Recently, Leighton Flowers has been presenting a defeater for the belief that regeneration precedes faith. It comes from Colossians 2:12-14:

Those that worship Leighton as God’s new prophet have voiced their praise for this argument. I think it is a fairly good argument from Leighton (this is fairly unusual given his tendency towards bad arguments). Let’s try to unpack it:

^{John 5:39} You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, ⁴⁰ yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

^{Col. 2:9} For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, ¹⁰ and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. ¹¹ In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, ¹² having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. ¹³ And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, ¹⁴ by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. ¹⁵ He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

Leighton argues that these verses teach that faith precedes regeneration. The passages from John he cites show that people must first believe in order to have life. The Pauline passage states that we were “raised with through faith”. We will look at these issues below:

Firstly, Leighton merely assumes that “eternal life”, “Life”, etc. must refer to regeneration every time. This is not what traditionally Calvinists have argued. Mark A. Snoeberger has stated in his article “The Logical Priority Of Regeneration To Saving Faith In A Theological Ordo Salutis“:

Later in this article it will be demonstrated that the prevailing meaning of the OT חיה word group is “full” or “abundant” life, and that the inception of life is likely never intended by its various uses. The same cannot be said of the NT ζάω word group: on several occasions the word group does denote the inception of spiritual life—regeneration.55 In most cases, however, ζάω and its cognates do not refer to the inception of life. Instead, we usually find vestiges of the OT idea of abundant life, the “whole package culminating in the glory.”56 This is especially true of the phrase “eternal life,”57 but also of other expressions such as John 10:10, where Christ claimed to provide “abundant life” (ζωήν…περισσόν); 1 Timothy 6:19, where one looks to the future for “life that is truly life” [niv] (τῆς ὄντως ζωῆς); James 1:12 and Romans 2:7, where “life” (ζωή) is the reward of a lifetime of perseverance; 2 Corinthians 2:16, where the believer is appointed from “life unto life” (ζωῆς εἰς ζωήν), that is, moving “ever more deeply into the divine life”;58 1 Peter 3:10 where “life” (ζωή) is defined as “seeing good days.” This understanding of “life” as a quality of life,59 and not regeneration, is the prevailing understanding of the ζάω word group in the NT.60

As was the case with the term “salvation,” “life” is too broad to fit consistently at a single place in one’s ordo salutis. Life “follows” belief in all the passages listed above, but, using this logic, it also “follows” justification (Titus 3:7), sanctification (Rom 6:22), perseverance (Rom 2:7; Jude 21),61 and even physical death (2 Cor 5:4). With this in view, the “life” described in these passages cannot mean regeneration. What is in view is the enjoyment of life in which the believer finally realizes what it truly means to live as God intended, whether presently or in the eschaton.

and in Him (έν ὧ καὶ) you were also circumcised (περιετμήθητε) with a circumcision performed without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ,

1. There is a question to the nature of what it means to be “in Him” here. Leighton Flowers maintains that it must refer to the application of the atonement through faith, but this is also a contested position. Several possibilities exist, Dr. Richard Barcellos mentions a few other possibilities found in “An Exegetical Appraisal Of Colossians 2:11–12“:

To understand union with Christ here as commonly understood in the realm of the application of redemption effected by faith is unnecessary for several reasons. First, the idea of faith is not found in the text until the end of v. 12. Second, faith itself is a result of the “circumcision made without hands” (see the discussion below). Third, the concept of union with Christ is not limited to the application of redemption effected by faith elsewhere in Paul.11 John Murray says, “It is quite apparent that the Scripture applies the expression ‘in Christ’ to much more than the application of redemption.”12 Eph. 1:4, for instance, indicates that Christians were chosen “in Him before the foundation of the world.” This indicates a pre-temporal union with Christ apart from faith and void of communion with Christ. Vital union (i.e., communion with Christ), the type of union experienced in space and time, unites us to Christ in such a way that we experience personally the spiritual benefits of being saved (i.e., justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification). …

 It may be better to paraphrase έν ὧ καὶ as “through your relation to Him”13 understanding union with Christ here in a non-vital manner. This would allow for a union apart from faith that corresponds with the broader meaning of union with Christ in many other places in Paul.14 Richard Gaffin argues for a “broader, more basic notion of union”15 in his Resurrection and Redemption. He lists three types of union: predestinarian, redemptive-historical, and existential.16

