Ordo Salutis 2 - The Regeneration :)

[Allan]

Since the original thread has taken on a life of it's own, I decided to continue a topic that was being discussed by myself and Reformed Baptist concerning 'regeneration' and is it 'logical order' (as Reformed beliefs hold) or is it a specific order that transpires almost instantaniously.

IOW -
1. Is regeneration a prelude to salvation or it is salvation itself?
2. Is faith included in the regeneration or does it precede it?


In the thread "Ordo Salutis" as we were continuing our conversation on regeneration I previously asked ReformedBaptist this in a post:

Since the order of salvation is primarily a 'logical one' regarding Reformed theology I believe it is an important matter to ask "HOW regeneration makes a person reconciled without making a person justified, sanctified, filled with Holy Spirit, as well as being spiritually alive. When scripture states that one is only 'alive' when one is 'in Christ" which is only at salvation and therefore one can only be spiritually alive if one is saved.

Snippet of post # 21

RB replied to my question(s) by stating:

I am thinking there is some other kind of idea your posing your question here to other than my own. For example, it is very odd to me think along the lines that a person is regenerate without also being justified, sanctified, filled with the Holy Spirit and spiritually alive in Christ.

Snippet from the Thread - Ordo Salutis; post - #28 .... bold emphasis mine

Then I posted this post #60

RB,

I wanted to get back to this since this is more the crux in my mind that should be examined first.

Even though though faith and regeneration are or at the very least nearly simultanious it is the reformed belief or view that regeneration precedes faith in a 'logical' order. Thus to the reformed mind, regeneration is not actually salvation but that which comes before it.

When I asked the questions to which you gave the above answers it was specifically with regard to regeneration 'before' faith is excersized and thus being actually saved.

So to re-cap and make sure I'm understanding you correctly:
You hold that before a person excersizes faith unto salvation they are regenerate and this regeneration before faith entails the person being justified before God, sanctified unto God, filled with the Holy Spirit, placed in Christ (thus alive).

Soon there after I posted this which was an additional answer to his post #28:

They are 'almost' simultaneous and unlike the Reformed belief I do not think it is a 'logical' order at all but a specific order that happens at the same moment in time. I say it is not a 'logical' order but a spelled out specific order based primarily upon the evidence of what I was asking you about regeneration (and all it entails) preceding faith (which is supposedly a part of that list). Let me show you what I am talking about.

You state that being regenerate precedes faith and that in this regenerating man is/has been given:
1. a new nature (old things are passed away behold all things have become new - IOW - you are no longer what you were);
2. the Holy Spirit indwells them;
3. their relationship to God has been reconciled (justified);
4. they have been sanctified unto God;
4. they are now IN Christ (thus alive);
5. and are given faith and repentence to be used for salvation.

This is the position you have declared so far (as far I understand you).

Now here is the problem with what you have stated if all the above are imparted at regeneration (which includes faith) that precedes the excersizing of one's faith.
None of the above, biblically, are imparted to man except 'by faith'.
as I have shown here:

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)

It is not before faith is excersized that these are imparted to us (your view of regeneration) but 'after' we have believed.

Therefore if all of the above happened 'at' the regeneration, which includes the giving of faith (thus regen preceding faith), then we have a conflict with scripture which states the exact opposite. I do agree that all you have stated happen 'at' the regeneration (aside from faith). But scripturally if one holds that regeneration entails the above, regeneration can not precede faith for it is by faith all of the above is imparted to man. Then you must conclude (as I see it) that faith precedes regeneration.

In conclusion:
The verses I gave above show (and other verses as well) that unless faith is first excerized there is no new birth which constitutes all of the above; For they are all BY FAITH.

This is why I beleive regeneration IS salvation which is imputed to us 'by faith' and both terms (regeneration and salvation) are synonymos with the phrase - born-again (or the New Birth - you are no more what you were).

Thread - Ordo Salutis; post - #71

I am just trying to keep the conversation moving and not get it buried under a pile of side issues.

Additionally - I'm not picking on ReformedBaptist but am simply trying to continue our conversation (or anyone esle who wishes to join in) but since he was the one I was speaking with it seemed necessary to show both our postings and or snippets of those postings.

