Which happens first, regeneration or justification?

[Rella]

From a 77 year member of the Presbyterian Church, who broke the mold and is living under free will with the Holy Spirit living in me
I have a side note to this discussion. Got questions supports Total Depravity. But reason tells us that Adam ate the fruit by his own free will, else that would make God intentionally creating people that had no hope to escape their punishment at that specific point in time.

Providence Presbyterian church USA (very liberal) says this.... And in various forms all Presbyterians churches from the USA, of America and even Evangelical believe.

Original Sin and Total Depravity

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9NKJVQuestion 25 of the Larger Catechism asks, “Wherein consisteth the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?” It gives the answer, “The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth...

www.providencepgh.org

Original Sin and Total Depravity​

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9NKJV



Question 25 of the Larger Catechism asks, “Wherein consisteth the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?” It gives the answer, “The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually; which is commonly called Original Sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions.” Last question we looked at the nature of sin itself. Today we examine what it means to be a sinner.



How would you answer someone who asked you, “What do Christians mean when they say that man is fallen?” Maybe you would say something like, “Well, when Adam transgressed the commandment, all mankind fell from perfection and became sinners.” This answer is good in that it affirms the fact of the fall, but it says nothing about what the fall actually is. We know what sin is – breaking God’s law. And we know that all men are sinners – all men break God’s law. But why does this always happen? Why do all men sin and continue to sin? Why aren’t some men born who choose not to sin, or who choose to stop sinning so that they are no longer “sinners”? The answer given by Scripture is that when Adam sinned the nature of man changed. Man became a sinful being. Man’s problem is not that sometimes he does evil. Man’s problem is that he is evil! This is the ancient doctrine of original sin.



Jesus affirmed this doctrine many times and in many ways, to His disciples, and not just His enemies! On one occasion a disciple asked Jesus to teach His followers how to pray. After giving them the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus went on to encourage them to pray by contrasting God’s goodness with their own inherent evil, “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?” (Luke 11:13). Jesus says it so matter-of- factly to His disciples; “If you then being evil”! According to Jesus we do not become evil because we sin, we sin because we are already evil. Thus, another time Jesus explained to His disciples that it was not what was outside of them, corrupting or tempting them to sin that brought about evil, it was their heart inside of them that produced the evil that led to sin, “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man,” (Mark 7:21-23). The apostle James taught the same thing, “But each one is tempted by his lusts, being drawn away and seduced by them. Then when lust has conceived, it brings forth sin. And sin, when it is fully formed, brings forth death,” (Jam. 1:14-15). The Bible teaches this truth repeatedly. Sin does not corrupt fallen man from without, it breaks out of his heart, his core, which is already corrupt and full of sin. This reality is what it means to be fallen.



Because Adam was our representative, the guilt of his original transgression (not all of the subsequent ones in his life) is rightly imputed to us. Thus, when Adam sinned, we sinned. When Adam fell, we fell. Adam’s nature became corrupt. He was no longer righteous. We are born with this same corrupt nature. The Catechism describes this nature as, “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually.” Read the Scriptures themselves to get a much more detailed and graphic nature of the sinfulness of fallen man. Here are just a few examples: Rom. 1:29-32; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 4:17-19; Col. 3:5-8; Tit. 3:3; 2 Tim. 3:2-5; 1 Pet. 4:3-4; etc. The effect of original sin is total depravity. Because we are born with a sinful nature, apart from the regenerative work of God in our hearts, there is no good thing in us, “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh,” (Rom. 7:18); “As it is written: “There is none righteous, no, not one … There is none who does good, not even one,” (Rom. 3:10, 12). These doctrines of original sin and total depravity are essential to the gospel. For until a man knows and mourns over the fact that he is “made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually,” he will not repent of his own pride and perceived goodness and trust in Christ alone for salvation.

