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?"
Sep 14, 2008
Boston on Regeneration
"The ordinary means of regeneration, called the "seed," whereof the new creature is formed, is not corruptible seed. Of such, indeed, our bodies are generated: but the spiritual seed of which the new creature is generated, is incorruptible; namely, "the word of God, which lives and abides forever." The sound of the word of God passes, even as other sounds do; but the word lasts, lives, and abides, in respect of its everlasting effects, on all upon whom it operates. This "word, which by the gospel is preached unto you," ver. 25, impregnated by the Spirit of God, is the means of regeneration: and by it dead sinners are raised to life.
A person may have sharp soul-exercises and pangs, and yet die in the birth. Many "have been in pain," that have but, "as it were, brought forth wind." There may be sore pangs of conscience, which turn to nothing at last. Pharaoh and Simon Magus had such convictions, as made them to desire the prayers of others for them. Judas repented: and, under terrors of conscience, gave back his ill-gotten pieces of silver. All is not gold that glitters. Trees may blossom fairly in the spring, on which no fruit is to be found in the harvest: and some have sharp soul-exercises, which are nothing but foretastes of hell.
Some have sharp convictions for a while: but these go off, and they become as careless about their salvation, and as profane as ever, and usually worse than ever; "their last state is worse than their first," Matt. 12:45. They get awakening grace—but not converting grace; and that goes off by degrees, as the light of the declining day, until it issues in midnight darkness.
There may be a wonderful moving of the affections in souls that are not at all touched with regenerating grace. When there is no grace, there may, notwithstanding, be a flood of tears, as in Esau, who "found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears," Heb. 12:17. There may be great flashes of joy; as in the hearers of the word, represented in the parable of the stony ground, who "with joy receive it," Matt. 13:20. There may be also great desires after good things, and great delight in them too; as in those hypocrites described in Isa. 58:2, "Yet they seek me daily, and delight to know my ways – they take delight in approaching to God." See how high they may sometimes stand—who yet fall away, Heb. 6:4-6. They may be "enlightened, taste of the heavenly gift," "be partakers of the Holy Spirit, taste the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come." Common operations of the divine Spirit, like a land-flood, make a strange turning of things upside down: but when they are over, all runs again in the ordinary channel. All these things may be, where the sanctifying Spirit of Christ never rests upon the soul—but the stony heart still remains; and in that case these affections cannot but wither, because they have no root.
He who is born again, is born of the Spirit, John 3:5. Great changes may be made by the power of nature, especially when assisted by external revelation. Nature may be so elevated by the common influences of the Spirit, that a person may thereby be turned into another man, as Saul was, 1 Sam. 10:6, who yet never becomes a new man. But in regeneration, nature itself is changed, and we become partakers of the divine nature; and this must needs be a supernatural change. How can we, who are dead in trespasses and sins, renew ourselves, any more than a dead man can raise himself out of his grave? Who but the sanctifying Spirit of Christ can form Christ in a soul, changing it into his same image? Who but the Spirit of sanctification can give the new heart? Well may we say, when we see a man thus changed, "This is the finger of God!"
He gets not only a new head, to know and understand true religion; or a new tongue, to talk of it; but a new heart, to love and embrace it, in the whole of his life. When the Lord opens the sluice of grace, on the soul's new-birth day, the waters run through the whole man, to purify and make him fruitful. In those natural changes spoken of before, there are, as it were, pieces of new cloth put into an old garment; new life to an old heart: but the gracious change is a thorough change; a change both of heart and life.
In regeneration the MIND is savingly enlightened. There is a light let into the understanding; so that those who were "once darkness, are now light in the Lord," Eph. 5:8. The beams of the light of life make their way into the dark dungeon of the heart: then the night is over, and the morning light is come, which will shine more and more unto the perfect day.
To sum up all. In regeneration, the mind is enlightened in the knowledge of spiritual things. 1 John 2:20, "You have an unction from the Holy One," that is, from Jesus Christ, Rev. 3:18. It is an allusion to the sanctuary, whence the holy oil was brought to anoint the priest, "and you know all things" necessary to salvation. Though men be not book-learned, if they are born again, they are Spirit-learned; for all such are taught of God, John 6:45. The Spirit of regeneration teaches them what they did not know before. And what they knew by the ear only, he teaches them over again as by the eye.
O, what sorrow, shame, and self-loathing fill the heart, in the day that grace makes its triumphant entrance into it! For now the madman has come to himself, and the remembrance of his follies cannot but cut him to the heart.
The mind being savingly enlightened, and the will renewed, the sinner is thereby determined and enabled to answer the gospel call. So the chief work in regeneration is done; the fort of the heart is taken; there is room made for the Lord Jesus Christ in the inmost parts of the soul; the inner door of the will being now opened to him, as well as the outer door of the understanding.
In one word, Christ is passively received into the heart; he is come into the soul, by his quickening Spirit, whereby spiritual life is given to the man, who in himself was dead in sin. His first vital act we may conceive to be an active receiving of Jesus Christ, discerned in his glorious excellencies; that is a believing on him, a closing with him, as discerned, offered and exhibited in the word of his grace, the glorious Gospel: the immediate effect of which is union with him, John 1:12, 13, "To as many as received him to them gave he power," or privilege, "to become the sons of God, even to those who believe on his name: which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man—but of God." Eph. 3:17, "That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith."
