Problems in Divorcing Conversion From Regeneration (8)

I have had many discussions with my fellow Calvinists who believe that regeneration precedes faith or conversion, a view that I do not hold, though I once did when I was a Hyper Calvinist Hardshell Baptist. When I have debated this point with the "born again before faith" (BABF) brethren and had them in a tight space by arguments from scripture and reason that were problematic for this view, they nearly always responded by saying "well, really, faith and regeneration occur simultaneously," or will say "regeneration only precedes faith logically, not chronologically." I find these responses rather amusing. Why? Because they on one hand are the ones who stress the word "PRECEDES" in proclaiming their view. If two things occur simultaneously then it cannot be said that one preceded the other. So, it seems that it is important to ascertain why it is important to them to see regeneration as LOGICALLY preceding faith and why I also agree that it is logically important.

Logically but not Chronologically

The above picture about putting the cart before the horse is designed to emphasize how important it is, in many things, to put things in their proper order. For example, order of operations is important in math and logic. If you don't do things in their proper order you will not arrive at the right answer. For instance, mathematicians follow this order:

1. Parentheses (and other grouping symbols like brackets or fraction bars) are calculated first.

2. Exponents (powers and roots) are calculated second.

3. Multiplication and Division are calculated third, working strictly from left to right as they appear in the problem.

4. Addition and Subtraction are calculated last, working strictly from left to right as they appear in the problem.

Evaluating the expression (3 + 4 x 2) without following the order of operations gives the wrong answer of 14 instead of the correct answer of 11.

The Wrong Way (Working straight from left to right): 1. Add first: (3 + 4 = 7) 2. Then multiply: (7 x 2 = 14) The right way: 1. Multiply first: (4 x 2 = 8) 2. Then add: (3 + 8 = 11) Correct Result: 11

Putting regeneration before faith logically creates many problems. 

First, in regards to union with Christ. There can be no regeneration apart from union with Christ, but this is what is denied by those who say regeneration precedes faith. They have union prior to faith and apart from faith, and apart from a willing choice to unite to Christ. The scriptures, however, clearly teach that union with Christ is by faith. This is what Calvin and the Calvinists of the Reformation stressed and put first in the order of things. Separation from God or Christ, who is Life, is death. Union with God or Christ is life. 

Second, to say that regeneration precedes faith forces those who affirm it to interpret any and all texts that say a person is saved by faith to deny that the salvation is regeneration, and so they say it is a salvation that follows the salvation of regeneration. The Hardshell Baptists do the same thing, saying that any text that speaks of salvation that comes by some act of the sinner or saint cannot be eternal salvation, but a time or temporal salvation which is not necessary for eternal salvation.

Elder Afton Richards wrote a pamphlet in 1956 entitled, "Why I Am A Primitive Baptist." On page 21 he gives a definition of "time salvation." He wrote (emphasis mine): 

"When salvation refers to what God does for man without action on his part, and by the meritorious work of Christ, they know and realize that it refers to salvation in its highest order; preparing one to live with God in glory after death. When salvation is mentioned in connection with the acts of men; or man is to perform some action to bring about a better situation for himself, they know it is to be to the child of God (one freed from the guilt of sin), and refers to a timely deliverance, or something that is for man's benefit while he lives here in the world.""

Those of BABF view have a similar rule which says: Any text that says people are saved by faith cannot mean regenerated by faith but must refer to a salvation that follows regeneration. Often this salvation is justification or adoption or sanctification, for their order is 1) regeneration, 2) faith, 3) justification (salvation) or adoption (salvation), etc. However, there is no way that this rule can hold water or endure scrutiny from the word of God. There are many texts that show that being quickened out of spiritual death (which all agree is another description of what occurs in regeneration) is declared to be a salvation that occurs through faith, such as Ephesians 2:8. The context shows that when Paul says "for by grace are you saved through faith" he is specifically talking about being quickened from death in trespasses and sins. 

Third, the BABF view lacks clear statements in the Bible that actually say that regeneration precedes faith. On the other hand, there are many clear statements in the Bible that teach that new life comes through faith. Those of the BABF view rely on invalid inferences, philosophical reasonings or logic, and making assumptions based upon the doctrine to total depravity and what it means to be spiritually dead. 

Fourth, the BABF view wrongly defines regeneration by what God does, his acts, and leaves out any acts of the sinner or any effects of God's acts. The scriptures do not, however, uphold this reasoning or definition. This leads them to also wrongly affirm that in regeneration a sinner is in every way passive and in no way active, but the scriptures do not demonstrate this to be true.

Fifth, the BABF view, by separating faith and repentance or evangelical conversion from the definition of regeneration or rebirth grossly dilutes what regeneration or spiritual life is. It says that a regenerated person is an unbeliever, unrepentant, ignorant of God and the way of salvation, and unenlightened. 

Sixth, the BABF view leads to a denial that the word of God or the gospel is a means in effecting regeneration. The advocates of that view realize this and so have great difficulty in handling those texts that say sinners are born again by the word of God or by the word of truth. They say a person must be first born again before he can savingly hear the gospel and believe it.

Seventh, the BABF view leads to the Catholic doctrine (which is false) that says sanctification precedes justification or is the same as sanctification, but the scriptures show that it is on the basis of justification that regeneration and sanctification occurs.

Eighth, the BABF view has led many of its advocates to give unbiblical definitions to "faith." 

Ninth, the BABF view has led many of its advocates to deny that faith was not only not necessary for regeneration but is even not necessary for justification or final salvation, such as the Hardshell Baptist sect, who it can be argued is the logical result of the BABF view.

Tenth, the BABF view has had a chilling effect on evangelism and on ministers giving passionate appeals to lost sinners to "give their hearts to Jesus," or to pray for salvation as in the sinner's prayer, and to decry "altar calls." They tend to restrict their addresses to those they think have already been regenerated and have spiritual life.

Let the reader understand also that many of the BABF Calvinists do not believe that regeneration (or rebirth) occurs simultaneously with faith. Many of them put a gap in time between regeneration and faith. The Presbyterians do this when they teach that infants are regenerated in baptism and come to faith later in life. 

Of course, many of them see the problem with this, and so will give a definition to faith that has no validity in scripture or reason, so that they may say that infants have faith and so not have the problem of affirming the existence of a regenerated unbeliever, a character the Bible knows nothing about. They call this "faith" of infants "seed faith" or "latent faith," or "root faith," a faith that believes or knows nothing, being non-cognitive, a faith that is dormant in an infant or adult person, like a seed, virus, or parasite. I have written on this much through the years. 

Paedo Baptist theologian Francis Turretin (1623 -1687) wrote the following (as cited here; emphasis mine):

“Although infants do not have actual faith, the seed or root of faith cannot be denied to them, which is ingenerated in them from early age and in its own time goes forth in act (human instrumentation being applied from without and a greater efficacy of the Holy Spirit within)” (Institutes 15.14.13, vol 2, p. 586)."

In my post "Hassell on Faith" (here) I cited from Elder Sylvester Hassell's editorial "Faith and it's Relation to Salvation" in "The Gospel Messenger" for May, 1898. He was a leading apologist for the Hardshell "Primitive Baptists" in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In his paper he wrote the following about this "latent faith":

"Even in that fear of the Lord which is the beginning of wisdom, and in evangelical repentance towards God for sins against Him, there is latent or hidden faith, just as there may be in a liquid a dissolved and unseen solid; and this latent faith, while it does not comfort, yet does some­thing even more important in humbling the soul and caus­ing it to hate sin..."

In this post (here) I give citations from others who have believed the same, and is a view held by Hyper Calvinists and Paedo-Baptists. So, these brethren of the BABF view do not say that regeneration and faith are simultaneous, but affirm that there is a gap in time between the two, sometimes a gap of many years. The Hardshell Baptists even teach that most of the regenerated never come to have biblical faith (belief) in the one true God, in his word or gospel, and not in Christ. 