So let's continue on, shall we

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Allan,

Let me look at your positive assertion of what it is you believe.

It is 'by faith' we are justified (Rom 3:28)

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Rom 3:28

If you look into the context of the text the argument isn't ordo salutis, but grace and law in terms of justification. The same context states that we are justified by grace through the redemption that is in Christ. So which is it? Grace through redemption or grace through faith? "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:"

I think if we take the verse you quoted in context we will see that the focus isn't our faith, but of God's grace given to the believer through the redemption of Christ. Christ is the focus. Redemption is the focus. Grace is the focus as opposed to being justifed by the Law.

It is 'by faith' we are sanctified (Acts 26:18,)

"To open their eyes, and 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." Acts 26:18

Should I expect the Apostle Paul in Acts to teach differently what he taught the Galatians that they who have begun in the Spirit are now being prefected by the flesh? This teaching of Paul here Allan is nothing more than what is stated in verse 20 "that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance."

It is 'by faith' we are made righteous (Rom 3:22, Rom 4:5)

Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Again, the argument of Romans in these places is grace and Law. Not the order of salvation.

It is 'by faith' the propitiation (substituationary death) is applied to man (Rom 3:25)

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Your statement here seems to suggest that those who see the ordo salutis differently from you are denying that God's grace is administered apart from faith in Christ. Can you demonstrate or show how this is true? I have never taught or believed any such thing.

It is 'by faith' we receive (obtain) the indwelling Holy Spirit (Gal 3:14)

That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Amen. The promise of the Spirit is not by the Law, but by, or through, faith. How have those who hold a reformed view on our subject taught anything different?

RB

 

[skypair]

As I've said before...

...I don't think you will solve this debate until you establish that there is a difference between BELIEF and FAITH.

BELIEF is what you have before regeneration. It is a "hope" that is yet to be completely proven but is understandable and believeable. God cannot "give" you belief. It is generated within our minds. As with Aggripa and Festus, we need to be "persuaded" and then we need to "become a Christian."

FAITH ("evidence," "substance") is "given" by God when we "become a Christian." That is, God gives us the Holy Spirit, the "earnest of our inheritance," as confirmation that our belief was valid.

Somehow the translators of the Bible were able to keep these 2 words distinct. I think we who study them need the same discernment.

skypair

 

[MB]

As I've said before...

...I don't think you will solve this debate until you establish that there is a difference between BELIEF and FAITH.

BELIEF is what you have before regeneration. It is a "hope" that is yet to be completely proven but is understandable and believeable. God cannot "give" you belief. It is generated within our minds. As with Aggripa and Festus, we need to be "persuaded" and then we need to "become a Christian."

FAITH ("evidence," "substance") is "given" by God when we "become a Christian." That is, God gives us the Holy Spirit, the "earnest of our inheritance," as confirmation that our belief was valid.

Somehow the translators of the Bible were able to keep these 2 words distinct. I think we who study them need the same discernment.

skypair

The english dictionary defines them both to be the same except further definition says faith is also the application of trust. Faith is a verb. it is belief put into action.
MB

 

[skypair]

The english dictionary defines them both to be the same except further definition says faith is also the application of trust. Faith is a verb. it is belief put into action.

Yes, and to compound the problem for my view is that the Greek word for both is the same.

But here's the issue -- the Bible in Heb 11:1 defines faith. It includes evidence of things not seen. What is the evidence that you personally have that believing in Christ will save you? There are many places in the Bible where such believing is called "hope" when it is something future to this time right now --- and I submit that when you believe, you are really hoping that what you have been told it true. But you have no personal evidence or substantiation of it until you -- as you say -- act on your belief.

This is where I believe Calvinists and non-Cals can come together and better understand a similar sotierology because, yes, God gives faith, regeneration, etc. but not mystically to where we can't understand why and how He gives them.

skypair

 

[Allan]

I appreciate your reply Skypair but I created 'this thread' because the other "Ordo Salutis" was hijacked into talking about only faith (is it Christ's faith or our faith or our faith that God gaves) .. no real problem there but this one is for the purpose of talking about "The Regeneration"; about not only 'what' it does but 'how' it transpires.

Please.. let us (and that would include you) to speak about "How" regeneration transpires.

