Calvinistic Infusion:
On the Relationships between Infusion, Regeneration, and Justification
Dr. Michael Sudduth
March 18, 2001(RB Post)
 
 
This post originally appeared on the Reformed Baptist discussion group listserv on March 18, 2001. In this post I
respond to a claim, made by a listserv participant in an earlier post, that infusion (of grace) is a Pelagian doctrine
and thus must be rejected by the Calvinist. I attempted to rebut this in an earlier post in which I argued that
infusion is logically consistent with Calvinist soteriology, in fact that Calvinists have used the term “infusion” as
equivalent to regeneration. My interlocutor then claimed that there is no support in the Reformed tradition for the
use of infusion as equivalent to regeneration. In this post, I rebut my interlocutor’s claim. Moreover, my
interlocutor also objected to my assertion in a prior post that regeneration (or infusion) is prior to justification. He
argued that if infusion is prior to justification in the ordo salutis, then infusion is the cause of justification, but this
is the doctrine of Roman Catholicism. I argue that there is no plausible argument from the temporal priority of
infusion to justification to the idea that infusion is the cause of justification.
 
--------------------------------------------
 
Mr. X,
 
I didn't forget about your previous posts. Thank you for taking the time to articulate your position with different nuances. I
am quite busy with classes, cosmology, and my book. So, alas, I cannot guarantee that I will be able to devote much more
time to this discussion.
 
Regarding your last series of posts from a couple of weeks ago, I have read them and tried to come up with an adequate
response. In this post I would like to provide a diagnosis and thorough response to what I take to be the main points on which
I think we have had genuine disagreement.
 
I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSITIONS IN CONTENTION
 
It is important to note at the outset that our exchange began with my query into your initial claim that "Infusion is Pelagian," a
claim you later clarified as "Infusion in regeneration/justification is Pelagian," though I still don't see that you have presented a
argument for the claim that infusion, contextually restricted in this way, is Pelagian. Anyhow, since the initial query, we moved
into discussing the place of infusion in the Reformed scheme of salvation. Several disagreements emerged at that juncture.
 
I take it that we are *not* disputing about whether infusion is involved in the sanctification of the believer. You seem to have
agreed with this.
 
What then is at issue?
 
It seems that we have at least three points of genuine disagreement.
 
I maintain that:
 
(S1) The Reformed doctrine of regeneration includes or is equivalent to infusion of grace.
 
(S2) The infusion of grace is prior to justification.
 
I think we can summarize at least two of your points as denials of these claims.
 
Third, though, I think you believe at least one of the two following conditionals:
 
(B1) If the infusion of grace is prior to justification, then infusion is the cause of justification.
 
Or at any rate, you seem to think that
 
(B2) If the infusion of grace is prior to justification, then we can't eliminate the possibility that it is the cause of justification
 
Presumably, given (B1) or (B2), we should not believe (S2).
 
In this post, I will address each of these issues.
 
First, though, a preliminary digression on infusion and Scripture.
 
II. INFUSION AND SCRIPTURE
 
I wrote that "regeneration entails infusion." To which you responded: "Can you give me a Scripture verse for this?"
 
Well, probably not, for two reasons.
 
First, the proposition "regeneration entails infusion" is not to my knowledge either explicitly affirmed in Scripture, nor can it be
deduced from any single verse of Scripture. But then my claim suffers no more than most theological claims that are the
product of systematic reflection on Scripture and the employment of extra-biblical language. And very few doctrines that I
know of can be or should be supported by a chapter/verse mentality. I do not accept such an approach to Scripture. Among
other things the term "infusion" is not to my knowledge contained in Scripture, and it certainly is not found in Scripture with the
theological meaning the term has acquired in the history of theology. So any attempt to infer my statement from Scripture must
utilize an extra-biblical definition of an extra-biblical term.
 
Secondly, to grasp any purported inference from Scripture you would have to understand the theological meaning of "infusion."
Despite my attempts to define this term and provide significant details of its historical emergence among Calvinists, you
continue to labor under apparent misunderstandings of this term. Such misunderstandings make any attempted derivation of my
claims from Scripture, however basic, rather pointless, which is why I have not hitherto broached the matter.
 
One must understand the preconditions of drawing inferences from Scripture. More precisely, in attempting *to show* any
person that Scripture teaches such and such, it is necessary that the person to whom one intends to show the relevant
propositions understands the basic concepts that will be utilized in the inferences. I'm not convinced that you have satisfied
this condition. Perhaps you have, but until I am persuaded of this, there's not much point in citing Scripture.
 
Moreover, our discussion has centered largely around conceptual and historical claims which Scripture does nothing to
resolve. Whether infusion is Pelagian, whether Reformed theologians have accepted infusion as prior to justification, whether
infusion is the cause of justification if it is prior to justification. . .these are claims about which Scripture will tell us nothing.
Hence, it is rather pointless to appeal to Scripture with respect to *these* issues which have been central to our discussion.
 
