Originally Posted by elnwood

I agree with you. I have said this numerous times. Regeneration precedes faith. The question is not whether regeneration precedes the faith in the gospel. The question is whether regeneration can occur before the preaching of the gospel.

I see the general order as follows:
1. Content of the gospel is preached to the sinner, thus calling the sinner to repent and believe.
2. God regenerates the sinner, enabling the sinner to respond in faith.
3. Sinner responds in faith.
4. Sinner's faith is credited as righteous (imputation).

So the question is: can #2 happen apart from #1?

Originally Posted by elnwood

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure where you're going with this. What are you asking about John 3:8? I believe in monergistic regeneration. I'm not an Arminian.

Originally Posted by Peter

The order of preaching then regeneration is the normal chronological order but there is no logical necessity for that order. The purpose of the external call of the gospel is to get people to accept it with faith, the condition of the new covenant, there is no need for it in the order of salvation. It is purely a means to an end, namely faith. And if it is true regeneration must occur before faith is possible and may precede it for some time then the external call can also occur any time between regeneration and conversion. Why do you think hearing the gospel is necessarily prior to or indispensable to regeneration?

Originally Posted by elnwood

Good question that goes to the heart of the issue. Probably just for the reason that you stated, that this the normal chronological order. Monergism lists it as follows:

"In the Reformed camp, the ordo salutis is 1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30)"

I agree that logically that the external call is not necessary for regeneration, and that the Holy Spirit can regenerate apart from it, but it seems to me that this is the way that God chooses to operates.

The Reformed ordo salutis is not written in stone, but I would need more evidence to be convinced that God acts in a manner different than the ordo salutis in the case of infants.

Originally Posted by Peter

The order of preaching then regeneration is the normal chronological order but there is no logical necessity for that order. The purpose of the external call of the gospel is to get people to accept it with faith, the condition of the new covenant, there is no need for it in the order of salvation. It is purely a means to an end, namely faith. And if it is true regeneration must occur before faith is possible and may precede it for some time then the external call can also occur any time between regeneration and conversion. Why do you think hearing the gospel is necessarily prior to or indispensable to regeneration?

Originally Posted by elnwood

Hey Bruce.

I'm not going to rehash all the arguments again. I think we know fairly well where we stand.
..........
I'm not sure how productive future discussions will be since I think we both know where we stand, but if you want to discuss one in particular, and go from there, pick one out, give your exegesis, and we'll go from there.

Originally Posted by Scott Bushey

Don, you never addressed my statement about the imbecile.

Originally Posted by elnwood

Hmmm. Could you rephrase your statement? I'm not familiar with the term imbecile other than as an insult. What exactly do you mean by the term?

Originally Posted by satz

I don't see where the bible says that regeneration is associated with preaching. John 3:8 says the Spirit goes wherever it pleases (as far as regeneration is concerned) and no one can even tell or see where it goes. Not even gospel preaching can 'influence' the Spirit in that sense. The verse goes on to say you can't tell where the wind is going, but you can hear the sound thereof, or you can experience the effects. Thus you cannot control the Holy Spirit's work in regeneration, but you can see the effects, ie when someone believes the gospel.

Consider also the case of Cornelius (Acts 10), who is described as 'devout', 'fearing God', and that his prayers had 'come up for a memorial before God', surely the marks of a regenerate man, yet this was long before he even met Peter and had the gospel preached to him.

Originally Posted by elnwood

I would think that Cornelius had been saved the same way that the Old Testament saints were, that is, by faith in the coming messiah. Believing in Christ would have been the fulfillment of that faith, but I don't think that his faith was not credited to him as righteousness until after Christ was preached to him.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Here is where you now reach problems. You say a belief in substitutionary atonement is sufficient. But the gospel does not teach any substitutionary atonement, but only that which was made by Christ. You sense the insufficiency of saying substitutionary atonement on its own, so you add the promises of God. What you are saying is that the promise of God is the distinguishing factor.

Now I will go back to my original question. What is it that makes an adult capable of regeneration which doesn't also include infants? You mentioned the ability to receive the gospel. But you have made it clear by you affirmation of the salvation of OT saints that the deciding factor is the promise of God. All that is required now, is to show that the promises of God include children.

For this Bruce has already provided you with numerous examples. I would simply explain all of those examples under one principle which conclusively proves the inclusion of children in the promise -- solidarity.

Consider Deut. 5. Who did God make His covenant with? The generation at Mt. Horeb. But speaking to the next generation on the borders of the promised land, Moses says, "The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day," verse 3. Consider Ps. 66:6, "He turned the sea into dry land: they went throught the flood on foot: there did we rejoice in him." Consider Levi paying tithes through Abraham though still in the loins of his father. Consider Moses exercising faith in his parents hiding him. Consider all those places in the gospel where Christ heals individuals because of the faith of their relations and friends.

The promise of God makes the difference, not our ability to rationally understand the gospel. The promise of God applies as equally to unborn infants as to the hoary head.

Originally Posted by Scott Bushey

The above shows that you are confusing regeneration w/ conversion.

Originally Posted by Scott Bushey

I disagree with what Peter wrote here:


Regeneration is solely an act of Gods spirit. It happens prior to the preaching so that Gods elect are able "to see the kingdom of God". All the preaching in the world will do nothing unless the vessel has been primed. See the passage above from John 3.

Originally Posted by Scott Bushey

An imbecile is mentally retarded; unable to understand, much like the child. Based upon your statements, all those whom die outside of understanding, perish.

Originally Posted by Peter

No you don't. 1st, I was talking about a chronological order. A time sequence. I never said preaching effects regeneration. 2nd, its possible there is some preparation for regeneration through preaching so long as it is held the man was completely spiritually dead until the very moment of the infusion of new life, as Van Mastricht says in p 28, 29.

Nonetheless, the point is that preaching is only necessary as the means to bring faith. Yet the second act of faith is not necessary to regeneration. Therefore preaching is not necessary to regeneration.

Originally Posted by elnwood

I don't think so. I just think that Cornelius was both regenerated and converted before he was told about Christ, same as the Old Testament saints. Wait, unless you are saying that the Old Testament saints were regenerated, but were never converted until Christ came?

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Let's go back a step. How do the fathers believe on what has not yet been manifested? You cannot say the "content" is the same for them and for NT believers in terms of its rational understanding. If it was, the Epistle to the Hebrews has no basis for telling the Hebrews to proceed past the laying of the foundation. What makes the "content" of faith the same is the promise of God, which they saw afar off. And newborn Moses is specifically included amongst those who embraced the promises of God from a distance.

Now, if it is the promise of God that makes the difference, and if this thread is concerned with the question as to whether the "difference" can be applied to infants, then quite obviously the question of whether the promise applies to infants IS relevant. Your refusal to deal with that question is self serving to your cause of denying infant regneration.

Originally Posted by Scott Bushey

Conversion requires the preached word; Cornelius could not have been converted until after the message was preached.

Romans 10:13-14 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Originally Posted by Scott Bushey