The "Logical Difficulty"

Citing Leroy Forlines one writer wrote (here):

"Leroy Forlines says that there is a problem for the coherence of Calvinism when it places regeneration before faith, because, as the great Calvinist theologian Louis Berkhof states, “Regeneration is the beginning of sanctification” [1]. It is a problem, logically, to place regeneration prior to faith in the ordo salutis (order of salvation) because, if regeneration is the beginning of sanctification, and if justification results from faith, then logically Calvinism is placing sanctification prior to justification."

This is what I have strenuously affirmed. Those Calvinists who put regeneration before faith and justification after faith have serious difficulties. In doing this they often contradict themselves in what they say. They will try to distance themselves from the Catholic view of the relation between justification and sanctification, and yet turn around and endorse that view when they put regeneration before faith. 

Those Calvinists who put regeneration before faith and faith before justification will nearly always say that justification precedes sanctification. But if justification is after regeneration and before sanctification, then regeneration is not sanctifying. Berkhof, who put regeneration before faith (in its restricted sense), put justification before sanctification and yet admits that regeneration is the beginning of sanctification. Upon this I will enlarge upon in a separate posting.

The author continues, saying:

"Forlines hones in on why this is a logical difficulty for the Calvinist system: “Calvinists have, by and large, adhered to the satisfaction view of atonement and justification. If a person is consistent in developing the implications of the satisfaction view of atonement, it is clear that God cannot perform the act of regeneration (an act of sanctification) in a person before he or she is justified. God can move in with His sanctifying grace only after the guilt problem is satisfied by justification. To think otherwise is to violate the law of non-contradiction. I realize that when we talk about the ordo salutis (order of salvation) we are talking about logical order instead of chronological order. But that logical order is inviolable!” 

For more of what Forlines said see (here). When Forlines speaks of the "logical difficulty for the Calvinist system" he is wrong to say that this is true with all Calvinists. This is because many Calvinists do not put regeneration before faith and do not put regeneration before justification. One branch of Calvinism does have this "logical difficulty," but not all.

The late R.C. Sproul, of Ligonier ministries, promoted the "regenerated before faith" view and yet he writes the following: "In other words, justification logically precedes sanctification." (Posted just recently here)

But, if regeneration be a part of sanctification, then logically justification precedes regeneration. It is an error to deny that regeneration is the beginning of sanctification. The well known Calvinist Louis Berkhof, who taught the regeneration before faith view, saw the "logical difficulty" and yet was forced to say:

"At the same time regeneration is the beginning of sanctification. The work of renewal, begun in the former, is continued in the latter, Phil. 1:6." (Systematic Theology Chapter X "Sanctification" - here)

He also said in the same context:

"The Reformers in speaking of sanctification emphasized the antithesis of sin and redemption rather than that of nature and supernature. They made a clear distinction between justification and sanctification, regarding the former as a legal act of divine grace, affecting the judicial status of man, and the latter, as a moral or re-creative work, changing the inner nature of man. But while they made a careful distinction between the two, they also stressed their inseparable connection. While deeply convinced that man is justified by faith alone, they also understood that the faith which justifies is not alone. Justification is at once followed by sanctification, since God sends out the Spirit of His Son into the hearts of His own as soon as they are justified, and that Spirit is the Spirit of sanctification." 

Notice that the Reformers taught that justification preceded sanctification and that regeneration was initial sanctification, when the believer becomes a saint once for all. 

He also said:

"Sanctification may be defined as that gracious and continuous operation of the Holy Spirit, by which He delivers the justified sinner from the pollution of sin, renews his whole nature in the image of God, and enables him to perform good works."

Well, that statement would contradict the idea that regeneration (renewing) precedes justification. 

He also said:

"The two parts of sanctification are represented in Scripture as: 

a. The mortification of the old man, the body of sin. 

b. The quickening of the new man, created in Christ Jesus unto good works."

Well, again, this shows that "quickening" is a being sanctified. Thus, justification precedes quickening. 

He also said:

"...it is necessary to stress the fact over and over again that sanctification is the fruit of justification, that the former is simply impossible without the latter, and that both are the fruits of the grace of God in the redemption of sinners."

Well, amen to that! That is not only the teaching of the Reformers but of most leading Calvinists, historically speaking. It has not been till more modern times that the "regenerated before faith" view gained a sizable number. Very many able Calvinists have asserted, as I do, that both regeneration and justification follow union with Christ by faith. Sanctification, which includes regeneration, follows justification and justification follows faith union. Berkhof is like many Calvinists who contradict themselves in this ordo salutis debate, involving themselves in "logical difficulties." 

He also said: 

"It is of considerable importance to have a correct conception of the relation between sanctification and some of the other stages in the work of redemption." 

 

Well, amen to that! Many others have said the same. One of the reasons why it is important is because the regenerated before faith view focuses attention upon regeneration, the moral or spiritual change, rather than upon the legal change of state (justification). It also either denies 1) that union with Christ precedes regeneration or 2) that union with Christ is by faith. 

The Reformers were correct in their making justification and sanctification to be distinct (in opposition to the Catholic view which equates them), the former a one time finished act, the latter an ongoing act. In this they wanted the focus to be upon the importance of justification, of its priority. They were also correct to see union with Christ, by faith, to have priority over all, over salvation, over justification, forgiveness, washing, regeneration, renewal, transformation, perseverance, glorification, etc. They of course also taught, as nearly all Calvinists do, that the faith that saves is "the faith of God's elect." (Titus 1: 1)

He also said:

"While God requires that sinners believe in Christ for their justification, the exercise of faith is a gift of God’s grace to the elect. Faith alone justifies, even though it is accompanied by other graces (e.g., love, affections, repentance, etc). Faith unites a sinner to Christ, thus enabling God to impute (i.e., credit or account) Christ’s righteousness to the believer."

Those Calvinists who believe in regeneration precedes faith will often agree that faith unites the sinner to Christ and yet, so inconsistently, say that regeneration precedes faith (or union with Christ). They cannot have it both ways. If regeneration follows union, then it follows faith.

He also said:

"Reformed theologians have long emphasized that regeneration logically precedes faith, since no one is able to believe in Christ until God the Holy Spirit takes away a heart of stone and gives them a heart of flesh (Ezek. 36:26)."

But that is not true of all "Reformed theologians" but only one group of them (as with those called Calvinists). Many Calvinists do not put regeneration before faith nor regeneration and sanctification before justification. It is men like Sproul and Berkhof, and others like them, who contradict themselves and involve themselves in "logical difficulty." 

If regeneration is the beginning of sanctification, and sanctification follows justification, then regeneration logically follows justification. Sproul says (like the Reformers) that sanctification follows justification (being the Protestant view) but then says that regeneration precedes justification. Those agreeing with Sproul et als must deny, to be consistent, what Berkhof affirmed, i.e. that regeneration is the beginning of sanctification. Or, if they accept Berkhof's thesis then they will have to affirm that sanctification precedes justification. Which horn of this dilemma do they want to take? 

Monergism web page, which supports the regenerated before faith view, writes (citing William Plummer 1853 - See here):

"Faith is the instrument of justification. Faith is the root of sanctification. In justification sin is pardoned, in sanctification it is slain. In justification we obtain forgiveness and acceptance; in sanctification we attain the victory over corruption, and obtain rectitude of nature. Justification is an act of God complete at once and forever...Sanctification always comes after justification." 