Christ having taken the heart by storm, and triumphantly entered into it, in regeneration, the soul by faith yields itself to him, as it is expressed, 2 Chron. 30:8. Thus, this glorious King who came into the heart, by his Spirit, dwells in it by faith. The soul, being drawn, runs; and being effectually called, comes.
Natural birth is carried on by degrees. So is regeneration. It is with the soul, ordinarily, in regeneration, as with the blind man cured by our Lord, who first "saw men as trees walking," afterward "saw every man clearly," Mark 8:23-25. It is true, regeneration being, strictly speaking, a passage from death to life, the soul is quickened in a moment; like as when the embryo is brought to perfection in the womb, the soul is infused into the lifeless lump. Nevertheless, we may imagine somewhat like conception in spiritual regeneration, whereby the soul is prepared for quickening; and the new creature is capable of growth, 1 Peter 2:2, and of having life more abundantly, John 10:10.
The regenerate may call God, Father; for they are his children, John 1:12, 13, "begotten of him," 1 Pet. 1:3. The bride, the Lamb's wife, that is, the church, is their mother, Gal. 4:26."
(From Section III, "The State of GRACE," in "Human Nature in its Fourfold State" - Thomas Boston (1676 - 1732)
http://www.gracegems.org/28/human_nature5.htm
This is a good article and one where Boston upholds the view that one is regenerated by the gospel and faith in it. But, does he not, at the end, seem to uphold the three stage model of the new birth? Does he make the "begetting" different from the "birth"?
He does have both a Father and mother in the new birth. All heretics on the new birth, as the Hardshells and those who promote the "born again before faith" error, have a birth without a mother! This I showed in earlier chapters in my ongoing book, "The Hardshell Baptist Cult."
A person may have sharp soul-exercises and pangs, and yet die in the birth. Many "have been in pain," that have but, "as it were, brought forth wind." There may be sore pangs of conscience, which turn to nothing at last. Pharaoh and Simon Magus had such convictions, as made them to desire the prayers of others for them. Judas repented: and, under terrors of conscience, gave back his ill-gotten pieces of silver. All is not gold that glitters. Trees may blossom fairly in the spring, on which no fruit is to be found in the harvest: and some have sharp soul-exercises, which are nothing but foretastes of hell.
Some have sharp convictions for a while: but these go off, and they become as careless about their salvation, and as profane as ever, and usually worse than ever; "their last state is worse than their first," Matt. 12:45. They get awakening grace—but not converting grace; and that goes off by degrees, as the light of the declining day, until it issues in midnight darkness.
There may be a wonderful moving of the affections in souls that are not at all touched with regenerating grace. When there is no grace, there may, notwithstanding, be a flood of tears, as in Esau, who "found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears," Heb. 12:17. There may be great flashes of joy; as in the hearers of the word, represented in the parable of the stony ground, who "with joy receive it," Matt. 13:20. There may be also great desires after good things, and great delight in them too; as in those hypocrites described in Isa. 58:2, "Yet they seek me daily, and delight to know my ways – they take delight in approaching to God." See how high they may sometimes stand—who yet fall away, Heb. 6:4-6. They may be "enlightened, taste of the heavenly gift," "be partakers of the Holy Spirit, taste the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come." Common operations of the divine Spirit, like a land-flood, make a strange turning of things upside down: but when they are over, all runs again in the ordinary channel. All these things may be, where the sanctifying Spirit of Christ never rests upon the soul—but the stony heart still remains; and in that case these affections cannot but wither, because they have no root.
He who is born again, is born of the Spirit, John 3:5. Great changes may be made by the power of nature, especially when assisted by external revelation. Nature may be so elevated by the common influences of the Spirit, that a person may thereby be turned into another man, as Saul was, 1 Sam. 10:6, who yet never becomes a new man. But in regeneration, nature itself is changed, and we become partakers of the divine nature; and this must needs be a supernatural change. How can we, who are dead in trespasses and sins, renew ourselves, any more than a dead man can raise himself out of his grave? Who but the sanctifying Spirit of Christ can form Christ in a soul, changing it into his same image? Who but the Spirit of sanctification can give the new heart? Well may we say, when we see a man thus changed, "This is the finger of God!"
He gets not only a new head, to know and understand true religion; or a new tongue, to talk of it; but a new heart, to love and embrace it, in the whole of his life. When the Lord opens the sluice of grace, on the soul's new-birth day, the waters run through the whole man, to purify and make him fruitful. In those natural changes spoken of before, there are, as it were, pieces of new cloth put into an old garment; new life to an old heart: but the gracious change is a thorough change; a change both of heart and life.
In regeneration the MIND is savingly enlightened. There is a light let into the understanding; so that those who were "once darkness, are now light in the Lord," Eph. 5:8. The beams of the light of life make their way into the dark dungeon of the heart: then the night is over, and the morning light is come, which will shine more and more unto the perfect day.
To sum up all. In regeneration, the mind is enlightened in the knowledge of spiritual things. 1 John 2:20, "You have an unction from the Holy One," that is, from Jesus Christ, Rev. 3:18. It is an allusion to the sanctuary, whence the holy oil was brought to anoint the priest, "and you know all things" necessary to salvation. Though men be not book-learned, if they are born again, they are Spirit-learned; for all such are taught of God, John 6:45. The Spirit of regeneration teaches them what they did not know before. And what they knew by the ear only, he teaches them over again as by the eye.