So, let me repeat my views on three crucial terms in our discussion.
 
(I) INFUSION is a real change effected in the sinner immediately by God that consists of the implantation of spiritual life in the
sinner, which includes the impartation of new habits or dispositions from which stem both the acts of faith and repentance, as
well as all holy actions that are progressively actualized in the Christian's life.
 
As such, I take it that regeneration at least entails infusion.
 
(J) JUSTIFICATION is the divine pardon of the sinner and the legal declaration of the sinner as righteous on the sole basis or
meritorious ground of the active and passive obedience of Christ.
 
(S) SANCTIFICATION is the progressive development of holiness in the life, effected by divine-human cooperation, and
which ultimately stem from the new habits infused at regeneration, the beginning (by way of principle) of the process hitherto
described.
 
[BTW, if you are interested in developing a better conceptual and historical understanding of infusion, then I would recommend
you read Alister McGrath's *Iustitia Dei* and Anri Morimoto's *Jonathan Edwards and the Catholic Vision of Salvation.*]
 
III. INFUSION AND REFORMED THEOLOGY
 
You have made the following statements:
 
"I know of no true Calvinists who would affirm infusion in regeneration/justification."
 
"If regeneration/imputation/justification are all simultaneous, grace is imputed, not infused at our initial regeneration."
 
"You've cited Reformed fathers to back your claim up, but in a quick check last night in their systematic theologies and
"institutions" and confessions (regarding regeneration, faith, & justification) I found nothing to back that claim up. No one
uses the words "infused grace" prior to justification. . . .You think you can find it in how they describe the process of the
ordo salutis even if they don't use the term? You're putting words in their mouths that they don't use..."
 
"This is precisely why the term [infusion], except for your medieval scholastics, has been avoided."
 
"You haven't shown me where "infused grace" is the precise term used by most Reformed theologians since the Reformation to
describe grace before justification... (even if they affirm "infused grace" in sanctification)."
 
Your statements seem to object to at least two points. First you object to my claim that:
 
(S1) The Reformed Doctrine of regeneration includes or is equivalent to infusion of grace.
 
Despite my previous references you continue to claim that I am mistaken because Reformed theologians do not use the word
"infusion" (except perhaps with respect to sanctification). You said you made a quick check of various "unnamed" systematic
theologies. Perhaps the topic deserves something more than a quick check of a limited and selective number of works, the
result of which can be at best an inadequate inductive survey. Anyhow, you seem to my claims about the use of the term
infusion as well as the idea that Reformed theologians regard infusion as prior to justification. I'll take this second issue up
in the next section. First, though, we need to get clear that I am absolutely correct about (S1).
 
I have explained several times now on this list the historical background of the emergence of the language of infusion in relation
to *regeneration* among *Calvinists,* not merely medieval scholastics. (See my post msg15867.html)
 
The language of infusion among Calvinists was derived in large part from Dominican vs. Molinist debates in the De Auxiliis
controversy in Catholic theology. (For more on this see my 2/16/00 post msg12426.html).
 
In brief, Calvinists from Turretin to Edwards commonly used the language of infusion both to clarify and defend the Calvinist
view of efficacious grace, especially as it relates to the operation of God on the will at the inception of conversion. Among
Reformed Scholastics and the Puritans the language of infusion was quite important as a polemic against Arminianism.
"Infusion," "physical infusion," and physical predetermination" are contrasted with the moral suasion thesis of the Arminians
such as Whitby, who restricted the initial work of God to a mere illumination of the mind. So the language of infusion is utilized
by Calvinists primarily in opposition to Arminianism. We find this, for example, in Turretin, Mastricht, Owens, Edwards, Gill,
and as late as Charles Hodge (a strong descendent of Protestant scholasticism), all of whom contrast the Calvinistic view of
regeneration as physical infusion with the Arminian view of regeneration as the result of moral suasion.
 
Gill, for instance, exemplifies this use of infusion. He writes the following with reference to Whitby:
 
"The celebrated writer [Whitby] chiefly attended to, has filled up above twenty pages in stating the question about the grace of
God in conversion. The sum of which is, that there are some inward operations of the Spirit vouchsafed in that work; but that
these only consist in representing divine truths to our understandings, and bringing them to our remembrance, and thereby
raising some ideas in the brain, and making some impressions on it; which he allows to be physical, and irresistible in their
production, and in which men are wholly passive; but utterly denies that any supernatural habits are INFUSED, or that any
supernatural aid is requisite to the conversion of a sinner besides the aforementioned." (*Cause of God and Truth,* PART 2,
CH. 4, intro)
 
Now I don't know which systematic theologies you perused, though I believe you admitted that you have not read many
of the Protestant scholastics. One wonders on what basis you can claim that the writers to which I referred do not use the
term "infusion," especially since I have given you references, including the Canons of Dort. I suppose I need to be a bit more
thorough and provide you with actual quotes now.
 
I have already made reference to Turretin and Mastricht. The latter spoke of regenerating grace "a physical act powerfully
infusing spiritual life in the soul" (*Theoretico-Practica Theologia* 4.3.9). Turretin more frequently uses the locution "physical
predetermination" or "supernatural operation," but he also speaks of infusion in several places. The two concepts are
connected. Efficacious grace "relates to a physical mode, because God fashions us by His Spirit, regenerates us, gives us a
heart of flesh, and efficiently INFUSES in us charity and a supernatural habit of faith." (*Institutio Theologiae Elencticae,*
15.4.18). Again, habitual or passive conversion (i.e., regeneration), "is accomplished by the INFUSION of a supernatural
habit by the Holy Spirit." (*Institutio Theologiae Elencticae,* 15.4.13). Heinrich Heppe provides another example of this in
Leonard Riissen in his *Reformed Dogmatics: Set out and Illustrated from the Sources,* p. 522.
 
Pictet also indicates the connection between physical operation and infusion in conversion (or regeneration).
 
"Converting grace may be said to act physically and morally; it acts morally, when by means of the word it teaches, inclines,
and persuades: it acts physically, by INFUSING into the soul a divine delight, and by so acting on the body as to refrain the
passions or affections" (Benedict Pictet, *Christian Theology,* trans. Frederick Reyroux, Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of
Publication, p. 296).
 
The Canons of Dort also use the language of infusion (infundo) in several places.
 
Here we have the connection between regeneration and infusion articulated:
 
"But when God accomplishes His good pleasure in the elect, or works in them true conversion, He not only causes the
gospel to be externally preached to them, and powerfully illuminates their minds by His Holy Spirit, that they may rightly
under and discern the things of the Spirit of God; but by the efficacy of the same regenerating Spirit He pervades the
inmost recesses of man; He opens the closed and softens the hardened heart, and circumcises that which was uncircumcised;
INFUSES new qualities into the will, which, though heretofore dead, He quickens; from being evil, disobedient, and
refractory, He renders it good, obedient, and pliable; actuates and strengthens it, that like a good tree, it may bring forth
the fruits of good actions." (*Canons of Dort,* 3rd and 4th head, Article 11)
 
Here faith as a free gift from God is regarded as a reality infused into man:
 
"Faith is therefore to be considered as the gift of God, not on account of its being offered by God to man, to be accepted
or rejected at his pleasure, but because it is in reality conferred upon him, breathed and INFUSED into him; nor even because
God bestows the power or ability to believe, and then expects that man should by the exercise of his own free will consent
to the terms of salvation and actually believe in Christ, but because He who works in man both to will and to work, and
indeed all things in all, produces both the will to believe and the act of believing also." (*Canons of Dort,* 3rd and 4th head,
art. 14)
 
Moreover, Dort rejected those:
 
"Who teach: That in the true conversion of man no new qualities, powers, or gifts can be INFUSED by God into the will, and
that therefore faith, through which we are first converted and because of which we are called believers, is not a quality or gift
INFUSED by God but only an act of man, and that it cannot be said to be a gift, except in respect of the power to 
attain to this faith. For thereby they contradict the Holy Scriptures, which declare that God INFUSES new qualities of
faith, of obedience, and of the consciousness of His love into our hearts. . . ."(*Canons of Dort,* 3rd and 4th, paragraph 6)
 
In his *Method of Grace in Gospel Redemption,* John Flavel uses the term "infusion" 18 times and "infused" 24 times. We
find the following locutions as explanations or descriptions of regeneration: "infusion," "infusion of faith," "infusion of the spirit,"
"infusion of the principle of grace," "infusion of this principle of life," "infusion of spiritual life." Here's just one such instance: "
Regeneration expresses those supernatural, divine, new qualities, infused by the Spirit into the soul, which are the principles of
all holy actions." (Flavel, Sermon 1, prop 1)
 
Here are several quotations from that great Baptist John Gill. Gill frequently uses the term "infusion" in connection with
regeneration or the new birth.
 
"Regeneration may be considered either more largely, and then it includes with it effectual calling, conversion, and
sanctification: or more strictly, and then it designs the first principle of grace INFUSED into the soul; which makes it a fit object
of the effectual calling, a proper subject of conversion, and is the source and spring of that holiness which is gradually carried
on in sanctification, and perfected in heaven." (Gill, *Body of Divinity,* Book 6, ch.11, intro.)
 
