any spiritual thing in being born again? Does he not receive what is spiritual when he receives the Spirit of God? If a sinner cannot receive the Spirit of God till he is first made a spiritual man, then his being made spiritual cannot be because he has received the Spirit. His receiving the Spirit cannot happen until after regeneration. In this case, there can be no "receiving" at all in regeneration. But, that is against numerous scriptures. It is against the verses cited above for he speaks of "receiving" not only spiritual things, but the Spirit himself. 

Is the life "received" in the new birth not "spiritual" life? Let us ask another similar question: Does the dead sinner (natural man) receive spiritual life in regeneration? Who can deny it? But, if the natural man (dead sinner) receives not spiritual things till he is first made spiritual, then his becoming spiritual cannot be because he has received spiritual life. Such reasoning forces us into such circular reasoning. At some point a lost sinner does in fact receive the Spirit and spiritual things in order to become spiritual. If pressed too far, such reasoning will find us denying that anything spiritual is received in being regenerated. 

What the apostle is teaching is that the "natural man," the "psychikos" man, the man relying upon his own soul's thinking and feelings, upon his own instincts, will not receive the Spirit nor the things of the Spirit. He must, by the grace and power of God, be brought to disregard his own thinking, and to listen to what his spirit is being taught by the Spirit and word of God. 

The truth the sinner needs is not natural to him, is not in him already (so that it only needs to be brought forth), but must come from without him. (This is in direct opposition to those in the New Age Movement who say the truth is present "within" and so no one needs to look elsewhere)

The way the Hyper Calvinists and Hardshells interpret this text, Paul's purpose is to affirm that the lost sinner has no physical ability, no faculties, for receiving spiritual things. Thus, he sees the words "the natural man receives not," and the affirmation that such "cannot understand (know) the things of the Spirit," as a physical inability. He thinks of a man who has no faculty for being able to "receive." But, if this is so, how can he receive spiritual life? Or, the Spirit of God? 

When Paul speaks of "the one who is spiritual," in contrast to the one who is only "natural," how does one become spiritual according to Paul? Is it not by receiving the Spirit of God? Were they spiritual before they received the Spirit of God? Of course not. Yet, this must be the conclusion of those who teach that the lost sinner, the natural man, cannot receive the Spirit till he is first made spiritual. Further, by this logic, becoming spiritual cannot in any sense be the result of receiving the Spirit, as we have already stated. In fact, there can be no receiving at all in being made spiritual, or spiritually alive, by this logic.

Paul says that we who have become spiritual and spiritually alive, have first received the Spirit, and then we come to know the things of the Spirit. We could also say that it is when the gospel is heard and received that we come to know the things of the Spirit. The revelation of the gospel is not the result of philosophy or rational thinking, nor based upon reason or natural revelation. It's source is in God the Holy Spirit. The truth of the gospel is not the result of human discovery. 

In Corinthians there are three aspects of the nature of man. I elaborate on these in this posting (here). There is the "natural (soulish or sensual) man," from the Greek word for "soul" (psychikos). This is the man guided by his reason, by his senses, by his feelings and intuition. This man follows and is governed by his human self. Then there is the "fleshly" man, the man who is governed by the "soma" (body), by his physical needs and pleasures. The man who is strictly guided by these aspects of his being will never find saving truth, will never accept the gospel revelation. That is because the Spirit and the gospel are foolishness to the carnal and natural aspects of his being (I Cor. 1: 18). It is to man's "spirit" (pneuma) that the gospel appeals. 

Further, man's spirit, like his soul and flesh, is not able to accept the spiritual truth of the gospel unless the Spirit of God operate upon it. Upon the soul and flesh the Spirit does not appeal or operate upon. Once the spirit of a man is operated upon by the Spirit, in conjunction with the gospel (which gospel contain the words of life), he is thereby enabled to know spiritual truth; After this the Spirit and word will control his spirit and his spirit will control his soul and body.

