CALLING, FAITH, THEN REGENERATION:

THE PRIORITY OF FAITH TO REGENERATION IN BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

Introduction

In Calvinistic theology there has historically been a predominant insistence that regeneration must
be logically prior to our initial faith in Christ in the order of salvation. In fact, some will insist that
to deny this is to reject something distinctive to Calvinism. Categorically, it is thought, the belief
that regeneration precedes faith is definitional to Calvinistic soteriology.

However, this is problematic on a number of levels.1 First, Calvin himself is not as uniform in his
use of the term “regeneration” or its relation to faith as some of his contemporary followers have
imagined. For example, in his commentary on John 1:13, he says in no uncertain terms, “faith does
not proceed from ourselves, but is the fruit of spiritual regeneration.” Yet, in his comments on John
1:12, he also says, “for he says that by faith they obtain this glory of being reckoned the sons of
God.” While Calvin does not use the precise term “regeneration,” he clearly places birth from God
(i.e., becoming “sons of God”) after faith. Yet, being the thoughtful exegete he was, Calvin
immediately acknowledges the problem this reading appears to create for him. He goes on to argue
essentially that it is both true that regeneration precedes faith and that faith precedes regeneration:

It may be thought that the Evangelist reverses the natural order by making regeneration to
precede faith, whereas, on the contrary, it is an effect of faith, and therefore ought to be
placed later. I reply, that both statements perfectly agree; because by faith we receive the
incorruptible seed, (1 Pet. 1:23) by which we are born again to a new and divine life. And
yet faith itself is a work of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in none but the children of God. So
then, in various respects, faith is a part of our regeneration, and an entrance into the
kingdom of God, that he may reckon us among his children. The illumination of our minds
by the Holy Spirit belongs to our renewal, and thus faith flows from regeneration as from
its source; but since it is by the same faith that we receive Christ, who sanctifies us by his
Spirit, on that account it is said to be the beginning of our adoption. (emphasis added)

Calvin was trying to sort out two related biblical truths. He sees the necessity of a prior and
effectual divine work to create life and for one to trust Christ and enter the kingdom. Yet, he seems
also to recognize that regeneration is related to the biblical concept of our being born into God’s
family, which explicitly follows faith in the text at hand. The confusion is created because Calvin
employs the same term, regeneration, for both the prior and effectual work of God that brings one
to faith and for the subsequent reckoning of the believer as a child of God. Evidently, regeneration
is a more complex and multifaceted concept in Calvin’s thinking than for some of his
contemporary followers. However, it is still more complex for Calvin. The Institutes reveal that

1
A number of Calvinist thinkers have expressed reservation with the idea that regeneration precedes faith. Theodore
Beza, Calvin’s good friend and successor at Geneva, argued explicitly in his work, The Christian Faith, that
regeneration, along with sanctification, are graces given in Christ after faith. It is unclear to me if he, like Calvin, also
believed we are regenerated in a different sense prior to faith. More recently, two notable systematic theologians have
advanced the position that faith is prior to regeneration: Bruce A. Demarest, The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine
of Salvation, Foundations of Evangelical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1997), 39–44; Millard J. Erickson,
Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 861-75.
Calvin believed the term regeneration to be malleable enough to incorporate what systematic
theologians normally mean by progressive sanctification leading to glorification. Calvin writes:

In one word, then, by repentance I understand 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…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.
(Institutes 3.3.9, my emphasis)

Here, regeneration is not simply God’s lifegiving grace visited on those dead in sin that effectively
brings them to faith, but it is presented as a process at work throughout the entire Christian life
wherein the believer is progressively restored to the purity of humanity’s original state free from
sin’s corruption. Clearly, taken this way, it makes little sense to say that regeneration precedes
faith. With this sort of complexity within Calvin himself, it seems wrongheaded of contemporary
Calvinists to insist that the belief in the priority of regeneration to faith is definitional to Calvinism.
We must imagine that Calvin was a better Calvinist than anyone since! So, his dynamic use of the
term in question ought to allow for some biblical nuance and careful development of the shared
theological distinctives of those who have found explanatory value Calvin’s expositions of
scripture and theology.

In what follows, I want to share why I think Calvin’s views offer meaningful theological insight
while also inviting more precise exegetical nuance on the question of the relationship of faith to
regeneration. I want to offer a biblical corrective to the tendency among Calvinists to wrongly use
the term “regeneration” in their interpretation of biblical texts that do not seem to have regeneration
in view.2 Thus, I am going to make some exegetical observations that suggest the view that
regeneration precedes faith, while seeking rightly to maintain the distinctive—and I think
biblical—Calvinist insistence on the necessity of a prior and effectual divine work that infallibly
results in faith, ultimately lacks biblical warrant. Through a study of the theme of regeneration, I
will demonstrate that this effectual divine work is never called “regeneration” in the NT. Instead,
the survey of relevant biblical material that follows will show that the precise term and concept
have restricted meanings, including participation in the new creation and our adoption into God’s
family, both of which follow faith. Still, there is also ample warrant for maintaining the Calvinist
belief in the necessity of a prior and effective divine work that infallibly results in the faith of the
objects of this divine action. Rather than label this necessary prior and effectual work regeneration,

2
An illustration of this can be found in Wayne Grudem’s popular Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical
Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994). In arguing that regeneration comes prior to faith (pp. 702-4) he engages
with several classical proof-texts that do not use the term “regeneration,” and one passage (John 6:44, 65) that I doubt
even addresses the concept (see below), but does not even reference the only two passages in the Bible that use the
term (Matt 19:28; Tit 3:5). This trend suggests that there is opportunity to find greater precision in the use of this
important biblical and theological terminology.
I suggest that it can be more properly identified, on biblical terms, as the effectual call. Admittedly,
this is work is largely a call for better semantic nuance in this discussion.

I. The Term “Regeneration”

The Greek term translated “regeneration” (παλιγγενεσία) occurs only twice in the NT (Matt 19:28;
Tit 3:5). In Matt 19:28, “the regeneration” is the consummate new creation and is not applied in
this context to individual soteriology, making this instance of limited value for addressing the
question at hand. However, this verse alerts us to an important word of caution that we should
heed. Coljin observes, “Especially among conservative Christians, regeneration is typically
thought of in individual terms. In the New Testament, however, it also has corporate and cosmic
dimensions.”3 The point is, our personal regeneration is about participation in God’s grander work
to recreate the cosmos which has been inaugurated with Christ’s death and resurrection and will
be consummated at the new creation (Isa 65:17; 66:22; Acts 3:21; 2 Pet 3:7–13; Rev 21:1).

In Tit 3:5, the individual application of the Bible’s grander vision regeneration comes into focus.
The term occurs here as part of a constellation of soteriological terms that explain the means by
which God has redeemed his people—“not by works which we did in righteousness, but according
to his mercy, he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.”4
Paul goes on in the following verses to describe the out pouring of the Spirit, justification by divine
grace, adoption as heirs, and the hope of eternal life. Discerning the precise meaning of
regeneration in this context is difficult, especially with our question regarding its relation to faith.
Faith is not explicitly mentioned, though it is implicit with the contrast to righteous works and
mention of justification, which in Pauline theology is always conditioned on faith. But this
observation does not tell us whether faith precedes or results from regeneration.

