Does Regeneration Precede Faith?

[d taylor]

I read Koine Greek relatively fluently and produce my own translations the majority of the time. This isn't about "choosing" a translation that supports a theology. It's about recognizing what the Greek verb form actually communicates. The verb in question -- γεγέννηται (gegennetai) -- is a perfect passive indicative. The perfect tense in Greek denotes a completed action with continuing results.

Grammatically, then, it means "has been born" or "has come to be born," with an emphasis on the abiding effect of that birth. Some older English versions, such as the KJV, use "is born" because in older English "is" can express a resultant state, roughly equivalent to "has been born." Modern English, however, distinguishes these more carefully, which is why most contemporary translations (NASB, ESV, CSB, etc.) render it "has been born," which is a more precise reflection of the perfect aspect.

So, ironically, it would be more accurate to say that you are choosing a translation that fits your theology. Even then, the issue isn't one of theological bias but of grammatical misunderstanding. The "is born" rendering was never intended to depict a present or ongoing action. It reflects the abiding condition of one who has already been born.

To read "is born" as referring only to a present or ongoing process, rather than a completed act with lasting results, is simply to misread the Greek. The grammar itself establishes that the birth precedes and results in faith, not vice versa.


That's precisely the issue, though. None of us should claim theology apart from grammar, because meaning is inseparable from language. You don't need to be a "Greek grammar theologian," but if the inspired text is written in Greek, then its grammar is how God chose to communicate truth.

So the question isn't what seems right to us, but what the text actually says. And in 1 John 5:1, the perfect indicative indicates a completed act of new birth with ongoing results, while the present participle describes the continuous activity of the one already born of God. That grammatical structure isn't a theological bias; it's simply how the language functions. I'm happy to show this from other passages if you wish.

As for your claim that "it does not take that to see that regeneration ... does not precede a persons belief," that is an assertion, not an argument. I have presented a grammatical argument grounded in the text itself. Moreover, Scripture consistently portrays regeneration as the necessary precondition of faith (cf. John 1:12-13; 3:3-8; 6:44, 65; Eph. 2:1-5; Acts 16:14). You can choose to argue that that isn't what those passages are saying, but that would require actually engaging with the grammar and context, not just asserting the contrary.

I'd ask in return: can you identify a single passage that explicitly teaches a person believes first and is born again after?


The relationship is logical, not necessarily chronological. The question is not whether regeneration and faith occur simultaneously in time (in human experience, they likely do), but whether one is the logical cause of the other. When John says πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων… ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται (1 John 5:1), the grammar indicates that the believing one is characterized by belief precisely because he has been born of God. The new birth logically produces faith; it does not respond to it.

-
​

Along with 1000's of other people.

The Bible is clear a person does not have in them a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.” (regeneration) and then they take a drink of whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. (belief in Jesus)

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

​

The Bible is clear a person does not have in them a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.” (regeneration) and then they take a drink of whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. (belief in Jesus)

Why do those who take a drink, do so? Do they have the natural capacity apart from saving grace?

 

[d taylor]

Why do those who take a drink, do so? Do they have the natural capacity apart from saving grace?

-
​

God has given every person born the ability to exercise faith in something.
Atheist have faith in science and what evidence science presents, kids believe there actualy is a santa claus that brings their presents, etc.. . People either convict or exonerate because the evidence presented at a trial, so they either come to believe a person is innocent or guilty because of evidence.

When Jesus was alive and walking on earth in and around Jerusalem. People either believe in Jesus because they personally saw the miracles (the evidence) Jesus was doing or were told about what Jesus was doing by people who saw what Jesus was doing. And because The Tanakh fore told of a promise coming Messiah and gave signs as to who this person would be.

The woman then left her waterpot, went her way into the city, and said to the men, “Come, see a Man who told me all things that I ever did. Could this be the Christ?” Then they went out of the city and came to Him.
-----------------------------
And many of the Samaritans of that city believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified, “He told me all that I ever did.” So when the Samaritans had come to Him, they urged Him to stay with them; and He stayed there two days. And many more believed because of His own word.

Now in contemporary times people come to believe in Jesus because of the witness of The Bible and the drawing of God to the truth presented in The Bible, that Jesus is The Christ. Especially The Gospel of John as it was specifically written to people who have not yet come to believe in Jesus for God's free gift of Eternal life.

And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

Now when a person believes in Jesus, they have become convinced that what has been written in The Bible is true. That eternal life is received by belief in Jesus, The Gospel of John states this many times 10+

 

[d taylor]

-
​

John 6:37

Does John 6:37 Teach Election to Everlasting Life? – Grace Evangelical Society

 

[bling]

I'm not sure how any of this advances the discussion. Yes, unbelievers can exercise a kind of "belief" (in idols, false gods, bare facts), but that is not the πίστις John or Paul ever describe as salvific.

Are you suggesting that a spiritually dead sinner can, by an act of natural trust, surrender to God and thereby obtain regeneration? That is precisely what 1 John 5:1 contradicts. What purpose would there be in being "born of God" if one were already capable of turning to Him beforehand?

The issue is not whether man possesses a natural capacity to assent to propositions; of course he does. The issue is whether fallen man possesses the moral and spiritual capacity to exercise that ability in a Godward, saving way (cf. John 6:44; Rom. 8:7-8; Eph. 2:8-9; Phil. 1:29). The "faiths" you list are categorically distinct from believing in Christ.

I agree πίστις comes from God after regeneration, but regeneration must be accepted by man, with accepting God’s Love (Charity) in the form of forgiveness.

This “Kind of believe” you talk about can be directed toward your creator in the acceptance of charity from your hated enemy (God) and prior to obtaining πίστις.

Everything hinges on the definition of “Spiritually dead” and if the person that is spiritually dead can do something for himself (selfishly). We know the “spiritual dead” person can still physically feed himself, so what else can he do for himself?

How do you get around Jesus explaining to us that a person spiritually dead like the prodigal son can turn to the Father?

(Luke 15: 32) Christ has the Father explain what it meant to be dead and calls the son dead (not meaning dead physically) when the Father now knows he is alive: “…because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found.”

The prodigal son in a dead state (by Jesis’ own words) could turn to his father for selfish reasons, but undeserved salvation was from the father. The young son did not excising some “Godly ability”, but selfishly (sinfully) wanting to humbly accept pure underserved charity.

You are right for I am not talking about “believe in Christ”, but “trusting” in God unbelievable illogical Love.

 

[bling]

Regardless of the lexical argument in this verse, the experience still ends up being chronological, even though it may seem simultaneous, for these reasons:
1. According to 1 Cor. 2:14-16, a person must first be spiritual (i.e. made spiritual by God) in order to understand the gospel enough to believe and obey it.
2. Eph. 2:5 implies that "dead in sin" means unbelieving state of mind (and heart), that God regenerates the person in that spiritually dead state, resulting in spiritual life, and ability to believe the gospel preached.
3. No one can decide to believe something they don't believe. They must first be convinced of the truth of the narrative before they will ever choose to believe it. Therefore, being convinced of the gospel, they are simply choosing to believe what they already believe, since they have been persuaded. The persuasion comes first (God regenerating), then the faith comes after (choosing to believe and obey).

