Which happens first, regeneration or justification?

[Rella]

Jim, you my friend are so wrong. The mystery hidden in the OT is that Jews and Gentiles were to come together to made ONE HOLY TEMPLE for an habitation of God through the Spirit!

​

Please explain why... Matt 15:24 But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

 

[Arial]

Only under your warped soteriology. It is obvious that you are in error. Both Ephesians 1:13-14 and Colossians 2:12-13 establishes regeneration through faith, meaning faith precedes regeneration. There is not a single passage that establishes faith through regeneration.

Could you break those passages down for us and show exactly how they do that? Without using an amateur analysis of Greek to do so, since no Greek analysis is necessary in this case and sheds no new light of the clear and simple passage in order to understand it. And making sure that it is consistent with the whole counsel of God on the subject of soteriology, the condition of mankind, and God's self revelation in the Scripture. If it needs to be a long post in order to cover all the bases, that is fine. Certainly short quips and unsupported opinions will not do. Neither will unsupported declarations of fact----both of which constitute your above post.

Pretend you are a preacher giving a sermon on those passages with the purpose of edifying and teaching the sheep sitting in the pews. A servant of God.

 

[Arial]

Please explain why... Matt 15:24 But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

Because----

Israel played a crucial role in the history of redemption. Not as an isolated people and nation, but as a witness to the rest of the world of both the revealed living and sovereign God, and the only true God, and of righteousness. They failed, but the faithful God did not. The supreme purpose of Israel was the Seed who would come through the seed bearers (Seth, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, on through David and beyond (see Gospel genealogies.)

In Christ the mission of Israel, in spite of the fact that they mostly rejected him, went forth. Jesus came to the lost sheep of Israel. That is where he lived, and acted, and taught. That is the law of righteousness that he was born under and which he obeyed to the fullest where his brethren had always failed. Israel is the place where he gathered to himself disciples, eleven who became Apostles to Israel, and one other Jew who he appointed as an apostle to the Gentiles.

Jesus did not teach in Gentile lands for it was not his purpose to do so. But he never excluded them. And we see what happened at Pentecost. Three thousand Jews were converted and returned with the good news to the Gentile lands in which they lived.

 

[Josheb]

Justification~Is an immanent act in God, it is an act of his grace towards his elect. Justification is wholly without them, therefore, with their faith, justification entirely resides in the divine mind, and lies in his estimating, accounting, and constituting them righteous, through the righteousness of his Son, their surety; and, as such, did not first commence in time, but from eternity, all according to his purpose which he purposed in Himself.

(As a side not, I would like for anyone to explain to me, how God was a friend of Abraham before Christ actually paid for his sins, not only Abraham, but all of the children of God mentioned is the OT testament before Christ actually paid the sin debt they owed God's law. David knew that God justified the ungodly based upon what God had purposed to do through his Son ~ being also the son of David ~ and David even described this blessing that he enjoyed THEN while he lived.)

All the elect of God were justified in Christ, their Head and Representative, when he rose from the dead, and therefore in time would believe, unless they died as an infant, or were mentally unable to do so, which some have and some are. Christ engaged as a Surety for all his people from eternity, had their sins imputed to him then, and for which he made himself responsible; in the fulness of time he was made of a woman, made under the law, for the sole purpose to make full satisfaction for them by his life, sufferings and death, and at his resurrection was acquitted and discharged, as though they never sinned ~ now as he suffered and died, not as a private, but as a public person, so he rose again, and was justified as such, even as the representative of his people; hence when he rose, they rose with him; and when he was justified, they were justified in him; for he was "delivered for their offences, and was raised again for their justification.

Romans 4:25​

“Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.”

Not one thing was left undone for us to do, to make this immanent act of God secured, final, safely imparted to the elect of God.

Ephesians 2:4-7​

“But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.”

Thanks, but that doesn't address my point.

