Differences

Difference #1

Why did one person hear the gospel and another died without hearing it?

Difference #2

Why did one person believe the gospel and another did not?

Difference #3

Why did one person believe the gospel and remain faithful and another did not?

"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" (I Corinthians 4: 7 KJV)

"...the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded." (Romans 11: 7 KJV)

Spurgeon - Voting to the Lord

VOTING “AS UNTO THE LORD.”

During the General Election of 1880, a gentleman having written to express his deep regret that Mr. Spurgeon “should have descended from his high and lofty position as a servant of God, and preacher of the everlasting gospel into the defiled arena of party politics,” the Pastor replied to him —

“Nightingale Lane, “Balham, Surrey, “March 22, 1880.

“Dear Sir, “Your letter amuses me, ‘because you are so evidently a rank Tory, and so hearty in ‘your political convictions that, in spite of your religious scruples, you must needs interfere in politics, and write to me. If there is anything defiling in it, you are certainly over head and ears. “However, dear sir, I thank you for your kindness in wishing to put me right, and I can assure you that I vote as devoutly as I pray, and feel it to be a part of my love to God and to my neighbor to try to turn out the Government whom your letter would lead me to let alone. “You are as wrong as wrong can be in your notion; but, as it keeps you from voting, I shall not try to convert you, for I am morally certain you would vote for the Tory candidate. “In things Divine, we are probably at one; and you shall abstain from voting as unto the Lord, and I will vote as unto the Lord, and we ‘will both give Him thanks.

“Yours truly,

C. H.SPURGEON.”

http://www.godrules.net/library/spurgeon/NEW8spurgeon_d12.htm

Arminian "Hot Spot"

I have been debating the bible's teaching concerning "unconditional election" for a long time. I have regularly put Arminians in the proverbial "hot spot" concerning their accusations against Calvinists, who they say, err in believing that God does not "give everyone a chance to be saved."

The Arminian says that the bible teaches that God equally loves all men and gives all men an equal opportunity for salvation or forgiveness, and says that the Calvinist doctrine of "unconditional election" contradicts that teaching. The Arminian says the doctrine of "unconditional election" makes God to act unjustly and unfairly, to falsely discriminate, to show partiality or "respect of persons." He believes that only Arminianism presents God as acting justly and fairly, for it is their firm belief that God gives all men a chance or opportunity to be saved or forgiven.

But, this is all mere "theory," and does not apply to the actual facts of the case. This is because the Arminian avers that salvation comes only through hearing the gospel. Yet, obviously, many millions, perhaps billions, have died without ever hearing the gospel! Such never had a chance or opportunity to be saved!

The Calvinist (except the Hardshells) sees this as evidence of election, of how God has "favored" some over others. The elect will all hear the gospel. Only non-elect people die in heathenism without hearing the gospel.

But, when the Arminian is called to consider this fact, he is in a "tight spot," or "hot spot," for he has affirmed that salvation is only by the gospel, and faith in it, and yet he also must affirm that millions have died without opportunity to be saved. So, his dilemma. Where then is the validity to the Arminian assertion that "God gives all a chance to be saved"? And, to his assertion that "one must hear the gospel to be saved"?

What do they do when in this "hot spot"? Many will begin to deny that one must hear the gospel to be saved!

Election & Respect of Persons

Calvinism, with its affirmation of "unconditional election," makes God (logically) to be a "respecter of persons."

This has been the charge of Arminians, who rather believe in "conditional election," but, as we shall see, it is an unfounded charge. It is also ironic, for it is rather the Arminian who, in his view of a conditional or earned "election," makes God to be a "respecter of persons."

First, let us notice these passages that speak of showing respect of persons, and then see if we can discover what it exactly means.

"Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour." (Leviticus 19: 15 KJV)

"Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it." (Deuteronomy 1: 17 KJV)

"Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous." (Deuteronomy 16: 19 KJV)

"For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; neither doth God respect any person: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him." (II Samuel 14: 14 KJV)

"Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts." (II Chronicles 19: 7 KJV)

"These things also belong to the wise. It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment." (Proverbs 24: 23 KJV)

"To have respect of persons is not good: for for a piece of bread that man will transgress." (Proverbs 28: 21 KJV)

"And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear." (I Peter 1: 17 KJV)

Peter confesses that "God is no respecter of persons." (Acts 10: 34)
And Paul also avers the same, saying - "For there is no respect of persons with God." (Romans 2: 11) Wrote James:

"My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors." (James 2: 1-9 KJV)

All these verses, taken together, describe clearly what it means to have "respect of persons." It is to favor one over another because of some superior personal characteristic in the one favored, and conversely, to show no favor, or ill favor, to the ones lacking this characteristic.

To show "respect," or special favor and treatment, to one because he is different, better, or superior, or because one is either rich or poor, virtuous or vain, etc., is to choose, show favor, or respect, based upon the "person."

To choose, favor, or "respect" one's "person" is to show "favoritism" or "partiality," to favor (reward) based upon some native or self-created virtuous difference of the person chosen or respected. This is what it means to "show respect of persons" and to say that God chooses the worthy, as the Arminian does, would make God's "election" of sinners, as I have shown, to be not only a "selection," rather than a gracious and undeserved "election" of the unworthy, but would also make God's "election" to be a clear case of his showing "respect of persons."

Election is not Selection

Thomas Paine's view of divine "election" of individuals is more appropriately "selection," as he himself indicated, for he not only used the word "select" but also demonstrated and defined what is meant by "selection," affirming that selection involves choosing the fittest object.

When one chooses an object based upon its merit or fitness, or superiority, he "selects." Often the word "elect" does mean all the same thing as "select," but not always. Elect means select when we speak of "electing" a president. Surely such an election or selection is based upon the perceived superior qualities of one over the other.

Is God's election of individuals to salvation a "selection"? Did he base his choice of individuals upon some superior quality in the ones chosen?

The Arminian view, which says God chose people on the basis of some superior quality in the people chosen, is nothing but "selection" and is not the way the bible pictures God's "election" of sinners "to salvation."

When the Lord explained his "election" of the Israelites, he said to them, through Moses, "The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt." (Deuteronomy 7: 7, 8 KJV)

God's "election" or "choice" of the Israelites was NOT a "selection"! God did not choose the fittest or worthiest, for all are equally unworthy. Only the Arminian views election in this manner.

The Arminian will not have God to act first and then the sinner react. No, he has the sinner first acting and then God reacts. Yet, the bible clearly teaches that God first acts in election and sovereign predestination, and then sinners react.

"We love him BECAUSE he FIRST loved us." (I John 2: 19)

But, the Arminian turns this around, and teaches "He loves us because we first loved him." How can he deny that this is his theology?

Does he not tell sinners that God chooses those who first choose him? Does he not reverse the scriptural order?

Election is not a hard doctrine to understand, but it is hard for the natural man to accept. It goes against his natural bias towards God, against the grain of his depraved nature.

Consider also how the viewing of election as selection also makes God to act as a "respecter of persons" in his choice of individuals. But, more on that in an upcoming article.

Phil's Question

"A Question for Our Arminian Readers"

by Phil Johnson

"How is it that God inspired the Scriptures in such a way that every word—indeed, every jot and tittle—was what He determined?

Every standard evangelical definition of inspiration would emphatically insist that God used the personalities, vocabularies, intellects, and learning of the individual authors—and we completely agree. Let's also stipulate that He did not employ dictation (except in a few cases where this is expressly stated).

Yet the product was still determined sovereignly by God. The words are avowedly His words (2 Peter 1:21; 1 Corinthians 2:13).

So how did this miracle occur?

I say you cannot answer that question without embracing the very essence of the Calvinist position regarding God's sovereignty and human free will."

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/

I agree that this is a "hard nut" for Arminians and those who promote human free will. Don't you think?

The last time I checked, Phil had over a hundred comments from both Arminians and Calvinists. Not one Arminian had cracked the nut.

Thomas Paine's Theology

Thomas Paine & Romans 9

Arminians, those who, in my view, reject the teaching of Paul in Romans 9, ought to quit twisting his teaching and instead just outright reject it as the inspired word and truth of God, as did Thomas Paine. This diatribe of Paine against the teaching of the apostle Paul and God's absolute sovereignty and predestination of all things, is much the same that we hear from our Arminian brothers.

"[NOTE: Reprinted from an Appendix to Paine's Theological Works, published in London, by Mary Ann Carlile, in 1820. This I believe to be the last piece written by Paine. -- Editor.]

The following citations taken from

From www.constitution.org/primarysources/primarysources.html

All emphasis mine - SG.

Remarks on Romans IX. 18-21

Addressed to the Ministers of the Calvinistic Church.

"PAUL, in speaking of God, says, "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will be hardeneth. Thou wilt say, why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay, but who art thou, O man, that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed Say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor?"

I shall leave it to Calvinists and Universalists to wrangle about these expressions, and to oppose or corroborate them by other passages from other books of the Old or New Testament. I shall go to the root at once, and say, that the whole passage is presumption and nonsense.

Presumption, because it pretends to know the private mind of God: and nonsense, because the cases it states as parallel cases have no parallel in them, and are opposite cases.

The first expression says, "Therefore hath he (God) mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." As this is ascribing to the attribute of God's power, at the expense of the attribute of his justice, I, as a believer in the justice of God, disbelieve the assertion of Paul. The Predestinarians, of which the loquacious Paul was one, appear to acknowledge but one attribute in God, that of power, which may not improperly be called the Physical attribute. The Deists, in addition to this, believe in his moral attributes, those of justice and goodness.