Again, since the gospel is spiritually discerned, the only way a person can believe it is if God regenerates them by the indwelling Holy Spirit and enables them to believe in their heart, which they do because God has revealed it to them. God is the one who creates the spiritual ears to hear the gospel and believe.

With this understanding, not only is "has been born of God" logically the cause of "believes," but it is also chronologically prior. It may be true that chronology can't be extracted from the lexical argument of 1 Jn. 5:1, but contextually and hermeneutically, it can't be otherwise.

Please comment on my post 25?

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

No, the OP does not make any contention about temporal sequence. In fact, I specifically said in the OP that "this does not ... deny the simultaneous experience of these realities in human perception." The key point is that John's grammar expresses logical priority.

Correct, "when" is not the issue. John's point expresses a logical relationship, not a chronological sequence. The argument is not that believing "did not start in the past." The argument is that believing -- whenever it begins -- presupposes being born again as its logical cause. The one characterized as "the believing one" is so because he "has been born of God." That's what the grammar of the text is conveying.

Where have I argued for "believing after salvation"?

Your examples reflect a misunderstanding of the argument in the OP. Each of these verses uses aorists to describe events in experience or outward sequence, not gnomic statements employing a perfect passive indicative. The semantic core of the perfect tense in Greek denotes a completed past action with abiding results (think γέγραπται, "it is written..." -- literally, "has been written," emphasizing that the writing being quoted was completed in the past but continues to exist and remain relevant). This is distinct from a simple aorist, which typically narrates completed events without necessarily highlighting their effects.

Eph. 1:13 narrates the act of believing as completed by the time of sealing. This does not imply that the believer generated that ability independently. This text is fully consistent with the logical priority of sealing presupposing God enabling belief.

Rom. 10:13-15 addresses the outward hearing and calling of the gospel, not the internal, sovereign work of God producing faith. Again, fully consistent with the principle that those who believe do so because God has worked in them.

1 Cor. 1:21 emphasizes the effectiveness of God's wisdom in salvation. Belief is the channel through which salvation is experienced, yet this is still consistent with belief presupposing God's logically prior enabling work.

Nothing in these passages denies that regeneration underlies the believer's ability to respond. The logic of 1 John 5:1 (among other text we could go to as well) remains: faith does not originate independently but is God-given and effectual.

Now we're getting somewhere. In the OP your final statement was that being born again is the root and and faith is the fruit. And now you're clarifying that the outward aspect of faith which leads to salvation is the channel through which being born again is experienced. And these are somehow not contradictory?

The passages I quoted have time sequence in them, and since every person who is now born again, past tense verbs (like aorist and perfect tenses) are used when discussing their conversion/salvation/new birth. And the time-sequence of all these passages place faith in Christ before salvation.

In Him you also trusted, after you heard (aorist active participle) the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed (aorist active participle), you were sealed (aorist passive indicative - main verb) with the Holy Spirit of promise (Eph 1:13)​

The aorist participles indicate timing before that of the main verb. The hearing and the believing preceed the sealing. Since they are active voice, that means it is something the subjects did. But the sealing, being passive, indicates something God did to them.

13 For “whoever calls (aorist tense) on the name of the LORD shall be saved (future tense).” 14 How then shall they call (future tense) on Him in whom they have not believed (aorist tense)? And how shall they believe (future tense) in Him of whom they have not heard (aorist tense)? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? (Ro 10:13–15)​

​

In verse 13, calling on Jesus (aorist tense) preceeds Jesus saving them (future tense). In verse 14, believing in Jesus (aorist tense) preceeds calling on Jesus (future tense) and hearing about Jesus (aorist tense) preceeds believing in Jesus (future tense). The time sequence is clear. God sends out preachers to preach about Jesus. As a result, people hear about Jesus. Some believe in Jesus and then call on Him to save them. And Jesus saves everyone who calls on Him. It is clear that saving faith must by necesity be present before a person calls on the Lord for salvation and salvation follows the call.

​

For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know (aorist tense) God, it pleased (aorist tense - main verb) God through the foolishness of the message preached to save (aorist infinitive) those who believe (present particple - timing consistent with main verb). (1 Co 1:21)​

God's decision that He would save people who believe in Jesus was made long, long ago. It was solely His decision, and He had no input from others. And His decision to save people who believe in Jesus brought Him pleasure. There is no way to rearange this to say that trust in Christ does not come before salvation.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

God has given every person born the ability to exercise faith in something.
Atheist have faith in science...

Are you suggesting that faith in Christ is of the same kind of thing as faith in idols, false religions, or mere human reasoning? Scripture explicitly distinguishes natural belief from saving faith, the former being a capacity common to all, the latter being a gift wrought by the Spirit (Phil. 1:29; Eph. 2:8).

How do you reconcile your view with texts like Rom. 8:7-8 and John 6:44, which explicitly deny that the natural man has the ability or inclination to come to Christ apart from divine enablement?

-
​

John 6:37

Does John 6:37 Teach Election to Everlasting Life? – Grace Evangelical Society

Linking to articles instead of making your own argument isn't very helpful for advancing discussion. Please state your own point rather than outsourcing it to a secondary source.

Also, GES is a strongly dispensational organization that tends to assume its framework rather than demonstrating it. I've previously invited you to defend this directly, though you chose not to respond. In that same earlier exchange, I also took the time to interact with a few GES articles you had shared, and again, you did not engage with my reply. So, respectfully, this appears more like a way of avoiding the responsibility to defend your own claims than it does a sincere attempt to discuss ideas.

If you could summarize what you believe John 6:37 actually teaches and how it supports a point you wish to make here, I'll be glad to engage with you directly.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

I agree πίστις comes from God after regeneration, but regeneration must be accepted by man...

You grant that πίστις follows regeneration, yet insist regeneration follows "accepting" it. That is a circular impossibility. Scripture presents regeneration not as an offer to be received, but as an act of divine recreation that enables reception (John 1:13; 3:3-8; Titus 3:5). Where in Scripture do you see regeneration ever depicted as something God proposes for man to "accept"?

Fallen man is not neutral toward God; he is hostile (Rom. 8:7), unable to submit to His law, and unable to please Him (v. 8). If the "acceptance" of regeneration is a pleasing act to God, how can one perform it while still in a state of hostility and inability? The very act you propose as preceding regeneration requires the spiritual life that regeneration alone imparts. This is not a question of mere intellectual capacity to assent to propositions, but of moral and spiritual disposition. The fallen heart is irreversibly biased against the things of God and therefore not able to receive them (Rom. 8:7-8; John 6:44) until divine renewal takes place.

...with accepting God’s Love (Charity) in the form of forgiveness.

The love of God is received after the Spirit sheds it in the heart (Rom. 5:5), which occurs post-regeneration. One cannot "accept" divine love while remaining unregenerate and hostile to its Giver.

This “Kind of believe” you talk about can be directed toward your creator in the acceptance of charity from your hated enemy (God) and prior to obtaining πίστις.

