Category Archives: Salvation

“Jacob I loved, Esau I hated". What is the meaning?[1]

Peter Paul Rubens, The Reconciliation of Jacob and Esau, 1624

(Image courtesy Wikipedia)

Spencer D Gear

There has been for centuries a debate on the means that God uses to bring people to salvation. One Calvinist takes the view that Romans 9:13 refers to ‘a declaration of the sovereign counsel of God as it is concerned with the ultimate destinies of men’ (John Murray).[2] Another Calvinist (Douglas Moo) states that this

passage gives strong exegetical support to a traditional Calvinistic interpretation of God’s election: God chooses those who will be saved on the basis of his own will and not on the basis of anything – works or faith, whether foreseen or not – in those human beings so chosen.[3]

Calvinist Charles Hodge affirmed that

God is perfectly sovereign in the distribution of his favours, that the ground of his selecting one and rejecting another is not their work, but his own good pleasure…. Thus Meyer says, “God does not act unjustly in his sovereign choice; since he claims for himself in the Scriptures the liberty to favour or to harden, whom he will.[4]

The contrasting view of Norman Geisler is that, loving Jacob and hating Esau,

one of the strongest verses used by extreme Calvinists does not prove that God hates the non-elect or even that He does not love them. It simply means that God’s love for those who receive salvation looks so much greater than His love for those who reject it that the latter looks like hatred by comparison.[5]

Lutheran exegete, the late R. C. H. Lenski, wrote of Romans 9:13 that the Israelites (national, not individual) should have recognised what God had done for them by his grace through promises to them. This grace should have caused all of them to become ‘the children of promise’ (v. 8). But it didn’t and they chose the opposite, refused faith and became stubborn in their presumptuous, outrageous unbelief.[6]

Evangelical Arminians state that:

The Calvinist methodology of interpreting Jacob and Esau as a representation of how individuals are chosen then is a decontextualized over-stretching of the analogy, and thus fundamentally flawed. The context of the chapter plainly dictates that the analogies demonstrate the choosing of one group over the other according to God’s eternal purpose in Christ.

So, what does Romans 9:13 mean? Is it promoting Calvinistic double predestination – some to salvation and the rest to damnation? Or is it contrasting election for the destinies of the nation of Israel and the nation of Edom?

Romans 9:10-13 reads:

And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, ¹¹though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— ¹²she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” ¹³As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (ESV).

There is a tendency among some Christians to understand this passage as referring to individual salvation, thus supporting a Calvinistic view of election to individual salvation, interpreting it as meaning God loved Jacob and he was saved, but hated Esau and he was lost.

However people fail to realise that the context of Romans 9 in which v. 13 appears is not referring to individual salvation but Paul is talking about nations. We know in this passage from the OT:

And the LORD said to her,
“Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you shall be divided;
the one shall be stronger than the other,
the older shall serve the younger” (Gen. 25:23, emphasis added).

Back in this Genesis context, Esau as an individual did not serve Jacob. It was the opposite. The evidence from Genesis 33:1-3 is that Jacob was “bowing himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother [Esau]” (Gen. 33:3) and Jacob addressed Esau as “my lord” (Gen. 33:8, 13). In fact, Jacob said to Esau that Jacob was “your servant” (Gen. 33:5). It was Jacob who wanted Esau to “accept my blessing” (presents) and Jacob said that Esau’s face was “like seeing the face of God” (Gen. 33:10-11).

So we know from this Genesis 33 context that Esau as an individual did not “serve” his younger brother, Jacob. It was the nation of Esau (Edom) that served the nation of Jacob (Israel).

So what is the point that Paul is making in Romans 9? God’s choice of Jacob was God’s choice of the nation of Israel over the nation of Edom and that choice was made while they were still in the womb before they had committed neither good nor evil. This was a plan that God had made, the choice of a nation –Israel – and it was not based on human merit. Calvinistic commentator, F. F. Bruce, stated of Rom. 9:13 that it was “from Malachi 1:2 f, where again the context indicates it is the NATIONS of Israel and Edom, rather than their individual ancestors Jacob and Esau, that are in view”.

What is the meaning of “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”? Does God indicate what he means by “loved” vs “hated”? We get some concept from Genesis 29:30-31,

So Jacob went in to Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah, and served Laban for another seven years. ³¹When the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb, but Rachel was barren (ESV).

There is an indication here that “hated” means loved less than. We see this kind of view with the comparison of two NT passages that discuss the same event:

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26 ESV, emphasis added)

The parallel passage is in Matt. 10:37,

Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me (ESV).

So the comparison of these two passages shows us that the word “hate” can not be taken literally, but it implies “love more than”. Even a Calvinistic commentator, John Murray, agrees:

It has been maintained that the word “hate” means “to love less, to regard and treat with less favour“. Appeal can be made to various passages where this meaning holds (cf. Gen. 29:32, 33; Deut. 21:15; Matt. 6:24; 10:37, 38; Luke 14:26; John 12:25). It would have to be admitted that this meaning would provide for the differentiation which must be posited.[8]

So when the Bible uses the contrast of “hate” vs “love”, it signifies that hate means “love less than”. This is the meaning we find in the passage from which Paul seems to have quoted in Malachi 1:2-3,

“I have loved you,” says the LORD. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the LORD. “Yet I have loved Jacob ³but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert” (ESV).

In Malachi 1, the prophet dresses down Israel in a firm – even angry – way, so he cannot be seeing any merit in the nation of Israel. The parallel in Romans 9 has Paul to correct is opponents who believed that the works of the law were the reason God chose Israel and provided them with the way to holiness (Rom. 9:30-33).

Lenski, provides this exegesis of Romans 9:13:

The statement cited from Mal. 1:2, 3: “Jacob I treated with an act of love but Esau with an act of hate,” is used by Paul as corroborating the promise of Genesis: “Even as it has been written” (the perfect: and is thus still on record). The [Greek] aorists egapesa and emisesa might be constative and summarize God’s different treatment of the two nations until Malachi’s time. But Paul treats this passage in the same way as he treated Gen. 25:23; he takes out of each only what pertains to Jacob and to Esau personally and omits the rest. So we translate the two aorists with reference to the two individual acts when God took Jacob and did not take Esau. The passage is excellently chosen for bringing out what we have repeatedly said regarding Paul’s illustrating how the Israelites got all the gifts mentioned in v. 4, 5. When Israel asked wherein the Lord had loved them they were answered: “Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? Yet I loved Jacob and hated Esau.” Had Jacob a greater claim to be the next patriarch than Esau? Why, they were twin brothers! Let the Israelites look at their array of blessings (v. 4, 5) and see in them God’s gratuitous gifts of love.

That is the great point here. The Israelites should have recognized what God had done for them with his grace and his gratuitous promises. They should have recognized the gratuity that made these the pure promises they were. They should, every last one of them, have become “the children of the promise” (v. 8). They did nothing of the kind. They did the exact opposite. They refused faith; they became obdurate in unbelief and in their unbelief grew presumptuous. Outrageous! When Paul thought of it, it nearly broke his heart. To use such blessings only for their own damnation – incredible but, alas, a fact!