I have cited from Dr. Wayne Grudem, present day theologian who promotes the BABF view and has also indicated that faith does not always immediately exist with being regenerated. Wrote Dr. Grudem:

"Using the verses quoted above, we have defined regeneration to be the act of God awakening spiritual life within us, bringing us from spiritual death to spiritual life. On this definition, it is natural to understand that regeneration comes before saving faith. It is in fact this work of God that gives us the spiritual ability to respond to God in faith. However, when we say that it comes "before" saving faith, it is important to remember that they usually come so close together..." (Systematic Theology By Wayne A. Grudem - page 702)

In this post (here) of mine I cited from one of Grudem's sermons on regeneration. I wrote:

"Dr. Grudem, in his sermon on "Regeneration," said that he made a profession at twelve years of age but that he thinks he was born again or regenerated before that time. He also says that he does not know when he was regenerated, just that it preceded his trusting in Christ.

He said:

"So, it looks like from the Bible, from a theological sense, that this regeneration comes before, usually, just a few seconds before saving faith."

You can read other posts I have written on Grudem defending BABF. (See here, here, here)

I have also heard Grudem not only say that there is a gap of a few seconds between regeneration and faith but said that it may be a week or more. In the above citation from his Systematic Theology he says that faith and regeneration "usually come so close together," showing that he does not believe that they are always simultaneous. So, during the gap in time between faith and regeneration, we have a man who is regenerated or born of God but who is still condemned (not justified) and has "the wrath of God abiding on him." (John 3:36) We also have a person who is regenerated but who has not yet come to Christ, or been joined to him. We also have a person who has not yet been saved, for people are saved by faith. 

Two Stages to Birth

Many Calvinists have held to the view that spiritual birth, like physical birth, has two meanings. First, birth may denote the time when conception in the womb occurs. Second, birth may denote the time when the child in the womb is delivered from the womb. In this case there is indeed a gap in time between these two phases of birth.

In "Quickening Is the Initial Operation of the Spirit," A.W. Pink (1886-1952), a leading apologist for Calvinism and author of many books, wrote:

"In earlier years we did not ourselves perceive the distinction which is pointed by John 6:63 and 1 Peter 1:23: the former referring unto the initial act of the Spirit in "quickening" the spiritually-dead soul, the latter having in view the consequent "birth" of the same. While it is freely allowed that the origin of the "new creature" is shrouded in impenetrable mystery, yet of this we may be certain, that life precedes birth. There is a strict analogy between the natural birth and the spiritual: necessarily so, for God is the Author of them both, and He ordained that the former should adumbrate the latter. Birth is neither the cause nor the beginning of life itself: rather is it the manifestation of a life already existent: there had been a Divine "quickening" before the child could issue from the womb. In like manner, the Holy Spirit "quickens" the soul, or imparts spiritual life to it, before its possessor is "brought forth" (as James 1:18 is rightly rendered in the R.V.) and "born again" by the Word of God (1 Pet. 1:23)."

This was the view of most of the Hardshell ("Primitive" or "Old School") Baptists in the 19th century. My Old Baptist Test blog is full of articles from them to show that they believed the same.

Hardshell founding father, Elder Samuel Trott (1783-1866), wrote (emphasis mine - SG):

"Thus in the new birth there is a striking correspondence to the natural birth; to each there is a seed implanted, and then a quickening by which life is manifested. And when the natural child is brought to the birth, the sorrows of the woman in travail, the fetus being broke loose from that by which alone it had been hitherto nourished, strongly represents the agonies and the killing by the law belonging to the second birth." ("THE NEW BIRTH" From "SIGNS of the TIMES" - Vol.21 - 1853 - Writings of Elder Samuel Trott, pages 404 - 409)

In chapter fifty two of my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" I give numerous citations from Elders Gilbert Beebe (1800-1881) and Samuel Trott where they elaborate on this paradigm. (See here)

John Hendryx of monergism.com (a web site that promotes BABF view), also advocates the view of Pink and the founding fathers of Hardshellism, and wrote:

"I. Regeneration is described as a spiritual new birth.

1. This is affirmed in the following New Testament passages: John 1:12-13; 3:3-8; I Corinthians 4:15; Philemon 10; James 1:18; I Peter 1:3,23; I John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1,4,18.

2. The embryonic stage of regeneration is what is called "quickening", and it is the work of the Holy Spirit alone.

3. The final stage of regeneration is delivery or birth, and it is the work of the Holy Spirit in dependence upon the Word as a means. Consequently, the spiritual knowledge conferred by illumination is the spiritual content or revelation (holy Scripture)."  ("Biblical Regeneration and Affectional Theology," see here)

In this post (here) I cited from Hardshell elder James F. Poole (now deceased) who wrote the following:

"There is first, conception, then development, travail, and birth; in that order, and life exists within all these essential stages that bring a new creature into the sinful world of the dying.

This first birth, we are sure, is a mirror image of the spiritual birth."

("The Remnant" - September –– October 1992

"For a spiritual birth to take place there must be a spiritual begetting. Thus the one who begets and the begotten are of one substance.

We would observe that in nature there is a travail before the birth, and usually much agony in bringing forth. There is usually great travail in spiritual birth.

Could anyone question that there is life before birth? The birth then did not give that which was conceived life! No! the birth only made manifest the life that existed previous to its wondrous introduction into the world."

In this post (here) I cited from Dr. J. P. Boyce (1827-1888), founder and first president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who wrote the following in his Systematic Theology and chapter 33 on "Regeneration and Conversion" (emphasis mine):

"The word apekuesen is used in James 1:18, and means to bring forth or bear young, and there evidently means to bring to the condition of sonship."

"However much James 1:18 suggests a different aspect of the work, namely, the bringing forth that which has been begotten, still it so nearly connects that idea with the begetting as to create doubt if the whole work may not be virtually involved."

Boyce is correct to say that James has in mind "the whole work" when he speaks of "bringing forth" in birth. He is denying that spiritual birth, like natural birth, has its stages. Boyce continues:

"From the Scriptural teaching we see that the whole work of Regeneration and Conversion is included under the one term regeneration."

"The whole work is thus spoken of, however, because God is operative from the beginning to the end, but this does not prove that he does not operate differently in one part from what he does in the other."

"The Scripture teaching is that God operates immediately upon the heart to produce the required change, by which it is fitted to receive the truth, and mediately through the word in its reception of that truth."

"He operates immediately upon the heart to prepare the way for the truth."

In this post (here) I cited from J.C. Philpot (1802-1869) and his article "The Authority and Power of the Word upon the Heart" where he also wrote a denial of the views of Pink, Trott, and the Hardshells, etc:

"We need not therefore enter into the controversy about the difference between begetting and being born again, as if the new birth exactly corresponded with the old, and as if the analogy could be precisely carried out between natural and spiritual generation. Figures (and this is a figure) must not be pressed home to all their logical consequences, or made to fit and correspond in all their parts and particulars. It is sufficient for us to know that the mighty change whereby a sinner passes from death unto life, (1 John 3:14,) is “delivered from the power of darkness, and translated into the kingdom of his dear Son,” (Col. 1:13,) is by the power of the word of God upon his soul."

In this post (here) I cited much from Samuel Hopkins (1721 –1803) who did much to promote the BABF scheme and it led him to deny that the word of God or light therefrom was a means in regeneration. His views came to be known as a "new divinity" or "Hopkinsianism." I wrote about this extensively in this post (here). Here are some citations from that article with my words of introduction to them:

The following work by an able historian demonstrates that the view of the "hybrids" is a novel doctrine among Calvinists, a "New Divinity." The following citations are from "Theology in America: Christian Thought from the Age of the Puritans to the Civil War" by E. Brooks Holifield. This "New Divinity" is also sometimes called "Hopkinsianism." Holifield wrote (emphasis mine - SG):

"Conversion required regenerating grace, and this truth too the New Divinity had misunderstood. First, the Edwardeans had insufficiently appreciated the "common work of the Spirit of God preparatory to a saving faith." Hart believed that Hopkins allowed for "no preparatory work of the Spirit," but Hemmenway saw that the problem lay in differing understandings of preparation. The difference was visible in the readiness of the Old Calvinists to talk of degrees of preparation, to claim that some of the unregenerate might be "more prepared than others." The New Divinity could tolerate no such idea of progress in the unregenerate state, no such gradualism in the religious life. The Old Calvinists also said that the same means of grace that prepared the heart also produced its regeneration; the New Divinity denied that means ever regenerated anybody."