Regardless of it is belief or faith (according to your view) even you seem to agree that the regeneration comes only after faith is excersized.

 

[TCGreek]

Scripture supports both view of being "born again":

1. Before the exercise of faith: 1 John 5:1

2. After the exercise of faith:

"Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God" (John 1:12, 13; 1 Pet 1:22, 23).

 

[AresMan]

The english dictionary defines them both to be the same except further definition says faith is also the application of trust. Faith is a verb. it is belief put into action.
MB

Actually, I would say that it is the other way around.
Faith is the noun.
Believe is the noun in action.

 

[Allan]

RB,
I think you miss the point of the thread. It was created to be a continuance of your "Ordo Salutis" thread but with the the intent to continue our discussion on 'The Regeneration'.

Allan,

Let me look at your positive assertion of what it is you believe.

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Rom 3:28

If you look into the context of the text the argument isn't ordo salutis, but grace and law in terms of justification. The same context states that we are justified by grace through the redemption that is in Christ. So which is it? Grace through redemption or grace through faith? "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:"

I think if we take the verse you quoted in context we will see that the focus isn't our faith, but of God's grace given to the believer through the redemption of Christ. Christ is the focus. Redemption is the focus. Grace is the focus as opposed to being justifed by the Law.

I agree that 'Redemption' is the focus, but how it that redemption imparted is also part of the main focus. That grace which justifies is 'through faith' not before faith. Paul take great care to not only mention this but to spell it out. It is not by the works of the law that we are justified before God but through faith.

Therefore one is not justifed prior to the excersizing one's faith but only after is one justified before God. Thus we see an order here of faith then justification.

"To open their eyes, and 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." Acts 26:18

Should I expect the Apostle Paul in Acts to teach differently what he taught the Galatians that they who have begun in the Spirit are now being prefected by the flesh? This teaching of Paul here Allan is nothing more than what is stated in verse 20 "that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance."

Of course that is the apostles intent but he also states with as much intent that one is not sanctified by ones work but only 'through faith' which again was my point and the apostle Paul make this statement very plainly. He states they are separated from the darkness.. the power of satan.. the receiving the forgiveness.. and the inheritance .. ; Thus they are sanctified/seperated from sin and Satans power and unto God and all that entails. According to the apostle all these things transpired, again, through or by faith and not before it.

In your order you have them happening prior to the excersizing of one's faith but Paul specifically places them 'after'.

Therefore according to the apostle here one is not sanctified prior to the excersizing one's faith but only after is one sanctified unto God. Thus we see an order here of faith then sanctification.

*Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
*But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Again, the argument of Romans in these places is grace and Law. Not the order of salvation.

I never said it didn't. My contention is that we are righteous before God by faith and not prior 'to' faith which is your contention. The logical argument with righeousness centers around justification. If one is not justified then one can not be considered to be righteous or 'in a right standing'. Thus since it is by faith we are justified the same must follow with rightousness which follow justification. It is by faith that we are considered righteous before a Holy God. I have agree that by the works of the law is no man considered rightous but 'by faith.

Therefore one is not made righteous prior to the excersizing one's faith but only after is one righteous before God. Thus we see an order here of faith then righteousness being imparted.

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Your statement here seems to suggest that those who see the ordo salutis differently from you are denying that God's grace is administered apart from faith in Christ. Can you demonstrate or show how this is true? I have never taught or believed any such thing.

I'm not sure I'm following you here. To my knowledge I never stated nor insinuated such. The passage given states the propitiation is applied by faith (thus ..a propitiation through faith). That propitiation is not applied before one excersizes faith but is 'after' and thus 'through' faith.

Regarding order, this acctually goes before being made righteous since it is because of the propitiation that one can be justified (and due to Christ's blood that removes sin). Therefore the propitiation goes even before justification. But like both righteousness and justification it is only 'through or by' faith. This portion of scripture specificies that the propitiation of Christ's death is imparted 'through faith' and not before since they are trusting in His blood to take away sin.

So far the the order that is given by the apostle Paul in scripture is:
1) Faith; 2) Propitiation applied; 3) Justification \ Santcification \ Righteousness

Thus once again the apostle Paul show us that obviously one is not justifed (having sins removed) prior to the propitation being applied, however that application is only done 'after' one excersizes faith in His blood.