O, what sorrow, shame, and self-loathing fill the heart, in the day that grace makes its triumphant entrance into it! For now the madman has come to himself, and the remembrance of his follies cannot but cut him to the heart.
The mind being savingly enlightened, and the will renewed, the sinner is thereby determined and enabled to answer the gospel call. So the chief work in regeneration is done; the fort of the heart is taken; there is room made for the Lord Jesus Christ in the inmost parts of the soul; the inner door of the will being now opened to him, as well as the outer door of the understanding.
In one word, Christ is passively received into the heart; he is come into the soul, by his quickening Spirit, whereby spiritual life is given to the man, who in himself was dead in sin. His first vital act we may conceive to be an active receiving of Jesus Christ, discerned in his glorious excellencies; that is a believing on him, a closing with him, as discerned, offered and exhibited in the word of his grace, the glorious Gospel: the immediate effect of which is union with him, John 1:12, 13, "To as many as received him to them gave he power," or privilege, "to become the sons of God, even to those who believe on his name: which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man—but of God." Eph. 3:17, "That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith."
Christ having taken the heart by storm, and triumphantly entered into it, in regeneration, the soul by faith yields itself to him, as it is expressed, 2 Chron. 30:8. Thus, this glorious King who came into the heart, by his Spirit, dwells in it by faith. The soul, being drawn, runs; and being effectually called, comes.
Natural birth is carried on by degrees. So is regeneration. It is with the soul, ordinarily, in regeneration, as with the blind man cured by our Lord, who first "saw men as trees walking," afterward "saw every man clearly," Mark 8:23-25. It is true, regeneration being, strictly speaking, a passage from death to life, the soul is quickened in a moment; like as when the embryo is brought to perfection in the womb, the soul is infused into the lifeless lump. Nevertheless, we may imagine somewhat like conception in spiritual regeneration, whereby the soul is prepared for quickening; and the new creature is capable of growth, 1 Peter 2:2, and of having life more abundantly, John 10:10.
The regenerate may call God, Father; for they are his children, John 1:12, 13, "begotten of him," 1 Pet. 1:3. The bride, the Lamb's wife, that is, the church, is their mother, Gal. 4:26."
(From Section III, "The State of GRACE," in "Human Nature in its Fourfold State" - Thomas Boston (1676 - 1732)
http://www.gracegems.org/28/human_nature5.htm
This is a good article and one where Boston upholds the view that one is regenerated by the gospel and faith in it. But, does he not, at the end, seem to uphold the three stage model of the new birth? Does he make the "begetting" different from the "birth"?
He does have both a Father and mother in the new birth. All heretics on the new birth, as the Hardshells and those who promote the "born again before faith" error, have a birth without a mother! This I showed in earlier chapters in my ongoing book, "The Hardshell Baptist Cult."
Sep 13, 2008
Chpt. 80 - Hardshell Proof Texts II
In this chapter I will look at what brother Bob Ross has well called the "'SUGAR-STICK' OF HYBRIDS," at I John 5: 1, and the assertion of the Hardshells and other Hyper Calvinists (such as those who call themselves "Reformed") that John is giving us a rigid divine "ordo salutis" in the verse, one that supposedly teaches that one is "begotten," or "born" of God, "prior to" coming to faith, "prior to" being saved, and "prior to" being adopted and justified.
First, let me cite these good words of brother Ross and then add some additional thoughts of my own. (Emphasis are mine)
Bob wrote:
"I noticed earlier today, Charles (of the calvinistflyswatter blog), while surfing some of the Hybrid Calvinist websites, that 1 John 5:1 has evidently become the "sugar-stick" for the Hybrid Calvinist heresy that one is "born again before faith."
I saw this being advocated on the Internet by The Calvinist Gadfly, Thomas Schreiner, Mark Dever, Gene Bridges, and of course I had noticed it awhile back by James White.
The rather peculiar thing about the Hybrid argument is that they allege that the only "alternative" to their view is to believe that "faith precedes regeneration." They do not recognize the fact that according to another view of the Scriptures and Creedal Calvinism, faith is a constituent element of the new birth itself and they therefore are SIMULTANEOUS and CO-EXISTENT. One does not exist at any point in time without the other.
The obvious error of the Hybrid Calvinists on 1 John 5:1 is their contention that the new birth can be an accomplished fact before, without, and apart from the new birth's most essential constituent element, faith. If the primary work of the Holy Spirit in the new birth is the very creation of faith by the Word of God, how can one be described as "born again" before there is faith?
1 John 5:1, in fact, cites faith as the great evidence that one is born of God -- not that one is born of God before, without, and apart from faith. Here are some excerpts from my article on this passage which I wrote awhile back:
DOES FIRST JOHN 5:1 TEACH AN "ORDER"
TO THE NEW BIRTH, OR REGENERATION? [04/14/04]
It is argued by James White in his writings that I John 5:1 teaches that there is "pre-faith" New Birth, or Regeneration, to the effect that the new birth precedes believing. On the other side, which he opposes, he alleges there is the view that faith precedes the new birth.
Both these views, we believe, are in conflict with our orthodox Confessions of Faith and of course with what we understand is taught in Scripture.
The idea which James White tries to prove is that in the New Birth there is an order whereby one who HAS NOT YET BELIEVED "has been born of God," and then after supposedly being born of God he is thereby given "ability" to perform the act of faith in Christ.
James claims that "spiritual birth precedes . . . faith" (The Potter's Freedom, pages 286, 288, 84).
