Gospel Guidebook: Getting and Keeping It Right 
Justification Precedes Regeneration
In my article, Justification and the Gospel of John, I suggested that justification precedes regeneration. To put this more precisely, I suggest that forensic justification (i.e., God declaring us righteous solely on the basis of what Christ did for us) precedes the ontological change that happens when a person is born again. In this article, I will try to provide evidence of this suggestion from the New Testament.
Romans 5:12-21
To start, let's look at some verses from Romans 5:12-21. In verse 17, we learn that the "gift of righteousness" results in "reigning in life," and in verse 18, that "one act of righteousness" resulted in "justification of life." The phrase "justification of life" is ambiguous. It could refer to "life-producing justification" (objective genitive), "justification resulting from life" (genitive of source), or "justification which is life" (genitive of apposition). Moving on, in verse 19, we learn that "obedience of the One" resulted in "many being constituted as righteous" (see Young's Literal Translation, etc.) and in verse 21 that "grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."
There is nothing in these verses that refers to our own ethical righteousness, nor is there any hint of a synergistic righteousness through cooperation between God and man. In contrast, we "receive the gift of righteousness" and are "constituted as righteous" because of the obedience of the Obedient one. This kind of language points to forensic justification. In verse 21, "sin reigning in death" is contrasted with "grace reigning through righteousness unto eternal by Jesus Christ our Lord." Just as death is the result of sin, life is the result of righteousness, so this is suggestive that justification (i.e., our being constituted righteous on account of His righteousness) precedes regeneration (i.e., ontological change in receiving eternal life).
Romans 4:25
In support of my interpretation on Romans 5:21, I would now like to look at Romans 4:25. In a literal rendering, such as the NASB, we read, "who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification." In this verse, we see that "our justification" preceded Christ's "resurrection life." This means that justification refers to "forensic justification" from God's point of view because it happened at the cross and obviously didn't involve any ethical righteousness on our part. The NASB renders both clauses retrospectively, but some theologians have interpreted the second clause "raised because of our justification" as prospective. In other words, they say it means "raised in view of our justification." The problem is that the Apostle Paul carefully created a parallel between the first clause "delivered over because of our transgressions" and the second clause "raised because of our justification." To interpret one clause as retrospective and the other as prospective creates disharmony in the parallelism. Furthermore, Paul uses the Greek preposition dia (because) followed by an accusative noun, which refers to causation. This means that the translation "because" is lexically and grammatically correct. Moreover, we have somewhat of a parallel passage in Romans 8:10 where we read, "And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness" (italics added). In Romans 8:10, dia undoubtedly means "because" or "on account of." But the construction parallels Romans 4:25 where we have "delivered because of our transgression and raised because of our justification." In both cases we see death juxtaposed with sin and life juxtaposed with righteousness. In addition, if the Apostle Paul is making our justification the result of Christ's resurrection, then this is in contradiction to Romans 3:25 and Romans 5:9 where we learn that our propitiation, forgiveness of sins, and justification were achieved by Christ's death. In light of this, the translation in the NASB seems correct, and this verse strengthens my hypothesis that justification precedes regeneration.
One verse used to object to my interpretation of Romans 4:25 has been 1 Corinthians 15:17. In that verse we read, "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins." The argument goes that forgiveness of sins (which is characteristic of justification) depends on the resurrection. However, this argument is reading too much into this verse because it could likewise be interpreted as Christ not being raised due to his failure to justify us (i.e., failure to accomplish what was necessary for the forgiveness of sins). In other words, His resurrection was dependent on Him successfully justifying us. The resurrection itself was His own personal vindication (i.e., the proof that He was a non-sinner who lived in perfect obedience to God in accordance with His confession that He was indeed the Son of God, the Christ) and is also the means and the power by which He gives us eternal life and enables use to participate in His resurrection life. At any rate, the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:17 is ambiguous and cannot be used to refute my hypothesis.