“I did hate” is highly anthropopathic but refers to the effect that Esau was not made the third patriarch and not the affect. Hate is used comparatively to love. On this use compare Gen. 29:30, 31; Deut. 21:15-17; Prov. 13:24; Matt. 10:37 and its restatement in Luke 14:26; finally, John 12:25…. Sufficient has been said regarding the Calvinistic interpretation.[9]

Both OT and NT demonstrate that God’s choice of the nation of Israel (Jacob) over the nation of Edom (Esau) was not because of Israel’s good works, but because of God’s choice – His plan. So in Rom. 9:13, God’s love of Jacob and hatred of Esau meant that God chose to give the nation of Israel a special place in His plan for history. It was not based on any goodness or righteousness of the nation of Israel. It was God’s way of planning the unfolding of history.

Anglican commentator, the late Leon Morris, in his commentary on the book of Romans gave this meaning of Romans 9:13:

Characteristically Paul backs up his argument with a quotation from Scripture, this one from Malachi 1:2-3: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”…. We have just seen that the Genesis passage refers primarily to nations and we would expect that to continue here. That this is the case seems clear from what Malachi writes about Esau: “Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals (Mal. 1:3). Both in Genesis and Malachi the reference is clearly to nations, and we should accept this as Paul’s meaning accordingly.[10]

Norman Geisler pointedly summarised the facts from Romans 9 to contradict the view that God is not perfectly good [11] or does not have moral perfection in Romans 9:13, “Jacob I loved, Esau I hated”. This is the objection that Geisler is answering:

According to Romans 9, God loved Jacob and hated Esau (v. 13); He has mercy on some but not on others (v. 15) (v. 15); He destines some to destruction and not others (v. 18). From these examples, it seems obvious that God is not omnibenevolent when it comes to salvation.[12]

Geisler provides these responses:[13]

1. The passage in Romans 9 is not speaking of election of individuals but of nations, the nation of Edom that came from Esau (cf. Mal. 1:2) and the nation of Israel that came from Jacob (cf. Rom. 9:2-3).

2. Individuals and their election to salvation are not being addressed, but Israel is chosen as a nation, a ‘channel through which the eternal blessing of salvation, through Christ, would come to all (cf. Gen. 12:1-3; Rom. 9:4-5)’. However, even though Israel as a nation was chosen by God, not all individuals in Israel were elected to salvation (Rom. 9:6).

3. The use of the word, hate (Greek emisesa, from miseo) means ‘to love less’ or ‘to regard with less affection’ and does not mean ‘not to love at all’ or ‘not to will the good of a person’.[14] This is seen in the phrases used in Gen. 29:30-31, ‘loved Rachel more than Leah’ which is used as equivalent to ‘Leah was hated’ (see also Matt. 10:37).

4. See the example of Pharaoh hardening his own heart against God (see Ex. 7:13-14; 8:15, 19, 32) before God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Ex. 9:12). Why were the 10 plagues sent on Egypt? They were to convince Pharaoh to repent. He refused to repent and so his heart was hardened as a result of Pharaoh’s own actions. Geisler uses the example of how sun melts wax but hardens clay. ‘The problem is not with the source but with the receptivity of the agent on which it is acting’.[15]

5. The ‘vessels of wrath’ (Rom. 9:22 ESV, NKJV) were not destined to be destroyed against their own will. They were destroyed because they rejected God and 2 Peter 3:9 states that the Lord ‘is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance’ (ESV).

Even such a prominent Calvinist as Charles H. Spurgeon stated,

I cannot imagine a more ready instrument in the hands of Satan for the ruin of souls than a minister who tells sinners it is not their duty to repent of their sins [and] who has the arrogance to call himself a gospel minister, while he teaches that God hates some men infinitely and unchangeably for no reason whatever but simply because he chooses to do so. O my brethren! May the Lord save you from the charmer, and keep you ever deaf to the voice of error.[16]

Conclusion

We can conclude that Romans 9:13 does not refer to double-predestination of the Calvinists (some predestined to salvation and the rest predestined to damnation). Rather, it refers to two nations, Israel (Jacob) and Edom (Esau) that were chosen when the individual men were in the womb. It is not referring to God’s unconditional election of some to salvation – those whom God loved – and the remainder, whom God hated, to damnation. With Charles Spurgeon we echo the theme that it is ‘the voice of error’, an instrument of Satan, to not tell all people (sinners) that it is their duty to repent of their sins.

Notes:

[1] Much of this material has been gleaned from Roger T. Forster & V. Paul Marston 1973. God’s Strategy in Human History. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., ch. 9, pp. 59-62. This is by far the finest explanation I have read of the meaning of “Jacob I loved, Esau I hated” in Rom. 9:13.

[2] John Murray 1968. The Epistle to the Romans (vol. 2). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., p. 24. This is the one-volume edition that contains Vol. 1 and Vol. 2, but the page numbers start at the beginning for each volume.

[3] Douglas J. Moo 1996. The Epistle to the Romans (The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, p. 587.

[4] Charles Hodge 1972. A Commentary on Romans (The Geneva Series of Commentaries). London: The Banner of Truth Trust, p. 312. The original edition was in 1835, with a revised edition in 1864.

[5] Norman Geisler 1999. Chosen But Free. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, p. 83. Dave Hunt considers that Rom. 9:13 is ‘not about salvation of individuals but concerning blessing and judgment upon nations descended from Jacob and Esau’ (Dave Hunt & James White 2004. Debating Calvinism. Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, p. 105).

[6] R. C. H. Lenski 1936. Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers (this edition was published by Hendrickson in 2001), pp. 604-605.

[7] Christian Forums, Baptists, “Questions for Arminians on their assurance of salvation”, Skala #208, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7584042-21/ (Accessed 28 August 2011).

[8] John Murray 1968, The Epistle to the Romans, Part 2 (The New International Commentary on the New Testament). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., p. 21. This is a one-volume edition that consists of Part 1 (published 1959) and Part 2 (published 1965). The numbering for the two parts is retained as two separate volumes in this one-volume edition. Part 1 covers Romans, chapters 1-8; Part 2, chapters 9-16.

[9] R. C. H. Lenski op cit, pp. 604-605.

[10] Leon Morris 1988. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company / Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, pp.356-357.

[11] Geisler used the term, “omnibenevolent”. Reference.com gives the meaning of omnibenevolence as ‘defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “unlimited or infinite benevolence“. It is a technical term used in the academic literature on the philosophy of religion, often in the context of the problem of evil and in theodical responses, and even in such context, the phrases “perfect goodness” or “moral perfection” are often preferred’. Available at: http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Omnibenevolence (Accessed 28 August 2011).