Therefore the propitiation is not applied prior to faith but only after and this propitiation is that which justifies, sanctifies, and makes one righteous before God. Thus we see an order here of faith then the application of the propitiation.

That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Amen. The promise of the Spirit is not by the Law, but by, or through, faith. How have those who hold a reformed view on our subject taught anything different?

RB

Since you and the Reformed view state that regeneration is not salvation but that which precedes it and this includes the giving of faith. One must excersize said faith in order to be saved but as of the moment of regeneration (in the logical order of the Reformed view) faith is there but not yet excersized.

It is this teaching which I believe is against what scripture states that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit comes only 'after' faith is excersized and not before as you and the Reformed belief asserts. Scripture plainly states in the passage I shared that the Holy Spirit is only received 'through faith'.

Your statement (as well as the Reformed view) is contrary to this.

I do not disagree with you that all the above (with the exception of faith) is regeneration and I affirm whole heartedly.
However you will notice that none of the above are imparted to the person except 'through or by' faith. Thus logically faith can not be something is apart of the regeneration but something that precedes it.

Thus if faith precedes regeneration and the excersizing of said faith imparts the above to the presently believing person is not regeneration in truth salvation (the becoming something new whereby old things are no more - behold all things have become new)??

 

[Allan]

Scripture supports both view of being "born again":

1. Before the exercise of faith: 1 John 5:1

2. After the exercise of faith:

"Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God" (John 1:12, 13; 1 Pet 1:22, 23).

As I will show more clearly later - born is not regeneration prior to salvation but being 'born or born-agian' is salvation.

I will get to your post later tonight as I must go get supper.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Allan,

I will look at your reply tomorrow more in-depth. Reading the inital comment that I missed the point of my ordo salutis thread, I would suggest I did not miss it. I think I suggested before that the Scriptures themselves do not outright teach an ordo salutis, although I could be wrong about this.

What I tried to do in my reply is follow the teaching of the Scriptures that you quoted, which do not lend to an ordo salutis.

RB

 

[Allan]

Allan,

I will look at your reply tomorrow more in-depth. Reading the inital comment that I missed the point of my ordo salutis thread, I would suggest I did not miss it. I think I suggested before that the Scriptures themselves do not outright teach an ordo salutis, although I could be wrong about this.

What I tried to do in my reply is follow the teaching of the Scriptures that you quoted, which do not lend to an ordo salutis.

RB

:laugh: You are still missing it..

I am not continuing your thread per sey but the conversation you and I were having in it, though once that is accomplished I hope to continue so as to better understand the Ordo Salutis and regeneration is a prime and key factor in this.

Look again at what I stated in the OP:

Since the original thread has taken on a life of it's own, I decided to continue a topic that was being discussed by myself and Reformed Baptist concerning 'regeneration' and is it 'logical order' (as Reformed beliefs hold) or is it a specific order that transpires almost instantaniously.

IOW -
1. Is regeneration a prelude to salvation or it is salvation itself?
2. Is faith included in the regeneration or does it precede it?


In the thread "Ordo Salutis" as we were continuing our conversation on regeneration I previously asked ReformedBaptist this in a post:

and in my last post to you:

RB,
I think you miss the point of the thread. It was created to be a continuance of your "Ordo Salutis" thread but with the the intent to continue our discussion on 'The Regeneration'.

So the thread's intent is primarily speaking about Regeneration and to then get back to the Ordo Salutis.

Hope that clears up some of the misunderstanding brother.

 

[skypair]

IRegardless of it is belief or faith (according to your view) even you seem to agree that the regeneration comes only after faith is excersized.

Sorry, Allan. I was trying to build a bridge that we all could cross to get from belief to regeneration. As I see it, regeneration requires a "seed" (Mt 13), an "incoruptible seed" (1Pet 1:23), from which to "germinate." If that is not "engrafted" (James 1:21) somehow into a person, no life/regeneration can come forth.

God doesn't irresistible make you "receive" that gospel as in "Now you listen, and you listen good!" You either "receive [it] with meekness unto the saving of your soul" (Jas 1:21) and to regeneration OR "the wicked one comes and catches away that which was sown in the heart," Mt 13:19.