Can you argue this from Scripture?

Everything hinges on the definition of “Spiritually dead” and if the person that is spiritually dead can do something for himself (selfishly). We know the “spiritual dead” person can still physically feed himself, so what else can he do for himself?

You're equivocating on the term "spiritually dead." The fact that an unregenerate person can eat, walk, or speak has no bearing on his ability to turn to God. Scripture nowhere denies natural functionality; it denies spiritual receptivity. Spiritual death (νεκροὺς, Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13) refers to total moral and spiritual incapacity toward God (Eph. 2:1-3; Rom. 8:7-8; John 6:44, 65). The "dead" man is still alive biologically, yet he is alienated from the life of God (Eph. 4:18) and dominated by corrupt desires (Gen. 6:5; Rom. 3:10-12).

Scripture does not depict man as merely wounded or partially disabled, but as utterly unable to incline himself Godward apart from divine initiative. Physical capacity does not mitigate spiritual inability; it only underscores the irony that one may be fully active in the world and yet lifeless toward God.

How do you get around Jesus explaining to us that a person spiritually dead like the prodigal son can turn to the Father?

One needn't "get around" it if it is read according to its intended teaching. The parable is not a treatise on regeneration or the mechanics of conversion; it's a didactic story illustrating God's gracious forgiveness toward repentant sinners within the covenant people. The father embodies God's readiness to forgive, and the son's return illustrates repentance and receptivity that flow from the father's prior gracious disposition. Jesus' audience (the Pharisees) are the implied contrast, highlighting their inability to rejoice in God's grace. The parable assumes divine initiative in drawing the son home; it does not portray the unregenerate sinner as capable of effecting his own turning apart from God.

The phrase νεκρὸς ἦν καὶ ἀνέζησεν ("was dead and is alive again," Luke 15:24) is metaphorical, not ontological. It communicates relational estrangement and restoration within Israel's covenant framework, not a technical statement about the sinner's capacity for self-generated faith. The "dead/alive" language narratively conveys the joy of reconciliation and the father's gracious response, not an ordo salutis.

...but selfishly (sinfully) wanting to humbly accept pure underserved charity.

Even if that were true in the parable, it proves nothing about spiritual ability. Christ's purpose is to depict the Father's mercy, not the son's psychology. The son's "selfish" motive is incidental; the parable centers on the father's initiative. He first acts, restores, and rejoices.

More importantly, fallen self-interest cannot serve as the ground for receiving divine grace. Scripture consistently grounds regeneration and justification in God's sovereign action, not in any natural human impulse (Titus 3:5; John 6:44). The prodigal's confession, "I have sinned," reflects conviction and repentance produced by God's work, not an innate capacity to turn to Him.

So your appeal to the parable collapses if used to justify pre-regenerative "self-acceptance" of God's love, because the son is already alive in the narrative act of returning. The "coming to himself" is the very moment of awakening that corresponds to regeneration (cf. Eph. 2:5, "made us alive").

You are right for I am not talking about “believe in Christ”, but “trusting” in God unbelievable illogical Love.

Where do you see Scripture distinguish a pre-regenerate trust in divine benevolence as a separate category from faith? The divine agape is revealed in Christ crucified (Rom. 5:8; 1 John 4:9-10). To speak of "trusting God's love" apart from union with Christ is to separate what Scripture unites, and posit an objectless faith. Even intellectually apprehending the claims of Christianity is not an act of trust but mere exposure to propositions, which, apart from regeneration, results only in indifference or hostility (2 Cor. 4:4; Rom. 8:7-8).

Are you suggesting that natural man possesses spiritual perception and volition toward God, not merely abstract awareness or assent? Those very capacities are precisely what regeneration imparts (cf. 1 Cor. 2:14).

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

Now we're getting somewhere. In the OP your final statement was that being born again is the root and and faith is the fruit. And now you're clarifying that the outward aspect of faith which leads to salvation is the channel through which being born again is experienced. And these are somehow not contradictory?

"The channel through which being born again is experienced" is not what I said. You're conflating "salvation" with "being born again." You did not address my question:

Where have I argued for "believing after salvation"?​

Your choice of terminology is problematic. The argument is not that "salvation" as a whole precedes faith. The argument is that regeneration (being born again), which is one element within the broader experience of salvation, logically precedes faith. Regeneration is the divine act of imparting new spiritual life to the sinner, and it is distinct from the full scope of salvation, which also includes justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification.

σωτηρία ("salvation") is contextually very flexible. In most passages it refers to justification, final deliverance, or the full scope of God's saving work. Only in certain contexts (e.g., Eph. 2:5-8; Titus 3:5) is the term used in a way that is closely associated with regeneration, and even there it is not strictly synonymous. So your use of the term "salvation" as if it automatically equates to regeneration misrepresents both the term's semantic range and the argument of the OP.

So there is no contradiction. Regeneration is the causal root in which God imparts new life; faith is the effect of that imparted life. The two may be simultaneous in experience, yet they are logically ordered. Experientially, one experiences faith and salvation (justification, adoption, etc.) in time; logically, faith presupposes regeneration.

The passages I quoted have time sequence in them, and since every person who is now born again, past tense verbs (like aorist and perfect tenses) are used when discussing their conversion/salvation/new birth...

The passages you quoted don't address regeneration...

Eph 1:13 ... The aorist participles indicate timing before that of the main verb. The hearing and the believing preceed the sealing. Since they are active voice, that means it is something the subjects did. But the sealing, being passive, indicates something God did to them.

Eph. 1:13 does not narrate regeneration. The "sealing" is God's mark of ownership and guarantee of inheritance (v. 14), not the actual imparting of new life. Scripture elsewhere distinguishes the impartation of life (regeneration, e.g., Eph. 2:1-5; Titus 3:5) from the sealing/assurance that follows.

Regeneration is the root; the seal is the effect, confirmation, or mark.

Ro 10:13–15 ... In verse 13, calling on Jesus (aorist tense) preceeds Jesus saving them (future tense). ...

Again, not the issue. We're discussing the relationship between regeneration and faith, not justification and faith. Romans 10:13 is a statement about justification and final salvation, not the technical moment of regeneration. Paul is addressing Jews and Gentiles responding to the gospel. The emphasis is on hearing, believing, calling on the Lord, and receiving salvation. The aorists describe the experiential sequence of response, not the ontological causality of spiritual life.

1 Co 1:21 ... God's decision that He would save people who believe in Jesus was made long, long ago. It was solely His decision, and He had no input from others. And His decision to save people who believe in Jesus brought Him pleasure. There is no way to rearange this to say that trust in Christ does not come before salvation.

Same issue; you're missing the point. The problem is not the temporal sequence of "salvation" as a whole; your use of the term conflates multiple aspects of salvation. Biblically, salvation encompasses a logical sequence: election, calling, regeneration, conversion (faith and repentance), justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification (Rom. 8:28-30). The question at hand is the ordering of regeneration and faith specifically, not "salvation" in general. Faith is an instrument; it is the channel through which (means/instrumentality) God's grace is received (Eph. 2:8), not the logical ground of regenerative grace itself. Presenting faith as preceding "salvation" obscures and misrepresents the argument of the OP. The point is that regeneration enables faith, leading to all the rest of salvation's benefits (justification, adoption, sanctification, etc.).