Let's say justification is an immanent act of God (I agree, btw). That still does not define justification. It speaks of the cause, but not the nature or definition of justification. To say, "All the elect were justified in Christ..." is good and correct but it's also meaningless unless and until "justification" is defined. The fact is there are many different definitions of justification held by Christians so we here in this thread are going to end up posting past one another without an agreed upon definition. I think it odd that wasn't established early on and even odder that everyone asserted various positions without doing so. Ten different people talking about the same word with ten different unstated definitions may very well end up incorrectly imagining they have agreement (to degrees small or large) when none actually exists. This happens quite often when cultists converse with orthodox Christians. For example, it's impossible to have a cogent Christological conversation with a JW, an LDS, and a Trin because they are each asserting a different Jesus.... all while still using the same word, "Christ."


Which happens first, regeneration or justification?

That depends on how those two terms are defined.


I define regeneration as being born anew from above (ala John 3:3), but some disagree. I define justification as the condition in which a person, an otherwise sinful sinner who has not standing, has the ability to stand before God and plead his/her case. It's a legal term. Many disagree with that definition (although I'd guess 99% of folks laying claim to the name of Jesus will agree the only ability to stand before God is found in Christ). I also believe justification comes from at least three means (many may disagree here, too), and at least one of them is pre-regeneration and one of them is post-regeneration. Many people disagree with that, too.


The answer to the question depends on how the terms are defined. For example, what specifically is the immanent act of God? I say it is His immanent provision of a means by which the sinner may stand before Him and not instantly be incinerated .

 

[fastfredy0]

Jesus did not teach in Gentile lands for it was not his purpose to do so. But he never excluded them.

I disagree. Jesus excluded the Gentiles while on earth with minor exceptions.

• Matthew 15:24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
• Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritan [half Jew/half Gentile], 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And proclaim as you go, saying, “The kingdom of heaven [Christ’s governing for 1,000 years on earth] is at hand.”
• Matthew 2:2 saying, “Where is he [Jesus] who has been born king of the Jews? (Not king of everyone)
• John 1:11 He [Jesus] came to his own [Israel], and his own people [Israel] did not receive him.
• Peter who was trained by Christ will have nothing to do with the Gentiles for years till he has a vision that going to the Gentiles is OK now
• Matt 15:24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 And he answered, “It is not right to take the children's [Israel] bread and throw it to the dogs. [Gentiles]” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.” Analogy compared Israel to His lost sheep and Gentiles to dogs.
• Christ's choice of disciples was 0 for 12 when it came to selecting Gentiles.

Aside: Jesus did help the Centurion, Samaritan women and at least one of the 10 lepers.

 

[JIM]

Jim, you my friend are so wrong. The mystery hidden in the OT is that Jews and Gentiles were to come together to made ONE HOLY TEMPLE for an habitation of God through the Spirit!

I agree that was certainly a part of the mystery hidden in the OT. But the simple truth is that while we can look back on the OT scriptures and see the prophecies concerning Jesus Christ and the gospel, the apostles who walked, worked and lived with Jesus for nearly three years on a daily basis did not know and understand the gospel message until after His ascension and were given that knowledge and understanding by divine inspiration beginning at Pentecost. How much more of a (biblical) mystery could that have been?

Barnes has this concerning Matthew 13:11

The mysteries of the kingdom - The word “mystery,” in the Bible, properly means a thing that is “concealed,” or that “has been concealed.” It does not mean that the thing was “incomprehensible,” or even difficult to be understood.
The thing might be “plain” enough if revealed, but it means simply that it “had” not been before made known. Thus the “mysteries of the kingdom” do not mean any doctrines incomprehensible in themselves considered, but simply doctrines about the preaching of the gospel and the establishment of the new kingdom of the Messiah, which “had not” been understood, and which were as yet concealed from the great body of the Jews. See Rom_16:25; Rom_11:25; Eph_3:3-4, Eph_3:9. Of this nature was the truth that the gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles; that the Jewish polity was to cease; that the Messiah was to die, etc. To the disciples it was given to know these truths. This was important for them, as they were to carry the gospel around the globe. To the others it was not “then” given. They were too gross, too earthly; they had too, grovelling conceptions of the Messiah’s kingdom to understand these truths, even if communicated to them. They were not to preach the gospel, and hence our Saviour was at particular pains to instruct his apostles in the system which they were to preach. The Pharisees, and Jews generally, were not prepared to receive the system, and would not have believed it, and therefore he purposely employed a kind of teaching which was intended for his apostles only.

