Faith through Regeneration, and Regeneration through Faith

(An Essay)
By Jeph Zar

Madalas nating sinasabi bilang mga Calvinists na ang faith natin ay "produkto" ng regeneration, and
that is true. We all know that the "natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for
they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1
Cor. 2:14). We are, left to our own sinful nature, "dead in your tresspasses and sins" (Eph. 2:1). Our
depraved nature is "hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot" (Rom. 8:7).
We will never convert unless we are spiritually quickened by the Spirit (Eze. 36:26-27). Dahil dyan,
we are accustomed to confess—and RIGHTLY SO—that "regeneration precedes faith."
But is there also a sense in which we can rightly say that "faith precedes regeneration" without
espousing Arminian synergism? My answer to that question is YES, and in this brief essay I will try
to explain how is that possible.
The common view being held by most Reformed people today is that we are first given the "principle
of life" (regeneration), and then faith is created in our hearts (conversion) leading to a new "direction"
or "newness of life" (definitive sanctification). Note: Sa view na ito, ang regeneration lang dyan ay
yung giving ng "principle of life." Hindi kasama sa regeneration yung conversion and definitive
sanctification (not to be confused with progressive sanctification). Magkakaibang events sila. The
three steps mentioned (i.e. regeneration, conversion, and definite sanctification) ay THREE
DIFFERENT EVENTS which follow a logical order, though they happen simultaneously in time.
Here's how this popular view looks like:
[ R = imparting of life ] —> [ faith ] —> [ Newness of Life / Definite Sanctification ]
Notice that there are three brackets, indicating that these are three "different" events. Again, take
note that the "order" between these events are simply a "logical order" (which causes which), and
not necessarily a "temporal order" as if may time gap sa pagitan ng mga yan. In this view of
regeneration, there can be no sense in which we can rightly say that "regeneration is through faith",
because R is strictly prior to F in their causal relationship. This also means that we have NO
INVOLVEMENT in our regeneration in any sense whatsoever.
John Piper, however, seems to reject this model when he says:
"You might think I would say that we have no involvement in [our regeneration] because we are
spiritually dead. But the dead are very much involved in their resurrection---after all, they rise! ... The
instant Christ commands Lazarus to rise, Lazarus does the rising. The instant God gives new life, we
do the living. The instant the Spirit produces faith, we do the believing... Your act of believing and
God's act of begetting are simultaneous. He does the begetting and you do the believing at the same
instant. And---this is very important---his doing is the decisive cause of your doing. His begetting is
the decisive cause of your believing." (Finally Alive, p. 78-79, 102)
I believe Piper's view is biblical because Colossians 2:12 tells us that "you were also RAISED WITH
HIM THROUGH FAITH in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead." In this way,
as Piper argues, our faith is so much INVOLVED in our regeneration without being in any way a
contributing factor to its efficacy. Why? Because it is God who monergistically imparts to us the
principle of life in order that we may believe, and so that by believing we may RISE again to
newness of life!
So, here's how it's supposed to look like:
R = [ imparting of life —> faith —> Rising up to a newness of Life ]
Compare this to the first model presented above. Sa previous model (na common view ng maraming
reformed ngayon), yung "imparting of life" lang ang regeneration which causes the other two (faith ->
newness of life). In the Piperian view, however, EVERYTHING from the imparting of life, to
conversion, and to the rising up to the newness of life, IS Regeneration (notice there's just one
bracket in the formula above). In other words, there's a logical process WITHIN Regeneration itself,
and this process involves our faith—not as a cause of the whole, but as part of the causal
relationship WITHIN Regeneration. Kumbaga, naka-"sandwich" yung faith sa "loob ng regeneration."
In Regeneration, God imparts life, faith is created in us, then we rise up as new creatures. So, hindi
lang yung impartation of life ang regeneration; the whole process [imparting of life -> faith ->
newness of life] *IS* regeneration.
Our physical birth provides a helpful analogy:
First we are "conceived", then in the span of 9 months there is a "development of the body" in the
womb, and then at last the actual "birth" of the baby. The process looks like this:
Conception -> Development of body organs in the womb -> Birth
Which corresponds to:
Imparting of life -> creation of faith -> rising up as a new creature
Now, our physical birth is still an imperfect analogy because this process naturally takes 9 months to
complete. In our regeneration, however, the whole process happens in A SINGLE instant. The
moment God imparts life in us, we believe; and the moment we believe, we rise up to a newness of
life. Again, the whole process constitutes regeneration, hindi lang yung initial imparting of life.
In this view, we can therefore affirm both that our "faith is a product of regeneration" and that we are
also, in another sense, "regenerated through faith." How? Kasi yung creation of faith in our hearts ay
naka-"sandwich", as it were, sa pagitan ng “imparting of life” (regeneration initiated) and our “rising
up as a new creature” (regeneration completed). So, with respect to God “imparting life” in us, our
faith is the product of regeneration. But with respect to our being “raised up as a new creature”
through faith, our faith is the means to the COMPLETION of regeneration. This last sense, I think, is
the idea behind this statement in the Belgic Confession:
“We believe that THIS TRUE FAITH (produced in us by the hearing of God’s Word and by the work
of the Holy Spirit) REGENERATES US and makes us NEW CREATURES, causing us to live A NEW
LIFE and FREEING US from the slavery of sin...” —The Belgic Confession of 1561
There's also evidence that this is Calvin's view as well (see his commentary on John 1:12-13).
ADVANTAGE OF THIS VIEW:
*We no longer have to be afraid of Arminian prooftexts that seem to suggest that we become
regenerated through faith. Those texts make perfect sense if we see the creation of faith, not as a
strictly different event that happens after regeneration, but as an essential component WITHIN
regeneration itself, which is wholly a gift of God.


