I do not see much difference in the way men like John Wesley and Adrian Rogers defined "prevenient grace" and the way men like James White and Tom Ascol (and other "regeneration before faith" advocates) define "regeneration."
Both systems believe that the purpose of each, either "prevenient grace" or "regeneration," is to give the sinner an "ability" to comply with the commands and invitations of the gospel. This "giving of ability" is in actuality the same thing, except that Wesley, Rogers, and even Spurgeon, would not view this giving of "enabling grace" as equal to "regeneration," as do the Hyperists, but viewed such as "preparatory" to it, at least in adult cases.
In both cases the sinner is not converted, nor a believer, when given "prevenient grace" or when "regenerated." In both cases faith, repentance, and conversion are only made possible.
At least in the "prevenient grace" paradigm there is a proper scriptural definition of what it means to be "regenerated" or "born again" or "converted." In the "prevenient grace" system conversion is not divorced from regeneration.
Consider also this additional "paradigm problem" for the Hybrid "reformed" view on regeneration and conversion.
"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise." (Ephesians 1: 13 KJV)
Consider the problem for the "reformed" and Hardshell view. If this "sealing" is not regeneration, then what is it? Can a man be regenerated without being sealed at the same time? If it is a synonym for regeneration or the new birth, then does it not come after hearing the gospel and believing it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment