Where Does Believing Faith Come From

[Havensdad]

Well I would think that if it is done with "taste" "respect" and you are sure to affix your name to it as it the custom that it will be fine, that is fine as in your work, your view, your argument etc., fully documents and clearly presenting from your view. Your research project on compatibilism is your personal view and you are not the first to support that view or reject that view. So don't be so quick to set yourself up on a pedestal as important simply because you completed an assignment. There are latterly millions of similar finished good, fair, and bad research projects out there on all sorts of topics so if you want to toot your own horn do so as your are it will not prove any different from what exist already just another person in the long line of them on all sides strutting their personal belief system.

Yes, it will be accepted if it is professionally done. If your professor does not share your view, he or she will most likely make a kind comment expressing that.

Remember this you are only one of multitudes who have traveled that path and you are not unique to anything.

Brother,
Your vitriolic remarks against me are not necessary. Why the attacks? Are you incapable of simply defending your arguments? I have not made personal attacks against you: perhaps you are confusing me with somebody else?

My off hand remark was not an attempt to "put myself on a pedestal", particularly since a great many of the people on this board have actually finished what I have only begun.

Here, let me do something else to "put myself on a pedestal"...

Hey everyone, I finished kindergarten!!
:jesus:

 

[OldRegular]

No, they merely need to pick up a commentary by one of the major modern Calvinists of our time, like F.F. Bruce, Barrett, Carson, or Tenney (to name but a few) who will explain to you that the new birth is post-faith, and is now available to all believers in this escatological, post-cross age.

I am not opposed to using commentaries but why should I trust those you mentioned rather than John Gill, Martyn-Lloyd Jones, W. T. Conner, or Thomas Nettles. However, when using a commentary or recommending one I always say that those folks are just as entitled to be wrong as you or me.

Anyhow, the over riding message of Jesus Christ in John 3 regarding the New Birth is not that difficult to perceive.

Everyone wants to give God all the glory he wants and deserves.

They do????????? Everyone includes Everyone!

You, however, beg the question.

What question did I beg?????

The Pantheist and the hyper-Calvinst make the same allegation against you, but that doesn't mean that they are correct. In fact, they are wrong!

Please tell me how a pantheist gives glory to God!!!!!!!

 

[MB]

There is no doubt in my mind that God chooses us first. He draws us and call's us. It is God who sends the messenger that tells us of God and it is God who opens our minds with knowledge of Jesus Christ. It is His Holy Spirit that convicts us of our sins. It is God's word being preaced to us that convinces of the truth of Christ in combination with all the above. Salvation will happen as long as we do not rebel. It is rebellion that prevents Salvation. Man's choice then isn't Salvation but whether or not to rebel against God. With out rebellion we will be saved.
MB

 

[Carico]

Calvinists can say what they want, the scriptures clearly show that a man can have faith before receiveing the Holy Spirit.

John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Here the scriptures clearly show believers who had not yet received the Spirit.

And there are many other examples.

Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Here Paul found 12 disciples of John the Baptist. Paul asked them if they had received the Holy Ghost "since ye believed" which shows Paul understood a man to receive the Spirit AFTER believeing. These disciples had never even heard of the Holy Ghost.

Paul then preaches Jesus unto them (faith comes by hearing the word of God), they accepted Christ and were baptized in his name, and then after believeing received the Holy Ghost.

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Here Jesus was speaking to his disciples. Were they believers? Yes. Did they have the indwelling Holy Spirit? No. Jesus here says the Spirit dwells with them but in the future shall be in them.

Now how could the Spirit dwell with them? Verse 18 shows that Jesus was speaking of himself. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one. Jesus was dwelling with them. After ascending to the Father he sent the Holy Spirit (which is Jesus) to be "in" them.

John 14:22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Here Jesus shows that a man can both hear and keep his words (faith cometh by hearing the word of God). And Jesus promises those that hear and keep his words that he will send the Comforter which is the Holy Spirit.