In the next verses, Paul gets himself into what in vulgar life is called a hobble, and he tries to get out of it by nonsense and sophistry; for having committed himself by saying that "God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth," he felt the difficulty he was in, and the objections that would be made, which he anticipates by saying, "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he (God) yet find fault? for who hath resisted his will? Nay, but, O man, who art thou, that repliest against God! "

This is neither answering the question, nor explaining the case. It is down right quibbling and shuffling off the question, and the proper retort upon him would have been, "Nay, but who art thou, presumptuous Paul, that puttest thyself in God's place!" Paul, however, goes on and says, "Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou, made me thus?" Yes, if the thing felt itself hurt, and could speak, it would say it. But as pots and pans have not the faculty of speech, the supposition of such things speaking is putting nonsense in the place of argument, and is too ridiculous even to admit of apology. It shows to what wretched shifts sophistry will resort.

Paul, however, dashes on, and the more he tries to reason the more he involves himself, and the more ridiculous he appears. "Hath not," says he, "the potter power over the clay of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor"? In this metaphor, and a most wretched one it is, Paul makes the potter to represent God; the lump of clay the whole human race; the vessels unto honor those souls "on whom he hath mercy because he will have mercy;" and the vessels unto dishonor, those souls "whom he hardeneth (for damnation) because be will harden them." The metaphor is false in every one of its points, and if it admits of any meaning or conclusion, it is the reverse of what Paul intended and the Calvinists understand.

In the first place a potter doth not, because he cannot, make vessels of different qualities, from the same lump of clay; he cannot make a fine china bowl, intended to ornament a side-board, from the same lump of clay that he makes a coarse pan, intended for a close-stool. The potter selects his clays for different uses, according to their different qualities, and degrees of fineness and goodness.

Paul might as well talk of making gun-flints from the same stick of wood of which the gun-stock is made, as of making china bowls from the same lump of clay of which are made common earthen pots and pans. Paul could not have hit upon a more unfortunate metaphor for his purpose, than this of the potter and the clay; for if any inference is to follow from it, it is that as the potter selects his clay for different kinds of vessels according to the different qualities and degrees of fineness and goodness in the clay, so God selects for future happiness those among mankind who excel in purity and good life, which is the reverse of predestination.

In the second place there is no comparison between the souls of men, and vessels made of clay; and, therefore, to put one to represent the other is a false position. The vessels, or the clay they are made from, are insensible of honor or dishonor. They neither suffer nor enjoy. The clay is not punished that serves the purpose of a close-stool, nor is the finer sort rendered happy that is made up into a punch-bowl. The potter violates no principle of justice in the different uses to which he puts his different clays; for he selects as an artist, not as a moral judge; and the materials he works upon know nothing, and feel nothing, of his mercy or his wrath. Mercy or wrath would make a potter appear ridiculous, when bestowed upon his clay. He might kick some of his pots to pieces.

But the case is quite different with man, either in this world or the next. He is a being sensible of misery as well as of happiness, and therefore Paul argues like an unfeeling idiot, when he compares man to clay on a potter's wheel, or to vessels made therefrom: and with respect to God, it is an offence to his attributes of justice, goodness, and wisdom, to suppose that he would treat the choicest work of creation like inanimate and insensible clay. If Paul believed that God made man after his own image, he dishonours it by making that image and a brick-bat to be alike.

The absurd and impious doctrine of predestination, a doctrine destructive of morals, would never have been thought of had it not been for some stupid passages in the Bible, which priestcraft at first, and ignorance since, have imposed upon mankind as revelation. Nonsense ought to be treated as nonsense, wherever it be found; and had this been done in the rational manner it ought to be done, instead of intimating and mincing the matter, as has been too much the case, the nonsense and false doctrine of the Bible, with all the aid that priestcraft can give, could never have stood their ground against the divine reason that God has given to man.

Doctor Franklin gives a remarkable instance of the truth of this, in an account of his life, written by himself. He was in London at the time of which he speaks. "Some volumes," says he, "against Deism, fell into my hands. They were said to be the substance of Sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they produced on me an effect precisely the reverse of what was intended by the writers; for the arguments of the Deists, which were cited in order to be refuted, appeared to me more forcible than the refutation itself. In a word I soon became a perfect Deist." -- New York Edition of Franklin's Life, page 93.

All America, and more than all America, knows Franklin. His life was devoted to the good and improvement of man. Let, then, those who profess a different creed, imitate his virtues, and excel him if they can."
THOMAS PAINE."

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/predestination.html

From www.constitution.org/primarysources/primarysources.html

Paine & Blasphemy

Thomas Paine had nothing good to say about the Bible and the Christian religion, much like Neitzche, and the following is another example. Here is what he wrote under "BIBLICAL BLASPHEMY."

"The Church tells us that the books of the Old and New Testament are divine revelation, and without this revelation we could not have true ideas of God.

The Deist, on the contrary, says that those books are not divine revelation; and that were it not for the light of reason and the religion of Deism, those books, instead of teaching us true ideas of God, would teach us not only false but blasphemous ideas of Him.

Deism teaches us that God is a God of truth and justice. Does the Bible teach the same doctrine? It does not.

The Bible says (Jeremiah xx, 7) that God is a deceiver. "O Lord (says Jeremiah) thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived. Thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed."

Jeremiah not only upbraids God with deceiving him, but, in iv, 10, he upbraids God with deceiving the people of Jerusalem.

"Ah! Lord God (says he), surely thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, ye shall have peace, whereas the sword reacheth unto the soul."

In xv, 18, the Bible becomes more impudent, and calls God in plain language, a liar. "Wilt thou (says Jeremiah to God) be altogether unto me as a liar and as waters that fail?"

Ezekiel xiv, 9, makes God to say - "If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet." All this is downright blasphemy.

The prophet Micaiah, as he is called, II Chron. xviii, 18-21, tells another blasphemous story of God. "I saw," says he, "the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the hosts of Heaven standing on His right hand and on His left. And the Lord said, who shall entice Ahab, King of Israel, to go up and fall at Ramoth Gilead? And one spoke after this manner, and another after that manner. "Then there came out a spirit [Micaiah does not tell us where he came from] and stood before the Lord [what an impudent fellow this spirit was] and said, I will entice him. And the Lord said unto him, wherewith? And he said, I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the Lord said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail; go out, and do even so."

We often hear of a gang of thieves plotting to rob and murder a man, and laying a plan to entice him out that they may execute their design, and we always feel shocked at the wickedness of such wretches; but what must we think of a book that describes the Almighty acting in the same manner, and laying plans in heaven to entrap and ruin mankind? Our ideas of His justice and goodness forbid us to believe such stories, and therefore we say that a lying spirit has been in the mouth of the writers of the books of the Bible."

Now, would not the Arminians who decry the teaching of the bible on God's sovereign decree regarding all things, of his sovereign election of some to salvation, not be more honest and less contradictory simply to do as Paine and aver that Paul was a Predestinarian but that he here was teaching nothing but nonsense?

Besides, it is obvious how impotent are Arminian Free Will apologists in being able to withstand the "reasoning" of Paine.

It is sad that most Christians would not know how to handle gainsayers and blasphemers such as Paine. Ironically, though Paine thought Paul was a blasphemer, together with Jeremiah and the prophets, it is actually Paine who is the blasphemer in his denial of God's sovereignty over him.

Paine has his disciples today who spout the same venom against the word of God. With such as these, I can say, as did Paul to the false teachers in his day, "to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you." (Galatians 2:5)

Like Paul said to Titus, in regard to them, "whose mouths must be stopped." (Titus 1:10,11)

But, at least Paine was honest in seeing the truth of what Paul taught in Romans nine. Arminians, they also abhor the Calvinist conception of God, but they do it under cloak, pretending to believe what Paul taught in that chapter, when really they do not, so they take an underhanded approach, and work to change the obvious meaning of the text.

How would you rebut the diatribe of Paine?

Confession Unto Salvation

The following is part of a friendly internet debate between Kent Brandenburg and Tom Ross, two men I admire greatly. Kent and I have corresponded.

Kent Wrote:

"Are the "confess" of Romans 10:9-10 and the "call" of Romans 10:13 pre or post justification? Or in other words, is there a "sinner's prayer" in Scripture? I'm not talking about a 1-2-3 pray-with-me easy-believism, but a legitimate cry for spiritual deliverance from sin and Hell through Jesus Christ?

Our friend and brother in Christ, Thomas Ross, says "no" to the above questions. I say "yes." What says Scripture?

So far, we've mainly looked at how the context of Romans 10:9-13 supports the pre-justification confess or call. Now we'll get into the actual text of the verses.

A pivotal point for the post-justification confess or call, one that buttresses its entire argument, is that "saved" in these verses is ultimate salvation, not immediate salvation. When I say "ultimate," I mean final salvation, that is, deliverance from the penalty and presence of sin, from God's eternal wrath and punishment at His judgment (Mt. 10:22; Mk. 13:13; 13:20; 16:16; Acts 15:11; Rom. 5:9-10; Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 3:15; 1 Cor. 5:5). When I use "immediate," I mean the deliverance the very moment that someone believes in the Lord from a position outside of Christ, a position of sinfulness, and from the power of sin unto the sure prospect of ultimate salvation (Lk. 8:12; 9:56; 17:19; John 3:17; Acts 4:12; 16:30-31; Rom. 11:14; 1 Cor. 7:16; 9:22; 2 Thess. 2:10; 1 Tim. 1:15; 2:4).

It is true that the word translated "saved" (sodso) can be something other than immediate salvation. When the term is used in the past tense (aorist; Rom. 8:24; Eph. 2:8-9; Tit. 3:5) or the present tense (1 Cor. 1:18; 15:2) it isn't ultimate salvation.