Another objection to my interpretation of Romans 4:25 is that both clauses are prospective. This argument says that Romans 4:25 should be interpreted as "who was delivered up in order to atone for our sins and was raised in order that we might be justified." I find this objection more reasonable than the previous one, but it is still problematic. If the Apostle Paul meant "in order to" as opposed to "because," then he very well could have used the subjunctive conjunction hina (in order that, so that), or the preposition eis (for), or some other Greek word that would have indicated his intention more clearly than dia (because). In other words, if his intention was to say "in order to," then why would he use the Greek preposition dia, since this preposition would only obscure his argument? By using dia, he certainly would have known that at least some of his readers would have interpreted the two clauses as retrospective. It is true that Paul has been dealing with experiential forensic justification in Romans 4 (i.e., the actual experience of forensic justification by the individual believer) and continues to refer to it up to Romans 5:2. However, Romans 4 is immediately preceded by Romans 3:25 where we find propitiation being accomplished for the forgiveness of sins at the cross, and Romans 5:1-2 is immediately followed by Romans 5:6-10 where again we find that our justification was accomplished by the death of Christ. These verses refer to positional forensic justification (i.e., forensic justification accomplished at the cross from God's point of view). So, my interpretation could easily fit into Paul's argument to remind his readers of Romans 3:25 and prepare them for his very important teaching in Romans 5:6-10. At any rate, even if the two clauses in Romans 4:25 should be interpreted as prospective, it would not injure my hypothesis about justification preceding regeneration. It just wouldn't support it. But in light of Paul's use of the preposition dia to indicate causation, the parallel with Romans 8:10, and the other verses in context that teach that our justification was accomplished at the cross, I feel pretty strongly that Romans 4:25 does strengthen my hypothesis.
Romans 6:7-8
In these verses, we read, "7 for he that hath died is justified from sin. 8 But if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him;" (ASV). The word "justified" here is the same Greek word as used in Romans 4:5, 5:1, and 5:9. In this verse, it specifically refers to "acquittal from sin" and it precedes "living with Him" in verse 8. This harmonizes with the verses we looked at above where we saw that justification precedes eternal life.
Romans 4:5 and Romans 5:6-10
I believe that Romans 4:5 and Romans 5:6-10 are highly suggestive that justification precedes regeneration. I recommend the reader first see my article Justification of the Ungodly Man as an Ungodly Man. In that article, I show that the Apostle Paul teaches us that God justifies the ungodly person as an ungodly person (i.e., as a person who is still intrinsically ungodly). If regeneration preceded justification, it is hard for me to imagine that God regards the regenerated person who has "actual" life inside of himself (and has probably already started producing good works) as an ungodly person who still needs to be justified as an ungodly person. Likewise, if justification and regeneration occur simultaneously, a similar problem exists. A person can be regarded as ungodly and justified at the exact same moment because of imputation of extrinsic righteousness whereby the intrinsically ungodly person is given a righteousness from outside of himself. (See my article Faith is Counted unto Righteousness for more details on this.) However, it seems unlikely that a person can be regarded as ungodly and regenerated at the exact same moment because an "actual" change (and perhaps a good work) occurs inside the person ontologically when he is regenerated. How can a person experience this ontological change that produces actual life inside of him and in at the exact same moment be regarded as an intrinsically ungodly person? I suppose that anything is possible, but what seems more likely to me is that justification precedes regeneration, and justification becomes the basis of regeneration.
Titus 3:3-7
In Titus 3:3-7, we read the following, "3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. 4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, 5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; 7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Verses 4 to 7 compose a rather complicated sentence, but in the original Greek, there are some important grammar considerations that can help us clarify the ordo salutis (literally, "order of salvation," or the consecutive steps in the salvation of the believer).
To start, it is important to see that there are several steps in the process of the salvation described in Titus 3:3-7. Therefore, "He saved us" in Titus 3:5 should be interpreted broadly to describe the overall process.