What kind of "new birth" is it that in its very constituency lacks love for Christ and faith in Christ?
First John 5:1 reads:
"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him."
The most evident truth of this verse is that faith and the New Birth are COEXISTENT, where there is one there is the other. They are somewhat like life itself: were there is life, there is breath; and where there is breath, there is life.
Since the person who believes in Christ is born of God, or has been born of God, then conversely the person who does not believe is not and has not been born of God.
The believer is born of God.
The unbeliever is not born of God.
There is no "middle ground," no "in-between" state, no "half-dead, half-alive" condition, so far as this passage is concerned. Believing is simply presented here as the "living proof" or evidence that one is, or has been, born of God. Conversely, no faith in Christ equals no new birth.
The verse does not deal at all with an alleged "sequence" or "order" of actions, as is advocated by James White and some others. That is not even the obvious intention of the writer, John, for he is not trying to convince his readers about what Hybrid Calvinists call the "ordo salutis." John, of all the New Testament writers, emphasizes the important necessity of faith in regard to salvation (John 20:31), that one who believes has life and the one who does not believe does not have life.
James White tries to justify his faulty "exegesis" by comparing 1 John 5:1 to 1 John 2:29 where John says that "every one that doeth righteousness is born of him." James argues that doing righteousness is "after" one has been born again.
But what James fails to note the fact that the very FIRST act of righteousness that a person does is to believe in Christ. "And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ" (1 John 3:22). Believing is "obeying the Gospel" (Romans 10:16, 17; 1:16). The unsaved sinner is commanded to believe as a necessary act in being saved.
Jesus explained to Nicodemus that "eternal life" is by believing (John 3:14-18). This is same message Paul gave to the jailer in Acts 16:31. This is the work of God, that you believe on Him whom He hath sent (John 6:29). John wrote his Gospel for the purpose of bringing men to believe (John 20:31).
The very first commandment is summed up as love for God, and faith incorporates that love, for "faith worketh by love" (Galatians 5:6). Love is shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5), and love has as its object the Lord Jesus, and the one who loves is born of God (1 John 4:7).
How could one be "born again" before he has love for and faith in Christ created in him by the power of the Word of God and Holy Spirit?
We are nowhere taught in Scripture that such a birth devoid of love and faith precedes faith. As Spurgeon put it, "Life COMES WITH believing" (MTP, Volume 27, year 1881, page 662).
It is the work of the Holy Spirit, thru the means of the Gospel or Word of God (1 Cor. 4:15; 1 Thess. 1:5; 1 Peter 1:23), to create faith in the sinner, and this constitutes the new birth."
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=23354593&postID=115173577614521347
The answer to the seeming incongruity of John putting faith in a present tense participle while putting "is born" in a perfect (past) tense indicative, is the same I gave in the preceding chapter about John 1: 12, 13. John again could have written the verse as follows:
"Whoever has believed (past tense) has been (past tense) born." But, John's habit is to describe "believing" as an ongoing action, rather than a one time completed action in the past, as he does with being "born," which he always puts in the past tense, as a one time completed action. Thus, all John is saying is that the one who is believing, who is living the life of faith, is one who has previously been born of God, who has previously "received" him, one who has previously and initially believed to salvation.
John is thus saying - "whoever is living the life of faith is one who has been born of God," and he is not denying that it is equally true to say - "he who has believed and received Christ has been born of God."
The same is true with the words - "whoever is practicing righteousness has been begotten." John could have said - "whoever has acted righteously in believing on and in receiving Christ has been born of God." But, he does not want to view acting righteously, or doing righteousness, as a one time event as he does with the birth. One who is living the life of faith and the life of righteousness, is one who has been born of God. John is not divorcing, as brother Ross has shown, faith and being active, in being born of God. The only reason why "believing" and "practicing righteousness" is not in the past tense, like the begetting, is because John wants to focus on the life of the believer, not on the initial act of faith.
So, this is all poor exegesis. It creates the unbiblical character of a "regenerated unbeliever."
Probably a better verse to use, rather than John 1: 12, 13 and I John 2: 29, to prove that sometimes "begetting" is prior to faith, is this one.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." (I Peter 1: 3 KJV)
Here Peter says that "hope" is the product of the divine begetting. Here "hope" is connected with "faith." But, this really agrees with John who says that "faith" is the product of the divine begetting. (I John 5: 4)
John and Peter are teaching that when the sinner is begotten, faith, hope, and love for Christ are begotten, they being "things that accompany salvation." (Hebrews 6: 9) Thus, when a person is begotten, not only is "life" begotten, but also an obedient and ardent faith, and love, and hope, etc.
Besides, the putting of birth before faith, eliminates the gospel as a means. Those, like James White, will try to deny that they have a regeneration apart from the means of the gospel, but they are inconsistent and contradictory. The reason for this is simple. If we are "begotten" through the gospel, that can only mean begotten through faith, or through believing the gospel.
James White on I John 5: 1
"Generally such a passage would be understood to present the following order of events: 1) Believe that Jesus is the Christ, and 2) you are born of God. Yet, the original readers of this text would not jump to such a conclusion. In reality, the most literal rendering would be, “Every one believing (present tense participle, emphasizing both the on-going action as well as the individuality of saving faith, “each believing person”) that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God (a perfect passive verb, “has been born by the agency of God”). In John, “the one believing” is very common, and it is no accident the the emphasis falls upon the on-going action of faith. The one believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God. If a person is now believing that Jesus is the Christ in a true and saving fashion, they are doing so because, as a completed action in the past, they were born again through the work and agency of God. The verb “to be born” is passive: they were caused to be born by another, that being God. They did not cause their own spiritual birth. And what is the inevitable result of being born of God? belief that Jesus is the Christ. Just as all those who are given by the Father to the Son come to the Son (John 6:37), so too all who are spiritually reborn through the work of God have as the object of their faith the Lord Jesus Christ.