 

[Arial]

I disagree. Jesus excluded the Gentiles while on earth with minor exceptions.

• Matthew 15:24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
• Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritan [half Jew/half Gentile], 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And proclaim as you go, saying, “The kingdom of heaven [Christ’s governing for 1,000 years on earth] is at hand.”
• Matthew 2:2 saying, “Where is he [Jesus] who has been born king of the Jews? (Not king of everyone)
• John 1:11 He [Jesus] came to his own [Israel], and his own people [Israel] did not receive him.
• Peter who was trained by Christ will have nothing to do with the Gentiles for years till he has a vision that going to the Gentiles is OK now
• Matt 15:24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 And he answered, “It is not right to take the children's [Israel] bread and throw it to the dogs. [Gentiles]” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.” Analogy compared Israel to His lost sheep and Gentiles to dogs.
• Christ's choice of disciples was 0 for 12 when it came to selecting Gentiles.

Aside: Jesus did help the Centurion, Samaritan women and at least one of the 10 lepers.

If there are exceptions then there is no exclusion. The point of all the above verses is the purpose. The purpose for that step in redemption is what we see. There is a first and then what follows. The first is what produces the result of what follows and should not be seen as an exclusion on ethnic or national grounds, or as a separation of Jew and Gentile.

 

[fastfredy0]

If there are exceptions then there is no exclusion.

Technically true. I suppose one call say I was a good dad at times because every Xmas I didn't beat up on my children.

and should not be seen as an exclusion on ethnic or national grounds, or as a separation of Jew and Gentile.

Eph. 2:12
remember that at that time you were separated from Christ [excluded from any relationship with Him], alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise [with no share in the sacred Messianic promise and without knowledge of God’s agreements], having no hope [in His promise] and [living] in the world without God. AMP

.... so this verse is in error to say the Gentiles were separated (excluded) and having "no hope"?

 

[JIM]

Could you break those passages down for us and show exactly how they do that? Without using an amateur analysis of Greek to do so, since no Greek analysis is necessary in this case and sheds no new light of the clear and simple passage in order to understand it. And making sure that it is consistent with the whole counsel of God on the subject of soteriology, the condition of mankind, and God's self revelation in the Scripture. If it needs to be a long post in order to cover all the bases, that is fine. Certainly short quips and unsupported opinions will not do. Neither will unsupported declarations of fact----both of which constitute your above post.

Pretend you are a preacher giving a sermon on those passages with the purpose of edifying and teaching the sheep sitting in the pews. A servant of God.

Try reading those two passages as they are written. I know it is difficult for all of us not to impose our own doctrinal views into it, but if you simply read the words as they are written, the true meaning should not be difficult to grasp.

Ephesians 1:13 says, "WHEN you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, *you) were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit. Clearly you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit when you were born again. Thus clearly Paul is saying that occurred AFTER having heard and believed in Jesus. That is the straightforward meaning of that sentence.

Colossians 2:11-13 describes the action of God in regeneration: 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses. Surely there can be no plainer description of being born again than that verse; being dead then made alive can be no other then being born again. Verse 12 says that happens "having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith....". There should not be any question that description identifies faith as the precondition through which God administers His act of regeneration.

 

[Arial]

Ephesians 1:13 says, "WHEN you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, *you) were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit. Clearly you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit when you were born again. Thus clearly Paul is saying that occurred AFTER having heard and believed in Jesus. That is the straightforward meaning of that sentence.

It does not say anything about being born again and it does not say "after you believed" it says "when you believed." Being born again is a different topic and we find that most clearly in John 3. The topic here is being sealed in Christ by the Holy Spirit. Jesus said we cannot see (understand and believe would be the usage here as the kingdom in invisible) or enter the kingdom unless we are born again. And we are not the cause of any of those things. Not the new birth, not the believing, and not the sealing.

