Problems in Divorcing Conversion From Regeneration (2)

Theodore Beza (1519-1605)

When I asked Google AI if Beza believed that regeneration preceded faith, I got this answer:

"Theodore Beza did not believe that faith preceded regeneration; rather, as a central architect of Reformed scholasticism, he held that regeneration (or effectual calling) logically precedes saving faith."

After I gave evidence to the contrary to AI, AI then said I was right and gave me the evidence from other sources that say I was right. I asked AI why it keeps making these errors. So, folks, do not trust AI to give you the correct answer. It is still learning. lol

In the previous chapter I showed that John Calvin, for whose namesake we get the word "Calvinism," did not believe that regeneration or rebirth of the Spirit preceded faith but believed faith preceded. Now I wish to cite from Theodore Beza, Calvin's close friend and one who co-founded with him the Geneva Academy and who succeeded him in leadership of the Reformed churches. He was also, even more than Calvin, a Greek scholar, having published critical and influential editions of the Greek New Testament (with his own Latin translations and detailed annotations) in 1565 and 1582. I say this because he believed like Calvin that regeneration was by faith and obviously therefore did not believe that I John 5:1 taught that regeneration or rebirth occurred before faith from the Greek grammar as later Calvinists would argue.

In "Propositions and Principles of Divinity" (You can read it here), Chapters 22-26, "concerning Faith, Justification, and Sanctification," and the sub-heading "PRINCIPLES CONCERNING FAITH. XXII," Beza wrote (emphasis mine):

"1. CHRISTIAN faith is that only hand, whereby we take hold, or apply unto ourselves, Christ being offered unto us, with all his benefits, that are necessary unto our salvation." 

"5. We affirm this Faith to be the mere gift of God, peculiar only to the elect: and such a gift as in no wise can be repented of, or called back, or being the most sure & immovable remedy unto the salvation of all the elect." 

This is what Calvin taught. He said that union with Christ is what must first occur before any of Christ's saving benefits can be obtained and since union with Christ is by faith, faith must precede not only justification, but regeneration, sanctification, etc. Since penitent faith is the substance of evangelical conversion, it precedes or is identical with regeneration. Calvin and Beza saw regeneration as sanctifying and believed, contrary to the Catholics, that justification precedes sanctification. The idea that union with Christ by faith is first in the order of salvation was also the teaching of the oldest Calvinist confessions, such as the Belgic (1561), the French Calvinist (1559), Westminster (1646) London Baptist (1644 & 1689).

The Belgic Confession says:

Article 22: Our Justification Through Faith in Jesus Christ We believe that to attain the true knowledge of this great mystery the Holy Ghost kindleth in our hearts an upright faith, which embraces Jesus Christ with all His merits, appropriates Him,1 and seeks nothing more besides Him.2 For it must needs follow, either that all things which are requisite to our salvation are not in Jesus Christ, or if all things are in Him, that then those who possess Jesus Christ through faith have complete salvation in Him.3 

Article 24: Man's Sanctification and Good Works We believe that this true faith, being wrought in man by the hearing of the Word of God and the operation of the Holy Ghost,1 doth regenerate and make him a new man, causing him to live a new life2 and freeing him from the bondage of sin.3 Therefore it is so far from being true that this justifying faith makes men remiss in a pious and holy life,4 that on the contrary without it they would never do anything out of love to God, but only out of self-love or fear of damnation.

Notice that the confession says that "true faith...doth regenerate and make him a new man" and causes him to have a new life.

The French Confession Of Faith A.D. 1559 (drawn up under the supervision of Calvin) said: "XXII. We believe that by this faith we are regenerated in newness of life, being by nature subject to sin." 

Westminster catechism says:

Q. 30. How doth the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ? A. The Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling. 

Q. 31. What is effectual calling? A. Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, whereby convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel. 

 Q. 32. What benefits do they that are effectually called partake of in this life? A. They that are effectually called do in this life partake of justification, adoption, sanctification, and the several benefits which, in this life, do either accompany or flow from them. 

Notice that all the benefits of redemption, which would include regeneration or quickening, come from union with Christ and union is by faith. The Baptist Catechism attached to the 1689 London confession says the same.

Next, under "PRINCIPLES CONCERNING THE CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF FAITH" (XXIII) Beza wrote:

"1. THE efficient cause of faith indeed, and to speak properly, is one; to wit, the mercy of God. 

2. The ordinary means whereby the same is wrought, (that is, whereby both the understanding of man is framed unto a saving knowledge of God in Christ, and a particular receiving thereof; and also the will powerfully disposed unto a right order of the affections) is the preaching of God’s word, delivered unto us by the Prophets and Apostles, and for that cause (so far as it concerneth the elect) appointed to be in the Church."

It was when later Calvinists began to deny that regeneration or rebirth was by faith that they also began to deny that the word of God was a means in regeneration. In this post (here) I gave citations from W.G.T. Shedd's Systematic Theology where he said:

"The Lutheran doctrine, stated in the apology for the Augsburg Confession and in the Formula of Concord, employs regeneration in the wide meaning, but distinguishes carefully between justification and sanctification. In the Reformed church, the term regeneration was also employed in the wide signification...Regeneration thus included not only the new birth, but all that issues from it. It comprised the converting acts of faith and repentance...The divines of the seventeenth century very generally do not distinguish between regeneration and conversion, but employ the two as synonyms. Owen does this continually (On the Spirit 3.5), and Charnock likewise (Attributes, Practical Atheism)...Consequently, there arose gradually a stricter use of the term regeneration and its discrimination from conversion. Turretin (15.4.13) defines two kinds of conversion, as the term was employed in his day. The first is habitual or passive conversion. It is the production of a habit or disposition in the soul: Habitual or passive conversion occurs through the infusion of supernatural habits by the Holy Spirit. The second kind is actual or active conversion...Regeneration is the origination of life; conversion is the evolution and manifestation of life...Regeneration is wholly an act of God; conversion is wholly an activity of man...regeneration is not effected by the use of means, in the strict signification of the term means. The Holy Spirit employs means in conviction, in conversion, and in sanctification, but not in regeneration...the word and truth of God, the most important of all the means of grace, is not a means of regeneration..." 

  

(You can read the larger citations in the post I mentioned; these are excerpts)

Next Beza wrote:

"3. But here two extremities are to be taken heed unto: the one of the ENTHUSIASTS, who do not only distinguish but also separate the internal word as they call it: that is, the work of the Spirit of God in our souls, from the preaching of the written word: whence followeth not any faith, but rather a mere dotage." 

These old "Enthusiasts" remind me of the Hardshell Baptists who likewise distinguish between the internal word and the preaching of the written word. When they are confronted with I Peter 1: 23 and James 1: 18 where it is said that sinners are "born again" or "begotten" by the "word of God" or "word of truth" they will often say that this is a word that Jesus speaks directly to a sinner apart from the written word of God. It also reminds me of the rhema versus logos doctrine (or "word of faith" doctrine) of Pentecostals such as Kenneth Hagin who say that the rhema word is the word that Jesus speaks to you apart from the written word of God, as he does to prophets, and to them this rhema word has more weight than the written word of God. I wrote a short post on this (here).

Next Beza wrote:

"4. Now that which we have spoken of the Ecclesiastical ministry, is so to be taken, as in the mean time we are to know, that God as often as it pleaseth him, is able in a moment by the inward operation of his Spirit, extraordinarily to regenerate his elect."  

That is the essence of Calvinism. I recently wrote about his (here), stating that it is this truth that makes me a Calvinist and how even many Arminians pray this way.

Next Beza wrote:

"9. Now that true and lively faith, whereof we speak, is no less made known, by the perpetual and necessary effects thereof, than is the life of the body, by motion and sense. 

 

10. But these effects do not give being unto faith, or inform the same, as the Sophisters do most absurdly dream, but they are the undoubted and sure signs of it." 

 

This surely condemns those Calvinists today who say that regeneration precedes faith for they surely teach that regeneration and its effects are what gives being unto faith.

