Begotten by the Gospel

Born again through faith or unto faith?

"I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." (I Corinthians 4: 14, 15 KJV)

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is (has been) born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is (has been) begotten of him." (I John 5: 1 KJV)

Do these verses contradict each other? Does the one teach that men are begotten UNTO faith and the other that they are begotten THROUGH faith? Can faith both precede and follow spiritual birth?

There is no question that faith is put before the new birth in the verse in I Corinthians. To be begotten through the gospel is to be begotten through believing it, certainly not through disbelieving it.

Those "Reformed" and "Hardshell" brothers who argue that the "begetting" of I John 5: 1 precedes the believing and therefore must be the cause of the believing, argue fallaciously, post hoc ergo propter hoc, committing the logical fallacy of believing that temporal succession implies a causal relation.

John is not teaching, in I John 5: 1, that birth precedes and causes faith. He is simply teaching that those who are believing have been born of God, and do not have to do other things, after believing, before they can be said to be begotten of God.

But, I will deal with this verse and this argumentation more fully when I get to my chapters (soon I hope) on "Hardshell Proof Texts" in my ongoing book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult."

Will the "Reformed" camp who promote the "born again before faith" heresy, men like James White, contend that the scriptures never put spiritual birth after faith? Why do they argue that the scriptures always put it before faith?

If I can prove that spiritual birth and its accompaniments follow faith, in the scriptures, and yet also find scriptures that put it before faith, as in I John 5: 1, then what can we conclude? Can we not conclude that the bible writers did not have a strict "ordo salutis" on this point? Is it not similar to the debate over which comes first, and causes the other, faith or repentance? To argue over which comes first, faith or the new birth, is like arguing which comes first, faith or repentance.

But, more to come.