Here in Romans 10:9-13, we see the future tense, so the question here is whether the future tense is immediate or ultimate salvation. Some times the future tense is speaking of immediate salvation and other times it is talking about ultimate salvation. Some of those times it is easy to tell from the context which it is, but other times it is more difficult.

As do I, Thomas Ross hates easy-prayerism. He starts into this passage looking through the lens of that hatred, resulting, I believe, in a rush to judgment. He misses what I am about to show you that obliterates his position. In his paper, An Exegesis and Application of Romans 10:9-14 for Soulwinning Churches and Christians, he misses the key grammatical issue to determine whether Romans 10:9-13 are ultimate or immediate salvation. My hope is that his sincere desire for the truth will cause him to abandon his post-justification confess or call position.

The verb form for "saved" (sodso) in this verse is future indicative passive. This form occurs twenty times in the New Testament. The twenty occurrences can be divided into the two categories of ultimate and immediate salvation. Romans 10:9 has a conditioned statement as its dependent clause, which contains the third class condition (ean) and two subjunctive verbs ("shalt confess" and "shalt believe"). Four other references share the same construction and clearly refer to immediate completion of the main verb upon the fulfillment of the condition (cf. Matthew 9:21; Mark 5:28; John 10:9; and 1 Timothy 2:15). Six of the references use the future indicative passive form of sodso and clearly speak of final salvation. However, each of those six is communicated with an aorist participle (cf. Matthew 10:22; 24:13; Mark 13:13; 16:16; Romans 5:9-10). The five references with the aorist subjunctive are always immediate. If Romans 10:9-10 is ultimate, it would be an exception. What we have here, however, are two patterns. The aorist subjunctive pattern is immediate salvation. The aorist participle pattern is ultimate salvation.

Against the grammatical pattern, in a completely exceptional way, Thomas Ross identifies "thou shalt be saved" as ultimate salvation. Because of the grammatical construction, it can't be. It must be immediate salvation. If you read his above paper, you will see that he misses this in his study. I have more evidence to come for immediate salvation, but in the meantime, I call on him to abandon his ultimate salvation position for the immediate salvation view of Romans 10:9.

My comment (the first) to brother Brandenburg was as follows:

Dear Brother Brandenburg:

I will be reading the article by Tom. I am interested in this issue and how it relates to the ongoing debate over the "ordo salutis." I think "shall be saved" may refer to regeneration, justification, sanctification, and to final glorification. I am also interested in this topic of "easy believism" and the praying of the sinner's prayer.

I think people are going way too far in decrying the sinner's prayer and condemning "easy believism."

God bless

Stephen

Tom Ross wrote:

"SINCE ONE DOES NOT NEED TO CONFESS CHRIST PUBLICALLY BEFORE MEN, OR SAY ANYTHING WITH ONE’S MOUTH, IN ORDER TO BE JUSTIFIED, BUT ONE IS JUSTIFIED BY FAITH ALONE, THE CONFESSION IS POST-JUSTIFICATION. (AS A. T. ROBERTSON TERSLY SAYS ON ROMANS 10:9, “Faith precedes confession, of course.”) BUT ONE WHO DOES NOT CONFESS WILL NOT GO TO HEAVEN, BECAUSE ALL THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED HAVE BEEN GIVEN A NEW HEART AND SO THEY WILL CONFESS CHRIST BEFORE MEN."

Brandenburg said:

"I'm asking here if confess and call are pre or post justification, something very specific. If "saved" is immediate, then his argument falls at this point. This is where all his verbiage, which forms a gigantic cloud here tends toward confusion.

The better question would be: Is saving faith one that does not confess Jesus as Lord? Brother Ross says that making confessing Jesus as Lord a prerequisite to justification means salvation by works. I will deal with this, however, all in future posts, as I had already planned.

I believe it is faith alone that is a pre-requisite, which is confessing, is drinking, is eating, is confessing, is calling, and is repenting—those all make up the composite of faith that we see in the coherency of the gospel message. None of those are works. Those are all the grace of God. Christ also tells the unbeliever to count the cost (Luke 14:28). Jesus also says we must lose our life (Matthew 16:25). That isn't a work either, but based on Brother Ross' interpretation, these are all works that must precede justification in addition to the non-work of faith in order to be justified. This is important, because here is a clear difference on this issue from Brother Ross and me. He says that an unbeliever must work for justification. I don't believe so. I believe those are all the work of the mercy and grace of God—none of ourselves." (Are "Confess" and "Call" Post-Justification? part 3)


http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2008/03/romans-109-13-is-confess-and-call-post.html

(Highligting mine - SG)

Of course, I agree with brother Kent Brandenburg. I do respect Tom Ross and his able written defenses of Calvinism, but I think he shows leanings towards hyperism, however, in his view that the "salvation" that follows upon "calling upon the Lord" and "confessing" him as "Lord," with the heart and mouth, is some post regeneration/justification experience, some "salvation" other than initial salvation and rebirth.

I believe that the very moment a soul believes in Jesus he yells out, from his heart, to all who are around him, "Eureka!" It is automatic, spontaneous, and instantaneous.

Besides, I believe it is part of the preparatory work of the Spirit, in "drawing" the elect, to first teach them and give them understanding, and then, to either immediately, or at some later point in time, to cause them to cry out from their souls "Eureka!"

Also, I am thinking of making a list of all the texts that show, like Romans 10, how the Lord brings sinners to the point of sincerely asking to be saved, born again, forgiven, etc., prior to their actually being saved. But, clearly Romans 10 does justify us in telling dead alien sinners to call upon the Lord for regeneration.

For, it is obvious, that if the "salvation" that results from "calling" and "confessing Christ as Lord" cannot be regeneration, then this exhortation is only for the already justified and regenerated. Such a view says it is not scriptural to tell sinners to call upon the Lord to change their hearts.

Spurgeon - Begotten by Faith

Spurgeon said:

"Where there is no faith, there has been no quickening of the Holy Spirit, for faith is of the very essence of spiritual life."

(Faith Essential to Pleasing God, MTP, Sermon #2100, Vol. 35, 446).

"So Spurgeon's view is that regeneration neither precedes faith nor follows after faith -- rather, regeneration is the very creation of faith itself." (Bob Ross)

http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2006/03/bob-ross-regeneration-calv_114261719496018943.html

Calvin - Begotten By Faith

"In his comment on 1 Corinthians 13:13, Calvin says, "In fine, it is by faith that we are born again, that we become the sons of God -- that we obtain eternal life, and that Christ dwells in us.""


http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2006/03/bob-ross-regeneration-calv_114261719496018943.html

When And How Freed?

"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." (Romans 6: 16-18 KJV)

Where is regeneration before faith in these words? Where is faith after regeneration? Is it not put before it here? Were they first freed from sin and then yielded themselves to a new master? Were they freed from sin BEFORE they "obeyed" the gospel? Or were they freed from sin after faith? Were they "righteous" or "justified" before or after this "yielding"?

What does it mean to "yield" and to "obey" if it does not mean to believe and turn (repent)?

What kind of "regeneration" is it that does not "free" a man from sin?

More From Piper on the New Birth

Recently, in answer to a comment, I posted contradictory writings from John Piper on the new birth. I showed how he could write in one breath how regeneration precedes faith and then make statements that make faith a part or means of regeneration. Well, notice these statements from Piper.

"Faith is the way we experience being born of God."

"So we summed the entire message last week like this: In the new birth, the Holy Spirit supernaturally gives us new spiritual life by connecting us with Jesus Christ through faith." ("What Happens in the New Birth?" Part 2)

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2007/2522/

More contradiction in doctrine? Does this not contradict his statements that faith follows regeneration? You be the judge.

Logical Order vs. Temporal Order?

Those who promote the "born again BEFORE faith" error are often heard to say, after affirming such a proposition, "but 'before faith' only respects LOGICAL ORDER, not TEMPORAL ORDER," and believe that the stating of such a caveat shields them from being charged with acknowledging the existence of such characters as "regenerated or born again unbelievers."

If there is no actual priority to regeneration, as opposed to faith, then why the insistence of the "logical" order? If the logical theory is not true in actual practice, then why insist on the theory?

Also, consider the fact that those who promote the "born again before faith" view are the ones who use the adverbs of time, who insist on anteriority of regeneration over faith, who talk of what is "before" and what is "after," of what is "cause" and what is "effect." Can an effect be as old as the cause? Can a cause be logically "before" an effect without being temporally so? Why insist on using strict temporal language to describe a non-temporal event? Especially since the New Testament writers did not do so?

Really, it is what we call in debate a "dodge" or "evasion" for these Sophists to speak in this manner, to insist on "order," on "precedence," and then buffet such speech with the caveat - "But, really, they all happen simulaneously"!

But, I will deal more with such incongruities in my upcoming series "Hardshell Proof Texts."

Affirmative Proof Texts

The following scriptures are the main ones I would rely upon to prove the "born again before faith" view to be unscriptural. Do they all not teach that regeneration is by faith?

"For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." (I Corinthians 4: 15 KJV)

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." (James 1: 18 KJV)

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (I Peter 1: 23 KJV)

"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3: 26 KJV)

"And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." (Acts 15: 9 KJV)

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." (Ephesians 2: 8 KJV)

"Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference." (Romans 3: 22 KJV)

"To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." (Acts 26: 18 KJV)

"For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?" (II Corinthians 2: 15, 16 KJV)

"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10: 43 KJV)

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." (Acts 3: 19 KJV)

Yes, I have said that there are verses that put the "begetting" before faith and repentance, but I have also said that many put begetting after or upon believing, and I have affirmed from this that the bible writers did not follow a strict ordo salutis as regards the relationship of faith to birth.