"To the Old Calvinists, one of the worst errors of the Hopkinsians was their failure to recognize that regeneration occurred through illumination of the mind by the means of grace. A recurring theme in Old Calvinist polemics was the assertion that "all judicious Calvinist divines" believed that "conversion or regeneration is wrought by light, by the moral power of divine truth." In the Old Calvinist order of salvation, the Spirit first illumined the mind with a "common doctrinal understanding and belief of truth." This truth brought a sense of guilt, a fear of punishment, and an affecting view of the holiness and mercy of God; and the assent to truth moved the will toward a heartfelt consent and faith. How, the Old Calvinists asked, could the will ever consent to anything without first understanding it? Only the conviction that faith came "through the truth" made such means of grace as sermons and meditations worth defending." (pg. 154-55)

"The debate over the promises of salvation furnished the context in which Hopkins employed the New Divinity distinction between regeneration and conversion. Expanding on a point that Edwards had once made in reference to infants, Bellamy concluded in 1750 that regeneration preceded conversion, which he defined as an exercise of the heart that flowed from a new direction. Hopkins used the same distinction to counter Mayhew. He argued that God regenerated the sinful by laying a foundation in their mind by which they could discern the excellence of Christian truth and embrace the gospel with their hearts. This regeneration was an "unpromised favor," a divine work, immediate, instantaneous, and imperceptible. The conditional promises of the New Testament-do this and you will be saved-were directed to men and women who were regenerate but not yet converted. They still had to turn to repentance, faith, and holiness. This turn constituted their conversion, and in it they were active."

In the 19th century a Dutch Reformed theologian carried the newly created banner of the "New Divinity."  Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), in his work "The Work of the Holy Spirit," promoted the "regenerated before faith" error.  In section XXIII. of chapter four, on "Regeneration and Faith," Kuyper's views are stated. Kuyper wrote:

"Hence God's work of grace runs through these three successive stages:

1st. Regeneration in its first stage, when the Lord plants the new life in the dead heart.
2d. Regeneration in its second stage, when the new-born man comes to conversion.
3d. Regeneration in its third stage, when conversion merges into sanctification.

In each of these three God performs a wonderful and mysterious work in man's inward being. From God proceed quickening, conversion, and sanctification, and in each God is the Worker: only with this difference, that in the quickening He works alone, finding and leaving man inactive; that in conversion He finds us inactive, but makes us active; that in sanctification He works in us in such a manner that we work ourselves through Him."

"Describing it still more closely, we say that in the first stage of regeneration, that of quickening, God works without means; in the second stage, that of conversion, He employs means, viz., the preaching of the Word; and in the third stage, that of sanctification, He uses means in addition to ourselves, whom He uses as means."

Salvation depends upon faith, and faith upon the hearing of the Word; hence our deceased infants must be lost, for they can not hear the Word. To escape this fearful thought it is often said that the children are saved by virtue of the parents' faith—a misunderstanding which greatly confused our entire conception of Baptism, and made our baptismal form very perplexing. But as soon as we distinguish quickening, as a stage of regeneration, from conversion and sanctification, the light enters."

The Hardshell paradigm identified conception of the embryo with regeneration or begetting, and the time in the womb while the fetus was developing corresponded to the time when a sinner comes to feel his guilt and lost condition and who begins to struggle for deliverance, and the time of deliverance from the womb, or birth proper, corresponded to when the begotten child is manifested or brought forth in conversion. In that paradigm we do have a long gap in time between regeneration and conversion. So, while the person is conceived, begotten, or regenerated, he is still an unbeliever and therefore under the wrath of God. That is an insurmountable problem with this paradigm. What if the child died in the womb, died while regenerated but not yet brought to faith? The Bible says all unbelievers are condemned. 

In this post (here) I wrote the following about those who say spiritual birth has phases like physical birth:

What are the consequences to the belief that there is a gap in time between regeneration (see implantation and germination) and birth?  What are the consequences for making spiritual birth to be, in every way, exactly like physical birth?

The most absurd and unscriptural consequence is that it redefines the nature of regeneration.  

First, it affirms that a person is "regenerate" who is not "born," and this in spite of the fact that regenerate means the same thing as reborn.  It creates a difference where there is no difference.

Second, it affirms that a man is "regenerate" who is yet unsanctified and unjustified, for sanctification and justification, in scripture, are said to be "by faith."  (See Acts 26: 18 & Rom. 5: 1)

Third, it affirms that a man is regenerate, has a changed heart and new nature, but who is yet an unbeliever and impenitent in heart, and who still is condemned and has the wrath of God abiding upon him.  (See John 3: 18, 36)

Fourth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who has not yet taken possession of the Holy Spirit, for the Spirit is "received" (active voice) through faith via the gospel.  (Gal. 3: 2;  Rom. 8: 15) 

Fifth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who has not been forgiven of sins, for forgiveness comes by faith.  (See Acts 26: 18)

Sixth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet in darkness (in the womb) and has not come into the light, whereas the scriptures define the regeneration experience as involving enlightenment. (See II Cor. 4: 6)

Seventh, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet unwashed and unclean, for cleansing is "by the word."  (See Eph. 5: 26)

Eighth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet unconverted, for conversion is by faith.  (See Acts 3: 19)

Ninth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is not yet saved, for men are saved by faith.  (See Eph. 2: 8)

Tenth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who has not yet "received (active voice - by faith) the atonement."  (See Rom. 5: 11)

Eleventh, it affirms that regeneration precedes justification whereas the scriptures are clear that justification is logically first.  (See Col. 2: 13)

Twelfth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet under the power and dominion of Satan.  (See Acts 26: 18)

Thirteenth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet not a child and heir of God.  (the Greek word "teknon" - becoming children involves birth - tek - See Rom. 8: 17)

Fourteenth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet not liberated, for being yet in the womb the infant is still confined.  (See Rom. 6: 18)

Fifteen, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is not yet united to Christ, which is by faith.  (See I Cor. 6: 19)

Sixteen, it affirms that a man is regenerate who has not yet had his person and garments washed in the blood of the Lamb.  (See Rev. 7: 14 - active voice in Greek)

Seventeenth, it affirms that a man is regenerate whose sins have not been propitiated.  (See Rom. 3: 25 where propitiation is "through faith")

Problems in Divorcing Conversion From Regeneration (7)

Next, Dr. James White addresses the question as to whether the great Catholic apologist, Thomas Aquinas (died 1274), taught the born again before faith view. He begins by saying:

"I will be brief here as I’m not usually in the habit of defending Thomas Aquinas. But to say that he did not hold to regeneration preceding faith is not correct. The following citations are from the First Part of Book Two, Question 113 of his Summa Theologica.

In Article 8, he stated that the “infusion of grace” is the cause and “naturally prior” to “whatever is required” for justification.

On the contrary, The cause is naturally prior to its effect. Now the infusion of grace is the cause of whatever is required for the justification of the ungodly, as stated above (Article [7]). Therefore it is naturally prior to it."