Today we hear people say "I am a soul man." Culturally this means a man who loves "soul music." But, to Paul, a soul man was a natural, sensual (Jude 1: 19), earthly, physical man. 

Let us not forget that Paul defines a "spiritual man" as one who has in fact received the Spirit of God and the things of the Spirit, especially the gospel and word of God. Unbelievers are not spiritual men. 

Christ Preached To The Dead

In a follow up to my previous posting "What Bible Preachers Said To The Dead" (here) I want to give some citations from Chapter 48 -- Addresses To The Lost VII (See here). In that series of chapters I went through several of Christ's sermons in the Gospel of John and showed the errors of Hardshellism and Hyper Calvinism from them.

In this chapter I will conclude the series titled "Addresses to the Lost." I have already shown how the scriptures command us to "teach" and "warn" "every man" (Col. 1:28) and that this is exactly what the early Christians did. I have also already alluded to how the preaching of the prophets, Christ, and the apostles, was in agreement with this command. Now I want to look at some other sermons and gospel preaching, done by Christ and the apostles, wherein it is clear that they addressed unregenerated sinners and that they exhorted them to do what they, in themselves, could not do, and yet what they must do in order to be born again and forever saved.

"I will begin an analysis of the above sermon of Christ as it relates to Hardshell views thereon and upon the subject of the spiritual resurrection of which Jesus speaks. I thought it good to begin this examination by taking note of the various "voices" alluded to by Christ in this sermon. The word "voice" itself is used specifically in relation to both the Father and the Son. However, the often repeated use of the terms "witness" and "testify," imply a "spoken voice." Hence, my list above delineating those "voices."

One thing I also want to point out, in preparation for an upcoming chapter, to be titled "Addresses To The Lost," that this sermon was addressed to a specific audience, to a group who were clearly not regenerated, clearly not among that group who had already "come to Christ for life." And what do we then see? Simply this--CHRIST PREACHED THE GOSPEL EVEN TO THE LOST, TO THOSE WHO WERE NOT REGENERATED AND POINTED TO THEM THE WAY TO BE SAVED, YEA, EVEN EXHORTING THEM TO BELIEVE AND BE SAVED!

YOU WILL NEVER HEAR A HARDSHELL PREACH SUCH A SERMON TO THOSE THEY KNOW ARE NOT REGENERATED!

Take this then as a prelude to a more indepth discussion (which I have done in the past six chapters on "Addresses to the Lost") of this whole issue of whether the gospel is to be preached to all men, for the purpose of exhorting them to come to Christ for salvation."

Addressing the Lost in John 6

Who is Christ Addressing in John 6? And, what does he say to them?

They are described thusly by Christ: 1) They don't "seek Christ" (vs. 26), 2) They "seek" the "loaves and fishes" (vs. 26), 3) They are not laboring for spiritual food (vs. 34), 4) They are laboring to satisfy carnal appetites (vs. 34), 5) They do not believe in Jesus (vs. 28, 30), 6) They murmur against Jesus (vs. 41, 43), 7) They have no life in them (vs. 53), 8) They went back from following Christ (vs. 66-69), 9) They had no assurance of salvation (vs. 66-69).

Why is Jesus even preaching to them? Is he talking to their carnal minds or to their spiritual minds? Is he "casting pearls before swine" and "giving holy bread to the dogs"? Is he preaching the gospel or the law to these unregenerate souls? When he corrects them, to what end is it? Is he condemning them for these things? Are they under duty then? Is there not a call to faith here? When Jesus says, "My Father gives you the true bread," who is designated by the pronoun "you"? Is it not these who are presently unregenerate and dead? And, does the word "give" not mean all the same as "offer"? When he says that he gives his life "for the life of the world" (vs. 34, 35), is he not saying this bread is available to them? Is it not by their "coming to Christ," the very thing they "will not" do? And, even though Jesus knows already that they "will not come to him," yet he preaches to them anyway! Is this the modern Hardshell practice?