"It is commonly called the new birth, and with great propriety; since the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy
Ghost, are joined together as meaning the same thing; and what is produced in regeneration is called the new creature, and the
new man; and those who are born again are said to be new born babes (Titus 3:5; 2 Cor. 5:17; Eph 4:24; 1 Pet. 2:2), it is a
new man, in distinction from the old man, or the principle of corrupt nature, which is as old as a man is; but the principle of
grace INFUSED in regeneration is quite new; it is something "de novo", anew implanted in the heart, which never was before
in human nature." (Gill, *Body of Divinity,* Book 6, ch.11., I.3)
 
"Regeneration is expressed by being quickened. As there is a quickening time in natural generation; so there is in regeneration;
"You hath he quickened" (Eph. 2:1). Previous to regeneration, men are dead while they live; though corporally alive, are
morally dead, dead in a moral sense, as to spiritual things, in all the powers and faculties of their souls; they have no more
knowledge of them, affection for them, will to them, or power to perform them, than a dead man has with respect to things
natural; but in regeneration, a principle of spiritual life is INFUSED; that is a time of life when the Lord speaks life into them,
and produces it in them." (Gill, *Body of Divinity,* Book 6, ch. 11.I. 4)
 
"There are also several terms, or words, by which the grace of regeneration is expressed. . .It is also signified by "seed" (1
John 3:9). "Whosoever is born of God—his seed remaineth in him"; which is the principle of grace INFUSED in regeneration;
and as seed contains in it virtually, all that after proceeds from it, the blade, stalk, ear, and full corn in the ear; so the first
principle of grace IMPLANTED in the heart, seminally contains all the grace which afterwards appears, and all the fruits,
effects, acts, and exercises of it." (Gill, *Body of Divinity,* Book 6., chapter 11, I.7)
 
"Regeneration is a passive work, or rather, men are passive in it; as they must needs be, in the first INFUSION and
IMPLANTATION of grace, and the quickening of them;" (Gill, *Body of Divinity,* Book 6, Chapter 11, V.1)
 
"Though effectual calling may be distinguished from regeneration, taken more strictly, for the first INFUSION and
IMPARTATION of grace in the heart; yet it is closely connected with it, and the consideration of it naturally follows upon it."
(Gill, *Body of Divinity,* 6.12. intro.)
 
Let's bring John Owen to the stand now:
 
"Therefore it follows that saving grace in the heart, can't be produced in man by mere exercise of what perfections he has in
him already, though never so much assisted by moral suasion, and never so much assisted in the exercise of his natural
principles, unless there be something more than all this, viz., an immediate INFUSION or operation of the Divine Being upon
the soul. Grace must be the immediate work of God, and properly a production of His Almighty power on the soul." (Owens,
*Treatise on Grace,* I.8. infer. 2)
 
John Owen:
 
"But we say that the whole work, or the whole of the work of the Holy Ghost in our conversion, doth not consist herein;
but there is a real, physical work, whereby He INFUSETH a gracious principle of spiritual life into all that are effectively
converted and really regenerated, and without which there is no deliverance from the state of sin and death. . . .there
is a real physical work of the Spirit on the souls of men in their regeneration." (Owen, *Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit,*
Part III, ch. 14, p. 686; cf. Hodge, *Systematic Theology, Vol 2, pp. 686-687)
 
Let's not forget Jonathan Edwards. Writing in the polemical context of new England Arminianism and with reference to
the initial operation of God on the human person in salvation, Edwards says:
 
"Those who deny the INFUSION of grace by the Holy Spirit, must, of necessity, deny the Spirit to do any thing at all. Those
who say there is no INFUSION, contradict themselves. For they say the Spirit doth something in the soul; that is, he causeth
some motion, or affection, or apprehension to arise in the soul. . . .For suppose the Spirit of God only to assist the natural
powers, then there is something done betwixt them. . . .Now, that part that the Spirit doth, how little soever it be, is
INFUSED. . . .For they say, the Holy Spirit assists the man in acquiring the habit; so that it is acquired rather sooner than it
would be otherwise. Or, to act more lively and vigorously than otherwise. . . .Then that liveliness and vigorousness must be
INFUSED; . . .It is grace, and therefore INFUSED grace. . . .So that, if any operation of the Holy Spirit at all is allowed, the
dispute is only, How much is INFUSED? The one says, a great deal, the other says, but little." (Edwards, "Efficacious Grace,"
in *the Work of President Edwards in Four Volumes,* 2:566-567).
 