Bottom line: The word needs to be "engrafted" BEFORE regeneration can occur.

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

:laugh: You are still missing it..

I am not continuing your thread per sey but the conversation you and I were having in it, though once that is accomplished I hope to continue so as to better understand the Ordo Salutis and regeneration is a prime and key factor in this.

Look again at what I stated in the OP:

and in my last post to you:


So the thread's intent is primarily speaking about Regeneration and to then get back to the Ordo Salutis.

Hope that clears up some of the misunderstanding brother.

I am not misunderstanding you. I am disagreeing that your proof texts support what your trying to prove! :laugh:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Allan,

Your post is too long to repond to with one post. I think we should aim at brevity.

I agree that 'Redemption' is the focus, but how it that redemption imparted is also part of the main focus. That grace which justifies is 'through faith' not before faith. Paul take great care to not only mention this but to spell it out. It is not by the works of the law that we are justified before God but through faith.

Therefore one is not justifed prior to the excersizing one's faith but only after is one justified before God. Thus we see an order here of faith then justification.

I still see a problem with this because it is pressing a chronology by logic. Logic would necessarily make regeneration precede faith, but not chronologically. If it is pressed in the manner that you suggest, then you have certain persons justified by faith before they are in Christ. This makes no sense to me.

Augustus strong commenting on the subject wrote, "Regeneration and conversion are not chronologically separate. Which of the spokes of a wheel starts first? The ray of light and the ray of heat enter at the same moment. Sensation and perception are not separated in time, although the former is the cause of the latter."

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Of course that is the apostles intent but he also states with as much intent that one is not sanctified by ones work but only 'through faith' which again was my point and the apostle Paul make this statement very plainly. He states they are separated from the darkness.. the power of satan.. the receiving the forgiveness.. and the inheritance .. ; Thus they are sanctified/seperated from sin and Satans power and unto God and all that entails. According to the apostle all these things transpired, again, through or by faith and not before it.

In your order you have them happening prior to the excersizing of one's faith but Paul specifically places them 'after'.

Therefore according to the apostle here one is not sanctified prior to the excersizing one's faith but only after is one sanctified unto God. Thus we see an order here of faith then sanctification.

Again, I think this perplexity is resolved by learning to differentiate between chronology and logic. It is illogical to suppose a person has true faith in Christ, is being sanctified, et. without also having been delivered from the power of Satan. The one is the cause of the other.

Conversion, repentance, faith, sanctification, must all be, quite logically, the effect of union with Christ. Strong wrote, "The Scriptures declare that, through the operation of God, there is constituted a union of the soul with Christ different in kind from God’s natural and providential concursus with all spirits, as well as from all unions of mere association or sympathy, moral likeness, or moral influence,—a union of life, in which the human spirit, while then most truly possessing its own individuality and personal distinctness, is interpenetrated and energized by the Spirit of Christ, is made inscrutably but indissolubly one with him, and so becomes a member and partaker of that regenerated, believing, and justified humanity of which he is the head."

Amen.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Thus if faith precedes regeneration and the excersizing of said faith imparts the above to the presently believing person is not regeneration in truth salvation (the becoming something new whereby old things are no more - behold all things have become new)??

Regeneration by Scripture is solely the work and operation of God the Holy Spirit. How is it then, since you press a chronology, that a man may have faith, be being sanctified, delievered from the bondage of sin and satan, et. apart from being regenerate? I am not the one insisting faith precedes regeneration. I am the one insisting that logically regeneration precedes faith, but chronologically they are simultaneous. I cannot imagine a man or woman or child joining in spiritual union with Christ who does not also possess faith in Him. Salvation cannot be pigeonholed to one aspect of our redemption, such as regeneration or faith or sanctification or glorification.

Without regeneration man cannot even see the kingdom of God, yet you propose he can believe (seeing) without it! I have before proven, by Scripture, that faith and love, holiness and righteousness of the believer is the fruit of their regeneration, that is, being born of God.