Some Arminian exegetes might object to this interpretation. A means of testing the consistency of the exegesis offered of this passage would be to ask how such a person interprets these words from John:
If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him. (1 John 2:29)
Every consistent protestant would say, “the reason one practices righteousness is because they have already been born of Him. We do not practice righteousness so as to be born, but instead the birth give rise to the practice of righteousness”. And such is quite true. But, this means that in 1 John 5:1 the belief in Jesus as the Christ is the result of being born of Him. The verbal parallel is exact: in 1 John 2:29 “the one practicing righteousness” is a present participle; in 1 John 5:1 “the one believing” is a present participle. In both passages the exact same verb in the exact same form is used. Therefore, sheer consistency leads one to the conclusion that divine birth precedes and is the grounds of both faith in Christ as well as good works."
http://strangebaptistfire.com/2007/03/09/does-1-john-51-prove-faith-leads-to-regeneration/
Now let me review more precisely the remarks of White and judge his "exegesis."
White said:
"Generally such a passage would be understood to present the following order of events: 1) Believe that Jesus is the Christ, and 2) you are born of God. Yet, the original readers of this text would not jump to such a conclusion. In reality, the most literal rendering would be, “Every one believing (present tense participle, emphasizing both the on-going action as well as the individuality of saving faith, “each believing person”) that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God (a perfect passive verb, “has been born by the agency of God”)."
Who denies that the one who is a practicing and ongoing believer is one who has been previously born of God? James is not fighting a real opponent, but an imaginary one, a "straw man."
White ought to find a verse that says - "he who believed was previously born of God," for I John 5: 1 does not say it. White argues that the divine begetting precedes the initial act of faith and that John is affirming this. But, the initial act of faith is not even mentioned!
First, let me cite these good words of brother Ross and then add some additional thoughts of my own. (Emphasis are mine)
Bob wrote:
"I noticed earlier today, Charles (of the calvinistflyswatter blog), while surfing some of the Hybrid Calvinist websites, that 1 John 5:1 has evidently become the "sugar-stick" for the Hybrid Calvinist heresy that one is "born again before faith."
I saw this being advocated on the Internet by The Calvinist Gadfly, Thomas Schreiner, Mark Dever, Gene Bridges, and of course I had noticed it awhile back by James White.
The rather peculiar thing about the Hybrid argument is that they allege that the only "alternative" to their view is to believe that "faith precedes regeneration." They do not recognize the fact that according to another view of the Scriptures and Creedal Calvinism, faith is a constituent element of the new birth itself and they therefore are SIMULTANEOUS and CO-EXISTENT. One does not exist at any point in time without the other.
The obvious error of the Hybrid Calvinists on 1 John 5:1 is their contention that the new birth can be an accomplished fact before, without, and apart from the new birth's most essential constituent element, faith. If the primary work of the Holy Spirit in the new birth is the very creation of faith by the Word of God, how can one be described as "born again" before there is faith?
1 John 5:1, in fact, cites faith as the great evidence that one is born of God -- not that one is born of God before, without, and apart from faith. Here are some excerpts from my article on this passage which I wrote awhile back:
DOES FIRST JOHN 5:1 TEACH AN "ORDER"
TO THE NEW BIRTH, OR REGENERATION? [04/14/04]
It is argued by James White in his writings that I John 5:1 teaches that there is "pre-faith" New Birth, or Regeneration, to the effect that the new birth precedes believing. On the other side, which he opposes, he alleges there is the view that faith precedes the new birth.
Both these views, we believe, are in conflict with our orthodox Confessions of Faith and of course with what we understand is taught in Scripture.
The idea which James White tries to prove is that in the New Birth there is an order whereby one who HAS NOT YET BELIEVED "has been born of God," and then after supposedly being born of God he is thereby given "ability" to perform the act of faith in Christ.
James claims that "spiritual birth precedes . . . faith" (The Potter's Freedom, pages 286, 288, 84).
What kind of "new birth" is it that in its very constituency lacks love for Christ and faith in Christ?
First John 5:1 reads:
"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him."
The most evident truth of this verse is that faith and the New Birth are COEXISTENT, where there is one there is the other. They are somewhat like life itself: were there is life, there is breath; and where there is breath, there is life.
Since the person who believes in Christ is born of God, or has been born of God, then conversely the person who does not believe is not and has not been born of God.
The believer is born of God.
The unbeliever is not born of God.
There is no "middle ground," no "in-between" state, no "half-dead, half-alive" condition, so far as this passage is concerned. Believing is simply presented here as the "living proof" or evidence that one is, or has been, born of God. Conversely, no faith in Christ equals no new birth.
The verse does not deal at all with an alleged "sequence" or "order" of actions, as is advocated by James White and some others. That is not even the obvious intention of the writer, John, for he is not trying to convince his readers about what Hybrid Calvinists call the "ordo salutis." John, of all the New Testament writers, emphasizes the important necessity of faith in regard to salvation (John 20:31), that one who believes has life and the one who does not believe does not have life.