This statement is diametrically opposed to the regeneration before justification view! The regeneration before faith view! Sanctification is defined as rectifying nature, which is regeneration. The statement that "sanctification always comes after justification" is the biblical and true Reformed or Calvinistic position. If we say that regeneration is sanctifying then regeneration follows justification and justification follows faith union with Christ. So, this web page, is another example of the contradictions in such an ordo salutis.

The same article says further:

"Justification lies at the beginning of the Christian life, and, except in its consequences, does not extend beyond it, but is instantaneous and complete upon our first exercise of saving faith. Sanctification begins where justification ends, runs throughout the Christian life, and is partial and progressive, from measure to measure, until it reaches its perfection in glory."

If sanctification begins where justification ends, then regeneration begins where justification ends.

Said C.H. Spurgeon:

"Sanctification begins in regeneration." (From: Spurgeons Morning by Morning for July 4) 

Justification Unto Life & Regeneration

I deny that God must regenerate us to justify us. That is too much like the Catholic idea which affirms that God first "infuses" his righteousness in us and then begins the process of justification and sanctification, which continues throughout the life of a believer if he fall not away. The believer in this view conflates justification and sanctification. It sees justification as making a character personally just and righteous in character and life. The Catholic therefore tangles together justification and sanctification (the latter including regeneration, renewing, and transformation). Protestants have generally held that justification is forensic and happens once, though its effects are continuous and without end. Catholics have not, but have seen justification as a change of character and thus a synonym for sanctification. Protestants have also generally placed justification as having logical priority to sanctification. 

So, those Protestants (mainly in certain "Reformed" or "Calvinistic" circles) who put regeneration before justification are too similar to the Catholic view of infused righteousness before justification. God does not work in us to transform us in regeneration and sanctification until he has first taken care of the legal question of our standing. 

Justification involves imputation of the righteousness of Christ, reconciliation, and remission (forgiveness or pardon) of sins, and as such are the legal basis upon which the Lord is justly free to dispense the fruit of that legal change of state ('that he might be just and the justifier of him who believes in Jesus' - Rom. 3: 26). The objective state of a sinner must first be changed before his subjective moral and spiritual state be changed. Justification concerns what God does outside of us, while all moral change (regeneration, renewing, sanctification, etc.) is what God does within us. Justification guarantees moral transformation. There are two heads to the varied work of salvation from sin, what Calvin called the "double grace," and they are 

Justification and Sanctification 

Under justification would include reconciliation, imputation, forgiveness or remission of sins, atonement, propitiation, redemption (price paid to secure release). Under sanctification would include moral cleansing, purification, holiness, regeneration and rebirth, renewal and transformation, spirituality, conformity to the image and likeness of God. Of these two distinctive categories and their relation to each other deserves our focus. 

This post will be a follow up to previous articles on this subject. It will be an affirmative argument for the proposition that says that justification or imputation of Christ's righteousness, with its remission and forgiveness of sins, logically precedes sanctification, regeneration being a part of sanctification. 

Proof Text #1

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." (Rom. 5: 18)

In the above text Paul compares the modus operandi of "condemnation" with the modus operandi of "justification." How people come to be condemned is similar to how people come to be justified. 

The condemnation that comes on "all men" results first from the one sin of the one man Adam and its being imputed to those he represented in that great transaction. This is what is termed "original sin." That one sin brought condemnation and guilt to all men. His sin was "imputed" or "reckoned" to the account of all men (who Adam represented as a 'head'). As a result of that imputation, guilt follows, and from guilt comes inherited moral and spiritual corruption, a being "born in sin." (Psa. 51: 5) It is important at this point to discuss the differences between "immediate" versus "mediate" imputation of Adam's sin.

Does God condemn the sinner because he is born with a depraved nature (mediate imputation) or are sinners born with a depraved nature because God has condemned them? I believe the latter. John Murray wrote an excellent thesis on this disputed issue, taking, as I do, the immediate imputation view. What I will show is that the putting of regeneration before justification is equated with putting degeneration before condemnation. 

If one believes in immediate imputation of Adam's sin, then he ought to believe, to be consistent and in agreement with Paul, that immediate imputation of Christ's righteousness, precedes regeneration. On the other hand, if we believe in mediate imputation of Adam's sin (that degeneration precedes guilt and condemnation), then logically we should believe that regeneration precedes justification (imputation of Christ's righteousness). Imputation of Adam's sin results in condemnation and that condemnation results in an inherited sinful nature, and from a sinful nature results actual personal transgressions.

We do what we do because of who we are, and not vise versa. It is because we are condemned that we are morally degenerate. Likewise it is because we are justified that we are morally regenerate. This is the order of the apostle Paul. 

Wrote Dr. Charles Hodge on the subject (Systematic Theology - here):

"As guilt precedes punishment, if, as Edwards says, depravity or spiritual death is a punishment, then the imputation of the guilt of Adam’s first sin precedes depravity, and is not consequent upon it. This is the current representation throughout the work on Original Sin."

This is clearly the teaching of the apostle Paul. Hodge continued:

"Rivet, however, clearly shows that although not rendered prominent, the immediate imputation of Adam’s sin as universally assumed. This is plain from the fact that all the evil consequences of Adam’s apostasy, mortality, the loss of original righteousness, corruption of nature or spiritual death, etc., etc., were of the nature of punishment." 

This is clearly the teaching of the apostle in Romans chapter five. Depravity, or a degenerate state, is the effect of that "judgment" of God which constituted all men as "condemned," as guilty. So too is death a punishment, whether it be physical or spiritual death. All men die, even those, like infants, who die without any personal transgressions, and death is the wages of sin, the result of guilt and condemnation. Death is punishment for sin and the fact that all men die proves that all men are accounted guilty by original sin. 

Hodge continued:

"The leading objections against the doctrine of mediate imputation are, — 1. That it denies what the Scriptures assert. The Scriptures assert that the sentence of condemnation has passed upon all men for the sin of one man. This the doctrine of mediate imputation denies, and affirms that the ground of that condemnation is inherent depravity. We are accounted partakers of Adam’s sin only because we derive a corrupt nature from him. According to the Scriptures, however, the reason why we are depraved is, that we are regarded as partakers of his sin, or because the guilt of that sin is imputed to us. The guilt in the order of nature and fact precedes the spiritual death which is its penal consequent."

Though I have seen where some have suggested that Hodge did not believe in immediate imputation, yet the above is very clear that he did believe it. Being born with a depraved nature is a punishment inflicted because of a prior condemnation. I have also seen how Hodge affirmed that "regeneration," viewed in its limited sense, preceded faith and justification. All I can say in regard to this is that Hodge, in doing this, contradicts what he says regarding immediate imputation. Hodge does say in his section on Regeneration that the term "regeneration" was once synonymous with conversion but later, beginning with Turretin, regeneration began to be limited so as to exclude conversion. Wrote Hodge:

"With the theologians of the seventeenth century conversion and regeneration were synonymous terms." (Systematic Theology Vol. 3 page 12 - See here) 

This is certainly true with John Owen. He regularly used conversion and regeneration in ways which showed he thought of them as the same. Many would later affirm that "broad regeneration" included conversion, but regeneration more strictly defined excluded conversion.