Surely White knows that Aquinas believed that regeneration occurred in water baptism, just as Augustine. Aquinas in Summa Theologiae, Second Part, "Question 66. The sacrament of Baptism," wrote (emphasis mine):

"He also sets down two things as pertaining to the ultimate reality of the sacrament—namely, “regeneration” which refers to the fact that man by being baptized begins the new life of righteousness; and “enlightenment,” which refers especially to faith, by which man receives spiritual life, according to Habakkuk 2 (Hebrews 10:38; cf. Habakkuk 2:4): “But (My) just man lives by faith”; and Baptism is a sort of protestation of faith; whence it is called the “Sacrament of Faith.”" 

Notice that Aquinas says that it is by faith that a man receives spiritual life and in baptism regeneration occurs. So, for White or Sproul to say that Aquinas taught that sinners are regenerated or born again before faith or baptism is false. Just because Aquinas says that grace is infused before a sinner wills to be saved does not mean that the infusion of grace was regeneration, but it was what preceded an eventual regeneration. Aquinas also believed that when Jesus spoke of being born again "of water and of Spirit" (John 3:5) that the water was baptism and he also believed that "the washing of regeneration" (Titus 3:5) denoted being regenerated in water baptism.

In Question 68 Aquinas wrote the following about being born of water is a reference to water baptism:

"On the contrary, It is written (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Again it is stated in De Eccl. Dogm. xli, that "we believe the way of salvation to be open to those only who are baptized."

And he also wrote:

"But for this end is Baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be incorporated in Christ, by becoming His member: wherefore it is written (Galatians 3:27): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ." Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men."

Here are plain statements that show that Aquinas did not believe that regeneration or rebirth precedes faith. So, when White tries to read into Aquinas his view (that regeneration precedes faith) from the fact that Aquinas says grace must be given or infused prior to faith, or prior to willing to be saved, he is misinterpreting Aquinas.

Aquinas also wrote in the same section:

"Reply to Objection 1. At no time, not even before the coming of Christ, could men be saved unless they became members of Christ: because, as it is written (Acts 4:12), "there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." But before Christ's coming, men were incorporated in Christ by faith in His future coming: of which faith circumcision was the "seal," as the Apostle calls it (Romans 4:11): whereas before circumcision was instituted, men were incorporated in Christ by "faith alone," as Gregory says (Moral. iv), together with the offering of sacrifices, by means of which the Fathers of old made profession of their faith. Again, since Christ's coming, men are incorporated in Christ by faith; according to Ephesians 3:17: "That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts."" 

Could anything be more clear? Incorporation into Christ occurs in regeneration, and Aquinas says this incorporation into Christ occurs after faith. A person is not joined to Christ, is not "in Christ," before he believes or receives Christ by faith. 

White wrote further in his commentary on things Aquinas said:

"Following this, he then stated that God’s part “is the infusion of grace” – which is turning man’s free will towards God. Aquinas is speaking of “order” here – the first in line is the infusion of grace and then man’s faith. Now the motion of God the Mover is the infusion of grace, as stated above (Article [6]); the movement or disposition of the moved is the free-will’s double movement; and the term or end of the movement is the remission of sin, as stated above (Article [6]). Hence in their natural order the first in the justification of the ungodly is the infusion of grace; the second is the free-will’s movement towards God."

So, how do the words of Aquinas affirm regeneration before faith? And, if they did, would that not contradict what he plainly said in the citations I gave above? Further, if I understand Aquinas rightly, he does say that God first moves the will, but he also says that the sinner's "free will" also is a mover, so that it is both wills acting together ("double movement") that bring remission of sin and all that is connected with it.

White wrote further:

"If we go back to Article 6, as referenced above, we see that grace is the cause of man’s will leading to faith. 

"The entire justification of the ungodly consists as to its origin in the infusion of grace. For it is by grace that free-will is moved and sin is remitted."

But, for White's inference from the words of Aquinas (in red) to be proof that he believed in regeneration before faith, you would have to have good reason to believe that by "infusion of grace" Aquinas means regeneration. Where is the evidence that this is what Aquinas meant? I have already cited texts like Acts 18:27 where we are told of people who had "believed through grace." That does not equate, however, to mean "believed through the grace of regeneration." White is reading his interpretation into the words of Aquinas. White and Sproul have it in their minds that the first giving of grace to a person has to be regeneration, that there can be no pre-regeneration grace. But, that is an error, and one that Calvin and the old Calvinist Reformers did not believe. I have already shown where Aquinas believed in prevenient grace, grace that precedes salvation.

Dr. Sproul in his article "Regeneration Precedes Faith" (see here) said (emphasis mine):

"No man has the power to raise himself from spiritual death. Divine assistance is necessary. This grace, according to Rome, comes in the form of what is called prevenient grace. "Prevenient" means that which comes from something else. Rome adds to this prevenient grace the requirement that we must "cooperate with it and assent to it" before it can take hold in our hearts." 

Where is the proof that the great apologist for Catholicism disagreed with that? 

White wrote further:

"Then, going back to Article 8 we see that this infusion leading to our wills having faith and our sins remitted relate to God’s justification. In all of it, “grace is the cause of the forgiveness of sin and of obtaining of justice”.

"And since the infusion of grace and the remission of sin regard God Who justifies, hence in the order of nature the infusion of grace is prior to the freeing from sin. But if we look at what is on the part of the man justified, it is the other way about, since in the order of nature the being freed from sin is prior to the obtaining of justifying grace. Or it may be said that the term “whence” of justification is sin; and the term “whereto” is justice; and that grace is the cause of the forgiveness of sin and of obtaining of justice."

(emphasis by Dr. White)

So again, I ask, how does admission that grace precedes faith (as Acts 18: 27 also plainly says) by Aquinas prove that he believed regeneration preceded faith? All Arminians admit that grace precedes faith, but they do not mean that they believe regeneration precedes faith.  

White wrote further:

"And lastly, from his comments on 2 Corinthians 3:3, Aquinas wrote the following. Men’s hearts were “made receptive as a result of filling and understanding”, and then he quoted Ezekiel 36:26.

"It is written not with ink, I say, but with the Spirit of the living God, i.e., by the Holy Spirit, by whom you live and by whose teaching you have been instructed: “In whom you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit” (Eph. 1:13). He suggests where it is written, when he says, not on tablets of stone, as the Old Law, to exclude hardness; as if to say: not in the stony hearts of the hard-hearted, as the Jews: “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit” (Ac. 7:51); but on tablets of human hearts, i.e., hearts opened by charity, and human, i.e., made receptive as a result of filling and understanding: “I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh” (Ez. 36:26)." (emphasis by Dr. White)

Again, these words do not mean what White thinks they mean. Aquinas quotes Ephesians 1:13 which says that being "sealed with the promised Holy Spirit" occurs "after you believed." I also suggest that the writing that God does on the tables of the heart is not done apart from faith. Do we not read in the Bible where God exhorts people to write his word upon their hearts and minds? (Prov. 3: 3; 7:3) The bible is clear that the benefits of the new covenant are received by grace through faith, and having God's word written on the tablet of the heart is one of those benefits. This is the clear message of the Book of Hebrews.

White concludes by saying:

"We have read how Augustine, The Council of Orange, and Aquinas each were relating their belief that the infusion of Grace that we receive prior to coming to faith is an active and effectual infusion leading to “all men gladly assenting”. All who received this infusion of Grace through the removal of the heart of stone would then have faith. Certainly the most compelling statements we have read above were those of Augustine where he clearly established his belief that there must first be an act of regeneration (the turning of the heart from stone to flesh) before a man can come to faith. But Augustine’s clarity may be the most detrimental to Dr. Allen’s assertion here because it is Augustinianism that is a chief villain in this story Dr. Allen is presenting."

I don't believe that Augustine, Aquinas, nor the Council canons of Orange, said that all who receive grace would become believers, nor that they said that the heart of stone must first be removed before faith is possible. White is misinterpreting those people and twisting what those men meant. If Augustine, as White affirms, "clearly established his belief that there must first be an act of regeneration before a man can have faith," why can White not simply give us where Augustine said that? I have already shown where he said just the opposite. I suggest that White not only reads his view into the writings of the men we have been examining, but he also reads his born again before faith view into the sacred writings. But, more on that in the chapters to follow.

