Answer to Ligon's Comments

I received the following comment from Ligon Duncan regarding my review of his writings on regeneration preceding faith.

Here is what he wrote:

"I am looking forward to seeing your citations from Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, et al on this, Mr. Garrett. More importantly, I am looking forward to reading your Scriptural case for your views.

By the way, you have misrepresented my position, substantially. And your readers may want to know that I emphatically reject "hyper-Calvinism" (and I know what that term means), I unreservedly embrace the necessity of the free offer of the Gospel and the use of means in salvation, and I reject "Hardshellism."

My views pertaining to divine monergism in salvation and the necessity of human response (in faith and repentance) are what the great Baptist theologian Don Carson would call "compatibilism." God's sovereignty and man's responsibility are compatible, not contradictory. It's both/and not either/or."

Yours sincerely,

Ligon Duncan

Here is my reply

Dear Ligon:

I have numerous postings here in the Gadfly concerning Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Booth, Alexander, Sproul, Ascol, Grudem, etc. Look at these links.

Calvin

See here

And here

Grudem

See here

And here

And here

And here

And here

And here

Sproul

See here

And here

And here

Luther

See here

Booth

See here

And here

And here

Edwards

See here

And here

Alexander

See here

And here

And these miscellaneous posts:

See here

J. P. Boyce

See here

B. H. Carroll

See here

Spurgeon

See here

And here

Bill Ascol

See here

Do you agree with these men?

Schwertley

See here

Kuyper

See here

And here

Walvoord

See here

Smallman

See here

Perkins

See here

As far as my case against the pre-faith view of regeneration, just spend a little time here in the Gadfly and you will find plenty of scriptures that refute your Hyperism.

Why don't you try your hand first on John 5: 40 and John 1: 12?

As far as your not being a Hyper Calvinist, that can be determined quite easily. Let me interrogate you a little and we will see. Are you up to a formal debate on the topic? Do you want to do what others, like James White, refuse to do? If it is so easy to defend your born again before faith view, from the scriptures, then "go for it."

How is the gospel a means in regeneration? Will you tell me? Others have refused to do so. Can it be a means in regeneration if it is not believed? How can we be "begotten by the gospel" without believing it? Does not "begotten by the gospel" mean "begotten by believing" it? If not, why not?

Is the rejection of means in regeneration an element of Hyper Calvinism?

What part of "Hardshellism" do you reject? They too say regeneration precedes faith and that this therefore is apart from gospel means. They say infants are regenerated in the womb apart from faith and repentance. Do you agree?

You speak of the "necessity of human response." Do you mean that this response is necessary before one can be said to be regenerated?

Can a man be regenerated without this "human response"?