Continuing on with just the final paragraph of

Worse Than We Think: What Total Depravity Is (and Is Not)

Total depravity does not mean that, outside of Christ, we were as bad as we could be. It means that every part of us was bad.

www.desiringgod.org

Article by
Robert Letham


Professor, Wales Evangelical School of Theology

Worse Than We Think​

What Total Depravity Is (and Is Not)​

In short, the reality of total depravity leaves no possibility of salvation by our own efforts. It points to our dire condition from the fall and the sovereign work of God in rescuing us. Only the Holy Spirit can change us and transform us into the image of Christ, who is the image of the invisible God. This is a cause for unbounded thanksgiving to God and delight in his grace and goodness in Christ.

And that boys and girls is why Presbyterians ALWAYS baptize their infants and small children. Else they would be lost if they die before the age of reason, with no hope.

 

[JIM]

As I said---you simply say they mean something else. Use all of Scripture on the subject to verify your interpretation. Your explanation of them simply interprets them according to either what you want to believe, in order to fit with what you do believe, or what you have always been taught and so still believe.

Do you really think your explanations are any different. In fact, you have described all such interpretations, including your own. Every discussion of the scriptures other than a direct quote is nothing more than an interpretation.

Again, your view is also an interpretation. That is a lame argument.

Of course my view is also an interpretation. As I noted above, every view that extends beyond a direct quote is an interpretation. One might say that even direct quotes can be considered interpretations since there are the different translations available and they do not all agree.

There is a declaration by God that Adam is the federal head of all humans.

No there is not. I am not sure there is even an agreement on what constitutes a "federal head". I do not even think the concept appears in the scripturers. I believe it to be a construct created to defend an untenable theological concept or perception.

Every time it says "as in Adam all" or "born in Adam", "as in one man all".

I strongly believe the only real meaning of the phrase "in Adam", is that it means "being human". The phrase "in Christ" simply indicates one who has been saved, i.e., justified, regenerated and (initially) sanctified. Now just as books have been written about what it means to be human, books also could and have been written about what it means to be saved.

The entire Bible shows the effect of Adam's fall and it is juxtaposed against "in Christ." Christ too is a federal head of all who are in him through faith. He is the "head" of the church. And there is no declaration in Scripture that God is triune either, yet you say the evidence within the Bible shows it to be the case so you believe it, as well you should. Why then do you discard the evidence of the federal headship of Adam? Surely you acknowledge the federal headship of Christ over believers.

Whatever effect of Adam's fall you think is shown in the Bible is your own idea. It is not something stated in the Bible. It never even speaks about a fall. Even the word "fall" used in that context is nonexistent in the Bible.

Then everyone who died before the crucifixion and resurrection would be saved. Who died for all those who were born after the crucifixion and resurrection?

I have no idea what you are referring to or talking about.

What religion or denomination teaches such a thing?

That illustrates a bit of your own problem. You have not really spent any time studying any theology inconsistent with your own.

That is a contradictory statement. Either something is paid for or it is not. And you say Jesus did pay for all of the sins of everyone. Jesus paid by dying. If what you say were true, then the Father did not accept the payment until and unless a certain obligation is met by the one Jesus died for (everyone as you say). And yet Jesus died anyway to pay their debt. You have added a caveat to salvation that cannot exist if, as the Bible says, salvation is by grace.

All of that derives from the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement which I take to be categorically false.

God isn't charging anyone with someone else's sins. Humanity is not being charged with Adam's sin but their own sins.

Yes, but that is a result of anything that Adam did. It is a result of precisely how God created the human being.

They are sinners, a creature that is sinful and therefore sins, by virtue of being human---the children of Adam.

No, the are sinners only if and when the sin. God didn't create sinners. He created beings who could sin. Sinning is disobedience, specifically disobedience of God's law. It is a choice. Until one has chosen to sin, he is not a sinner. Now it happens, as Paul has declared, all have sinned. Notice, he did not say that all are sinners. The difference is crucial. Paul is saying that all that could sin, have sinned. The very young and the too mentally deficient cannot sin.