When I did a Google search asking the question - "who taught the regeneration before faith view prior to Calvin" I got the response from AI that said both Augustine and Aquinas. Why was that? I then responded to AI and said - "both Augustine and Aquinas did not believe regeneration preceded faith." AI responded by saying "you are right." The only source AI had for the incorrect view was R.C. Sproul! AI said:

"You are completely correct, and that is an important historical correction. Neither Augustine nor Thomas Aquinas taught that "regeneration precedes faith" in the way modern Reformed theology defines it. The claim that they did is a well-known historical misnomer, largely popularized by modern Reformed theologians like R.C. Sproul. Sproul famously wrote that "Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin...and even Thomas Aquinas" taught that regeneration precedes faith. However, church historians and historical theologians have heavily criticized this reading for anachronistically imposing a later Calvinist framework onto early and medieval church fathers."

AI gives as sources the following: 1) the article I have been critiquing from Sproul "Regeneration Precedes Faith," (here) and 2) the article from Daniel Musick "Faith Precedes Regeneration" (here), and 3) an article from Sproul "The New Birth" (here), and 4) an excellent article from Derek DeMars "Does Regeneration Precede Faith? Examining the Evidence." (here)

The two articles from Musick and DeMars completely refute the born again before faith view and show that this was not the view of Augustine, Aquinas, and the first Calvinist Reformers. The article by Musick was a great help to me in writing these first several chapters in this series. Also, I just read the article by DeMars and I also found it a very good article, expressing my own views generally. Let me cite from some things DeMars said in that article. All emphasis mine, except where words are in red.

“Regeneration precedes faith!” This statement has become a popular slogan among some contemporary Calvinist Christians. It summarizes the theological view that before anyone is able to put their faith in Jesus for salvation, they have to have already been spiritually born again (or regenerated) by a prior work of God within them. Then, and only then, are they capable of exercising faith."

"I’ll explain all this below. But at the start, let me just say to everyone reading this that if you personally lean more Calvinistic, this post is not intended as a tearing-down of Calvinism in general. Please keep in mind from the outset what I just wrote: most Calvinists throughout history have not taught or believed that “regeneration precedes faith!” It’s actually important for you to know that this doctrine is not essential for a Calvinist theological system. And, as I will seek to show below, it is also not biblical."

"For a systematic treatment of this topic by two modern Calvinists who conclude that regeneration does NOT precede faith, see Bruce Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, 264-65, and Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed., 944-59. For much of the below, I’m indebted to the discussion in David Allen, “Does Regeneration Precede Faith?” JBTM 11:2 (Fall 2014)."

"So Where Did This Doctrine Come From? Not only is the Bible against it, but church history also stands against the false notion of regeneration preceding faith. Prior to the Reformation, no one saw this idea taught in Scripture. Even after the Reformation, it was the view of only a small minority. None of the major classical theologians taught it — neither Augustine, nor the early church councils, nor Aquinas. Not even such figureheads of Calvinism as Calvin himself, Beza, Edwards, or Spurgeon taught it! (See Allen, “Does Regeneration Precede Faith?” 48-51.)"

"In other words, the idea that regeneration precedes faith does not come from the clear exegesis of Scripture, nor is it accepted Christian tradition. Rather, it is read into Scripture by a small minority of extreme Calvinists who want the Bible to support their system. It is eisegesis. And it is false."

"Concluding Thoughts. So, here’s the takeaway. If you’re a Calvinist, you could still argue that individual election and an effectual calling precede both faith and regeneration. You can argue from verses like Rom 8:28-30 or 1 Cor 1:26-31 that God effectually and irresistibly calls those whom he has unconditionally elected, and that the effectual call produces faith within the elect so that they can then be saved/regenerated. In that sense, God would still be granting the elect their faith. Non-Calvinists will debate that interpretation and deny the notion of an irresistible call, but you’d at least have a case to present. But don’t say the Bible teaches that regeneration precedes faith. It doesn’t."

"If you're not a Calvinist, don’t let anyone confuse you by throwing a bunch of verses around out of context and trying to say that regeneration precedes faith. Christians can still affirm the reality of spiritual death and our inability to save ourselves without thereby having to deny any human moral agency in salvation."

"And for all of us, remember that one thing we can all agree on is that salvation is by God’s grace through faith. Keep in mind that we are all simply trying to make sense out of how it is that God’s grace saves us, and how it “is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph 2:8-9)."

Amen

Problems in Divorcing Conversion From Regeneration (6)

Dr. James White

Next on "The Council of Orange" Dr. White wrote further in his reply (here) to Dr. David Allen (emphasis mine): 

"Dr. Allen also stated that the Council of Orange (529 AD) did not argue that regeneration preceded faith. But let’s look at a few statements in the Canons. In Canon 5, specifically, we read the affirmation that the Holy Spirit has already begun to ensure that our regeneration and faith will happen because of the actions taking place to allow us to have faith."

If the men who were assembled in the Council of Orange believed as Sproul and White, why did they simply not say "regeneration precedes faith"? Caesarius of Arles (c. 469–542 AD), Bishop of Arles, led the council and he was a man who believed as Augustine. He, like Augustine, believed that people are not saved until baptism. From one of his sermons he said: "Indeed, before our baptism we were sanctuaries of the devil; but after our baptism we merited the privilege of being temples of Christ." (As cited here; emphasis mine) So, White cannot read into what the canons of the council say about the works and graces of God that precede faith and baptism to equate with the tenet that regeneration precedes faith. 

Surely White, like most "Reformed" or Calvinist theologians, believe not only in common grace but in common operations of the Spirit. If so, then his argumentation is invalid. Simply because the canons of the Council spoke of grace preceding and the Spirit operating on dead sinners does not equate to them believing that regeneration precedes faith. So we read where Stephen in his preaching said the following to such sinners: “You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you." (Acts 7: 51 nkjv) We also read where they "rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit." (Isa. 63: 10 nkjv) We also read where God's spirit was "striving with" unregenerate sinners of the antediluvian age. (Gen. 6: 3) 

Professor A. A. Hodge (1823-1886) of Princeton University in "The Westminster Confession: A Commentary" (1870) wrote: "3. That the sole agent in this effectual calling is the Holy Ghost; that He uses Gospel truth as His instrument; and that, while all sinners are active in resisting the common influences of grace before regeneration..." (pp. 170–171, emphasis mine)  You can find this citation available on Monergism.com, a web page dedicated to promoting the born again before faith view. 

Certainly God the Father draws and teaches sinners before they come to Jesus for life and salvation. (John 6: 44-45) It is also the gracious granting of the Father that is the cause of sinners coming to Christ in faith. (vs. 65) So, one can believe that the drawing, teaching, gifting, illuminating of the Father precedes coming to Christ or before regeneration. Augustine, as I have stated, believed in prevenient grace, and like the Puritan Calvinists believed that there were preparations that preceded a sinner being born again. 

As I have said, those who put regeneration before faith push the experience of regeneration back too far and this has created many theological problems. For instance, they must say that conviction of sin must follow regeneration rather than precede it. If they admit that conviction of sin and realization of need for salvation through Christ precedes regeneration, then they overthrow their idea that whatever act God first does towards saving a sinner = regeneration. In chapter four of this series I cited from Stephen Charnock (1628-1680) who said: "The soul must be beaten down by conviction before it be raised up by regeneration; There must be some apprehensions of the necessity of it." John Owen also has said the same. In "Pneumatologia" (1674) he wrote (emphasis mine):

"First, in reference to the work of regeneration itself, positively considered, we may observe that ordinarily there are certain previous and preparatory works, or workings in and upon the souls of men, that are antecedent and dispositive to regeneration. Yet regeneration does not consist in them, nor can it be educed out of them." 