Beza continued:

11. These effects are partly carried out of us unto Christ, with whom we are united by faith, and partly they do beget some things within us.

12. The outward effects, inasmuch as they do peculiarly apply Christ and his benefits, unto those that believe, and therefore the most excellent, and of greatest account. And they are, both the full remission of all sins, as well original as actual, by the blood of Christ, and also the bestowing upon us of all righteousness fulfilled by him, together with the most full restoring and repairing of our nature in the flesh of Christ: All which, are freely by faith in Christ, imputed unto us, who take hold both of him and his gifts. 

 

13. Another effect of our spiritual joining together with him by faith is, that he governeth by his Holy Spirit, both our understanding & will, being sanctified and brought out of darkness unto that marvelous light; so as we begin to think, to will, and to do, the things that are of God."

Notice again the important basic proposition that says that faith is the means of a person becoming united to Christ and how all the benefits of redemption (of which regeneration or spiritual life is one) follows that union. The "repairing of our nature" is a result of union with Christ by faith.

Next he wrote:

"PRINCIPLES CONCERNING MAN’S JUSTIFICATION IN THE SIGHT OF GOD. XXIIII"

"11. The effect inherent in us, as in a subject, is that new quality, which is called inherent righteousness, or regeneration, which in no wise doth absolve us in the presence of God, but is only a most sure witness of our engrafting into Christ, and therefore, of our free absolution in him."

Beza says that regeneration is an effect of justification by faith. That is the biblical teaching. It was what Calvin, Beza, and others of the first Calvinists of the Reformation taught. They taught that faith preceded both justification and regeneration. Today's Calvinists who put regeneration before faith have also taken the Catholic view that says justification follows regeneration and sanctification. Those Calvinists who do so have not improved Calvinism but have adulterated it.

Next Beze writes the following under "PRINCIPLES CONCERNING SANCTIFICATION" [XXV.]:

"SEEING THE EFFECT OF FAITH IS twofold, Justification and Sanctification: it followeth that having spoken of the former, we adjoin the latter unto it."

Notice that he puts justification before sanctification and also know that he rightly saw how regeneration is sanctifying. Louis Berkhof even acknowledges this when he wrote:

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

So, not only do Calvinists of the "born again before faith" camp put regeneration before justification but also put sanctification before justification.

Next Beza wrote:

"1. HERE first of all, we do especially distinguish, Sanctification, whereof we are now to speak, from that most perfect integrity which in Christ is imputed unto us, as the effect is to be severed from the cause, and the fruit from the tree.

2. To express this whereof we now speak, there do occur many & diverse names in the holy Scriptures, as are these especially in the new testament: Sanctification, regeneration, newness of life, Baptism taken passively, Spirit, mortification of the old man, and the quickening of the new, with other the like phrases, which would be too long to be here recited."

Notice how Beza sees regeneration as the beginning of sanctification as well as the fruit of justification by faith. 

Beza continued:

"11. This faith is in no wise of ourselves, but from the mere grace of God, the Holy Ghost mercifully creating the same in the understanding, and the heart of the elect, that is, being the cause that after they have heard, and understood the word of the Gospel, they do truly believe although not perfectly..."

Those Calvinists who teach the "born again before faith" error tell us that if we do not put regeneration before faith that we then deny total depravity, accept Arminian 'prevenient grace,' deny that regeneration is the work of God wherein the sinner is totally passive, and the whole Calvinistic system. However, that is simply not true. Why? Because, as Beza says, faith is God's creation. That is what he said in the above citation and in others I could cite.

Beza continued:

"13. That new quality then, called inherent righteousness, and regeneration testified by good works, is a necessary effect of true faith: whence it is to be gathered, that good works are by no means the causes, but only the witnesses of that imputed justification, whereby alone troubled consciences are at rest. for they are no otherwise to be considered, than as things that necessarily follow the believer’s being already justified in Christ."

Why did Calvin and Beza not see that their teaching of regeneration by faith caused all the problems that those Calvinists of the "regenerated before faith" view create? Why did they not see how the grammar of I John 5:1 taught the born again before faith view? In the above citation Beza again says that regeneration is by faith. He also spoke of "Doctrines therefore are to be detested." Such doctrines included the view "That no man can be assured of his salvation" and "That our Justification in the sight of God, is an effect of our Regeneration." Today's Calvinists of the "born again before faith" view who in their ordo salutis put regeneration before justification would be denounced by Calvin and Beza and other Calvinists, such as I, being a view that they "detested." 

The following is taken from this web page (here) of "puritans mind" and the article titled "Faith and Justification - by Theodore Beza (1519-1605)." The author writes:

"The following article by Theodore Beza was taken from chapter four (sections 1-13) of his book The Christian Faith, translated into English by James Clark (Focus Christian Ministries Trust, East Essex England, 1992)." Then follow these citations from Beza (emphasis mine):

The Holy Spirit makes us partakers of Jesus Christ by Faith Alone

The Holy Spirit is therefore the One through whom the Father places and maintains His elect in possession of Jesus Christ, His Son; and, consequently, of all the graces which are necessary to their salvation.

But it is necessary, in the first place, that the Holy Spirit makes us suitable and ready to receive Jesus Christ. This is what He does in creating in us, by His pure goodness and Divine mercy, that which we call ‘faith’ (Eph. 1: 17; Phil 1: 29; 2 ‘Mess 3:2), the sole instrument by which we take hold of Jesus Christ when He is offered to us, the sole vessel to receive Him (John 3:1-13, 33-36).

Further on, we will return to this; in the first place we shall define what this so precious faith is, and what are its effects and powers."

"How faith is necessary, and what faith is. We are at this point such enemies of our own salvation, because of our natural corruption (Rom 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14), that if God had merely contented Himself to tell us that we shall find our salvation in Jesus Christ, we would only mock it; thus has the world always done and will do until the end (1 Cor. 1:23-25; John 10:20; Acts 2:13; Luke 23:35). Even more, if He added nothing more than to tell us also that the means whereby we experience the efficacy of this remedy against eternal death is to believe in Jesus Christ, that would profit us nothing (John 3:5-6). For, in all this, we are more than dumb (Ps. 51:15; Is 6:5; Jer. 1:6), deaf (Ps. 40:6; John 8:47; Matt 13:13), and blind through the corruption of our nature (John 1:5; 3:3; 9:41). It would be no more possible for us even to wish to believe than it would be for a dead man to fly (John 12:38,39; 6:44)...In declaring to us that He has given His own only Son so that whosoever takes hold of Him by faith should not perish (John 3:16), He creates also in us this instrument of faith which He requires from us."

"On the other side, faith embraces and appropriates Jesus Christ and all that is in Him, since He has been given to us on the condition of believing in Him (John 17:20,21; Rom 8:9). There follows one of two things: either all that is necessary for our salvation is not in Jesus Christ, or if all is indeed there, he who has Jesus Christ by faith has everything. Now, to say that all which is necessary for our salvation is not in Jesus Christ is a very horrible blasphemy, for this would only make Him a Saviour in part (Matt 1:21). There remains therefore the other part: in having Jesus Christ, by faith, we have in Him all that is required for our salvation (Rom 5:1)."

"Here is the explanation of our justification by faith alone: faith is the instrument which receives Jesus Christ and, consequently, which receives His righteousness, that is to say, all perfection. When therefore, after St. Paul (Rom 1: 17; 3:21-27; 4:3; 5:1; 9:30-33; 11:6; Gal 2:16-21; 3:9,10,18; Phil 3:9; 2 Tim 1:9; Titus 3:5; Heb. 11:7) we say that we are justified by faith alone, or freely, or by faith without works (for all these ways of speaking give the same sense), we do not say that faith is a virtue which makes us righteous, in ourselves, before God. For this would be to put faith in the place of Jesus Christ who is, alone, our perfect and entire righteousness."