Jezreel Madsa If phenomenologically speaking, faith precedes regeneration, is there then a sense in which the
phenomena of regeneration and justification overlap in that they follow after faith?

Btw, very excellent explanation, bro.

Jeph Zar Pinagpe-pray pa natin ang sagot dyan, Jezkoy. Hahaha

Jezreel Madsa Hugot ko sa napag-usapan natin Jeph sa pm hehe.

if there is no time-gap between our act of believing and God's response of justifying. Diba mag-ooverlap na ang justi
tsaka regen?. Hehehehehe

Jezreel Madsa nakuha ko yan from you lols..

Jeph Zar We can all affirm na simultaneous sila. Yan muna.

Jezreel Madsa ma e-explain mo rin yan clearly in the near future. Antayin ko mentor jephy! hehe


Ross Petalver Hmm. . .I'm trying to look in what I think as "Passive, and Active Faith."

When I say Passive, for example, man will certainly grow older. It is passive. He cannot do anything to prevent
himself from aging nor force it. Same with faith. When one is regenerated, he is given a new birth. He is given a
new life and what do creatures with life do? They live. Live a life of what kind? A life of repentance and faith. Dun
papasok ung "Effectual Grace/Effectual Calling."

“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven
and do not return there but water the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout,
giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." - Isaiah 55:10-11

Whenever God's word is preached, it either gives life/comfort/etc OR convicts/cuts/destroy. In this sense, it gives
life. Tho we cannot know or see how and when God regenerates someone, it manifests whenever His word is
preached.

On the other hand, the Active Faith, which is the other side of the coin, pertains to the actual doing of man to repent
and believe. Since he is given a new life, he "can" now live a life or repentance and faith for he is live that kind of
live (goes back to passive). This, methinks what distinguishes Regeneration or simply Rebirth/NewBirth/BornAgain
from Conversion.

Ayoko nang pahabain dahil parang kung ano2 na pinagsasabi ko, but it seems that yes, we do the living, well it's
because we are alive. No one would be given a new life and just playdead but yes, there are lots of instances in
which one is given a new life but live as if he is still dead. But that doesn't necessarily mean he's dead, God has His
timing in each and every individual's sanctification.

So, ayun, Regeneration is done internally, Conversion is external. I might stick with the 1st bracket. Regeneration
>< Conversion >< Sanctification. Ayoko ng arrow, kasi I tend to compartmentalize 'em hehe, oks na ung chain para
may strong link with each other. Strongly linked but distinct with each other.

P.S.: Pakicorrect ako sa kahit na anong mali. Lutang pa. Yung iba baka nakalimutan ko. hue hue.

Jeph Zar Ross, thanks for your input. I want to let you know that I'm having difficulty finding anything in your post
na pwede kong kontrahin, hehehe.

Siguro further qualification na lang dun sa “Conversion is external.” Of course we understand that Conversion is not
external in the sense of being “physical.” Internal din kasi ang Conversion (faith & repentance) kasi it happens in the
heart. But if by “external” you mean it is an action done by “us”, then I agree. I would not use the word “external”,
 though.

Now, we both agree that Regeneration is principally an act of God, while Conversion is more focused on what “we”
do as Regenerated individuals. Ang pinagkaiba natin eh because of this distinction, you thereby conclude na strictly
magkaibang events ang Regen and Conversion. To me, however, that is not necessarily the case.

In my view, Regeneration and Conversion are not two different events, but two different perspectives pertaining to
just one single event—the turning of the whole person from sin to God. In God's standpoint, He alone initiates this
event whereby He gives us life and creates faith in our hearts, and so we call it “Regeneration.” In God's standpoint,
we are wholly passive in the process. However, in OUR standpoint (where we don't immediately perceive God's
hidden operations), we speak of the same event in terms of what we do in the process (faith and repentance) and so
we call it “Conversion.” Iisang event lang pero two different perspectives.

Lando Robredillo Lavado Agree ako dun k Ross, sa disticntion between regeneration and conversion. regeneration
ay ultimately work ng Diyos yan wala taung active participation, sa conversion naman meron taung participation
that is faith and repentance. but I will also say na single event yan. let us keep in mind na ang ordus salutis ay logical
ordering, hindi chronological. ang problema sa atin ngaun masyado taung concern sa chronology at sobrang
systematic, which is hindi ganun ang mga new testament authors and believers kaya parang napapalayo tau sa
kanila.

Joseph Pelejo Jeph, I understand. Need lang talaga i-qualify na yung reg sa mga bagong makakabasa. Thanks for
the explanation! Awesome! Maganda rin na may reference sa confession.