Eph. 1:13, Rom. 10:13-15, and 1 Cor. 1:21 describe the outward, experiential sequence of hearing, believing, and being sealed with the Spirit. There is no dispute about that. The problem is that these texts do not address regeneration at all, which is the topic under discussion. 1 John 5:1 is different: it makes a gnomic, logical claim about spiritual causation. Being born of God is presented there as the ontological prerequisite for believing in Christ, not a subsequent event.

So appealing to experiential sequences in these other texts cannot overturn the clear grammatical and theological statement there. 1 John 5:1, which does explicitly reference regeneration, does so in a way that presents it as the ontological prerequisite to faith.

 

[tdidymas]

I agree πίστις comes from God after regeneration, but regeneration must be accepted by man, with accepting God’s Love (Charity) in the form of forgiveness.

When you say, "but regeneration must be accepted by man," are you assuming that a person already regenerated, having the Holy Spirit in him speaking to him, could actually have such a rotten attitude (hate toward God) that he rejects the regeneration given? If God is merciful toward someone enough to reveal Himself, does He not reveal His love as well as His wrath? Does He not also change the disposition of the person's heart so that the person has hope to reconciliation with God that he did not previously have? "We are saved in hope" says Paul in Rom. 8. This is why there is the idea of "irresistible grace," because although grace was resisted at first, when a person is regenerated, their heart is changed toward God, having faith and hope, there is no more resisting it. There is only surrender, resulting in peace and rest from the consternation of being at odds with God. Then peace with God becomes a precious treasure that no pleasure of sin could ever steal.

This “Kind of believe” you talk about can be directed toward your creator in the acceptance of charity from your hated enemy (God) and prior to obtaining πίστις.

The "kind of belief" in the NT, also called "saving faith," is of a kind that only God can give, through spiritual quickening and illumination. After this, the "hated enemy" becomes "precious friend." This is the nature of grace. This kind of belief is the faith described in the NT. There is no such thing as belief in Christ that is different than faith in Christ, it's the same thing. There are different kinds of belief and different kinds of faith, but only one kind is the belief/faith of the child of God.

When you say "can be directed toward your creator," the only true faith is always directed toward God. The implication is that if faith is not directed toward God and Christ, it is not true faith, that is, not the NT kind of faith, and therefore not "saving faith."

Everything hinges on the definition of “Spiritually dead” and if the person that is spiritually dead can do something for himself (selfishly). We know the “spiritual dead” person can still physically feed himself, so what else can he do for himself?

Someone naturally alive but spiritually dead cannot do anything for himself spiritually. This is the point. A person physically alive but spiritually dead is called "natural man" by Paul in 1 Cor. 2. The nature of a spiritually dead person is "by nature a child of wrath," because the law of God requires real altruism, in which there is nothing selfish or self-centered in it. This is why people naturally loathe to obey God's commands, because God's commands "crimp their style" - that is, one must "deny self" - for example, set aside sinful pleasures - in order to obtain something much greater, something unseen, like the saving of another person's soul. But the "natural man" according to 1 Cor. 2 and Rom. 8 will never give up his sinful pleasures, not unless he is regenerated and made into a "spiritual man." How does a "natural man" hear the gospel? Jesus often said, "he who has ears to hear" - God must quicken a person's inner ears to hear it. But a spiritually dead person will always turn away.

How do you get around Jesus explaining to us that a person spiritually dead like the prodigal son can turn to the Father?

What makes you think the son was spiritually dead after he returned home? The story is a parable, so there is not necessarily a point-by-point comparison to the spiritual; it's a case of "the kingdom of heaven is like..."; there are similarities.

So here's the deal: the son was "spiritually dead" (i.e. dead to the father and the family) when he had no hope in the home and his future there. His sights were on the pleasures of the world. But after expending all his resources, he finds himself in the lowest hell he could be while still alive. In that place, he realizes what a waste he has made of his life, and then looks to his home for some hope for his future. At that time that he hopes in his father and his home, his life is "regenerated," so he actually goes home. He is then "spiritually alive" even though not realizing yet how much he is loved by his father.

Jesus said, "blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." It's like the prodigal son who recognizes his spiritual bankruptcy and looks back to his home for hope.

(Luke 15: 32) Christ has the Father explain what it meant to be dead and calls the son dead (not meaning dead physically) when the Father now knows he is alive: “…because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found.”

The prodigal son in a dead state (by Jesis’ own words) could turn to his father for selfish reasons, but undeserved salvation was from the father. The young son did not excising some “Godly ability”, but selfishly (sinfully) wanting to humbly accept pure underserved charity.

The son was not yet mature enough to exercise altruism (selfless helping others). It is true that at first there is a selfish desire to accept undeserved charity. Is this not the same way we begin our relationship with God? There is first hope that God will accept us into His family, and give us eternal life as promised. Then after being equipped for service, we begin helping others.

You are right for I am not talking about “believe in Christ”, but “trusting” in God unbelievable illogical Love.

Yet, people can trust in God loving them without believing in Christ, but therein is a false sense of security. Since we know Jesus said He is the only way to the Father, then through belief in Him is the only way to receive the Father's love. 1 Jn. 5:10 says that whoever does not believe in Jesus is calling God a liar. There is a sort of trust in God in a natural sense that is inadequate to be accepted and reconciled to God. This kind of "trust" (which is not real and spiritual) is the kind the world does, but still hates the only true God, and loathes His commands.

 

[Clare73]

I agree πίστις comes from God after regeneration, but regeneration must be accepted by man,

Being re-born is no more "accepted" by man that was his being born.

Man has nothing to do with either his birth or his rebirth.

 

[d taylor]

Are you suggesting that faith in Christ is of the same kind of thing as faith in idols, false religions, or mere human reasoning? Scripture explicitly distinguishes natural belief from saving faith, the former being a capacity common to all, the latter being a gift wrought by the Spirit (Phil. 1:29; Eph. 2:8).

How do you reconcile your view with texts like Rom. 8:7-8 and John 6:44, which explicitly deny that the natural man has the ability or inclination to come to Christ apart from divine enablement?


Linking to articles instead of making your own argument isn't very helpful for advancing discussion. Please state your own point rather than outsourcing it to a secondary source.

Also, GES is a strongly dispensational organization that tends to assume its framework rather than demonstrating it. I've previously invited you to defend this directly, though you chose not to respond. In that same earlier exchange, I also took the time to interact with a few GES articles you had shared, and again, you did not engage with my reply. So, respectfully, this appears more like a way of avoiding the responsibility to defend your own claims than it does a sincere attempt to discuss ideas.

If you could summarize what you believe John 6:37 actually teaches and how it supports a point you wish to make here, I'll be glad to engage with you directly.

-
​

It is not faith that is special, the important part of a persons faith is the object the faith is placed in.

The faith of a person placed into idols does not give eternal life. But if the same person was to direct his faith into Jesus he would at the very moment of belief in Jesus for Eternal Life, would receive God's free gift of Eternal Life.