Colossians 2:11-13 describes the action of God in regeneration: 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses. Surely there can be no plainer description of being born again than that verse; being dead then made alive can be no other then being born again. Verse 12 says that happens "having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith....". There should not be any question that description identifies faith as the precondition through which God administers His act of regeneration.

I am not disputing that verse 13 is describing the new birth. Verse 12 is not describing the order of salvation. It is a part of 8-11 in which Paul is describing the union of the believer with Christ. There is no reason to read those passages and arrive at a doctrine that is not even being discussed in them; such as a claim that it is saying faith is the cause of God regenerating a person. And as to what you didn't concerning the full counsel of God on the subject and and God's self claims like I asked you to:

To state that the Bible teaches that faith is a precondition that must be met by God in order for him to regenerate a person, is to deny every scripture that states and demonstrates that we can do nothing to gain merit or reward for his grace and mercy in our salvation. Including but not only John 3.

 

[JIM]

It does not say anything about being born again and it does not say "after you believed" it says "when you believed." Being born again is a different topic and we find that most clearly in John 3. The topic here is being sealed in Christ by the Holy Spirit. Jesus said we cannot see (understand and believe would be the usage here as the kingdom in invisible) or enter the kingdom unless we are born again. And we are not the cause of any of those things. Not the new birth, not the believing, and not the sealing.

I am not disputing that verse 13 is describing the new birth. Verse 12 is not describing the order of salvation. It is a part of 8-11 in which Paul is describing the union of the believer with Christ. There is no reason to read those passages and arrive at a doctrine that is not even being discussed in them; such as a claim that it is saying faith is the cause of God regenerating a person. And as to what you didn't concerning the full counsel of God on the subject and and God's self claims like I asked you to:

To state that the Bible teaches that faith is a precondition that must be met by God in order for him to regenerate a person, is to deny every scripture that states and demonstrates that we can do nothing to gain merit or reward for his grace and mercy in our salvation. Including but not only John 3.

OK, thanks for your thoughts. You have a nice day

 

[Eleanor]

Are we regenerated before we are justified? Or are we justifired before we are regenerated?

If regeneration precedes justification, How could God impart His image to a sinner who is under wrath?

We didn't lose God's image in the fall (Ge 9:6).

Can a soul partake of spiritual life before union with Christ?

I understand "Spiritual life" (eternal life) of Adam and his descendants to have been lost in the fall.

How can the object of justification be a renewed saint, which would seem to contridict Romans 4:5?

Justification is simply acquittal of guilt, a forgiven saint, a declaration of right standing, sinless.
It is not a declaration of actual righteousness.

If justification is before regeneration.
How could acts of life (faith) exist if there is not an abiding princilple for them from which to proceed?
And, how can a dead soul be the subject of this noblest act of faith that unites to Christ?
After all, there are many acts of justifying faith, such as assenting, choosing, approving, and resting in Christ. Can a dead soul do these things?
The fruit of faith needs a root, and a dead root will not do.

So which comes first, regeneration of justification? And how does this work?
Thoughts?

Logically, everything follows sovereign regeneration (Jn 3:6-8) -- faith, forgiveness (salvation), justification, sanctification.

 

[Rella]

Logically, everything follows sovereign regeneration (Jn 3:6-8) -- faith, forgiveness (salvation), justification, sanctification.

 

[Arial]

We didn't lose God's image in the fall (Ge 9:6).

I understand "Spiritual life" (eternal life) of Adam and his descendants to have been lost in the fall.

Justification is simply acquittal of guilt, a forgiven saint, a declaration of right standing, sinless.
It is not a declaration of actual righteousness.

Logically, everything follows sovereign regeneration (Jn 3:6-8) -- faith, forgiveness (salvation), justification, sanctification.

Yay! Eleanor you are back!

 

[Arial]

Eph. 2:12
remember that at that time you were separated from Christ [excluded from any relationship with Him], alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise [with no share in the sacred Messianic promise and without knowledge of God’s agreements], having no hope [in His promise] and [living] in the world without God. AMP

.... so this verse is in error to say the Gentiles were separated (excluded) and having "no hope"?