Jeph Zar Do u agree with my thesis, bro? Hehe

Joseph Pelejo As far as this explanation is concerned, yes bro. Need lang talaga ng mga distinctions at i-qualify.
Talagang magrereact ang marami kahit may supporting Scriptures dahil sa prior na wrong views nila. Dun sa sinabi
na we should no longer be afraid sa Arminian concept, sure sure. Pero I think we both know naman na we still need
 to distinguish.

"We distinguish." ~ Turretin / Barcellos Hahaha!

Jeph Zar Yep, brother Joseph. We distinguish. Ganito popular view ng maraming Reformed:

[R = imparting of life] –> [creation of faith] –> [newness of life] …See More

Joseph Pelejo As clear as a crystal!

Rein Roberto Tolentino Jr. Konti nalang parehas na Kay HR hehehe he naalala ko dati sa debate...

Jeph Zar Ito yung kay HR, Rein:

[prevenient/temporary life] –> [Faith] –> [ Regeneration ]

Jeph Zar Binasa mo ba yung OP, Rein? Kasi mukhang hindi pa. Basahin mo kaya muna?

Jeph Zar Wag ka paimpluwensya sa mga strawman ni Luci, Rein. If you want to understand what we mean by what
we espouse, ask us.

Joseph Pelejo Jeph, see? :p Kahit may qualifiers na, misinterpreted pa rin. I myself have one or two questions pa
rin pero sa meet-up na lang. Para personal.
o

Rein Roberto Tolentino Jr. Sabi ko konti nalang same na Kay HR.
Kay HR, Temporal life -> faith -> Born from Above.

Joseph Pelejo Ah! I see! Ako nakamisinterpret Rein.

Jeph Zar Rein, kung binasa mo yung OP, hindi mo sasabihin yan. Basahin mo kaya muna?

Jeph Zar Rein, tama si Joseph. Misrep yang judgment mo na “kaunti” na lang same na yung view ko kay HR.

Una sa lahat, sa model ni HR different events yung [temporary life] –> [faith] –> [regeneration]. Pansin mo, three
brackets diba? Yung sa model ko one bracket lang, R = [ imparting of life –> faith –> raised up as new creature].
Regeneration lahat yan.

Ikalawa, Rein, kay HR yung initial imparting of life ay “temporary life” that serves as a mere “enablement” para
makapanampalataya ang tao, but it never guarantees conversion efficaciously, remember? Sabi ni HR, pag hindi
sumampalataya yung binigyan ng temporary life, hindi siya mare-regenerate, bagkus babalik sya sa pagiging
spiritually dead. Walang pinagiba yan sa [prevenient enablement] –> [faith] –> [regeneration] schema ng Arminian
synergism.

Eh ganyan ba view ko, Rein? Or at least “kaunti” na lang ba eh ganyan na view ko? Aber, sige nga? Sa view ko,
Rein, kung nagbasa ka talaga (which unfortunately is most likely NOT the case), hindi “temporary life” ang
binibigay tapos hiwalay pa yan sa faith and regen. Bagkus, the initial imparting of life IS regeneration itself as
initiated, which EFFECTUALLY converts a person, to his rising up as a new creature as its completion. Iisang
Regeneration yan, which is sure, immutable, and effectual. Walang temporary dyan sa bawat yugto na yan, and they
all happen simultaneously. Sabi ko sa OP (na hindi mo binasa), the moment you are given spiritual life, you rise as a
new creature through faith. Si Piper din mismo nagsabi nyan. Nakita mo ang milya-milyang pagkakaiba, Rein?
Tatapos sasabihin mo “kaunti” na lang, same na kay HR? Ok ka lang, Rein?


Ross Petalver Jeph, I didn't say different events sila bro, kaya nga sabi ko, I prefer to look at them with a chain that
strongly links one with the other, ung golden chain ek ek. I just laid down the distinction but did not say anything
about them as "different events." Pag ginamit kasi ung term na event, parang may "time/chronology" in which wala
taung alam talaga kung ano ba nauna, nagconvert ba muna or naregenerate? Agree naman ako sa "logical order," un
ung natutunan ko sa RAA ni lolo Murray ee. but I would distinguish one from the other. hehe.

Pj Tedranes Hmmm...pero maganda yung question mo bro Jezkoy Ton Charis Aionas

Thanks Jeph Zar susundan ko ito interesting eh :)

Jeph Zar Hindi ba kita na convinced, Pj? Haha

Pj Tedranes Hahaha kagigising ko lang di pa nagsi-sink in sa limitado kong kaisipan haha

Jeph Zar Ross Petalver

Okay bro. I understand. Thanks for your clarification.

Sa proposed model ko sa itaas, may logical order parin naman:

Imparting of life –> Faith –> Newness of life

But contrary to the popular Reformed view today, I would enclose everything within one bracket called
“Regeneration.” God's imparting of life, the creation of faith in our hearts, and our being raised as a new creature,
ALL constitute Regeneration, hindi lang yung imparting of life.
o

Ross Petalver So, pasok na din sa Regeneration ung Sanctification?

Jeph Zar Definite Sanctification (new creature), bro. Not to be confused with Progressive Sanctification (progress
in holiness).

Ross Petalver aun naman pala. Grabe ang daming terms sa Theology, dinudugo na utak ko! haha.

Alexander Generoso Castro Maganda actually yung explanation ni Piper. Very very simple. Only the regenerate
have faith, can be sanctified, etc.