That is what the canons of the Council of Orange was saying and for White to interpret them as affirming that they believed that the first operation of the Spirit upon the hearts of sinners = regeneration is a case of his reading into their words his own theology. If the attendees of the Council really believed as White, they would have simply said "regeneration precedes faith."

White wrote further:

"The Council of Orange made a firm stand that we cannot even begin to have faith without “infusion” or “inspiration” of the Holy Spirit. This is not merely some type of prevenient grace – it is effective." 

To this comment I repeat what I have already said. You cannot say that a person believes in regeneration before faith by that person believing that the Spirit operates on the hearts of dead alien sinners. Where do the canons say that every person who has the Spirit operating on them is immediately regenerated by that operation? The scriptures I cited above show this idea is false. Further, the Council was echoing the views of Augustine who did believe in prevenient grace, which grace is effective in the case of the elect but not so in the case of those not chosen to salvation. 

White wrote further:

"In Canon 3, we read that it’s God’s grace which makes us pray." 

Yes, but all grace is not saving grace. Grace does precede regeneration. The first Calvinists of the Reformation all taught this. The Puritans, men such as William Ames, William Perkins, John Owen, Stephen Charnock, all believed in preparations leading up to being saved or regenerated. They believed in a Calvinistic paradigm of prevenient grace. Also, the words "God's grace makes us pray" does not equal "God's grace makes us regenerate and then makes us pray." 

White wrote further:

"Canon 4 says that our will to be cleansed from sin comes from the Holy Spirit." 

That statement is true, but how does that mean that the several canons were intended to mean regeneration precedes faith? Again, that is eisegesis. Who is the "our"? If it is saved people, then it cannot be used as proof of the born again before faith view. If it is unsaved people, then it cannot mean that the people desiring cleansing were already regenerated, for regeneration involves cleansing ("the washing of regeneration") and why would they pray for such cleansing if they were already clean? 

White wrote further:

"Finally, Canon 7 is basically the definition of total depravity – man cannot “make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life” unless through the infusion of the Holy Spirit our hearts are illuminated." 

Notice White's saying "is basically." I have already called attention to how White, in citing from the words of the Council would say "in other words" Augustine taught that regeneration precedes faith. This is White's attempt to misrepresent or misinterpret the words of Augustine and the authors of the Canons of the Council of Orange. The above words cannot be interpreted to mean that the authors believed that regeneration precedes faith. First of all, they put making the right choice as an act of the sinner which occurs before salvation. But, White believes that regeneration involves no acts of the sinner, no choice to be saved or to obtain eternal life. That is not what the above canon states.

Does illumination precede regeneration or follow it? Is a sinner totally passive in being illuminated? Do we define illumination (or enlightenment) by the cause (the Spirit or word of God) to the exclusion of the effect? If we do then we have a person illuminated before he is actually illuminated, which is nonsense.

White wrote further:

"And lest we wish to accuse The Council of Orange of universalism, they stated that the Holy Spirit “makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth”. In other words, “all men” who have been illumined by the Holy Spirit will then have faith. This, my friends, is regeneration."

When White says "this, my friends, is regeneration" and "in other words" he is again reading his views into the text of the canon. Further, I don't think that it is a Bible teaching that only saved people have been illuminated. I believe that White, like Sproul, believes that those described in Hebrews 6: 4-6 were not ever truly regenerated believers and yet one of the things said of them is that they were "enlightened" and "made partakers of the Holy Ghost." So, that overthrows what he said above. Every saved person has been enlightened but not every enlightened person has been saved. In describing false Christians in Hebrews chapter ten we read: "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins." (vs. 26) Peter in his second epistle speaks of the same false brethren as having "escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" and who "have known the way of righteousness" (vs. 20-21). I feel certain that what the canon cited simply says is that all those who have been illuminated by the Holy Spirit can credit the Lord for it.

White wrote further citing the following canons and made few comments on them but simply put in bold letters the parts he believed taught that regeneration precedes faith:

"CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism-if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles..."

"CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit…"

How can White say that the canons teach that regeneration precedes faith when in Canon five they plainly say "the regeneration of holy baptism"? Any honest person should see that the canons affirmed that both faith and baptism precedes regeneration. Canon seven also speaks of eternal life coming as a result of making the right choice. They say salvation is a result of choosing to be saved by Christ. Most Christians agree and is why they sing - "Oh happy day that fixed my choice on thee my Savior and my God!" "Happy Happy Day when Jesus washed my sins away!" Yes, we can only credit God and his gracious working for our thus choosing, as Paul said - "for it is God who works in you to will and to do of his good pleasure." (Phil. 2:13)

White then makes this conclusion:

"It is very common for Dr. Allen to assert that a historical figure or document said one thing but then to find out that it’s actually condemning Allen’s belief."

I find that highly ironic and comical because it is White, like Sproul, who does what he accuses Allen of doing!

In the next chapter we will finish our look at Dr. White's proof that Aquinas believed that regeneration precedes faith. After that we will proceed to examine the several problems that arise from asserting that regeneration is distinct from evangelical conversion, problems that I enumerated in the first chapter of this series. 

Problems in Divorcing Conversion From Regeneration (5)

In the previous chapter I showed where the late Dr. R.C. Sproul misrepresented the facts about the leading Calvinists of the sixteenth century as it relates to what they believed about the ordo salutis. In chapter four of this series I cited these words of Sproul:

"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...Aquinas insisted that regenerating grace is operative grace, not cooperative grace. Aquinas spoke of prevenient grace, but he spoke of a grace that comes before faith, which is regeneration."

In another place Sproul also said (emphasis mine):

"The Reformers taught not only that regeneration does precede faith but also it must precede faith. Because of the moral bondage of the unregenerate sinner, he cannot have faith until he is changed internally by the operative, monergistic work of the Holy Spirit. Faith is regeneration’s fruit, not its cause." ("Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will," pages 23)

I have shown this claim to be false. I have cited from several of the leading Reformers, such as John Calvin himself, Theodore Beza, Heinrich Bullinger, the Belgic and French Calvinist confessions, etc. I feel certain that Sproul knew this. So why did he say what he said? I believe he was playing the role of a Sophist who uses false tactics to win a debate. He gives a false narrative, a willful misrepresentation of what the first Reformers believed on the ordo salutis. As we will see, Dr. James White, another fervent apologist for the born again before faith view, makes the same baseless claims as did Sproul. 

In this chapter I want to begin by showing that Dr. James White has similarly done what Sproul did in giving a false narrative and interpretation of the views of certain Calvinistic theologians of the past, and also of some others who it is contended also believed their view. I stated that this is a common thing with those of that view. It is very common with the Hardshell "Primitive Baptists," who agree with White, as I have shown in many posts. They too will give a false interpretation of the writings of great Baptists of the past. 

In my series "Reviewing Ivey's Work" (beginning in August, 2011; See the archives) I showed the falsities of Elder Michael Ivey, who wrote a "revisionist history" in his book  "A Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptist Faith and Practice" (1994). He would quote from old Baptists of the past and then reinterpret what they said to make it appear that they agreed with his Hardshell tenets, one of which is to say that sinners are regenerated before and without faith. He did this with the writings of Elders John Clark and Obadiah Holmes, the elders of the first (or possibly the 2nd) Baptist church in America. Ivey wrote the following at the beginning of that work:

"This work relies upon distinctions of primitive and reformed doctrine to identify groups. Specifically, Baptists which believed in election and predestination, and also believed that a saving faith is imparted prior to actual new birth in regeneration, I identify as holding to reformed theology." (as cited in the first chapter of my series; See here)

He also wrote:

"In 1638 primitive doctrine was the doctrine of Dr. John Clarke, pastor of Newport Baptist Church in Rhode Island, the first Baptist church constituted in America. It was also believed by the Separate Baptists led by Shubal Stearns and Daniel Marshall according to their statement of belief in 1758."

