Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Musings about this difficult and perplexing question has gone on for centuries. Thankfully though, the consequences for an incorrect answer are not particularly severe. Life goes on regardless.
But there’s an area of study in Christian theology called soteriology (the study of what the Bible teaches regarding salvation), and within that context, how we answer the question as to “which came first?” has far more significant impact. I am speaking here of the order of salvation; namely does a person have faith and then is born again, or are they born again and then have faith? Is Divine election based upon God foreseeing us putting our faith in Christ or do we have faith in Christ because God first elected us?
As I have written elsewhere, I believe Scripture emphatically teaches that man is spiritually dead like a corpse (nekros) in sin and trespasses and without Sovereign election, evangelism would be the most futile activity imaginable. It would be much like a salesman trying to sell his products in a graveyard. The dead need to be raised to life before a salesman can make a sale! The dead have no interest in skin cream products, double glazed windows, hair loss prevention treatments, air purifiers or the latest and greatest vacuum cleaner. They are not moved by even the greatest of sales pitches! Why? Well that’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? Its because the dead are, in a word…. dead!
The same is true regarding a person coming to Christ. We need to be born again, or born from above, before we can even see or enter the kingdom of God (John 3). We need to be brought to life before we can actually do anything spiritually. There’s a logical order involved. Theologians refer to this as the ordo salutis, which is Latin for “the order of salvation.” Though being born again and exercising faith may be instantaneous in terms of our awareness in time, logically, one thing has to come before the other. It is a logical rather than a temporal distinction. When someone is dead, resurrection needs to take place before a person can even think about moving a muscle, or walking in a certain direction. It is not the walking that takes place before the resurrection. No, it is the other way around. Dead people don’t walk, living people do. In the same way, spiritually speaking, regeneration (being made alive, or born again) must precede faith. A person needs to be raised from the dead before they can take any steps towards Him.
Remember Lazarus, as a lifeless corpse in the tomb? He did not cooperate with Christ with regard to his own resurrection. He did not because he could not. Jesus simply called out “Lazarus come forth!” and this call was an effectual call because it was sufficient in and of itself to bring dead Lazarus back to life. No other help was necessary. The call was powerful enough to do the job all by itself!
Christ did not interview the dead man Lazarus and ask if he would like to be resurrected – then once having got the “all clear” from Lazarus went ahead with His plan. Christ did not need any kind of assistance from Lazarus to raise him from death. Certainly, Lazarus’ will was not a factor in the miracle. Nor did Lazarus, once brought back to life, immediately escort Jesus to the local court in an attempt to sue Him for violating his free will – his libertarian rights as a dead man to stay dead! No, for the rest of his earthly life, Lazarus was deeply grateful for the unspeakable mercy he had received from the Master.
Lazarus’ resurrection from physical death provides a beautiful picture of what God does in our regeneration from spiritual death. Once receiving this grace of resurrection, Lazarus was able to walk out of the tomb. Once the elect receive the grace of regeneration, once given a new heart, they repent, they believe and they come to Christ.
From the monergism section on this theme, John Hendryx writes:
“Historically in the Church there has been disagreement about the order of salvation, especially between those in the Reformed and Arminian camps. The following two perspectives of God’s order in carrying out His redemptive work reveals the stark contrast between these two main historic views. Keep in mind that both viewpoints are based on the redemptive work which Christ accomplished for His people in history:
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
9. glorification (Rom 8:29-30)
In the Arminian camp, the ordo salutis is
1. outward call
2. faith/election
3. repentance
4. regeneration
5. justification
6. perseverance
7. glorification
Notice the crucial difference in the orders of regeneration and faith. While the Reformed position believes spiritual life is a prerequisite for the existence of the other aspects of salvation, the Arminians believe that fallen, natural man retains the moral capacity to receive or reject the gospel of his own power. Even with the help of grace he still must find it within himself to believe or reject Christ. This has broad implications and raises questions like why does one man believe and not another? You might also notice that, according to Arminians, election is dependent on faith, not the other way around. This is no small matter … understanding the biblical order, while keeping in mind its unitary process, is crucial and has a profound impact on how one views God, the gospel, and the Bible as a whole.”
Much could be written about this, of course, but for now, let us look at one scripture, 1 John 5:1, which declares, “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.”
In the original Greek, the verb tenses in this verse are very revealing. A literal translation reads as follows: “All the ones going on believing (pisteuon, a present tense, continuous action) that Jesus is the Christ has been born (gennesanta, perfect tense – an action already complete with abiding effects) of God.” The fact that someone is presently going on believing in Christ shows that they have first been born again. Faith is the evidence of regeneration, not the cause of it. Since both repentance and faith are possible only because of the work of God (regeneration), both are called the gift of God in scripture (Eph. 2:8, 9; Phil. 1:29; 2 Tim 2:24-26).
I would urge you, if you have not done so already, to seriously study this issue, and I would like to recommend the articles concerning the order of salvation found at the monergism.com website.