Perhaps the best clue we have for discerning the meaning of regeneration here is the grammar Paul
employees. That is, Paul speaks here of salvation “through the washing of regeneration and
renewal of the Holy Spirit” (διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος ἁγίου). The
use of genitives here makes it difficult to determine with certainty the precise syntactical
relationships Paul intended. It is unclear whether only “regeneration” modifies “washing” or if
Paul intends for both “regeneration” and “renewal” to modify it. Also, it is most likely the case
that “of the Holy Spirit” represents a subjective genitive (i.e., the Spirit is the agent of
regeneration). But does Paul imagine that the Spirit only renews, or does he also regenerate? Either
is technically possible. However, it is most natural to take “washing” as modified by both
“regeneration” and “renewal,” which are essentially synonymous, and “the Holy Spirit” is best
taken as a subjective genitive modifying both. Thus, Paul speaks here of a “washing” somehow
associated with the Holy Spirit’s regenerating-renewing work.

But to what does this washing refer? Although it tends to scandalize modern Evangelical minds,
among NT scholars, there is a broad consensus that it at least alludes to water baptism.5 In his

3
Brenda B. Colijn, Images of Salvation in the New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010), 103.
4
All translations of the Bible are my own rendering of the original Hebrew or Greek respectively.
5
See esp. George R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Milton Kaynes, UK: Poternoster, 1962), 209-
16. On the broader issue of the relation of baptism to conversion, I commend the collection of essays Believer’s
commentary on the passage, Calvin says, “I have no doubt that he alludes, at least, to baptism, and
even I will not object to have this passage expounded as relating to baptism; not that salvation is
contained in the outward symbol of water, but because baptism seals to us the salvation obtained
by Christ.” As Schreiner notes, “it is hard to believe that early believers would not think
immediately of water baptism when reading the words washing and cleansing.”6 This fits well
with other texts in Paul. In Rom 6:3–4, Paul says that baptism marks the believer’s union with
Christ in his death and participation in his resurrection. Those who thus partake in the resurrection
now walk in newness of life. Likewise, 1 Cor 6:11 speaks of the believer having been
“washed…sanctified…justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
Bird comments, “cleansing and sanctification are coordinate to justification and all three elements
are said to be results of the Spirit’s activity.”7 These observations and parallels are significant.
When we consider them and the only other use of the term “regeneration,” the meaning of Tit 3:5
and its relevance to the question at hand comes into focus.

For the earliest Christians, water baptism marked one’s conversion as a pledge of faith and an
enactment of participation in Christ’s death and resurrection. Since baptism normally took place
immediately in response to the gospel, it was used as a synecdoche with reference to the whole of
conversion by the earliest Christians, including the NT authors. Thus, any distinction between faith
and baptism that contemporary Christians assume would have been considered artificial for the
earliest Christians. In the NT, baptism was how one expressed their allegiance to Jesus.8 As Peter
says, “baptism now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the flesh, but as a sincere appeal to
God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet 1:21). In baptism one is united to Christ to
share in his death and resurrection. In the first sermon recorded in Acts, Peter tells those who
wanted to respond positively to his message that they must “repent and be baptized for the
forgiveness of sins” and that those who do “will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).
Baptism was not distinguished from faith but was considered a necessary expression of it, since
here it stands in the place of faith along with repentance. Thus, Paul reports that when he was
converted, he was told to “be baptized and wash away your sins, thereby calling on his name”
(Acts 22:16). Repentance, believing, calling on the Lord’s name, and baptism, were all one and
the same act in NT. Importantly, this is when the Spirit was first experienced, who ushers the one
thus united to Christ into the new creation, as in Tit 3:5–6 (cf. 2 Cor 5:17). Those who pledged
their allegiance to Jesus by being baptized were assured of their forgiveness and blessed with the
Holy Spirit. It is at this point that one experienced the new life of regeneration. In other words,
“Through the Holy Spirit, those who believe in Christ can now experience in part the
eschatological renewal promised at the consummation.”9

Therefore, in baptism, as an expression of faith, trust, and allegiance to Jesus, the Spirit regenerates
the believer as he/she is granted resurrection life in the new creation. Paul leaves no doubt that this

Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, eds. Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright (Nashville: B&H
Publishing, 2006).
6
Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology, 2nd ed (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2020), 413.
7
Michael F. Bird, The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective (Eugene,
OR: Wipf and Stock, 2007), 103.
8
And, I should note, that there is no evidence that the earliest Christians baptized infants, since infants cannot
possibly pledge their loyalty to Christ if baptism is so administered.
9
Colijn, Images of Salvation, 104.
transaction is entirely an act of divine grace. God’s “kindness” (Tit 3:4) and “grace” (Tit 3:7) are
the source of this saving work. It is not a divine response to “works of righteousness” but a pure
act of divine “mercy” (Tit 3:5). In considering the nature of regeneration, priority must be given
to texts that explicitly use the term. The sense of Tit 3:5, with its connection of regeneration to
baptism, is most consistent with the view that regeneration happens when we believe, not before.
The Spirit effects regeneration and renewal “through the washing [of baptism]” which is an
expression of faith.

II. Texts, Themes, and Images Related to Regeneration

Having considered the only passages that use the term regeneration, we can move on to other texts
that appear to be related in some way to the concept of regeneration. There are primarily two types
which have been used to argue that regeneration precedes faith. (1) A number of biblical passages
speak of a unilateral divine work that precedes human faith, apparently precluding the possibility
of human faith prior to this divine work. Significantly, in such passages human inability to respond
positively to God prior to this effective divine work is either stated explicitly or reasonable to infer.
(2) Other texts use the language of new divine birth as a metaphor of salvation in Christ. In
addressing these two types of texts, I will show why I do not believe careful exegesis warrants the
conclusion that regeneration precedes faith, even though they paint a portrait giving testimony to
a necessary and infallible divine work that precedes and effects human faith. After this analysis, I
will conclude by offering a theological synthesis of my findings that I think expresses with more
nuance the biblical-theological message that emerges.

A. Necessary, Prior, and Effective Divine Agency

1. The Prophetic Vision of the Renewed Heart—Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Paul

The biblical basis for the belief in the priority of regeneration to human faith is certainly the
numerous and significant texts that suggest or require affirming the necessity of a prior divine
work that makes human faith possible and even effects it. The Bible uses different terms,
metaphors, and images to express this. However, the precise term “regeneration” is not one of
them. Therefore, we need to approach these texts with care that we do not illegitimately import the
idea of regeneration into them.