There are many other examples in the scriptures. Just as Ephesians 1:13 clearly shows, first a man hears the word of God, then believes, and only after receives the Spirit.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

How did they receive the Spirit? By the hearing of faith. What did they hear? The word of God. What did they have faith in? The word of God. So they had to hear the word of God and have faith before receiveing the Spirit.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

This verse is very specific. First they heard the word of God, then after that believed, then after that received the Spirit.

God didn't put the word "after" twice in this verse for no reason. Calvinists can twist any scriptures they wish, the scriptures show a man first believes before receiveing the Spirit.

Winman,

I read a survey in the newspaper not too long ago that said that 83% of people in mainline churches do not believe that Jesus is the only way to God. That's well over three quarters of people who call themselves Christians who hear the word but don't believe it.

Now these people hear the word every week and many of them teach the word whether in Sunday School, bible studies or from the pulpit and they still do not believe it. And these people call themselves Christians!

That doesn't even get to the atheists, Jews, Muslims and pagans, most of whom have heard the word and don't believe it.

So you need to understand what Jesus means when he said;

"They honor me with their lips but their hearts are far from me."

There's a huge difference between hearing the word and believing the word as scripture and the statistics demonstrate. Hearing comes first, but saving faith comes from the indwelling Holy Spirit as 1 Corinthians 2:14, 12:8-9 and Ephesians 2:8-9, explain. That's because the Holy Spirit never leaves one's heart so those who are born again of the Holy Spirit will always have the Spirit of truth inside us. So you are 100% wrong when you claim that faith comes from only hearing the word because that not only contradicts much scripture, it contradicts reality as well.

But you have made it clear that you are unwilling to reconcile all scripture together. So it's pointless to argue with you since the bible tells us not to quarrel. Debating forums like this one exist to give contrary points of view which is what a debate is. But all it does is increase quarreling among Christians So as i said, I won't be posting here any more. I simply came back to delete my profile and explain one last time that you are interpreting the bible incorrectly and I pray that God will lead you to believe all of his words from your heart, not just with your mind.

 

[Benefactor]

Brother,
Your vitriolic remarks against me are not necessary. Why the attacks? Are you incapable of simply defending your arguments? I have not made personal attacks against you: perhaps you are confusing me with somebody else?

My off hand remark was not an attempt to "put myself on a pedestal", particularly since a great many of the people on this board have actually finished what I have only begun.

Here, let me do something else to "put myself on a pedestal"...

Hey everyone, I finished kindergarten!!
:jesus:

The only personal part of this exchange is yours. You left the discussion to honk your own horn and let everyone know what you did. Who cares? For what purpose do your comments serve in a discussion of the topic? Sir if you want to discuss the topic then you should stay on it. You left by making the comments to blow your horn.

These are your words and you tell me what value these words offer in an exchange of pros and cons on the topic? The answer is - they offer nothing in support to your position or in refutation of the opposite.

You said: In fact, I just wrote my research project on the necessity of Compatibilism for a proper understanding of scripture. Wondering how that's going to go over at Liberty...

 

[Benefactor]

By the way, you people need a life. Why not go out and tell some people about Christ, instead of bickering on this board all day.

Why are you here? You must be talking to yourself!

 

[Benefactor]

8 And Jehovah said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a standard: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he seeth it, shall live. Nu 21

Note that the brazen serpent was lifted up for those that were bitten.

17.........They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. Mk 2

It is the Spirit working within His children that causes them to feel their need for Him.

Oh! That's right you are a Calvinist. By the way why is Calvinist losing their salvation when they are bit by snakes and then being resaved again when or if they believe that if they look and actually do look and live? Calvinism - what a cargo of contradiction and confusion.

 

[Havensdad]

The only personal part of this exchange is yours. You left the discussion to honk your own horn and let everyone know what you did. Who cares? For what purpose do your comments serve in a discussion of the topic? Sir if you want to discuss the topic then you should stay on it. You left by making the comments to blow your horn.

These are your words and you tell me what value these words offer in an exchange of pros and cons on the topic? The answer is - they offer nothing in support to your position or in refutation of the opposite.

Sorry if my mentioning my personal life offends you brother.