James White tries to justify his faulty "exegesis" by comparing 1 John 5:1 to 1 John 2:29 where John says that "every one that doeth righteousness is born of him." James argues that doing righteousness is "after" one has been born again.
But what James fails to note the fact that the very FIRST act of righteousness that a person does is to believe in Christ. "And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ" (1 John 3:22). Believing is "obeying the Gospel" (Romans 10:16, 17; 1:16). The unsaved sinner is commanded to believe as a necessary act in being saved.
Jesus explained to Nicodemus that "eternal life" is by believing (John 3:14-18). This is same message Paul gave to the jailer in Acts 16:31. This is the work of God, that you believe on Him whom He hath sent (John 6:29). John wrote his Gospel for the purpose of bringing men to believe (John 20:31).
The very first commandment is summed up as love for God, and faith incorporates that love, for "faith worketh by love" (Galatians 5:6). Love is shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5), and love has as its object the Lord Jesus, and the one who loves is born of God (1 John 4:7).
How could one be "born again" before he has love for and faith in Christ created in him by the power of the Word of God and Holy Spirit?
We are nowhere taught in Scripture that such a birth devoid of love and faith precedes faith. As Spurgeon put it, "Life COMES WITH believing" (MTP, Volume 27, year 1881, page 662).
It is the work of the Holy Spirit, thru the means of the Gospel or Word of God (1 Cor. 4:15; 1 Thess. 1:5; 1 Peter 1:23), to create faith in the sinner, and this constitutes the new birth."
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=23354593&postID=115173577614521347
The answer to the seeming incongruity of John putting faith in a present tense participle while putting "is born" in a perfect (past) tense indicative, is the same I gave in the preceding chapter about John 1: 12, 13. John again could have written the verse as follows:
"Whoever has believed (past tense) has been (past tense) born." But, John's habit is to describe "believing" as an ongoing action, rather than a one time completed action in the past, as he does with being "born," which he always puts in the past tense, as a one time completed action. Thus, all John is saying is that the one who is believing, who is living the life of faith, is one who has previously been born of God, who has previously "received" him, one who has previously and initially believed to salvation.
John is thus saying - "whoever is living the life of faith is one who has been born of God," and he is not denying that it is equally true to say - "he who has believed and received Christ has been born of God."
The same is true with the words - "whoever is practicing righteousness has been begotten." John could have said - "whoever has acted righteously in believing on and in receiving Christ has been born of God." But, he does not want to view acting righteously, or doing righteousness, as a one time event as he does with the birth. One who is living the life of faith and the life of righteousness, is one who has been born of God. John is not divorcing, as brother Ross has shown, faith and being active, in being born of God. The only reason why "believing" and "practicing righteousness" is not in the past tense, like the begetting, is because John wants to focus on the life of the believer, not on the initial act of faith.
So, this is all poor exegesis. It creates the unbiblical character of a "regenerated unbeliever."
Probably a better verse to use, rather than John 1: 12, 13 and I John 2: 29, to prove that sometimes "begetting" is prior to faith, is this one.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." (I Peter 1: 3 KJV)
Here Peter says that "hope" is the product of the divine begetting. Here "hope" is connected with "faith." But, this really agrees with John who says that "faith" is the product of the divine begetting. (I John 5: 4)
John and Peter are teaching that when the sinner is begotten, faith, hope, and love for Christ are begotten, they being "things that accompany salvation." (Hebrews 6: 9) Thus, when a person is begotten, not only is "life" begotten, but also an obedient and ardent faith, and love, and hope, etc.
Besides, the putting of birth before faith, eliminates the gospel as a means. Those, like James White, will try to deny that they have a regeneration apart from the means of the gospel, but they are inconsistent and contradictory. The reason for this is simple. If we are "begotten" through the gospel, that can only mean begotten through faith, or through believing the gospel.
James White on I John 5: 1
"Generally such a passage would be understood to present the following order of events: 1) Believe that Jesus is the Christ, and 2) you are born of God. Yet, the original readers of this text would not jump to such a conclusion. In reality, the most literal rendering would be, “Every one believing (present tense participle, emphasizing both the on-going action as well as the individuality of saving faith, “each believing person”) that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God (a perfect passive verb, “has been born by the agency of God”). In John, “the one believing” is very common, and it is no accident the the emphasis falls upon the on-going action of faith. The one believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God. If a person is now believing that Jesus is the Christ in a true and saving fashion, they are doing so because, as a completed action in the past, they were born again through the work and agency of God. The verb “to be born” is passive: they were caused to be born by another, that being God. They did not cause their own spiritual birth. And what is the inevitable result of being born of God? belief that Jesus is the Christ. Just as all those who are given by the Father to the Son come to the Son (John 6:37), so too all who are spiritually reborn through the work of God have as the object of their faith the Lord Jesus Christ.
Some Arminian exegetes might object to this interpretation. A means of testing the consistency of the exegesis offered of this passage would be to ask how such a person interprets these words from John:
If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him. (1 John 2:29)
Every consistent protestant would say, “the reason one practices righteousness is because they have already been born of Him. We do not practice righteousness so as to be born, but instead the birth give rise to the practice of righteousness”. And such is quite true. But, this means that in 1 John 5:1 the belief in Jesus as the Christ is the result of being born of Him. The verbal parallel is exact: in 1 John 2:29 “the one practicing righteousness” is a present participle; in 1 John 5:1 “the one believing” is a present participle. In both passages the exact same verb in the exact same form is used. Therefore, sheer consistency leads one to the conclusion that divine birth precedes and is the grounds of both faith in Christ as well as good works."
http://strangebaptistfire.com/2007/03/09/does-1-john-51-prove-faith-leads-to-regeneration/
Now let me review more precisely the remarks of White and judge his "exegesis."