These lost souls in John 6 had "sent unto John" (vs. 33), as a kind of enquirer, and were "willing to rejoice in his light" (vs. 35). Many Hardshells will want to make these people born again souls because of this latter statement. But, even depraved sinners may find reason to rejoice when they hear the gospel but who are not yet born again.

And the clincher is this; Christ says "these things I say unto you that you might be saved." The Hardshells cannot make this "time salvation" as these have not even been regenerated yet. The "salvation" can't be regeneration either, in the Hardshell scheme, since Christ does not use preaching to accomplish that work, and preaching is what he is doing here! "These things I say," meaning this whole sermon I am preaching to you, are spoken that you might thereby believe and be saved. Besides, Christ is clearly attempting to persuade and he uses words and arguments, something that many Hardshells decry! Do the Hardshells preach to the unregenerate as did Christ? Do they teach them as did Christ? Do they exhort them as did Christ? Clearly Christ did not accept their "logic" that preaching to dead sinners was a waste of time and served no purpose!

Addresses to the Lost in John 8

Here is the description of those to whom Jesus was speaking: 1. They know not the Father (vcs. 19), 2. They know not Christ (vs. 19), 3. They are unbelievers and will die in their sins (vs. 21), 4. They are "from below" (vs. 23), 5. They are "of the world" (vs. 23), 6. They want to kill the Lord (vs. 37, 40, 59), 7. They are not "Abraham's children" (vs. 39), 8. God is not their "Father" (vs. 42), 9. Satan is their "father" (vs. 44), 10. Unbelievers (vs. 45,46), 11. They are "not of God" (vs. 47), 12. They are "accusers" of Jesus - "he has a demon" (vs. 48), 13. They do not know the Father (vs. 55).

Notice verse 24 - "I say unto you..." "You" who? Is it not these same people? What does he say to them? "You shall die in your sins if you believe not..." Is that the type preaching of the Hardshells? Do they preach this way to dead sinners? Notice verse 51 - "I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death."

This address, like the ones in John 5, John 6, and John 7, are all to the spiritually dead, to those who are degenenerate, not "regenerate." This is where we get our authority and example to preach to the unsaved. This is where we get insight into how to witness to them, what to say to them, etc. But the Hyper Calvinist ignores all this! Every would be Hardshell "debater" and "apologist" must meet these objections and cannot avoid them without embarrassment.

Addresses to the Lost in John 10

There is a division in the audience that Jesus addresses in this chapter. Sometimes he will speak to the entire audience, without distinction, and then, at other times, will speak to one of the two classes within the audience. There are believers and unbelievers, as it says - "there was a division among them" (vs. 19) "Them" refers to the audience generally. To some, he speaks to them as being his "sheep," while to others he addresses, saying - "you are not of my sheep." Now, if Jesus were a Hyper Calvinist, a Hardshell Baptist, he would not even be preaching at all to these people! He certainly could not be condemning them for not coming to him savingly, nor for not believing on him, because they do not believe unregenerate men are under any duty or obligation to do this! But, Christ did condemn them, thus proving he thought it to be their duty to do so! He also spoke of spiritual truth, not just moral truth. He spoke of the plan and way of salvation, which is surely spiritual truth, and that to people who had no ears to hear, nor any spiritual life! Again, it is more proof that Christ was not an Antinomian Hyperist! His practice proves his doctrine.

Those to whom Christ preached the gospel, in John 10, included those "doubting Jews" (vs. 24), unbelievers (vs. 25,26,38), those who do not "know" Jesus (vs. 27,38), and those whom Jesus does not "know" (vs. 27), those who want to kill Jesus (vs. 31,39), and who accuse him, saying - "he has a demon" (vs. 33,36)

How can these characters be "born again" children of God? Only a biased Hardshell heretic will attempt to make them so. Why? Because he is unwilling to see the truth here - the gospel is to be preached to the dead sinner that he might live thereby.

