Regeneration Is Conversion

A Challenge

I dare any advocate of the born again (regenerated) before faith view to list every passage in the bible that he thinks discusses that experience and then examine each to see what the context tells us about that experience. The chief end of this procedure will be to show how in most, if not all, of these texts there is clear reference to conversion through faith and repentance. In other words, the apostles described regeneration or rebirth in terms of conversion.

What scriptures are used to support the idea that regeneration precedes faith and conversion? Which are used to show how regeneration is not conversion? 

In a previous article of mine titled "PaedoBaptist Shedd on Regeneration & Means" (See here) I cited from an article titled "Regeneration" by well known theologian William G. T. Shedd (See here) who said:

  

"The divines of the seventeenth century very generally do not distinguish between regeneration and conversion, but employ the two as synonyms. Owen does this continually (On the Spirit 3.5), and Charnock likewise (Attributes, Practical Atheism). The Westminster Creed does not use the term regeneration. Instead of it, it employs the term vocation or effectual calling. This comprises the entire work of the Holy Spirit in the application of redemption. Under it belongs everything pertaining to the process of salvation, from the first step of conviction of sin to the act of saving faith in Jesus Christ (cf. Fisher, On the Catechism)."

Why did these great theologians think that regeneration and conversion were the same? Is it not because the new testament demonstrates that fact?

From Bible Hub (here) we have an article titled "Regeneration and Conversion" by J. M. Frost. In that article he writes:

"Regeneration is internal, conversion external. The one is hidden except as manifested in the other. Each is a change. The one applies to character, the other to conduct; one applies to the heart, the other to the manner of life." 

I find that definition lacking and not in keeping with the scriptures nor with the "divines of the seventeenth century." How can he say that conversion is not internal as well as external? How can he say that biblical regeneration is "hidden"? If regeneration and conversion are words denoting the same change of nature and state, then regeneration is not hidden. Further, how can he say that conversion does not "apply to the heart"? How can he say that conversion does not apply to "character"? The older Calvinists would never divide regeneration and conversion in this manner.

He says further:

"Regeneration is a change wrought of God in man's heart; conversion is a change wrought by the man himself in his own life. Hence the man is turned, and turns himself; the engine is reversed, and reverses itself. These two great truths, rather two sides of one truth, should be held distinct and in their proper relation."

Conversion is a change wrought by man and not by God? Oh my, that simply will not do! It is not what one discovers when he reads the new testament and sees how the apostles spoke of them as denoting the same experience. According to these words of Frost a man is not converted by God! That simply is ludicrous, reductio ad absurdum. Why should regeneration and conversion "be held distinct and in their proper relation"? Lots of harm has come from this kind of thinking. It has led to Hyper Calvinism.

In "Reflections of a Puritan Theologian on Regeneration and Conversion" (See here) by Michael Haykin we have these words:

"When Keach defined Conversion he included what he had already said about Regeneration and thus appears to blur the distinction between the two terms." 

This confirms what Shedd said about the divines of the seventeenth century. I am also sure that the reason why Keach defined conversion as regeneration is because they denoted the same experience.

Haykin says further:

"As Keach rightly realized, this debate about the nature of Justification had immensely practical consequences. In the Antinomian schema, that style of preaching where the lost are explicitly urged to turn to Christ becomes quite unnecessary. What is needed in preaching is simply the proclamation of what God has done in Christ. God will use that to awaken the elect and show them what he has already done for them. Keach's pulpit ministry, however, was characterized by vigorous evangelism and regular calls to the unconverted to respond to Christ in faith. According to C. H. Spurgeon, in speaking to the lost Keach was "intensely direct, solemn, and impressive, not flinching to declare the terrors of the Lord, nor veiling the freeness of divine grace." 

Divorcing conversion from regeneration leads to preaching that does not earnestly appeal to the lost.

Wrote Frost:

"Ferguson’s solution to the possible hazard of divorcing Christ from the application of salvation to the individual is not to dismantle the ordo, casting it aside as some overly speculative, logically driven theological construction from the distant past. Instead, Ferguson suggests, drawing from Calvin, that union with Christ should be the framework within which we must formulate and understand the ministry of the Spirit to the individual believer."

I have cited from Calvin many times to show that he believed that sinners were born again by faith because faith is the instrument of uniting the sinner with Christ and once this union has been effected, then spiritual life and regeneration and conversion occur or begin.