[12] Dr. Norman Geisler 2004. Systematic Theology (vol. 3: Sin, Salvation). Minneapolis, Minnesota: BethanyHouse, p. 195.

[13] Ibid., pp. 195-196.

[14] Geisler uses the comparison with Luke 14:26 where Jesus stated, ‘If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-yes, even his own life-he cannot be my disciple’.

[15] Ibid., p. 196.

[16] Iain H. Murray 1995. Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: A Battle for Gospel Preaching. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, pp. 155-156.

Calvinists, free will and a better alternative

Butterfly Heart
ChristArt

By Spencer D Gear

Let’s examine some well known Calvinists and their views on free will.

C. H. Spurgeon, in Sermon No. 52, “Free Will – A Slave”, wrote:

“It has already been proved beyond all controversy that free-will is nonsense. Freedom cannot belong to will any more than ponderability can belong to electricity. They are altogether different things. Free agency we may believe in, but free-will is simply ridiculous”. Elsewhere he preached, “Free-will doctrine—what does it? It magnifies man into God; it declares God’s purposes a nullity, since they cannot be carried out unless men are willing. It makes God’s will a waiting servant to the will of man, and the whole covenant of grace dependent upon human action” (Spurgeon on Free-Wil l).

Here is an article, “John Calvin on Free Will”. Calvin affirms that

“Whenever we are prompted to choose something to our advantage, whenever the will inclines to this, or conversely whenever our mind and heart shun anything that would otherwise be harmful, that is the Lord’s special grace.” (Institutes of the Christian Religion (2.4.6) “The human will does not obtain grace by freedom, but obtains freedom by grace ; …Controlled by grace, it will never perish, but if grace forsake it, it will straightway fall; …The direction of the human will toward good, and after direction its continuation in good, depend solely upon God’s will, not upon any merit in man; … and whatever it can do it is able to do only through grace” (Institutes 2.4.14).

R. C. Sproul in “The Pelagian captivity of the church”, wrote:

“Do we have a will? Yes, of course we have a will. Calvin said, if you mean by a free will a faculty of choosing by which you have the power within yourself to choose what you desire, then we all have free will. If you mean by free will the ability for fallen human beings to incline themselves and exercise that will to choose the things of God without the prior monergistic work of regeneration then, said Calvin, free will is far too grandiose a term to apply to a human being”.

Martin Luther wrote, The Bondage of the Will.

John Piper: “God’s merciful treatment of anyone is never initiated by or in any way ultimately influenced by the person’s will” (John Piper on free will).

A better alternative

I have found the best refutation of the Calvinistic view of lack of freedom of the will in choosing to believe, to be Norman Geisler’s, Chosen But Free. Geisler wrote: “The Bible sees no contradiction between God’s predetermination and human free will” (p. 133) and he defends this position biblically.

‘Arminian theology, when rightly understood, teaches that salvation is monergistic. God alone does the saving. God alone regenerates the soul that is dead in sin. God alone forgives and justifies on the merits of Christ’s blood. God alone makes us holy and righteous. In all of these ways salvation is entirely monergistic. The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is whether or not God’s saving work is conditional or unconditional. Arminians believe that God will not save until we meet the God ordained condition of faith. Faith may be understood as synergistic only in the sense that God graciously enables us to believe, but we are the ones who must decide whether or not we will believe” (Society of Evangelical Arminians, “Is Arminian theology synergistic?”).

Sinful nature or sinful environment?

By Spencer D Gear

From where did my sinful actions come? With my parents? The evil environment around me whether at school, work, TV, radio, Internet or anywhere else in our sin-soaked society?

The Bible’s teaching on original sin (a misunderstood term) and the sinful human nature being the cause of sin, has caused much controversy down through the centuries. Evangelical theologian, Wayne Grudem, prefers to use the phrase “inherited sin” instead of “original sin” because ‘the phrase “original sin” seems so easily to be misunderstood to refer to Adam’s first sin, rather than to the sin that is ours as a result of Adam’s fall’.[1]

One of church history’s early rejections of the teaching on inherited sinful nature or original sin came from the Pelagians (followers of Pelagius, ca. AD 360-420[2]), Pelagius being engaged in controversy on the topic with St. Augustine. What did the Pelagians believe? The late Yale University church historian, Kenneth Scott Latourette, summarised:

“In general Pelagians differed from Augustine in denying In general Pelagians differed from Augustine in denying that the taint of Adam’s sin and the impairment of the will brought by it have been transmitted to all Adam’s de- scendants, but, in contrast, declared that each man at birth at, has the ability to choose the good. In other words, they denounced “original sin.” Some seem to have held that Adam was created mortal and that his His death was not due to his sin, that new-born children need not be baptized, for they have no original sin inherited from Adam which needs to be washed away, and that some men before and after Christ have so used their free will that they have been sinless. God’s grace, so at least some Pelagians held, is seen in giving man free will at his creation, in giving man the law as a guide to his choice, and in send- ing Jesus Christ who by his teaching and good example assists men to do good. From Augustine’s standpoint, this view made grace unnecessary and differed little from Stoic morality”.[3]

R. C. Sproul leaves no doubt about how much of the Christian church is practising Pelagian theology, in his view. He states:

“Modern Evangelicalism almost uniformly and universally teaches that in order for a person to be born again, he must first exercise faith. You have to choose to be born again. Isn’t that what you hear? In a George Barna poll, more than seventy percent of “professing evangelical Christians” in America expressed the belief that man is basically good. And more than eighty percent articulated the view that God helps those who help themselves. These positions — or let me say it negatively — neither of these positions is semi-Pelagian. They’re both Pelagian. To say that we’re basically good is the Pelagian view. I would be willing to assume that in at least thirty percent of the people who are reading this issue, and probably more, if we really examine their thinking in depth, we would find hearts that are beating Pelagianism. We’re overwhelmed with it. We’re surrounded by it. We’re immersed in it. We hear it every day. We hear it every day in the secular culture. And not only do we hear it every day in the secular culture, we hear it every day on Christian television and on Christian radio.