So, if brother White ever decides he wants to debate this issue, at least with me, he can expect me to use these verses to overthrow his erroneous Hardshell Pedo-Baptist view of "regeneration." The same would be true with all others who share White's neo-Hardshell views.

"Reformed" Ordo Salutis In Essence

Is the "Reformed" view of "regeneration" and salvation "before faith," of "regeneration before justification," the Hyper Calvinist or hybrid "ordo salutis," whereby they follow the post reformation "hair-splitting" theologians in separating "regeneration" from "conversion," or the "new birth" from faith and repentance, not the cause of the novel view that divided up the "new birth" into distinct stages, either two or three, the first being "regeneration," the second being "conviction" or "awakening," and the third being the "new birth," or "deliverance"? I have a strong hunch that it is the cause.

I have said before that men like James White, and others who promote the "regeneration before faith" heresy, or neo-Hardshellism, really preach this paradigm model although they do not do so in so many words. They are inconsistent in saying that regeneration and the new birth are the same thing and yet teach that they are not really the same, for one is not yet "delivered" or saved, not yet converted, justified, or forgiven, until he has, after his "regeneration," come to believe, repent, and obey the gospel.

Many of these "Reformed" Baptists and Presbyterians promote the idea of "monergistic regeneration" and often refer people to the monergism.com website for articles on "Regeneration."

But, I have before posted these facts about the founder of this web page, facts which show that he believed in the Old Regular Baptist and Hardshell, or Kuyperian model of the "birth," which has these "stages" in it.

In an article titled - "Biblical Regeneration and Affectional Theology" - by John Hendryx, the writer said:

I. Regeneration is described as a spiritual new birth.

1. This is affirmed in the following New Testament passages: John 1:12-13; 3:3-8; I Corinthians 4:15; Philemon 10; James 1:18; I Peter 1:3,23; I John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1,4,18.

2. The embryonic stage of regeneration is what is called "quickening", and it is the work of the Holy Spirit alone.

3. The final stage of regeneration is delivery or birth, and it is the work of the Holy Spirit in dependence upon the Word as a means. Consequently, the spiritual knowledge conferred by illumination is the spiritual content or revelation (holy Scripture).

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/spirit_affections.html

Where is any of this scriptural? Where is the "new birth" divided up into these stages?

Notice that Hendryx makes the "first stage" a work "without means," that is, without the gospel or word of God.

This is the same view that Samuel Richardson espoused, and is the view of the first founders of the "Hardshell Baptists," and of the "Old Regular Baptists." The only difference seems to be that some of those who hold this model believe the word of God IS a means in all three stages of this "process," while others limit the use of the word of God to the third or final stage. It is the view of the so called monergists and of many in the "Reformed" camp, either Baptist or Presbyterian.

This is really the view of Steve Camp, in essence. It is the view of Tom Ascol and James White, in essence. Will they deny it? Would they not be more consistent to deny that "regeneration" was the same thing as being "born" or "delivered"?

Besides, why would they refer people to this web site, which clearly promotes the three stage birth model, and which make regeneration, essentially, something different from the new birth?

Discussion with Camponthis

The following back and forth exchange occurred at http://www.stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/ regarding the "pre-faith regeneration" or "born again before faith" view. Mike, who also previously engaged me at Teampyro also "weighed in."

I want to post the exchange here for I think it demonstrates the type of debate going on among Calvinists relative to this important issue.


Dear brother Camp:

How can you place regeneration and the new birth BEFORE faith and yet put justification, pardon of sins, and union with Christ, AFTER faith?

God bless,

Stephen


stephen garrett

Good to have you aboard my brother and thank you for your question.

Regeneration precedes faith and justification is by faith BECAUSE that is what Scripture clearly teaches (Titus 3:4-7; John 3:1-20; Roms. 5:1; 1 Cor. 15:1-11, Roms. 10:-17, etc.). Because of both I have the forgiveness and complete pardon of sins and therefore union with Christ Jesus my Lord in which He is not ashamed to call me His brethren (Heb. 2:11).I appreciate you.

Campi


Dear Steve:

I have been "on board" (so far as reading and visiting your site) for a few months now. You said:

"Regeneration precedes faith and justification is by faith BECAUSE that is what Scripture clearly teaches (Titus 3:4-7; John 3:1-20; Roms. 5:1; 1 Cor. 15:1-11, Roms. 10:-17, etc.)."

Please excuse me, but which of these passages teach that one is saved, born again, or regenerated, before he believes and repents?

God bless,

Stephen

stephen...I have been "on board" (so far as reading and visiting your site) for a few months now.

I know you have brother; I meant on this issue - good to have you weigh in. :-).

It is Titus 3:4-7.(from a previous entry)

When people ask me what is the heart of the doctrines of grace, I usually respond by saying one central essential thing: "salvation is of the Lord" (cp, Psalm 37:39; Jonah 2:9). That is the glory of our new life in Christ... it is all of Him; He saved us and not we ourselves. (Titus 3:5). It is all of grace (Eph. 2:8-9) for apart from we can't do anything (John 15:5); and before we are saved by His grace through faith in Christ alone, we were dead in trespasses and sin, by nature children of wrath, sons of disobedience, slaves to our own lusts, passions and desires (Eph. 2:1-3; Titus 3:3, Rom. 3:10-18).

The fallen sinner has no ability or inclination to believe prior to the new birth.

The Gospel is not merely an invitation but a command (1 John 3:23)Christ died for all our sins including unbelief.

Fallen Man has a mind at enmity with God; loves darkness, hates the light and does not have the Holy Spirit. "There is no one who seeks God" (Rom 3:11); Sinner would never turn to God without divine enablement and new affections.

Spiritually dead sinner needs new nature (mind, heart, will), regeneration.

Natural man is spiritually impotent and morally culpable for both original sin and actual sins committed. Our inability is not like a physical handicap or a drowning man for which we would not be culpable but, rather, it is like a man who cannot repay a squandered financial debt. Inability to repay, therefore, does not relieve us of the moral responsibility to do so.

Needs salvation to remove the offense we've made against a holy God and from the power and bondage of sin.

The natural man can contribute nothing towards his salvation. Faith is a response rendered certain following the efficacious work of the Holy Spirit.

We respond to God's unconditional decision. (Acts 13:48)

No Fallen man will create a right thought, generate a right affection, or originate a right volition that will lead to his salvation. We would never believe unless the Holy Spirit came in and disarmed our hostility to God. Therefore salvation is dependent on God's good pleasure alone (Eph 1:4, 5, 11), not something He sees in us.

Man's nature determines his desires/affections and give rise to the choices he makes. "No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit." Luke 6:4 Only Christ can "make a tree good and its fruit will be good."

(Also see John 8:34, 42-44; 2 Pet. 2:19)._______________God has the key in his hand. God's eternal counsel determines to whom the benefits of the atonement apply.

If God exercised His justice then none of us would stand since each of us has rebelled against an infinitely holy God. He owes us nothing and is under no obligation to save any person. Regeneration is, therefore, an act of pure, undeserved mercy because the justice we deserved, He poured out on His Son (thereby turning His wrath away from us).

After God makes one's heart of stone into a heart of flesh, no person wants to resist. By definition our desires, inclinations and affections have changed so we willingly and joyfully turn in faith toward Christ.

Apart from grace, there is no fallen sinner (unregenerate) who fits that description. A desire for God is not part of the old nature.

It is grace itself which makes us pray to God (Rom 10:20; Isa. 65:1).

To desire and seek God prior to the new birth is an impossible supposition. (Rom. 3:11; 1 Cor 2:14) It is the infusion and quickening of the Holy Spirit within us that we even have the faith or the strength to will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock and believe in the finished work of Christ.

The Command toward sinners to repent and believe does not imply ability. Divine intent is to reveal our moral impotence apart from grace (Rom 3:20, 5:20, Gal 3:19,24). The Law was not designed to confer any power but to strip us of our own.

God only helps those who cannot help themselves. (John 9:41)

Nothing in my hands I bring, simply to Thy Cross I cling.

Repentance is a gift of God. (2 Tim 2:25)

Campi


Dear Steve:

I still did not see that verse that said men were born again before faith. You gave some illogical reasoning from the doctrine of total depravity to try to prove it, but where did you do so? You misconstrue those verses on total depravity when you think that they imply that one must be first born again, apart from faith, before he can believe, seek God, repent, etc. Can't you find a verse that says plainly what you teach on this point? Yes, God does give or create a new heart in regeneration, but you have this new heart still in unbelief and impenitent!

Also, you have a man who is regenerated and yet in unbelief and impenitence! Where is the scripture for such a view of the new birth?

Also, since you put regeneration before faith, and salvation after faith, you have a man then who is regenerated but not saved! The same is true for forgivemess and justification. You have a man who is regenerated but who is still condemned, under wrath, and unforgiven. I find all this a bunch of nonsense and the fundamental view of the Hardshells, from whom I was able to be delivered.

I disagree that there is no seeking of God before regeneration. Where is the verse that says that? Romans 3 does not say that men only seek God after regeneration, but only that men cannot do this of themselves. All the grace given to the elect does not come before regeneration, but some grace goes before, in preparations, as Spurgeon and the other great Baptists taught.Recall the bones moving in the valley of dry bones. Were they alive while they were moving and before breath came upon them?

I may have more to add later, but time is pressing and this is all I have time for now.Let me thank you for the kind way you have welcomed me to your site. This is better than some other Calvinist sites.

