Sproul On Regeneration

"Regeneration Precedes Faith" By R. C. Sproul

Sproul wrote:

"One of the most dramatic moments in my life for the shaping of my theology took place in a seminary classroom. One of my professors went to the blackboard and wrote these words in bold letters: "Regeneration Precedes Faith."

Oh that this professor had rather written these words in bold on his seminary blackboard -

"Faith is a part of regeneration"! Or even - "Regeneration is simultaneous with faith"!

Sproul says further:

"These words were a shock to my system. I had entered seminary believing that the key work of man to effect rebirth was faith."

Let me stop here and say that this shows that Sproul went into the seminary believing one extreme view (Arminian) and came out of it believing another extreme (Hyper Calvinism). He went in believing that his faith was self produced, not God given, and that his humanly manufactured faith was the "cause" of his conversion. That was an error. He should have believed that "faith" is often said to precede regeneration in scripture, just as it is also said to follow it, showing that the order is not strict, and that the correct view is to say that one is vitally connected with the other.

The error too, as I have shown in previous writings, is in believing that regeneration CAUSES or PRODUCES faith and repentance, and identifying faith and repentance as EFFECTS of regeneration.

No, the correct view says that faith and repentance are words that describe the regenerated life and state. To say men are regenerated chronologically BEFORE faith and repentance is to say that faith and repentance are not integral parts of the regenerative state.

Regeneration does not cause faith and repentance, therefore, for this would be like saying regeneration causes or produces regeneration.

I have also pointed out how saying "regeneration precedes life" does not imply that a man can be regenerated and yet dead. Life is characteristic of regeneration, but so is faith and repentance. It is wrong to try to create a man-made "sequence" and affirm that one is first regenerated, and then he lives, and then he believes, and then he repents, etc.

Who believes among sound Calvinists that "faith effects the new birth"? Again, that would be like saying the "new birth effects the new birth." Also, as I have said before, several effects can be the result of one cause, without those several effects being the cause of each other, which is the error of the Hypers, stemming from their "ordo salutis" apologetics.

Sproul continues:

"I thought that we first had to believe in Christ in order to be born again. I use the words in order here for a reason. I was thinking in terms of steps that must be taken in a certain sequence. I had put faith at the beginning. The order looked something like this: "Faith - rebirth -justification."

Why could he not see that he had to have faith to be regenerated because faith is a word that is used to describe the regenerated state? What difference does it really make? Especially if we believe that "faith is the gift of God," and what he creates? Can he not he make faith part and parcel of regeneration, as is repentance? Again, why put "justification" in such an order, in relation to other things that clearly occur simultaneously in conversion, and give the impression that one can exist without the other, and that one produces the others?

Sproul continues:

"I hadn’t thought that matter through very carefully. Nor had I listened carefully to Jesus’ words to Nicodemus.

No man has the power to raise himself from spiritual death. Divine assistance is necessary."

Well, that is for certain. But, how is saying that regeneration does not precede faith teach contrary to that? How does saying regeneration includes the heart going from unbelief to faith, contradict that? Straw men!

Sproul writes further:

"Yes, the faith we exercise is our faith. God does not do the believing for us. When I respond to Christ, it is my response, my faith, my trust that is being exercised. The issue, however, goes deeper. The question still remains: "Do I cooperate with God's grace before I am born again, or does the cooperation occur after?" Another way of asking this question is to ask if regeneration is monergistic or synergistic. Is it operative or cooperative? Is it effectual or dependent? Some of these words are theological terms that require further explanation."

There are a number of things that demand rebuttal here. First, notice that the definition that Sproul has given to the word "regeneration" or "birth" leaves out any response from the dead sinner! But, again, is it biblical to define regeneration by the cause only, and not by the effect too? But, if we define it this way, we have all sorts of problems, as I have pointed out in recent writings. For instance:

1) We are first regenerated (drawn) and then we come to Christ (believe and repent - converted)

2) Lazarus was regenerated when Jesus spoke the words -'Lazarus come forth,' and BEFORE he "responded," and BEFORE he "came forth"!

Notice also how Sproul will not include any action or response of the sinner as PART OF the experience or definition of regeneration! Why does he use the word "cooperate" instead of the word "obey"? I find that very interesting. If we substitute the word "obey" where Sproul uses the word "cooperate," it would change the shade of things, a point I feel certain that Sproul understood. I think he deliberately chose the word "cooperate" rather than the word "obey" for a reason.