“In the nineteenth century, there was a preacher who became very popular in America, who wrote a book on theology, coming out of his own training in law, in which he made no bones about his Pelagianism. He rejected not only Augustinianism, but he also rejected semi-Pelagianism and stood clearly on the subject of unvarnished Pelagianism, saying in no uncertain terms, without any ambiguity, that there was no Fall and that there is no such thing as original sin. This man went on to attack viciously the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and in addition to that, to repudiate as clearly and as loudly as he could the doctrine of justification by faith alone by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. This man’s basic thesis was, we don’t need the imputation of the righteousness of Christ because we have the capacity in and of ourselves to become righteous. His name: Charles Finney, one of America’s most revered evangelists. Now, if Luther was correct in saying that sola fide is the article upon which the Church stands or falls, if what the reformers were saying is that justification by faith alone is an essential truth of Christianity, who also argued that the substitutionary atonement is an essential truth of Christianity; if they’re correct in their assessment that those doctrines are essential truths of Christianity, the only conclusion we can come to is that Charles Finney was not a Christian. I read his writings and I say, “I don’t see how any Christian person could write this.” And yet, he is in the Hall of Fame of Evangelical Christianity in America. He is the patron saint of twentieth-century Evangelicalism. And he is not semi-Pelagian; he is unvarnished in his Pelagianism”.[4]

Elsewhere, Sproul wrote: “Pelagianism has a death grip on the modern church”.[5]

Pelagianism is alive and well today. A contemporary Pelagian, Verticordious, wrote on Christian Forums:

“People are not born with a sinful nature, they are taught a sinful nature by other sinful people. That’s why the Bible places such an importance on parents and marriage, as they are responsible for teaching their children. If you don’t teach your children right from wrong then they’re just going to get their behavior from society. Everyone has a choice, to obey God or to not obey God. Why would be a good parent matter if you child was inherently sinful from birth? People are responsible for their own choices, which is why they are punished when they wrong choices”.[6]

Is this a biblical perspective?[7]

The Bible says through Psalm 51:5, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (ESV). The NIV translates as, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me“.

Again from the Psalms, “Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies” (Psalm 58:3 NIV)

Isaiah wrote, “Well do I know how treacherous you are; you were called a rebel from birth” (48:8 NIV)

Then we have the NT. Paul wrote to the Ephesians:

“As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath” (2:1-3 NIV).

Two important points come out of this passage:

1. Considering the Ephesian readers life before coming to Christ (which can be applied to all people before they experience salvation), Paul insists that these unsaved folks were dead in transgressions and sins and followed the world’s ways in disobedience, gratifying the cravings of the sinful nature with desires and thoughts. Surely most of us can recognise this before coming to Christ! I can!

2. From where did this sinful condition come? Paul does not say that this sinful condition was taught by other people, including parents. Paul deliberately says that we were “by nature” objects of God’s wrath. The problem did not have its initiation through sinful actions in our environment. The core cause of our sinful problems is that it is “by nature” – sinful nature.

And where did it originate? The Psalms and Isaiah are clear that it comes from conception/birth. We are rebels from birth – before any sinful environment had an influence on us.

How did we come to be rebels from conception? Some of the clearest biblical statements are in Romans 5:12, 18-19:

“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned…. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (ESV)

These verses provide not only the cause of inherited sin, one man’s [Adam’s ] transgression, but also the solution, justification and life for people “by one man’s [Jesus Christ’s] obedience” through his death on the cross.

People may object: “God is unjust for making all people sinners through Adam’s original sin”. Are you also going to object, “God is unfair in providing the God-man, Jesus Christ, as a sacrifice for sin”. Remember Romans 5:19, “As one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men” (ESV).

That’s my clearest, but brief, understanding of the issue from the Scriptures.

Endnotes:

[1] Wayne Grudem 1994. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, p. 494, note 8.

[2] E. E. Cairns 1981. Christianity through the centuries: A history of the Christian church. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, p. 137.

[3] K.S. Latourette 1975. A history of Christianity: To A.D. 1500, vol 1, rev ed.

New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, p. 181. Also available at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/26953799/6/Christianity-Takes-Shape-in-Organization-and-Doctrine#outer_page_151 (Accessed 25 May 2011).

[4] R. C. Sproul 2001. ‘The Pelagian captivity of the church’, Modern Reformation, Vol 10, Number 3 (May/June 2001), pp. 22-29, available at: http://www.bible-researcher.com/sproul1.html (Accessed 25 May 2011).

[5] Available at: http://www.monergismbooks.com/Freedom-of-the-Will-p-16186.html (Accessed 25 May 2011).

[6] Verticordious #14, 24 May 2011. Christian Forums, Theology (Christian only), Christian Apologetics, “But what about those who never hear about Christ?”, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7562188-2/ (Accessed 25 May 2011).

[7] The following was my response to Verticordious at OzSpen #22, 25 May 2011, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7562188-3/ (Accessed 25 May 2011).

Baptism of the Holy Spirit: When does it happen?

By Spencer D Gear

There is continuing controversy over the doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The classic Pentecostal teaching is that the initial physical evidence is speaking in tongues. As examples of this emphasis, here are some statements from various Pentecostal denominations:

“WE BELIEVE in the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues as promised to all believers” (Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa).
“The baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance” (Assemblies of God USA).
“We believe that those who experience Holy Spirit baptism today will experience it in the same manner that believers experienced it in the early church; in other words, we believe that they will speak in tongues—languages that are not known to them (Acts 1: 5, 8; 2:4)“ (International Church of the Foursquare Gospel).

Other evangelicals disagree, saying that it happens at salvation. Examples of these would be:

Calvary Baptist Church, Simi Valley, California, an independent Baptist church, believes: “The baptism of the Holy Spirit [is] at salvation, making each believer a priest”.
Larry Wood attends a house church in Florida and he believes that “in order to get home to Heaven after a person dies, the person must have believed in Jesus Christ and received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit at Salvation”.
Southern Baptist, Jimmy Draper, published this statement in Baptist Press, on the subject: “Doctrine: Baptism by the Holy Spirit”: “This means that you don’t get a piece of Spirit baptism when you get saved and then more later. God does not baptize on an installment plan. All of the Holy Spirit you are ever going to get as a believer you got when Jesus baptized you by means of the Holy Spirit into His body at your salvation. The question is not, “How much of the Holy Spirit do you have?” Instead, you should be asking, “How much of me does the Holy Spirit have?”
John MacArthur, eminent Bible teacher of Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, California, stated in, “Is Spirit baptism a one-time event?”:

Despite the claims of many, the apostles’ and early disciples’ experience is not the norm for believers today. They were given unique enabling of the Holy Spirit for their special duties. They also received the general and common baptism with the Holy Spirit in an uncommon way, subsequent to conversion. All believers since the church began are commanded to be filled with the Spirit (Eph. 5:18) and to walk in the Spirit (Gal. 5:25). Yet these early apostles and believers were told to wait, showing the change that came in the church age. They were in the transitional period associated with the birth of the church. In the present age, baptism by Christ through the agency of the Holy Spirit takes place for all believers at conversion. At that moment, every believer is placed into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). At that point the Spirit also takes up His permanent residency in the converted person’s soul, so there is no such thing as a Christian who does not yet have the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9; cf. 1 Cor. 6:19–20).

The baptism with the Holy Spirit is not a special privilege for some believers, nor are believers challenged and exhorted in Scripture to seek it. It is not even their responsibility to prepare for it by praying, pleading, tarrying, or any other means. The passive voice of the verb translated be baptized indicates the baptism by Jesus Christ with the Spirit is entirely a divine activity. It comes, like salvation itself, through grace, not human effort. Titus 3:5–6 says, “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior.” God sovereignly pours out the Holy Spirit on those He saves.