Regeneration Before Faith Proof Texts (X)

With this posting I will begin looking at those texts which the apologists for the regeneration before faith view offer as proof texts for that view. I have already given twelve affirmative arguments or proof texts which prove the opposite view, that regeneration or rebirth follows union with Christ, and union is by faith. 

Looking at those affirmative arguments a number of things are evident. First, they give direct expressions from the scriptures that affirm that regeneration is by faith, and secondly they are not based upon supposed logical deductions from scripture or doctrine. 

Proof Text #1 - I John 5: 1

I have already examined this text and shown that it did not prove that faith followed being born of God. See these two postings (here and here).

Proof Text #2 - John 1: 12-13 

Some contend, as I noted in my affirmative arguments on this passage, that "were born" shows that the divine birth preceded the receiving and the believing, but this we have shown to be false. "Received" is Aorist and so is "were born." 

Proof Text #3 - John 3: 3 

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3: 3 KJV)

"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (vs. 5) 

In the years when I believed that regeneration preceded faith I never used this verse in an attempt to prove it, as others have tried to do. This proof text for that view is very weak, yea, wholly untenable. So, how do the above texts prove the born again before faith view? What is the argument on it from this text?

Wrote one author on the subject (See here):

"Calvinists lay great stress on the word “see”. They argue that one cannot believe in Christ until one first “sees” the Kingdom. They believe that “seeing” must precede “believing”. Since one cannot “see” the Kingdom of God until one is born again, then it would seem logical that one cannot believe what they “see” until they are born again. This is the more significant Calvinist argument. But will it stand up to scrutiny?"

Again, let me say that when this author (like many others) says "Calvinists lay great stress on the word 'see'" and says the "Calvinist argument," he is wrong to say that this is true of all Calvinists. He should say "some Calvinists," or Hyper Calvinists.  But, he does give us the argument that the Hyper Calvinists make on the above texts. 

The question that we must address is this: What does Christ mean when he speaks of "seeing" the kingdom of God? Is the "seeing" the "believing"? Though people often say "seeing is believing," that is not true in the above text. Jesus spoke of those who, although having "seen" him, the king of the kingdom, yet did not "believe." (John 6: 36) 

"Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20: 29)

It is my contention that "seeing" the kingdom has the same meaning as "entering" the kingdom. Jesus used both words to describe that entrance into the kingdom. When do we enter the kingdom? It is after we are born again, but it is also after we believe. There are two aspects or phases of entering the kingdom. One occurs in conversion and one occurs at the end of the age. The former is referred to in these words:

"He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love." (Col. 1: 13)

The latter is referred to in these words:

"Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." (II Peter 1: 10-11)

In order to enter or see the kingdom, either in time or at the end of time, one must be born again. But, he also must believe and repent, as the scriptures testify in many places. In the discourse of Christ to Nicodemus, Christ will emphasize the necessity of both the new birth and faith in the Messiah. He links those two together and makes them inseparable.

Is Christ teaching Nicodemus about the relation between faith and birth in the above words? Is he telling Nicodemus that he must be born again before he can believe? As we will see, this is not the case. In fact, in the remaining words of John chapter three, Christ will tell Nicodemus that he must believe in order to have life, eternal life. He must look in faith to Christ crucified as the dying Israelites looked to the brazen serpent on the post in order to be delivered from eternal and spiritual death.

Was Nicodemus Born Again?

Was Nicodemus born again when he came to Christ at night? How is such a question pertinent to the ordo salutis in regard to faith and rebirth? If Nicodemus was not born again, if he is spiritually dead and cannot therefore understand anything Christ is saying to him, then why is Christ talking to him about the kingdom of God? If he cannot see (understand) anything about the kingdom till he is born again, then Christ is acting foolishly to try to get him to see and understand. Christ's words are "spirit" and "life" (John 6: 63), and these spiritual words are addressed to a spiritually dead man, who it is said, cannot understand the new birth till he is born again. 

