How exactly does our salvation come about? When we think of the Protestant Reformation, the Reformers themselves, and what it means to be a Reformed church (whether formally or informally, as I explained in the previous post), this question is at the center. And, as usual, Christians have offered a number of different answers, which have sparked debates and arguments between believers on all sides.
It can be very tempting to try to place everyone into two boxes – those who agree with me and those who do not – and to treat all who disagree with me as enemies. This we must not do. First of all, we are dealing with brothers and sisters who have trusted in Christ and been born again by his grace, and we should value them accordingly. Second, we might very well be incorrect in our views, since none of us in infallible or all-knowing. And third, there are often more than two sides to the issue, and we would do well to let each person stake out his position and deal with them on their own terms.
We are dealing with brothers and sisters who have trusted in Christ and been born again by his grace, and we should value them accordingly.
In this article on the order of salvation, the site’s editor states, “In the Reformed camp, the ordo salutis is 1) election/predestination (in Christ), 2) Atonement 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification.” As we noted before, the order of #5-#7 (and possibly #4-#7) is logical rather than chronological. This means regeneration, conversion, and justification actually happen at a moment in time, but regeneration is the cause of faith and repentance.
One of the verses which Calvinists believe teaches this is 1 John 5:1a, which states: “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.” John Piper explains this verse in his book Providence, saying, “The tense of the verbs (in Greek and English) matter. ‘Believes’ is in the present tense and refers to our ongoing trust in Jesus. ‘Has been born’ is in the perfect tense and refers to a past act with ongoing effect. This means that the new birth brings about belief, not the other way around.” [emphasis added]
In other words, as Piper and other Calvinists understand it, the apostle John is teaching that when a person believes on Jesus as the Messiah, it is because he has already been born again by God. Or, as it is often stated more briefly: regeneration precedes faith.
Another passage used to support this view is John 1:12-13:
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Verse 12 draws a connection between belief in Jesus and being a child of God (being born again), while v.13 explains how they are connected. Piper notes that John says with “triple clarity,” the new birth is “not caused by ordinary human agency, but by God.” He then asks: “Does God’s begetting cause our believing, or does our believing bring about God’s begetting? Does the new birth bring about faith, or does faith bring about the new birth? The answer is clear. The whole burden of these verses is to deny that human causes can bring about a child of God….God’s begetting, not man’s believing, is decisive in bringing about the new birth.”
How should we think of this? Do these passages teach the specific order of salvation which characterizes Reformed and Calvinistic churches? Let’s consider 1 John 5:1 first, “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.” It’s true that “believes” is in the present tense, so it is speaking of Christians as those who currently believe that Jesus is the Messiah, and who continue to believe it. It is also true that these same people have been born again at some time in the past, but that is really all this verse requires us to say: everyone who is presently saved was born of God at some time in the past. It simply does not say anything about how they became children of God, so Piper’s conclusion that “This means that the new birth brings about belief, not the other way around” does not follow from this text.
Another observation that seems warranted at this point is that all of the language used to try to explain the Reformed order of salvation from this verse deals with chronology. When Piper says that the perfect tense verb “refers to a past act with ongoing effect,” does he mean “past” in time? If so, is he suggesting that a man is born again some time before he believes? And if not, then how does this verse speak to the order of salvation at all? At the very least, this language is confusing.
What about John 1:12-13? Being born of God is in the passive voice, which means that God initiates the new birth, and the one who is born again is the recipient of God’s action. So Piper and others are absolutely right to say that regeneration is not caused by human means but by God. But does this rule out any role or participation for man? I do not think it does. If we just look at the verse immediately prior, we can see that man does indeed have a role to play. It says, “He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.” In contrast to those people described in v.12, this group did not receive the right to become children of God, and were not born of God. Why not? Is it because they were not regenerated? No, it is because they did not receive Jesus; they did not believe in his name.
The condition for being born of God and becoming a child of God, according to John 1:11-13 is receiving Christ by believing on his name. There does not seem to be anything in this passage either which gives support for any specific order of salvation, other than to indicate that faith is necessary as a condition of salvation.
So does this mean that the Calvinist view of salvation is incorrect? Not at all. First, we have only dealt with a small fraction of the overall teaching of Calvinism on the subject of salvation in general, or even the order of salvation in particular. And second, it is not my intention to disprove Calvinism, but merely to demonstrate that the order of salvation as defined by many Reformed Christians is not addressed as clearly in Scripture as they imagine.
Next time I hope to present a positive case for repentance and faith as conditions for salvation.