The prophet Ezekiel twice speaks of Israel’s need to have their “heart of stone” removed and
replaced in order to enable them to be faithful to God’s commands (Ezek 11:19–20; 36:25–27).
Yahweh will perform this theological heart transplant causing his people to be obey. We see this
same concept present in Jeremiah. Reflecting on Moses’ exhortation that Israel should “circumcise
the foreskin of your heart, and no longer be stubborn” (Deut 10:16). But, foreseeing that they
would fail to do so and that God would have to do so unilaterally (Deut 30:6), Jeremiah repeats
the imperative (Jer 4:4) recognizing that the corruption of their hearts would make this impossible
(Jer 13:23; 17:9) apart from a prior and effectual divine work. Thus, Jeremiah recognized that God
would need to effect obedience by writing his laws on the hearts of the people when he established
the new covenant to forgive them (Jer 31:33–34).
In popular theological discourse, it is common to insist on a distinction between faith and the
obedience these passages describe as a result of the divine transformation of the heart. However,
recent scholarship on the relationship between faith and obedience, has revealed that this construal
assumes a modernist dichotomy between the two which is not in operation in the Biblical literature
and the ancient world. Faith, repentance, and obedience are not neatly distinguishable in the Bible
but are rather presented as a single package connected with God’s eschatological restoration of his
people. Thus, when Yahweh speaks through the prophet to say that his work would effect
obedience, it means that his work would cause his people to repent, trust him, and empower their
consistent allegiance and covenant fidelity.10

The Apostle Paul takes up this prophetic vision to give account to the Spirit’s work in the lives of
believers. In giving the Spirit to his people, God enables obedience by writing the law on their
hearts, both Jew and Gentile (see esp. Rom 2:14–16, 25–29; 6:17; 8:3–4; Eph 1:18; Col 2:11–12).
Prior to the gift of the Spirit, as the prophets testified, Paul recognized that the human heart and
mind are hostile to God, categorically cannot submit to his commands, and therefore, they are
incapable of pleasing God (Rom 8:6–8). But those who have the Spirit have resurrection life and
power that enables obedience (Rom 8:9–11). All of this highlights the priority and effectiveness
of divine agency. However, the metaphors and images involved, while related, should not be
identified as regeneration. God must transform the heart, and those blessed by this prior and
effectual divine work are given the Spirit, which is connected to regeneration, to empower
subsequent obedience. But it would not be illegitimate to flatten out this distinct language and
imagery so that they are indistinguishable. For Paul, only once one is “in Christ” is he or she is “a
new creation” (2 Cor 5:17), that is, regenerated. Paul is explicit that this union happens in
conjunction with faith and baptism (Rom 6:3–4; Gal 3:26–27), not prior. Therefore, while this
prophetic vision of renewal gives strong testimony to the necessity of prior and effective divine
agency, they are not good testimony to the priority of regeneration to faith.

2. The Spirit and the Gift of Faith in Paul

A related line of evidence found especially in Paul is the emphasis in his writings on the Spirit’s
work in bringing about faith. This is not a uniquely Calvinist emphasis. Renown Pauline scholar
N. T. Wright, who is certainly not a Calvinist,11 has also placed significant weight on this feature
of Paul’s theology.12 Wright summarizes, “The spirit works, through the proclamation of the good
news of the Messiah, to generate faith in humans and to constitute all those who believe as a single

10
On the relevant material from Ezekiel, see esp. Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 2 vols., NICOT (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1997-1998); Preston M. Sprinkle, Paul and Judaism Revisited: A Study of Divine and Human Agency in
Salvation (Downers Grove: IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013), 60-6. On the nature of biblical “faith,” especially as used
by the NT authors see Matthew W. Bates, Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of
Jesus the King (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017); David A. deSilva, Transformation: The Heart of Paul’s Gospel
(Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014); Nijay K. Gupta, Paul and the Nature of Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2020); Teresa Morgan, Roman Faith and Christian Faith: Pistis and Fides in the Early Roman Empire and the Early
Churches (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).
11
No Calvinist I have ever read would be comfortable following Wright entirely on his rather different formulation
of election, for example.
12
See N. T. Wright’s interesting discussion of the dynamic relationship between the Spirit’s work and faith in Paul
and the Faithfulness of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013), 952-6.
forgiven promised family.”13 A number of texts in Paul suggest that Wright is on the right track
(pun intended!). The essential Christian confession is “Jesus is Lord” (Rom 10:9). Yet, in 1 Cor
12:3, Paul says that apart from the Spirit it is impossible for any to make that confession of faith.
Thus, Paul celebrates the effectiveness of his gospel ministry among the Thessalonians, made
successful by divine power and the Holy Spirit in accordance with divine election (1 Thess 1:4–
5). For Paul, because faith is such a grand gift, suffering should be received joyfully when it is part
of the package (Phil 1:29). This is why Paul can identify all of salvation, including faith, as a divine
gift in Eph 2:8–9, eliminating all grounds for boasting.14 Yet, as Wright goes on to argue, it is not
appropriate to label this dynamic work of the Spirit, which happens through the proclamation of
the gospel, regeneration. It seems obvious that for Paul the Spirit is the effectual cause of faith, but
that does not give us warrant to suggest that he imagined that regeneration, properly defined,
precedes faith.

3. Christ’s Revelation and the Father’s Drawing—Matthew 11:25–27 and John 6:44

In Matt 11:25–27, Jesus gives the Father thanks for his having hidden “these things” (the truth of
the gospel) from some and revealing them to others (v. 25). Such, Jesus says, was the Father’s
“desire” (εὐδοκία, v. 26; cf. Eph 1:5, 9). Therefore, whether one “knows the Father” is determined
by the Son’s choice (βούλομαι) to reveal him to them. Two things are especially relevant to our
discussion here. First, God has hidden himself from some and revealed himself to others according
to the Son’s determination. While vv. 28–30 are an invitation to come to Christ, his revelation of
the Father is inescapably both determinative of and prior to human decision. This is apparent by
the allusion to Jer 31:25 in v. 28, which is a prophetic word that Yahweh would comfort a remnant
of Israel and Judah in exile by establishing the new covenant (Jer 31:27–34), which we saw entails
a unilateral work to effect obedience. Secondly, while Matt 11:25–27 certainly speaks of the
priority of divine agency, there is no hint that Jesus or Matthew would have us label this effectual
divine revelatory work as regeneration.

If we cannot properly label this revelatory work regeneration, what should we call it? Jesus’ words
in John 6:44 about the necessity of the Father’s drawing, which are similar to Matt 11:25–27,
commend an answer to us. Grammatically, notwithstanding the ingenuity of those who have tried
to say otherwise, there is no escaping the priority of divine drawing and its infallible result that the
one so drawn subsequently and infallibly comes to Christ in faith.

According to the synonymous parallel structure in v. 35, coming to Jesus means trusting in him
for salvation. In v. 40, Jesus identifies those who come to him as “everyone who looks at the Son
and believes in him.” This “coming to”/“believing in” Jesus leads without exception to
eschatological life in resurrection on the last day. The saying in v. 44 begins with a statement of
universal inability (οὐδεὶς δύναται, “no one is able”) “to come” to Christ, except by divine
intervention. The universality of what Jesus says throughout the discourse is underscored by the

13
Ibid., 952. See also Udo Schnelle, Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology, trans. M. Eugene Boring (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2005), 521-3
14
On this debated passage, see especially the commentaries by Ernest Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on Ephesians, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998); Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002); Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, WBC 42 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990). It’s
interesting that even Calvin recognized in his commentary on the passage that “faith” was not (at least the sole)
antecedent of “this”: “He [Paul] does not mean that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God.”
grammar employed. Both groups, participants in eschatological resurrection and those precluded,
are described using articular substantial participles creating a gnomic or universal sense to Jesus’
words. Most English translations render these with relative clauses—i.e., “the one who…” These
have the effect of expressing a gnomic and universal sense. What is said about those who come to
Jesus and those who cannot is presented as what is always true. That is, categorically no one can
possibly come to Christ in faith for salvation apart from the Father first drawing him/her. This is
contextually significant because the narrative has Jesus addressing people who had followed
him—that is, they came to him in some sense—on the heels of his feeding miracle, but whom he
says categorically cannot come to him in the sense he means (i.e., believing in him for eternal life)
because the Father has not drawn them. So, when we get to v. 44, the meaning of coming to Jesus
is already clear. Coming to Jesus is trusting him for salvation. Thus, when Jesus says that no one
can do so without the Father’s drawing, he is saying that believing apart from the Father’s drawing
is a categorical impossibility.