At least our Hardshell brothers recognize this incongruity because they all affirm that Nicodemus was already born again though he did not know it. This view, however, does not seem to be held by others of the born again before faith view. It is held by some who contend that no old testament believer was born again, no not even the apostle Peter, till after the death and resurrection of Christ and the inauguration of the new covenant. These see Nicodemus as not born again and is why Christ says to Nicodemus "you must be born again." If he were already born again, then Christ would not have said "Nicodemus, YOU must be born again." Further, Nicodemus did not even know anything about being "born again." Can people be born again who know nothing about it? Our Hardshell brothers believe so. 

In fact, I once heard a Hardshell preacher (who came from the Missionary Baptists) say about the words of Christ addressed to Nicodemus ('you must be born again') that it was an affirmation that Nicodemus was born of God. As an illustration he mentioned meeting someone and saying "you must be John Doe," meaning, it appears to me, from what I have heard about you, and from your appearance, that you must be him. Or, we might use another example as when someone speaks a lot about medicine in our hearing and we say "oh, you must be a doctor." So, Christ would be saying "you must be Nicodemus, and born of the Spirit." This is of course an extremely novel interpretation, of which the Hardshells are infamous. It is ridiculous, to say the least. 

No, rather, Jesus said to Nicodemus, "you must be born again." If he meant simply to talk about the new birth with someone who is already born again, and understood the new birth, then he would have spoken the words in the third person, not in the second person, saying in other words, "people must be born again." So, if it is true (and it is) that Nicodemus had not been born of the Spirit, then he was yet spiritually void of life, or spiritually dead. 

It is clear that he had no faith as yet in Christ, and as such was not joined to him. Being not yet united to Christ, who is "the life" (John 14: 6), Nicodemus was dead. There was no marriage or "tying of the knot" between Nicodemus and Christ at this time. Christ would later in this same discourse, in directly addressing Nicodemus, tell him that eternal life (from rebirth) would be given to those who believe in him. He told him this because faith in Christ would be the means of this rebirth, for obtaining spiritual life, a life that is not only unending but superlative in every way. It speaks of both the quality and the quantity of that life which comes through faith and the new birth.

So, at the time when Christ speaks to Nicodemus he is not a believer, has not been born of God through the gospel. If "faith is given in regeneration" (as most Hardshells have affirmed), then Nicodemus was not regenerated while he was yet an unbeliever in Christ. 

In one posting on this text I wrote the following to show how "seeing" the kingdom means the same thing as "entering" the kingdom (see here):

But, let me cite A. T. Robertson and another passage or two that refutes this view (as did D. A. Carson).

""He cannot see the kingdom of God" (ou dunatai idein tˆn basileian tou theou). To participate in it as in Lu 9:27. For this use of idein (second aorist active infinitive of hora) see Joh 8:51; Re 18:7." (A. T. Robertson - "Word Pictures in the New Testament")

To show that the word "see" means to experience I cited the following texts:

"I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God." (Luke 9: 27 NIV)

"I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death." (John 8: 51 NIV)

Even at the end of Christ's discourse to Nicodemus Christ uses the word "see" again, saying:

"He that believes on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him." (John 3: 36)

Though the Greek word for "see" (opsetai) is not the same as in the above verses, yet it has the same meaning. Notice that the "seeing" follows faith. The one who believes will be given eternal life and will "see life" in the age to come. To "see" or experience eternal life one must believe and must be born again.