God bless,

Stephen

Oops! That should be rather

"All the grace given to the elect does not come after regeneration, but some grace goes before, in preparations, as Spurgeon and the other great Baptists taught."

Also, does God not use the word of God in creating this new heart?

God bless,

Stephen


stephen g

Good to have you engaged here. This is good.

A few thoughts for you to possibly consider:

1. Man is dead in trespass and sin (Eph. 2:1)

2. He is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3)

3. No one seeks after God; no one does good (Roms. 3:10-18)

4. We are conceived in sin (Psalm 51:5)

5. Faith is not something that is produced internally by man as he responds to the truth claims of Jesus as an act of his own free volition (Eph. 2:1-9)

6. Faith comes by hearing, hearing by the Word of Christ (Rom. 10:10-17).

7. Corpses cannot confess or believe anything unless first brought to life (Titus 3:4-7); and no one may come to Him unless the Father first draws him (John 6:35-44).

8. Regeneration must precede faith (John 3:1-18)

9. Faith is a gift of God; so is the grace by which we are saved (Eph. 2:8-9).

10. Man does not cooperate in salvation at all; it is a sovereign act of a holy God done to us (2 Tim. 1:9)

11. It was promised for us in eternity past (Eph. 1:4-14) and secured in time (Heb. 2:9-18).

12. When we repent of sin, believe in our hearts and confess Jesus Christ as Lord of our lives - it is the instant fruit and byproduct of being regenerated in Christ by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:4-7; Roms. 10:9-10). For even repentance is the gift and kindness of the Lord to us.

13. IOW, salvation is all of grace; man cannot boast in anything except Christ Jesus our Lord. We do nothing to solicit our salvation. The gospel itself IS the power of God unto salvation (Roms. 1:16-17).

14. No man may confess Christ as Lord without the Spirit of God in him (1 Cor. 12:3)

15. This is a great salvation indeed (Heb. 2:1-4).

16. "I believe, I believe, cause He made me believe.' (Roms. 9:9-22). Amen?

He gave me His love when I deserved His enmity; He gave me His mercy when I only deserved His justice; and He gave me grace when I all I deserved was His wrath. I was dead and He made me alive. He saved me!Now, my only question for you dear brother, is why do you want to rob God of any of His glory by thinking your feeble depraved mind and heart is capable of choosing Him and cooperating in His sovereign act of grace to you? Is your faith in your faith? Or is your faith solely the byproduct of His working within you and granting you faith and repentance?

You seem to be hung up on a time frame rather than a truth frame. "Me thinks your view of God is too small..." (Luther).

As always, I appreciate you and your comments here. You are welcome anytime. I await your thoughts and thank you in advance for sharing them.

Salvation is of the Lord,

Steve
Col. 1:9-14

Mike Riccardi said...

It's been obvious for months that what Stephen Garrett is hung up on is that when we say that regeneration precedes faith, we say so about a logical order, and not a temporal order. So that none of us is saying that we have regenerated unbelievers. Temporally, these are simultaneous. Logically, regeneration precedes faith.

Check out the links from this page if there are any other questions.

Also find these words from Spurgeon:

And, my brethren, it is quite certain that no man ever begins the new birth himself. The work of salvation was never started by any man. God the Holy Spirit must begin it. Now, the reasons why no man ever started the work of grace in his own heart, are very plain and palpable: firstly, because he cannot; and secondly, because he will not.

The best reason of all is because he cannot--he is dead. Well, the dead may be made alive, but the dead cannot make themselves alive, for the dead can do nothing. Besides, the new thing to be created has no being. The uncreated cannot create. "No," but you say, "that man can create." Yes, but can hell create heaven? Then sin may create grace. What! Will you tell me that fallen human nature that has come almost to a level with the beasts, is competent to rival God; that it can emulate the divinity in working as great a miracle, and in imparting as divine a life as even God himself can give? It cannot. Besides, it is a creation; we are created new in Christ Jesus. Let any man create a fly, and afterwards let him create a new heart in himself; until he has done the lesser he cannot do the greater. (Source)

And RC Sproul:

The reason we do not cooperate with regenerating grace before it acts upon us and in us is because we can- not. We cannot because we are spiritually dead. We can no more assist the Holy Spirit in the quickening of our souls to spiritual life than Lazarus could help Jesus raise him for the dead.

When I began to wrestle with the Professor's argument, I was surprised to learn that his strange-sounding teaching was not novel. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield - even the great medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas taught this doctrine....These giants of Christian history derived their view from Holy Scripture. The key phrase in Paul's Letter to the Ephesians is this: "...even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have you been saved)" (Eph. 2:5). Here Paul locates the time when regeneration occurs. It takes place 'when we were dead.' With one thunderbolt of apostolic revelation all attempts to give the initiative in regeneration to man are smashed. Again, dead men do not cooperate with grace. Unless regeneration takes place first, there is no possibility of faith.

I appreciate the lengths you're going to, Steve (sjcamp), but this just seems to be SG's ax to grind. God speed you should you choose continue.

Dear Mike:

Your prejudicial accusations against me speak for themselves.

It is okay for you to go around telling folks that regeneration precedes faith and we are just supposed to sit by and say nothing?

Mike, there is more "noise" on this issue coming from you and the "reformed camp" than from those of us fighting that noise.

When you can prove your accusations, you will get a hearing.

How did you arrive at the conclusions you reached about me? If the Spirit does not convict you of your ill behavior and gross accusations, then I am sure nothing I say will do it.

Your talk about logical versus temporal order is a bunch of nonsense, as many others have pointed out. Of course, if you would like to debate it publicly, I am open to it.

God bless,

Stephen

Oh, by the way, Mike, you gave Steve Camp a way out of not engaging me, didn't you? You want him to follow your example, right?

He did not treat me as you have. We will see if he changes.I guess you know that "ignore" is the root of ignorance? I think you guys would love to ignore me and Bob Ross, hey?

In Christ,

Stephen

One other thing, Mike. Why don't you first try to answer some of the difficulties your pre-faith view of regeneration contains, and which I have pointed out in my responses to brother Camp and in my baptistgadfly blog.

I don't blame you for ignoring such refutations of the pre-faith view of the new birth.

Stephen

Steve Camp

Mike R

Thank you my brother for some very good points made here. The Sproul quote especially was spot on.

Keep on,

Steve


Stephen G

Thank you also for not abandoning ship on this important discussion. It is obvious that you and Mike have some history on this issue. But that's cool. I am glad you are both here and reasoning together from the Word of God.

Regeneration preceding faith I believe not only goes to sovereignty and election in salvation, but to the greater issue of the nature of man. Sproul told me years ago that the hardest letter in the TULIP to deal with was the L, but the T. Total depravity (or as I prefer, total inability) is THE issue on this. When we get that correct, this issue falls in place.

Do we really believe that man is capable of deciding - making a decision that determines his eternal destiny - that of his own free will and volition responds to the evidence once presented to him. IOW, God is a bystander and by the cross has created an atmosphere and opportunity for salvation, but actually redeemed no one on the cross and now waits for man to decide as a waiting suitor for his bride to give an answer to the proposal for marriage.

OR, do we see man as being acted upon by a holy God; who has prepared some vessels as vessels of mercy before the foundation of the world; yet in time, Jesus Christ as our divine substitute on the cross, not became our propitiation, but actually redeemed His elect there. So that by the sovereign drawing and electing love of God the Father, and the regenerating ministry of the Holy Spirit, we are by regeneration and upon the hearing of the gospel, granted saving faith and the grace to repent of our sin and confess Jesus Christ as Lord unto salvation where by we are justified and given by imputation the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ.

Stephen, you are welcome here and it is a joy to engage you. Mike you too; I welcome any corrections or encouragements on this issue.

Lastly, contrary to popular opinion, this great doctrine doesn't minimize my burden for evangelism, but it increases my boldness and joy in proclaiming the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

As Paul would say, "by the terror of the Lord we persuade men." AND, "I do all things for the sake of the elect."

What a joy to herald His gospel; calling all men everywhere to repentance; to believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. And then, to be a spectator of God's grace and see how He produces the greatest miracle - the new birth.

Amen? That is our joy, humble privilege, and great hope.

SDG,


Brother Camp:

You said - “The fallen sinner has no ability or inclination to believe prior to the new birth.”

Brother, I have believed in total depravity nearly all my Christian life and have defended it in public debate many times. You seem to think that if one believes that faith precedes regeneration then he cannot believe in total depravity. Where did you get that idea? Most of the great Calvinists who preached total depravity also taught that faith was God’s creation and means of bringing about the new birth. You then later wrote - “Do we really believe that man is capable of deciding - making a decision that determines his eternal destiny - that of his own free will and volition responds to the evidence once presented to him.”

Steve, here is your problem. You seem to think that God cannot make faith a condition or prerequisite to the new birth because man has no ability. Here you argue from the Pelagian premise, a premise you later deny, that a “command implies ability.” You later wrote - “The Command toward sinners to repent and believe does not imply ability.” You seem “wishy-washy” on this point.

Man’s ability has nothing to do with it. God does not address men according to their abilities. Recall Ezekiel preaching to the dry dead bones. His preaching to them did not imply any ability in themselves, did it? God calls upon dead sinners to choose Christ and be regenerated (saved) and this does not imply any ability. Surely you see this, so why make arguments like this? You also said - “Sinner would never turn to God without divine enablement and new affections.” Again, what Calvinist who puts faith before regeneration, men like Spurgeon, Pendleton, Broaddus, etc., denied total inability? You think that I am in error on regeneration through the gospel, or through faith in the gospel, because I do not understand “total depravity” or “total inability,” but I think it is you who misunderstand the topic, and have imbibed Pelagian notions.