 

[Benefactor]

Sorry if my mentioning my personal life offends you brother.

I am not offended by that. Just making comment on it. It is a fair exchange of ideas outside the pros and cons of the subject. Talking about what you are doing and the reaction of a professor at Liberty is not addressing the topic. I wish you well even though I do not share your view. By the way who is the proof that gets the privilege of grading your work?

 

[BaptistBob]

I am not opposed to using commentaries but why should I trust those you mentioned rather than John Gill, Martyn-Lloyd Jones, W. T. Conner, or Thomas Nettles. However, when using a commentary or recommending one I always say that those folks are just as entitled to be wrong as you or me.

Do some exegesis and find out. Stop appealing to your conclusions and making fallacious emotional arguments asking why people don't understand what it says.

I'm sure you can find a number of dead people who agree with you. In fact, there may even be a Web site or two, and maybe a living person who has a really thin paperback book that they wrote.

Anyhow, the over riding message of Jesus Christ in John 3 regarding the New Birth is not that difficult to perceive.

I agree. I can't figure out why you don't understand it.

What question did I beg?????

Look at your post.

Please tell me how a pantheist gives glory to God!!!!!!!

All good and evil is God's, according to them.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular
I am not opposed to using commentaries but why should I trust those you mentioned rather than John Gill, Martyn-Lloyd Jones, W. T. Conner, or Thomas Nettles. However, when using a commentary or recommending one I always say that those folks are just as entitled to be wrong as you or me.

Response by BaptistBob
Do some exegesis and find out. Stop appealing to your conclusions and making fallacious emotional arguments asking why people don't understand what it says.

Sport I have no idea who put the burr in your long handles but you are are not making sense. I don’t appeal to conclusions I simply believe the Scripture.

I will admit I sometimes get emotional when confronted by people who believe they are responsible for their own salvation. But if you want to believe you are sovereign in your salvation then so be it.

Not that it makes any difference to you or that I care what you think but I do not make false arguments. Unfortunately folks like you do.

More Response by BaptistBob
I'm sure you can find a number of dead people who agree with you. In fact, there may even be a Web site or two, and maybe a living person who has a really thin paperback book that they wrote.

Apparently you are ignorant of anything that John Gill, Martyn-Lloyd Jones, W. T. Conner, or Thomas Nettles have written. Actually I believe that I can find a number of dead people who agree with me, perhaps most prominent is the Apostle Paul. May I also say that some of the old Saints were not corrupted by false doctrine. FYI Nettles is not dead yet!

And how many thin paperbacks have you read? Try reading a good leather bound book, the Bible. Well actually it doesn't have to be leather bound but they last longer if you plan to use it.

Originally Posted by OldRegular
Anyhow, the over riding message of Jesus Christ in John 3 regarding the New Birth is not that difficult to perceive.

More Response by BaptistBob
I agree. I can't figure out why you don't understand it.

I see no evidence that you do. Your response to my post to Benefactor and Winman was pathetically immature.

Originally Posted by OldRegular
What question did I beg?????

More Response by BaptistBob
Look at your post.

I did. None!

Originally Posted by OldRegular
Please tell me how a pantheist gives glory to God!!!!!!!

More Response by BaptistBob
All good and evil is God's, according to them.

Your ignorance of pantheism is exceeded only by your ignorance of what I believe, of Scripture, and of the Sovereignty of GOD in Salvation.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by BaptistBob
Everyone wants to give God all the glory he wants and deserves.

Response by OldRegular
They do????????? Everyone includes Everyone!

Counter response by BaptistBob
------------------

??????????????????

 

[BaptistBob]

Apparently you are ignorant of anything that John Gill, Martyn-Lloyd Jones, W. T. Conner, or Thomas Nettles have written.

No, I am not. That is why I wrote what I wrote the way I wrote it.

Actually I believe that I can find a number of dead people who agree with me,

Yeah, that was my point. You just made my point.

May I also say that some of the old Saints were not corrupted by false doctrine.

Obviously. That's why they disagree with you.

Than FYI Nettles is not dead yet!

He's working on it.