Charles Hodge writes: "But regeneration itself, the INFUSION of a new life into the soul, is the immediate work of the Spirit.
. . .but regeneration itself, or the imparting of spiritual life, is by the immediate agency of the Spirit" (Hodge, *Systematic
Theology,* Part III, ch.14, p. 685, cf. Part III, ch. 18, p.226)
 
A.A. Hodge writes: "Action positively holy is impossible except as the consequence of a positively holy disposition. The
INFUSION of such a disposition must therefore precede any act of true spiritual obedience. Effectual calling, according to the
usage of our Standards, is the act of the Holy Spirit effecting regeneration. Regeneration is the effect produced by the Holy
Spirit in effectual calling. The Holy Spirit, in the act of effectual calling, causes the soul to become regenerate by
IMPLANTING a new governing principle or habit of spiritual affection and action. The soul itself, in conversion, immediately
acts under the guidance of this new principle in turning from sin unto God through Christ. It is evident that the
IMPLANTATION of the gracious principle is different from the exercise of that principle, and that the making a man willing is
different from his acting willingly. The first is the act of God solely; the second is the consequent act of man, dependent upon
the continued assistance of the Holy Ghost." (A.A. Hodge, *Commentary on Westminster Confession,* chapter 10, of
effectual calling, 3.2)
 
Although infusion was prominent mainly in the 17th and 18th centuries, and in 19th century Reformed theologians in the
Protestant scholastic tradition (who were influenced by the likes of Turretin and Edwards), it is also found in 20th century
Reformed theologians.
 
After quoting the Canons of Dort in the explication of the new birth, Herman Hoeksema writes the following:
 
"We can speak first of all of regeneration in the deepest and narrowest sense of the word. In this sense it is the saving act
of the Triune God whereby He takes hold of the elect and in himself dead sinner through the Spirit of Christ, translates him
in the very depth of his existence, and INFUSES into him the principle of life which is in Christ Jesus. . .He implants the seed
of the new life into the heart of the sinner. It consists in the granting and INFUSING of new spiritual qualities." (Hoeksema,
*Reformed Dogmatics,* p. 460)
 
He even uses infusion as a concept in the summary explication of regeneration at the end of the chapter, under point no. 5.
 
"It [regeneration] consists of an INFUSING, implanting, of new life, of the principle of the life of God. . . ." (*Reformed
Dogmatics,* p. 462).
 
Moreover, Berkhof says the following:
 
"Justification, according to the common representation [in Catholicism], included the INFUSION of grace, that is, the
birth of a new creature or regeneration, and the forgiveness of sin and the removal of guilt attaching to it." (*Systematic
Theology,* p. 466)
 
Berkhof here equates the meaning of the Catholic term "infusion" with the Reformed meaning of "regeneration."
 
He then explains the Reformed view of regeneration as follows:
 
"In strict harmony, however, with the literal meaning of the word "regeneration" is sometimes employed in an even more limited
sense, to denote simply the implantation of the new life in the soul, apart from the first manifestation of this in life" (p. 467)
 
"Regeneration consists in the implanting of the principle of the new spiritual life in man, in a radical change of the governing
dispositions of the soul, which, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, gives birth to a life that moves in a Godward
direction" (p. 468)
 
"regeneration is that act of God by which the principle of the new life is implanted in man, and the governing disposition
of the soul is made holy." (p. 469)
 
In the quotes of previous theologians, we've already seen "impartation" and "implanting" are used interchangeably with
"infusion." All these terms indicate a real change in the sinner, as opposed to a change in extrinsic status before God (as
in forensic justification).
 
I could provide more quotes from Reformed theologians who use the language of infusion, but the previous quotes should
suffice to show that you are flatly mistaken in your cavalier dismissal of my previous claims, claims which have been
well documented and explicated in contemporary scholarship. See Morimoto's book for starters. And you can add to this list
these other Reformed theologians: Ridgeley, Charnock, Willard, Witsius, Le Blanc, Ames, Burman, Braunius, and Brine. They
all use the term infusion as well.
 
The fact that some Reformed theologians do not use the language of infusion is hardly surprising. I already explained
that the term infusion is found primarily in 17th and 18th century Reformed theologians. The De Auxiliis controversy
in Catholic theology and the polemic against Arminianism both played an important role in inspiring Calvinists to use
the term "infusion." I'm not surprised that the term has fallen out of fashion among Calvinists. This is unfortunate for several
reasons, not the least of which is clarifying the junctures at which Calvinism is in disagreement with Catholic views of salvation.
 
Thus (S1) is true and you are mistaken in your objection to it. The use of infusion, specifically with respect to regeneration, is
not restricted to medieval scholastics, nor is it restricted to sanctification among Reformed theologians. Rather it is
*commonly* found among the Protestant scholastics and their immediate descendents to refer to the initial operation
of God on the human person in salvation, what is ordinarily denoted by the term "regeneration."
 
Thus your claim that I am "putting words in their mouths that they don't use..." is clearly contradicted by the host of prominent
witnesses that I have adduced, some of whom I had referred to in previous posts.
 