Philippians 1:29 or Ephesians say nothing about God giving a special faith of the spirit, so a person can believe in Jesus.

John 6;44 simply states that God draws people to Jesus. The verse does not say that the drawing is only for an elected group of people. The next verse states that
It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.
This verse also does not say that God is only teaching an elect group of people.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

"The channel through which being born again is experienced" is not what I said. You're conflating "salvation" with "being born again." You did not address my question:

Where have I argued for "believing after salvation"?​

Your choice of terminology is problematic. The argument is not that "salvation" as a whole precedes faith. The argument is that regeneration (being born again), which is one element within the broader experience of salvation, logically precedes faith. Regeneration is the divine act of imparting new spiritual life to the sinner, and it is distinct from the full scope of salvation, which also includes justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification.

σωτηρία ("salvation") is contextually very flexible. In most passages it refers to justification, final deliverance, or the full scope of God's saving work. Only in certain contexts (e.g., Eph. 2:5-8; Titus 3:5) is the term used in a way that is closely associated with regeneration, and even there it is not strictly synonymous. So your use of the term "salvation" as if it automatically equates to regeneration misrepresents both the term's semantic range and the argument of the OP.

So there is no contradiction. Regeneration is the causal root in which God imparts new life; faith is the effect of that imparted life. The two may be simultaneous in experience, yet they are logically ordered. Experientially, one experiences faith and salvation (justification, adoption, etc.) in time; logically, faith presupposes regeneration.

The passages you quoted don't address regeneration...

Eph. 1:13 does not narrate regeneration. The "sealing" is God's mark of ownership and guarantee of inheritance (v. 14), not the actual imparting of new life. Scripture elsewhere distinguishes the impartation of life (regeneration, e.g., Eph. 2:1-5; Titus 3:5) from the sealing/assurance that follows.

Regeneration is the root; the seal is the effect, confirmation, or mark.

Again, not the issue. We're discussing the relationship between regeneration and faith, not justification and faith. Romans 10:13 is a statement about justification and final salvation, not the technical moment of regeneration. Paul is addressing Jews and Gentiles responding to the gospel. The emphasis is on hearing, believing, calling on the Lord, and receiving salvation. The aorists describe the experiential sequence of response, not the ontological causality of spiritual life.

Same issue; you're missing the point. The problem is not the temporal sequence of "salvation" as a whole; your use of the term conflates multiple aspects of salvation. Biblically, salvation encompasses a logical sequence: election, calling, regeneration, conversion (faith and repentance), justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification (Rom. 8:28-30). The question at hand is the ordering of regeneration and faith specifically, not "salvation" in general. Faith is an instrument; it is the channel through which (means/instrumentality) God's grace is received (Eph. 2:8), not the logical ground of regenerative grace itself. Presenting faith as preceding "salvation" obscures and misrepresents the argument of the OP. The point is that regeneration enables faith, leading to all the rest of salvation's benefits (justification, adoption, sanctification, etc.).

Eph. 1:13, Rom. 10:13-15, and 1 Cor. 1:21 describe the outward, experiential sequence of hearing, believing, and being sealed with the Spirit. There is no dispute about that. The problem is that these texts do not address regeneration at all, which is the topic under discussion. 1 John 5:1 is different: it makes a gnomic, logical claim about spiritual causation. Being born of God is presented there as the ontological prerequisite for believing in Christ, not a subsequent event.

So appealing to experiential sequences in these other texts cannot overturn the clear grammatical and theological statement there. 1 John 5:1, which does explicitly reference regeneration, does so in a way that presents it as the ontological prerequisite to faith.

You are arguing for a reality that we do not experience. It is clear (or at least it should be) that receiving Jesus (believing in Him) is what gives us the right to become children of God (Jn 1:12) and that God giving birth to us is what makes us His offspring (Jn 1:13). And it is clear (or at least it should be clear) that God giving birth to us is what translates out of the kingdom of the devil into His kingdom (Jn 3:5). Metaphysical reasoning is not needed to understand this.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

It is not faith that is special, the important part of a persons faith is the object the faith is placed in.

The faith of a person placed into idols does not give eternal life. But if the same person was to direct his faith into Jesus he would at the very moment of belief in Jesus for Eternal Life, would receive God's free gift of Eternal Life.

Philippians 1:29 or Ephesians say nothing about God giving a special faith of the spirit, so a person can believe in Jesus.

You're confusing the instrumental cause of salvation ("through faith," Eph. 2:8) with its efficient cause ("by grace," Eph. 2:8). The question is whether fallen man possesses the moral and spiritual capacity to direct faith toward Christ at all, given his hostility toward God (Rom. 8:7-8; 1 Cor. 2:14).

Saving faith is indeed qualitatively distinct from natural belief. The natural man can believe propositions, but he cannot receive the things of the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:14). Faith in Christ does not arise from the old nature's rational faculties; it arises from the new life granted by the Spirit (John 6:44, 65).

Your comments on Phil. 1:29 and Eph. 2:8 ignores the syntax. In Phil. 1:29, τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύειν ("to believe in Him") is the very thing "granted" (ἐχαρίσθη). Belief itself is the divine gift. Likewise, in Eph. 2:8, the neuter demonstrative τοῦτο ("this") refers to the entire preceding clause, "by grace you have been saved through faith." The whole reality of salvation through faith is of God, not of human origin.

John 6;44 simply states that God draws people to Jesus. The verse does not say that the drawing is only for an elected group of people.

It actually does. Grammatically, the αὐτὸν ("him") in both ἑλκύσῃ ("draws") and ἀναστήσω ("will raise") refers to the same person. Thus, the one drawn is the one raised. This is easily seen if restating the logic of the verse contrapositively:

"If he is able to come, then the Father [has drawn] him, and I will raise him up."

Who is the one raised? The one enabled to come; the one drawn by the Father.

While it is true theologically that the one raised is the one who actually comes, what the logic of John 6:44 is declaring is that there isn't a distinction. Jesus assumes no difference between those enabled to come, and those who actually do so. The drawing is effectual. It changes the disposition of their hearts such that the sin they once loved they now hate, and the God they once opposed (Rom. 8:7-8) they are now naturally inclined toward.

This aligns with verse 37, which says, "all that the Father gives me will come to me." Interestingly, verse 65 restates verse 44, but replaces the verb with that of verse 37. That interchange of ἑλκύω ("draw") and δίδωμι ("give") indicates a paradigmatic relationship between the two verbs within parallel syntagmatic contexts, suggesting that the Father's drawing and giving are conceptually identical acts:

"All that the Father gives/draws to me will come to me." (v. 37)
"No one can come to me unless the Father draws/gives them to me (and the one drawn/given will be raised up on the last day)." (v. 44)

The next verse states that
It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.
This verse also does not say that God is only teaching an elect group of people.

Again, it actually does. To say otherwise misses both the syntax and theological force of διδακτοὶ θεοῦ ("taught by God"). Jesus is citing Isaiah 54:13, where "being taught by God" is a covenantal promise of divine renewal, parallel to Jeremiah 31:33-34, where God writes His law on their hearts so that "they shall all know Me." In context, it is not a general offer of instruction but a description of the effectual work of God upon His covenant people.