D.A. Carson wrote (emphasis mine and cited previously here):

“To a Jew with the background and convictions of Nicodemus, “to see the kingdom of God” was to participate in the kingdom at the end of the age, to experience eternal, resurrection life. The same equivalence is found in the Synoptics (cf. Mk. 9:43, 45 ‘to enter life’, parallel to 9:47 ‘to enter the kingdom of God/); it is particularly strong in the Fourth Gospel, where ‘kingdom’ language crops up only here (3:3, 5) and at Jesus’ trial (18:36) while ‘life’ language predominates. One of the most startling features of the kingdom announced in the Synoptics is that it is not exclusively future. The kingdom, God’s saving and transforming reign, has in certain respects already been inaugurated in the person works and message of Jesus.” (D.A. Carson, The Gospel According To John, P. 188)

We could cite many other verses to show that "see" means to experience or partake. 

One writer on the ordo salutis, in his writing on the subject, cited leading proponents of each side in this debate. He then says this (See here emphasis mine):

"I find myself more in agreement with Lewis Chafer, John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie, Paul Enns, and many others who teach that regeneration occurs either just after faith in Christ, or at the same time. This discussion is not intended to resolve the issues surrounding the ordo salutis. Though I love and appreciate the writings of theologians such as R.C. Sproul, John Piper, Wayne Grudem, J.I. Packer, John Frame, and many others, yet I am unconvinced—at least at this time—by their arguments that regeneration precedes faith in Christ. My current position is based more on the evidence of Scripture rather than well-crafted theological arguments."

I agree. If we base our ordo salutis on what is expressly stated in scripture, rather than on "well-crafted" arguments from logical deductions, we will see that faith precedes rebirth. He said further:

"Biblically, there are numerous passages that place faith as the necessary prerequisite to having new life, or regeneration. It is written, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16), and “This is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life” (John 6:40). In these and other instances, “eternal life” is given after we believe in Jesus as our Savior. Faith is never the cause of our salvation, but rather, the means by which we receive it. Scripture clearly states, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph. 2:8-9)."  

Again, I agree and have so stated this in this series.

There are other things that Christ said were equally necessary for entering or partaking of the kingdom. Said Christ:

“Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 18: 3)

It seems that conversion involves being born again. One must be converted and born again to enter and see the kingdom. Of the preaching of Christ to the multitudes, which included those who were spiritually dead, we have these words from Mark's gospel.

"Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.” (Mark 1: 14-15)

Obviously Christ operated upon the belief that the people who he commanded to repent and to believe were not all spiritually alive. 

"And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. 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." (Acts 19: 8-9)

Paul spoke to many in the synagogue, many of which were not born again, not spiritually alive. Yet he speaks to them about the kingdom of God. The point to be made is that people see or perceive things about Christ and his kingdom before they believe and are born again but do not, however "see" or participate in the kingdom until the end of the age. That men are instructed in the kingdom before they are born again and converted, and before they enter it is seen in this text:

"Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which brings forth out of his treasure things new and old." (Matt. 13: 52)

Thus, sinners like Nicodemus are taught spiritual things, taught about the gift of eternal life and of being accounted worthy of the kingdom, and this before they believe and are born again. Therefore, all the "seeing" in this sense does not follow salvation, but much precedes it. Sinners are "born unto the kingdom" and they likewise are "instructed (discipled) unto the kingdom." 

That faith is required for rebirth and for entrance into the kingdom is also taught in these words:

"Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?" (James 2: 5)

Besides being born again of the Spirit (and by the word preached), and being chosen, one must also be "rich in faith" in order to obtain inheritance in the eternal kingdom.

Of the kingdom of God Paul wrote:

"The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." (Rom. 14: 17)

Joy and peace follows both faith and rebirth. (Rom. 15: 13) Joy and peace, as well as new life, is in Christ Jesus and is partially enjoyed in this life, but fully when the kingdom comes in its fullness at the coming of Christ and the resurrection and glorification of believers. 

In conclusion it is clear that "seeing" and "entering" of the kingdom is promised to all who believe and are born again and there is nothing in these words that teach that one must be born again before he can have faith. Also, to rely upon such texts and argumentation from it to support the born again before faith view shows that the advocates of this view have no express statements of scripture affirming it, but have to rely upon giving to the word "see" a strange and novel interpretation.