Hodge continued:

"This doctrine (mediate imputation) denies the penal character of the hereditary corruption in which all men are born. According to the Scriptures and to the faith of the church universal, mortality, the loss of original righteousness, and hereditary corruption are inflicted upon mankind in execution of the threatening made against Adam, and are included in the comprehensive word, death, by which the threatened penalty was expressed. This is as emphatically taught by President Edwards as by any other of the Reformed theologians. He devotes a section of his work to prove that the death mentioned in Genesis, and of which the Apostle speaks in Rom. v. 12, included spiritual death, and that the posterity of Adam were included in that penalty. He says: “The calamities which come upon them in consequence of his sin, are brought on them as punishments.” He moreover says, it destroys the whole scope of the Apostle’s argument “to suppose that the death of which he here speaks as coming on mankind by Adams sin, comes not as a punishment.” And again: “I do not suppose the natural depravity of the posterity of Adam is owing to the course of nature only; it is also owing to the just judgment of God.” But punishment supposes guilt; if the loss of righteousness and the consequent corruption of nature are punishments, they suppose the antecedent imputation of guilt; and therefore imputation is immediate and not mediate; it is antecedent and not consequent to or upon inherent depravity."

This all being true, then logically justification must precede regeneration or else the likeness between Adam's sin and death (condemnation) and Christ's obedience and life (justification) is overturned. Condemnation preceded degeneration of nature. Justification precedes regeneration of nature.

Hodge continued:

"It is a still more serious objection that this doctrine destroys the parallel between Adam and Christ on which the Apostle lays so much stress in his Epistle to the Romans. The great point which he there labours to teach and to illustrate, and which he represents as a cardinal element of the method of salvation, is that men are justified for a righteousness which is not personally their own. To illustrate and confirm this great fundamental doctrine, he refers to the fact that men have been condemned for a sin which is not personally their own. He over and over insists that it was for the sin of Adam, and not for our own sin or sinfulness, that the sentence of death (the forfeiture of the divine favour) passed upon all men. It is on this ground he urges men the more confidently to rely upon the promise of justification on the ground a righteousness which is not inherently ours. This parallel destroyed, the doctrine and argument of the Apostle are overturned, if it be denied that the sin of Adam, as antecedent to any sin or sinfulness of our own is the ground of our condemnation." 

Exactly! 

Hodge continued:

"If we are partakers of the penal consequences of Adam’s sin only because of the corrupt nature derived by a law of nature from him, then we are justified only on the ground of our own inherent holiness derived by a law of grace from Christ. We have thus the doctrine of subjective justification, which overthrows the great doctrine of the Reformation, and the great ground of the peace and confidence of the people of God, namely, that a righteousness not within us but wrought out for us, — the righteousness of another, even the eternal Son of God, and therefore an infinitely meritorious righteousness, — is the ground of our justification before God. Any doctrine which tends to invalidate or to weaken the Scriptural evidence of this fundamental article of our faith is fraught with evil greater than belongs to it in itself considered. This is the reason why the Reformed theologians so strenuously opposed the doctrine of La Place. They saw and said that on his principles the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness antecedent to our sanctification could not be defended."

All this demonstrates the truth of the apostle Paul in Romans chapter five, that men are first condemned and declared guilty and as a result are born degenerate and under the wrath of God, and experience death. It also affirms that men are first justified and declared righteous and as a result are born (regenerate) and reconciled to God, and experience life. As degeneration and death follow condemnation so regeneration and life follow justification. That is the apostle's teaching, as Hodge and many others agree.

There are those who object to the justice of God in holding Adam's posterity accountable for the sin of Adam. However, let them consider the consequences of denying the fact of it first and then consider the justice of such an imputation afterwards. 

If God cannot condemn all men for the sin of Adam, then he likewise cannot justify men for the one righteous act of the second Adam. If God cannot justly punish one person for another person's sin, then he also cannot justly reward one person for another person's righteousness. So, those who say that each must be condemned for his own sins also affirm that each must be justified for his own righteousness. Paul is affirming this truth (paraphrased): "we are condemned for what someone else did and we are saved for what someone else did." 

Those who put regeneration before justification do not follow the order of the apostle. Those Calvinists who put regeneration before justification are like those who believe in "mediate" imputation of Adam's original sin, affirming that the presence of the depraved nature logically precedes guilt and condemnation. Imputation of guilt follows degeneration of nature. This is the same order for those who put regeneration before justification (mediate justification/imputation). However, most Calvinists believe in immediate imputation, as respects original sin, and yet say that regeneration precedes justification (or imputation). This is contradictory and fails to understand the parallelism the apostle draws. Degeneration results from imputation of guilt. Regeneration results from imputation of righteousness or from justification (which includes remission or forgiveness).   

Justification Unto Life

The words "unto justification of life" show that justification precedes regeneration (life). Being a genitive the words may be interpreted in several ways. If it is a genitive of source, then it would read "unto justification arising from life," life, regeneration life, would be the source for justification. If it is such a genitive, then it would show that regeneration precedes justification. But, it is not such a genitive, or genitive of result. Rather, as is clear from the context, the genitive is an objective genitive and thus means "justification unto life" or "justification which results in life," or "justification for life." In the parallel with Adam, condemnation resulted in death (including spiritual death and degeneration), yet justification results in spiritual life or regeneration.

Said one on this subject:

"The association between righteousness and life appears even clearer and closer in Rom 5,18 in the expression "justification of life" (δικαίωσιν ζωῆς). The connection is given there by a genitive that can be interpreted as denoting a result, given the causal relationship inferred in 5,17 between the reception of the gift of righteousness and reigning in life, as well as from the expression in 5,21 -  διὰ δικαιοσύνης εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον and διὰ δικαιοσύνης εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον; or else as an epexegetic genitive: justification that consists in life. The genitive of result has stronger arguments in favor. However, both interpretations are not opposite. Therefore, the existence of a relationship between righteousness and vivification which is seen implicitly in Gal 3,21 is confirmed by the explicit formulation in Rom 5,17.18.21: justification results in life." (here)

That is my view and I believe it expresses the mind of the apostle.

Thus, this is my first affirmative argument for the proposition that justification precedes regeneration (and sanctification). In the next several articles we will offer further affirmative texts.

Chpt. 123 - Hardshells & Justification I

In a word, Hardshells reject the belief that justification which is "by faith" has anything to do with a man's actual justification before God or the condemning law. To the Hardshells, justification which is "by faith," is as unnecessary for being eternally saved as is being converted to Christ. The typical manner in which Hardshells attempt to defend this strange and novel idea is to affirm that there are three different kinds of justification in scripture, each pertaining to a different court of justice. Only one of these three kinds of justification, however, is necessary to salvation.

Elder R. V. Sarrels, Hardshell apologist who wrote what is called a "Systematic Theology," wrote the following on "Justification By Faith" in chapter 16:

"The principles set forth in this chapter regarding the Doctrine of Justification by Faith differs fundamentally from the generally accepted view concerning this important doctrine. The opinion of Christian scholarship predominantly favors the idea that faith is the medium or instrument by which the unregenerate person is united to Christ."