IV. INFUSION, ORDO SALUTIS, AND CAUSALITY
 
But you have made another, related set of claims. You also reject the idea that infusion is *prior* to justification. You believe
that Reformed theologians have not maintained this, and you think there is good reason not affirm it. Why? Because you
believe that it opens one up to the Roman Catholic view of infusion as the cause of justification.
 
You have made the following claims:
 
"No one uses the words "infused grace" prior to justification. . . . You think you can find it in how they describe the process
of the ordo salutis even if they don't use the term?"
 
"To have infused grace before justification in the ordo salutis "gives causality to grace in the procurement of justification,
IMHO. Imputed grace, yes. Infused... I have yet to be convinced."
 
"Infusion assumes causality. The only difference between your argument and the Papists is that your infusion is post-
regeneration and theirs is "pre". So what? What bearing does that have on "causality"?"
 
Here you attempt to defend the following claim:
 
(B1) If the infusion of grace is prior to justification, then infusion is the cause of justification.
 
A. The Logical Ordo Salutis
 
There is an obvious ambiguity in (B1). What sort of *priority* is in view? Well, most Reformed theologians take the ordo
salutis to be a *logical* order, and logical order is ordinarily contrasted with temporal order. See Charles Hodge, *Systematic
Theology, Vol. 3 pp. 172-173; Augustus Strong, *Systematic Theology,* pp. 793; William Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol.
3, p. 439; Berkhof, *Systematic Theology,* pp. 415-422; Hoeksema, *Reformed Dogmatics,* pp. 446-451.
 
So let's consider the plausibility of (B1) where "priority" is understood as *logical* priority. The first thing to note here is that
most Reformed theologians locate regeneration, as distinct from sanctification, logically prior to justification in the ordo salutis.
In other terms, the standard order is:
 
regeneration => justification => sanctification
 
Hoeksema has some historical observations that confirm this, and he himself settles for the following order: "(1) regeneration;
(2) calling; (3) faith; (4) conversion; (5) justification; (6) sanctification; (7) preservation and perseverance; and (8) glorification"
(*Reformed Dogmatics,* p. 451). Hoeksema regards the order here as logical.
 
Charles Hodge was also committed to the logical priority of regeneration to justification (*Systematic Theology,* Vol. 3,
pp.172-173). Here Hodge deals with an objection to forensic justification. The objection says that since justification is
by faith, and faith is an act of the renewed soul (regeneration), there must be a renewed or regenerated soul *before*
a person is justified. Hodge responds to the objection by contrasting temporal and logical priority. Here he wants to assert the
temporal simultaneity of faith and justification (at least for adults) while allowing a certain logical relationship to exist between
them whereby faith (and thus regeneration) are logically prior to justification. Moreover, Hodge's order in his *Systematic
Theology* reflects this, as regeneration is discussed prior to justification and sanctification.
 
How about the good old school Calvinist William G.T Shedd?
 
He writes the following:
 
"Since regeneration precedes conversion in the order of nature [i.e., logical order], not of time, it precedes justification in the
same order, because faith precedes justification, and faith is one of the acts of conversion" (*Dogmatic Theology,* Vol. 3,
p. 439)
 
Let's throw a Baptist in here. . .Augustus Strong:
 
At the outset of his discussion on the application of Christ's work, he says:
 
"Under this head we treat of Union with Christ, Regeneration, Conversion (embracing Repentance and Faith), and Justification.
Much confusion and error have arisen from conceiving these as occurring in chronological order. The order is logical, not
chronological. As it is only "in Christ" that man is "a new creature" (2 Cor. 5:17) or is "justified", union with Christ
logically precedes both regeneration and justification, and yet chronologically, the moment of our union with Christ is also
the moment when we are regenerated and justified. So, too, regeneration and conversion are but the divine and human sides or
aspects of the same fact, although regeneration has logical precedence, and man turns only as God turns him" (*Systematic
Theology,* p. 793).
 
Strong also claims that the first act of repentance and faith "logically preceded justification" (*Systematic Theology, p. 867).
Regeneration is placed *logically* before the locus of justification, and he is explicit that faith and repentance presuppose
regeneration. Thus regeneration is logically prior to faith and repentance. Since, faith and repentance are logically prior to
justification, it follows that regeneration is logically prior to justification.
 
The only exceptions to this standard view is found among advocates of eternal and resurrection justification. But even here
there is a rather common distinction between objective and subjective justification. The actual appropriation of justification, so
-called subjective justification, must still be logically posterior to regeneration since faith presupposes the new birth. (See
Berkhof, *Systematic Theology,* pp. 517-519). Since it is the subjective appropriation of justification that is implicated in the
ordo salutis, these exceptions are irrelevant to our discussion.
 