There are at least two other ways to understand έν ὧ καὶ. It could be understood like the έν αὐτᾧ (“in Him”) of Col. 1:17. The έν (“in”) would function like a dative of sphere. It would be paraphrased as “in the sphere of Christ’s activity you were circumcised.” Or it could be translated “by whom also.” The έν (“by”) would function like a dative of means or agency. Paul uses έν ὧ 26 times in the Greek text. The NASB translates it “by which” in Rom. 7:6; 8:15 [“by whom” NKJV]; 14:21; and Eph. 4:30. He uses έν ὧ καὶ seven times in the Greek text. Though the NASB does not translate it “by whom also,” the NKJV does in 1 Pt. 3:19a and Clarence B. Hale suggests this translation for Eph. 2:22 (i.e., “…by whom you also are being built together…”).17 It would be translated as “by whom also you were circumcised.”

The union with Christ in Col. 2:11 may be understood best either as a union based on election “in Him” (Eph. 1:4) and true of all the elect prior to the personal application of redemption in space and time18 or in one of the last two ways suggested above. Either of these views fits the context of Col. 2:11ff. and is syntactically and theologically consistent with Paul’s usage elsewhere.

It seems that if Paul is connecting his notion of being “in Christ” with the theme of Christ being the true Temple, then the dative of sphere might have an edge to it over the competing options:

The circumcising occurred “in Him” (ἐν ᾧ, en hō, Col. 2: 11), which either means by the instrumentation of Christ or in the sphere of Christ, though the focus is on the latter, in the sense of union with Christ (cf. Campbell 2013: 36). This is union with Christ as the temple. Thus the third result of Christ’s being the full latter-day divine presence of God in the temple (v. 9) is his “circumcising” his people in that temple and making them clean to be in that temple.

Beale, G. K.. Colossians and Philemon (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) (pp. 287-288). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

2. The verb “you were also circumcised (περιετμήθητε)” is passive. Who is it that circumcises believers? It isn’t believers because they are the objects being acted upon. It ends up being God himself that administers “circumcision made without hands”. The language of “circumcision made without hands” may also have borrowed the language from a Jewish tradition of circumcision occurring at the Temple (Luke 2: 22– 39). 

In fact, “made without hands” (ἀχειροποίητος, acheiropoiētos) always refers elsewhere to the new, end-time temple (sometimes the temple in Christ), 41 which was built not by humans but by God. The very same word occurs in Col. 2: 11, which is the only place where the word is not explicitly accompanied by a word for the temple. The point, at the least, is that circumcision in Christ was done by God and not by humans. The observation, however, that the word elsewhere in the NT (two times) and its synonymous equivalents (only twice in Daniel, twice in Acts, and twice in Hebrews) refer only to a God-built temple may suggest an association with the temple in our present text. The point would be that now spiritual circumcision has taken place “in Christ,” the temple, and since the temple of Christ is “made without hands” (ἀχειροποίητος), so is the “circumcision” that takes place in this new temple “made without hands” (ἀχειροποίητος).

Beale, G. K.. Colossians and Philemon (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) (pp. 286-287). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

This fits with Paul’s motif that those that are in Christ also experiencing things with him such as “in him you were circumcised,” “buried with him in baptism,” “raised with him,” “made . . . alive with Christ.”

Furthermore, we can place ourselves in with the perspective of Leighton Flowers. In Leighton Flowers’ view, this is the result of placing saving faith in the gospel. In effect, it is a result of your own actions. It is a spiritual transformation caused and applied by your own deeds. You aren’t acted upon, you are the active agent. This clearly contradicts everything Paul has stated to this point.

3. The “removal of the body of the flesh” reflects the dual principle that I was just referencing. Christ and his follower have been stripped, unclothed, or undressed of their “body of flesh”. This occurred to Christ on the cross and we see this language seems to be connected with what Paul has previously said:

^{Col. 1:22} yet He has now reconciled you in His body of flesh through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach—

Christ’s “worldly” or pre-resurrection body is stripped away in order to have his glorified body. This is the reality purchased by Christ for believers. They have an inaugurated spiritual reality of such awaiting their actual glorified states. 

4. There is further some ambiguity to the phrase “circumcision of Christ” (ἐν τῆ περιτομῆ τοῦ Χριστοῦ). There are several options that commentators consider. This is because the genitive can be considered in a few different ways. It could be an objective genitive (“ circumcising Christ”) or a subjective genitive (“ circumcision by Christ”) or a possessive genitive (“ Christ’s circumcision” or “Christian circumcision”), or some mixture of the latter two options.