Sarrels basically proves what I have affirmed, that the Hardshell interpretation and understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith is not orthodox, nor the traditional view of Christians in general or Baptists in particular. Sarrels admits that Hardshell teaching on this Bible doctrine is an extreme minority view, and lends credence to the fact that they hold a cultic and novel view. Sarrels admits that the teaching that interprets "by faith," in the context of justification, teaches "that faith is the medium or instrument by which the unregenerate person is united to Christ." From this citation it is clear that Sarrels shifts from the idea of justification to that of regeneration and union with Christ. Sarrels implies that those theologians who affirm that faith logically precedes justification also affirm, or must logically affirm, that faith precedes regeneration. But, this is not true. Most of today's "Reformed" Baptists, such as James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries, believe that faith follows regeneration but precedes justification. The position of the first Particular Baptists, in England and America, taught that faith logically precedes all. It is the means of joining one to Christ. Being justified, regenerated (reborn), and being sanctified are the results of this union. They taught that these things were concomitants, "things that accompany salvation." (Heb. 6: 9) One does not exist without the other. There is no such character who is regenerated but not justified, and vice versa. There is no such character who is justified and regenerated but not joined to Christ. There is no such character, as the Hardshells invent, who is justified, regenerated, sanctified, and joined to Christ, but who "has not faith." I will expand upon this point shortly.

Sarrels also wrote:

"By the phrase "united to Christ" this prevailing view means the work which makes one a new creature in Christ...In contrast to this common idea concerning the place of Justification by Faith in the Christian system, is the view that this justification follows regeneration and that it plays no part in either leading up to or in bringing about the birth from above."

Sarrels is not correct when he says that the "common idea" about "the place of Justification by Faith" among Christian scholars affirms that justification follows regeneration. The "common idea" is rather that justification logically precedes regeneration. This is certainly the teaching of classical Arminians, of men such as Arminius and Wesley. The view of "Reformed" and "Hyper" Calvinists teach that the ordo salutis is: first regeneration, then faith (conversion), and then justification and sanctification. But, many of them argue that regeneration only logically precedes faith and justification, not chronologically. These Calvinists are not consistent nor reflective of the Puritans and old Baptists who wrote the first English confessions of faith.

It has always been the peculiar difference between Protestants and Catholics, relative to the ordo salutis, that justification logically precedes regeneration. Protestants have emphasized, among other things, that Paul says that God "justifies the ungodly," which would not be the case if men were regenerated (made godly) before being justified. To say that men are regenerated before they are justified is to say that men who are yet condemned are "regenerated." Nearly all scholars, both Arminian and Calvinist, affirm that union with Christ logically precedes all, precedes justification, precedes regeneration, precedes sanctification. They also teach that actual union with Christ is "by faith." Those who affirm that union with Christ is primordial, and that union with Christ is "by faith," and who affirm that regeneration precedes faith, are inconsistent. It is good thing, that despite this inconsistency and opposition to Protestant views, these Reformed Calvinist theologians nevertheless teach that there is no chronological order, that justification, regeneration, faith, and sanctification, are all concomitants.

Sarrels identifies the chief error of Hardshellism on the Christian doctrine of justification by faith, saying that justification "plays no part in" being born again. Though he mentioned that being justified does not "lead up to" or "bring about" the new birth, he really believes that being justified does not occur at the same time one is born again. Thus, they have a man born again who is still condemned! If a man is not justified, then he is still condemned.He denies the historic Protestant doctrine that says that justification logically precedes regeneration, and he does not believe that justification is always linked with regeneration. He certainly does not believe that being justified by faith is necessary for escaping Hell and going to Heaven.

Sarrels wrote:

"It is the purpose of the author in this chapter to show that this, exactly this, is what the Bible teaches concerning this doctrine. But it must not be inferred from what is here stated that a new concept in theology has been born. From the days of the apostles till now there has been a succession of Christian thinkers, in the main unaccredited by the world, who have, with varying degrees of clearness, stood forthrightly and unafraid in defense of the view we hold." (pg. 373)

Sarrels claims that they has always been Christians who believed as he does, "from the days of the apostles till now," he says, "there has been a succession" of Christians who believed as Hardshells do on the doctrine of salvation, on justification and regeneration. But, he states a falsehood, for Hardshellism was born in the early to mid 19th century in America. I have repeatedly challenged the Hardshells to prove this "succession." They cannot find anyone, prior to the 19th century, who held to their peculiar views and so it is the height of deception for them to state that their views have a "succession" of adherents since the days of the apostles. The typical Hardshell will read such claims as Sarrels gives and, being a good cult member, simply accept what Sarrels avers, and will not study the matter for himself.

The Hardshells say that the only justification that is necessary for being eternally saved is that justification which is "by grace" (Rom. 3: 24; Titus 3: 7) or "by his blood" (Rom. 5: 9). Being justified "by faith" (Rom. 3: 28; 5: 1), however, is a "different kind of justification" than that which is by grace and the blood of Christ. Thus, they teach that many are justified by grace and blood who are not justified by faith.

The Hardshells argue that justification by grace and blood is "before God," or "in his sight," or before the court of Heaven, or before the law. On the other hand, justification by faith is not "before God," or "in his sight," but simply and solely in the "court of conscience," before the eyes of believers themselves. Being "justified by faith," to the Hardshell, is receiving assurance that one is already elected and regenerated, equivalent to conversion or to their "time salvation." And, "justification by works" is also not "before God," but "before men," in the "court of public opinion."

In Hardshellism, justification occurs by faith when the previously "regenerated" soul trusts in the atoning death and righteousness of Christ and receives a sense of acquittal in his conscience, when he comes to realize that he is "freed from condemnation." Hardshells argue that this is not when God actually justifies the sinner before the law, and removes actual guilt before the eyes and judgment of God, but when guilt is removed from the burdened and convicted conscience.

One of the problems with this view is the fact that it makes the Holy Spirit to bear witness to a falsehood. In the Hardshell paradigm, the Holy Spirit convicts the regenerated soul of his guilt. But, the soul is not really guilty of sin, for he has already been justified prior to his conviction of sin and faith in Christ. Thus, when the Spirit convinces a soul that it is guilty, he is convincing him of what is not true, for the soul the Spirit convicts has already been justified by blood and grace.

But, the scriptures are clear about all who do not believe in the one true God, and in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and the only Savior and Lord. Jesus said:

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3: 18)

The soul that does not believe in Jesus "is condemned." The soul that believes in Jesus, however, is one who is "not condemned," that is, is "justified." This simple teaching overthrows Hardshellism and its unscriptural teaching that many unbelievers are "not condemned."

Jesus also said:

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

To be justified is to be delivered from the judicial "wrath of God." All sinners are condemned, and are therefore "under sin" and "under wrath." Unbelievers are condemned and under wrath. But, Hardshells will not accept this to be true. That makes them enemies of the gospel of Christ.

Another problem with this paradigm is the fact that Paul, in Romans and Galatians, where he discusses justification in detail, does not distinguish between that justification which is by grace and blood from that which is by faith. In Romans 3: 20-31 Paul speaks of the same justification, not of different kinds of justification. The Hardshells do the same thing with the word "salvation" as they do with the word "justification." Just as they make all passages that make salvation to be conditioned upon faith and repentance to be a temporal or time salvation, so they make all passages that make justification to be conditioned upon faith to be a temporal justification. In verse 20 of Romans chapter three Paul speaks of being "justified in his sight." The context clearly shows that the justification that Paul is discussing is that which justifies a sinner in God's sight, before his law. Paul then continues with these words:

"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (vs. 24-28)

It requires great dishonesty to make the justification which is "by faith" (vs. 28) to be different from that justification which is "by his grace" (vs. 24). When Paul says "therefore we conclude," he shows that he is not making that justification which is "by faith" to be different from that which is "by grace."