White said:
"Generally such a passage would be understood to present the following order of events: 1) Believe that Jesus is the Christ, and 2) you are born of God. Yet, the original readers of this text would not jump to such a conclusion. In reality, the most literal rendering would be, “Every one believing (present tense participle, emphasizing both the on-going action as well as the individuality of saving faith, “each believing person”) that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God (a perfect passive verb, “has been born by the agency of God”)."
Who denies that the one who is a practicing and ongoing believer is one who has been previously born of God? James is not fighting a real opponent, but an imaginary one, a "straw man."
White ought to find a verse that says - "he who believed was previously born of God," for I John 5: 1 does not say it. White argues that the divine begetting precedes the initial act of faith and that John is affirming this. But, the initial act of faith is not even mentioned!
White is comparing apples to oranges. The cases are not alike. John says that the Christian life is preceded by a birth. Who denies that? John does not put the initial converting act of believing and turning to Christ, however, after the begetting! He only puts the ongoing faith as what surely follows a real spiritual birth.
When White argues against what he calls the "Arminian" "ordo salutis" he sets up a different structure. He does not use a present tense participle! John uses one! The "is believing" of John does not equal "believe" in the example given of White. What Arminian, except he be a Pelagian, denies that the begetting precedes and causes the "is believing," or the life of faith, the Christian life? Again, what White should have done was to show how John, or some other bible writer, wrote in this form - "whoever believes (one time act) has been (previously) born of God." He did not find that structure in I John 5: 1 or 4: 7!
White said:
"In John, “the one believing” is very common, and it is no accident the the emphasis falls upon the on-going action of faith. The one believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God."
"If a person is now believing that Jesus is the Christ in a true and saving fashion, they are doing so because, as a completed action in the past, they were born again through the work and agency of God."
But, again, no one denies this! Not even an "Arminian." Certainly the Christian life of faith (the "is believing") follows spiritual birth! But, show where the initial act of believing in and receiving Christ is put after the birth! That is what you cannot do!
White said:
"The verb “to be born” is passive: they were caused to be born by another, that being God. They did not cause their own spiritual birth. And what is the inevitable result of being born of God? belief that Jesus is the Christ."
No! John is not saying that! He is saying that the life of faith follows a new birth! Again, White admits that John is not focusing on "believing" as a one time act in the past, to the initial conversion experience, but to the one who is continually believing.
Poor exegesis James!
In the next chapter I will look at some other verses in the gospel of John that are cited by Hardshells and Hyper Calvinists to try to uphold their "born again before faith" error.
Gene's Diatribe
The following are things that brother Gene Bridges wrote in his "diatribe" against brothers Ross and Charles, and against myself, together with my reply. (emphasis mine)
"Further, Charles simply isn't on my radar, not now, and not in 2 years. The only reason you are on my radar now is because you have chosen to be a follower of this blog. Are you, I wonder, following this blog in order to stir up more strife?"
Is that where you want the discussion to go? To discussing motives for visiting blogs? Impugn my motives, do you? Why? Are you playing God here? Insinuating that I love strife? Why, because I fight Hyperism? Brother Gene, I visit blogs for different reasons. I have been visiting Triablogue because it provided good writings on topics I was interested in. Also, I knew you had your discussions with Charles and Bob, and so I wanted to also follow to see what you might write on Calvinism.
"Indeed, I have little time to deal with people online who are more concerned about being Baptist than being Christian."
Are you not the insinuator and the judge of motives! Now you also insinuate that I am not as holy as you, not as spiritual, a man of strife, but now you imply I am sectarian, and care more for being Baptist than Christian. How did you arrive at those conclusions?
"I am Baptist and I am Reformed, but I am not obsessed with either one.
harping on the doctrines of grace 24/7."
So, I am also "obsessed"? I "harp on" the doctrines of grace 24/7? That is totally uncharitable and demonstrates a "spirit" of superiority. Gene, in all kindness, it is you who are "putting on airs." Perhaps you ought to check all my blogs and look at the wide range of topics in all of them BEFORE you say such things. I wonder, do you "harp on" anything, brother Gene?
"Because Mr. Ross, like Charles, has proven himself to be unteachable, incorrigible, and uncorrectable, I have long since relegated him to the status of the factious man of Titus 3. If Mr. Garrett had bothered to check the archives of this blog, he would know that."
"Proven themselves to be unteachable and incorrigible"? Why, because they do not adopt your "born again before faith" error? You are free not to have dealings with any man, but it seems odd to me that you and James White use such reasons for running from serious discussion. Gene, I have read all your discussions with Bob and Charles. Where did you get the idea that I had not? All I did was cite your promise about engaging Bob and Charles and anyone who writes against the so called "reformed view" of regeneration. But, if you now feel more led to battle the Catholics and Muslims, then go ahead.
"I haven't felt the need to address Ross in about 2 years. I also know, and Mr. Garrett may not, of others who have tried to deal privately with Mr. Ross over the past few years, but to no avail. They have received largely the same sort of treatment from him as have Dr. White and myself."