You also wrote - "No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit." Luke 6:43 Only Christ can "make a tree good and its fruit will be good." Brother, when I was with the Hardshells, I heard these kinds of arguments all the time. Who denies that only Christ can make a tree good? The question is simply this - “does he use the gospel to effect that change?” And, did not Jesus say to some bad trees - “make the tree good”? And, to “make clean the inside as well as the outside”? By your interpretation Christ is doing what you condemn, commanding these sinners to make their hearts right with God. And really, Jesus is simply repeating what God had said in many places in the Old Testament, where he tells totally depraved sinners, those “dead” in sins, to “make you a new heart” and to “circumcise your hearts to the Lord,” does he not?

You also wrote - “Christ died for all our sins including unbelief.”

What are you saying by this? That one of the elect can be an unbeliever and still be saved?

You wrote - “Repentance is a gift of God. (2 Tim 2:25)”

Who denies this? But what you deny is what the bible says about “repentance is UNTO life.” Your view would make the verse say - “repentance FROM life.”

You then said:

“A few thoughts for you to possibly consider:

1. Man is dead in trespass and sin (Eph. 2:1)

2. He is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3)

3. No one seeks after God; no one does good (Roms. 3:10-18)

4. We are conceived in sin (Psalm 51:5)5. Faith is not something that can be produced internally within man”

Now, brother Steve, a man can believe all this and still believe that seeking and faith precede regeneration. You continue:

“6. Faith comes by hearing, hearing by the Word of Christ (Rom. 10:10-17). 7. Corpses cannot confess anything unless first brought to life (Titus 3:4-7); and no one may come to Him unless the Father first draws him (John 6:35-44).”

Here is where you contradict yourself. You argue from the Pelagian premise, a premise you deny. Don’t you see your contradiction here? If you reject the Pelagian idea that a command implies ability, then why do you always come back with the argument that these commands to believe and repent imply ability?

Also, we are said to be “begotten through the gospel” (I Cor. 4: 15). Is this not begotten through faith in the gospel?

Corpses also cannot rise up out of the grave but they are still commanded to “rise from the dead,” are they not? Your error on “coming to Christ” is evident here. Notice that you make “coming to Christ” to not be regeneration or the new birth! That is unbelievable. You say the “drawing” is regeneration, but the coming is not! Notice that your view says a man can be “drawn” but who has not yet come to Christ.

You continue:

“8. Regeneration must precede faith (John 3:1-18)”

Which verse says that “regeneration must precede faith”? The passage you cite show that Christ equated being “born again” with coming to faith! Jesus put the “salvation” (new birth) after faith in these verses, does he not? Does he say that men must be first saved in order to believe or does he say that men believe in order to be saved?

You next say:

“9. Faith is a gift of God; so is the grace by which we are saved (Eph. 2:8-9).”

But, I agree with this and have preached it all my life, as did Spurgeon, and yet he and I both have taught that this faith that God gives is the means for bringing about the wonderful transformation we call regeneration or the new birth. Does not Paul say that we are saved by grace THROUGH FAITH? We are saved (regenerated) by the gospel, by faith in it. So, this passage does not help you in your salvation before faith view.

You then say:

“10. Man does not cooperate in salvation at all; it is a sovereign act of a holy God done to us (2 Tim. 1:9)”

What do you mean by “cooperate”? Did Lazarus “cooperate” when he came out of the grave? When did he become alive? Was it simply when Christ spoke the words, or was it when the words took affect in Lazarus? Do you deny that there is obedience to any divine command in regeneration? It seems not. So, lets just substitute the word obedience for the word cooperation and see if you and I can agree. If we do, your above statement would read as follows:

“Man does not obey God’s command in salvation at all.” Also, you seem, by your definition of things, that “regeneration” is strictly something God does and experiences, and does not include anything the sinner experiences or does. Who was it that did the coming out of the grave, Lazarus or Christ? You next say:

“11. It was promised for us in eternity past (Eph. 1:4-14) and secured in time (Heb. 2:9-18).”

Who denies this? Certainly not I. And, the belief that faith is sovereignly given to the elect, through gospel preaching, and that this faith initiates the new birth, does not deny it.

You say next:

“12. When we repent of sin, believe in our hearts and confess Jesus Christ as Lord of our lives - it is the instant fruit and byproduct of being regenerated in Christ by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:4-7; Roms. 10:9-10).”

Well, you may believe this, but many of your “Reformed” buddies do not always affirm this. Many of them, when pressed on the matter, will tell you that many infants are regenerated, and is not an “instant” fruit. Do you believe in infant regeneration as Wayne Grudem?

That is all you see faith to be, a mere “byproduct” of regeneration? Here is your great error! You fail to see how faith is an essential part of the new heart and life of the reborn sinner.

You say next:

“13. IOW, salvation is all of grace; man cannot boast in anything except Christ Jesus our Lord. We do nothing to solicit our salvation. The gospel itself IS the power of God unto salvation (Roms. 1:16-17).”

Here again, I must ask, how what I believe about faith and its relation to regeneration, contradicts the idea that salvation is of grace and all by the power of the Lord? But, notice how you contradict yourself. You say the gospel is the power of God UNTO salvation. Do you believe this salvation is regeneration? Apparently not. Do you believe that the gospel is the power of God to salvation to anyone but to those who believe it? This passage teaches against your view that says men must first be saved before they can believe the gospel. You continue:

“14. No man may confess Christ as Lord without the Spirit of God in him (1 Cor. 12:3)15. This is a great salvation indeed (Heb. 2:1-4).16. "I believe, I believe, cause He made me believe.' (Roms. 9:9-22). Amen?”

Yes, amen! Who denies this among Calvinists who believe we believe the gospel in order to be regenerated?

"He gave me His love when I deserved His enmity; He gave me His mercy when I only deserved His justice; and He gave me grace when I all I deserved was His wrath. I was dead and He made me alive. He saved me!”

Are you not fighting a “straw man” here, my brother?

You next write:

“Now, my only question for you dear brother, is why do you want to rob God of any of His glory by thinking your feeble depraved mind and heart is capable of choosing Him and cooperating in His sovereign act of grace to you? Is your faith in your faith? Or is your faith solely the byproduct of His working within you and granting you faith and repentance?”

Steve, this is all misrepresentation, is it not? This is your building of a “straw man.” Here you argue Pelagian principles! The very thing you earlier denied! You said a “command does not imply ability” and now you are arguing the same point in order to destroy what I have said! How am I robbing God? It seems to me that it is your view of things that does this. If teaching that men are begotten through believing the gospel robs God of his glory, then Paul was guilty of it. You then said:

“You seem to be hung up on a time frame rather than a truth frame.”

No, ironically, you are the one hung up on the “time frame”! Lol You all insist that regeneration must occur before faith! This is laughable, Steve. You then wrote:

"Me thinks your view of God is too small..." (Luther).”

Well, that was certainly “hitting below the belt,” hey? Brother, if you would read my Calvinistic writings, I think you would retract that statement. I could also come back and say that your God is too small who cannot give faith to a sinner that brings about regeneration.

You then said:

“As always, I appreciate you and your comments here. You are welcome anytime. I await your thoughts and thank you in advance for sharing them.”

Well, you have them. But, may I ask you to go back and respond to some of the things I have written in my comments, questions and arguments you ignored? You next say:

“Stephen, you are welcome here and it is a joy to engage you. Lastly, contrary to popular opinion, this great doctrine doesn't minimize my burden for evangelism, but it increases my boldness and joy in proclaiming the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ”

I appreciate that very much. You have welcomed me much better than some, like some at “Teampyro,” and men like Mike. No, I do not remember engaging Mike specifically. He must have read some of the exchanges I have had with others on this topic on other web pages.

God bless, as always,

Stephen

Mike Riccardi said...

Steve, see what I mean?

Stephen, you get up in arms pretty quick, huh? Just admit it dude. This is your ax to grind, and you're willing to pick a fight with whoever will give you the time of day. You make statements like, "Many Calvinists held to the belief I hold," and document nothing. You also persist blindly in affirming that Spurgeon thought faith preceded regeneration, when the quote I produced in this very thread documents otherwise. You spout off about "Hardshellism" and Hyper-Calvinism that have definitions that only you define.

"How did you arrive at the conclusions you reached about me?...No, I do not remember engaging Mike specifically. He must have read some of the exchanges I have had with others on this topic on other web pages."

Don't flatter yourself. See this entire thread for how I arrived at my conclusions.

As soon as someone takes you to task, you hide behind the scores and scores of rants at your blog and say, "Read those." What I mean is, Frank Turk says the following:

Stephen Garrett:

If I can point you to resources in which Spurgeon talks about the ordo salutis, and he says something different than you have said here, will you admit you are wrong?

All other readers:

Dan and I are in agreement that Stephen Garrett is simply trying to grind an axe here, and I'd appreciate it that, until I'm done 'splainin' to him his mistake, if you would withdraw or simply take a breather that would help immensely.

Your response: I left the proof you asked for in my baptistgadfly blog if you are interested.

And then there's some whining about how we didn't treat you nicely.

Frank comes back:

Stephen -- So you wandered over here with the thought that nobody was going to object to your, um, interpretation of what SPurgeon was saying here? In spite of your previous interactions with Dan here at TeamPyro?Yeah, that is very convincing.

If I can point you to resources in which Spurgeon talks about the ordo salutis, and he says something different than you have said here, will you admit you are wrong?

Your response:

{crickets}

So that's the context for my response to you.