“Regeneration is the spiritual change wrought in the heart of man by the Holy Spirit in which a person’s inherently sinful nature is so radically impacted, his disposition so affected, his mind so illumined, his will so liberated that a person can and will respond to God in saving faith and willingly live in accord with the will of God.” – J. I. Packer
Salvation is God’s wonderful gift to us unworthy sinners. There is a lot of disagreement about election and how salvation comes about. None of us really understand it all. I have a brother-in-law who is a 5-point Calvinist and I love him in the Lord dearly, even though I don’t believe like he does. I enjoy studying different viewpoints, and debating, but I’m beginning to think it is not an edifying thing to major on disagreements. “How can two walk together except they be agreed?” I think a lot of misunderstanding is caused because of a wrong view of the atonement of Christ, or shall I say propitiation. Some view Christ’s death as a quantitative expression of bearing mankind’s sin, meaning: every elect’s personal sins were poured on Christ, and he paid for every one of them. Other’s believe that Christ as the head of God’s new creation representatively bore sin and paid the eternal penalty for sin in general, which of course, was death, so that, in so doing, any and every man is eligible for salvation. This latter explanation makes more sense to me and reconciles many scriptures having to do with free will, etc… What is your view of this?
Hi John,
While I would agree that majoring on disagreements is not helpful when they are insignificant issues, it is important to be clear on essentials. For instance, the debate at the time of the Protestant Reformation was not an insignificant issue, but related to authority (who or what speaks for God) as well as justification – and along with that the issue was the necessity v. the sufficiency of grace. It is this third area that divides many Christians – between monergists and synergists. I am a monergist by conviction, believing that God’s power alone works the initial work of raising a spiritual dead person to life. That is the issue – and it relates to God’s glory in salvation. These are not trivial things John.
Regarding my view concerning what I believe Scripture teaches on the cross, you can follow the discussion on several links here at the blog, starting with this one here: http://effectualgrace.com/2010/12/22/the-divine-intention-of-the-cross-part-1/
God bless you John as you walk in the light of His word.
John 5:40 says, “Ye WILL NOT (not cannot) come unto me that ye might have life. Why did Jesus put the fault on them, if they COULD NOT come to him, if they didn’t have the freedom to choose him and be given life. If they had no choice in the matter how could they be accountable for their own sin? If God created souls just to be damned that is a great travesty against a holy God. It makes him a monster. It makes John 3:16 a lie. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that WHOSOEVER believeth in him, should not perish but have everlasting life. How is that Love?
John,
They “will not” come because they love their sin. That is why they are at fault, The problem is not some moral handicap that prevents them from coming, but the state of their heart which loves sin. Scripture is very clear concerning man’s condition outside of regeneration.
Jesus made it very clear. Unless a man is first born again (regenerated) he CANNOT enter the kingdom of God.
He also said, “NO ONE CAN COME to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:44). Here Jesus taught the universal inability of man to come in his natural state and note that the one drawn here is also raised up to eternal life.
Romans 7:7,8 teaches that those still in the flesh (without the Spirit, and therefore unregenerated) CANNOT please God or submit to the law of God.
1 Cor 2:14 teaches that the unspiritual (soulish) man CANNOT receive the things of the Spirit of God, as it is entirely foolish to him.
You also have drawn illegitmate inferences from the text of John 3:16. See the following two articles:
http://effectualgrace.com/2010/12/21/understanding-john-316/
http://effectualgrace.com/2010/12/22/john-316-pas-ho-pisteuwn-everyone-believing-not-all-can-believe/
John, I would REALLY caution you to refrain from using such hostile language in this discussion, specifically calling God a monster.
I wish to be kind to you John, but you clearly do not show signs of fully understanding this issue. I have met many a person who once felt as you do but after studying this issue more in depth biblically came to see their error and afterwards lived with much regret that they had blasphemed God in such a clear manner.
John, Let me get this right. Is this what you believe? God created man. Some will go to Heaven. Some will go to Hell. The ones who go to heaven go because God saves them and takes them to Heaven. The ones who go to Hell, go because God doesn’t save them, even though He could, but He just won’t, even though HE IS NOT WILLING THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH, but that all should come to repentance. The ones who go to Hell really don’t have any say in the matter.They just go there because God doesn’t really care enough to save them. And they are punished for all eternity in fire and brimstone because God wants glory? There is nothing they can do to get out of their sin predicament. God made them that way and thats just the way it is. Is this what you believe? I’m trying to put it all together, I’m not being smart or funny. Is this what you believe?
John,
I dont believe you have fully grasped the reformed understanding. You also quote 2 Peter 3:9 totally out of context (as many do, and which I did for many years) – see here: http://effectualgrace.com/2010/11/23/understanding-2-peter-39/
If you are seriously trying to put it together and not being smart or funny, then I would ask you to take the time to watch the video here, which I think will be of help: http://effectualgrace.com/2011/04/26/the-parable-of-the-farmer-refuted/
God bless.