Anyhow, I have no knowledge of what he said about John 3, but I can look it up.

And how many thin paperbacks have you read?

On this topic? None.

I see no evidence that you do. Your response to my post to Benefactor and Winman was pathetically immature.

I pointed out that you were begging the question and said that modern Calvinst scholarship would mostly disagree with you. If that's immature, then the facts are immature. I only pointed them out.

I did. None!

Look again. Look for an unsupported assertion.

Your ignorance of pantheism is exceeded only by your ignorance of what I believe, of Scripture, and of the Sovereignty of GOD in Salvation.

Thank you for defending panthesim.

 

[BaptistBob]

??????????????????

Everyone discussing the topic in this thread.

 

[OldRegular]

Thank you for defending panthesim.

I did not defend pantheism, a pagan belief. You introduced pantheism apparently confusing it with hyper-calvinism since you wrote:

Originally Posted by BaptistBob
The Pantheist and the hyper-Calvinst make the same allegation against you, but that doesn't mean that they are correct. In fact, they are wrong!

Whereupon I asked:

Please tell me how a pantheist gives glory to God!!!!!!!

To which you responded

Originally Posted by BaptistBob
All good and evil is God's, according to them.

In response I noted accurately:

Your ignorance of pantheism is exceeded only by your ignorance of what I believe, of Scripture, and of the Sovereignty of GOD in Salvation.

 

[BaptistBob]

I did not defend pantheism, a pagan belief. You introduced pantheism apparently confusing it with hyper-calvinism since you wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistBob
The Pantheist and the hyper-Calvinst make the same allegation against you, but that doesn't mean that they are correct. In fact, they are wrong!

Do you know how the conjunction "and" functions in the sentence?

and 

–conjunction 1. (used to connect grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses) along or together with; as well as; in addition to; besides; also; moreover: pens and pencils.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/and

 

[Benjamin]

Interjectory note:

The subject and a good example of “begging the question”:

Originally Posted by OldRegular
I simply cannot understand why anyone who has been saved by the GRACE of GOD is reluctant to give HIM all the GLORY.

This fallacy is addressed clearly showing the subject: “Giving the glory to God” and then an accurate reference to the fallacy of “begging the question”. Added is an example of why it is fallacious, showing in effect how the “hard determinist” could make the same illogical conclusion and accusation about not giving all the glory to God on the “soft determinist”.

Originally Posted by BaptistBob
Everyone wants to give God all the glory he wants and deserves. You, however, beg the question. The Pantheist and the hyper-Calvinst make the same allegation against you, but that doesn't mean that they are correct. In fact, they are wrong!

Response seems to imply a misunderstanding of the definition of “begging the question” and how and why it is an illogical fallacy and/or that the subject has been has been clearly referenced:

Originally Posted by OldRegular
What question did I beg?????

A basic definition is given to what makes the “begging the question” fallacy, again clearly addressing the subject/beginning statement:

Originally Posted by BaptistBob
Stop appealing to your conclusions and making fallacious emotional arguments asking why people don't understand what it says.

Response clearly shows the point about (begging the question) does not make sense if one doesn’t understand the philosophical term and why it is fallacy:

Originally Posted by OldRegular
Sport I have no idea who put the burr in your long handles but you are are not making sense. I don’t appeal to conclusions I simply believe the Scripture.

Because of this misunderstanding and stern objection to any opposition things get personal, turn to ad hominem (see above: “fallacious emotional arguments”):

Originally Posted by OldRegular
Your response to my post to Benefactor and Winman was pathetically immature.

Gracious response while taking the argument back to the subject:

Originally Posted by BaptistBob
I pointed out that you were begging the question and said that modern Calvinst scholarship would mostly disagree with you. If that's immature, then the facts are immature. I only pointed them out.

Hope this helps clear things up. And may I add my sympathies.

 

[OldRegular]

Benjamin


Benjamin

Not really. You simply muddied the water until you can prove how and where I "begged the question".

