Critique of Sproul on Regeneration

The following article makes some very good points on the debate over the "ordo salutis" in the new birth and on the debate over what is styled "monergism" versus "synergism."

I will stop at points, throughout the citation, and make observations on statements made by Pastor Anderson; to some of these I heartily give my "amen," while others I will not be able to fully endorse. (All emphasis is mine - SG)

“REGENERATION: A CRUX INTERPRETUM”

By David R. Anderson - Pastor Faith Community Church
The Woodlands, TX

"We conclude that there is zero biblical support for placing regeneration before faith in the ordo salutis. And to say it takes logical priority without taking temporal priority is contradictory. The very word “priority” in this context speaks of time. It is a “temporal” word. Unless one switches the meaning of “priority” to “first in importance” (which is obviously not intended), then a statement about “logical priority” without “temporal priority” is non-sensical. And certainly in Historical Theology regeneration was seen to have temporal priority over faith, since infants were thought to be regenerated when water baptized. It was not until Reformed theologians realized how little biblical support there is for infant baptism that they began arguing for logical priority instead of temporal priority."

Pastor Anderson makes a point that has been emphasized by others, like Bob Ross and myself. The definition of "regeneration" now getting "played" by the "Reformed Calvinists" or "Reformed Baptists," is not a biblical definition, nor one that is in keeping with historic church teaching, especially among Baptists. All those who promote the narrowed down definition of "regeneration" will admit that this "theological definition" is not biblical but one created by "hair splitting" theologians that have imposed their man-made definitions on the bible. He is also correct to aver that the idea of a "sub-consicous regeneration," that lacked faith and repentance and the other elements of "conversion," was the creation of baby sprinkling pedo-baptizers.

He continues:

"Sproul argues for logical priority because he sees the only other option as Pelagianism, semi-Pelgaianism, or some form of what he calls synergism (God and man working together to effect salvation).

“If we were to posit that faith precedes regeneration, then we would be assuming that unregenerate people, while still in an unregenerate state, have the moral ability to exercise faith. . . . This would involve an Arminian or semi-Pelagian view of the fall,” he writes."

This is really ironic! Sproul takes his view of "regeneration" preceding faith because he thinks it would support "Pelagianism" to put faith before regeneration. But, he is in error here. Is it "Pelagianism" to put "conviction" before "regeneration"? The irony is seen in that he bases his entire argument of the Pelagian idea that a "command implies ability." As a "High Calvinist," it is surprising that he does not see this error of his. Can Lord God not work effectually and irresistably in "preparations" for regeneration (conversion) as in regeneration itself?

Pastor Anderson continues:

"He cites writings from Chafer and Walvoord in which they eschew synergism, but accuses them of red herring argumentation by focusing on who effects regeneration (God alone—monergism; God and man working together—synergism). Rather he claims one is synergistic if faith precedes regeneration in the ordo salutis."

"He accuses Walvoord and Chafer of being “vague” and “unclear” when they make statements like “regeneration is wholly a work of God in a believing heart.” He thinks this is unclear because he understands the issue to be whether faith precedes regeneration or vice versa: “Is the heart already believing, or is it believing because it has been regenerated? The answer to this question defines the difference between Calvinism and semi-Pelagianism.”

Sproul would be welcome in any Hyper Calvinistic church in this country with this kind of teaching about the new birth! Any Hardshell church would welcome this teaching of Sproul! He is also certainly wrong on this issue being the criteria for judging who is Arminian and who is Calvinist. The truth of the matter is, most of the ablest of Calvinists have not taught the pre-faith view of regeneration. So, if one accepts Sproul's criteria, then he will call many people an "Arminian" who have been the ablest of Calvinists!

Anderson continues:

"The problems here are multitudinous. The first is with the word synergism. Coming directly from the Greek word sunergew, which means “to work together,” the very definition of the word should be enough to cause any evangelical Protestant theologian to reject categorically a synergistic approach to salvation. Neither Chafer nor Walvoord would say that man and God work together to accomplish man’s salvation. How, then, can Sproul accuse them of that very thing? It is because in his understanding any ordo salutis which puts faith before regeneration is synergistic. How can this be, unless faith is understood to be a work? Of course, that is precisely what Sproul is suggesting, because he thinks if man can believe prior to regeneration, then man is morally capable of making a contribution to his own salvation. And if man is capable of making any contribution to the salvation process before regeneration, then his salvation is not all of God. Hence, it must be synergistic."

"Is this biblical thinking? Absolutely not. This kind of ratiocination makes faith a work. Is that bibilical? God forbid! The Scriptures contrast faith and works so often the concept hardly needs documentation. Can Eph 2:8-9 and Rom 4:4-6 be any more clear? If salvation is by faith, then works are nowhere to be found in the process. Again, to argue that faith precedes regeneration is synergistic would only be valid if faith = works."

"So here is what it comes down to. Both Reformed thinkers of the Sproul/Gerstner ilk and Dispensationalists like Chafer and Walvoord agree that a totally depraved human being is incapable of making a moral choice on his own. But the latter would call the divine enablement which makes man capable of such a choice “divine persuasion,” while the former would call this divine enablement “regeneration.” But our biblical theology has demonstrated that there is no biblical support for putting regeneration before faith. That is why some systematic theologians with Reformed leanings switch the order. Their biblical theology demands it. But what about this concept of “divine persuasion”? Is it biblical?"

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2000ii/Anderson.htm

Well, amen! It is good to know that there are others out there who see the heretical nature and destructive consequences of this teaching of Sproul and of the Hardshells and Reformed Presbyterians and Hyper Calvinistic or Reformed Baptists.