Others contend that it happens after salvation but there is no necessity of speaking in other tongues.

D Martyn Lloyd-Jones wrote in, “What is the baptism of the Holy Spirit?”:

Now there are some, as we have seen, who say that there is really no difficulty about this at all. They say it is simply a reference to regeneration and nothing else. It is what happens to people when they are regenerated and incorporated into Christ, as Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 12:13: “By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.” … Therefore, they say, this baptism of the Holy Spirit is simply regeneration.

But for myself, I simply cannot accept that explanation, and this is where we come directly to grips with the difficulty. I cannot accept that because if I were to believe that, I should have to believe that the disciples and the apostles were not regenerate until the Day of Pentecost—a supposition which seems to me to be quite untenable. In the same way, of course, you would have to say that not a single Old Testament saint had eternal life or was a child of God….

This is an experience, as I understand the teaching, which is the birthright of every Christian. “For the promise,’ says the apostle Peter, ‘is unto you’ — and not only unto you but — ‘to your children, and to all that are afar off (Acts 2:39. It is not confined just to these people on the Day of Pentecost, but is offered to and promised to all Christian people. And in its essence it means that we are conscious of the incoming, as it were, of the Spirit of God and are given a sense of the glory of God and the reality of His being, the reality of the Lord Jesus Christ, and we love him. That is why these New Testament writers can say a thing like this about the Christians: ‘Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory’….

A definition, therefore, which I would put to your consideration is something like this: The baptism of the Holy Spirit is the initial experience of glory and the reality and the love of the Father and of the Son. Yes, you may have many further experiences of that, but the first experience, I would suggest, is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The saintly John Fletcher of Madley put it like this: ‘Every Christian should have his Pentecost.”

So for Lloyd-Jones, the baptism of the Holy Spirit was an experience after salvation. He explained further:

The baptism of the Holy Spirit, then, is the difference between believing these things, accepting the teaching, exercising faith—that is something that we all know, and without the Holy Spirit we cannot even do that, as we have seen—and having a consciousness and experience of these truths in a striking and signal manner. The first experience of that, I am suggesting, is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, or the Holly Spirit falling on you, or receiving the Spirit. It is this remarkable and unusual experience which is described so frequently in the book of Acts and which, as we see clearly from the epistles, must have been the possession of the members of the early Christian Church.

LLoyd-Jones does not emphasise speaking in tongues as the initial physical evidence of this baptism in the Spirit. He stated in 1977:

“The trouble with the charismatic movement is that there is virtually no talk at all of the Spirit ‘coming down’. It is more something they do or receive: they talk now about ‘renewal’ not revival. The tendency of the modern movement is to lead people to seek experiences. True revivals humble men before God and emphasize the person of Christ. If all the talk is about experiences and gifts it does not conform to the classic instances of revival”.

Another who believed that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was after salvation was Andrew Murray who had 60 years of ministry in the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa. He put it this way in his sermon, “Baptism of the Spirit”:

What we see in Jesus teaches us what the baptism of the Spirit is. It is not. that grace by which we turn to God, become regenerate, and seek to live as God’s children. When Jesus reminded His disciples (Acts 1:4) of John’s prophecy, they were already partakers of this grace. Their baptism with the Spirit meant something more. It was to be to them the conscious presence of their glorified Lord, come back from heaven to dwell in their hearts, their participation in the power of His new Life. It was to them a baptism of joy and power in their living fellowship with Jesus on the Throne of Glory. All that they were further
to receive of wisdom, and courage, and holiness, had its root in this: what the Spirit had been to Jesus, when He was baptized, as the living bond with the Father’s Power and Presence, He was to be to them: through Him, the Son was to manifest Himself, and Father and Son were to make their abode with them.

‘Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon Him, the same is He that baptizeth with the Holy Spirit.’ This word comes to us as well as to John. To know what the baptism of the Spirit means, how and from whom we are to receive it we must see the One upon whom the Spirit descended and abode. We must see Jesus baptized with the Holy Ghost. We must try to understand how He needed it, how He was prepared for it, how He yielded to it, how in its power He died His death, and was raised again. What Jesus has to give us, He first received and personally appropriated for Himself ; what He received and won for Himself is all for us: He will make it our very own. Upon whom we see the Spirit abiding, He baptizeth with the Spirit.

On Christian Forums, not4you2know posted:

My problem with tongues is that so many followers of Christ have not experienced it. If it was the natural outcome of saving faith then every altar call and every confession of faith would be followed by speaking in tongues. Yet there are millions of believers who have never done this; are we then to assume that their faith is not genuine? (#167)

I (ozspen, #172) responded:

For me this problem is overcome if the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not linked with the second blessing of tongues. I do not agree that the second blessing doctrine is scriptural. See my exposition HERE.

When this second blessing doctrine is excluded, it then enables us to see all of the gifts as from God (I Cor. 12-14) and that God gives gifts according to His sovereignty. The biblical language is that the ‘varieties of gifts… varieties of service … varieties of activities’ (1 Cor. 12:4) are given with this proviso:

“All these [gifts] are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills “(1 Cor. 12:11 ESV).

This means that ALL of God’s people have gifts that have been given by the sovereign Spirit, according to the Spirit’s will.

We say, thank you, Lord for the gift(s) that you have given the body and me!

This is my understanding of the giving of gifts and there is no second blessing of the baptism with the Holy Spirit with the initial physical evidence of speaking in tongues.

JEBrady (#174) responded to my post:

One thing that nettles me about your stance (and I did read your link) is, how does a person know if they have been baptized in the Holy Spirit, and how does anyone else know if someone has been baptized in the Holy Spirit?

The scripture says not one of the Samaritans had been, but they obviously had become believers, otherwise the brothers ministering to them would not have baptized them. And if they had the Holy Spirit, why did they call for Peter and John? Same thing in Acts 19. I mean, Paul had to ask them if they got the Holy Spirit.
Thoughts?

I replied (ozspen #175):

There is not agreement in theology of the meaning of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. See these three examples.

“What is the baptism in the Holy Spirit?”

“Baptism in the Holy Spirit. What is it?”

“What is the baptism of the Holy Spirit? How does a person receive it?”

I am more persuaded to believe that the baptism with the Holy Spirit happens at salvation, based on 1 Cor. 12: 13, “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit” (ESV).

However, there may be a time subsequent to salvation when we receive a special “touch” from the Holy Spirit, but I would not describe this as a baptism in/with the Holy Spirit.

I am satisfied with the conclusion of the second article above that reads:

Baptism in the Holy Spirit – What Does It Mean To You?
To summarize, baptism in the Holy Spirit does two things. First, it identifies us spiritually with the death and resurrection of Christ, uniting us with Him. Second, baptism in the Holy Spirit joins us to the body of Christ, and identifies us as united with other believers. Practically, baptism in the Holy Spirit means we are risen with Him to newness of life (Romans 6:4), and that we should exercise our spiritual gifts to keep the body of Christ functioning properly as stated in 1 Corinthians 12:13. Experiencing baptism in the Holy Spirit serves as an exhortation to keep unity of the church (Ephesians 4:5). Being identified with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection-through baptism in the Holy Spirit-establishes the basis for realizing our separation from the power of indwelling sin and our walk in newness of life (Romans 6:1-10, Colossians 2:12).
“You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ” (Romans 8:9).