This brings us the two uses of the accusative third person singular pronoun αὐτόν (the two “him[s]”
of v. 44). These are anaphoric uses of the personal pronoun that refer back to those who come to
Jesus in faith for salvation. They also anticipate v. 45—“Everyone who has heard and learned from
the Father comes to me.” Jesus says that “no one can come” (believe) unless the Father draws
“him.” Thus, we should understand coming to Christ and learning from the Father as synonymous.
One cannot believe unless the Father draws/teaches him/her. And only that person, and every such
person—note again the double use of the anaphoric αὐτόν—will be raised to eschatological life.
The pronoun in each case has the exact same referent. This is so clearly the natural reading that to
say otherwise would be a glaring case of special pleading. Thus, the one who is raised on the last
day is the same as the one who is drawn/taught by the Father, who as a result comes to Christ—
again, the one who believes in him (cf. John 8:47). The parallels between vv. 44 and 45 are
unmistakable. “The One who sent me” is parallel to “the Father.” The Father’s action infallibly
results in the objects coming to Christ in faith, which categorically cannot happen otherwise. Thus,
being drawn is the same as hearing and learning from the Father. They all come to Christ infallibly
and are raised to eschatological life on the last day.

The grammar requires that we follow the argument in this way, which reaches back to v. 37 and
forward to v. 65. The ones who come to Jesus in faith were first given to him for salvation by the
Father (v. 37). Those Jesus confronts in the narrative have not truly come to him because the Father
has not given them to him for their eschatological salvation (vv. 37–39). One cannot come to Jesus
in faith unless the Father has granted it (v. 65). Therefore, these who have come under false
pretenses do not truly believe and categorically cannot because they have not been given to the
Son and such has not been granted by the Father. That is, they have not been drawn or so taught
by the Father. Jesus states emphatically that he will not lose those the Father gives him for salvation
because he upholds the Father’s will for him using a double negation of the aorist subjunctive verb
in v. 37.15 This discourse explains the insincere and illegitimate desire to follow Jesus among many
who benefited from his feeding miracle in terms of the Father having not given, drawn, taught, and
granted that these individuals trust Jesus and receive salvation. They are unable to come to him in
faith unless this happens. Thus, when they walk away following his strong words, it proves that

15
On the semantics of this grammatical construction, see Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics:
An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 468-69.
they lack faith because they were not drawn in order that they should believe in Christ and receive
eschatological salvation.

There is no question about the relevance of this passage for the question at hand. To my mind, it
is inescapable in the terms of Greek grammar that apart from the Father’s drawing, faith is not
possible. Moreover, the Father’s drawing is prior to faith, effects faith, and infallibly guaranties
eschatological salvation. However, this drawing is not identified as regeneration. Yes, those drawn
infallibly believe and cannot otherwise. And they will certainly experience eternal life now and
resurrection to eschatological salvation on the last day. But it would not be precise to label the
drawing regeneration, especially in light of what we have seen up to this point and what the apostle
John has to say positively in his unique contribution to the imagery of regeneration (see below).

4. The Dead Made Alive—Ephesians 2:1–10

Perhaps the classic proof-text for the question at hand is Eph 2:1–10. And it is regarding this text
that my thinking on our subject has shown the greatest shift. Here, Paul says that prior to
conversion, believers were “dead in trespasses and sins,” under Satan’s dominion, and “children
of wrath” (vv. 1–5). This means that salvation entails no less than a resurrection from the dead—
God “made us alive with Christ…and raised us up with him…” (vv. 5–6). Virtually everyone
would agree that God making us alive (v. 5) and participation in the new creation (v. 10) should
be identified with regeneration. However, while there can be no doubt that Paul intends to
emphasize the priority and incongruity of divine grace toward those under the devil’s sway and
dead in sin, careful examination shows that it is doubtful that this text teaches that regeneration is
logically prior to faith.

Let me begin with some observations about the most debated line, v. 5—“although we were dead
in our trespasses, [God] made us alive with Christ16—by grace you have been saved…” The verb
translated “made alive with” (συνζωοποιέω, “to make alive with”) is found only here and in Col
2:13 in all known Greek literature. Without the prefixed preposition συν- (“with”), the verb “made
alive” (ζωοποιέω) occurs a number of times in the NT. Most often it refers to future bodily
resurrection (e.g., John 5:21; Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 15:22). However, uniquely in Eph 2:5 and Col 2:13
our being made alive happened in the past (indicated by the use of the aorist tense; cf. Rom 6:4).
This means that along with the immediate context of Eph 2, Col 2:13 will prove to be most helpful
in determining the meaning of συνζωοποιέω in Eph 2:5. Whatever we understand it to mean in
one instance needs to be consistent with its use in the other. We must also interpret the meaning
of this verb as part of the unit of three verbs in vv. 5–6, which all share the συν- prefix. Thus, we
are “made alive with,” “raised with,” and “seated with” Christ in the heavenly realm at roughly
the same time.

These observations make the reading that sees regeneration prior to faith unlikely. When we read
Col 2:13 with the verse that precedes, it is clear that Paul imagines that we are made alive as a
consequence of our conversion (i.e., faith and baptism) rather than prior to it. It is “in baptism”
and “through faith” that we are buried with Jesus and raised with him (Col 2:12). This being the

16
The usual English translation “raised together with” (e.g., ESV) is probably redundant. Hoehner is among
commentators who have argued that τῷ Χριστῷ should be understood as the object of the prefixed preposition συν.
The sense is that we are raised somehow by virtue of our association with Jesus, who has been resurrected and exalted.
case, we were given new creation life since our sins are forgiven by virtue of Christ’s work on the
cross (Col 2:13–14) through our union with him. Whereas Col 2:12 mentions both baptism and
faith, Eph 2 only mentions faith (vv. 5, 8). This should not be surprising given our discussion of
the relationship of faith and baptism with reference Tit 3:5 above. There we saw a close link
between regeneration and baptism in Pauline thought and the NT more broadly. Baptism is how
one expresses their faith, trust, and allegiance to Christ. In Col 2:12, baptism marks the occasion
of our union with Jesus and participation in his death and resurrection (cf. Rom 6:3–4). Thus,
according to Col 2:13 the new life of regeneration is experienced when we express faith through
baptism. Therefore, in Eph 2:5 we should likewise understand that we are made alive—
regenerated—when we believe, not prior to faith. The appositional parenthetical interjection about
salvation by grace in v. 5 read along with vv. 8–10 commends this understanding as well. That is,
being made alive here is synonymous with being saved, which is conditioned on faith. Likewise,
we know that we are not raised up and seated with Christ in heaven prior to faith, but as a
consequence of our union with Christ through faith. The parallel ideas of deadness in trespasses
and satanic dominion (vv. 1–2) referring to the human plight are addressed with divine co-
resurrection, co-exaltation, co-enthronement and deliverance/salvation. This is a package of
blessings conferred on those who are united to Christ by grace through faith.