 

[Allan]

I am not misunderstanding you. I am disagreeing that your proof texts support what your trying to prove! :laugh:

Well then I guess as we study the scriptures we will find out if they are indeed proof-texts or if the texts are proof of what I am saying :thumbs:

 

[Allan]

Allan,

Your post is too long to repond to with one post. I think we should aim at brevity.


I still see a problem with this because it is pressing a chronology by logic. Logic would necessarily make regeneration precede faith, but not chronologically. If it is pressed in the manner that you suggest, then you have certain persons justified by faith before they are in Christ. This makes no sense to me.

Augustus strong commenting on the subject wrote, "Regeneration and conversion are not chronologically separate. Which of the spokes of a wheel starts first? The ray of light and the ray of heat enter at the same moment. Sensation and perception are not separated in time, although the former is the cause of the latter."

Here is where we begin the problem. You begin with a presupposition instead of allowing the text to speak for itself. You interject something into the text that is not called for except to try to maintain a theological position to which the text contradicts.

Secondly, You are making no sense to me in your explanation.
Chronology should be logical especially if it is spelled out in scripture as a - this THEN this - senerio or a - you are this through (by or because of) this -. If something is 'through or by' something else, it necessitates (by all principles of language) a logical chronology.

Why? Because it if were not there the other would never be.. such as we are justified (sanctified; made righteous) 'by' faith.. There is no other way exegetically we can interpret this than - in the excersizing of faith we are made justified. If we try to interpose our theological view of - we are justified and therefore we can use our faith- we have become unfaithful to the exegetical proper interpretation of the scriptures for our theological biases.

While Strong was a godly man and knowledgable in many things he is absolutely wrong here in favor of his theological bias over the plain reading of the texts regarding regeneration.

It is for this reason I want to examine the scriptures themselves and not mens opinions of them. (if we will use them however let it be when they speak specifically on and about a particular text that we are discussing - and even then let it be very limited in how often - agreed?).

Like I said, with regard to the passage in question on Justification by faith.. we know according to scripture that one is not justified prior to faith because we are justified 'by faith'. Thus one 'can not ever be' justified without ever having excersized their faith first. This verse refutes absolutely that the regeneration which precedes faith also justifies before faith.

I reject the notion I was prooftexting (taken the pasasge out of context) as the entire context establishes my position. That context being - We are not justified by works but by Faith.

To state that we are justified prior to excersizing faith is completely against what scripture states over and over again. We are never justified and then excersize faith because our justification is by, through, or because of excersizing our faith.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Here is where we begin the problem. You begin with a presupposition instead of allowing the text to speak for itself. You interject something into the text that is not called for except to try to maintain a theological position to which the text contradicts.

Secondly, You are making no sense to me in your explanation.
Chronology should be logical especially if it is spelled out in scripture as a - this THEN this - senerio or a - you are this through (by or because of) this -. If something is 'through or by' something else, it necessitates (by all principles of language) a logical chronology.

Why? Because it if were not there the other would never be.. such as we are justified (sanctified; made righteous) 'by' faith.. There is no other way exegetically we can interpret this than - in the excersizing of faith we are made justified. If we try to interpose our theological view of - we are justified and therefore we can use our faith- we have become unfaithful to the exegetical proper interpretation of the scriptures for our theological biases.

While Strong was a godly man and knowledgable in many things he is absolutely wrong here in favor of his theological bias over the plain reading of the texts regarding regeneration.

It is for this reason I want to examine the scriptures themselves and not mens opinions of them. (if we will use them however let it be when they speak specifically on and about a particular text that we are discussing - and even then let it be very limited in how often - agreed?).

Like I said, with regard to the passage in question on Justification by faith.. we know according to scripture that one is not justified prior to faith because we are justified 'by faith'. Thus one 'can not ever be' justified without ever having excersized their faith first. This verse refutes absolutely that the regeneration which precedes faith also justifies before faith.

I reject the notion I was prooftexting (taken the pasasge out of context) as the entire context establishes my position. That context being - We are not justified by works but by Faith.

To state that we are justified prior to excersizing faith is completely against what scripture states over and over again. We are never justified and then excersize faith because our justification is by, through, or because of excersizing our faith.

Can you just try to answer my questions? If you cannot handle debate that is supported by both Scripture and statements from others, I suggest you bow out now.