Your language seems to indicate that you expect people to experience something so that you know they have been baptised in the Holy Spirit (after salvation): “How does a person know if they have been baptized in the Holy Spirit, and how does anyone else know if someone has been baptized in the Holy Spirit?”

This is how I thought as a classic Pentecostal, but there is no need to think like that when I accept that the baptism of the Holy Spirit it received at salvation. The only evidence should be a changed life and desire to fellowship with the people of God.

See my article, “Tongues and the baptism of the Holy Spirit“.

Whytehouse designs

Does regeneration precede faith in Christian salvation?

By Spencer D Gear

When the Gospel of Jesus Christ is proclaimed to unbelievers and they respond to salvation, what happens first in the new convert – faith, repentance, regeneration or something else? When growing up in the evangelical church, I understood that regeneration referred to God’s work of causing me to be born again by the Spirit when I was saved. Was this correct or not?

Let’s read some prominent Calvinists.

Views of some leading Calvinists

R C Sproul states: “In regeneration, God changes our hearts. He gives us a new disposition, a new inclination. He plants a desire for Christ in our hearts. We can never trust Christ for our salvation unless we first desire Him. This is why we said earlier that regeneration precedes faith” (1985, p. 186, emphasis added). Elsewhere, Sproul wrote. “Repentance is not the cause of new birth or regeneration; it is the result or fruit of regeneration” (1992, p. 193).

J I Packer’s view is that “regeneration is monergistic: that is, entirely the work of God the Holy Spirit. It raises the elect among the spiritually dead to new life in Christ (Eph. 2:1-10). Regeneration is a transition from spiritual death to spiritual life, and conscious, intentional, active faith in Christ is its immediate fruit, not its immediate cause” (1993, p. 158). This is a gentle theological way of saying that regeneration precedes faith.

Charles Hodge considers that “regeneration does not consist in any act or acts of the soul…. Regeneration is an act of God…. It is God who regenerates. The soul is regenerated. In this sense the soul is passive in regeneration, which (subjectively considered) is a change wrought in us…. Regeneration subjectively considered, or viewed as an effect or change wrought in the soul, is not an act…. Regeneration is declared to be a new birth…. The first conscious exercise of the renewed soul is faith; as the first conscious act of a man born blind whose eyes have been opened, is seeing” (1975, pp. 7, 31, 32, 35, 41). So, the renewed, born again, soul receives regeneration and then exercises faith – regeneration precedes faith.

Wayne Grudem maintains that “Scripture indicates that regeneration must come before we can respond to effective calling with saving faith. Therefore we can say that regeneration comes before the result of effective calling (our faith). But it is more difficult to specify the exact relationship in time between regeneration and the human proclamation of the gospel through which God works in effective calling. At least two passages suggest that God regenerates us at the same time as he speaks to us in effective calling [1 Peter 1:23, 25 and James 1:18 NIV]” (1994, p. 700).

With this kind of thinking among leading Reformed thinkers, it is not surprising that it is conveyed to the people in contemporary Calvinistic churches.

The online Calvinists’ views

I’ve been doing some blogging (I’m ozspen) on Christian Forums and came across some Reformed Baptists who claim that regeneration precedes faith. Here are some of their statements:

“With all due respect if there’s no scriptural support for it [regeneration preceding faith] why are there truckloads of articles and sermons and books and church councils and creeds and confessions and statements of faith that use scripture to support it?… For example, here’s a giant article with links to at least 2 1-hour sermons on the topic and scripture is used the entire time.
Jesus Teaches Monergistic Regeneration by John Hendryx ” (Skala #23)

“Not “whosoever believes will be born of God,” but has been. You believe because you have been born of God. You are not born of God because you believe” (faceofbear #60).

“And regeneration happens temporally at the same time as faith. It’s not as if you are regenerated and then at a later point in time you have faith. It’s simultaneous. What we mean by regeneration precedes faith is that regeneration is necessary for a man to exercise faith. As prior to regeneration he is spiritually dead and hostile to God and cannot understand the spiritual things of God” (Skala #69);

But wait a minute: What is regeneration?

Let’s check a few theological definitions of the meaning of regeneration:

Charles Hodge, the Calvinist, claims there is “a consent almost universal” that the word regeneration “is now used to designate, not the whole work of sanctification, nor the first stages of that work comprehended in [Christian] conversion, much less justification or any mere external change of state, but the instantaneous change from spiritual death to spiritual life. Regeneration, therefore, is a spiritual resurrection: the beginning of a new life” (1975, p. 5).

Henry Thiessen, a non-Calvinist, states that “from the divine side, the change of heart is called regeneration, the new birth; from the human side it is called conversion. In regeneration the soul is passive; in conversion … it is active. We may define regeneration as the communication of divine life to the soul (John 3:5; 10:10, 28; 1 John 5:11, 12), as the impartation of a new nature (2 Pet. 1:4) or heart (Jer. 24:7; Ezek. 11:19; 36:26), and the production of a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:10; 4:24)” (Thiessen 1949, p. 367).

Wayne Grudem, a Calvinist, defines regeneration as follows: “Regeneration is a secret act of God in which he imparts new spiritual life to us. This is sometimes called ‘being born again’ (using language from John 3:3-8)” (Grudem 1994, p. 699).

John Miley, an Arminian, states briefly that “to be born of God is to be born into his family, and to become his child. Sonship is thus immediately from regeneration. This is the clear meaning of the Scriptures” such as John 1:12-13 and Galatians 3:26-27 (1989, p. 397).

Let’s check out a couple of leading exponents of Reformed theology to see what they think of the idea of regeneration preceding faith.

What was John Calvin’s view?