"But we speak thus with the Apostle, and we say that by faith alone we are justified, insomuch as it embraces Him who justifies us, Jesus Christ, to whom it unites and joins us. We are then made partakers of Him and the benefits which He possesses. These, being imputed and gifted to us, are more than sufficient to make us acquitted and accounted righteous before God."

"It is established that to be assured of one’s salvation, through faith, is not only neither presumption nor arrogance, but, on the contrary, is the sole means of stripping oneself of all pride, to give all glory to God (Rom 8:16,38; Eph 3:12; Heb. 10:22,23; 1 John 4:13; 5:19; Rom 3:27; 4:20; 1 Cor. 4:4; 9:26,27). Because faith alone teaches us to go out of ourselves, and compels us, to earnestly acknowledge that in ourselves there is nothing but cause for complete damnation. Thus it sends us away to Jesus Christ, and it teaches us and assures us that we shall find salvation before God through His righteousness alone. Truly, all that is in Jesus Christ, that is to say, all the righteousness and perfection (in Him there was no sin and moreover He has fulfilled all the righteousness of the Law), is placed to our account and gifted to us as if it were our own, provided that we embrace Him by faith."

"That is why the Church, that is to say, the assembly of believers, is called the Spouse of Jesus Christ, her Husband (Rom 7:2-6; 8:35; 2 Cor. 11:2; Eph 5:31,32); it is to more clearly show the greatness of the union and communion which exists between Jesus Christ and those who, through faith, have entrusted themselves to him. For, by virtue of this union and this spiritual marriage through faith, He takes all our miseries upon Himself, and we receive from Him all His treasures, by His pure goodness and mercy. This is what we are going to see."

"In the same way as the soul produces its effects when it is naturally united to the body, so, when, by faith, Jesus Christ dwells in us in a spiritual manner, His power produces there and reveals there His graces. These are described in Scripture by the words ‘regeneration’ and ‘sanctification’, and they make us new creatures with regard to the qualities that we can have (John 3:3; Eph 4:21-24)."

Problems in Divorcing Conversion From Regeneration (1)

The Historical Evolution: Broad vs. Narrow

The definition of regeneration underwent a significant shift between early Reformation theology and later Systematized Calvinism. To prevent confusion and to establish that salvation is entirely by sovereign grace (monergism), later Reformed thinkers deliberately narrowed the definition. 

Concept	Broad Regeneration (Early Reformed)	Narrow Regeneration (Later Reformed)
Primary Advocates	John Calvin, early Reformers	Later Scholastic Calvinists, Louis Berkhof, modern Reformed theology
Scope & Definition	The entire lifelong process of a Christian's transformation. It includes the       initial heart change, conversion, lifelong sanctification, and ultimate     glorification.	Exclusively the instantaneous, monergistic act of God implanting new spiritual life into a dead soul.
Relation to Faith	Occurs alongside and through a lifetime of faith and repentance.	Logically precedes faith (the famous maxim: "regeneration precedes faith").

When doing Google or Yahoo searches about the ordo salutis I often find AI telling me that regeneration precedes faith and that this is the Calvinist view. I have interacted with AI and showed AI the evidence of how this is false. AI then says "you are right" and then gives the evidence, agreeing that John Calvin and other Calvinists do not believe regeneration precedes faith and do not believe that regeneration is distinct from conversion. 

John Calvin and the first Calvinists of the Reformation did not believe that regeneration or the new birth preceded faith. All one has to do is to read the section on "Regeneration" in Calvin's Institutes to see this fact. Chapter Three even has these words in the title "REGENERATION BY FAITH." You can read it for yourself (here). I have cited from this work in these posts (here, here, here). John Calvin, also said the following in his commentary on I John 5:1:

"Whosoever believeth He confirms by another reason, that faith and brotherly love are united; for since God regenerates us by faith he must necessarily be loved by us as a Father; and this love embraces all his children." 

Calvin's comment on 1 Corinthians 13:13, where Calvin says  

"In fine, it is by faith that we are born again, that we become the sons of God -- that we obtain eternal life, and that Christ dwells in us."

Obviously Calvin did not believe that the argument by many Calvinists today that I John 5: 1 proves that spiritual birth preceded and caused faith in Christ due to the Greek grammar of the text, based upon "the one believing" being a present tense participle and "is born" being perfect tense. Further, John Calvin knew Greek well. I have also shown how this argument is invalid for we have texts that have the same structure as I John 5:1 and which disproves this argument, even though it is made by Calvinists who are well versed in Greek. (See these posts of mine on this point here, here, here) I know ministers who are well versed in Greek but who nevertheless grossly misinterpret scripture. Just because you know Greek does not mean you will interpret texts accurately. 

I have also given examples in English where we use a present tense participle with a perfect tense verb where the action of the participle occurred before the action of the perfect verb such as in this sentence:

"Whoever is thinking this way (present participle) has realized (perfect) this truth." 

That certainly doesn't mean that the coming to realization precedes the thinking of the participle. 

Many Calvinists who believe that regeneration should be defined narrowly to the exclusion of conversion (faith and repentance) and contend that it precedes conversion want others to believe that this is THE Calvinist or Reformed view as if no Calvinist has ever believed otherwise. When they are confronted, however, with the views of John Calvin, and others who followed him in the 16th and 17th centuries, and even many today such as I, who taught or teach that faith precedes regeneration or being reborn, they then begin to show frustration with this fact, cognitive dissonance, and have difficulty explaining this embarrassing fact to others. They use several tactics to try to get people to believe that Calvin really agreed with them and did not really believe regeneration was by faith, even though he clearly stated that this was his belief.

Tactic #1 - Calvin defined regeneration broadly to include conversion and saw it as being like renewing which is progressive throughout the life of a believer.

Tactic #2 - Though Calvin believed that regeneration was by faith he did not believe that people are born again by faith.

Tactic #3 - Later Calvinists improved upon Calvin's view, which view they say was confusing, and therefore redefined regeneration in a very narrow sense, which restricted definition excluded conversion. They also affirm that regeneration is synonymous with being reborn. 

Tactic number one clouds the fact that even though Calvin interpreted "regeneration" broadly, yet he still included initial regeneration as being by faith. 

Tactic number two is to be rejected because Calvin not only said that regeneration was by faith but so too was being born of God. 

Tactic number three is an opinion without any objective proof. More evidence for the contrary view exists, which says that later Calvinists who rejected the broad view of regeneration and gave it a very narrow and restricted definition are the ones who created confusion and imposed their view on scripture, for the scripture clearly identifies regeneration with conversion. These later Calvinists indicted the intelligence of Calvin and the great Calvinists of the Reformation.

Many of the Calvinists who restricted the definition of regeneration to exclude conversion, to exclude faith and repentance, acknowledge that this was a later development in post reformation Calvinism and say that it is an improvement to Calvin and the older Calvinists who defined regeneration broadly so as to include conversion. See these posts for citations from these Calvinist historians where they affirm this to be true (here, here, here) The question is this: do the scriptures see conversion as regeneration? And, do the scriptures teach that faith precedes salvation in all its aspects or stages? Or, do the scriptures clearly say that faith is the result of being born again? And, what are the theological consequences for saying faith follows regeneration? 

The Problems

Those Calvinists who diverged from Calvin and the older Calvinists and began to restrict what is involved in being regenerated or born again have done much harm. 

1, One error is their divorcing regeneration from conversion or from salvation. 

2. Another error is their defining regeneration as an experience wherein the sinner is only passive and in no wise active. 

3. Another error defines regeneration to the divine action or cause to the exclusion of the effects or actions of the regenerated.

3. Another error is in their denying that regeneration occurs apart from the instrumentality of the word or gospel of God. 

4. Another error says that being regenerated or born again is an experience on the sub-conscious level. 

5. Another error says that there are no prior preparatory acts nor any prevenient or common graces that precede regeneration. 