I must note that this way of reading the text appears to be nearly universal among credentialed NT
scholars in the published literature.17 To my surprise, I have not been able to find an exegetical
study produced by a professional NT exegete, Calvinist or otherwise, arguing that we should read
this text as evidence that regeneration, properly defined, precedes faith. This must be given its due
weight. The case for the priority of regeneration to faith from this text is not well-grounded
exegetically, to the point that not even Calvinist NT scholars make such an argument in academic
publications. This should be telling and should invite the kind of terminological nuance I have
tried to present in this essay.

However, this does not mean that Calvinists are wrong to see important support for our distinctive
theology here. This passage in no way precludes anything definitional to the position. Rather, Eph
2:1–10 is strong evidence for the necessity of a prior, incongruent, and effective divine work of
grace leading to faith.18 When Paul says that we were “dead in trespasses and sins” he means that

17
Perhaps this reveals a meaningful problem. Among theologically interested lay Calvinists, I have not often found
careful engagement with the best of recent biblical scholarship. Instead, they often give priority to authors who wrote
hundreds of years ago or to contemporary systematic theologians. Both historical and systematic theology are valuable.
However, we must recognize that biblical scholars, standing on the shoulders of important historical figures, have
much to offer which can bring insight into the precise meaning of biblical texts. In just the last 200 years or so, we
have made many discoveries that have led to tremendous advances regarding linguistics, grammar, lexicography, and
historical context that have helped tremendously in the quest to understand the bible as its inspired authors intended.
Moreover, the discipline of systematic theology, by its very nature, requires the imposition of questions onto the
biblical text that do not always arise from the text itself. This sometimes leads to flattening out categories in pursuit
of answers that harmonize distinct biblical themes, images, and terms or reading dogmatic ideas back into the text in
ways that experts in biblical languages and literature would not accept. It is important to value the work of experts in
the relevant fields, even while reading them with healthy criticism. More often than not, they will lead us toward a
better understanding of the biblical text, which means better understanding very word of God.
18
I am influenced here by John M. G. Barclay’s “perfections” of grace. Although he does not treat Ephesians, and he
denies that Paul perfects grace in terms of its effectiveness, his approach to the question of the nature of grace in Paul
is insightful for discerning the emphasis of a given text and even in historical theology. See his Paul and the Gift
we were outside the covenant blessings. For gentiles, this was obviously the case (Eph 2:12; cf.
Eph 3:6). But the Jewish people were likewise under the covenant curse of death (i.e., exile) in
need of God’s lifegiving grace to restore them to his presence by bringing them into the new
covenant (Jer 31:31–34; Ezek 37:1–11). Readers familiar with contemporary Jewish literature will
pick this up from the phrase “children of wrath.” Such language features prominantly in the
sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls (esp. 1QS; 1QH; 1QM) to refer to Israelites outside of their community.
Those outside, along with the gentiles, were on a collision course with eschatological destruction
unless God graciously called them into the community destined for salvation. We see another hint
of this shared ideology in Paul’s mention of God’s “mercy” in v. 4. In Jewish thought, based on
the narrative of Israel’s idolatry and the restoration of the covenant in Exod 32–34, “mercy” is not
only a divine attribute or merely a theological abstraction. It refers more concretely to the gracious
perseveration of the covenant promises to the patriarchs in response to transgression (“trespasses
and sins”) with a remnant (cf. Rom 9–11). Paul’s mercy language here, read along with his praise
of God because his electing and predestining grace in Eph 1:3–14, is closest to other Second
Temple Jewish authors who saw it as involving the unconditioned predestinarian election of
individuals for covenant membership and eschatological salvation, to the exclusion of others (e.g.,
Rom 9:18).19 Thus, a strong contextual case can be made that the faith and repentance that bring
one into union with Christ are ultimately the result of this unconditioned mercy that effectually
transfers one from outside the covenant into it. In Rom 9, Paul grounds this mercy in the divine
call set in antithesis to any condition attributable to human worth, works, or even acts of the human
will (Rom 9:16) to include faith.20 This is why God’s gracious saving work in Christ precludes any
grounds for boasting (Eph 2:9; cf. Rom 3:27). One finds him/herself made alive in Christ because
of God’s prior, incongruent, and effective mercy that visited us when we were lost and dead in
Satan’s domain. Divine brought us to faith and ultimately into the new creation.

Thus, in Eph 2:1–10, God’s grace and mercy are prior to faith, even though the objects are sinful
and undeserving. Moreover, this mercy proves effective because the result is the objects believing,
being united with Christ, and thereby receiving the new life of regeneration. These objects of God’s
unconditioned mercy were effectively called out of the darkness of Satan’s domain into the
kingdom, where there is new life (cf. 2 Cor 4:6; Col 1:13; 1 Thess 2:12; 1 Pet 2:9). They are saved
entirely by grace through faith. As creatures of the new creation, they carry out the good works
that God has prepared for them (Eph 2:10; 4:22–24; Col 3:5–11).21

B. New Birth into God’s Family

The Apostles Peter and John each use new birth language and imagery to describe salvation. This
represents a unique contribution compared to the biblical evidence regarding regeneration
examined thus far. As we will see, for these authors, our salvation in Christ is a kind of
“regeneration” in the sense that the one who believes in Jesus is thereby fathered by God or “born

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015) or his more popular version Paul and the Power of Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2020).
19
See Robert J. Wiesner, “Predestinarian Election in Second Temple Judaism and Its Relevance to Pauline Theology,”
WTJ 82 (2020): 17-37.
20
See John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1–23, 2nd ed. (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1993), 52-3.
21
On the meaning of realized resurrection and new creation in Ephesians, see G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical
Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010), 277-81.
again.” To see this, we will first comment briefly on the two references in 1 Peter 1:3 and 23 to
this new birth. Then we will examine in order the relevant references in John’s Gospel (1:12–13;
3:3–15) and 1 John 5:1a.

1. Born Again to a Living Hope—1 Peter

Peter’s two references to our being “born again” (ἀναγεννάω, 1 Pet 1:3, 23) leave much to be
desired for one seeking evidence that places the new birth prior to faith. While the term is similar
to “regeneration” (παλιγγενεσία), the two are not synonymous. As we saw, the focus of the term
regeneration was participation in the new creation work of the Spirit. Here, Peter speaks of God
causing his people to be “born again to a living hope…to an imperishable, undefiled, and unfading
inheritance, which is kept in heaven for you” (1 Pet 1:3–4). The mention of “inheritance” suggests
that the language of new birth here gives greater emphasis to the concept of divine adoption than
to participation in the new creation (although that is no doubt important for Peter). Thus, Hort said
that the new birth involves “entrance into a new order of existence, but combines with it that divine
parentage: men enter the new life as children of its Author.”22 That is, we are made God’s children.
We are “born again” into the divine family with a glorious inheritance kept for us. Since this is an
adoption image, it is obvious that God “has caused” our new birth. This is consistent with the use
of the same verb in 1 Pet 1:23, which follows an admonition to “love one another” because all of
God’s people have been born into the same family by God’s word in the gospel (vv. 22–25).
Moreover, that divine power preserves God’s children through trials as a test of their faith is the
obvious consequence (vv. 5–7). Faith comes into focus in vv. 8–9. Although God’s children do
not see him, they “love him” and “believe in him and rejoice” (v. 8). The outcome of such faith is
said to be “the salvation of your souls” (v. 9). Peter does not describe faith as a divine gift here,
except perhaps very generally by implication since our new birth is caused by God (v. 3). Still,
there is clearly no indication that Peter imagines that faith is a consequence of the new birth. When
Peter speaks of those who believe receiving “salvation” as an outcome (v. 9), he appears to have
in view not the realized aspect of our salvation, but eschatological salvation on the last day, since
it is yet future. Verse 5 commends this view since it indicates that the salvation in view has not yet
been revealed but will be “in the last time.” Yet, if one wanted to insist that salvation is realized
here, it is explicitly identified as “the result (τὸ τέλος) of your faith” in v. 9. Thus, faith is explicitly
prior to salvation and is not specifically related to the new birth. There is no indication here that
regeneration, however one conceives of it, precedes faith in Peter’s thought. God’s power is
certainly decisive in causing the new birth and naming believers his children, but Peter did not
seem interested in giving regeneration temporal priority to faith.

