Snoeberger Review II

Snoeberger wrote:

"In Reymond’s discussion we find that the Word of God, while issuing as the general call, finds sudden efficacy when the sinner is regenerated, rendering the general call efficacious. If one is brutally technical, he could conclude that the Word is not precisely the instrument of regeneration, but only the sphere in which the Holy Spirit’s regenerating activity uniformly takes place. But it does not seem that this finely tuned theological understanding need to be expressed in equally finetuned grammatical structures in order to be regarded as accurate or true."

http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2002/Snoeberger.pdf

Thus, it seems clear to me, that both Snoeberger and Robert Reymond do not believe that the word of God is a means in bringing about regeneration or the new birth, and are therefore neo-Hardshells or Hyper Calvinists.

These professors do exactly what nearly all modern "Reformed" Calvinists, men like White, Piper, Sproul, do. They say, out of one side of their mouths - "we believe that the word of God or gospel is a means in regeneration or the new birth," and then you will find them saying elsewhere that it is not a means, "strictly," or "technically," speaking! By Snoeberger's own admission, if we can get the "Reformed" crowd to be "brutally technical," we will be able to get them to finally "shell down the corn" and say - "yes, we are Hardshells in that we don't believe regeneration is accomplished through means."

Notice how he mentions "finely tuned theological understanding"! Is this what Gene Bridges was talking about when he accused me of being ignorant of "theological terms," of the "Reformed" "jargon"? Who is the author of this "finely tuned theological understanding"? Was it the Holy Spirit? Paul? Peter? John? No! Snoeberger even concedes this, if I understand his last sentence (highlighted in red), that the scriptures do not show this same "fine tuning"! Man, does this say volumes!

I have called these "wise guys," these "Phd's," who gloat in their intellectual acumen, and who can count the number of angels who dance on the head of a pin, "hair splitting theologians."

All throughout the thesis paper of Snoeberger, he attempts to uphold a false premise, one that he and the Hardshells take to the scriptures, and to which they make the scriptures conform, and one which I wrote about recently under "Hardshell and Reformed Hermeneutics," wherein I defined this false premise as follows:

"Any text that puts "salvation," or any kind of "life," after faith and repentance, or after conversion, or after any act of the dead sinner, is not regeneration or the new birth, but some other kind or phase of salvation."

Why would they create this hermeneutical principle? Is it not because they have insisted, erroneously, that "regeneration" or the "new birth" must always precede faith and repentance? And, because "salvation" is always put AFTER faith and repentance in scripture?

But, I challenge all these Hyper Calvinists to cite one verse of scripture that shows that a man was saved before he believed in Christ or the gospel. Surely they can find at least one case, can they not? Further, I challenge them to tell us how "begotten by the gospel" does not mean "begotten by faith in the gospel."

I also want to ask all these "Reformed" Calvinists, those who are always talking about "monergistic regeneration," and who all recommend the web site of monergism.com, - "do you agree with Hendryx who says the new birth is in stages, and that the first stage (regeneration) is WITHOUT THE MEANS OF THE GOSPEL?"