6. Another error says conviction of sin is evidence of regeneration. 

7. Another error says that regeneration and sanctification logically precedes justification.

In upcoming chapters we will look at each of these problems. I firmly believe that the born again before faith error arose out of Hyper Calvinism, although I am sure that those who hold to it will not want to admit that such is true.

Other Examples On I John 5:1

This is a follow up to two previous articles. First, to my article "I John 5:1 Again" (here). Second, to my article "Rebutting Hardshell Arguments (2)" (here). In the former article I gave another text where we have a case where a present participle is used with a perfect verb in order to show that those who argue that the perfect verb shows that the action of the participle is a result of the verb. I showed where Romans 13: 8 shows that such is not the case. In the latter article I cited from some "Primitive" (Hardshell) elders who wrote a lengthy defense of Hardshell doctrine and examined several texts that they used to try to say that they taught that regeneration preceded faith because of the structure of having a present tense participle and a perfect tense verb. However, these elders stated what was not true about the texts they used. One such example is in these words of their polemic:

"B. John 3:36, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life..." Again, "believeth" is present tense and "hath" is past tense. Thus everlasting life (new birth) precedes belief."

I responded by saying:

No, "believeth" is a present tense participle (the one who is believing) in the active voice and "hath" (has) is not a past tense verb in the Greek but is also a present tense indicative active. 

They did the same thing in a couple other passages, which I corrected. Shortly, I will give examples from another Hardshell Baptist who has done the same distortion of scripture on the same point. First, however, I want to give a couple other examples where a present participle and a perfect tense verb are used and structured like I John 5:1 and yet do not teach that the action of the verb preceded and caused the action of the participle. 

Example Number One

The first new example comes from the same chapter, where John writes:

"He who does not believe (present participle) God has made (perfect tense) Him a liar; because he believes not the record that God gave of his Son." (I John 5: 10)

The action of disbelieving results in the state of treating God as a liar. Surely it does not mean that the unbelievers made God a liar and this is what caused them to not believe. Rather, it means that by their unbelieving that they made God a liar.

Example Number Two

"he who is believing (present participle) in Him is not judged (present tense verb), but he who is not believing (present participle) has been judged (perfect tense) already, because he has not believed (perfect tense verb) in the Name of the only begotten Son of God." (Literal Standard Version)

Here we see where the "not believing" is a present participle and is the cause of having been judged (condemned) and "has been judged" is a perfect tense. So, which came first? Some of those who teach regeneration before faith will say that the condemnation preceded the not believing and caused it and say that the word "already" shows that. But, that cannot be because Christ says that the unbelievers are condemned "BECAUSE he has not believed." So, clearly, the condemnation was the result of not believing. That being the case, the perfect tense in this case does not mean that the condemnation preceded the not believing. The word "already" is also translated as "now." So, Christ is saying that the ones who are unbelieving are now under condemnation because of their unbelief. So, the perfect tense does not, in this text, affirm that the condemnation preceded the non-believing.

In an Internet article titled "Grammar of Regeneration" (See here) we see this same kind of ignorance and misrepresentation of the biblical text by one who, like the Hardshells, insist that regeneration precedes faith. The author of that article, who appears to be Elder Jonathan Crosby of the Greenville Baptist Church of South Carolina, a church that used to be a "Primitive Baptist Church" and which I was invited to preach for back in the late 1970s. Sometime afterward they seem to have dropped the adjective "primitive" from the name of their church. I assume this is because their pastor, Elder Crosby, taught that Jesus being the Son of God had to do strictly with his being a created being, denying the eternal sonship of Christ. Back around 2008 when I first began to write in blogs I had one of Crosby's followers write to me and tell me that Crosby far exceeded me in biblical knowledge and that I could never measure up to him, and would lose in a debate with him. I told that brother to "bring it on," that I would debate him any time on the eternal sonship of Christ or other important issues. 

The article appears on the church's web page titled "Let God Be True." The author of the article does not give his name, which is the case with all the articles I have seen on the web page. But, I assume it was written by Elder Crosby. As the reader will see, Crosby falsifies information on the tenses of participles and verbs just as did the three elders who wrote the polemic for the web page of the Denton Primitive Baptist Church. I find it highly ironic that Crosby would title his polemic "Grammar of Regeneration" and then butcher the grammar of the texts he focuses upon. Crosby wrote (emphasis mine):

"1 Corinthians 1:18 “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” 

A. Only those who “are saved” (perfect tense, passive voice) perceive the gospel as glorious. 

B. Those perishing do not profit by hearing the gospel; it is foolishness to them (II Cor 4:3). 

C. The language is clear – a perfect tense “are saved” and a present tense “is” perceived – indicates that salvation occurred prior to the gospel being perceived as the power of God. 

D. Paul used verb tenses here to show the gospel only benefits those already saved (called). 

E. God must call a man in order for the gospel to make sense to that man (I Cor 1:22-24). 

F. It is a travesty men use this verse as if the gospel were the conditional means of salvation." 

Wrong! "are saved" is a present tense participle and is often translated as those who "are being saved." The Greek word for "is" (estin) is likewise present tense, though a verb and not a participle. 

"Indicates that salvation occurred prior to the gospel" being preached? Are you kidding me? Would that not contradict what the new testament says in many texts? Such as when Paul said that the "gospel is the power of God UNTO salvation"? (Rom. 1:16)

Crosby wrote:

"Acts 10:35 “But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” 

A. This text has to do with justification, not regeneration; but is it conditional at all? 

B. He that feareth (singular, present tense) is accepted with Him (singular, perfect tense). 

C. He that worketh righteousness (singular, present tense) is accepted (singular, perfect)."

However, this is wrong. The word "accepted" is an adjective and means the one who is acceptable. The word "is" (Greek "estin") is present tense, not perfect tense, and so "is acceptable" is present tense. 

Crosby wrote:

"Acts 13:39 “And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses.” 

A. This text has to do with justification, not regeneration; but is it conditional at all? 

B. All that “believe” (plural, present tense) “are justified” (plural, perfect tense). Glory!"

Wrong again! "believe" is present tense. However "justified" is likewise present tense, not perfect.

Why do Hyper Calvinists such as the Hardshell Baptists work so hard to make the Bible say that people are saved apart from the gospel and faith in it?

I John 5: 1 Again

"Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law." (Rom. 13:8 nkjv)

"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him." (I John 5: 1 esv)

This will be a follow up to my previous post on I John 5:1 wherein I answered the argument of those who say the text teaches that people are born again before they believe in Christ. That view is promoted by many such as Dr. James White and Dr. R.C. Sproul. It is expressed by Dr. Matthew Barrett in his Internet article titled "DOES REGENERATION PRECEDE FAITH IN 1 JOHN?" (See here) In the Introduction he wrote (emphasis mine):

"In 1 John 5:1, the action in the perfect passive indicative (regeneration) precedes and causes the action in the present active participle (faith). The result is clear: God‘s act of regeneration precedes belief. As John Stott explains,

"The combination of the present tense (believes) and perfect tense [has been born] is important. It shows clearly that believing is the consequence, not the cause, of the new birth. Our present, continuing activity of believing is the result, and therefore, the evidence, of our past experience of new birth by which we became and remain God‘s children."

He then gives citations from other theologians who argue the same way. In this post (here) I give what James White said in support of this argument. 

In reply to this line of argument I call attention to the above text in the heading of this article. In that text the words "the one loving has fulfilled the law" (Rom. 13:8) is a case where "the one loving" is a present tense participle and "has fulfilled" is a perfect tense. So, in structure it is the same as "the ones believing that Jesus is the Christ" (I John 5:1), which is a present tense participle, and "has been born of God," which is a perfect tense.

We are told by those who promote the born again before faith view that "has been born" must precede the believing of the participle. However, if that is so, then in the text of Romans 13:8 the fulfilling of the law occurred before the loving of the participle. But, clearly that is not what the apostle intended to say. Rather, he was saying that the fulfilling of the law was the result of loving others with the love of God.

What think ye? 