Further, Paul says that "faith" in Christ "excludes" any possibility of "boasting," and shows that he does not consider faith to be "works," for works promote boasting. The Hardshells often argue that salvation cannot be "by faith" because faith is a "work" and Paul says we are not saved or justified "by works," that is, "not by faith." But, such hermeneutics has Paul contradicting himself, saying on one hand that salvation and justification are "by faith" and then turning around and saying that they are not "by faith (work of faith)." Salvation and justification are "by faith" but "not by works," which clearly shows that Paul did not, like the Hardshells, see faith as a work.

Justification precedes Regeneration

Part One

Is one justified before he is regenerated and sanctified?  Or, is one regenerated and sanctified before he is justified?  Traditionally, it has been Protestants who see justification as preceding regeneration and sanctification while Catholics have seen regeneration and sanctification as preceding justification.  Yet, the Hyper Calvinist who insists that regeneration precedes faith finds himself in agreement with the Catholic view.  A typical Hyper Calvinist writes on this issue as follows:

"Verse 29 (Rom. 8 - SG) announces the divine fore-ordination; verse 30 states the manner of its actualization. It seems passing strange that with this divinely defined method before them, that so many preachers begin with our justification, instead of with that effectual call (from death unto life — our regeneration) which precedes it. Surely it is most obvious that regeneration must first take place in order to lay a foundation for our justification. Justification is by faith (Acts 13:39; Rom. 5:1; Gal. 3:8), and the sinner must be divinely quickened before he is capable of believing savingly.

The Arminian allots to man the first place, the Calvinist gives God that position of honor. Thus the Arminian begins his discussion of salvation with justification, for the sinner must believe before he can be forgiven; further back he will not go, for he is unwilling that man should be made nothing of. But the instructed Calvinist begins with election, descends to regeneration, and then shows that being born again (by the sovereign act of God, in which the creature has no part) the sinner is made capable of savingly believing the gospel.

He does not save us from the penalty of sin until He has delivered us from the love of sin."  ("Salvation From The Pleasure Of Sin" - See here)

I have addressed this issue in previous postings.  See here and here and here

In the third posting referenced above I cited these words:

"All those who stand in the tradition of the Reformation believe that justification and regeneration are closely related and that one cannot and will not be present without the other. However, there has been some sharp disagreement as to their logical order, if not their temporal order.

There is no question about Calvin's placing justification before regeneration in the order of logic (see Institutes, Bk. 3, chap. 11, secs. 6,11). G.C. Berkouwer also acknowledges this in his Faith and Justification, pages 29, 30.

The systematic Calvinists of the seventeenth century, however, reversed Calvin's order and put regeneration before justification. This was the result of moving the doctrine of an arbitrary predestination to the center and starting point of their theological thinking."

Kenneth Wuest correctly states (emphasis mine):

"In John 1: 12, justification precedes regeneration in the divine economy. Mercy is only given on the basis of justice satisfied." (Word Studies, page 41)

"But under the divine government of the universe, there were two things that stood in God's way of making human beings His children, the fact that they were not His children by birth and the fact that they were law-breakers. The first could easily have been remedied by regeneration, but the thing that stood in the way of this act of mercy on God's part was the fact that human beings are sinners, and God's justice demands that sin be paid for before mercy can be righteously bestowed. This is clearly recognized in John 1: 12 where the Greek work translated "power" was a technical expression used in the law courts for a legal right to be or do something. The word "sons" is not from our word huios here but from teknon, and should be translated "children." To those who received the Lord Jesus as their Saviour, as the One who died in their stead on the Cross, thus satisfying the justice of God in view of man's sin, God gave the legal right to become His children."

"Regeneration is therefore dependent upon justification, since an act of mercy in a law court can only be justly based upon the fact of the law being satisfied in the punishment of the crime committed. In human law courts this is impossible, for the prisoner cannot be punished and be set free at the same time." (pg. 92, "Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, for the English Reader" - see here)

Justification unto Life

"Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. " (Romans 5: 18 NIV)

It is extremely problematic to place justification after regeneration and sanctification in an "ordo salutis."

Is sanctification a part of regeneration? Does not Paul speak of the "washing of regeneration"? (Titus 3: 5)

If one is sanctified in regeneration, and if faith and justification follow regeneration, then we have placed sanctification before justification. This however cannot be, for justification is the grounds upon which God is free to regenerate and cleanse the soul. Forgiveness must precede regeneration in the order of the divine mind and working.

In the passage cited above, does "life" come after, or go before, "justification"? Are we regenerated unto justification? No. Justification is "unto" life, or unto regeneration.

So, if we affirm that we are "justified by faith," then we must say that we are "justified by faith unto life." Or, as the NIV renders it - "justification that brings life for all men."

To affirm that one becomes alive (by birth or regeneration) and then become justified, is to reverse what Paul stated. The passage would have to be rewritten to say - "life that brings justification."

Justification is by faith alone, a proposition that many "Reformed" disciples confess, men like James White, Tom Ascol, Wayne Grudem, Ligon Duncan III, R. C. Sproul, John Hendryx, etc.

God justifies the ungodly

"But to him that does not do any works, but believes on him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Rom. 4:5)

The word "ungodly" is one of the strongest expressions that can be used to describe a sinner. This scripture certainly contradicts the notion that God justifies regenerate/godly saints.

God justifies the uncircumcised

In order to illustrate that justification comes on the ungodly who believe, Paul illustrates his point from the example of Abraham. The father of the faithful was justified by faith while he was uncircumcised.

In the minds of the Jews, uncircumcision stood for an unclean and unsanctified state. Circumcision is a symbol of the new heart (Deut.30:6; Col. 2:11-13). So the new life is the sign and witness of the blessing of justification, not the cause or even the condition necessary for justification. Paul's gospel declares that God justifies the ungodly, the uncircumcised and the heathen through faith and faith alone (Rom. 4:5, 10; Gal. 3:8).

God calls the things that be not as though they were. Human wisdom will question, "How can God pronounce a man righteous before the Holy Spirit has made him righteous?" This is how the Catholic system reasons.

"According to the glorious gospel of saving grace, God forgives sinners rather than transformed, born-again saints. But according to Rome, a sinner cannot be forgiven unless he first becomes a new creature."

John Wesley was noted for his great emphasis on holiness of life; yet he stood decidedly with the Reformers on the true relation of justification and regeneration. Said Wesley:

"If any doctrines within the whole compass of Christianity may be properly termed fundamental, they are doubtless these two; the doctrine of justification, and that of the new birth: the former relating to that great work which God does for us, in forgiving our sins; the latter, to the great work which God does in us, in renewing our fallen nature. In order of time, neither of these is before the other; in the moment we are justified by the grace of God, through the redemption that is in Jesus, we are also 'born of the Spirit;' but in order of thinking as it is termed, justification precedes the new birth. We first conceive his wrath to be turned away, and then his Spirit to work in our hearts." Sermons on Several Occasions, sermon 45, "The New Birth."