I was reading in Calvin’s Institutes where he equates repentance with regeneration. John Calvin in Institutes of the Christian Religion, III.3.9-10, wrote:

9. Both of these we obtain by union with Christ. For if we have true fellowship in his death, our old man is crucified by his power, and the body of sin becomes dead, so that the corruption of our original nature is never again in full vigor (Rom. 6:5, 6). If we are partakers in his resurrection, we are raised up by means of it to newness of life, which conforms us to the righteousness of God. In one word, then, by repentance I understand regeneration, French, “une regeneration spirituelle;”—a spiritual regeneration. the only aim of which is to form in us anew the image of God, which was sullied, and all but effaced by the transgression of Adam. So the Apostle teaches when he says, “We all with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord.” Again, “Be renewed in the spirit of your minds” and “put ye on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” Again, “Put ye on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.” 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:23, 24; Col. 3:10; 2 Cor. 4:16. Accordingly through the blessing of Christ we are renewed by that regeneration into the righteousness of God from which we had fallen through Adam, the Lord being pleased in this manner to restore the integrity of all whom he appoints to the inheritance of life. This renewal, indeed, is not accomplished in a moment, a day, or a year, but by uninterrupted, sometimes even by slow progress God abolishes the remains of carnal corruption in his elect, cleanses them from pollution, and consecrates them as his temples, restoring all their inclinations to real purity, so that during their whole lives they may practice repentance, and know that death is the only termination to this warfare. The greater is the effrontery of an impure raver and apostate, named Staphylus, who pretends that I confound the condition of the present life with the celestial glory, when, after Paul, I make the image of God to consist in righteousness and true holiness; as if in every definition it were not necessary to take the thing defined in its integrity and perfection. It is not denied that there is room for improvement; but what I maintain is, that the nearer any one approaches in resemblance to God, the more does the image of God appear in him. That believers may attain to it, God assigns repentance as the goal towards which they must keep running during the whole course of their lives.

10. By regeneration the children of God are delivered from the bondage of sin, but not as if they had already obtained full possession of freedom, and no longer felt any annoyance from the flesh. Materials for an unremitting contest remain, that they may be exercised, and not only exercised, but may better understand their weakness. All writers of sound judgment agree in this, that, in the regenerate man, there is still a spring of evil which is perpetually sending forth desires that allure and stimulate him to sin… (my emphasis).

There is no mention here of regeneration/repentance prior to faith.

What about that Calvinistic stalwart, C H Spurgeon?

C. H. Spurgeon (image courtesy The Spurgeon Archive)

If the theology of regeneration prior to faith is alleged to be true, it is a “ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him”, says C H Spurgeon. It is ridiculous because Spurgeon would be preaching faith to a person who was already saved. It would be preaching Christ to one who is already regenerated.

C H Spurgeon, in his sermon, “The Warrant of Faith”, seems to write against the idea that regeneration precedes faith:

Others say that the warrant for a sinner to believe in Christ is his election. Now, as his election cannot possibly be known by any man until he has believed, this is virtually preaching that nobody has any known warrant for believing at all. If I cannot possibly know my election before I believe—and yet the minister tells me that I may only believe upon the ground of my election—how am I ever to believe at all? Election brings me faith, and faith is the evidence of my election; but to say that my faith is to depend upon my knowledge of my election, which I cannot get without faith. is to talk egregious nonsense.
I lay down this morning with great boldness—because I know and am well persuaded that what I speak is the mind of the Spirit—this doctrine that the sole and only warrant for a sinner to believe in Jesus is found in the gospel itself and in the command which accompanies that gospel, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” I shall deal with that matter first of all, negatively, and then, positively.
1. First, NEGATIVELY; and here my first observation is that any other way of preaching the gospel-warrant is absurd. If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. But you will tell me that I ought to preach it only to those who repent of their sins. Very well; but since true repentance of sin is the work of the Spirit, any man who has repentance is most certainly saved, because evangelical repentance never can exist in an unrenewed soul. Where there is repentance there is faith already, for they never can be separated. So, then, I am only to preach faith to those who have it. Absurd, indeed! Is not this waiting till the man is cured and then bringing him the medicine? This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners. “Nay,” saith one, “but we mean that a man must have some good desires towards Christ before he has any warrant to believe in Jesus.” Friend, do you not know what all good desires have some degree of holiness in them? But if a sinner hath any degree of true holiness in him it must be the work of the Spirit, for true holiness never exists in the carnal mind, therefore, that man is already renewed, and therefore saved. Are we to go running up and down the world, proclaiming life to the living, casting bread to those who are fed already, and holding up Christ on the pole of the gospel to those who are already healed? My brethren, where is our inducement to labour where our efforts are so little needed? If I am to preach Christ to those who have no goodness, who have nothing in them that qualifies them for mercy, then I feel I have a gospel so divine that I would proclaim it with my last breath, crying aloud, that “Jesus came into the world to save sinners“—sinners as sinners, not as penitent sinners or as awakened sinners, but sinners as sinners, sinners “of whom I am chief.”
Secondly, to tell the sinner that he is to believe on Christ because of some warrant in himself, is legal, I dare to say it—legal. Though this method is generally adopted by the higher school of Calvinists, they are herein unsound, uncalvinistic, and legal; it is strange that they who are so bold defenders of free grace should make common cause with Baxterians and Pelagians.

Spurgeon rightly states that it is an “unnecessary and ridiculous thing” to preach Christ to a person who is already regenerate. If regeneration happens first, then he is preaching Christ to people who already have it. Regeneration prior to faith is unbiblical theology and Spurgeon admits it up front.

But elsewhere he makes statements of regeneration prior to faith.

We see this particularly in his sermon, “Faith and Regeneration“, where he states:

“We must now pass on to show that WHEREVER IT [FAITH] EXISTS IT IS THE PROOF OF REGENERATION” in his sermon on.

“Faith in the living God and his Son Jesus Christ is always the result of the new birth, and can never exist except in the regenerate. Whoever has faith is a saved man”.

“Many men refuse to see more than one side of a doctrine, and persistently fight against anything which is not on its very surface consistent with their own idea. In the present case I do not find it difficult to believe faith to be at the same time the duty of man and the gift of God.”

So, he is making two apparently contradictory statements: (1) Regeneration precedes faith (this is the equivalent of irresistible grace), and (2) “If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate” (reference above).

Which is it to be? Regeneration prior to faith OR regeneration is NOT prior to faith?

What do the Scriptures state?

Surely this is the key factor. There are verses in Scripture, when understood in context, that teach that faith is logically prior to salvation/regeneration. Check out Luke 13:3; John 3:6-7, 16; Acts 16:31; Romans 3:24-25; 5:1; Titus 3:5-7; and 2 Peter 3:9.

Let’s examine these Scriptures individually.

Luke 13:3: “No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (ESV).[1]

To avoid judgment (perishing), this verse says that the condition is NOT regeneration first, but repentance. So, for anyone to experience salvation, repentance is required. This is a consistent message of Scripture (eg Acts 2:38; 3:19; 8:22; 17:30; 26:20). These verses do not enforce the theology that regeneration must precede faith.

John 3:6-7, 16: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again'” (John 3:6-7). “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

New birth occurs at regeneration. Who is the creator of this new spiritual life? God Himself! In this chapter of John 3, Jesus makes it clear that faith is the condition for being born again, receiving the new birth, or being saved to experience eternal life. He states that “whoever believes in him may have eternal life” (3:15) and “whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (3:16).
What is the means to the end of somebody obtaining salvation or becoming regenerate? Faith! The one who BELIEVES (has faith). That’s a conclusion reached by contextual hermeneutics (interpretation).

Acts 16:31: ‘And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you^(B) and your household”‘.