Now the logic here is pretty simple. The theologians I have introduced and to whom I have referred regard regeneration
as logically prior to justification in the ordo salutis. Many of them (e.g., Mastricht, Turretin, Hodge, Hoeksema) also
explicitly maintain that infusion is at least a part of regeneration, where regeneration is distinct from sanctification. But if
regeneration is logically prior to justification, and infusion is a part of regeneration, then infusion is also logically prior to
justification. So these theologians are committed, contrary to your claims, to the logical priority of infusion to justification.
There's really no way around this if one believes both that (i) regeneration is logically prior to justification and (ii) regeneration
at least includes infusion.
 
B. Causality and the Logical/Temporal Priority of Infusion
 
Now what of your claim that that the priority of infusion to justification entails that infusion is the *cause* of justification?
 
As I said above, the natural way to take your claim, if we are discussing the standard account of the ordo salutis, is that the
*logical* priority of infusion entails that infusion causes justification.
 
I think it is important to note here that you have in fact presented *no* argument for this claim. Rather than meet this burden
you have committed the dialogically illicit move of demanding that I prove its negation. You have inappropriately demanded
that I prove that the logical priority of infusion does *not* entail that infusion causes justification. Of course I already did this,
so even your illicit shift of burden of proof has been met, though you have failed to grasp the argument.
 
Let me give it to you again, this time explicitly in terms of logical priority. The logical priority of *anything* x to anything
else y does not entail that x causes y because logical relations and causal relations are not equivalent concepts. X *can* be
logically prior to y without x causing y. That's why it is false to say that "if infusion is logically prior to justification, then infusion
is the cause of justification." This conditional says that it *cannot* be the case that infusion is logically prior to justification
without being its cause. But surely it *can,* for the reason just noted.
 
A is logically prior to B, in the sequence of the English alphabet. 1 is logically prior to 2 in the sequence of number counting.
Being human is logically prior to being a Baptist. Axioms are logically prior to theorems. Being a member of felix domestica is
logically prior to my cat's being a member of Siamese cats. But none of these "conceptual" relations entail causal relations
between the things signified by the relative terms. Hence, independent of providing a reason for thinking so, the logical priority
of infusion to justification does not entail that infusion causes justification, much less that infusion is any part of justification.
 
As William Shedd writes, just after asserting the logical priority of regeneration to justification:
 
"It does not follow from this that regeneration is the cause or ground of justification, as Dorner asserts in objection to this
statement (Christian Doctrine, IV., p. 206). One thing may be antecedent to another, and yet not the cause of it. Post
hoc, ergo propter hoc." (*Dogmatic Theology,* Vol., 3, p. 439)
 
So I am quite baffled concerning your rather novel suggestion that logical priority would entail a causal relation. This is
incorrect, and in the absence of an actual argument, I don't see that it is reasonable to accept such a claim.
 
Another way to take your claim, though, is in terms of *temporal* priority. Perhaps you mean to say that the *temporal*
priority of infusion to justification is unacceptable because *it* entails that infusion is the cause of justification.
 
The first thing to note here, much to my disappointment as a philosopher, is that Reformed theologians do not agree about
the temporal priority of regeneration to justification. Some accept this *in principle* and *in fact* in the case of infant
salvation. Others do not accept a temporal distinction here, though I would rather characterize these theologians as
unfortunately confused.
 
But it is worth noting those theologians who do agree with my view that regeneration is, at least in principle, temporally
prior to justification. Berkhof, for instance, accepts the temporal priority of regeneration to faith and justification in the case of
people who are regenerated in infancy. (Berkhof, *Systematic Theology,* p. 491; cf. p. 519) Even the Baptist James P.
Boyce thinks it is reasonable to suppose that regeneration is temporally prior to justification. (See Boyce, *Abstract of
Systematic Theology,* ch. 32, "conversion," IV-VI; cf. ch. 35, VII.3). The matter is complicated by the fact that the term
simultaneous is used in a loose sense by some Reformed theologians. It is sometimes consistent with events being temporally
distinct though very proximate, so that for all practical purposes the events happen at the same time. Boyce discusses this
confusion.
 
Now I do not wish to develop a lengthy digression on the relationship between causality and time, especially since I have
in years past, posted at length on this. I still maintain my earlier view that with respect to intermundane causality, or causality
between events *in time,* if A causes B, A is temporally prior to B. If you wish to read these arguments, see my three posts
on this located at:
 
http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/DPmiscellaneous.html
 
As with the argument from logical priority, I do not see that the temporal priority of A to be B entails that A is the cause of B.
Although Shedd was discussing logical relations, his point above equally applies to temporal relations. The temporal priority of
one event A to another event B does not entail that A is the cause of B. Examples. Jack buys a bottle of coke at the
store and drinks it. Two minutes later he drops dead of a heart attack. If mere temporal antecedence entailed causal relations,
then we could conclude that the coke caused the heart attack. But this is ridiculous. I develop a skin rash after drinking an
herbal tea. Therefore, the tea is the cause of the skin rash. As Shedd noted, this is just the post hoc fallacy.
 
