Problems in Divorcing Conversion From Regeneration (1)

The Historical Evolution: Broad vs. Narrow

The definition of regeneration underwent a significant shift between early Reformation theology and later Systematized Calvinism. To prevent confusion and to establish that salvation is entirely by sovereign grace (monergism), later Reformed thinkers deliberately narrowed the definition. 

Concept	Broad Regeneration (Early Reformed)	Narrow Regeneration (Later Reformed)
Primary Advocates	John Calvin, early Reformers	Later Scholastic Calvinists, Louis Berkhof, modern Reformed theology
Scope & Definition	The entire lifelong process of a Christian's transformation. It includes the initial heart change, conversion, lifelong sanctification, and ultimate glorification.	Exclusively the instantaneous, monergistic act of God implanting new spiritual life into a dead soul.
Relation to Faith	Occurs alongside and through a lifetime of faith and repentance.	Logically precedes faith (the famous maxim: "regeneration precedes faith").

When doing Google or Yahoo searches about the ordo salutis I often find AI telling me that regeneration precedes faith and that this is the Calvinist view. I have interacted with AI and showed AI the evidence of how this is false. AI then says "you are right" and then gives the evidence, agreeing that John Calvin and other Calvinists do not believe regeneration precedes faith and do not believe that regeneration is distinct from conversion. 

John Calvin and the first Calvinists of the Reformation did not believe that regeneration or the new birth preceded faith. All one has to do is to read the section on "Regeneration" in Calvin's Institutes to see this fact. Chapter Three even has these words in the title "REGENERATION BY FAITH." You can read it for yourself (here). I have cited from this work in these posts (here, here, here). John Calvin, also said the following in his commentary on I John 5:1:

"Whosoever believeth He confirms by another reason, that faith and brotherly love are united; for since God regenerates us by faith he must necessarily be loved by us as a Father; and this love embraces all his children." 

Calvin's comment on 1 Corinthians 13:13, where Calvin says  

"In fine, it is by faith that we are born again, that we become the sons of God -- that we obtain eternal life, and that Christ dwells in us."

Obviously Calvin did not believe that the argument by many Calvinists today that I John 5: 1 proves that spiritual birth preceded and caused faith in Christ due to the Greek grammar of the text, based upon "the one believing" being a present tense participle and "is born" being perfect tense. Further, John Calvin knew Greek well. I have also shown how this argument is invalid for we have texts that have the same structure as I John 5:1 and which disproves this argument, even though it is made by Calvinists who are well versed in Greek. (See these posts of mine on this point here, here, here) I know ministers who are well versed in Greek but who nevertheless grossly misinterpret scripture. Just because you know Greek does not mean you will interpret texts accurately. 

I have also given examples in English where we use a present tense participle with a perfect tense verb where the action of the participle occurred before the action of the perfect verb such as in this sentence:

"Whoever is thinking this way (present participle) has realized (perfect) this truth." 

That certainly doesn't mean that the coming to realization precedes the thinking of the participle. 

Many Calvinists who believe that regeneration should be defined narrowly to the exclusion of conversion (faith and repentance) and contend that it precedes conversion want others to believe that this is THE Calvinist or Reformed view as if no Calvinist has ever believed otherwise. When they are confronted, however, with the views of John Calvin, and others who followed him in the 16th and 17th centuries, and even many today such as I, who taught or teach that faith precedes regeneration or being reborn, they then begin to show frustration with this fact, cognitive dissonance, and have difficulty explaining this embarrassing fact to others. They use several tactics to try to get people to believe that Calvin really agreed with them and did not really believe regeneration was by faith, even though he clearly stated that this was his belief.

Tactic #1 - Calvin defined regeneration broadly to include conversion and saw it as being like renewing which is progressive throughout the life of a believer.

Tactic #2 - Though Calvin believed that regeneration was by faith he did not believe that people are born again by faith.

Tactic #3 - Later Calvinists improved upon Calvin's view, which view they say was confusing, and therefore redefined regeneration in a very narrow sense, which restricted definition excluded conversion. They also affirm that regeneration is synonymous with being reborn. 

Tactic number one clouds the fact that even though Calvin interpreted "regeneration" broadly, yet he still included initial regeneration as being by faith. 

Tactic number two is to be rejected because Calvin not only said that regeneration was by faith but so too was being born of God. 

Tactic number three is an opinion without any objective proof. More evidence for the contrary view exists, which says that later Calvinists who rejected the broad view of regeneration and gave it a very narrow and restricted definition are the ones who created confusion and imposed their view on scripture, for the scripture clearly identifies regeneration with conversion. These later Calvinists indicted the intelligence of Calvin and the great Calvinists of the Reformation.

Many of the Calvinists who restricted the definition of regeneration to exclude conversion, to exclude faith and repentance, acknowledge that this was a later development in post reformation Calvinism and say that it is an improvement to Calvin and the older Calvinists who defined regeneration broadly so as to include conversion. See these posts for citations from these Calvinist historians where they affirm this to be true (here, here, here) The question is this: do the scriptures see conversion as regeneration? And, do the scriptures teach that faith precedes salvation in all its aspects or stages? Or, do the scriptures clearly say that faith is the result of being born again? And, what are the theological consequences for saying faith follows regeneration? 

The Problems

Those Calvinists who diverged from Calvin and the older Calvinists and began to restrict what is involved in being regenerated or born again have done much harm. 

1, One error is their divorcing regeneration from conversion or from salvation. 

2. Another error is their defining regeneration as an experience wherein the sinner is only passive and in no wise active. 

3. Another error defines regeneration to the divine action or cause to the exclusion of the effects or actions of the regenerated.

3. Another error is in their denying that regeneration occurs apart from the instrumentality of the word or gospel of God. 

4. Another error says that being regenerated or born again is an experience on the sub-conscious level. 

5. Another error says that there are no prior preparatory acts nor any prevenient or common graces that precede regeneration. 

6. Another error says conviction of sin is evidence of regeneration. 

7. Another error says that regeneration and sanctification logically precedes justification.

In upcoming chapters we will look at each of these problems. I firmly believe that the born again before faith error arose out of Hyper Calvinism, although I am sure that those who hold to it will not want to admit that such is true.