Grammatically, διδακτοὶ θεοῦ contains a genitive of agency with a substantivized predicate adjective. This construction consistently denotes persons passively affected by the action of the genitive noun. Compare ἁγαπητοῖς θεοῦ in Romans 1:7 ("loved by God") and τοῖς ἁγαπητοῖς ἡμῶν in Acts 15:25 ("our beloved"), which describe an objective reality independent of response. The persons are loved; their reaction does not produce that love. Similarly, γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν in Matthew 11:11 ("those born of women") identifies those who have undergone birth, something wholly external to their will. The same pattern appears in θεόπνευστος ("God-breathed") in 2 Timothy 3:16, where the focus is on the divine origin of Scripture, not human participation.

In other words, this grammatical logic essentially conveys the same thing as a compound word: God-breathed, woman-born, God-loved, and God-taught. It is descriptive of something that has happened; it characterizes. Thus, διδακτοὶ θεοῦ specifically conveys the idea that those in view have received the instructional benefits of the teaching. It does not convey the idea of a teaching simply offered. See also compounds σητόβρωτα ("moth-eaten," Jas. 5:2), πατροπαράδοτου ("inherited from forefathers," 1 Pet. 1:18), and ποταμοφόρητον ("swept away by a flood," Rev. 12:15). In fact, Paul actually uses a compound form of the "God-taught" phrase in 1 Thess. 4:9: θεοδίδακτοι.

In every one of these cases, the modifying element marks the agent producing the effect.

In other words, "taught by God" describes not a universal opportunity for instruction, but a divine action that creates the very capacity to come to Christ. It's a metaphor for regeneration, being born again, and directly parallel to "draws" in the prior verse. The subsequent clause, "everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me," simply articulates the necessary consequences of that effectual act. Being taught by God is what ensures coming to the Son.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

You are arguing for a reality that we do not experience. It is clear (or at least it should be) that receiving Jesus (believing in Him) is what gives us the right to become children of God (Jn 1:12) and that God giving birth to us is what makes us His offspring (Jn 1:13). And it is clear (or at least it should be clear) that God giving birth to us is what translates out of the kingdom of the devil into His kingdom (Jn 3:5). Metaphysical reasoning is not needed to understand this.

This reply is dismissive and rhetorically overconfident. You continue to make a category confusion without acknowledging what I've repeatedly pointed out. The ordo salutis concerns what is logically prior, not what is empirically perceptible. We do not "experience" election, calling, or regeneration as discrete sensations, yet their effects manifest in faith and repentance. The lack of direct experience does not make them unreal; it simply marks them as divine acts beneath consciousness.

John 1:12-13 actually supports this. Verse 12 describes the human side ("receiving" Christ and believing in His name), while verse 13 explains the cause of that response: "who were born... of God." The verb "who were born" (ἐγεννήθησαν) is aorist passive, locating the birth as a completed divine action antecedent to and causative of the believing response. The "right to become" children of God (ἐξουσίαν γενέσθαι) is consequent upon faith, but the birth that makes one a child is God's act alone. You have reversed the logic of the text.

John 3:3-5 teaches the same: apart from new birth, one cannot even see the kingdom, let alone enter it. That is not a post-faith event; it is what enables faith itself. Nicodemus' problem was not disbelief in data but incapacity for spiritual perception.

So this isn't "metaphysical reasoning"; it's exegesis. You have not directly engaged hardly any of the argumentation I have made from Scripture, including the grammatical argument of the OP.

 

[d taylor]

You're confusing the instrumental cause of salvation ("through faith," Eph. 2:8) with its efficient cause ("by grace," Eph. 2:8). The question is whether fallen man possesses the moral and spiritual capacity to direct faith toward Christ at all, given his hostility toward God (Rom. 8:7-8; 1 Cor. 2:14).

Saving faith is indeed qualitatively distinct from natural belief. The natural man can believe propositions, but he cannot receive the things of the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:14). Faith in Christ does not arise from the old nature's rational faculties; it arises from the new life granted by the Spirit (John 6:44, 65).

Your comments on Phil. 1:29 and Eph. 2:8 ignores the syntax. In Phil. 1:29, τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύειν ("to believe in Him") is the very thing "granted" (ἐχαρίσθη). Belief itself is the divine gift. Likewise, in Eph. 2:8, the neuter demonstrative τοῦτο ("this") refers to the entire preceding clause, "by grace you have been saved through faith." The whole reality of salvation through faith is of God, not of human origin.


It actually does. Grammatically, the αὐτὸν ("him") in both ἑλκύσῃ ("draws") and ἀναστήσω ("will raise") refers to the same person. Thus, the one drawn is the one raised. This is easily seen if restating the logic of the verse contrapositively:

"If he is able to come, then the Father [has drawn] him, and I will raise him up."

Who is the one raised? The one enabled to come; the one drawn by the Father.

While it is true theologically that the one raised is the one who actually comes, what the logic of John 6:44 is declaring is that there isn't a distinction. Jesus assumes no difference between those enabled to come, and those who actually do so. The drawing is effectual. It changes the disposition of their hearts such that the sin they once loved they now hate, and the God they once opposed (Rom. 8:7-8) they are now naturally inclined toward.

This aligns with verse 37, which says, "all that the Father gives me will come to me." Interestingly, verse 65 restates verse 44, but replaces the verb with that of verse 37. That interchange of ἑλκύω ("draw") and δίδωμι ("give") indicates a paradigmatic relationship between the two verbs within parallel syntagmatic contexts, suggesting that the Father's drawing and giving are conceptually identical acts:

"All that the Father gives/draws to me will come to me." (v. 37)
"No one can come to me unless the Father draws/gives them to me (and the one drawn/given will be raised up on the last day)." (v. 44)


Again, it actually does. To say otherwise misses both the syntax and theological force of διδακτοὶ θεοῦ ("taught by God"). Jesus is citing Isaiah 54:13, where "being taught by God" is a covenantal promise of divine renewal, parallel to Jeremiah 31:33-34, where God writes His law on their hearts so that "they shall all know Me." In context, it is not a general offer of instruction but a description of the effectual work of God upon His covenant people.

Grammatically, διδακτοὶ θεοῦ contains a genitive of agency with a substantivized predicate adjective. This construction consistently denotes persons passively affected by the action of the genitive noun. Compare ἁγαπητοῖς θεοῦ in Romans 1:7 ("loved by God") and τοῖς ἁγαπητοῖς ἡμῶν in Acts 15:25 ("our beloved"), which describe an objective reality independent of response. The persons are loved; their reaction does not produce that love. Similarly, γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν in Matthew 11:11 ("those born of women") identifies those who have undergone birth, something wholly external to their will. The same pattern appears in θεόπνευστος ("God-breathed") in 2 Timothy 3:16, where the focus is on the divine origin of Scripture, not human participation.