Why I Am A Calvinist

I hear lots of people tell why they are NOT Calvinists. In this post I will tell you why I am a Calvinist. It is not because I am a follower of John Calvin, although I agree with him on many things. The doctrines Calvin taught did not begin with Calvin, of course. Nor did the counterpoint of Calvinism, i.e. Armianism, begin with James Arminius. These are simply terms now used to denote what Bible believers believe about sin, salvation, and the sovereignty of God. 

In a nutshell, I am a Calvinist because I believe that God can save a sinner any time he pleases. This is the way the apostle Paul prayed, saying: "Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved." (Rom. 10: 1) I also believe that everyone God saves, he chose to save before the world began.

Arminianism says God cannot save sinners unless they let God do so. Yet, even though Arminians affirm this, they often do not pray like this. Rather, they pray like Calvinists when they pray for God to save another person, for such a prayer implies that God can save them any time he chooses. The same is true when we pray for God to heal another person, our prayer is based upon our belief that God can heal anyone any time he desires. They also are willing to admit that God convicts people of sin apart from people allowing him to do so.

A.W. Tozer, well known Bible teacher is reported to have once said: "I preach like an Arminian but I pray like a Calvinist." I have not been able to find where he said this, however.

Said Spurgeon:

"You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say, but you never heard an Arminian prayer - for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free will: there is no room for it." (Sermon - “Free-Will A Slave,” 12/2/1855)

I wrote about this in this post (here), writing:

Such a prayer reveals that the ultimate deciding factor in the salvation of any soul is the prerogative of God.  It shows that the one uttering such a prayer believes that the one for whom they are praying can only be saved if God simply wills and makes it so.  If God is already doing all he can to save the friend who is being prayed for, and is already as disposed as he can be to save that friend, then why pray that God save that friend?  Would it not be more apropos to Arminian theology to pray to the sinner rather than to God?

The fact is, God is able to conquer the will, for we are told that God "is able to subdue all things" (Phil. 3: 21) and that would include the stubborn will of sinners, God taming the will as a man tames a wild horse. Christians sing about their conversion experiences by saying they "surrendered" to God as in the song "I surrender all." They surrendered and God conquered or subdued.

God is able, when he pleases, to work in people so as to make them willing to will what God wants them to will and do. (Psa. 110:3; Phil. 2:13; Rev. 17:17) He has "the king's heart" in his hand, under his control, and can turn the heart "withersoever he will." (Prov. 21: 1) He is able to "move" people, to "stir them up," and to do things in providence so as to cause people to do and act as he wants. (Ezra 1:1, 5; Hag. 1:14)

Why pray to God for our leaders, for all in authority over us (per I Tim. 2: 1-2), so that we "may live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty," if God cannot control what such authorities choose to do, or actually do? We pray that God will give them wisdom, for instance. We assume he can give them wisdom any time he chooses, and even in cases where those in authority are not asking for it themselves; And, giving this wisdom will cause those authorities to make choices different than they would have made otherwise. 

I John 5: 1 Does Not Teach Regeneration Before Faith

The following I wrote in my Old Baptist Test Blog back in 2021. I am a five point Calvinist and I believe faith precedes regeneration or rebirth, just as John Calvin. I get irritated when I hear people say "Calvinists (or "Reformed") believe that regeneration precedes faith" for it is not true. Many Calvinists agree with Calvin that sinners are born again by faith. So, if you are one who is doing this, please stop it! 

I thought the rebuttal I wrote to those who say that I John 5: 1 proves that people are born again before faith refutes that view. Here is one of my rebuttal posts on that passage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This posting will be a follow up to my previous posting - "I John 5: 1 & The Ordo Salutis" (here). Other writings on this text are "Hardshell Proof Texts II" (here) and "White On I John 5: 1" (here).

"Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him." (I John 5: 1)

Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται

Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων = the ones who are continually believing (present active nominative participle)

ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται = out of the God have been begotten (made children of God) (perfect indicative passive)

It cannot be insisted that the Greek tenses for both "believing ones" and "begotten" prove conclusively that the birth precedes the initial act of faith in Christ. Many Greek scholars affirm this (even those who are inclined to believe that the tenses of those two words lend credence to the born again before faith view), acknowledging that this is not necessarily so, not a universal rule. Is it possible that the Greek construction allows for the idea that the birth precedes and causes the believing? Yes, but can it be shown conclusively that this is the case in this text? No. Neither side can rely on the Greek tenses of the participle and verb to determine which of the two (believing and being begotten), if any, precedes the other. Most, from both sides of the debate, agree that faith and birth go together so that one does not exist without the other.

"All the ones believing that Jesus is the Christ" is the subject, a participle (verb functioning as a noun or as a substantive) and "is born of God" is the predicate, containing a statement about the subject. 

"Believing" Is Not Initial Believing

Why does John not speak of "believing" in the same tense as "begotten"? He could have said "the ones who have believed have been begotten," in which case the tenses would be the same or perfect tense. Further, had John written it that way it would have been a true statement. But he did not write it that way. Could it not be because John did not want to focus on the initial act of believing but rather upon continual believing? Is it not because John knew about "temporary" believers, those who "believe for a while and then fall away"? (The heretics John has in mind in this epistle fell away and this showed that they were not real believers who continued in the faith, says he) He would not give any assurance to those who believe once but who failed to continue believing and so speaks of those who are continual believers in contrast to shallow or thorny ground believers, who are not such. That is my view, however it is argued by some that "whoever is believing that Jesus is the Christ" does refer to the one time act of faith that begins the life of a believer. I do agree that present tense verbs and participles do not always denote continuous action (linear) and can function like the aorist tense and be functionally punctiliar. However, the idea of action in motion, or linear, is most frequent, as most scholars seem to agree. 

The "believing" of "the believing ones" does not exclusively refer to the first act of faith, to the time when a person initially "becomes" a believer (when the soul receives Christ), but to believing that is continuous or linear, and thus "believing" is set it in contrast to the being "begotten," which is a one time act, not linear, not continuous, though its effects are linear and regular.

Another reason that John does not speak in the past tense about believing ("those who have believed") is because he wants to focus on the life of faith, and not on initial believing. The way to avoid doing this is to speak of "believing" linearly, as ongoing faith, on the practice and habit of believing, and not on the initial act that began the practice of believing. With this in mind we may therefore translate as equivalents these expressions: "the ones who are practicing believers" or "the ones living a life of faith." So, in this case, John is saying that the life of a Christian begins with a birth. But, does it not also in scripture say that the believer's life begins with faith? We can say that the Christian life begins both with a birth and with faith. 

All this is said to show that even if we allow that the grammar affirms that birth precedes continuous believing, for this I allow, this does not equate with saying that the birth preceded the initial act of faith (that brought union with Christ). It likely means that the birth preceded the ongoing life of faith, not initial believing, or when faith is first given or begotten. In agreement with this said Dr. David Allen:

"Furthermore, with respect to 1 John 5:1, contextually the simple initial act of believing is not under consideration by John. John is talking about the ongoing life of faith as a believer. Obviously, the new birth precedes the ongoing life of faith. But that is something altogether different from saying the new birth precedes the initial act of faith." (See here) 

The same is true with I John 2: 29 that says "every one that does righteousness is born of him." It is the same Greek construction as I John 5: 1. "Everyone that does" could also be translated as "everyone who is doing." But, "does" may be alright and preferred, depending upon the kind of present tense/aspect are the words "doing/does" and "believing," for there are several kinds as we will shortly mention. Beginning a life of righteousness is coextensive with being born of God. But, so too does it begin when faith is begotten, as the apostle will speak about in the immediate verses following verse one. "Without faith it is impossible to please God." At the first act of faith righteousness is accounted or reckoned to the guilty sinner, and makes him righteous in the sight of God and his law. 