 

[Allan]

I haven't forgotten: but perhaps you have forgotten proper rules of translation. The fact is, this sentence shows BELIEVING to be conditioned upon HAVING BEEN BORN OF GOD. NOT vice versa.
The only way to properly bring this relationship into the English, is with the temporal aspect: which is what the translators have done.

Sorry I missed your post on this.

My friend, you might not understand as much about 'translating' the Greek as you assume you do. Point of fact, what I posted regarding the passage in 1 John was a slightly modified explaination of the passage from someone who not only has the degree(s) necessary to qualify him as reliable in tranlating the bible from it's original languages into other languages but has the experience of doing so, and is even 'currently' doing so. That person is one of our own resident members here on the BB - John of Japan

Therefore what I gave to you regarding the passage of 1 John not only follows proper rules of translation but is in fact the very way a person who is a certified bible translator states it should be understood .

So, Because you have been born of God, you believe. Not as a temporal aspect, but one of condition: which actually makes the case much stronger.

No sir, it doesn't.

No. It is denoting conditionality: one is conditional upon the other. And "both" are not in the past. "Believe" is in the PAI, denoting "now, and continual". This demands that "has been born" precede belief in condition, if not time.

No sir it doesn't. However on this point one doesn't need a minimum 4 year degree in the Greek to know this is not corroct.

And: the "has been born" is passive as well: something done to you, not something you brought on yourself.

This has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Regardless though, no one disagrees or has argued otherwise that regenetion is passive.

No. It means "those in the condition of BELIEVING have been regenerated.

No sir, it doesn't

 

[Allan]

Except repentance is continual: we are even supposed to repent as believers.

Nice dance step but you missed the point. The reformed mainline position maintains that when one is regenerated then one is unified/IN Christ.
However one can not be unified with Christ if still in their sins. If still in their sins then forgiveness is necessary in order to be unified with Christ. If we are made 'new' (having no stain or taint) then we have no sin and therefore no need for forgivenss as we are already clean and as such, unified or In Christ.

By your logic, I guess i can just "go on sinning, that grace may abound."

LOL.. spoken like someone who misunderstands the argument in question. One CAN NOT be unified with Christ and still in their sins. Thusly one CAN NOT, according to scripture, be justified or sanctified (which deal with sin) without the excersizing of faith.

1 Cor 7:22 For those who were slaves when called to faith in the Lord are the Lord's freed people.

Like this Slaves to Sin> Called by God/Regenerated> faith: now free.

Wrong!
They were slaves when called to faith in Christ.
You can't get around that no matter how much you want to.
It maintains their status as 'still' in a state of slavery when called out.
It does not state they were set free first by the call, but that they were slaves when called. If your contention was correct it would state more like - they were slaves until called to faith in the Lord (or to that effect), thus denoting when their slavery ended and the calling which ended it. The passage however does not nor but is specific in that when God called them they were slaves.

The next verse I gave supports my position.
"Act 26:18 To open their eyes, to turn [them] from darkness to light, and [from] the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me

Notice their eyes are opened and 'yet' they are still in darkness and under the power of Satan. If they are 'in darkness' they are seperated from God because He is light. Their eyes are opened that they might turn FROM darkness TO light, from the power of Satan TO God. This contradicts the common Reformed position of Regeneration.

God opens their eyes (regeneration)> they turn from darkness to light (actions: they repent in faith)> they receive forgiveness of sins (inheritance).

I suppose you are viewing things different than what I have been taught. Regeneration and salvation are not the same thing. Once one is "cleansed" from the old nature, and enlightened by the Holy Spirit, they still must turn to God.

See here is what I am talking about and agree we are looking at it from two different perspectives:
You state in one place their eyes are opened (regeneration) 'to turn from darkness'.. and then just below that you state 'Once one is 'cleansed' from the old nature..

If one is cleansed from the old nature one 'no longer' is stained nor tained with sin - ie. they have no sin and are in union with Christ already. Scripture states old things are passed away, or better old things no longer exist.. behold all things have become new - without stain or taint. You can not be new and still in your tresspasses and sin. The issue here revolves around the fact that that you are still IN your sins and THAT is what makes us dead.