See here

On The Justification Regeneration Ordo Debate

One of the blogs I read is by Steve Hays, a voluminous writer who often has good articles and who defends Calvinism. However, he is a Hyper Calvinist in his placing regeneration before conversion and justification. I have constantly written against those Calvinists who put regeneration before justification and have shown how the first Reformers, John Calvin et als, did not do so. Hays recently had a post titled "Repentance, remission, and justification" (see here) and I wish to quote some things Hays said and respond to them. Hays said (his words in black and the Catholic in red - emphasis mine):

"A recent exchange I had with a Catholic apologist (indeed, a sedevacantist!):

Here St. Paul says that washing of regeneration (i.e. internal change within the believer done by the Holy Spirit) is how God justifies the sinner. This means that justification involves an ontological change within the believer, not merely a legal declaration. This also refutes the Protestant claim that sanctification is separated from justification and happens after it - to the contrary, in Titus 3:4-7 St. Paul says that sanctification is the basis for justification.

It has been my contention that it is the Catholics who put regeneration before justification and that the Protestants have put justification before regeneration. See my posting Justification precedes Regeneration for instance. Those Calvinists therefore who put regeneration before faith and justification are in league with the Pelagian Catholics and have deviated from Calvin and the first Reformers.

Hays wrote this in response:

i) At most, your conclusion only follows if the relationship between v6 and v7 is chronological, where justification is the effect of spiritual renewal. But more likely Paul is saying that inheriting eternal life is the combined effect of spiritual renewal and justification by grace.

ii) And even if there's a chronological sequence, that's entirely consistent with Calvinism: justification is contingent on faith while faith is contingent on regeneration.

Notice how Hays agrees with the Catholic on the point! He says regeneration precedes justification! Further, he claims that "Calvinism" has such an ordo salutis! Yet, the truth is, it is the Hyper Calvinist who puts regeneration before justification and is in league with the Pelagians!

Wrote the Catholic:

"This is also why Paul says in Romans 6:16 that obedience leads to righteousness - exactly as the Catholic Church teaches."

"But Reformed theology insists that regeneration (i.e. the internal change done by the Holy Spirit within the believer) comes after justification."

Responded Hays:

"I have no idea where you came up with that. In Reformed theology, justification is a consequence of faith while faith is a consequence of regeneration. So you've got the causal sequence out of order.

ii) I don't know where you get the idea that in Reformed theology, sanctification is the result of justification. Rather, sanctification is an outgrowth of regeneration. Justification is categorically different from regeneration or sanctification in Reformed theology. Justification is an ascribed status whereas sanctification is a process of moral and spiritual transformation."

Hays is wrong when he says that the Reformers put regeneration before justification! It is not the Calvinists who put regeneration before justification but it is the Hyper Calvinists who are in league with the Pelagian Catholics!

The "Logical Difficulty" II

Union With Christ Precedes All

If this proposition is true, then justification, regeneration, renewal, and sanctification all follows union. Even those who differ on the order of these things nevertheless are almost universally agreed with this proposition. They all affirm that union with Christ must take precedence. I too believe this because it is so pervasively the teaching of scripture. It is the view of the Reformers, of most Calvinists, and many Arminians. 

This being true, it only remains to determine how union with Christ is effected. I believe, like most others, that faith is the medium of union on our part. 

Syllogism

1. Union with Christ precedes all aspects of salvation

2. Union with Christ is by faith

3. Union with Christ by faith precedes all aspects of salvation

The "logical difficulty" that those who promote the regenerated (born again) before faith view is thus apparent. 

Those who promote this view agree and affirm that - Union with Christ is the foundation of all salvation's aspects. Yet they also inconsistently affirm:

1. Union with Christ is by faith

2. Regeneration is before faith

3. Regeneration is not by faith union

But, if this is true, then logically regeneration is before union with Christ. Thus, regeneration is not the result of union, being that which precedes union. So, those who say "union with Christ precedes all" must either affirm that it does not in fact precede all, or deny that union is "by faith." When they affirm that union precedes all and that union is by faith, they cannot then consistently affirm that regeneration precedes faith.

Further "logical difficulty" is seen because in such an ordo salutis regeneration is before justification and makes regeneration to not be sanctifying. 

In "The Order of Justification and Regeneration" (here) the editor takes issue with the late Dr. Gordon Clark (a generally good writer) on the ordo salutis and writes as follows (emphasis mine):

"Editorial Note: We here reprint a statement sent to us in 1973 by the respected evangelical and Reformed scholar, Gordon H. Clark. It was published in the "Letters" section of our previous issue of Present Truth Magazine together with a brief editorial comment which we made at that time. This editorial comment is also reprinted here at the conclusion of Dr. Clark's statement."

Gordon Clark argued that the Reformers taught that regeneration preceded faith and justification. But, the editorial critique shows that Clark was wrong. I will be citing from the one critiquing Clark.

The editor in response to Clark's defense of regeneration before faith wrote:

"Thank you, professor, for your stimulating comments. We are aware that some later Calvinists have tended to place regeneration before justification. As for Calvin, he declared, ". . . justifying grace is not separate from regeneration although these are distinct things. —Institutes, Bk. 4, chap. 2, sec. 2. In fact, in a certain passage in the Consensus Tigurinus, Calvin very decisively places justification before regeneration, not in temporal but in logical sequence. He writes, "Dum fide inserti in Christi corpus, idque spiritus sancti virtute, primum iusti censemur gratuitae iustitiae imputatione, de inde regeneramur in novam vitam."—Cited by Francois Wendel, Calvin: The Origins and Development of His Religious Thought, tr. Philip Mairet (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), p.256."

This is exactly what many of us Calvinists have been saying to those who say "Calvinists believe regeneration precedes faith." This is not the case historically. 

The author says further:

"A further comment: Surely you are not unaware that the whole Lutheran stream of the Reformation very decidedly places justification before regeneration. The Formula of Concord distinctly says that "the renewal . . . follows justification" and "succeeds the righteousness of faith" (see Book of Concord, p.253). John Wesley did not follow Luther on everything, but he certainly followed Luther on the order of salvation. We would like some Lutheran scholars to comment on this letter."

In a previous article we showed how both Luther and Calvin taught that regeneration followed faith and justification. 

Said the editor further:

"All those who stand in the tradition of the Reformation believe that justification and regeneration are closely related and that one cannot and will not be present without the other. However, there has been some sharp disagreement as to their logical order, if not their temporal order. There is no question about Calvin's placing justification before regeneration in the order of logic (see Institutes, Bk. 3, chap. 11, secs. 6,11). G.C. Berkouwer also acknowledges this in his Faith and Justification, pages 29, 30. The systematic Calvinists of the seventeenth century, however, reversed Calvin's order and put regeneration before justification. This was the result of moving the doctrine of an arbitrary predestination to the center and starting point of their theological thinking." 

Bob Ross used to have to correct Calvinists and others on this point, showing them that not all Calvinists have put regeneration before faith and justification, that the first Reformers did not do so, it being a later phenomenon, by those Calvinists who were leaning to Hyper Calvinism.