2. Born From Above—John’s Writings

2. 1. John 1:12–13

In the introduction we saw how Calvin’s comments on John 1:12–13 reveal that he saw
regeneration as more dynamic than static in the NT. But his comments here appear to be a case of
his theology compelling his reading of the text more than the other way around. He observed the
obvious—it is those who “receive him [Christ]…who believe in his name” that are “given the

22
F. J. A. Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter. I.1–II.17: The Greek Text with Introductory Lecture, Commentary, and
Additional Notes (London: Macmillan,1898), 33.
authority to become children of God.” Faith is presented explicitly as the pre-condition for new
birth as a child of God. This is certainly the most natural way of construing the grammar of v. 12.
However, in moving on to v. 13, Calvin and others have sought to ground this “receiving and
believing” in prior divine birth. Such a reading is unlikely. It requires that we awkwardly identify
two different new birth events in these verses. This clearly creates a mess of John’s thought and is
in no way necessary, much less intuitive. It is far more likely that “to become children of God” (v.
12) and being “born of God” (v. 13) are parallel expressions that refer to the same reality.

In vv. 10–11, John tells us that although Jesus created the world, when he came “the world did not
know him” (v. 10). And, among “his own” (i.e., the Jews) he was not received (v. 11). Thus, vv.
12–13 indicate that the true children of God are not the Jewish people by right (ἐξουσία), but only
those who received Jesus among the Jewish people, as well as those of the world (i.e. gentiles)
who came to know him. As Calvinist NT scholar Herman Ridderbos comments, “The privilege of
being children of God is special and exclusive. It is not a natural quality that every human being
has as a creature of God; nor is it the inalienable right of Israel as ‘his own’ (cf. 8:42). It is, rather,
the gift that is given only to those who believe in the Word.”23

Still, v. 13 highlights the divine will (οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς ἀλλ᾽
ἐκ θεοῦ, “neither by the will of flesh, nor by the will of man, but by God”) as ultimately
determinative of divine birth. Only those who receive and believe in Jesus have the right to identify
as God’s children. But their faith does not put a demand on God. New birth is not ultimately the
result of human initiation, but divine will. As I argued above in commenting on John 6:44, faith is
only possible through a prior and effectual divine work. Still, receiving Christ and believing in
him come prior to the endowment of authority to become God’s children in John 1:12–13.
Therefore, being “born of God” is rightly related to regeneration, and faith is explicitly the prior
condition.24

2.2. John 3:1–15

In perhaps the most famous passage in John’s Gospel, Jesus tells the inquiring Nicodemus, “unless
one is born again (or “from above,” ἄνωθεν) he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). What
precisely Jesus meant by seeing the kingdom appears to be clarified by his further explanation in
v. 5, a response to Nicodemus’ sarcastic retort (v. 4). Jesus says one must be “born of water and
the Spirit” otherwise “he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Thus, seeing the kingdom means
entering kingdom life. This means the new birth is the necessary prerequisite to entering the
kingdom. Further, elsewhere in John, ἄνωθεν always means “from above” rather than “again”
(3:31; 19:11, 23).25 Thus, Jesus’ response provides a correction to Nicodemus’ misunderstanding
here, indicating that the birth he refers to is different from the first in that it is wrought by God. In

23
Herman N. Ridderbos, The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1997), 46. However, as Ridderbos goes on to comment on v. 13, he seems to struggle sorting out the
question of the relationship between faith and new birth.
24
Apparently recognizing the problems with placing regeneration prior to faith on the basis of this passage, Carson’s
and Michaels’ commentaries, two of my favorite commentaries on John (both Calvinist authors), argue that one cannot
discern any temporal relationship between faith and being born of God, with either as the condition of the other. See
D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 126; J. Ramsey Michaels, The
Gospel of John, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 71.
25
Colijn, Images of Salvation, 104-5.
v. 7, Jesus highlights divine agency in this miraculous birth when he says that birth “of the Spirit”
is like the wind, which freely blows where it will unpredictably and uncontrollably. In what
follows, Jesus presents faith as the essential response to his testimony: “the Son of Man must be
lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life” (vv. 14–15). Moreover, the
majority of interpreters throughout history are right to detect an allusion to water baptism in Jesus’
word that one must be “born of water and the Spirit.” Read along with what we discovered in our
consideration Tit 3:5, this would certainly make sense for John’s original readers.

The observation above, that to see the kingdom means to enter the kingdom, is crucial. Calvinist
readers will sometimes assume that the inability to see the kingdom without divine birth refers to
the inability of anyone to even perceive the meaning of God’s work in Christ. This is further
inferred from clear emphasis in both John 3 and earlier in John 1:13 of the miraculous nature of
new birth, that it is a divine work not one effected by the human objects. Therefore, it is argued,
faith is certainly impossible prior to the new birth.26 Yet, this is an obvious non sequitur that
probably rests on circular reasoning and certainly on some imprecise interpretative steps. While it
is true that apart from a prior and effectual divine work faith is impossible, the discourse at hand
indicates Jesus is talking about participation in God’s eschatological kingdom work in him, not
the inability of anyone to perceive or believe. Jesus is not addressing the question of whether one
can believe apart from a prior and effective divine work. When Jesus says that without the special
birth no one can see the kingdom, he means that we do not enter the kingdom of God apart from
this mysterious divine work that gives us new life and brings us into God’s family. Jesus offers no
comment here regarding the basis on which faith is possible. It does not follow from anything in
John 3 that regeneration precedes faith, but the inverse seems to be the case, especially in light of
what we saw in our treatment of John 1:12–13. This famous saying of Jesus means that the divine
birth is a precondition for entrance into the kingdom and it seems that this birth from above takes
place in conjunction with faith in John’s Gospel. When we put all that we have discovered in
John’s Gospel together the meaning of regeneration can be summarized in these four points: (1)
the Father effectually draws people to Christ who could not come otherwise; (2) in response, all
those thus drawn infallibly believe; (3) those who believe receive new life and are made children
of God; (4) by virtue of their membership in God’s family they are members of God’s kingdom
and heirs of eternal life.