A new nature means one is not tainted or soiled by sin and therefore not bound by said sin to control them. They has been set free because sin has been removed making them 'new', or completely changed/renewed. This is why Paul states that the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. He equates, in the life of the believer, that the sin with which we contend is not in the spirit anymore but in the flesh as the flesh has not been cleansed though our spirit has. As believers if we sin, our sin does not come from or stem from our spirit but out from our flesh or the desires thereof that we 'choose' to meet in an unrighteous way.

NO: this is speaking of ACTION. God opened her eyes (freed her from bondage to sin), and then because of this, she turned from darkness to light.

First, that is a postulation and is noted as such by your injection of opinion quite literally into the text itself. Nothing in scripture states that when their eyes are opened they are freed from the bondage of sin, which is the view of the reformed position. It is supposition imposed upon the text.

Secondly, I'm not sure if your view of regenation comports with the common view of the Reformed perspective. At least from the above your contension has me mystified a bit in relation to the commonly held perspective.
This view states that if one is regenerate one is no longer in darkness because one is in Christ therefore one can not turn from it since one is no longer in it. And as such if one is regenerate then one is no longer under the power of Satan but under the power of God and therefore there is not turning from it.
Here is a portion of an ariticle by J.I Packer on Regeneration:

....
Regeneration, or new birth, is an inner re-creating of fallen human nature by the gracious sovereign action of the Holy Spirit (John 3:5-8). The Bible conceives salvation as the redemptive renewal of man on the basis of a restored relationship with God in Christ, and presents it as involving "a radical and complete transformation wrought in the soul (Rom. 12:2; Eph. 4:23) by God the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5; Eph. 4:24), by virtue of which we become 'new men' (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10), no longer conformed to this world (Rom. 12:2; Eph. 4:22; Col. 3:9), but in knowledge and holiness of the truth created after the image of God (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10; Rom. 12:2)" (B. B. Warfield, Biblical and Theological Studies, 351).
Regeneration is the "birth" by which this work of new creation is begun, as sanctification is the "growth" whereby it continues (I Pet. 2:2; II Pet. 3:18). Regeneration in Christ changes the disposition from lawless, Godless self-seeking (Rom. 3:9-18; 8:7) which dominates man in Adam into one of trust and love, of repentance for past rebelliousness and unbelief, and loving compliance with God's law henceforth. It enlightens the blinded mind to discern spiritual realities (I Cor. 2:14-15; II Cor. 4:6; Col. 3:10), and liberates and energizes the enslaved will for free obedience to God (Rom. 6:14, 17-22; Phil. 2:13).

The use of the figure of new birth to describe this change emphasizes two facts about it. The first is its decisiveness. The regenerate man has forever ceased to be the man he was; his old life is over and a new life has begun; he is a new creature in Christ, buried with him out of reach of condemnation and raised with him into a new life of righteousness (see Rom. 6:3-11; II Cor. 5:17; Col. 3:9-11). The second fact emphasized is the monergism of regeneration. ....

Thus the above verse I was speaking of relating to opening their eyes 'while in darkness' in fact says the opposite of your postulation. Their eyes were opened so they might turn .. turn from their darkness and the power of Satan TO God. It does not state that their eyes opened and being freed from the power of Satan they came to God. NO. It states that they would 'turn FROM the power of Satan', meaning that is where they 'were at' TO God.

Scripture says we are made righteous through faith, we are justified through faith, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is through faith, the propitation is applied to us through faith, and we are united with Christ through faith.

It is 'by faith' we are justified (Rom 3:28)
It is 'by faith' we are sanctified (Acts 26:18,)
It is 'by faith' we are made righteous (Rom 3:22, Rom 4:5)
It is 'by faith' the propitiation (substituationary death) is applied to man (Rom 3:25)
It is 'by faith' we receive (obtain) the indwelling Holy Spirit (Gal 3:14)

All of these are noted scripturally as various aspect of what regeneration IS. Therefore it is conceded as factaul that according to scripture faith precedes regeneration as it is by faith the regeneration/salvation transpires yet not with grace that precedes it.