Recently James White posted a short clip of a recent message by John Piper regarding I John 5: 1 and the "ordo salutis" wherein Piper insists that the initial act of believing in Christ is the result of the new birth. See here
In this message, after citing the passage, Piper says this:
"whosoever believeth" - present tense, ongoing action. "Has been born again" - perfect tense. Tenses are all important for understanding how this works. John is saying that if you are a believer, you are a believer because you have been born of God." He then cites John Stott (?) who says - "it comes as God-given, clear-headed, conscious embrace of historical person, historical events, and the historical meaning as described in the story of the gospel. That's the way God saves sinners." Piper then says:
"The upshot of all this - God's action (act) of bringing about the new birth is the creation of a believer." He says that "The Holy Spirit" does this "in the channel of the gospel," or "in and through the gospel," being "born through the word," and that there is "no time lapse" between being born again and being made a believer.
I have previously written about the inconsistency of Piper on this point. See
here
here
here
While I am glad that Piper insists on the means of the gospel in regeneration and new birth, and that he does not allow for any gaps between being made "alive" and being made a "believer," I am nevertheless disappointed that he insists that this is the typical way that the Bible presents the relationship. I have written on this verse previously and shown how the reasoning of White and Piper and other "Reformed" brethren is wrong.
See here
I find it an error to interpret I John 5:1 in such a way as to make the apostle John to contradict other statements of his on the subject. For instance, notice these two statements from his gospel.
"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." (John 20: 31)
"And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." (John 5: 40)
In these two passages, John clearly puts coming to Christ and believing on him before receiving life (rebirth). Will White and Piper deny that the life here is new life in new birth? And, that the life follows the coming and the believing? Will they make John to contradict himself?
It is interesting how Piper, in the message referred to by White, felt it necessary to insist on regeneration through the gospel after having affirmed that regeneration precedes belief in Christ. Why did he feel it necessary? Is it not because the placing of regeneration before faith leads to denying that the gospel is a means?
Now, it is clear that White and Piper will insist that justification and forgiveness comes after believing while at the same time insisting that regeneration comes before believing, and I have repeatedly shown the doctrinal mess this creates in various writings here in the Gadfly.
White said that he would follow up with comments about Piper's comments. It would be nice if he would try his hand at harmonizing his views on I John 5: 1 with John 5: 40 and 20: 31.
I have shown how this was not insisted upon by Spurgeon and how Spurgeon endorsed the views of Abraham Booth and John Stock who both, as Calvinists, did not put the new birth prior to faith. See
here
here
here
here
Feb 26, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Good concise and clear post. Thanks.
Hi! I have a question:
Did Spurgeon ever change his view on the order of regeneration and faith? I ask because you said he put faith coming first. But he said pointblank in his sermon Faith and Regeneration, "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" (http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0979.htm). So did he change his view at some point or is one of us misreading him?
Thanks!
Wesley
Dear Wesley:
I personally do not think that he changed his mind. In the sermon you cite, he may have been using the term "regeneration" in its restricted theological sense, not in its scriptural meaning.
Besides, he could have said that the new birth always results in spiritual life. But, such a statement would not be saying that men are born again before they are alive. Spurgeon never believed that one was born again until he was converted or made a believer.
Blessings,
Stephen
Thanks Stephen!
I think the quote I provided is pretty straight forward. The natural way of reading it clearly puts new birth resulting in faith, and so Spurgeon apparently espoused that view. If in other sermons he articulated a different view, then he must have changed his position at some point.
That's what it looks like to me, but I could be wrong. I have no vested interest in what Spurgeon believed one way or the other. I just wanted some clarification on a matter I found curious. Thanks for your feedback!
Wesley
Dear Wesley:
See this posting to prove Spurgeon believed that faith preceded new birth.
http://baptistgadfly.blogspot.com/2009/03/spurgeon-ordo-salutis.html
I don't believe Spurgeon changed his mind. He always believed that the new birth and faith went together.
Blessings,
Stephen
Post a Comment