 

[David Lamb]

From a 77 year member of the Presbyterian Church, who broke the mold and is living under free will with the Holy Spirit living in me
I have a side note to this discussion. Got questions supports Total Depravity. But reason tells us that Adam ate the fruit by his own free will, else that would make God intentionally creating people that had no hope to escape their punishment at that specific point in time.

Providence Presbyterian church USA (very liberal) says this.... And in various forms all Presbyterians churches from the USA, of America and even Evangelical believe.

Original Sin and Total Depravity

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9NKJVQuestion 25 of the Larger Catechism asks, “Wherein consisteth the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?” It gives the answer, “The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth...

www.providencepgh.org

Continuing on with just the final paragraph of

Worse Than We Think: What Total Depravity Is (and Is Not)

Total depravity does not mean that, outside of Christ, we were as bad as we could be. It means that every part of us was bad.

www.desiringgod.org

And that boys and girls is why Presbyterians ALWAYS baptize their infants and small children. Else they would be lost if they die before the age of reason, with no hope.

And where do we read that in the bible? You seem to believe that the salvation of a child dying "before the age of reason" (to use your phrase) depends on whether or not they have Presbyterian or other paedo-baptist parents.

 

[Rella]

And where do we read that in the bible? You seem to believe that the salvation of a child dying "before the age of reason" (to use your phrase) depends on whether or not they have Presbyterian or other paedo-baptist parents.

Has to do with everyone who is of that belief system. If you die before you are of age to have had the proper, immersed, baptism you are lost ...because you dont have the foundation or understanding to have faith in Jesus or to know your sins need washed away.

Babies , in most religions, cannot be baptized. They will tell you that until someone reaches the age of accountability they cannot have their sins washed away because they don't understand what they are doing.... but for the Presbyterians because of their believe in Total Depravity... IOW...

1. Calvinist doctrine that all human action is tainted by original sin.
2. The Calvinist doctrine that everyone is born in a state of corruption as a result of original sin.

The babies must be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit and dedicated to God until they are old enough to know. And should they die they are protected.

Did you not read that I am free will.. and therefore do not hold with the constraints of those that are predestined to something or another.

I do not believe that at all. That the salvation of a child dying "before the age of understanding depends on anything but God taking that child back....

 

[David Lamb]

Has to do with everyone who is of that belief system. If you die before you are of age to have had the proper, immersed, baptism you are lost ...because you dont have the foundation or understanding to have faith in Jesus or to know your sins need washed away.

Babies , in most religions, cannot be baptized. They will tell you that until someone reaches the age of accountability they cannot have their sins washed away because they don't understand what they are doing.... but for the Presbyterians because of their believe in Total Depravity... IOW...

1. Calvinist doctrine that all human action is tainted by original sin.
2. The Calvinist doctrine that everyone is born in a state of corruption as a result of original sin.

The babies must be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit and dedicated to God until they are old enough to know. And should they die they are protected.

Did you not read that I am free will.. and therefore do not hold with the constraints of those that are predestined to something or another.

I do not believe that at all. That the salvation of a child dying "before the age of understanding depends on anything but God taking that child back....

But you still haven't answered my question about where in the bible that babies who die before the age of reason will only be saved if they are baptized?

 

[Red Baker]

But you still haven't answered my question about where in the bible that babies who die before the age of reason will only be saved if they are baptized?

The scripture will answer for us:

Romans 5:14​

“Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.”

There's no such doctrine of the age of reason, or the age of accountability~it's man's doctrine what he would do if he was God, but he is not.

Neither is infant baptism taught in the scriptures~nor do we see young folks being baptized, in the book of Acts of the apostles, it was always men and women being baptized. Infants and young folks will not spoil if they are of the very elect, we must give them TIME to be willing to submit/commit to the faith and religion of Jesus Christ~and baptism is that commitment, the answer of a good conscience before God. We teach them and train them, but the commitment must be their. There is no age set in the NT as to when one should be baptized, for without question a few may do this very early in life, yet the exceptions only prove the rule, most do not commit, they are too busy in their youth trying to figure out life and the changes going on in ther bodies!