It's funny that you call the logical-temporal distinction nonsense. Do you not agree with Revelation 13:8 (cited by the blainemonster), that the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world? If that's true, how can we talk about temporal order when something happened outside of time?The same is true with the supra- and infralapsarian distinction. See Phil's excellent breakdown of this for more.

So, like I said on that other thread: I don't think there are periods of time where one is regenerated before coming to faith. But logically, one is given eyes to see, and then one sees. He does not see, and by virtue of his seeing gain his sight. But temporally, as soon as one is given his sight, he sees. There's no lapse of time in between. But logically, he gets his sight first.

Continuing, one is made alive, and then responds. He does not respond, and then by virtue of his response gain his ability to respond. One is born, and then believes. He does not believe, and gain his ability to be born.

Anyway, you ignored (what's that? the root of ignorance?) that then. Will you ignore it again? If you actually want to engage on this point, answer me three questions.

1. Does Ephesians 2 (in accordance with the rest of Scripture) teach that man is totally dead in his trespasses and sins? Yes or no.

2. Can dead men do anything before they're made alive? Can they even decide they don't like being dead, and that being alive seems like a good alternative? Yes or no.

3. Who can make men alive? Is it (a) God alone, or is it (b) God + man's cooperation? A or B.

Dear Mike:

You have the facts wrong about the exchange at Teampyro. I invite any to go back and read how it began and ended.I was basically told not to come back. That is why there was no more engagement. I don't engage those who have the kind of attitude that you and Frank Turk have displayed.

Bob Ross has posted many writings where Spurgeon did not teach that one was born again before faith. Mike, you are way to unkind and confrontational for my taste. You cannot keep the discussion from degenerating.

God bless,

Stephen

Mike Riccardi said...

Heh... no answers.

Here's Spurgeon three times from two sermons:

There never was a grain of such faith as this in the world, except in a regenerate soul, and there never will be while the world standeth. [...]Faith in the living God and his Son Jesus Christ is always the result of the new birth, and can never exist except in the regenerate. (Source)

And--Let me tell you, moreover, that this change is a supernatural one. It is not one that a man performs upon himself. It is not leaving off drinking and becoming sober; it is not turning from a Roman Catholic to a Protestant; it is not veering round from a Dissenter to a Churchman, or a Churchman to a Dissenter. It is a vast deal more than that. It is a new principle infused which works in the heart, enters the very soul, and moves the entire man. Not a change of my name, but a renewal of my nature, so that I am not the man I used to be, but a new man in Christ Jesus. It is a supernatural change—something which man cannot do, and which only God can effect; which the Bible itself cannot accomplish without the attendant Spirit of God; which no minister's eloquence can bring about—something so mighty and wondrous, that it must be confessed to be the work of God, and God alone. (Source)

Mike, just in case you forgot, here are some of the citations I gave from Spurgeon, remember?

Spurgeon:

"An equally remarkable thing is that the gospel calls upon men to do what they cannot do, for Jesus Christ said to this paralyzed man, “I say unto thee, Arise, take up thy bed and walk.” He could not rise, could not take up his bed, and could not walk, and yet he was bidden to do it. And it is one of the strange things of the way of salvation that --“The gospel bids the dead revive; Sinners obey the voice and live. Dry bones are raised and clothed afresh, And hearts of stone are turned to flesh.”

Listen to him as he makes solemn proclamation. “Thus saith the Lord, Ye dry bones live!” “Ridiculous, Ezekiel! they cannot live, why speak to them?” He knows they cannot live of themselves, but he also knows that his Master bids him tell them to live, and he does what his Master bids him. So, in the gospel, the minister is to bid men believe, and he is to say, “Repent ye, and believe the gospel.” For this reason alone do we say, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” The gospel bids you believe, albeit that you are dead in trespasses and sins. “I cannot understand it,” says somebody. No, and you never will till God reveals it to you; but, when the Lord comes and dwells with you, you will perfectly understand, and see how the exercise of faith on the part of the preacher of the gospel is a part of the divine operation by which dead souls are raised...The man, though he cannot take up his bed and walk, yet believes that he who told him to do it will give him power to do it, and he does take up his bed and walk: there is the whole of it in a nutshell. He believes, and acts on that belief; and he is restored. And that is the whole plan of salvation. You believe the gospel, and act upon the truth of it, and you are saved—saved the moment you accept the witness of God concerning his Son Jesus Christ.

[Excerpts from Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 21, Year 1875, Sermon #1269, pages 703-706]

"If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate."

(Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Warrant of Faith, #531, page 532)

"You are to look to Jesus Christ upon the cross just as the poor serpent-bitten Israelites looked to the brazen serpent and lived. Your prayings will not do you a farthing’s worth of good if you refuse to trust Jesus Christ...It is depending upon the Lord Jesus Christ alone which is the true vital act by which the soul is quickened into spiritual life."

(MTP, Volume 12, Year 1866, page 163).

"But while I remark upon these things, let me also say that to obey the precept “Believe and live” is certainly a great deal more effectual to the soul’s salvation than all the sacrifice and all the fat of rams which you can offer...I would not give a penny for a wagon-load of them. The whole of them are just what Paul calls them --”refuse.” He says, “I count them but dung that I may win Christ, and be found in him.” All your best works are but so much rubbish to be carted out of the way, and if you trust in them they will be your ruin, and all we say to you is, “BELIEVE AND LIVE.”

“Believe and live,” oh! that is too simple! What! just trust Christ and be saved on the spot? Why, it cannot be, you think. If we bade you do some great thing you would do it, but you refuse to do so simple a thing as to believe.

(MTP, Volume 12, Year 1866, pages 224, 225, 226).

By "Repentance unto life," I think we are to understand that repentance which is accompanied by spiritual life in the soul, and ensures eternal life to every one who possesses it. "Repentance unto life," I say, brings with it spiritual life, or rather, is the first consequent thereof. There are repentances which are not signs of life, except of natural life, because they are only effected by the power of the conscience and the voice of nature speaking in men; but the repentance here spoken of is produced by the Author of life, and when it comes, it begets such life in the soul, that he who was "dead in trespasses and sins," is quickened together with Christ; he who had no spiritual susceptibilities, now "receives with meekness the engrafted word;" he who slumbered in the very center of corruption, receives power to become one of the sons of God, and to be near his throne. This I think is "repentance unto life,"—that which gives life unto a dead spirit."

"Repentance unto life "is the act of salvation of the soul, the germ which contains all the essentials of salvation, which secures them to us, and prepares us for them."

"Then beloved, if you would have "repentance," this is my best advice to you—look to Jesus. And may the blessed Giver of all "repentance unto salvation" guard you from the false repentances which I have described, and give you that "repentance," which existeth unto life."

Repentance Unto Life - A Sermon (No. 44)

http://baptistgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/05/not-welcomed-at-pyromaniacs.html

In Christ,

Stephen

Oh, I also forgot this good citation from Spurgeon.

"This new birth, this regeneration, is a great puzzle to many poor sinners. One asks, “How can I make myself a new creature in Christ?” Of course, you can do nothing of the kind. This is a miracle; it is as much a work of God to make us children of light as it was to make light at the first.

Only God can work this miracle; but mark you this, there never was a soul yet that truly believed in Christ, but at the same time it underwent the change called the new birth or regeneration.

Christians have often been asked about which is first, faith or regeneration, belief in Christ or being born again.

I will tell you when you will answer me this question, -- When a wheel moves, which spoke moves first?

“Oh, they all start together!“ say you.

So these other things all start together, whether it be the hub of the wheel, which is regeneration, or the spokes of the wheel, which are faith, and repentance, and hope, and love, and so on; when the wheel moves, it all moves at once.

If thou believest in Jesus Christ and him crucified, in the moment that thou believest, this great change of nature is effected in thee; for faith has in itself a singularly transforming power. It is a fact in everyday experience that, when a man comes to believe in his master, he becomes at once a better servant. A person whom I disliked, because I suspected him, becomes at once pleasing to me as soon as I trust him. So, faith towards God in itself produces a total change of mind in the man who has it.

But, beside that, there goes WITH FAITH a divine energy which changes the heart of man."

(Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 41, page 235, Despised Light Withdrawn).

How about one more good citation from Spurgeon? Can you handle it and say amen?

"The act of TRUSTING Jesus Christ is the act which brings a soul into a state of Grace and is the mark and evidence of our being bought with the blood of the Lord Jesus. . . . See, then, the FOLLY of persons talking about being regenerated who have no faith! It cannot be! It is IMPOSSIBLE! . . . WITHOUT FAITH THERE CAN BE NO REGENERATION."

(Open Heart for A Great Saviour, C. H. SPURGEON, Sermon #669, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 12, 1866)

Mike Riccardi said...

1. Exactly. That only proves my point. How can the dead be revived? By reviving themselves? No. They must be given a nature to obey a command. They must be made alive.

2. Again, exactly. They can't live. Why would you tell them to live? Because, regeneration comes by the preaching of the gospel (1Pet 1:23-25). So you preach the gospel to all, and call all to believe. If God chooses at that time, He regenerates one of His elect by the preaching of His word. Then that person believes, gets up, and is restored.

3. Again, making my point. We don't preach to the regenerated. There are no people who are regenerated and who aren't saved. There's no temporal distinction, only a logical one. Spurgeon is just making the point I've made twice already on this thread and at least once on another thread with you: There's no time in between regeneration and salvation. Yet one logically precedes the other.

The rest of them confuse "life" with regeneration. The life he's talking about is the eternal life as opposed to death. I responded to this on the other thread. This is what I said:

SG: Do you deny that Spurgeon believed that it was scriptural to reverse the order and say to sinners "repent and live"?