In other words, this grammatical logic essentially conveys the same thing as a compound word: God-breathed, woman-born, God-loved, God-taught. See also actual compounds, σητόβρωτα ("moth-eaten," Jas. 5:2), πατροπαράδοτου ("inherited from forefathers," 1 Pet. 1:18), and ποταμοφόρητον ("swept away by a flood," Rev. 12:15). In fact, Paul actually uses a compound form of the "God-taught" phrase in 1 Thess. 4:9: θεοδίδακτοι.

In every one of these cases, the modifying element marks the agent producing the effect.

In other words, "taught by God" describes not a universal opportunity for instruction, but a divine action that creates the very capacity to come to Christ. It's a metaphor for regeneration, being born again, and directly parallel to "draws" in the prior verse. The subsequent clause, "everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me," simply articulates the necessary consequences of that effectual act. Being taught by God is what ensures coming to the Son.

-
​

And The Father gives to Jesus anyone who believes in Jesus for Eternal Life.

I mean how can anyone believe in a theology, who will not even believe that Jesus paid for and took away all sin for all time for every person who ever lived.

 

[bling]

You grant that πίστις follows regeneration, yet insist regeneration follows "accepting" it. That is a circular impossibility. Scripture presents regeneration not as an offer to be received, but as an act of divine recreation that enables reception (John 1:13; 3:3-8; Titus 3:5). Where in Scripture do you see regeneration ever depicted as something God proposes for man to "accept"?

The spiritual dead sinner is not directly “accepting” regeneration, but regeneration comes after with the spiritual dead sinner accepting pure underserved charity (Love) from God. He is doing nothing honorable initially, like joining God’s family, since he is still hating his enemy.

God wants everyone to be “regenerated”, saved, forgiven, Loved and fellowshipped, so it is man who is keeping that from happening (do not blame God, He is doing all He can to help people fulfill their objective).

Fallen man is not neutral toward God; he is hostile (Rom. 8:7), unable to submit to His law, and unable to please Him (v. 8). If the "acceptance" of regeneration is a pleasing act to God, how can one perform it while still in a state of hostility and inability? The very act you propose as preceding regeneration requires the spiritual life that regeneration alone imparts. This is not a question of mere intellectual capacity to assent to propositions, but of moral and spiritual disposition. The fallen heart is irreversibly biased against the things of God and therefore not able to receive them (Rom. 8:7-8; John 6:44) until divine renewal takes place.

Very true: “Fallen man is not neutral toward God; he is hostile (Rom. 8:7), unable to submit to His law, and unable to please Him (v. 8).”

Again, spiritual dead sinful man is not doing anything worthy of anything “good” or “spiritual”. While the sinner is hating his enemy (God) for strictly selfish reasons (thus sinful and displeasing to God) the sinner is willing to accept pure undeserved charity.

The dead prodigal son of our world can on his own come to their senses see where they are heading feel hunger and needy and selfishly seek relief.

The love of God is received after the Spirit sheds it in the heart (Rom. 5:5), which occurs post-regeneration. One cannot "accept" divine love while remaining unregenerate and hostile to its Giver.

Everyone on earth is Loved by God (God is Love and we are told to follow God/Christ example and love even our enemies), the problem comes with humbly accepting that “Love” as pure underserved charity, which anyone for selfish reasons can do.

I am not saying they are not still hostile and hating God at the time.

Can you argue this from Scripture?

I would say the example in the Prodigal Son story (Luke 15) provides this. The Prodigal Son Story does not say the son returned out of Love for his father, but so he (the son) could selfishly have just some kind of undeserved livable life. The Prodigal Son knew his father was benevolent to others, so he extend some “faith” that his father just might be benevolent to him.

The Bible talks about people believing/trusting false gods, so we seem to agree there is some kind of none saving faith.

Acts 2:14-47 Peter is addressing a crowd to get them to the point of asking: “What shall we do?” Acts 2: 37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” There is nothing said about them being regenerated, but them accepting underserved help for the crime they had committed. They deserved to be stuck by lightning where they stood and seemed to feel it, but it was not some miracle, since it was all living experience for them.

They had to accept help by: Acts 2: 38 38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

The Spirit comes after their acceptance.

You're equivocating on the term "spiritually dead." The fact that an unregenerate person can eat, walk, or speak has no bearing on his ability to turn to God. Scripture nowhere denies natural functionality; it denies spiritual receptivity. Spiritual death (νεκροὺς, Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13) refers to total moral and spiritual incapacity toward God (Eph. 2:1-3; Rom. 8:7-8; John 6:44, 65). The "dead" man is still alive biologically, yet he is alienated from the life of God (Eph. 4:18) and dominated by corrupt desires (Gen. 6:5; Rom. 3:10-12).

Scripture does not depict man as merely wounded or partially disabled, but as utterly unable to incline himself Godward apart from divine initiative. Physical capacity does not mitigate spiritual inability; it only underscores the irony that one may be fully active in the world and yet lifeless toward God.

Again, the Spiritually dead person can do nothing “worthy”, but he/she can accept undeserved help (like those on Pentecost).

One needn't "get around" it if it is read according to its intended teaching. The parable is not a treatise on regeneration or the mechanics of conversion; it's a didactic story illustrating God's gracious forgiveness toward repentant sinners within the covenant people. The father embodies God's readiness to forgive, and the son's return illustrates repentance and receptivity that flow from the father's prior gracious disposition. Jesus' audience (the Pharisees) are the implied contrast, highlighting their inability to rejoice in God's grace. The parable assumes divine initiative in drawing the son home; it does not portray the unregenerate sinner as capable of effecting his own turning apart from God.

The phrase νεκρὸς ἦν καὶ ἀνέζησεν ("was dead and is alive again," Luke 15:24) is metaphorical, not ontological. It communicates relational estrangement and restoration within Israel's covenant framework, not a technical statement about the sinner's capacity for self-generated faith. The "dead/alive" language narratively conveys the joy of reconciliation and the father's gracious response, not an ordo salutis.

Jesus in telling a fictional story can use any words He wants, but will always use the very best words to communicate to the audience at the time without any misleading of that audience, so how would they understand it at the time?

Even if that were true in the parable, it proves nothing about spiritual ability. Christ's purpose is to depict the Father's mercy, not the son's psychology. The son's "selfish" motive is incidental; the parable centers on the father's initiative. He first acts, restores, and rejoices.

Every word Christ used was the best word so very important. Jesus would not unintentionally miss lead the audience sine everything Jesus did was intentional.

More importantly, fallen self-interest cannot serve as the ground for receiving divine grace. Scripture consistently grounds regeneration and justification in God's sovereign action, not in any natural human impulse (Titus 3:5; John 6:44). The prodigal's confession, "I have sinned," reflects conviction and repentance produced by God's work, not an innate capacity to turn to Him.

“I have sinned” is stating what everyone already knew, so the son is not bring “good news” to his father. Nor is it “good news”: “I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.”

Since this son is also not “worthy” of being a servant to his father.

So your appeal to the parable collapses if used to justify pre-regenerative "self-acceptance" of God's love, because the son is already alive in the narrative act of returning. The "coming to himself" is the very moment of awakening that corresponds to regeneration (cf. Eph. 2:5, "made us alive").