 

[David Lamb]

The scripture will answer for us:

Romans 5:14​

“Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.”

There's no such doctrine of the age of reason, or the age of accountability~it's man's doctrine what he would do if he was God, but he is not.

Neither is infant baptism taught in the scriptures~nor do we see young folks being baptized, in the book of Acts of the apostles, it was always men and women being baptized. Infants and young folks will not spoil if they are of the very elect, we must give them TIME to be willing to submit/commit to the faith and religion of Jesus Christ~and baptism is that commitment, the answer of a good conscience before God. We teach them and train them, but the commitment must be their. There is no age set in the NT as to when one should be baptized, for without question a few may do this very early in life, yet the exceptions only prove the rule, most do not commit, they are too busy in their youth trying to figure out life and the changes going on in ther bodies!

Agreed, there is no set age for baptism. Sometimes Baptists are described as believing in adult baptism; they don't, they believe that baptism is for believers. They look at examples such as Philip before baptising the Ethiopian, saying that if he believed with all his heart, he could be baptized.

 

[JIM]

But you still haven't answered my question about where in the bible that babies who die before the age of reason will only be saved if they are baptized?

Why do babies who die before the age of reason even need to be saved -- saved from what?

 

[Rella]

But you still haven't answered my question about where in the bible that babies who die before the age of reason will only be saved if they are baptized?

I am not answering that because it is not there. My post was only to state what the church of which I am familiar with believes and that comes from their belief in predestination which tracks back to John Calvin saying

Here is a short summary statement of John Calvin’s argument for applying the sign of baptism to the children of Believers:

John Calvin (1509-1564)

“Reason would tell us that baptism is rightly administered to babies. The Lord did not give circumcision long ago without making them (infants) partakers of everything represented by circumcision. He would have been deceiving his people with a sham, if he had reassured them with false signs. The idea is very shocking. He distinctly states that the circumcision of the infant is the seal of covenant promise. If the covenant remains firm and unmoved, this is just as relevant to the children of Christians today as it was to the children of the Jews under the Old Testament…The truth of baptism applies to infants, so why do we deny them the sign? The Lord himself formally admitted infants to his covenant, so what more do we need?”

And their unwavering belief that Total Depravity is in every new born and they must be protected.

It is this total depravity that has so many vehemently arguing that "You must be born again" ...
but not until the age that you can understand why.

I do not believe in Total Depravity. Not in the way that most present it.

Therefore I do not believe it is necessary to baptize babies, even though I was.

I mean... what is copiously lacking in scripture is any discussion on this subject and any explanation that the Jailor's family , Lydia's . and even Stephanus' family were lacking any children. In fact: Lydia's family members were baptized, ... but does not specifically reveal that her family believed. We are told we must.

We are told by many if not the majority of posters in various religious forums that "their families were baptized, yet they had no babies or small children."

I have zero knowledge of why the Catholics baptize infants but they do.

But checking out the bible we see elsewhere in the Bible, entire households are referred to as being saved (Luke 19:9;And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham..... Acts 11:14, and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’.... ). Apparently, To be saved, one does not necessarily have to be aware of what is happening. For example, say a person was born with a severe brain defect and eventually died without ever having been capable of rational thought or communication. Is that person damned simply because of being unable to believe?

So perhaps Calvin was just copying the RCC ?? I dont know. I dont care. I dont follow him.

So no... It is not in the bible. But when has that every stopped something from blossoming in the church ....

This is my opinion .

 

[David Lamb]

Why do babies who die before the age of reason even need to be saved -- saved from what?

Sin, hell, eternal punishment. As David said, he was born as a sinner:

“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.” (Ps 51:5 NKJV)

 

[Rella]

Why do babies who die before the age of reason even need to be saved -- saved from what?