The same holds true in the case of *regularities* of temporal succession. The above examples do not deal with events that
follow each other with any regularity. But one might suppose that when B ordinarily follows A, then A is the cause of B.
Unfortunately, although it is reasonable to suppose that all cause and effect relations entail regularities of temporal
succession, the converse is not true. For instance, a barometer regularly falls in its readings before it rains, but it does not
follow that the fall in the barometer is the cause of the rain. My alarm clock makes a buzzing sound each morning, about 15
seconds before my radio turns on. It hardly follows that the buzzing of my alarm clock is the cause of my radio turning on.
 
Of course empiricists of various sorts have followed David Hume's idea that causality can be reduced patterns of regular
succession. However, I find this empiricist viewpoint highly flawed, primarily for the reason adduced above. But I see no
other way to defend the idea that if there is a regular pattern of y coming after x, then x caused y. Thus, even if there is a
pattern of regular succession of [regeneration => justification], I see no reason to suppose that regeneration is the cause of
justification.
 
Thus, neither the fact that justification is temporally subsequent to regeneration, nor the regularity of such a succession entails
that regeneration causes justification. This is just bad metaphysics.
 
C. The Soft Epistemic Claim
 
And we can also easily dismiss your softer claim:
 
(B2) If the infusion of grace is prior to justification, then we can't eliminate the possibility that it is the cause of justification.
 
(B2) will be false for similar reason as we've already seen, whether we are taking "prior" as logical or temporal. Nothing
follows about causal relations from mere temporal or logical relations. To get any proposition about causal relations between
x and y, where these have a postulated logical or temporal relation, requires *adding* a proposition about their causal
relation. There is no danger of
 
(i)<regeneration is logically prior to justification>
or
(ii)<regeneration is temporally prior to justification>
 
entailing
 
(iii)<regeneration is the cause of justification>,
 
unless one has postulated some additional claim that either states or entails something about the causal relation between
regeneration and justification. So if regeneration is a cause of justification, this would depend on some statement or claim other
than (i) or (ii). One would have to conjoin *that* statement to either (i) or (ii) to get (iii). But isn't it rather obvious how to
avoid such a situation? The easiest way to avoid such a claim would be to assert:
 
(iv) regeneration is not the cause of justification.
 
And on what grounds might one do this? Well, do exactly what Reformed theology does. Assert:
 
(v) The sole cause of justification is the righteousness of Christ.
 
If one asserts (v), then the conjunction of [(v) and (i)] or [(v) and (ii)] will entail (iv). And since (iv) contradicts
(iii), one has avoided even the suggestion that regeneration is a cause of justification.
 
Thus your concern about the priority of regeneration (or infusion) entailing that we are justified because of infusion is simply
unwarranted.
 
How do I know that regeneration does not cause justification? I know this because I know that the sole cause of justification
is the imputed righteousness of Christ. Adding the belief that infusion is logically (or temporally) prior to justification does
not undermine my knowledge that the righteousness of Christ is the sole cause of justification. How could it? The former belief
is neither logically nor probabilistically incompatible with my belief that the righteousness of Christ is the sole cause of
justification. Hence, it can't possibly give me a defeater for my belief that Christ's righteousness alone is the ground of
my justification.
 
V. CONCLUSION
 
To summarize:
 
I have now provided substantial evidence in support of the following contentions:
 
(S1) The Reformed doctrine of regeneration includes or is equivalent to infusion of grace.
 
Secondly, I have also shown that several prominent Reformed theologians, from Turretin to Hoeksema, have been explicitly or
implicitly committed (as I am) to:
 
(S2) The infusion of grace is prior to justification,
 
where the priority in view is either logical or temporal. Moreover, I think that one *can* show that (S2) follows from Scripture
once we adopt the account of infusion and its relation to regeneration that I have above. It simply follows from the priority (at
least logical) of regeneration to faith and hence justification. If the priority of regeneration to justification has biblical
warrant, then so does, then so does (S2), at least given the account of infusion in (I) above.
 
Third, I have shown that your argument against (S2) is unsound. The argument that (S2) is false because it entails or leaves
epistemically open the possibility that infusion causes justification rests on at least one false assumption about how priority
(logical and temporal) is related to causality. Moreover, I have shown that, even if one believes that infusion is logically or
temporally prior to justification, one can know that infusion is not the cause of justification.
 
I hope this post at least clarifies several important conceptual and historical aspects to the issues we have been discussing.
 
Peace,
Michael