Again, it is a truth that "everyone who is living righteously has been born of God." But, this is a far cry from supporting the idea that birth precedes faith. Both faith and regeneration, along with the abiding presence of Christ and the Spirit, are required to live righteously. There are causes of faith and there are effects of faith. Is birth or regeneration alone sufficient without faith to please God or live righteously? Faith is everywhere in the bible the instrument of union with Christ, and regeneration follows union. A similar statement about doing righteousness are these words: 

"But in every nation he that fears (present participle) him, and works (present participle) righteousness, is (present) accepted with him." (Acts 10: 35)

Here the same thing is said as in I John 2: 29 except that for "is begotten" Luke has "is accepted." 

So, we grant that the birth precedes doing righteousness. And we grant that birth precedes the life of faith. But, that is not the same as saying that regeneration is not by faith in its beginning. 

The Tense From The Author's Perspective

Dr. Allen said "the timing of the perfect tense ‘have been born’ is relative to John’s writing of the epistle, rather than relative to ‘believes’." 

Tenses for verbs and participles may be chosen by the writer or author to reflect the time aspect of events or happenings from his standpoint (at the time of his writing). The perfect indicative of "begotten" represents an action occurring prior to the time of the author's utterance of the fact. 

There are Christians who persevered in their believing and there are those who fell away in the epistle of John, who did not abide in faith or continue believing. John says something about those who were not of this class of believers, but rather of that class of believers who persisted in their belief of the word of God, of those who habitually believe that Jesus is the Christ. John is observing things from his point in time and the people he wishes to make a predicate statement regarding are people who are characterized in their creed and conduct as believers, and people who do not quit believing and adhering. He says of them as a class that they "have been born of God." What other tense could he possibly use? 

He could have used the present tense for "is begotten" and if viewed linearly then the birth would be seen as a process rather than as a one time act (a view held by many, including Baptists who saw birth as a process from conception to birth). But, this also would have given the idea that maybe such believers were not yet fully born and fail to foster assurance of present salvation. He could have used the aorist present or aorist perfect tense and if the latter, then it would simply be an affirmation that regular believers were born of God without any idea as to the time when it occurred. It would then be only simple statement of fact that it had occurred sometime in the past. But, this too would not be acceptable for the aorist perfect does not allow for effects of that past event to be continuing in the present. The aorist simply states the fact that an action has happened. It gives no information on how long it took, or whether the results are still in effect.

So, the perfect tense for "begotten" is the only possible way of expressing that action, especially as it relates to those who of the believing class. Such a perfect tense verb when used with a gnomic present subjunctive participle does not indicate, in this case, that the action of being born preceded the action of believing. 

The perfect tense of "begotten" indicates a completed action or existing state relative to the time of the speaker or writer. So John is telling his readers that the new birth of all those continually believing that Jesus is the Christ is completed. This serves John’s overall purpose of allowing his readers to know that they have eternal life by providing them tests. Do I have ongoing faith? Yes? That means I was born again at some time in the past.

Gnomic & Universal Present 

"All thinking people (present active) have come to realize (perfect passive) this truth." 

This sentence is structured just as I John 5: 1. Do we mean by the above sentence that realization occurred before and caused the thinking? No; And the reason is that "thinking people" is a gnomic present tense, a universal present. So too in I John 5: 1. So we can say "all thinking people" means "all thinkers of the past, present and future." 

Greek professor Daniel Wallace wrote the following about the "gnomic present":

“The gnomic present is distinct from the customary present in that customary present refers to a regularly recurring action while the gnomic present refers to a general, timeless fact…The gnomic present is generally atemporal.”

That is probably the case with I John 5: 1 and I John 2: 29. Said Wallace further:

"Further, the present participle, especially in such formulaic expression Πᾶς ὁ + present participle and the like, routinely belong here." (Greek Grammar here)

Πᾶς ὁ + present participle is what we have in I John 5: 1 and Wallace says such expression "routinely belongs" to such a gnomic class of present tense. 

The gnomic present is the present tense used to make a statement of a general, timeless fact. It does not say that something is happening, but that something does happen. The action or state continues without time limits. An example of this is in 2 Cor 9: 7 - "God loves [as a general, timeless fact] a cheerful giver." The gnomic present is used to express a universal truth, a maxim, a commonly accepted fact, a state or condition which perpetually exists, and a very widespread practice or custom. 

Wallace (pp. 615-616) continues, “Many substantival participles in the NT are used in generic utterances" and says that "most of these instances involve the present participle." I John 5: 1 is an example of this kind of substantive participle. I John 5: 1 was a maxim in John's day and it has continued to be such since within the Christian community. 

Thus, by "all believing persons" we may interpret as "all who have believed in the past, present, or future have been born of God." And, such a structure does not affirm that the birth occurred prior to and caused the believing. John certainly understood that the believers he was encouraging were not only presently believing but that they had been believing for quite awhile. The universal aspect of the present tense in such gnomic presents would include the idea of a past believing as well as the present continuation of that believing. Thus we may view the words of John as saying "all who have believed and are still believing now have been born of God." In this case there is no precedent in time between believing and being born. 

There are also what are called "Broad-Band Presents," where the present tense is used to describe an action that, begun in the past, continues in the present, though the emphasis is on the present time. Luke 15: 29 - "I have served you (present) for these many years." Here the present tense includes the past tense. There is also the "Iterative Present," where the present tense may be used to describe an event that repeatedly happens. There is also the "customary" or general present which denotes lifestyle, what is customary. The customary present is used to signal either (1) an action that regularly occurs or (2) an ongoing state. The action is usually iterative, or repeated, but not without interruption. Luke 18:12 I [customarily] fast twice a week. 1 John 3: 6 "No one who lives in him keeps on sinning [as a lifestyle]." There is also what is called the "Durative Present" and is an action or a state of being which began in the past and is described as continuing until the present. Again, that may very well be the kind of present in I John 5: 1.

If "whosoever is believing" is a gnomic present participle or a durative present, then we should view the words in this manner - "whoever has in the past believed and continues to believe has been born of God." "Whoever is believing" therefore does not exclude the idea of past believing. We cannot construe John to be saying "whoever is now believing (but not in the past) has been born of God." 

Also, John's intention is not to say that birth produces faith (for this would be to contradict what he elsewhere taught in agreement with other apostle's teachings). 

The structure of John's maxim, as well as John's intent, was not to show that the birth produced the faith but to show that both are coterminous. Where there is ongoing faith there is begotten status, and where there is begotten status there is faith. This is because they are inseparably joined and so we say that whoever has faith has experienced new birth and whoever has experienced the birth has faith. In other words, where there is no faith there is no birth, and where there is no birth there is no faith.

Paul says we are "sons of God by faith in Christ." (Gal. 3: 26) They are sons by birth, but the birth that makes sons is by faith. 

John said "to as many as received him to them gave he the right to become the children of God." (John 1: 12) Here clearly birth follows believing and receiving, that is to say, it follows union with Christ."Becoming children" (tekna denoting one begotten) of God follows receiving Christ. It must be so because faith is the medium of union with Christ.  

A similar present active participle are the words "ho baptizon" = "the baptizing one" or "the Baptist." But, that is what may be said at any time, even at times when John was not presently baptizing. It would include his practice of baptizing, whether in the past or present, or future. So we may view the present participle of I John 5: 1 similarly and say "the believing ones" and this would not exclude their past believing. 

The conclusion of all this leads us to say that if we allow that the present tense nominative active participle, a substantive, "the ones believing" (ὁ πιστεύων) includes past believing, then the argument for the past tense of "begotten" (have been begotten) becomes null and void.

Born Through The Preached Word

"Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever...Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you." (I Peter 1: 22,23,25)

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth." (James 1: 18)

The apostles taught that being born of God, being born of the Spirit, is by means of the word of God preached, by the word of truth, or as Paul says "begotten through the gospel" (I Cor. 4: 15). John taught the same truth, not eliminating hearing the word of God as the instrument of their birth. This being so we may read I John 5: 1 as follows: "Whoever is believing has been born of God through the word of truth and God." It is all the same Greek structure. Born "of" God but "by" or "through" the word (logos or discourse or preaching). The source of the new birth is God and his Spirit and the instrument of it is the word, especially the word preached. 