Sol Magallanes Barrios Hmmm... mejo na-gegets ko na... 😊

Jan Dell This is the answer that I am looking for, especially kung irereconcile ko yung faith that came from us, and
at the same time, faith as the gift of God bestowed to us. Thank you bro, this answers my question na, pero, na stop
😊✌
ako sa question ni Bro Jez. ✌


Jeph Zar Thanks Hans, but Jezkoy’s question isn't really an “objection” to the thesis above, but a “suggestion” for a
possible development of the idea being proposed.

May mga texts kasi sa Scripture that seem to indicate that “forgiveness of sin” (forensic salvation / justification) is
also involved “WITHIN” Regeneration, like Col. 2:13, Ezekiel 36:25-27 (especially v. 25), and Jeremiah 31:31-34.

The question is:

Provided that there is a logical process within Regeneration [imparting of life -> faith -> new creation], is
Justification also a “part” in that logical process? (See picture below).

Again, that idea is not an objection to the thesis above, but a “possible development" of it. Wala pa akong sagot sa
question na yan.

Jeph Zar Here's a summary para sa mga nalilito pa:

Ganito popular view ng maraming Reformed:

[R = imparting of life] –> [creation of faith] –> [newness of life]

Sa proposed view ko naman, ganito:

R = [ imparting of life –> creation of faith –> raised as a new creature ]

 Sa Arminian synergism, ganito:

[Prevenient enablement] –> [Faith] –> [ R = Imparting of life & newness of life ]

_____

Sa popular Reformed view, there can be no sense whatsoever in which F can be said to “precede” R. The problem
with this view is that it has to “explain away” certain biblical texts that suggest F being a "means" to R (e.g. Isa.
53:3, Eze. 18:31-32, Jn. 5:24, Col. 2:12, etc).

Sa Arminian synergism naman, there can be no sense whatsoever in which R can be said to “precede” F. The
problem with this view is that it has to explain away the overwhelming Scriptural evidence which suggests that F is
ultimately a product of R (Eze. 36:26-27, Jn. 1:13, etc).

In my proposed view, which is the view held by Piper and Calvin, Regeneration itself contains a logical process
where F stands both as a product of God’s imparting of life (regeneration initiated), and as means to our being raised
up as a new creature (regeneration completed).

So F is “ultimately” a product of R (R precedes F), and yet F is not “merely a product” of R, but also a “part” of R as
means to its completion. Regeneration involves: God imparting life, the gifting of faith, and our being raised up as
new creatures through faith.

Thus, we can make sense of the biblical data that we would otherwise have to “explain away” if we viewed R and F
as two different events standing in causal relationship with each other (popular reformed view and Arminian
synergism). In the view that I propose, we can affirm that R ultimately precedes F (God imparts life prior to our
faith), but that F is a part of R and a "means" to its completion (we are raised up as new creatures through faith).

Ross Petalver Jeph completion ba ng Regeneration or "evidence" ? question yan bro ah, kasi pag sinabi nating
complete, meaning, lahat ng nag-poprofess ng faith ee regenerated na? kasi "complete" na ee. But if we're going to
use the word "evidence" kumbaga may mga factors pa din na icoconsider if one is really regenerated, submission to
church authority/discipline, means of grace, etc etc.. What do you think?

Jeph Zar Yung faith na tinutukoy ko po ay hindi lang "mere profession."

Ibang isyu naman yang evidence of regeneration in our progress in holiness.

Ross Petalver Yes, hindi lang mere profession pero kaakibat dun un, kaakibat dun ung "repentance and faith" ung
tinutukoy mo na "involvement" ng tao which is evidence, external, profession, kaakibat dun ung sanctification as
what can be observed unless we're just talking about principles here.
o

Jeph Zar We must distinguish between the "substance" of faith and repentance in the heart (which is invisible) and
"profession" ng faith and repentance (which is external). Yung sinasabi kong involvement natin sa regeneration ay
yung former (substance). Yung latter (profession) ay outward evidence lang ng regeneration.

Ross Petalver how can we know who really have faith(substance) ?

Jeph Zar Sa standpoint ng Church with respect to professors, dapat may clear profession of faith (right gospel
knowledge and allegiance to Christ as Lord) and dapat baptized. With respect to those who are already members sa
Church, ang basis ay good life-testimony, diligent use of the means of grace, and submission to church discipline.

Ano po konek ng question sa topic? Tungkol na sa outward evidence ng faith yang tanong niyo, sir. Again, hindi yan
ang tinutukoy ko sa equation ko sa itaas.

Ross Petalver //but that F is a part of R and a "means" to its completion (we are raised up as new creatures through
faith).//

It's clearly connected bro, hinihimay and hinuhukay ko lang for further info. hehe.

So, we can know if one have faith (substance) if the following standpoint of the Church you've mentioned is evident,
Yes or no?
If yes, hindi ba sa Progressive Sanctification na papasok ung standpoint ng Church na minention mo? If No, then
how can we know if one really have the faith (substance) ?