2.3 John 5:1a

Another of the more famous proof-texts used to suggest that regeneration precedes faith comes in
1 John 5:1a—“Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah has been born from God…” Our
treatment of John’s Gospel should already incline us against such an interpretation, since most
understand that 1 John and the Fourth Gospel were authored by the same man. The argument from
1 John 5:1a for the priority of regeneration to faith is based on John’s use of a present tense
participle (πιστεύων, “believing”) with a perfect tense main verb (γεγέννηται, “has been born”). It
is suggested that since the perfect tense in the indicative mood normally describes a completed
action that took place in the past with continuing results, the birth must be prior to the action of
believing, expressed by the present tense. This argument also rests on the assumption that the
believing in question is the initial faith of conversion. But this argument is simplistic in terms of

26
On this point, see Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1981), 585-7.
this grammatical assertion and it takes inadequate account for the meaning of “believing” in the
broader context of the letter.

Regarding the grammar, Brian Abasciano, an Arminian NT scholar, has brought attention to the
unfounded assumptions on the basis of Greek grammar, which he has thoroughly documented with
a plethora of references to grammatical authorities.27 Specifically, participles have a relativized
grammaticalization of time. Present tense adverbial participles usually express time
contemporaneous with the main verb, not normally subsequent to it, as this argument assumes.
Moreover, since this is a substantival adjectival participle, rather than an adverbial participle, it
essentially functions like a noun, so that its verbal element of the participle is reduced. Thus, John’s
grammar only requires us to affirm the theologically benign proposition that people who rightly
believe that Jesus is the Messiah are identifiable as those truly born of God, without in any way
requiring that their birth from God was logically prior to their initial faith.

But we can say more. The assumption that the belief in view is the faith of initial conversion is
poorly founded. Rather, the broader context of 1 John shows that John’s aim was to help his readers
identify who the genuine believers (i.e., the children of God) are. John wrote this letter to address
churches who had been troubled by a major split in their community (2:19). A significant number
of their body abandoned the confession of Jesus passed down through the apostles (1:1–4). This
can be seen most clearly in 1 John 4:2–3: “Every spirit who confesses that Jesus is the Christ
having come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit who does not confess Jesus is not from God.
This person of the antichrist…” Those who left no longer confessed rightly that Jesus is the
Messiah. In abandoning their former confession, they show themselves to be followers of the
antimessiah, rather the true Christ. Thus, 1 John 5:1a is not intended to answer questions about the
relation of initial faith to regeneration, but to answer the question John’s churches faced about
what marks those who are genuinely born of God.

The answer John offers in this letter is that in addition to holding unswervingly to the confession
that Jesus is the Messiah, properly oriented faith works itself out in obedience to God’s commands
and the practice of righteousness primarily evident in sincere love for God’s people. That is, the
true children of God maintain an orthodox Christology, “practice righteousness” (1 John 2:29),
pursue purity (3:3, 7, 10), love others born of God (4:7–12; 5:1b–2), and obey God’s commands
(5:2–5). By rejecting the received Christology and so gravely failing to properly love God’s
people, the successionists revealed that they were not “born of God” but influenced instead by the
spirit of antichrist. In contrast, those who continued to maintaine the proper confession and to
practice true Christian love are born of God. Thus, when John says in 1 John 5:1a that “everyone
who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God,” he is saying that only those who
remain steadfast in holding to the confession are truly children of God. That is, these alone are true
believers. When we combine these exegetical points, the contextual meaning of John’s Greek in 1
John 5:1a could be expressed with this paraphrase: “Every true believer (i.e., those who persevere
in believing rightly that Jesus is the Messiah) has been born from God. They alone are true the
children of God.”

27
Brian J. Abasciano, “Does Regeneration Precede Faith? The Use of 1 John 5:1 as a Proof Text,” EQ 84(2012): 307-
16.
Therefore, based on the context, rhetoric, grammar, and Johannine theology, it is best not to take
the birth from God of 1 John 5:1a as prior to the faith. The initial faith of conversion is apparently
not in view. Rather, John has in mind the enduring faith that indicates that one is truly a child of
God. The churches John sought to minister to had been devastated by division caused by false
teaching. Some were unsure which side was correct. John wrote to remind them of the testimony
the apostles delivered so that they could be certain they were in proper fellowship with the Father
and the Son. John’s use of the present tense participle “believing” (and other similar uses of the
present tense throughout 1 John) was intended to highlight the importance of enduring faith. The
faith that John has in view marks those who have continued unswervingly committed to the
divinely revealed truth about Jesus as those in a right relationship with God. They, not the
successionists who have rejected this truth, are born of God. As such this birth from God does
reference an event that in one sense can be said to precede the believing described here. But this
is not the faith of initial conversion. The faith in questions is the abiding faith that, along with love,
righteousness, and obedience, is evidence that one is in the truth. These are the true markers of
God’s children. Elsewhere when John addresses the initial belief that Jesus is the Messiah, he
explicitly places regeneration after faith (John 1:12–13). From this we can certainly draw
important theological inferences about the nature of conversion and faith, but John’s purpose was
not to place regeneration prior to initial faith, but to instruct struggling churches about the marks
of the true children of God in order to encourage them to persevere in the true confession.

III. Synthesis and Conclusion—Commending “Calling”

The point of this study has been to commend precision and nuance in the use of biblical language
in theological discourse. We have seen that the term “regeneration” does not have the range of
meanings that Calvin and many of his theological heirs have found in it. In Matt 19:28 and Tit 3:5,
it refers to the consummate new creation, which believers participate in now through union with
Christ by the Spirit, which is given when we express our faithful allegiance. The metaphors of
heart transformation found in Ezekiel and Jeremiah and taken up in Paul evidence a belief in the
necessity and infallibility of prior divine agency. But these should be properly distinguished from
regeneration. In the Gospels, the necessity of Christ’s revelation of the Father (Matt 11:27) and
the Father’s effectual drawing (John 6:44) speak to the priority of divine agency to effect human
faith. In Eph 2:1–10, Christ’s people are enlivened to participate in the new creation when they are
united with him through faith, since thereby they participate in his resurrection and exaltation in
heaven. When NT authors speak of new birth from God, it is those who believe who experience
this new life (1 Pet 1:3, 23; John 1:12–13; 3:1–15; 1 John 5:1a). All this makes the idea that
regeneration precedes faith difficult to reconcile with the biblical evidence. Instead, we should
define regeneration in this way:

Regeneration is God’s new creation work, inaugurated in Christ’s resurrection, and

applied to those united to Jesus Christ by faith, thereby making them children of God.

However, with all the language, imagery, and metaphors reviewed here, nothing distinctive or
essential for the Calvinist system must be sacrificed. Instead, I want to commend the use of more
precision when we make use of biblical language for formulate theological propositions to express
what we believe is the Bible’s message. Rather than improperly speaking of regeneration
preceding faith, a better biblical vocabulary is available to drive home our theological deductions.
We can point to the prior unilateral divine work which causes obedience depicted in Ezekiel’s
heart transplant imagery. We can appeal to the particular revelation of the Father by Jesus in Matt
11:24–24. Or, we can press the language and grammar at work regarding the Father’s drawing
John 6:44, which indicates that saving faith is an impossibility apart from the Father’s drawing,
and this drawing infallibly results in faith—since faith itself is a gift in NT thought—and ultimate
salvation in eschatological resurrection. Moreover, we can speak of the divine mercy that visits
those who are lifelessly enslaved under Satan’s power in Eph 2, which results in our being
resurrected with Christ to participate in the new creation.

