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."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Dear Stephen,
What if we looked at it like this- say regeneration is a ball, we will call it R, and that faith is a ball, we will call it F. We know that man is dead, so what God does is get these two balls to hit each other. God initiates or gets the R ball rolling to where it will hit the F ball that is stationary, now when these two hit which ball hits first?
I would say that they hit at the same time, yet if God had not put the R ball into motion and on course to hit the stationary F ball then nothing would’ve happened. We can then say that they happen at the same time, and we can say that without regeneration there would be no saving faith.
To God be the glory!
Dear Mitch:
I have "heard that one before," or "been there, done that."
I think this is nonsense and could only come from someone who is trying his best to speak out of both sides of his mouth.
Which "moved" first? Ball R! Did they both "move" AT THE SAME TIME?
Technically, ball R "hit" ball F, ball F did not "hit" anything.
This error in logic is called the error of equivocation, making two different words to mean the same thing, in one breath, and then making them the same in another.
So, such a little analogy proves nothing. Besides, as I have said, why insist on priority if there is in reality no priority?
Let me ask you this. When were you made "free from sin"? Was it in a regeneration that occurred before faith, or after believing the gospel?
God bless,
Stephen
That should be
"This error in logic is called the error of equivocation, making two different words to mean the same thing, in one breath, and then making them DIFFERENT in another."
Stephen
Dear Stephen,
I fail to see how you say that ball F didn’t “hit” anything? If F was not there than R would just keep going... I believed when an outside force “collided” with me and brought faith to me.
If the Spirit had not acted upon me then I would still be in my unbelief. Surely we can agree that God is the sole cause of our salvation and that He performs all that is necessary to bring us to faith and repentance? So God “moves” first, and then we respond.
Why “insist” on a priority? I am un-aware that I “insisted” on a priority anywhere in my comment to you. I was trying to give an analogy of what it would look like (the temporal and logical order). As far as I’m concerned I have no problem saying that they happen at the same time, human nature being what it is we always want to figure out which is first:)
The only thing that matters is that we are born from above. Reading some of your other articles on this site I see that you care deeply about this matter, I for one am indifferent too it. Whether someone is born before, during, or after does not keep me up at nights, the only thing that matters is that we are at some point born from above. You write with great zeal against “Hardshell’s”, but I have not seen you write much against the Arminian view. Perhaps this is why some say that it appears that you have an “axe to grind”.
Praise God, the source of our salvation.
"Collide" is a better word than hit, but still does not work. The word "collide" implies both are moving and they "hit" each other. But, in this case, both R & F are moving in order to "collide," so this word really doesn't work either, does it? This would be "synergism," right?
In the first analogy, what is moving is what "hits," the actor of the action of the verb, this being "R," but "F" does not "hit," for it only receives the action of the verb, being a "direct object" of the verb, so "F" does not "hit" R. Your illustration has them both hitting, so yes, "collide" would be better.
Yes, of course, God "moves" FIRST. Who denies this? Even among Arminians? The question is, what kind of first move is it? Another question is - can we say the ball "F" was "hit" if it does not show the effects of being hit?
I am not hung up on this point, except to show how hung up are the "reformed" and "hardshell" brethren on this point.
I do attack Arminianism. How much have you read of my blog? Yes, my my writings on this blog, since the beginning, has been to use it as a forum for writing my books, the first being the book on Hardshellism.
But, it is this Hyper Calvinism that has "killing effects" for evangelism of the lost. That is why I oppose it with such ferocity.
God bless and thanks for visiting and for your insights and comments.
Stephen
Dear Stephen,
A question that I’m hoping you can address for me as it pertains to this discussion. I have been focusing on Ezekiel since our conversation started; here are the passages in question from Ezekiel 36:25-32
25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.
29 I will also save you from all your uncleannesses: and I will call for the corn, and will increase it, and lay no famine upon you.
30 And I will multiply the fruit of the tree, and the increase of the field, that ye shall receive no more reproach of famine among the heathen.
31 Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall lothe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations.
32 Not for your sakes do I this, saith the Lord GOD, be it known unto you: be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel.
Here it appears that God regenerates before repentance and faith. I wonder what your thoughts are on these verses?
Praise be to God
Dear Mitch:
I do not see how anything in these verses puts regeneration before faith. Clearly the passage describes nearly the entire work of regeneration, which includes cleansing, either by bathing or by purging, includes faith and understanding, and repentance, being as Dr. Gill said, the essential elements of it.
Besides, God makes all this happen through the gospel, or through faith in it.
God creates faith which acts as "catalyst," of sorts, that, together with the power of the word and Spirit, births the person to new life in Christ.
Do not the New Testament passages put this cleansing as by faith?
Does God not use the gospel to make the new heart and new spirit?
Has God ever promised the Spirit to any but a believer? Where is the scripture that has the Spirit "given" to any but a believer?
Certainly, being a believer in divine preservation and in the saint's perseverence, I believe that regeneration ensures obedience and faithfulness to Christ, but even in this work of God, faith is a means, in the hand of God and the Spirit, to effect it, for we are "kept by the power of God THROUGH FAITH."
Notice how God puts the divorcing of the sinner from his idols as PREVIOUS to his being joined or married to the Lord. Notice how one first turns away from idols before he turns to the Lord. Can we say he is "regenerated" when he is half-turned? Or, is that even possible?
God bless, and again thanks for your comment and questions.
Stephen
Dear Stephen,
When I read these passages I see all the things that God does (cleanse us, new heart, new spirit) and then comes repentance.
25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.
29 I will also save you from all your uncleannesses: and I will call for the corn, and will increase it, and lay no famine upon you.
30 And I will multiply the fruit of the tree, and the increase of the field, that ye shall receive no more reproach of famine among the heathen.
31 Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall lothe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations.
32 Not for your sakes do I this, saith the Lord GOD, be it known unto you: be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel.
BTW, I forgot to answer how much of your writing I have read, I have read a fair amount of this blog. While I saw some posts that dealt with Arminian’s and Arminianism, I did not see any posts that discussed their order of salvation.
Praise be to God
Dear Mitch:
What is "repentance" but a "change of heart" or "mind"? How can you divorce the penitent state of mind from the new mind (heart) as you are anxious to do? Was not Calvin right to say that, is essence, repentance is regeneration?
I have answered your question about why so much of this blog is devoted to fighting Hyper Calvinism.
I have other blog sites (see links) that lists debates I have had with Arminians on their "ordo salutis."
You questions really open up a larger question, one I do not have time now to enter, and that concerns what is good and bad about the Arminian theology, especially as it effects evangelism.
Don't you think it important to battle the Pedos who talk of the regeneration of infants and of their fitness for baptism? Why do the "Reformed" Baptists cohort with baby sprinklers, men like Sproul?
I am all for the Spurgeon model on how to be a Calvinist and how to view regeneration and the "ordo salutis." I believe winning souls to Christ is more important than winning believers to Calvinism.
God bless,
Stephen
I wrote an extensive article on this that doesn't fit in this format ... here is the extremely shortened version ...
The WCF Chapter X II states that man "altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit ... ".
The word "passive" means "acted upon by an external agency (2) : receptive to outside impressions or influences" or "used to describe someone who allows things to happen or who accepts what other people do or decide without trying to change anything".
This means that technically, Calvinists are as much synergistic as non Calvinists.
Post a Comment