David Depra's Argument Analysis

What came first the chicken or the egg? This age old question has been argued over by many people. In the same way the question of what comes first between Regeneration and Faith has also been argued by many biblical scholars throughout the year. When you look at the evidence in the Bible, and use logic, it is clear that Regeneration precedes Faith.
Of course not everyone agrees with this, there are some who say that Faith precedes Regeneration. David DePra wrote an article trying to argue this belief, while also claiming Regeneration preceding Faith is utter nonsense. One argument he uses is that it is illogical for someone to be saved, but still be an unbeliever. He says that being regenerated before having Faith means we are born again

in Christ, but we still don’t have Faith in God. DePra asks if this is possible when he questions “Is there such a thing as a "saved unbeliever?" A "regenerated unbeliever?" If Regeneration precedes Faith then there is such a thing. But where do we find this in the Bible?” He also states that it is impossible for to be in Christ, but not be righteous.
Some Calvinists would say that Regeneration and Faith happen at the same time, but Regeneration precedes Faith in a logical order, rather than a temporal order.

However DePra doesn’t agree with this either. He argues that it is too complicated, and that the Bible teaches that a child’s Faith will bring one to heaven. He also says that Faith needs understanding, and Faith can’t just be something we do without knowing. He emphatically states that “Faith cannot just happen”, so how would it be able to happen, just because God gave Regeneration. Finally he claims “Regeneration does NOT precede Faith. Rather, Faith precedes Regeneration... This is the Truth, and there is no other given to us for salvation.” What proof does he have for this? Well he gives several verses in support of this belief. One verse he provides is Romans 10:17 which says “So Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” He uses this to say that it is not Regeneration that causes or precedes Faith, but rather hearing. Those who say that Faith precedes Regeneration claim that the Calvinistic belief is illogical and unbiblical, and that all the Biblical evidence points to Faith preceding

Regeneration.
So what do the Calvinists say, if there is no support in the Bible for their beliefs, and they apparently make no sense? Actually there is a lot of evidence in the Bible to support the view of Regeneration preceding Faith. First though, let us define Regeneration. Wayne Grudem gives a definition for it in his book Bible Doctrine, “Regeneration is a secret act of God, in which he imparts new spiritual life in us” (300). It is important to note that Regeneration is completely an act of God, and has nothing to do with us. It is also important to note that it is a secret act of God, and is mysterious, because we can not fully understand it, or understand exactly when or what God does in Regeneration. The only reason we can know anything about Regeneration is through what God has revealed to us in the Bible.
Logically it only makes sense that Regeneration comes before Faith and Conversion.

The later two are a response to God, but Regeneration is God giving us the ability to respond to God. It makes sense that God would allow us to respond us to him, before we actually respond to him. To us however it may seem like Regeneration and Faith happen in the same instant, or that we have Regeneration because of our Faith. This is simply because they might happen so closely together, or because Regeneration is a spiritual matter we cannot observe as well as if it was physical (Grudem 302). The Bible however makes it clear Regeneration comes before saving Faith. In John 3 Nicodemus comes to Jesus in the night and talks to him. Jesus tells him that no one can see the kingdom of heaven before they are born again. Therefore they must be regenerated before they can be saved. Later on in John 6 Jesus says that no one can come to Father without him drawing them in. In Acts 16:14 God opens a woman’s heart to listen to Paul’s teaching and is saved. So contrary to DePra’s claims, the Calvinistic belief is supported by the Bible. Clearly the Bible says that because of God’s opening someone’s heart, they can be saved. DePra’s claims are ridiculous when he says that Regeneration cannot precede Faith, or cause Faith, because there would be no understanding or knowledge. It is possible to have knowledge of God, or Jesus before Regeneration, in fact Nicodemus had knowledge of them both, before Jesus

tells him he needs to be regenerated. The woman in Acts whose heart is opened also had knowledge from Paul, she knew about God, but she did not receive saving Faith, and did not believe, until God gave her new birth and regenerated her. John Piper, in a sermon, explained Faith like this, “That is Faith: Receiving Jesus for all that he is because our eyes have been opened to see his truth and beauty and worth” (Piper). It is because of Regeneration we have Faith, it is because of God we have opened eyes and hearts.
R.C. Sproul in his book “The Mystery of the Holy Spirit” explains that Regeneration is monergistic. He states that while it is true that a person does cooperate with God and respond to him in Faith. Man has no part in their own Regeneration, other than responding to it (Sproul). We cannot believe before regenerating, because we are dead in our sin, we can no more help God regenerate us, then Lazarus could help Jesus raise him from the dead (Sproul). We can only overcome sin because of God’s regenerating us so that we can have Faith. Without God’s Regeneration we could not have Faith, and we could not throw off our sin (Piper).
Obviously Regeneration precedes Faith, this is supported by the Bible, and makes sense logically, contrary to what some people say. In the end God says it is true, and it is not necessary to look hard to see this. If people also look at the chicken and the egg question with a biblical view I’m sure they could easily conclude that the chicken was made first. However, that is a discussion for another day.