“[You] Believe in the Lord Jesus” and the person will be saved along with his household. The order is the same as for the verses in John 3; “belief” comes before salvation; thus faith is the condition on which a person receives God’s salvation through the Lord Jesus.

Romans 3:24-25: “And are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins”

This incredible passage on justification mentions that justification and propitiation are “received by faith”. Yes, God planned this eternal life from before the world came into being (2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2) and, thus, before anyone could receive this justification and propitiation, God planned that justification would be “received by faith”. This pattern is consistent in the NT that faith is first (eg John 17:20; Acts 16:31; Rom. 3:22; 10:9, 14; 1 Cor 1:21; Gal 3:22; etc, etc).

These verses are very clear that justification and propitiation for believers are received “by faith”. This is not eisegesis, but solid exegesis with contextual interpretation.[2]

Romans 5:1: “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ”.

The text is very clear that justification is received “by faith”. While God is the source through our Lord Jesus Christ, there is no statement here that justification (or regeneration) is the means by which we receive salvation. Justification comes “by faith”. Faith logically precedes justification.

Titus 3:5-7: “He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, butaccording to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life”.

It is true that these three verses do not use the word “faith” but that regeneration and justification came to us “by his grace”. However this is not a statement to support the view that regeneration precedes faith.
Please note the very next verse where faith (believe) demonstrates faith’s necessity according to Titus 3:8: “The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people” (ESV). FAITH, those who believe, comes before good works. Faith is the means to salvation as v. 8 demonstrates and this leads to believers devoting themselves to the ministry of good works.

Eph. 2:8-9 is an explicit parallel to these verses in Titus, also written by Paul, where it is very definite that believers are “saved through faith“: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (ESV).

2 Peter 3:9 states, “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance“.

The order here is that repentance comes before salvation/rescuing from perishing. The context is the day of the Lord coming (3:1-13) and scoffers coming in the last days (3:3) and challenging, “Where is the promise of his coming?” (3:4). Then there is a description of the heavens and the earth existing and being formed “by the word of God” (3:5). Then the deluge (great flood). By that same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire by the same word of God when judgment and destruction are coming on the ungodly(3:7).

How will people avoid this judgment and destruction? Contextual interpretation indicates that God is patient, not wanting any to perish and all to come to repentance (3:9). This is a core verse in the passage because it gives God’s remedy for escaping the judgment and destruction: “All should reach repentance”.

What about this verse?

Romans 10:17, in the ESV, states the order of salvation clearly: “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ”.

It does not say that faith comes from a preceding regeneration. The initial reading of the verse indicates that faith is produced by hearing the word of Christ and the word of Christ comes before faith. Here, the order that leads to salvation, by inference, is that someone is sent; there is preaching or evangelism; there is hearing of the word of Christ, and there is believing.

Conclusion

I have provided biblical support for the view that God is the source of salvation / regeneration and that a person’s faith/repentance is the means to receive that salvation.

The monergism[3] (that accompanies a view of irresistible grace) that Calvinists support (and reject synergism[4]) does not have biblical support in my understanding of Scripture (some details are above).

The scriptures are clear that human beings can resist the grace of God and some do that (Matt. 23:37) but God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to salvation/repentance (1 Tim. 2:3-5; 2 Peter 3:9). That’s what one would expect from the loving God (1 John 4:16) who loves everyone (John 3:16) and wants all to come to salvation/repentance (1 Tim. 2:3).

Synergism (God’s grace working with human free will) is God’s way for human beings to be saved. God’s gift must be received for regeneration, justification, propitiation, salvation to be experienced by any person. God acts and people receive. That’s Bible.

It is evident from the Scriptures that the Calvinistic doctrine on regeneration preceding faith is short on biblical evidence – it is in error. In addition, as Spurgeon has stated so well, it is ridiculous to preach the Gospel of Christ to someone who is already regenerated. Why preach faith in Christ for salvation to somebody who is already born again by the Spirit?

Regeneration preceding faith is described by Spurgeon as ridiculous, unsound, uncalvinistic, and legal. Sure sounds like he doesn’t believe in this error that is promoted by other Calvinists! But he is inconsistent, as quoted above. He does believe that “wherever [faith] exists it is the proof of regeneration”.

Notes:

[1] Unless otherwise stated, all Bible quotations are from the English Standard Version (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Bibles, 2001).

[2] When I presented these verses that I’m discussing here, on Christian Forums, I was told that “it seems to me that not a single verse you asserted teaches that regeneration precedes faith actually has anything to do with it at all. I am scared that you have read into these passages something that is not there. That’s called eisegesis” (Christian Forums –>Congregation–>Christian Communities–>Baptists, “John 1:11-13, Receiving Christ”, 2 April 2011, Skala # 112, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7545666-12/#post57130679 , accessed 2 April 2011).

[3] The “Monergism” website provides this definition of monergism: “The view that the Holy Spirit is the only agent who effects regeneration of Christians. It is in contrast with synergism, the view that there is a cooperation between the divine and the human in the regeneration process. Monergism is a redemptive blessing purchased by Christ for those the Father has given Him (1 Pet 1:3, John 3:5,6, 6:37, 39). This grace works independently of any human cooperation and conveys that power into the fallen soul whereby the person who is to be saved is effectually enabled to respond to the gospel call (John 1:13; Acts 2:39, 13:48; Rom 9:16)” (available at: http://www.monergism.com/ , accessed 3 April 2011).

[4] What is synergism? The evangelical Arminians state: ‘I believe the term “synergism” is not always accurately applied to the Arminian position. The word comes from the Greek synergos, which essentially means “working together”. While monergism (to work alone) may be an acceptable label for what Calvinists believe (God does all the work in salvation), synergism does not always rightly portray what Arminians have historically believed.

‘’The word itself, when taken in a grammatically strict sense, is not a very good description of what Arminians believe regarding salvation. Arminians do not believe that both God and man “work” together in salvation. We believe that we are saved “by faith from first to last” (Rom. 1:17). Since faith is antithetical to works (Rom. 3:20-28; 4:2-5; 9:32; 10:5, 6; Gal. 2:16; 3:2, 5; Eph. 2:8, 9; Phil. 3:9), it is a misnomer to label Arminian soteriology as synergistic in the strictest sense of the word.

‘Arminian theology, when rightly understood, teaches that salvation is monergistic. God alone does the saving. God alone regenerates the soul that is dead in sin. God alone forgives and justifies on the merits of Christ’s blood. God alone makes us holy and righteous. In all of these ways salvation is entirely monergistic. The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is whether or not God’s saving work is conditional or unconditional. Arminians believe that God will not save until we meet the God ordained condition of faith. Faith may be understood as synergistic only in the sense that God graciously enables us to believe, but we are the ones who must decide whether or not we will believe” (Society of Evangelical Arminians, “Is Arminian theology synergistic?”, available at: http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/27, accessed 3 April 2011).