Titus 3:3-7 includes the following: (1) Ungodly people who had no works of righteousness by which they might be saved; (2) The appearing of God's kindness and love for mankind; (3) God salvation through His mercy; (4) The washing of regeneration; (5) Renewing of the Holy Spirit; (6) Justification by His grace; (7) Heirship according to the hope of eternal life.
Now, we might be tempted to conclude that the Apostle Paul lists these things in chronological order, but there are some nuances in the original Greek that don't allow this. In the Greek, the phrase "being justified by his grace" in Titus 3:7 is an aorist participle. In Greek, an aorist participle refers to action that is antecedent to its main verb. In this case, the main verb is "made heirs according to the hope of eternal life". This means that "being justified by his grace" precedes "being made an heir according to the hope of eternal life." However, since "being made heirs" was the purpose of the "washing of regeneration" and "renewal of Holy Spirit," as indicated by the subjunctive conjunction hina (so that, in order that), we need to consider if "being justified by His grace" precedes, is simultaneous with, or is subsequent to "regeneration and renewal."
Based on the above, we need to consider what it means to be an "heir." Obviously, "heirship" refers to the expectation and entitlement of receiving an inheritance. But who exactly can become an heir? In most cases, the children of a benefactor become heirs simply because they are his children. This reminds us of Romans 8:17 where Paul says, "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God." So, we see that "being made heirs" is coincident with "being made children." In addition, according to Titus 3:7, it is also coincident with "having eternal life" because a person becomes a "child" upon "receiving life." The "hope of eternal life" is the expectation of the full experience of eternal life upon receiving glorified bodies (Titus 2:13, Philippians 3:20-21). So, we see that "heirs," "children," and "eternal life" are all closely related. Now, what is interesting is that the Greek word for regeneration (palingenesia) in Titus 3:5 literally means "again-born." It is the new birth, the born-again moment where we are made children of God (John 1:12-13). Moreover, "renewing of the Holy Spirit" obviously also refers something being "made anew." From this, we can see that "being made heirs" is also coincident with "regeneration" and "renewal." But if this is the case, this means that "being justified by His grace" precedes "regeneration and renewal." This also means that the phrase "being justified by His grace" points back to the "appearing of God's kindness and love toward ungodly people" (Titus 3:3-4), since this is basically a description of grace. And this is exactly what happened when Jesus Christ appeared and justified "ungodly people" by his death (Romans 5:6-10).
In consideration of the function of the Greek aorist participle and the close relationship between the words "heir," "children," "eternal life," and "regeneration," I believe that Titus 3:3-7 is also suggestive that justification precedes regeneration.
Colossians 2:13-14
In Colossians 2:13-14, we read, "13 And you, being dead in your sins [Gr., trespasses] and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;" These verses do not mention justification, but they do mention the forgiveness of trespasses, which is also a forensic act that is coincident with justification. For example, see Romans 4:5-8 where imputation of righteousness is coincident with non-imputation of sin. Similar to Titus 3:3-7, the original Greek gives us more information than the English translation because of the nuance of the participles, which are sometimes hard to accurately translate into English. As mentioned above, an aorist participle describes action that is antecedent to the main verb of the sentence. In contrast a present participle describes action that is contemporaneous with the main verb of the sentence. In Colossians 2:13, we have "And you, being dead (present participle) in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened (aorist indicative) together with him, having forgiven (aorist participle) you all trespasses;"
In Colossians 2:13, we see is that the main verb is "quicken," which just means "make alive." The present participle phrase "being dead in your sins (literally, trespasses in the Greek)" indicates that they were still dead in their trespasses when they were made alive. The transition from death to life represents the tangent point between two different states of being (i.e., the point of ontological change). However, it is important to notice that their possession of life was not and is not contingent on moral transformation. God accepted them as "being dead in trespasses."