MR: This is almost a technicality. I'm much more comfortable with "Repent and be saved." The only time "Repent and live" is used in the Bible it's in Ezekiel 18, in which "live" is used parallel to "be saved," as it's contrasted with the eternal death of the wicked. It's like saying, repent and don't die eternally.

Think about it with the seeing metaphor. "Repent and live," is like saying, "See, and read this book." Seeing and being able to read are the same thing. But you can't read unless you're able to see. You've got to see before you can read. You don't prove that you can read (while blind) and then get your ability to see.

Oh, and by the way, since I must have read that other thread wrong -- the one I was participating in! -- there's also this thread that helped me draw my conclusions.

Steve, any comments?

That last post was for your first post of misunderstanding Spurgeon. I'll deal with the next two now.

From the second post, all of these are supporting what I've already said: that these are temporally simultaneous. So Spurgeon speaks of these happening simultaneously related to time.

But, when he's not speaking according to time, when he's speaking according to a logical order, he calls faith the result of regeneration, and the the evidence, which I've documented here.

So... what do you say to that?

The act of TRUSTING Jesus Christ is the act which brings a soul into a state of Grace and is the mark and evidence of our being bought with the blood of the Lord Jesus. . . . See, then, the FOLLY of persons talking about being regenerated who have no faith! It cannot be! It is IMPOSSIBLE! . . . WITHOUT FAITH THERE CAN BE NO REGENERATION."

Again, this is exactly what I've said. There is no regenerated person who is not saved. The order we're talking about is logical, not temporal. You insist on reading the temporal as logical. As long as you confuse these, you'll remain confused. When you distinguish them, you'll step back into orthodoxy.

I'm going to have to leave for at least awhile now. I'll check back later to see if any of the (only 3) questions I asked get answered. If not, I'll have to refuse interaction here further. If you want, Stephen, you can email me if you'd prefer talk about this privately. My address is in my profile.

But in your repeated appeals to Bob Ross, I'm beginning to understand from where you've imbibed your misconceptions. Semi-relatedly, for anyone interested, James White has some stuff about his interactions with Ross on his website, aomin.org. On there, one of the YouTubes has James White explaining the same things Steve and I have tried to explain to Stephen. The whole video is instructive about the kind of men we're talking about here and how they handle the word of God, but particularly relevant is White's explanation beginning at 12:36 in the video. He explains it and then shows how this is in identical accord with the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. If one was so inclined, he could find the language in the LCBF on these matters almost identical to the language of the Westminster Confession. And so this is not "Hardshellism," "neo-Hardshellism," "HyperCalvinism," or any such thing other than historic orthodoxy. The relevant portion eventually tapers off at around 17:26, but as I said, the whole video might be illuminating.

Mike:

For one, I have already answered your questions, for they were 1) the same questions that Steve C. put to me and which I responded to, and 2) Spurgeon answered well for me, did he not?

About the White video. You have to be kidding me! I think you should visit the "flyswatter" and get Bob's take on the video. I watched it! I have also a different take on it and plan to write about it as soon as I can get away from engaging you here!

Brother, I say this not unkindly, but you just do not know what Hardshellism is for you are mighty close to it. Believe me I know Hardshellism.

And, since you have read some of my recent posts, why don't you respond to the short write up on comparing I Cor. 4: 15 with I John 5: 1 and answer the question - "Are we begotten through believing the gospel"?

Yours in Christ,

Stephen

Mike, you said: “Stephen, you get up in arms pretty quick, huh? Just admit it dude. This is your ax to grind, and you're willing to pick a fight with whoever will give you the time of day.”

See what I mean? Is this the way to have a gentleman’s discussion? Throw out unjust characterizations? Accuse? Provoke? I don’t think I have “gotten up in arms” at all. If you recall, this conversation with Steve Camp began the same way my discussion began with Dan at Teampyro. Steve wrote an article on “Justification by faith.” He made the statement that regeneration was before faith and yet that forgiveness, justification, and salvation, were after faith. I simply asked him about this. How is that “getting up in arms”? Then, when Steve responded, how was my response to him a “getting up in arms”? Also, why did you not say the same about Steve? Was he not “getting up in arms”? What is your criteria for judging when one “gets up in arms”? Also, calling me “dude” is also not a gentlemanly way to speak to a brother in Christ, is it? It is not the best way to begin a discussion, is it? Your youth and immaturity in Christ shows here.

My “ax to grind”? Have you not an ax to grind too? Have you not been “grinding” it fairly hard? I don’t think I am the one who has lowered the level of discussion here. I have sought to keep all discussions to the scriptures and facts, but you just want to make “ad hominem” attacks. You next accuse me of “willing to pick a fight.” Why, because I asked Steve to explain himself and because we have discussed this? Why can’t you follow Steve’s example? Where did he make the kind of accusations that you have or have uttered such ad hominem statements?

Look at your tone in the words you spoke to me and about me. Are they not harsh? Bitter? Unforgiving and unkind? Uncharitable?

You next ask me these questions, the same kind Steve asked. But, since you want me to address them specifically, it will be easy.

1. Does Ephesians 2 (in accordance with the rest of Scripture) teach that man is totally dead in his trespasses and sins? Yes or no.

Yes.

2. Can dead men do anything before they're made alive? Can they even decide they don't like being dead, and that being alive seems like a good alternative? Yes or no.

Yes, he can. See Ezekiel’s bones move before they receive breath and life!

3. Who can make men alive? Is it (a) God alone, or is it (b) God + man's cooperation? A or B.

Only God can make men alive, but he uses gospel preachers. (Acts 26: 18) Peter raised the dead, did he not? Also, did not Ezekiel? Regeneration is the result of a sinner obeying the command to live, to believe, and to repent.

God bless,

Stephen

SJ Camp said...

Stephen

Regeneration is the result of a sinner obeying the command to live, to believe, and to repent.

Then regeneration is dependent on man; biblical regeneration is a sovereign work of God upon spiritually dead men whereupon they will believe, repent, and obey the command to live.

I love Him because He first loved me!

Steve

Dear brother Camp:

You cited these remarks of mine:

"Regeneration is the result of a sinner obeying the command to live, to believe, and to repent."

Then, you said in response:

"Then regeneration is dependent on man; biblical regeneration is a sovereign work of God upon spiritually dead men whereupon they will believe, repent, and obey the command to live.I love Him because He first loved me!"

I am a little let down with you with this reply. I took you as better informed on Calvinism than this reply shows. Is it your position then that there is no command from God to the dead sinner to live? There is no voice of the Son of God commanding the dead to rise? Does God not say to men, in the gospel, “Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee ligh”? (Eph. 5: 14)

Did not Jesus become the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him? (Hebrews 5: 9)

Does God not command men to repent? And, is repentance not unto life?Why does believing that sinners are saved by obeying the command to live, repent, and believe, contradict the sovereignty of God? Our Baptist forefathers saw no contradiction. The reason why any dead sinner obeys the command to live, believe, and repent, is because the sovereign power of God attends the word in the case of the elect, which causes them to obey the command to live, repent, and be converted, etc.

Also, how does saying that the dead must obey the voice and command of God to come forth from the dead in order to be saved, and this occurs as a result of the sovereign power of God, exclude one from believing that God loved me first, and that this love caused me to obey his commands?

God bless,

Stephen

Dear Steve:

1. Is “be ye reconciled to God” a command or not? If one obeys this command, is he reconciled as a result?

2. Is “repent ye and be converted” a command or not? If one obeys this command, is he converted as a result?

3. When God said to the polluted infant “Live,” was that a command? Was the result of obeying the divine command the receiving of life from the dead?

4. Was it a command when God said to sinners - “make you a new heart”? And when he said “circumcise your hearts to the Lord”? What was the result of obeying these imperatives?

5. Was it a command of God when he said to sinners “hear and your soul shall live”? What was the result of obeying these words?

6. Was it a command of God when he said to sinners “look unto me and be ye saved”? What was the result of obeying these words?

7. Was it a command of God when he said to dead sinners “awake, rise from the dead, and Christ will give you light”? What would be the result of this obedience?

8. Was it a command of God when Jesus said to the paralytic man - “stretch forth thine hand”? What was the result of this obedience?

9. Was it a command of God when Jesus said to Lazarus “Come forth!”? What was the result of Lazarus’ obedience?

Obedience can be both passive and active. We are acted upon, as the elect, and drawn effectually, or irresistibly, but in being drawn, we move towards Christ, and we are not considered as “drawn” to God till we have reached God and Christ. From your reply, you seem to think 1) There is no obedience of the dead to the command of Christ in the new birth, and 2) That “obedience” always implies free will, and the power of the creature apart from God and his power and grace? Don’t you know that obedience is part of what it means to be “called”? A “called” person is someone who has head a call and obeyed it. Correct?

Yours in love for the truth,

Stephen

Stephen

The command to repent of sin, be reconciled to God, to believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to deny oneself, take up your cross and follow Him, etc. are commands that are unmistakably associated with the gospel call. No question.

That is not under debate here nor the issue of this thread. BUT, what is important, is that unless God first acts upon the unbeliever - granting them saving faith and quickening their dead lives unto eternal life through regeneration by the Holy Spirit - salvation would not be possible.

cf, John 6:35-44; Eph. 1:4-14; Titus 4:4-7.

SJ Camp said...

Mike R

I have so greatly appreciated your tempered and biblical words you have contributed on this thread.

Spurgeon is just making the point I've made twice already on this thread and at least once on another thread with you: There's no time in between regeneration and salvation. Yet one logically precedes the other.

Amen.

Thank you my brother. Have a great Lord's Day

Grace and peace to you,

Steve
Col. 1:9-14