Of course, I showed where Clark and his associate, Elder Holmes, did not believe sinners were born again before faith, and did actually believe that the gospel or word of God was a means thereunto, a tenet denied by the Hyper Calvinist Hardshells. Not only did Elders Clark and Holmes not believe as the Hardshells but neither did Shubal Stearns and Daniel Marshall. It is ironic that Ivey would say - "Sometimes histories were written with a polemic attitude, to indict some group or defend oneself"! That is because he does this very thing, and is what Sproul and White are also doing. In my post titled "John Clark & Obadiah Holmes Hardshells?" (See here) I show how Ivey tries to make Clark and Holmes to say what they did not say.

In that post I cited from "The Last Will and Testimony of Obadiah Holmes" where Holmes gives article twenty-three of the confession of the church in Newport, wherein both Clark and Holmes affirmed the following:

"I believe that although God can bring men to Christ and cause them to believe in Him for life, yet He has appointed an ordinary way to effect that great work of faith which is by means of sending a ministry into the world to publish repentance to the sinner and salvation, and that by Jesus Christ. They that are faithful shall save their own souls and some that hear them."

In article twenty-nine of Holme's confession, we read:

"I believe that as God prepared a begetting ministry, even so does He also prepare a feeding ministry in the church, who are a people called out of the world by the word and Spirit of the Lord, assembling themselves together in a holy brotherhood, continuing in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, breaking bread and prayer."

Thus it was a blatant falsehood, unworthy of a Christian historian, for Ivey to say:

"From Elder Holmes confession of faith it may be concluded he held firmly to the doctrines of sovereign grace. Not only so, but his theology is best described as primitive, rather than reformed. Elder Holmes was not a Calvinist."

He tried to say that Clark and Holmes did not believe the gospel was a means in regeneration and did not believe that faith preceded regeneration, nor that it was even necessary for salvation, even though the writings of both clearly show otherwise. Sproul and White do the same thing when they speak of the Reformers agreeing with them on the ordo salutis.

Dr. James White, another apologist for the born again before faith view, which is surely Hyper Calvinistic, also wrote affirming that men such as Augustine and the Reformers, that we spoke about in the previous chapter, believed that regeneration preceded faith. You can read White's argumentation in proof of his assertion (here). His polemic is titled "Augustine, Aquinas, and The Council of Orange: A response to David Allen" and he begins with the following citation from Dr. Allen's book "Liberating Romans from Reformed Captivity" where Allen wrote:

"However, a historical look reveals that prior to the Reformation, no one in church history appears to have argued for regeneration preceding faith—not Augustine,[444] not the Council of Orange,[445] and not Aquinas.[446]"

I think Allen is right, meaning that finding people in the Christian community who believed and wrote their view that regeneration precedes faith is scarce or non-existent. There may have been people who believed it but we have no historical evidence to demonstrate it. As I stated in the previous chapter those of the born again before faith view want others to believe that this has been the view of the church throughout history and was the view of Calvin, Luther, and other Predestinarians of the Reformation (16th century). That is, of course, a false narrative, a misrepresentation, a revisionist history. I showed in the previous chapter that Calvin, Luther, Beza, Bullinger, etc. did not believe that sinners were born again before faith but were born again by faith. There are many others I could have cited also. This blog and my Baptist Gadfly blog are full of such citations from Calvinists who believed as did Calvin.

White wrote the following under the sub-heading "David Allen’s definition of “regeneration” (emphasis mine):

"In the Fall 2014 edition of the “Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry”, Dr. Allen gave a brief, definitional statement of “regeneration”. He stated:

Part of what it means to be “dead” is to be unbelieving. How can one have a new heart (regeneration) apart from faith? Here, Dr. Allen says that regeneration is when we “have a new heart”.

This, of course, calls to mind passages like Ezekiel 11:19 and Ezekiel 36:26. Having this understanding that having a new heart is synonymous with regeneration, let us proceed."

Why would Dr. White find fault with the statement that the dead, unregenerate heart is a heart of unbelief? I find that bewildering and stunning, and revealing also. Allen is right in his affirmation that the new heart is a believing heart. Obviously White does not believe this, and so he must believe that the new heart is a "heart of unbelief." (Heb. 3: 12) After all, that is why he constantly affirms that regeneration (getting a new heart) PRECEDES faith. Logically, therefore, a regenerated or new heart remains a heart of unbelief.

White said further:

"In his work On The Predestination of the Saints, after 2 chapters of preliminaries written back to Prosper and Hilary, Augustine wrote what he “ought first to show”. And that was that faith is the gift of God. “As if faith were not given to us by him.”" 

Of course faith is the gift of God, but that is not the issue! Calvin and Beza, like I do, believed that faith was the gift of God and yet believed it preceded regeneration because it was the medium or instrument for uniting a soul to Christ. White is changing the subject, being an "artful Dodger." 

White said further, citing these words of Augustine, saying "Let’s look now at a few statements from Augustine’s On Grace and Free Will:

"For of these he says, “We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.” Now he does not here speak of that creation which made us human beings, but of that in reference to which one said who was already in full manhood, “Create in me a clean heart, O God;” concerning which also the apostle says, “Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God.” We are framed, therefore, that is, formed and created, “in the good works which” we have not ourselves prepared, but “God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” It follows, then, dearly beloved, beyond all doubt, that as your good life is nothing else than God’s grace, so also the eternal life which is the recompense of a good life is the grace of God; moreover it is given gratuitously, even as that is given gratuitously to which it is given."

So, where in this citation does Augustine say that regeneration or being created in Christ precedes faith? He does affirm that good works follow salvation. Also, just because Augustine or others say that grace is given before salvation does not equate to meaning that regeneration precedes faith. It is odd that White cites these words of Augustine since Augustine cited the words of king David who prayed "Create in me a clean heart, O God." Here we see a person praying for God to create a new heart in him. 

Dr. White wrote:

"And we read the following later in the same work. There is a cause of our faith. In discussing the same verse (Romans 10:14-21), on page 114 David Allen stated that “the cause of faith is said to be the hearing of the word of God.” However, this is not the assertion of Augustine below. Augustine stated that “the spirit of grace, therefore, causes us to have faith.”

For “how,” says he, “shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed?” [Romans 10:14] The spirit of grace, therefore, causes us to have faith, in order that through faith we may, on praying for it, obtain the ability to do what we are commanded. On this account the apostle himself constantly puts faith before the law; since we are not able to do what the law commands unless we obtain the strength to do it by the prayer of faith."

The immediate problem with White’s ideology concerning God’s grace and his interpretation of what Augustine said is his thinking that the word "grace" is to be equated with regeneration. Augustine and Calvin, etc., believed that grace is given to many who are never saved, calling this "common grace." I believe even White believes in common grace, so he believes that unregenerate people enjoy common grace but are not regenerate, so that disproves his idea that having grace always means being born again. Also, Augustine believed in "prevenient grace." In my series on "Prevenient Grace," chapter fifteen (See here), I showed this to be true. The Calvinist Reformers of the Reformation spoke of "the means of grace," referring to the word of God or the sacraments. Are not the means of grace also graces, and what are given and received before the saving grace of regeneration? Is having the gospel not having grace? In the first chapter of my series (here) on Prevenient Grace I cited from the great Calvinist Charles Hodge (1797-1878) who said (emphasis mine): 

"...the means of grace, are the means by which, or in connection with which, the influence of the Spirit is conveyed or exercised. By common grace, therefore, is meant that influence of the Spirit, which in a greater or less measure, is granted to all who hear the truth. By sufficient grace is meant such kind and degree of the Spirit’s influence, as is sufficient to lead men to repentance, faith, and a holy life. By efficacious grace is meant such an influence of the Spirit as is certainly effectual in producing regeneration and conversion. By preventing grace is intended that operation of the Spirit on the mind which precedes and excites its efforts to return to God. By the gratia gratum faciens is meant the influence of the Spirit which renews or renders gracious. Cooperating grace is that influence of the Spirit which aids the people of God in all the exercises of the divine life. By habitual grace is meant the Holy Spirit as dwelling in believers; or, that permanent, immanent state of mind due to his abiding presence and power. Such is the established theological and Christian usage of this word. By grace, therefore, in this connection is meant the influence of the Spirit of God on the minds of men." (Systematic Theology, volume II, Chapter 14, under "Vocation," and under "common grace") 

So, Hodge did not define "regeneration" to mean any enjoyment of grace. He rightly said that there is grace given prior to regeneration. In that same first chapter I cited from J. L. Packer, well known theologian, who wrote the following in his work titled "Regeneration" (Available to read here):

"The Reformers reaffirmed the substance of Augustine's doctrine of prevenient grace, and Reformed theology still maintains it." 