How is “coming to your senses” equal to “awakening = regeneration”?

“Coming to your senses” is realizing where you are at, how you got there, and where you are heading. If the prodigal son had been more macho, he would have accepted his deserved outcome and starved to death in the pigsty, but instead he wimped out and choose to be a further burden to his father.

Where do you see Scripture distinguish a pre-regenerate trust in divine benevolence as a separate category from faith? The divine agape is revealed in Christ crucified (Rom. 5:8; 1 John 4:9-10). To speak of "trusting God's love" apart from union with Christ is to separate what Scripture unites, and posit an objectless faith. Even intellectually apprehending the claims of Christianity is not an act of trust but mere exposure to propositions, which, apart from regeneration, results only in indifference or hostility (2 Cor. 4:4; Rom. 8:7-8).

Are you suggesting that natural man possesses spiritual perception and volition toward God, not merely abstract awareness or assent? Those very capacities are precisely what regeneration imparts (cf. 1 Cor. 2:14).

The fact is, all mature adults have a natural faith, so they can believe a rock is a god, but this is not a saving faith. The “faith” to have a small trust in God’s Love, might come from a lack of other good options and where you are heading.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

And The Father gives to Jesus anyone who believes in Jesus for Eternal Life.

Where do you get that from Scripture? "Gives" precedes and grounds "will come" in John 6:37, not vice versa.

 

[bling]

When you say, "but regeneration must be accepted by man," are you assuming that a person already regenerated, having the Holy Spirit in him speaking to him, could actually have such a rotten attitude (hate toward God) that he rejects the regeneration given? If God is merciful toward someone enough to reveal Himself, does He not reveal His love as well as His wrath? Does He not also change the disposition of the person's heart so that the person has hope to reconciliation with God that he did not previously have? "We are saved in hope" says Paul in Rom. 8. This is why there is the idea of "irresistible grace," because although grace was resisted at first, when a person is regenerated, their heart is changed toward God, having faith and hope, there is no more resisting it. There is only surrender, resulting in peace and rest from the consternation of being at odds with God. Then peace with God becomes a precious treasure that no pleasure of sin could ever steal.

Now you need to read my post 38.

With just hoping in God’s illogical, unconditional, unbelievable Love, the unregenerated Spiritual dead sinner (like the prodigal son prior to returning to his father), can accept undeserved, pure charity from God (like what the prodigal son did).

An unregenerated sinner (spiritual dead) can still come to his senses (see where he is, what got him where he is and where he is going) and thus decide to accept God undeserved help/charity.

It takes a huge “faith” in self to believe you can personally turn your situation around, so without any good logical alternatives you turn to your enemy (God) for help.

The "kind of belief" in the NT, also called "saving faith," is of a kind that only God can give, through spiritual quickening and illumination. After this, the "hated enemy" becomes "precious friend." This is the nature of grace. This kind of belief is the faith described in the NT. There is no such thing as belief in Christ that is different than faith in Christ, it's the same thing. There are different kinds of belief and different kinds of faith, but only one kind is the belief/faith of the child of God.

When you say "can be directed toward your creator," the only true faith is always directed toward God. The implication is that if faith is not directed toward God and Christ, it is not true faith, that is, not the NT kind of faith, and therefore not "saving faith."

I am referring to the natural faith, not saving faith, all mature adults have which can allow them to believe a rock is a god. There is such a thing which the Bible does refer to.

This real little faith is enough faith for a sinner to humbly accept as pure undeserved charity since he/she is desperate to have gift, with only tragic other alternatives, but many will still refuse.

Someone naturally alive but spiritually dead cannot do anything for himself spiritually. This is the point. A person physically alive but spiritually dead is called "natural man" by Paul in 1 Cor. 2. The nature of a spiritually dead person is "by nature a child of wrath," because the law of God requires real altruism, in which there is nothing selfish or self-centered in it. This is why people naturally loathe to obey God's commands, because God's commands "crimp their style" - that is, one must "deny self" - for example, set aside sinful pleasures - in order to obtain something much greater, something unseen, like the saving of another person's soul. But the "natural man" according to 1 Cor. 2 and Rom. 8 will never give up his sinful pleasures, not unless he is regenerated and made into a "spiritual man." How does a "natural man" hear the gospel? Jesus often said, "he who has ears to hear" - God must quicken a person's inner ears to hear it. But a spiritually dead person will always turn away.

The prodigal son went back to the father when he was spiritually dead and not regenerated by the father.

All nature adults are brought to their senses at some point(s) in their life, every direction they turn to is a deserved disaster, but they do have the slim possible hope of God’s help.

What makes you think the son was spiritually dead after he returned home? The story is a parable, so there is not necessarily a point-by-point comparison to the spiritual; it's a case of "the kingdom of heaven is like..."; there are similarities.

So here's the deal: the son was "spiritually dead" (i.e. dead to the father and the family) when he had no hope in the home and his future there. His sights were on the pleasures of the world. But after expending all his resources, he finds himself in the lowest hell he could be while still alive. In that place, he realizes what a waste he has made of his life, and then looks to his home for some hope for his future. At that time that he hopes in his father and his home, his life is "regenerated," so he actually goes home. He is then "spiritually alive" even though not realizing yet how much he is loved by his father.

Jesus said, "blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." It's like the prodigal son who recognizes his spiritual bankruptcy and looks back to his home for hope.

I like the use of “hope”, but he also can see with coming to his senses the disaster he created, the future before him (starving to death in a pigsty) which all give him no hope. The young son has only one possible positive outcome, so without the need for regeneration he chooses to return to the father.

Coming to your senses is not making the choice for you, it is still your free will choice. As hard as it may be to take the punishment you fully deserve, macho (false pride, people do just that).

The difference between those who turn in hopes and trust of accept an unbelievable undeserved pure charity and those who refuse charity is not being regenerated, but being humble now instead of later, since everyone is made humble at some time.

The son was not yet mature enough to exercise altruism (selfless helping others). It is true that at first there is a selfish desire to accept undeserved charity. Is this not the same way we begin our relationship with God? There is first hope that God will accept us into His family, and give us eternal life as promised. Then after being equipped for service, we begin helping others.

Selflessness comes after you have the Spirit and Godly type Love.

Yet, people can trust in God loving them without believing in Christ, but therein is a false sense of security. Since we know Jesus said He is the only way to the Father, then through belief in Him is the only way to receive the Father's love. 1 Jn. 5:10 says that whoever does not believe in Jesus is calling God a liar. There is a sort of trust in God in a natural sense that is inadequate to be accepted and reconciled to God. This kind of "trust" (which is not real and spiritual) is the kind the world does, but still hates the only true God, and loathes His commands.

I believe God Loves everyone even those who go to hell. Any mature adult can humble accept God’s Love as pure undeserved chrity or go on refusing God’s Love, but God Loves them.

A soldier can hate his enemy will being a prisoner of war, but if that enemy showers him with unbelievable wonderful gifts and he humbly accepts those gifts as undeserved charity, he will than love the giver (Luke 7) .