In traditional Calvinistic theological discourse, a better term is available as a theological resource

to bring these themes together—effectual calling. As Bird explains:

This “call” represents the implementation of God’s determined-ahead-of-time plan (i.e.,

foreknowledge + predestination)…The call, then, is the outworking of God’s electing
purposes…this specific call is what happens when the Holy Spirit moves in the hearts of
people as they hear the gospel and are brought to the point of conversion. Accordingly, this
call designates God’s action whereby he summons and brings people to himself through
the gospel.28

Or, more simply, Wright says that (for Paul at least), “[Calling] clearly includes the sense…of a
fresh and transformative divine work in which the person concerned is not merely redirected but
revolutionized.”29 Thus, the “called” is a term regularly used in Paul as a moniker for Christians.30
Paul never says anyone who does not believe in Christ was “called.” Calling is not a spiritual
nudge toward Jesus. It is the gospel proclamation met with divine fiat that infallibly results in the
one called turning to Christ in faith.31

The preference for speaking of the priority of calling language rather than regeneration is already
commended to us in the Westminster Shorter Catechism, questions 30 and 31:

Q: 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 (emphasis added).

Q: What is effectual calling?

28
Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013),
531. Though Bird does place regeneration prior to faith. This is unnecessary because, as he rightly observes, “God’s
life-creating power is implied in the reference to ‘calling’” (ibid., 533).
29
Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 1423 (his emphasis).
30
A single possible exception to this in all the NT is found in Matt 22:14, at the end of the Parable of the Wedding
Feast. It would be illegitimate to map this use of the verb καλέω onto all the other uses of the verb with commend the
reading of the Pauline evidence I’ve offered here. In this context Jesus is drawing an analogy between the gospel
mission of Christ’s disciples to the invitation of guests to a wedding. Some will be disinterested and will not come in.
The gospel will go out to others that were unexpected. In comparison to those invited, few will be admitted. But this
analogy cannot be used to invalidate all the evidence that the divine call is effective in Paul’s theological discourse.
31
See Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. John Richard De Witt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1975), 234-6
 A: Effectual calling is the work of the Spirit, whereby, convicting 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.

Notice that this widely influential Reformed catechism affirms all that Calvinists are zealous to
maintain in suggesting that regeneration precedes faith, without making the unbiblical assertion
that regeneration precedes faith.32 This seems a more promising foundation for preserving
theological values that I regard as entirely valid with greater biblical precision.

This approach also provides a helpful solution to the problem of the question of individual
salvation in the OT. Regeneration is not a term, image, metaphor, or concept applied to individuals
in the OT. The theme of a universal cosmic new creation is prominent throughout the OT and
explicit in Isaiah (65:17; 66:22). But it is not an image about realized personal salvation, as it
becomes in the NT (e.g., 2 Cor 5:17). Thus, we should not speculate about whether OT believers
were regenerated prior to faith or not since regeneration is tethered to faith and union with Jesus
in the NT because it was inaugurated by Christ’s resurrection. Admittedly, we do not find the
explicit language of an effectual divine call with reference to the personal salvation in the OT
either. But the work of the Yahweh’s Spirit among his faithful people is certainly consistent with
the NT concept of the effectual call, and such allows us to avoid anachronistically reading
regeneration back into the OT. Regeneration is God’s promised new creation work, inaugurated in
Christ’s resurrection, and applied to those united by faith to Christ. Since the resurrection had not
yet occurred in the OT to inaugurate the new creation, and since OT believers were not united to
the resurrected and exalted Messiah by faith, it is technically not correct to say they were
regenerated at all, and certainly not that they were regenerated prior to faith. But we are on a firm
foundation to speak more broadly about the work of God’s Spirit specially moving his people to
create trust and faithfulness, which is consistent with what we mean when we speak of an effectual
call.

Positively, the concept of an effectual divine call is prominent in Paul’s letters. The Apostle Paul
describes God’s calling as a creation out of nothing (Rom 4:17). This call happens prior to
justification by faith, with the infallible result that those so called would be justified and ultimately
glorified (Rom 8:28–30). In Rom 9:6–25, God’s call names a person as a child of God to the
exclusion of those not so called. This is held in an antithesis to human worth, worth, and will (Rom
9:11–12, 15) and effectually creates God’s people (vv. 24–25). Rather than any act of the human
will being the condition that prompts God’s call or mercy, it is exclusively a matter of the divine
will, taking no account of what the objects may or may not have done (Rom 9:15–23). The divine
call happens according to God’s purpose with regard to election (Rom 9:11; Eph 1:11; 2 Tim 1:9).
Thus, in 1 Cor 1:26–31, the divine call is essentially synonymous with divine election, resulting
in the one called, to the exclusion of those not called or chosen, being found in Christ. This calling
effects a transfer from outside to inside God’s kingdom (1 Cor 1:9; 1 Thess 2:12; 1 Pet 2:9; cf. Col
2:13). For Paul, God’s call is a creative work that effects in its objects newfound awe of Christ and

32
Cf. The Westminster Confession of Faith, X.I-II and XIII.I, which may distinguish the effectual call from
regeneration. Although it sometimes seems to be assumed in appeals to Westminster, none of the references to the
precise terminology of regeneration require that it precedes faith. Uniformly, however, the effectual call both precedes
and results in faith. If the priority of regeneration to faith is definitional to Calvinism, it is strange that one can affirm
everything in this influential confession without assenting to such a position.
faith (2 Cor 4:6). Those called into Christ are new creations participating already/not yet in the
cosmic regeneration (2 Cor 5:17) that will be consummated at the parousia. Apparently reflecting
on Paul’s use of calling language in Romans 8–9, 2 Clement 1:7–8 arrives at the same conclusion:

For he had mercy upon us and in his compassion he saved us when we had no hope of
salvation except that which comes from him, and even though he had seen in us much
deception and destruction. For he called us when we did not exist, and out of nothing he
willed us into being.33

Therefore, instead of the imprecise broadening of the meaning of “regeneration,” Calvinist

interpreters should utilize the language of effectual calling. We can better defend on exegetical
grounds this logical order:

(1) God elects individuals before creation for covenant membership and eschatological
salvation. (2) Divine election is effected in time through the divine call in conjunction with
gospel proclamation resulting infallibly in faith. (3) After faith follows regeneration as
membership in God’s family and participation in the new creation through union with
Christ and positional sanctification. (3) Divine preservation with progressive sanctification
is assured. (4) Ultimate glorification is realized in bodily resurrection and consummated
new creation.

Some may want to revoke my “Calvinist Club Membership Card” for denying that regeneration
precedes faith. But I am less interested in being “a good Calvinist” than I am in pursuing an
exegetically rigorous and biblically informed theology. It seems to me that the approach I have
outlined here sacrifices nothing that is distinctive to Calvinism. It also holds on to what is a
properly biblical emphasis by commending the language of the effectual call. It offers a more
nuanced and exegetically defensible way of expressing what we find presented in scripture
regarding the priority and effectiveness of divine agency that brings sinners to faith in Christ.
Therefore, think I we are on surer ground to affirm that God calls us to faith and regenerates only
when we have entrusted ourselves to Christ.

33
Translation from Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers; Greek Texts and English Translation, updated ed.
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), my emphasis.