Further, the citation White gives from Augustine is not to be interpreted to mean that Augustine is denying that the word of God is a means, a gracious means, unto salvation. Augustine said that faith is a means for obtaining saving grace. (See chapter 25 of "A TREATISE ON GRACE AND FREE WILL BY AURELIUS AUGUSTIN, BISHOP OF HIPPO ADDRESSED TO VALENTINUS AND THE MONKS OF ADRUMETUM, AND COMPLETED IN ONE BOOK. WRITTEN IN A. D. 426 OR A. D. 427. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Ed. Philip Schaff"; available here) In that chapter Augustine wrote of "the grace which comes through the faith of Jesus Christ."  The citation being discussed by White is from the same work, from chapter 28 titled "Faith is the Gift of God." 

Grace precedes salvation indeed. So we read of those who "had believed through grace." (Acts 18: 27) Also, in the statement "saved by grace through faith" (Eph. 2:8) we see how grace precedes. But, saying grace precedes is not the same as saying that regeneration precedes. Faith is itself a grace. The salvation that results from faith is a grace too. Also, in chapter 33 Augustine speaks of both "operating grace" and "cooperating grace." There are those false professors or hypocrites who "insult the spirit of grace" (Heb. 10: 29), a grace that they had in the gospel but which did not regenerate them. The apostle Paul even asked people to "receive not the grace of God in vain" (II Cor. 6: 1) and speaks of those who had "fallen away from grace" (Gal. 5: 4), all which shows that having grace does not equate with being regenerated. Ergo, White's argument is invalid.

Why is Dr. White denying what Allen said about the word of God being a cause of faith and insinuating that Augustine did not agree with Allen on this? Yes, Augustine did say that the cause of the faith was "the spirit of grace" but saying that does not negate the word also being the thing that produced the faith. Did not Paul conclude "so then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God"? (vs. 17) Surely White knows that an effect can be the result of more than one cause. It is interesting that Augustine speaks of "the spirit of grace" and I just called attention to those who did insult to the "spirit of grace"!

Many Calvinists of the born again before faith view often use a faulty methodology to support their ordo salutis. When quoting Augustine and the reformers, they attempt to show that they agree with them by showing that those theologians spoke of things God does in the lives of sinners before they believe as if this means that they believed that regeneration preceded their believing.

White wrote further:

"Again, from the same work, we read the following where Augustine asks the perennial question: why do we pray for people to believe “if faith is simply of free will, and is not given by God”? Augustine believes that God turns the will of man to faith." 

So, how does belief that faith is a gift of God equate with the proposition that regeneration precedes faith? White surely knows that faith being a gift of God does not imply that regeneration precedes faith. Calvin and Beza did not think so, nor do I. God gives faith which then becomes the medium for union with Christ and which then becomes the immediate cause of being saved, regenerated, born again, quickened from spiritual death, etc. Yes, God did the "turning" but White wants to say a man is turned before he actually turns, for he defines regeneration by what God does, by the causal divine acts that produce it, to the exclusion of the effects, wherein a person actually turns, actually is changed, actually believes and repents, actively is converted, actively comes forth from the dead. White would do well to listen to what the great Calvinist theologian A.A. Alexander wrote on this point. I have often cited these words of Professor Alexander (1772-1851) who said:

"Curious inquiries respecting the way in which the word is instrumental in the production of this change are not for edification. Sometimes regeneration is considered distinctly from the acts and exercises of the mind which proceed from it, but in the Holy Scriptures the cause and effect are included; and we shall therefore treat the subject in this practical and popular form." (A Practical View of Regeneration Archibald Alexander [Published in The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, volume 8 (1836)] (Available to read here)

Was Lazarus quickened from the dead when Christ uttered the words "come forth" or when Lazarus actually came forth? 

White continued:

"The heart of stone being taken away is what we simply refer to as “regeneration”. Augustine said that God took away man’s heart of stone in order to give faith to men. Augustine refers to the heart of stone being taken away by God so that men can even have a good will to turn to God by faith. This is a pretty clear example of Augustine saying that God has regenerated man by removing the hardened heart and that then God gives man that faith. Remember, for Dr. Allen having a new heart is synonymous with regeneration."

Where did Augustine say that God took away a man's heart of stone prior to giving him faith? I suggest that Augustine said no such thing. White is reading his interpretation into the words of Augustine. That is evident when White says "this is a pretty clear example of Augustine..." If he wants a clear example of Augustine affirming that regeneration precedes faith, why does he not cite where Augustine said that? In chapter three of this series I cited these words of Augustine:

"We are united by faith, quickened by understanding. Let us first adhere to Him through faith, that there may be that which may be quickened by understanding."

That is a "clear example" to show that Augustine believed that faith preceded quickening. Further, as I have said, it is well known that Augustine believed that regeneration occurred after faith in water baptism. Surely White knows this. So why is he saying that Augustine believed regeneration occurred before faith and before water baptism?

Further, I am sure that Augustine agreed with what Allen said, that the new heart is a heart of belief. 

White wrote further giving us the following citations from Augustine:

"And finally from the same work we read the following. Augustine says that it is actually God who stirs man’s spirit to come to faith. God does through man’s will “whatsoever He wishes to perform through them”."

"Both statements to be sure are true, because they both came by their own will, and yet the Lord stirred up their spirit; and this may also with equal truth be stated the other way: The Lord both stirred up their spirit, and yet they came of their own will. For the Almighty sets in motion even in the innermost hearts of men the movement of their will, so that He does through their agency whatsoever He wishes to perform through them — even He who knows not how to will anything in unrighteousness."

How do these words of Augustine show that he believed that regeneration preceded faith? Simply because he says that the Lord was the author of faith? Does Augustine not say that it was by both the will of God and the will of the sinner that they "come" to Christ for life and salvation? Is that not denied by White? Further, surely White knows that Augustine believed that regeneration occurred in water baptism, and thus he could not possibly believe regeneration precedes faith.

White concludes by saying:

"From just a few passages in one work by Augustine, I have demonstrated that he taught that a person could not exhibit faith without God first “stirring up their spirit” and first turning their heart of stone to a heart of flesh. In other words, Augustine taught that regeneration precedes faith."

Quite frankly, such argumentation from White is unbecoming of him. By his words "in other words" White is putting words into the mouth of Augustine, grossly misinterpreting Augustine's words. He is putting his own spin on the words of Augustine and this is grossly dishonest. On what basis can White say that because God first stirs up the spirit of a sinner, as a step to producing faith, that this stirring equates with regeneration? White is frequently, in his debates, criticizing his opponents for their eisegesis, their reading things into the text rather than bringing things out of the text (exegesis). White should follow his own advice for he is clearly reading things into the words of Augustine. Why is he doing this? Especially when he ought to know that Augustine is on record as saying that a sinner is quickened by faith? I think he is behaving as a Sophist, making arguments from faulty premises simply to try to win a debate. 

I will continue to review White's baseless claim that the people mentioned by Dr. Allen believed that regeneration preceded faith in the next chapter.