Jeph Zar Oo, sa progressive sanctification na papasok yung evidence ng Regeneration. Pero hindi naman evidence
ng Regeneration yung topic, kundi yung relationship between Faith(substance) and Regeneration..
o

Ross Petalver so, may overlapping between Regeneration [imparting of life –> creation of faith –> raised as a new
creature] and Progressive Sanctification? Or not necessarily?

pag binalikan natin ung qinuote ko: //but that F is a part of R and a "means" to its completion (we are raised up as
new creatures through faith).//, tapos ang tinutukoy mong Faith dito is ung substance na makikita or evident if ung
standpoint ng church is present, so parang kinain na din nung bracket mo ung Progressive Sanctification? Kasi ung
Faith (substance) ung "completion" ee,

Jeph Zar No Sir, hindi kasama sa bracket yung progressive sanctification. Ang kasama lang sa bracket ay ito:

[ Imparting of life
Gifting of Faith(substance)
Being raised as a New Creature (Definitive Sanctification) ]

Yan po ang Regeneration. Yung progressive sanctification which involves profession of faith, growth in knowledge,
church membership, diligent use of means of grace, doing good works, etc., ay nasa labas ng bracket as
EVIDENCES of Regeneration.

Ross Petalver Tama ba tong illustration ko Jeph ?

o

Jeph Zar Nope. I never said that Faith is the completion of Regeneration. I said Faith is the "means" to the
completion of Regeneration, which is our being raised up as a new creature.

[ Imparting of life (Regeneration initiated) -> Faith (means) -> New creation (Regeneration Completed) ]

Ross Petalver Okay, means to completion of regeneration, at the same time, that faith is the substance you've
mentioned, na ang evidence is ung mga nabanggit din sa taas, tama ba?

Jeph Zar Yes. Again, ang nasa loob ng bracket ay yung substance ng faith. Nasa labas ng bracket yung evidence ng
faith and regeneration.

Jeph Zar Ross Petalver

o

Ross Petalver Hmm can you elaborate ["means" to the completion] ?

Jeph Zar Means = something that must happen or must be in order to bring about another thing. (e.g. faith is the
means to justification = you must have faith in order to be justified)

Completion of regeneration = Raised up as a new creature

Jeph Zar When I said that "faith is the means to the completion of regeneration", what I'm simply saying is that
"faith is the means to be raised as a new creature in Christ."

Jeph Zar Tingnan mo ulit yung picture na sinend ko bro. See the arrow between "Creation of Faith in the heart" and
"Being raised up as a new creature (Regeneration Completed)"? Yan yung tinutukoy ko. The former is a means to
the latter.

Ross Petalver ayown! haha, mas prefer ko yang "faith is the means to be raised as a new creature in Christ." :D

 · 1y

Jeph Zar No prob. The language of "completion" that I added is simply because "being raised as a new creature in
Christ" is the last part in the logical process within regeneration, and therefore completes it.

Ross Petalver Ayuuun, inanalyze ko ung sarili kong understanding parang eto ung pagkakaintindi ko. haha.

Regen = [imparting of new life/rebirth - creating of faith ] > faith that responds thru repentance and believing >
 Sancti =
[Definitive - Progressive]

what do you think of this Jeph? tho ung link ng Regen and Sancti, again is without time gap.

Jeph Zar Hindi eh. Ganito nga kasi dapat:

Ross Petalver Sige na nga, hehe, I give up. Thanks for the discussion bro, hehe

Zilpah Faith Tequin Noro Sa opinion ko lang taking regeneration on its formal denotation wala akung nakikitang
mali from both views above, only that mas technical yung prinopose mo Sir Jeph. Kasi regeneration could refer to
 either an instantaneous event (quickening) or a continuous process of renewal and also could mean the entire process
from quickening and its on going renewal. I guess semantics lang to pro mas nabibigyan ng clarity ang Biblical
concept ng relationship between faith at regeneration from the latter diagram.

Thankful anyway na may gifted communicator/s tayo dito sa group..

Jeph Zar Zilpah, I hate to agree that this is largely semantics, but my concern is that our semantic usage plays a
major role sa pag-approach natin sa Biblical data. There are plenty of evidence in Scripture that F is a product of R.
Yet there are also indications in Scripture that F is a means to R. Dahil sa "semantic obstinacy" ng both Reformed
and Arminian theologians, they tend to affirm the texts that would be consistent sa semantic usage nila while
explaining away other texts.

Sa proposed view ko sa itaas, that "explaining away" is avoided. We can affirm both that F is ultimately a product of
R, and yet F is a part of R and a means to the completion of R.

Ross Petalver ano bang meaning ng "explaining away" na yan?

Zilpah Faith Tequin Noro I see..

Jeph Zar Yung ifo-force mo yung text sa semantic usage ng theological system mo. Halimbawa, noon kapag may
kausap akong Arminian about the topic of Regeneration, I would be offered certain prooftexts which seem to say
that conversion precedes regeneration, like Eze. 18:30-32,

"...REPENT AND TURN from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin.Cast away from you all the
transgressions that you have committed, AND MAKE YOURSELVES A NEW HEART AND A NEW SPIRIT!
Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; SO
TURN, AND LIVE."