In light of the above, if justification precedes regeneration, this means that justified people remain intrinsically ungodly until they are regenerated because they are still "dead in trespasses" at the point of regeneration. And this is exactly what the Apostle Paul teaches in Colossians 2:13. Notice that "having forgiven you all trespasses" is an aorist participle. This means that they received forgiveness of sins before they were made alive (i.e., while they were still dead in trespasses). In other words, they received forgiveness of sins and remained sinful. As mentioned above, in Romans 4:5-8, we see that justification is coincident with forgiveness of sins because imputation of righteousness coincides with non-imputation of sin. More specifically, forgiveness of sins is characteristic of the "blessed" state of the justified person. However, because this happens before regeneration, we can understand that the ungodly person is justified and remains intrinsically ungodly until he is subsequently regenerated. This is possible because the ungodly person is imputed with righteousness (Romans 4:6, 1 Corinthians 1:30) on the basis of what Christ accomplished at the cross (Romans 3:24-26, Romans 5:9, 2 Corinthians 5:21). This imputation of extrinsic righteousness is the "gift of righteousness" that "reigns unto eternal life" (Romans 5:17, 21). This understanding of the Greek was confirmed by the Anglican scholar Henry Alford in his commentary on Colossians. He recognized the significance of these verses when he said, "having forgiven (the aorist participle (which aor. 'having forgiven' is in English, we having but one past active participle) is here not contemporaneous with συνεζωοπ. [to make alive with] but antecedent."
Colossians 2:13 provides strong evidence that justification precedes regeneration. Colossians 2:14 reinforces the forensic nature of the steps within the ordo salutis that precede regeneration. For example, "blotting out the handwriting of ordinances" is also an aorist participle phrase that precedes being "made alive." This is obvious because it happened at the cross, whereas "being made alive" happened "with Christ" at his resurrection. This also tells us that Paul is dealing with positional forensic justification in contrast with experiential forensic justification, where the former deals with forensic justification from God's point of view at the cross and the latter deals with forensic justification as it is experienced by the individual believer. A.T. Robertson, in his Word Pictures in the New Testament, tells us that "handwriting" refers to a common word in the papyri for "certificate of debt." This reinforces the fact there are some steps within the process of salvation that are strictly forensic. (As briefly mentioned above, I am using the word "salvation" here and in Titus 3:5 very broadly to refer to the steps collectively in the ordo salutis. Usually when we speak of "salvation" we refer to it in a very narrow sense, as referring to our moment of justification or reception of eternal life.)
Implications and Final Thoughts
In this article, I have provided evidence that justification precedes regeneration in the ordo salutis. The implications of this are significant because it means that the "ungodly man" in Romans 4:5 is justified as an ungodly man and remains an ungodly man until he is subsequently regenerated. This means that justification excludes all works, even God-produced works within the believer.
As far as the interval between justification and regeneration, I don't think it is possible to say definitively, but I suppose it is very short, maybe less than a second. I have heard some theologians say that justification logically precedes regeneration, but that it chronologically occurs at the same time as regeneration. However, this distinction does not seem scriptural, based on verses like John 1:12. (Again see my article Justification and the Gospel of John).
Scripture tells us that we are justified by the death of Christ (Romans 5:9) and subsequently made alive with Him in His resurrection (Colossians 2:13). The interval between His death and resurrection was three days. In this respect, we could say that our positional forensic justification and positional regeneration took three days to accomplish (although the works were accomplished from before the foundation of the world - Hebrews 4:3). In the case of our experiential forensic justification and experiential regeneration, I suppose that the interval between them is much shorter, but I can't say for sure.
Now, I anticipate someone asking, "But what if a person dies justified but unregenerated? What happens to him?" I would say that such a scenario probably doesn't exist, but if it were to happen, God would simply raise him up just like He raised up Christ from the dead. However, this hypothetical scenario is informative. It technically means that a justified person could die without producing a single good work. In normal circumstances, we know that believers produce good works as the Holy Spirit works experiential sanctification in them, but in abnormal circumstances, such as deathbed conversions and perhaps some cases of extreme rebellion among truly born-again people, this technicality could apply.