You have to ask a predestination believer for that explanation. Total Depravity is what they hang their hats on... yet, ironically not all believe in
the baptism , for the protection and washing away of those awful Adam sins from their little bodies. ....

Now added into the baptism service at my church is the comment about it being appropriate to baptize babies into the New Covenant because..
in the words of John Calvin ~ The Lord did not give circumcision long ago without making them (infants) partakers of everything represented by circumcision.

 

[Rella]

@JIM said:
Why do babies who die before the age of reason even need to be saved -- saved from what?

Sin, hell, eternal punishment. As David said, he was born as a sinner:

“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.” (Ps 51:5 NKJV)

Do you or do you not believe in infant baptism?

If they need to be save, as you suggest to Jim... then they must, must they not?

 

[David Lamb]

You have to ask a predestination believer for that explanation. Total Depravity is what they hang their hats on... yet, ironically not all believe in
the baptism , for the protection and washing away of those awful Adam sins from their little bodies. ....

Now added into the baptism service at my church is the comment about it being appropriate to baptize babies into the New Covenant because..
in the words of John Calvin ~ The Lord did not give circumcision long ago without making them (infants) partakers of everything represented by circumcision.

But I haven't heard of paedobaptists baptising only boy babies.

 

[JIM]

Sin, hell, eternal punishment. As David said, he was born as a sinner:

“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.” (Ps 51:5 NKJV)

That is a statement about is mother not him.

Besides if you wish to assign that condition to David and you wish to take it literally, then you must also take verse 7 literally and forget about anything in the NT and just go find some hyssop.

Also what are you going to do with verses 12 and 13. "Sinners WILL RETURN to you". Really? I though original sin and total depravity would keep that from happening.

 

[JIM]

You have to ask a predestination believer for that explanation. Total Depravity is what they hang their hats on... yet, ironically not all believe in
the baptism , for the protection and washing away of those awful Adam sins from their little bodies. ....

Now added into the baptism service at my church is the comment about it being appropriate to baptize babies into the New Covenant because..
in the words of John Calvin ~ The Lord did not give circumcision long ago without making them (infants) partakers of everything represented by circumcision.

Yeah and of course circumcision was only the male babies, so I guess females aren't included in the New Covenant one way or the other.

 

[David Lamb]

That is a statement about is mother not him.

Besides if you wish to assign that condition to David and you wish to take it literally, then you must also take verse 7 literally and forget about anything in the NT and just go find some hyssop.

Also what are you going to do with verses 12 and 13. "Sinners WILL RETURN to you". Really? I though original sin and total depravity would keep that from happening.

No, we have no reason to believe that David was conceived in his mother's sin - where do you get that notion?

 

[Rella]

But I haven't heard of paedobaptists baptising only boy babies.

True. But when circumcision was being done on the 8th day, it was certainly a more male oriented culture and therefore one that even wives were to ask their husbands at home rather then voice things aloud in service.

Anyway... The following is a pretty self explanatory explanation of views. I am not providing this in support thereof, but for educational purposes of aspects I lack knowledge in,

What Christians Should Know About Paedobaptism

Paedobaptism has been the dominant view throughout church history, but in areas where Christianity is not as well-established, credobaptism tends to be the dominant view. Let's take a look at the main points of difference.

www.biblestudytools.com

What Should Christians Know about the Controversial History of Paedobaptism?​

I am not copying and pasting because my character counter says it is 9,000 words and this says more then 10 so if you want the link will take you right there.

 

[Rella]

Yeah and of course circumcision was only the male babies, so I guess females aren't included in the New Covenant one way or the other.

Yep... I kind of get that feeling.

Although certain Muslim sects circumcise the young girls about the age of 15 or younger.

 

[Rella]

No, we have no reason to believe that David was conceived in his mother's sin - where do you get that notion?

Psalm 51:5

5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

 

[JIM]

No, we have no reason to believe that David was conceived in his mother's sin - where do you get that notion?

If it wasn't his mother's sin, then whose was it? Where did it come from?