It is a generalized statement that means God covenanted with only one nation using that nation as a witness to the Gentiles that he is the one true and living God. (Remember those other nations all worshiped many gods)But Gentiles were not excluded even in that covenant with Israel. Jesus' linage is peppered with Gentiles.

 

[Carbon]

Yay! Eleanor you are back!

@Eleanor
Yes, yay!
We were all just about ready to go looking for you.

 

[fastfredy0]

It is a generalized statement that means God covenanted with only one nation using that nation as a witness to the Gentiles that he is the one true and living God. (Remember those other nations all worshiped many gods)But Gentiles were not excluded even in that covenant with Israel. Jesus' linage is peppered with Gentiles.

I gave ample verses to show that God/Christ did not love/favor the Gentiles so you list some verses to support your side of the argument.

Then, just for fun and I know there's no way to substantiate an answer... but from the time of Jacob to Christ's death what in your estimate was the proportion of Jews that were saved compared to the Gentiles.
Now, not much to go on but there was Elijah who said something like there was no God loving Jews left save himself to which God says "Yet I will leave 7,000 [survivors] in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed down to Baal and every mouth that has not kissed him.” ChatGPT says "According to most historical estimates, the Jewish population in the 9th century B.C. was likely around a few hundred thousand people". So I'm going to say God set aside for himself 2% of the population at that time.
ChatAPT says the were about 250 million people on the planet in 9 B.C. If God favored those people to the extent He did the Jews then that would be 5 million people at 2%. I'm going to say God favored 10 of 250 million. I am assuming your theory would have the number in the millions? ... and seeing these Gentiles knew nothing of the true God, what possible saving faith could they have to save millions of them?

*giggles*

 

[Mr GLee]

I gave ample verses to show that God/Christ did not love/favor the Gentiles so you list some verses to support your side of the argument.

Then, just for fun and I know there's no way to substantiate an answer... but from the time of Jacob to Christ's death what in your estimate was the proportion of Jews that were saved compared to the Gentiles.
Now, not much to go on but there was Elijah who said something like there was no God loving Jews left save himself to which God says "Yet I will leave 7,000 [survivors] in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed down to Baal and every mouth that has not kissed him.” ChatGPT says "According to most historical estimates, the Jewish population in the 9th century B.C. was likely around a few hundred thousand people". So I'm going to say God set aside for himself 2% of the population at that time.
ChatAPT says the were about 250 million people on the planet in 9 B.C. If God favored those people to the extent He did the Jews then that would be 5 million people at 2%. I'm going to say God favored 10 of 250 million. I am assuming your theory would have the number in the millions? ... and seeing these Gentiles knew nothing of the true God, what possible saving faith could they have to save millions of them?

*giggles*

I would offer.

Jacob meaning the deceiver the second born following the seed (Christ) which began in Enos a second born used to replace born again Abel the first second born .In order to represent a man must be born again .

After demonstration of two births Abel and Enos then born again mankind began to call on Christ unseen.

Genisis 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.


It would seem Satan who is not subject to the gospel has no spiritual understanding from Christ. Christians as sons of God do have his understanding as it is written.

Légion the god of this world his lack of gospel knowledge gives a one sided view the temporal dying historical. No gospel unseen things as a rest .

The two temporal and eternal must be mixed

The father of lies his focus on the temporal dying historical

Romans 2:28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

Romans 2:29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Romans 10:21But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel (inward )shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Same with the word Christian. The heavenly father named Israel Christian in Acts. Not all that name the name are Christians

Christian inward Jew .Twice in Revelation chapter two and three a outward Jew with a DNA card tried to enter fellowship with a inward Jew (Christian) God is not a racist.

 

[Red Baker]

Please explain why... Matt 15:24 But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

Under the law, which Jesus was born under, they went only to the house of Israel, after Acts 10, that all changed, showing the hidden mystery of God being made known to the world. But, not sure what your scripture has to do with what I said to Jim.

 

[JIM]

Under the law, which Jesus was born under, they went only to the house of Israel, after Acts 10, that all changed, showing the hidden mystery of God being made known to the world. But, not sure what your scripture has to do with what I said to Jim.

Go back to my reply #146. I added to it.