Duncan on Regeneration II

Duncan continues:

"Two Old Testament prophets in particular emphasize that God must give us new spiritual life if we are to follow after Him: “I will give you a new heart and a new spirit, and I will put my Spirit within you,” promised the Lord through Ezekiel. Likewise, he said through Jeremiah, “I will put my law within them, on their heart.”

Where does Ezekiel or Jeremiah, in these passages, teach that one is born again before faith? Why does Duncan exclude a believing and penitent heart from the "new heart" and "new spirit"?

Where do these two prophets eliminate the means of the gospel to produce this new heart and spirit? Where does either prophet say that God will regenerate sinners in order that they might repent and believe?

Also, how, in Duncan's system, does he present the invitation or command of God for the sinner to "make you a new heart"? (Ezekiel 18: 31) When God so commands sinners, what does he mean except to look to Christ for this? Except to believe in Christ? How does Duncan tell sinners to do this? Does he not say, as the Bible, to "look and live," and to "repent and live"? (Numbers 21: 8; Ezekiel 18: 32) According to Duncan, such commands are Arminianism and are not part of the gospel! To preach and believe such, according to him, is "dangerous" for the Christian!

Duncan continues:

"But perhaps it’s the Gospel of John which most clearly shows that regeneration is God’s work. “The Son gives life to whom He wishes”; “The Spirit gives birth to spirit”; “You must be born again,” says Jesus to Nicodemus. But John had already told us that believers were born “not of natural descent nor of human decision, nor or a husband’s will, but of God.”

Did you see anything in the verses cited by Duncan that say "clearly" that regeneration precedes the look of faith? Did I miss it? Who denies, especially among the Calvinists who put faith before regeneration, as did Calvin, Edwards, Alexander, etc., that regeneration is the work of God? Again, that is charging an opponent with believing what he does not. Further, there is no logical consequence, from the traditional view, that makes regeneration to be not of God. This is a false assertion by Duncan with no proof to substantiate it.

Certainly the great Calvinists mentioned did not see any problem with faith being a means in the new birth, a catalyst as it were to effect it. Certainly they did not believe that faith or regeneration was strictly the result of human decision. However, this does not mean that the will is not involved at all in this work of grace, for the prophet, in describing this gracious work, said - "your people will be willing in the day of your power." (Psalm 110: 3)

Duncan says:

"A person can no more choose to be reborn than a baby can choose to be born. God must do this great spiritual work. As our friend, John Blanchard, puts it: “Becoming a Christian is not making a new start in life. It is receiving a new life to start with.”

Then what means the commands to "make you a new heart and a new spirit"? Is the sinner not called upon to "choose life"? (Deuteronomy 30: 19)

If the sinner's will or choice is not involved in regeneration, then what is the purpose of exhorting sinners to salvation? Is it therefore wrong and unscriptural to call upon sinners to choose to be saved?

Is not faith a decision? Is not repentance? Why can't it be both a gift and a duty or choice? Is not being converted? Why do the Hyperists exclude from regeneration the "willing mind"? (II Corinthians 8: 12) Was there not a choice on the part of the serpent bitten Israelites as to whether they would "look" or not?

Duncan writes:

"Third, the Bible teaches that God must enable us to believe."

Who denies this but the Pelagian? The question is, is this "enabling" a pre-regeneration work, or regeneration itself? Also, why is the power of the Spirit and the word not sufficient to enable the sinner? Also, in stead of saying that regeneration is faith enabling, why not say that regeneration is coming to faith? Why not see the giving of faith as the giving of ability?

Duncan writes:

"Paul tells the Philippians, “To you it has been granted to believe....” In other words, God empowered them to have faith in Christ. In Ephesians 2:8, our whole salvation, including our faith, is called “the gift of God.”

But, who among Calvinists who put faith before regeneration, deny that faith is God's gift and creation? Ironically, the verses that Duncan cites do not teach the born again before faith error. Clearly the "quickening" is identified with the creation of faith. Also, the text says that men are saved through faith. Why exclude regeneration from this salvation, as Duncan must do? In fact, the salvation under consideration cannot be divorced from regeneration, for that is the main aspect of salvation discussed from Ephesians 1: 19-2:8. Why does Duncan put faith after regeneration and before salvation? This would imply that regeneration does not save a man.

When was this faith granted? To whom was it given? Duncan says the faith was given after regeneration, not in order to it. He also has faith being given not to unsaved, dead sinners, but to saved, born again people! This is truly against scripture.

Duncan continues:

"Faith is called the fruit of the Spirit’s work in the Book of Galatians, and the Scripture also insists that saving faith results from a regenerate heart. For instance, John says, “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God”, not ‘will be born of God.’ In other words, faith is the result and evidence of regeneration."

Yes, faith is a fruit and product of the Spirit's work, but this is quite different from saying that faith is the fruit or product of regeneration.

I John 5: 1 does not teach that the new birth precedes faith, but that it precedes the life of faith. See my posts on this much misused verse by the Hyper Calvinists.

See here

And here

Duncan writes:

"Paul puts it even more strongly: “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit.” That is, nobody can believe without the Spirit’s power. Luke describes Lydia’s initial experience of faith in this way: “The Lord opened her heart to respond” to Paul’s message."

Yes, no one can confess Christ as Lord apart from the Spirit of God, and apart from his power, but this is quite different from saying "no one can confess Christ as Lord except by being first born again."

Also, the reference to Lydia having her heart opened in order to attend to the gospel is not a reference to her regeneration and salvation, but to a work that prepared her for it. Duncan, in order to have teeth in his argument on this passage, must demonstrate how the opening of the heart is regeneration or new birth.

Duncan writes:

"You see, faith itself is the fruit of regeneration, not the cause of it. You must be alive before you can believe."

But, again, this is not scriptural. I simply refer again to John 5: 40 where receiving spiritual life, or being regenerated, is the effect of coming to Christ! Duncan reverses this by saying that men must first have life before they come!

Faith is not, strictly speaking, the fruit or product of regeneration, but an essential element of it.

Duncan writes:

"...the inability of man and the sovereign grace of God in salvation. These biblical doctrines are compromised by the assertion that faith precedes regeneration."

Wrong! Did Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Alexander, Booth, etc., all deny the inability of man and the sovereignty of God's grace in salvation because they did not teach the born again before faith error? These great Calvinists "compromised" those doctrines by their putting faith before regeneration?

What does Duncan and his Hyper Calvinists brethren "compromise" by their insistence that regeneration is completed before faith? Is it not that they have compromised the biblical teaching that regeneration occurs through the means of the gospel? Those who teach that regeneration precedes faith deny means in regeneration.

(Dr. J. Ligon Duncan III - "UNDERSTANDING THE TIMES - Which Came First? Faith or Regeneration" - July 20, 2005)

See here

In conclusion of this two part review of Duncan's defense of the born again before faith error, I must say that this is a very weak defense, and one easily disproven. Surely the defenders of the born again before faith error can do better, can they not? Why not just cite some passages that expressly say that faith is what comes later, after one has experienced new birth? No text he cited proves that men have spiritual life before they believe or come to Christ. In fact, as I have shown, John 5: 40 is by itself enough to overthrow all the speculations of Duncan.