Salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9), meaning that it is not by works (Titus 3:5-6)  It is by grace alone (Ephesians 2:8-9).  It is a gift of God (Romans 6:23).

Faith is not a work.  The following are my two favorite places that teach that:

Philippians 1:29, “For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake.”

2 Peter 1:1, “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

First, it is given unto you to believe on Christ.  Second, people obtain like precious faith.  Salvation is by faith, not by works.  If faith was a work, that wouldn’t make any sense.

How does someone obtain faith from God?  It starts with revelation.  What is to be known of God is manifest in people (Romans 1:19) and then clearly seen in creation (Romans 1:20), which is general revelation (Psalm 19:1-6).  Next comes special revelation, the Word of God (Psalm 19:7-11).  As Romans 10:17 says, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”  This fulfills the message of Titus 2:11, “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.”  What I’m describing in this paragraph is what precedes faith.  Much more could be said on this.  The revelation of God is the grace that appears to everyone that gives faith that people obtain to be saved.

With all that said, here is John 1:9-13:

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Becoming a child of God and regeneration are essentially the same thing.  Look at verse 12.  Which comes first?  Receiving Jesus Christ or becoming a son of God?  It’s plain.  What comes before receiving Him?  Look at verse 9.  “The true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.”  I know that Calvinists or the Reformed, not all of them, but many, say that regeneration precedes faith.

The idea that regeneration precedes faith does not come from scripture.  Why is that doctrine taught and believed then?  In my opinion, it is a man-centered reaction to salvation by works.  A metaphor for this is a pendulum swing.  We’re not saved by works like Roman Catholicism and other religion teaches.  The light coming, revelation producing faith, that isn’t good enough.  They’ve got to go one step further to show how salvation does not depend on man.  They are men and they have invented this doctrine though.  The doctrine depends on them.

I’m writing on this because I read the article by Andy Naselli, published in the Master’s Seminary Journal, entitled, “Chosen, Born Again, and Believing:  How Election, Regeneration, and Faith Relate to Each Other in the Gospel According to John.”  Long title.  Does Naselli get his position from the passages or does he come to the passages with his presupposition?  You can read his section on John 1:9-13, the first one.  He comes to the text with assumptions and forces the text into them.  Naselli says that this text does not say that faith causes the new birth.  He says “being born of God [is] logically prior to receiving Jesus.”  Is that what you read?

If faith comes from the light, that means it comes from God.  If faith comes from the Word of God, then it comes from God.  If faith comes after the knowledge that manifests in people, then it comes from God.  Faith does not require or need regeneration in order to be from or of God.  Faith does not come by blood, by the will of the flesh, or by the will of man, because faith is given by God and obtained from God.  It is not a work.

Naselli doesn’t say it, but I’ve read enough elsewhere to know.  Many Calvinists cannot say that faith precedes regeneration, because they see faith as a decision or a choice.  You can read that in his article.  He says, “The basis of the new birth is not . . . what you desired.”  He is equating faith with the “act of a human.”  He is saying that faith is our will and since the new birth or regeneration does not come “by the will of man,” then it also cannot come by faith.  The problem is that isn’t what the passage point-blank says.

Is the teaching of Naselli and others like him enough to mess up the doctrine of salvation?  It is perverting what the passage says.  What kind of damage is this teaching doing?  It can lead to an extreme where someone does not want to receive Christ, delays receiving Christ, because he is waiting for regeneration.  I’ve seen that many times through the years.  I’m saying I’ve seen it personally over twenty times with individuals with whom I’ve talked.

I agree with some that this doctrine from Naselli affects what people think of the love of God.  God must regenerate to believe.  If someone does not believe, then God did not regenerate.  This person did not apparently receive irresistible grace, Christ did not atone for him.  God foreordained him to Hell.  If scripture taught this was the love of God, I would happily believe it.  It isn’t what the Bible says is the love of God.  It also isn’t what grace is.  The grace that saves appears to all men.

Yes, there is a mystery as to why some are saved and some are not.  The mystery for the Calvinist is why God chooses some and He rejects others before they were ever born.  The mystery for others, like myself, is why some receive Christ and others don’t.  The latter at least has some teaching about that.  Jesus says that it’s the condition of the soil in Matthew 13.  Paul says that the god of this world blinds men’s minds (2 Corinthians 4:4).

Naselli teaches at Bethlehem College and Seminary in Minnesota, John Piper’s school.  I’ve read John Piper’s explanation of the five points of Calvin.  The word “decisive” is a very important word to him.  What I’m saying, Piper would say is the sinner, assisted by God, providing the decisive impulse.  He would say, I’m saying, that “the decisive cause of faith is self-determination.”  Scripture says nothing about “decisive cause.”

As I’ve written about this subject in the past, I’ve said that God is sovereign about His own sovereignty.  We can’t make God more sovereign than what He says He is.  John 1:9-13 as it reads in its plain meaning does not contradict a scriptural understanding of the sovereignty of God.  It does not make salvation by works.  Piper adds this layer of “decisive cause,” and in that sense is adding to the teaching of scripture.  He speaks where scripture is silent.  He reads into the text.  This is also what Naselli is doing.  Naselli fills in the blank by quoting Calvin, writing:

Faith is not produced by us but is the fruit of spiritual new birth.

Then Naselli fills in this silence even more by quoting Martyn Lloyd-Jones:

The act of regeneration, being God’s act, is something that is outside consciousness.

Do you understand what he’s saying?  He’s saying that a person becomes a child of God outside of his own consciousness.  Is that what John 1:9-13 say?  Of course not.

*********************************

I was fine with the ending of this post, especially time-wise.  However, since I wrote it, other thoughts came, especially as it related to regeneration outside consciousness.  You go evangelizing in obedience to the command of Jesus Christ.  You do your best.  No one is saved.  Why?  None of the preaching audience was regenerated outside of their consciousness.  Obviously, if God had regenerated any of them outside of their consciousness, they would have believed.

I read a book about evangelizing Mormons, entitled I Love Mormons, and the PhD evangelical who wrote it gives a lot of strategy related to success with Mormons, understanding their culture, knowing their doctrine, taking a proper approach, etc.  I’m not saying I even agree with him on all of it, but isn’t the key for success that God arbitrarily regenerates outside of their consciousness?  If God does, your Mormon evangelism can’t but succeed.  Automatic success.  How does loving Mormons affect unconscious regeneration?  Not at all, because that would make man a decisive cause of faith.  I’m sure many passages come to your mind that do not fit this thinking.