Said the editor further:

"There are several grave difficulties with this order of salvation:

1. It reduces the great regenerating work of the Holy Spirit to a secret act of divine grace which is subconscious in whom it is inwrought. Wesley's insistence on a very conscious experience of renewal by the Holy Spirit helped to correct the arid intellectualism and incipient antinomianism in this idea of a secret, subconscious regeneration. 

2. It tends to elevate regeneration over justification. 

3. It turns Paul's doctrine of the justification of the ungodly (Rom. 4:5) into justification of the reborn. This is a Romanizing tendency and bears a remarkable resemblance to the decree of Trent which says that "if they [men] were not born again in Christ, they would never be justified" — "Decree Concerning Justification," chap. 3. 

4. It has regenerating grace creating immediately —i.e., apart from the means of grace, which is the preached Word of God. According to the words of Jesus in John 3, the uplifting of Christ is the means of the new birth. Peter declares that the new birth is accomplished by the Word of God (1 Peter 1:23). The Holy Spirit comes to men only in and with (but not apart from) the preaching of the gospel. What is the justification, therefore, for saying that the Holy Spirit regenerates men even before and quite apart from hearing the gospel? 

5. The claim that men already possess eternal life before they are justified (see Clark's comment on John 5:24) turns the work of justification by faith into an empty formality. Clearly, if a man is unjustified (i.e., prior to his justification), he is condemned, and the wrath of God abides on him until the moment he is justified in the verdict of the Judge. Justification itself is the verdict of life (see Rom. 5:18). In his Apology of the Augsburg Confession Melanchthon is quite right when he keeps referring to justification as "justification unto life eternal." John 5:24 is not saying that a man has eternal life before he hears and believes but that, as a believer, he will not come into judgment (condemnation at the last day) because he has already, by faith, passed from death unto life. Just as there is no personal justification without faith, so there is no personal salvation and possession of eternal life without faith. And there is no faith without hearing the Word of God (Rom. 10:17). Dr. Clark asks how it can be that dead men can hear the Word of God. But Jesus declares, "The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live" (John 5:25). True, our Lord is speaking in the context of the physical resurrection, but even this illustrates the resurrection to spiritual life by the Word of God. Calvinism is to be faulted when it proposes that God's grace imparts eternal life apart from the means of grace in the preaching of the gospel. For further discussion on this matter of regeneration and human freedom, see the article, "The Legal and Moral Aspects of Salvation" (Part 3), in this issue of Present Truth Magazine." 

It is not Calvinism that is at fault, however, but only one branch of it. Many Calvinists do not put regeneration before faith and justification.

Justification By Faith Precedes Rebirth

The following contains citations from my entry from 2009 titled "Haldane - Justification to Life" (here). Haldane wrote a wonderful commentary on Romans and in it he clearly affirms that justification logically precedes, and is the ground for, regeneration and sanctification. 

I believe that Robert Haldane wrote one of the best commentaries on the Book of Romans. I believe he got it right, as a Calvinist, in not putting regeneration before either faith or justification. Those who put regeneration before justification err.

In the following excerpts from Haldane on Romans chapter six, and on what is meant to be "dead to sin," it is clear that Haldane, like all the great original "Reformers," put union with Christ prior to justification, and justification prior to regeneration and sanctification, and they always taught that actual union with Christ in time is "by faith." Thus, their "ordo" is election, faith, union with Christ, justification, regeneration and sanctification.

Haldane wrote: (emphasis mine - SG)

"We that are dead to sin. — The meaning of this expression is very generally misunderstood, and extended to include death to the power of sin, to which it has not the smallest reference. It exclusively indicates the justification of believers, and their freedom from the guilt of sin, having no allusion to their sanctification (or regeneration - SG), which, however, as the Apostle immediately proceeds to prove, necessarily follows. It was indispensable, in the view of obviating the objection proposed, distinctly to characterize both the persons, and their state of justification, to whom the answer he was about to give applied."

And:

"Their justification he expresses by the term dead to sin, which, though only a part of justification, implies all that it includes. No other designation could have been so well adapted to introduce the development of their state, and its inseparable consequences, as contained in the following verses. This term, then, is most appropriately employed."

And:

"Formerly, the persons spoken of were dead in sin, but now they were dead to it, as it is said in the 7th verse, they are justified from it. In the seventh chapter, it is affirmed that believers are dead to the law. They are therefore dead to sin, for the strength of sin is the law; and consequently sin has lost its power to condemn them, their connection with it, in respect to its guilt, being for ever broken. In the 10th verse, it is said that Christ died unto sin, and liveth to God; and in the same way believers have died to sin, and are alive to God, (i.e. justification before regeneration - SG) to serve Him in newness of life."

And:

"It has indeed been argued, that if the expression dead to sin does not comprehend death to the power of sin, it does not contain an answer to the objection urged in the preceding verse. Even, however, though the power of sin were included, it could not be considered as an answer by which the objection was removed, but simply a denial of its validity. But it is not intended as an answer, though it clearly infers that union with Jesus Christ which is immediately after exhibited as the complete answer. Without this union we cannot be dead to sin; but, being united to Him, believers are not only dead to it, but also, by necessary consequence, risen with Him to walk in newness of life(i.e. regeneration or life resulting from justification - SG). Nothing could be more conclusive than in this manner to show that, so far from the doctrine of justification leading to the evil supposed, on the contrary, it provides full security against it. Paul accordingly presents that very aspect of this doctrine, namely, death to sin, which peculiarly bears on the point and this for the purpose of introducing that union by which it takes place, which is at once the cause both of justification and sanctification. So far, therefore, from these being contrary the one to the other, or of the first being in the smallest degree opposed to the last, they are in separable; and thus the possibility of those who are justified continuing in sin, that grace may abound, is absolutely precluded."

And:

"But when the expression is understood as exclusively signifying dead to the GUILT of sin, it may and must be taken in the full sense of what death imparts, being nothing less than absolute, total, and final deliverance from its guilt. To suppose, then, that in these words there is the smallest reference to the character or conduct of believers — to their freedom from the love or power of sin — to conjoin these in any respect or in any degree with their freedom from its guilt, — in other words, with their justified state, — is not merely to misapprehend the meaning of the Apostle, but to represent him as stating that to be a fact which has no existence; while it deprives the passage of the consolation to believers which, when properly understood, it is so eminently calculated to impart."

And:

"In proof of the correctness of this view of the subject, let it be remembered that the Apostle’s refutation, in the following verses, of the supposed objection, does not rest on the supposition that sin is mortified in himself and those whom he is addressing, or that they are released from any propensity to it, but on the fact of their being one with Jesus Christ. They are united to Him in His death, and consequently in His life (i.e. justification then life - SG), which was communicated to them by Him who is a ‘quickening Spirit;’ and thus their walking with Him in newness of life, as well as their resurrection with Him, are secured. These ideas are exhibited in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th verses. In the 7th verse, the reason of the whole is summed up, — ’For he who is dead (with Christ) is justified from sin;’ and in the 8th verse, that which will afterwards follow our being justified from sin is stated, — ’If we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him."

And:

"Finally, in the 9th and 10th verses, the Apostle declares the consequence of Christ’s dying to sin to be, that He liveth unto God. The same effect in respect to the members must follow as to the Head with whom believers are one; and therefore he immediately proceeds to assure them, in the 14th verse, that sin shall not have dominion over them. The result, then, of the doctrine of justification by grace is the very reverse of giving not merely license, but even place, to continue in sin. On the contrary, according to that doctrine, the power of God is engaged to secure to those who are dead to sin — i.e., justified — a life of holiness, corresponding with that state into which, by their union with His Son, He has brought them."