Clearly, the way Sproul defines the experience of "regeneration" there is no "cooperation" nor "obedience" nor "response" of the dead sinner that is included in the definition. His definition is limited to the "first move of God upon the heart of a sinner." Such a definition is unscriptural, unBaptistic, and a "Pandora's Box." Sproul's "regeneration" has no life (for coming to life is a response), no faith (for believing is a response), no repentance or conviction of sin (for these too are 'responses').

If men define "monergism" as meaning that men do not obey any commands of the gospel to be made alive, then monergism is not scriptural. If it is defined so as to exclude the "responses" of faith and repentance, or of conversion, then it is unbiblical.

He also shows that he does not understand predestination and how it can include what we call "second causes" or "contingencies" or "conditions." He thinks that to believe that faith precedes (or occurs with) regeneration is to believe it is "contingent." But, it is contingent, for God has made one thing to depend upon another. I have recently stated my intention to deal largely with this issue in future chapters in my book on the Hardshells, in showing how salvation is both unconditional and conditional, and in what ways such is the case. But, why is Sproul making this argument? Can God not produce faith before regeneration is he pleases? Does he not convict before regeneration? Does he not make the bones move and act first, in the story of Ezekiel and the dry bones, before breath and life entered into them? Were those bones alive when the Spirit of God "first moved" upon them? Does one not hear the gospel BEFORE he is regenerated? If so, is his regeneration not "contingent" or "dependent" upon the gospel minister? He also implies that if God make one thing to be conditioned upon another thing, then this would make things ineffectual!

Sproul writes further:

"A monergistic work is a work produced singly, by one person."

No problem with believing that God alone produces the new birth, and faith, and repentance, etc.! But, how is making the actual coming out of the grave, by Lazarus, to be his "regeneration," mean that he helped produce it? That is a non sequiter. Does a "monogistic work of regeneration" exclude the actual coming out of the grave?

Sproul continues:

"When my professor wrote "Regeneration precedes faith" on the blackboard, he was clearly siding with the monergistic answer. After a person is regenerated, that person cooperates by exercising faith and trust. But the first step is the work of God and of God alone."

Well, whether it was "monergistic" or "synergistic," it is wrong to say that the bible teaches that men are born again or regenerated apart from faith. And again, it is more scriptural to say that faith accompanies regeneration. The professor should have written - "faith accompanies regeneration."

Sproul says:

"The reason we do not cooperate (OBEY? - SG) with regenerating grace before it acts upon us and in us is because we cannot. We cannot because we are spiritually dead. We can no more assist the Holy Spirit in the quickening of our souls to spiritual life than Lazarus could help Jesus raise him for the dead."

What Calvinist who denies pre-faith regeneration believes that a sinner can act in response to God before God move upon him, or give him something to respond to? That is a straw man! A non issue! The real issue is whether it is valid to define "regeneration" as the "first move upon the heart" of any sinner!

Sproul continues:

"When I began to wrestle with the Professor's argument, I was surprised to learn that his strange-sounding teaching was not novel. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield - even the great medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas taught this doctrine."

Well, that is just false! That is not what these men taught! (I cannot speak for Aquinas, not being Catholic, and not having read his writings in depth) This has been abundantly shown in my previous writings and in the writings of brother Ross (see the calvinist flyswatter blog). It is indeed a novel idea!

Sproul says:

"These giants of Christian history derived their view from Holy Scripture. The key phrase in Paul's Letter to the Ephesians is this: "...even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have you been saved)" (Eph. 2:5). Here Paul locates the time when regeneration occurs. It takes place 'when we were dead.' With one thunderbolt of apostolic revelation all attempts to give the initiative in regeneration to man are smashed. Again, dead men do not cooperate with grace. Unless regeneration takes place first, there is no possibility of faith."

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul01.html

This is exactly how the Hardshells argue! And, in my previous writings, particularly the series titled "Hot Shots Returned," I showed it to be all false reasoning. The "resurrection to life" that Paul speaks of in Ephesians is a clear reference to their coming to faith (Eph. 1: 19) and of their being converted! Paul's definition of being "regenerated" or "quickened" is clearly the same as gospel conversion!

Since when is the term "regeneration" defined so narrowly, in the bible, as to mean the "initial" move of God? Paul does not do it in this passage! In fact, he clearly equates quickening with conversion! Look at it!