But, how through the word? Apart from believing the word? Are unbelievers also begotten through the word preached? If anyone is begotten by the word he is begotten because he believes it. Many hear the word of the gospel and who do not believe it. They were not born again by the word of God heard by them. This being true, I John 5: 1 cannot contradict it, which is what the born again before faith view affirms in their insistence that the birth precedes the faith in that passage. This is why many of them are forced into affirming that the word of God is not a means in the new birth but is only a means after birth for post birth salvation.

Faith Is Born Of God

"For whatever is born of God overcomes the world: and this is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcomes the world, but he that believes that Jesus is the Son of God?" (vs 4-5)

In these verses which follow our main text (I John 5: 1) are some pertinent things to observe in regard to how to interpret verse one. We notice how what is said about being "born of God" is also said about "faith." Victory and overcoming are ascribed to both the new birth and to faith. Also, both persons and their faith are "born or begotten of God." Were the people begotten before faith was begotten? If so, would that not be two births rather than one? Would it not be better to say that the people themselves, in their souls and spirits, were born of God at the same time that faith was born in them? 

Prevenient Grace (16)

Dr. John Piper

As stated before, I get irritated when people say that Calvinists believe that sinners are born again before faith and deny prevenient grace. It is worse when scholars and theologians say such when they ought to know better, and perhaps some of them do know better, but say this in order to poison the well against Calvinism or who want to be the authoritative definers of what is Calvinism. In the preceding chapters I have cited from several great Calvinist theologians who did believe that sinners were born again by faith and that God, via his prevenient grace, does things in the hearts, minds, and lives of lost sinners which are intended to bring them to salvation. 

Dr. John Piper deals with this subject very concisely (here) and cites Dr. Roger Olson, an historic or classical Arminian on the subject, and then gives his own thoughts upon it. Piper cites from Olson's book, giving us these citations from Olson:

"If anyone comes to Christ with repentance and faith, it is only because they are enabled by God’s “prevenient grace” to do so." (66) 

 

"Arminianism has always insisted that the initiative in salvation is God’s; it is called “prevenient grace,” and it is enabling but resistible." (169) 

 

"[Wesley] affirmed original sin, including total depravity in the sense of spiritual helplessness. But he also affirmed God’s universal gift of prevenient or enabling grace that restores freedom of the will." (129) 

 

"Classical Arminian theology...attributes the sinners’ ability to respond to the gospel with repentance and faith to prevenient grace." (67)

"[Prevenient grace is] the illuminating, convicting, calling, enabling power of the Holy Spirit working on the sinner’s soul and making them free to choose saving grace (or reject it)." (67)

"So in Arminian theology, a partial regeneration does precede conversion, but it is not a complete regeneration. It is an awakening and enabling, but not an irresistible force...[Prevenient grace is] God’s powerful attracting and persuading power that actually imparts free will to be saved or not." (171)

Piper says in rebuttal:

"Now, that’s the end of my quotations so that you could hear how a historic Arminian would describe his own understanding of prevenient grace."

Under the sub-title "What’s Ultimately Decisive?" Piper said: 

"Calvinism says God’s grace doesn’t just bring us up to a point of “partial regeneration” (that’s Olson’s term). Calvinism says God’s grace doesn’t stop and leave the outcome to our ultimate self-determination — now, that’s my term, ultimate self-determination." 

Here Piper is clearly wrong. In fact, he ought to agree with most of the citations from Olson. Piper objects to any idea of a "partial regeneration." However, he is himself guilty of such a fallacy. In the previous chapter I cited from Dr. Shedd who said that some post Reformation Calvinists gave a restricted definition to the term "regeneration" and other prior Calvinists gave a broad definition of it. The older Calvinists included evangelical conversion in the experience of regeneration, or actually saw them as being the same experience, but later Calvinists divorced conversion from regeneration and narrowly defined it. Many other theologians besides Shedd also have said the same thing. So, I find it ironic that Piper, who believes that regeneration precedes faith, and who divorces conversion from regeneration, would say that Calvinism does not believe in "partial regeneration," for clearly he is the one who believes in a partial regeneration.

Consider also that Calvin believed that it was better to view "regeneration" as only begun when one is born of God, and continues all through the life of a believer, just like being renewed, transformed, or conformed to the image of the Son, or being sanctified, etc. We can also say that our being "created in Christ Jesus" is both a past experience and a continuous one. That is why a famous Christian song says "he's still working on me to make me what I want to be. It took him just a week to make the moon and the stars, the sun and the earth, and Jupiter and Mars. How loving and patient he must be, he's still working on me." That truth is entailed in the fact that believers are daily being renewed and transformed. It is one of those instances of "already but not yet" that we see in scripture. I have been created in Christ Jesus but I hope he is not finished re-creating me for I know that I am not yet fully made into the perfect man.

We have affirmed in previous chapters the fact that regeneration has been defined by Calvinists in both a restricted way and in a broad way. The fact is, Piper, by divorcing conversion from regeneration has taught a partial regeneration. The very idea that a man may be said to have been regeneration before he has believed, repented, or received Christ and been united to him is absurd, biblically speaking. To affirm such a thing is indeed to speak of a very limited or partial regeneration.

Also, Olson is not saying that a person is partially regenerated before he believes, repents, and is converted, but is rather affirming that a person is not regenerated until he is converted. I think he is simply saying that a person is not regenerated until he has believed. Besides, why does Piper object to this when he believes the very thing he condemns? 

John Gill, who many consider to be a Hyper Calvinist, in his body of Doctrinal Divinity, in chapter 11, on "Regeneration," begins with this statement:

"Regeneration may be considered either more largely, and then it includes with it effectual calling, conversion, and sanctification: or more strictly, and then it designs the first principle of grace infused into the soul; which makes it a fit object of the effectual calling, a proper subject of conversion, and is the source and spring of that holiness which is gradually carried on in sanctification, and perfected in heaven." 

So, which way did he believe was the scriptural idea of it? In the same section Gill wrote:

"Though after all it seems plain, that the ministry of the word is the vehicle in which the Spirit of God conveys himself and his grace into the hearts of men; which is done when the word comes not in word only, but in power, and in the Holy Ghost; and works effectually, and is the power of God unto salvation; then faith comes by hearing, and ministers are instruments by whom, at least, men are encouraged to believe: "received ye the Spirit", says the apostle, "by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith": (Gal. 3:2), that is, by the preaching of the law, or by the preaching of the gospel? by the latter, no doubt."

On I Cor. 4: 15 he wrote:

"...he preached Christ unto them, and salvation by him, and the necessity of faith in him; he directed them to him to believe in him, and was the means of bringing of them to the faith of Christ; and it was the power and grace of Christ accompanying his ministry, which made it an effectual means of their regeneration and conversion..."

On James 1: 18 Gill wrote: 

"Of his own will begat he us...The apostle instances in one of those good and perfect gifts, regeneration...it is done at once; there are no degrees in it...is born again, at once...no one is more regenerated than another, or the same person more regenerated at one time than at another."

I hardly see how the word of God can be a means to salvation before that word is believed. This fact is why those who say that regeneration precedes faith will deny that the word of God is a means in regeneration. If faith in the word follows regeneration, then how was the word a means of regeneration? 

Piper also said:

"According to Arminianism, the very final act that brings me into Christ, that decisive moment in conversion, is one that I perform, not God."

Is "believing" not an act people do to be saved? Is "coming" to Christ not something people do to enter into Christ? In fact, the Bible says that people "believe into Christ." I wrote about this in this post (here). I cited these texts:

In the New Testament the phrase "eis auton" (unto him) is used frequently.