In another posting I cited from Richard Watson's Theological Institutes. (See here)

Watson - Justification precedes Regeneration

"We have, however, seen that regeneration does not precede justification; that till justification man is under bondage, and that he does not "walk after the Spirit," until he is so "in Christ Jesus;" that to him "there is now no condemnation;" yet faith, all acknowledge, must precede justification, and it cannot, therefore, presuppose a regenerate state of mind. The truth, then, is, that faith does not produce obedience by any virtue there is in it, per se; nor as it supposes a previous renewal of heart; but as it unites to Christ, gives us a personal interest in the covenant of God's mercy, and obtains for us, as an accomplished condition, our justification, from which flow the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the regeneration of our nature. The strength of faith lies not, then, in what it is in itself but in what it interests us in; it necessarily leads to good works, because it necessarily leads to justification, on which immediately follows our new creation in Christ Jesus to good works, that we may walk in are yet a few theories on the subject of justification to be stated and examined, which, however, the principles already established will enable us briefly to dismiss."

"That of the Romish Church, which confounds sanctification with justification, has been already noticed. The influence of this theory may be traced in the writings of some leading divines of the English Church, who were not fully imbued with the doctrines of the reformers on this great point, such as Bishop Taylor, Achbishop Tillotson, and others, who make regeneration necessary to justification; and also in many divines of the Calvinistic nonconformist class, who make regeneration, also, to precede justification, though not like the former, as a condition of it."

"In the established order in which God effects this mighty renovation of a nature previously corrupt, in answer to prayers directed to him, with confidence in his promises to that effect in Christ Jesus, there must be a previous process, which divines have called by the expressive names of "awakening," and "conviction;" that is, the sleep of indifference to spiritual concerns is removed, and conviction of the sad facts of the case of a man who has hitherto lived in sin, and under the sole dominion of a carnal and earthly mind, is fixed in the judgment and the conscience. From this arises an altered and a corrected view of things; apprehension of danger; desire of deliverance; abhorrence of the evils of the heart and the life; strong efforts for freedom, resisted however by the bondage of established habits and innate corruptions; and a still deeper sense, in consequence, of the need not only of pardon, but of that almighty and renewing influence which alone can effect the desired change. It is in this state of mind, that the prayer becomes at once heartfelt and appropriate, "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me." But all this is not regeneration; it is rather the effect of the full and painful discovery of the want of it; nor will "fruits meet for repentance," the effects of an alarmed conscience, and of a corrected judgment; the efforts to be right, however imperfect; which are the signs, we also grant, of sincerity, prove more than that the preparatory process is going on under the influence of the Holy Spirit."

"If regeneration, in the sense in which it is used in Scripture, and not loosely and vaguely, as by many divines, both ancient and modern, is then a concomitant of justification, it cannot be a condition of it; and as we have shown, that all the changes which repentance implies, fall short of regeneration, repentance is not an evidence of a regenerate state; and thus the theory of justification by regeneration is untenable." (pg. 253)

As faith precedes justification, so does it precede regeneration, rebirth, renewal, sanctification. In the near future I hope to look at other scriptures that put justification before sanctification (which includes regeneration). I have already written much upon this subject in my Baptist Gadfly blog. The two postings mentioned above are among several others. You can use the search function on that blog to find more articles. Just put in "justification regeneration."

What I have taught is that faith is the thing that unites the soul to Christ. Union with Christ, or being in Christ, takes precedence over all other facets of salvation. Once the soul believes in Christ, when the soul receives Christ and the Spirit, that soul is then justified and forgiven of all sins, and on this basis God begins to dispense the other aspects of salvation, such as regeneration, renewal, sanctification, etc.

Hodge On Justification Preceding Regeneration

Dr. A. A Hodge 

1823-1886

A. A. Hodge in "The Ordo Salutis" (here) shows that it is the basic doctrine of Protestant soteriology, in opposition to the Catholic, that justification precedes regeneration and all moral transformation. Those Calvinists (as was Hodge) who put regeneration before justification are Catholic in their ordo salutis. The following citations show that Hodge, like many able Calvinists, have strenuously asserted that justification has logical priority (not chronological) over moral transformation (regeneration, sanctification, etc.). All citation highlighting is mine. Hodge wrote:

"The second characteristic mark of Protestant soteriology is the principle that the change of relation to the law signalized by the term justification, involving remission of penalty and restoration to favor, necessarily precedes and renders possible the real moral change of character signalized by the terms regeneration and sanctification. The continuance of judicial condemnation excludes the exercise of grace in the heart. Remission of punishment must be preceded by remission of guilt, and must itself precede the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart. Hence it must be entirely unconditioned upon any legal standing, or moral or gracious condition of the subject. We are pardoned in order that we may be good, never made good in order that we may be pardoned. We are freely made co-heirs with Christ in order that we may become willing co-workers with him, but we are never made co-workers in order that we may become co-heirs.

These principles are of the very essence of Protestant soteriology. To modify, and much more, of course, to ignore or to deny them, destroys absolutely the thing known as Protestantism, and ought to incur the forfeiture of all recognized right to wear the name."

IV. There is an unhappily significant tendency observable among many modern preachers and writers to ignore, if not positively to deny, the absolute necessity of a gratuitous justification as an essential precondition of the very beginnings of all moral reformation.

This was the view of men like Haldane and Watson, who I recently cited on this issue. Hodge continued:

"The age-spirit which doubts about the reality and eternity of future punishment naturally ceases to emphasize justification on the basis of vicarious expiation, and to postpone it as the consequent of regeneration, sanctification, and the life work which follows. The end is evident and inevitable. Without antecedent reconciliation men cannot be truly sanctified. So the same low sense of sin which leads to the ignoring of justification, or to its removal from its position as the beginning and fountain of all practical grace, will necessarily lead to the denial of the soul’s need to any grace, and of its obligation to any law." 

"The parts of the application are two: (a) Union with Christ, and (b) communion in the benefits secured by his obedience and suffering. This “union” is effected by the Holy Ghost in effectual calling. Of this “calling” the parts are two: (a) The offering of Christ to the sinner, externally by the Gospel, and internally by the illumination of the Holy Ghost; (b) The reception of Christ, which on our part is both passive and active. The passive reception is that whereby a spiritual principle is ingenerated into the human will, whence issues the active reception, which is an act of faith with which repentance is always conjoined. The “communion” of benefits which results from this union involves (a) a change of state or relation, called justification; and (b) a change of subjective moral character, commenced in regeneration and completed through sanctification."

That is my view and I strongly believe it is the clear teaching of scripture. Union with Christ by faith brings instant justification (involving imputed righteousness, forgiveness of sin, reconciliation) and this is immediately followed by moral transformation and renewal. Justification is forensic, happening once, never to be repeated. It is not a process as the Catholics wrongly assert. It is not making a man just in his personal character but in his legal standing. He will be made just and righteous in character but this will be the result of legal justification and acquittal.

I consider this an important question. I would that all my Calvinist brethren who are taking the Catholic view that regeneration and justification are progressive and that justification depends upon regeneration and sanctification would repent of this error.