As a Calvinist who strongly affirms that "Regeneration precedes Faith", I would tend to "explain the text away" by
simply saying: "Well, that's simply a command that is intended to show what we can't do... (period)." In a sense,
wala namang mali sa sagot ko na yan. Lahat naman ng commands ni God ay hindi talaga nagpapakita na "may
ability" tayo to perform them. The problem, however, is that my answer doesn't fully account for the plain reading of
the text. God sincerely commands Israel to TURN AND LIVE (be regenerated); He wasn't simply mocking their
inability. They have personal involvement in the thing that God is commanding them to do. But I lose sight of that
 dahil kailangan kong i-maintain, strictly, na faith cannot in any way precede regeneration. In that way, I'm being
dishonest to the text.

Jeph Zar
o

Rein Roberto Tolentino Jr. By Faith we receive the incorruptible seed, (1 Peter 1:23) ???

Rein Roberto Tolentino Jr. since you HAVE BEEN BORN AGAIN, not of perishable seed but of
IMPERISHABLE, THROUGH the LIVING and ABIDING WORD of God;
-1Pet1.23

but the word of the Lord remains forever." And THIS WORD is the GOOD NEWS that WAS PREACHED to you.
-1Pet1.25

--> Born again through the Living and abiding word of God (Preaching).

Jeph Zar Wag mo putulin yung sinabi ni Calvin, Rein.

Iaj Jamito Narinig ko na rin yung kay HR malayo dyan. Kay HR imparting lang ng Temporal spiritual life lang as
per Rom 10:17. Purpose is to somehow free the will either to believe or not to believe.

Rein Roberto Tolentino Jr. Parehe has lang na may Inital.

Iaj Jamito ?

Iaj Jamito Kay HR hindi pa regen yung giving ng temporal spiritual life.
o

Rein Roberto Tolentino Jr. Imparting of Life sakanya tapos Kay HR naman Temporal Life. Parehe has may initial.

Iaj Jamito D nga pareho bro. Yung literal na initial maari. But still sa usage iba.

Rein Roberto Tolentino Jr. Uu Kay Jeph, di pa din yun regen.

sinakop yung tatlong events Yan yung Regen sakanya.…See More

Rein Roberto Tolentino Jr. Uu agree Uu Kay Jeph, di pa din yun regen.

sinakop yung tatlong events Yan yung Regen sakanya.

Tignan mu yung R = I -> CF -> NoL

Iaj Jamito ang point yata ni jeph is one single event which I also believe na from calling to justification occured at
the same time.

Jeph Zar Rein, komo parehas na may initial, magkaparehas na? Alam mo ba ibig sabihin ng “initial”? It means
“first in order.” Maski kahit sinong Reformed would agree that Regeneration is the initial imparting of spiritual life.
Hello?
o

Rein Roberto Tolentino Jr. Sinabi ko lang naman na 'halos' same. 😊

Jeph Zar Rein, Calvinist ka man o Arminian, may ina-affirm kang “initial” act of God prior to human will. “Initial”
simply means “first in order.”

Sa Arminian, ang initial act of God ay “prevenient gracious enablement” lang, which does not guarantee conversion.
Ganyan yung idea ni HR.

Sa Calvinism, ang initial act of God ay Regeneration, which not only enables the sinner, but effectually converts the
sinner.

So hindi komo may “initial” eh pareho na nang kay HR, Rein. Ang isyu eh kung effectual unto Conversion yung
initial act na yun, at maliwanag sa view ko na yung initial imparting of life immediately produces faith. Pano mo
nasabing “kaunti” na lang eh parehas na yan kay HR?

Okay ka lang Rein?

Rein Roberto Tolentino Jr. Agreed diyan, Iaj. Sa Calling to Justification.

Iaj Jamito malayo pa rin kay HR walang effectuality yung imparting ng spritual life parang yung matndang dragon
lang na pinalaya temporary pero ang nangyari gumawa pa rin ng kasamaan. in which case. ill-logical gawa ng
pinalaya mo pero di mo binago yung nature...it's like ikaw pa gumawa ng sarili nyang kapahamakan..

Rein Roberto Tolentino Jr. Bro. Jeph, sa Colossians 2:11-13.

Verse 11
*circumcision made without hands
*By the Circumsicion of Christ.

And verse 13
 *God made alive

^Yan ay Expression of Regeneration.

Pero yung sa verse 12,

Raised with Him THROUGH FAITH? Ay Regeneration?

Wala naman sinasabing Regeneration yun.

Jeph Zar Teka Rein , dun muna tayo sa allegation mo na kaunti na lang eh parehas na kami ni HR.

Heto mga pagkakaiba ha?

1) Kay HR, “temporary life” lang, which is TENTATIVE, pero yung sakin, “imparting of life” mismo.

2) Kay HR, yung temporary life ay hindi pa Regeneration. Sa akin, yung imparting of life ay simula na mismo ng
Regeneration.

3) Kay HR, yung temporary life ay for “enablement” lang, so that the sinner is now able to choose whether or not to
accept the Gospel. Sa view ko, the Regenerative imparting of life ACTUALLY (effectually) creates faith in the heart
of the sinner.

4) Kay HR, yung Regeneration strictly follows after faith. Yung sakin, faith “is part of Regeneration” (Calvin).

Pano mo nasabing HALOS parehas yan, Rein?

Rein Roberto Tolentino Jr. Sorry na nagkamali. Malayo pala. 😊

Jeph Zar Basahin mo kaya muna yung OP, Rein?