¹² having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

1. There is a question regarding the way interpreters take συνταφέντες αὐτᾧ έν τᾧ βαπτισμᾧ or “having been buried with Him in baptism”. This is an aorist, passive participial clause and this can be rendered in different temporal orders. Daniel Wallace states in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (pg. 622–627):

In relation to its controlling verb, the temporal participle answers the question, When? Three kinds of time are in view: antecedent, contemporaneous, and subsequent. The antecedent participle should be translated after doing, after he did, etc. The contemporaneous participle should normally be translated while doing. And the subsequent participle should be translated before doing, before he does, etc. This usage is common.

This means it could be rendered as such:

Antecedent:

“you were circumcised after being buried with Him in baptism.” 

Contemporaneous:

“you were circumcised while being buried with Him in baptism.”

Subsequent:

“you were circumcised before being buried with Him in baptism.” 

I think the last option makes the most sense and for those searching for further defense, I recommend the essay that I linked written by Barcellos. The other and possibly most likely option is the contemporaneous view.

2. Leighton’s argument is also dependent upon the notion that “through faith in the powerful working of God” is meant to be an objective genitive. That is a fairly evidenced and probable position, but it hardly should be seen as necessarily true:

This translation interprets the phrase πίστεως τῆς ἐνεργείας τοῦ θεοῦ (pisteōs tēs energeias tou theou) to be an objective genitive, “faith in God’s work” in raising Jesus from the dead. It is possible that it could be a subjective genitive, “faith by God’s working” in them, i.e., God’s work in them brought about their faith, which could be supported by Col. 1: 29, where Paul “strives according to His working [ἐνέργειαν αὐτοῦ, energeian autou], which mightily works [τὴν ἐνεργουμένην, tēn energoumenēn] within me”* (the parallel of Eph. 1: 19 may also support a subjective genitive). The objective genitive is more probable, since the genitive after πίστις (pistis) in Paul typically describes the object of faith and not its source (Lightfoot 1875: 185). Sumney (2008: 140) understands πίστις (pistis) to mean not the believers’ “faith” but “the faithfulness of the working of God,” so that “of the working of God” would be a possessive genitive. This is possible, but if Paul had this in mind, would he not say more directly and less awkwardly “the faithfulness of God”?

Beale, G. K.. Colossians and Philemon (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) (pp. 326-327). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Leighton skips over a few exegetical questions to reach his conclusions. For example, he assumes that circumcision and baptism correspond to one another in such a way that they refer to the same spiritual reality. This is something he assumes all Baptists hold. This isn’t obviously the case, one of the leading NT scholars that is a baptist thinks this primarily refers to actual baptism with the assumption that those baptized have corresponding spiritual realities in which baptism is a metonym for the entire conversion experience (Dr. Douglas Moo), others think it refers to spiritual realities that Paul explains through a baptism motif, etc. This is a passage with several debates surrounding it. Dr. Richard Barcellos, in his exegesis of these verses found in “An Exegetical Appraisal Of Colossians 2:11–12“, maintains that verse 12 is about union with Christ and not referring to regeneration:

On the next page, Ross says, “The baptism of Colossians 2:12 can only be the reality of the Spirit’s working to regenerate the heart and free the soul from the dominion of sin.”48 But, as we have seen, v. 12 speaks of a spiritual, vital union with Christ effected through faith. This presupposes regeneration (v. 11). If both verses are describing regeneration, then Paul could be paraphrased as saying, “You were regenerated when you were regenerated.” This would certainly be a cumbersome tautology and does not respect the syntax of the text. The Bible uses other words and phrases to describe regeneration that Paul could have used here (i.e., born from above). However, it is clear from the exposition above that Paul is not speaking about regeneration in v. 12. He is speaking about the fruit of regeneration – union with Christ in burial and resurrection, effected through faith.

They share in related spiritual realities, but not necessarily the same. Circumcision refers to the putting off of the old man for the new man (Col 3:10-11, regeneration) and Baptism incorporates the believer, by faith, into the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Furthermore, the verse may not be here to explain how these occur in a causal order rather than certain implications of other soteriological aspects. If one takes an interpretation in the likeness of Dr. Moo, then he will say to Leighton that all these things occur “in Christ”, but we experience these things “with Christ” through faith. So, Leighton has several competitors to shoot down before we reach his conclusions. We should also not assume that Paul meant to give us a chronology of these events. This may be discussing events of salvation non-temporally (Dr. Thomas Schreiner seems to suggest such). 

Further Suggestion:

James White Col. 2

Dividing Line