"And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and is believing on him (eis-unto him), may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:40)

"Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye may be believing on him (eis-unto him) whom He hath sent." (John 6:29)

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that is believing on (eis, unto) Me is having everlasting life. I am that bread of life." (John 6:47-48)

Now of course faith is God's gift and becoming a believer is due to the working of God's mighty power. (See John 6: 65; Eph. 1: 19-20) Furthermore, many Calvinists agree with many Arminians that it is at the point of faith in Christ that a person is united to Christ, which is what "into Christ" signifies. 

Piper in this article (here), titled "What Is Union With Christ?" actually said that one is united to Christ by faith. He said (emphasis mine):

"I’m saving my definition of union with Christ, which he asked for, for the end. It hangs in great measure on what the word “in” means in the phrase “in Christ.”

Under the sub-heading "From God, Through Faith" he also said: "What’s the cause of this in-ness — this being in Christ Jesus?" He then says:

"How then do we experience this day by day? Paul answers, “by faith”: “having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith” (Colossians 2:12). So you identify with him, and you die with him, and you rise with him through faith."

If faith in Christ is the means of union with Christ, as Piper clearly and rightly affirms in the above words, then it is indeed the "decisive moment" of salvation. So, why is Piper criticizing Olson, or any Arminian, for saying the same thing? Granted, Olson and Piper would disagree on how faith is produced in a sinner, but still it is true that faith is the demarcation point where a sinner who was dead is made alive. 

But Piper contradicts himself on this matter if one looks at his writings on this subject. He believes one is regenerated before faith, and if faith is the medium of union with Christ, then he has an odd character, one who is regenerated without union with Christ.

Charles Spurgeon in his "Morning and Evening" on I John 1: 6 titled “Fellowship with him" said: 

"When we were united by faith to Christ, we were brought into such complete fellowship with him, that we were made one with him, and his interests and ours became mutual and identical." (See here)

Piper also said:

"Calvinism says that God does more in our conversion; namely, he overcomes all of our resistance and opens the eyes of our hearts to make Christ so real and so beautiful and so compelling that our will gladly embraces Christ as our Savior and Lord and Treasure."

What does Piper mean by "conversion"? Does he not believe it is a separate experience that follows regeneration? Does he teach that conversion is not a part of regeneration?

Under the sub-title "Raised from the Dead" Piper said: 

"The question is, Which of those is the biblical view of how God’s grace brings us to faith and salvation? Does it make us free to choose grace or reject it? Or does it overcome our rebellion and blindness so that we are drawn triumphantly by the beauty of Christ to embrace what is true and real?"

I don't see how believing in prevenient grace is unbiblical. I agree that the Calvinists who believe in prevenient grace do not believe that it makes a depraved sinner free from sin. The Puritan Calvinists, as we have seen, believed that God did things prior to regeneration as preparations for regeneration. As I have shown, it is because of special or abundant grace, and of greater divine power exerted, that some sinners (the elect) are made believers, and that grace preceded their salvation. If Piper believes that the word or gospel of God is a means in regeneration, then he believes in prevenient grace. However, those like Piper, who say regeneration precedes faith, often deny that the word or gospel of God is a means thereto. 

Piper said further:

"'I’ll point to one passage of Scripture that I think shows the complete saving effectiveness of God’s grace and that God provides more than a partial regeneration in order to bring us to faith. That passage is Ephesians 2:4–7. So let me read it.'"

After reading the text above, Piper said:

"I don’t think that text can be fairly interpreted to mean that there is a split in regeneration or a split in making alive."

If there is no split in regeneration as Piper affirms, then the question must be asked - "does he believe conversion (evangelical faith and repentance) is part of regeneration?" Also, if one looks at how Paul describes "regeneration" in Ephesians chapter two he will see that Paul describes it in terms of evangelical conversion. In verse eight of that chapter the apostle says - "for by grace are you saved through faith." By "saved" he is talking about what he has been describing in verses one through seven which Piper says is regeneration. That being so, Paul affirms that people are regenerated by faith. Also, one cannot be made spiritually alive apart from being joined to Christ who is Life and Piper has already said that union with Christ is by faith. The apostle John said - "whoever has the Son has life." (I John 5: 12) A person receives and possesses the Son by "receiving" the Son and this "receiving" is equated with "believing" into the Son. So the same apostle wrote:

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name." (John 1: 12 nkjv)

People become children of God when they receive Christ and believe in him. According to the apostle this is the decisive moment.

In verses eleven through thirteen of Ephesians chapter two Paul speaks of the time when the Ephesian believers were "without Christ," "without God," and were "strangers and aliens" from the commonwealth of Israel, and were "without hope." Paul's regeneration or salvation brought a believer into union with the Father and Son and a "good hope through grace." (II Thess. 2: 16)

Piper continued:

"Now, let me insert a comment here. Just to be clear, he (Olson) says the ability to respond is given with prevenient grace. But it’s an ability to believe or not to believe. And he’ll make that really plain in just a minute."

The kind of prevenient grace I am positing is the same kind posited by other Calvinists, such as the Puritan Calvinists. The word of God is able to convict sinners before they are converted. The law of God is able to show a lost man that he is guilty. Man is therefore able to feel guilt and to realize his need for salvation while still lost in sin. "By the law," said the apostle Paul, "is the knowledge of sin." (Rom. 3: 20) It is by the law that men realize that they are "guilty before God." (vs. 19) In chapter seven he says "I would not have known sin except through the law." (vs. 7) He says that the law arouses his sinful nature and makes sin to revive. (vs. 5, 8-9) He says the law killed him. (vs. 10-11) In verse 13 he says:

"But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful."

The Puritans believed that God used the law to show depraved sinners that they were guilty and exceedingly sinful and to kill them and that this killing was a necessary step to humble them, to bring them to seek salvation in Christ. In this way "the law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ." (Gal. 3: 24) The law has that power and sinners are able to feel guilt and be convicted of sin while they are dead in trespasses and sins. The gospel also, being "the power of God unto salvation" (Rom. 1: 16), is also able to do things in the hearts of dead sinners. 

Piper continued:

"I don’t think that text can be fairly interpreted to mean that there is a split in regeneration or a split in making alive. It is not as if he does part of it, and then he waits to see what we will do with the rest of it, if we will finish the making alive and bringing ourselves into union with Christ. I don’t think that will work."

Again, I say, it is Piper and his brethren who say "regeneration precedes faith" who split up regeneration into parts. Further, many Calvinists, who believe that regeneration is synonymous with rebirth, say that rebirth is a process like physical birth. Physical birth takes in conception, then development in the womb, and then birth deliverance from the womb. This was the prevalent view of most Hardshell Baptists of the nineteenth century. It was also the view of many Presbyterians. It was the view of Arthur Pink, a well known Calvinist, who I am sure Piper has read. In this post (here) I cited from several Calvinists who held this view. Is this not a splitting up regeneration? So, the point is, Piper condemns Olson for splitting up regeneration into a partial regeneration versus a full regeneration and yet many Calvinists do the same, even Piper himself. 

Under the sub-title "The Real Difference" Piper said: 

"The difference between me (and I think I speak for virtually all Calvinists on this point) and Arminians is not that one believes in total depravity and the other doesn’t. No, that’s not it. And the difference is not that one believes that grace must precede faith and the other doesn’t. No, that’s not the difference either. Rather, I believe that God’s saving grace not merely restores a kind of free will that can accept or reject Christ, but rather opens our blind eyes and grants us to see the compelling truth and beauty and worth of Jesus in such a way that we find him irresistible. Then we gladly and willingly embrace him as our Savior and Lord and Treasure. He brings us all the way to the point of conversion so that we give him all the glory for our receiving of Jesus."

Much of what Dr. Piper says is true. However, he fails to see how both common grace and prevenient grace, like common operations of the Spirit, may be given in a greater measure to the elect than to those not chosen to salvation. He rightly says that some are so enlightened that they are compelled by the truth and are so attracted to the beauty they have seen in Christ that they find him irresistible. What he fails to understand, however, is that common and prevenient grace is shown even to the non-elect and they experience some common operations of the Spirit and it is these that they resist as Stephen said. (Acts 7: 51)