Rein Roberto Tolentino Jr. Nabasa ko na. 😊

o

Rein Roberto Tolentino Jr. Imparting of life, Faith and newness of life Yan yung Regeneration. Tapus nag overlap
yung Justification.

Tama ba, bro Jeph?

Jeph Zar #Facepalm. Hindi yan yung Op, Rein. Yan ay suggestion lang ni Jezkoy sa itaas. Basahin mo yung essay
ko.

Rein Roberto Tolentino Jr. Binasa ko na din nga kanina lang. Hehehe he he

Rein Roberto Tolentino Jr. Tignan ko muna sa ibang commentaries Kung anu sakanila yung 'Raised with Him
through faith'.

o
 Jeph Zar Pakibasa rin yung commentary ni Calvin sa Jn. 1:12-13.

Iaj Jamito Bro bakit yung justification parang fruit ng faith?

Rein Roberto Tolentino Jr. Mukhang walang commentary si John Calvin sa Col. 2:12

Jeph Zar Meron Rein, nasa Inschuchuts, pero ang purpose ng exposition nya dun eh sa context ng infant baptism.

Jeph Zar Maliwanag na Regeneration ang tinutukoy dyan sa Colossians 2:11-13, Rein.

Sa v. 11 pa lang, binanggit na yung “circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the sins of
the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ.”

This alludes to circumcision of the heart promised in Deut. 30:6,

“Yahweh your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your offspring, to love Yahweh your God with all
your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.” (Deut. 30:6)

This is also confirmed by the subsequent use of languages like “raised”, “dead through trespasses”, “made alive”,
which we also find in Ephesians 2.

Hindi rin uubra dito yung palusot ng iba na Colossians 2 simply pertains ONLY to our righteous (legal) standing
before God apart from the Mosaic law batay sa v. 13-14,

“...He made you alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, WIPING OUT THE
HANDWRITING IN ORDINANCES which was against us. He has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.”

Meron din nyan sa Ephesians 2 in connection with our Regeneration, Rein. Sabi dun,

“Therefore remember that once you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “uncircumcision” by that which is
called “CIRCUMCISION” IN THE FLESH, MADE BY HANDS... But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far
off are made near in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who made both one, and broke down the middle wall of
separation, HAVING ABOLISHED in his flesh the hostility, THE LAW OF COMMANDMENTS CONTAINED
IN ORDINANCES, that he might create in himself one new man of the two, making peace.” (Eph. 2:11, 13-15)

Kita mo yung parallel, Rein? Colossians 2 speaks of being circumcised without hands (meaning, not by law)
 accomplished by the atoning work of Christ which results to the the abrogation of the Mosaic law. Ganun din sa
Ephesians 2, yung mga Gentiles daw noon ay initsapwera ng mga Judiong “circumcised in the flesh made by hands”
(meaning, by law), pero dahil sa atoning work ni Cristo the law is abrogated so that believing Jews and Gentiles may
have fellowship into one body. Produkto lahat yan ng death and resurrection ni Christ, to which we partake through
spiritual Regeneration.

Iisa lang ng tinutukoy ang Eph. 2 tsaka Col. 2, Rein.

Jeph Zar Pakisagot to, Rein.

Context is king, kaya wag niyo dedmahin ang konteks ng Colossians 2. Sige na.

Iaj Jamito how about this bro Rein? I think yung calling to justification occured at the same time....

Rein Roberto Tolentino Jr. Sa Calling, Regen, Conversion, and Justification. Simultaneous din naman yan.

Rein Roberto Tolentino Jr. Effectual Calling, Regen, Conversion, Justification Through the gospel parin.
o

Iaj Jamito ang calling?

Alvin Calcena Ito ba yung Reformed Ordo Kuya Iaj?

 Bro. Jeph, sa Colossians 2:11-13.

Verse 11
*circumcision made without hands
*By the Circumsicion of Christ.

And verse 13
*God made alive

^Yan ay Expression of Regeneration.

Pero yung sa verse 12,

Raised with Him THROUGH FAITH? Ay Regeneration?

Wala naman sinasabing Regeneration yun.

Friday 1:22pm
-------------------
#Repost

Bro. Jeph, anung dinedma ko yung verse 11?

Hindi nga lang verse 11 yung Regeneration kundi pati yung verse 13.

Rein Roberto Tolentino Jr. Patungkol sa Baptism yan, Jeph. Be honest Kung Anu sinasabi Ng text.

It is all an unpacking of the phrase "and you are complete IN HIM." verse 10

About yan sa blessings believers enjoy by virtue of our UNION WITH CHRIST.
 Walang Tinuturo si Apostle Paul na Regeneration through Faith diyan.

Rein Roberto Tolentino Jr. At tsaka yung passage na yan ay Hindi specifically about sa 'order' ng Application Ng
Redemption.

Jeph Zar Kaya nga Rein eh, v. 11 & 13 tungkol kamo sa Regeneration, tapos yung v. 12 hindi? Disjunction yang
ginagawa mo na walang pinag-iba sa hermeneutwist na ginagamit ng INC minister na si Ventilacion over Hebrews
1.

Now, baptism is mentioned in the text because it is in baptism that our experience of Regeneration is signified and
sealed. Walang isyu dun. Pero alalahanin mo na ang sacrament ng baptism ay external sign ng internal reality, and
ano daw ang internal reality na sini-signify ng baptism?

1) circumcision made without hands, v. 11

2) being raised with Christ through faith, v. 12
3) made alive from being once dead in trespasses and sins, v. 13

Ikaw ang dapat maging honest sa text, Rein, kasi you are forcing a disjunction between v. 11 and v. 12, and between
12 and v. 13, na hindi ina-allow ng text. Not to mention that that passage is a direct parallel sa Ephesians 2 which is
about Regeneration.

Isip ka pang bagong alibay, Rein.

Jeph Zar Rein Roberto Tolentino Jr., tulungan kita i-exegete nang tama yung text ha? Himay-himayin natin mula v.
11,

Sabi sa v. 11,

“In him also you were circumcised with a CIRCUMCISION MADE WITHOUT HANDS, by putting off the body
of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ...”

We agree that the phrase “circumcision made without hands” pertains to Regeneration. Yan din yung “circumcision
of Christ” at the end of the verse.

Now, notice the continuity of the thought expressed in v. 12,

“...HAVING BEEN buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the
powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead...”
The phrase “having been burried” in v. 12 is συνταφέντες [syntaphentes], which is a verb (1) in the “aorist”-tense,
(2) in the “participle mood”, (3) in the “nominative case”, and (4) in the “passive voice.” Kung duda ka, check mo
dito: biblehub.com/text/colossians/2-12.htm

This sheds light sa continuity ng thoughts from v. 11 to v. 12.

As a verb in the aorist, it suggests an act that is completed in the past that may (or may not) have a continuing effect
or implication in the present. Yung “circumcised” sa v. 11, nasa aorist din.

Ang pinagkaiba ng “circumcised” (v. 11) sa “burried” (v. 12) ay nasa “indicative mood” yung una samantalang nasa
“participial mood” yung pangalawa. Ang ibig sabihin nyan Rein eh yung unang verb ay nagi-indicate (nagde-
describe) lang ng kung ano yung ginawa (as opposed to the “imperative mood” na may elemento ng pagu-“utos”
kung ano ang dapat gawin). Samantala, yung “burried” sa v. 12 naman ay hindi indicative, nor imperative, but it is
“participial” in that it serves AS A MODIFIER. It is a verb that functions as an adjective (modifying a noun or a
pronoun), or an adverb (modifying a verb, an adjective, or another adverb).

Parang ganito yan, Rein, bigyan kita ng sampol:

“The man who plays with his cellphone lost his car.”

Ang main verb dyan ay yung “lost.” Simply put, “The man lost his car.” Pero para matukoy natin kung alin yung
“man” na pinatutungkulan, the phrase “who plays with his cellphone” is added as a modifier. Yung “plays” dyan,
therefore, is a participial verb that simply functions as an adjective to modify the noun, “man.”

Gets?

Now, yang participle mood ng verb ay nagfu-function din as a modifier to other verbs. Halimbawa,

“He broke his ankle playing basketball.”

Ang simple sentence nyan ay, “He broke his ankle.” The phrase, “...playing basketball” simply modifies the verb
“broke” in order to tell us kung kailan nangyari yun.

Ganyan ang pagkakagamit sa verb na “having been burried” sa Col. 2:12, Rein. It modifies the “circumcised” in v.
11. Pero saan daw tayo na-“burried”? In baptism. It tells us kung kailan natin na-perceive ang reality ng
Regeneration, and that is in baptism.

This doesn't mean that we are Regenerated through baptism ha? It simply means that the internal reality of
Regeneration (which is otherwise hidden to our senses) has been signified and sealed before our very eyes by means
of the sacrament. By virtue of the sacramental union between the “sign” and the “signified”, it's AS IF it is “in”
baptism that we have been Regenerated (though there may be a time gap between Regeneration and the actual
admission to the sacrament).

Now, obviously we cannot confuse the “sign” (external) and the “signified” (internal), although may sacramental
union between them. For that reason, Rein, you cannot confuse baptism with the words “burried” and “raised with
him through faith” (internal reality). The former (baptism) simply signifies the latter (Regeneration). It is “in”
baptism (external) that our being “raised with Him through faith” (internal) is signified and sealed.

To summarize, Rein, baptism is simply mentioned as a sacramental reference kung kailan na-confirm (sealed) sa
atin yung internal realities na dinescribe ni Paul (“circumcision made without hands” = “burried & raised” = “made
alive”). Maliwanag na yung “having been burried” sa beginning ng v. 12 ay participial modifier ng circumcision sa
v. 11 eh. You can't separate them.

Ang implication nito eh tama yung sinabi ni Calvin na faith is both a “result” of our Regeneration (“made without
hands”—meaning, without our cooperation) and a “part of our Regeneration” (“raised with Him through faith”).

Gaya nga ng sabi ni Piper,

"[T]he dead are very much involved in their resurrection---after all, they rise! ... The instant Christ commands
Lazarus to rise, Lazarus does the rising. The instant God gives new life, we do the living. The instant the Spirit
produces faith, we do the believing... Your act of believing and God's act of begetting are simultaneous. He does the
begetting and you do the believing at the same instant. And---this is very important---his doing is the decisive cause
of your doing. His begetting is the decisive cause of your believing." (Finally Alive, p. 78-79, 102)