"Same sort of treatment"? What kind is that? The same kind you dish out to folks like me?
"If you really believe what you believe, demonstrate it.
The same goes for Charles, Mr. Garrett, and Mr. Ross. If you three really believe what you believe about soteriology, then get off your high horse about Founders, James White, myself, and others who differ with you and demonstrate what you believe by interacting with the atheist, the Orthodox, the Romanist, etc. on your blogs. Dare I say, you won't find that at the Flyswatter or the BaptistGadly."
We have, we are, and we will continue to demonstrate it; And, we will continue to hear you all make excuses for why you do not want to debate or discuss the topic with us. Bob writes much against the Pedo Baptists, does that not count? Gene, have you even looked at my other blogs?
"Instead, what you find are endless, pointless, and largely ignored by us (for reasons explained above) posts that do little but seek to stir up strife."
More accusations. More uncharitableness. More excuses. More "pot shots." Ad hominem argumentation and attacks! You talk about how no one will want to engage us because of our poor attitude. Look at your attitude and harsh judgment against us, brother Gene!
"Occasionally, they'll interact with an Arminian (to their credit), but I don't see them doing what Dr. White and his team do or we do here. In other words, it's time for them to demonstrate they can do more than criticize their brothers. If they can't - or won't - then we have no reason to conclude that they want to do nothing more than stir up strife."
So, you and James White are the standard to follow in apologetics? And, ironically, I feel it is you and James who need to "demonstrate they can do more than criticize their brothers." Oh, and now I am a "brother" at last? You have never called me "brother" and yet you say we criticize our "brothers" (you and James and the "reformed" crowd)? Do I not have a right, as you, to "critique" my brother? To judge his teachings? And, to do so is stirring strife? Then, by that definition, are you not guilty of what you condemn?
"Speaking of lies, let's see what Mr. Garrett has cooked up:
He quotes me as follows:
"Regeneration is distinct from salvation in that it leads directly to conversion, which leads to justification leading to the others."
He then comments:
"Is this so? Is this not a bunch of nonsense? Does it not deny that regeneration = salvation? Not only does the "ordo polutis" of Gene create the monstrosity of a "regenerated unbeliever," but also a "regenerated yet condemned" unbeliever! What kind of "regeneration" is it that does not convert, save, or justify?"
How did what I wrote lead to the concept of a "regenerated unbeliever?""
Now, I am a "liar"! What was the lie Gene? I still do not know! You admit that your "ordo salutis" creates a "regenerated unbeliever," at least LOGICALLY!
"Mr. Garrett, a graduate I see Wingate University, apparently needs to retake English 101 with either Dr. Little-Sweat or Dr. Christopher, if they are still teaching, for he suffers from a case of reading incomprehension. Is regeneration the same as "salvation?" No, "salvation" is a much wider concept. It can include "regeneration," it may include others concepts. In context, I am, of course referring to Charles' (and others') continued misuse of theological terminology. To refer to "regeneration" as if it is the same thing as "salvation" is simply sloppy."
Look at your harsh language Gene. Is this not what you decry in Bob, Charles, and myself? Call me inept. Of course, you and James White are such "exegetes" and expert linguists! I did take "Advanced Composition" at Wingate, with a good Phd. professor. Have you all had such classes?
So, one of my lies is saying that regeneration = salvation? You ought to be ashamed for denying that a man who is regenerated is saved!
And we are "ignorant of theological terminology"? You make me chuckle hearing this! You are the one who creates unbiblical terminology! If it is "sloppy" to call a man who is "born again" a "saved" man, then count me guility! Jesus too! And the apostles!
"Did I say anything about regeneration not leading to conversion, and directly so? NO. That's exactly the opposite of what I wrote. I said it leads directly to conversion, and then justification, and "others" (eg. other aspects of "salvation")."
Oh, now regeneration IS an aspect of "salvation"? I thought it wasn't? If regeneration "leads to" conversion, then conversion is no part of regeneration. If it "leads to" faith, then faith is no part of it. Anyone can see the difficult spot you and White are in with this kind of "doubletalk."
"When speaking of the order of salvation (ordo salutis), Reformed theology always and everywhere insists that regeneration precedes faith."
That is a falsehood. All modern "Reformed" theology, such as you and White promote, is quite different on this point that the older Reformers, such as Calvin himself. Was Calvin a "Reformed"? Did he believe faith followed regeneration?
"Use of means: In the narrow usage, referring to the Holy Spirit’s actual phenomenological task of resurrecting the unbeliever’s soul to new life, there is no means as such, it is His work alone."
Brother Gene, here is where you and White glaringly contradict yourselves! You all will affirm, out of one side of your mouths, that you believe in "regeneration through the means of the gospel," but then you will elsewhere say that the gospel cannot be a means, as you do here! Here you "shell down the corn," come right up and aver that regeneration is accomplished without the means of the gospel! And yet you claim to be "Baptist" and "Reformed" and biblical! And, you get angry if one calls you a Hyper Calvinist, or a neo Hardshell!
You cite from monergism.com. Do you agree with Hendryx? He also believed in regeneration without the gospel as do the Hardshells. He also, like the first Hardshells, believed in a "three stage model" of the "new birth." Do you?
You cite Boyce but Boyce, after writing what you cited, said this:
"From the Scriptural teaching we see that the whole work of Regeneration and Conversion is included under the one term regeneration."
So, do you agree with Boyce on this?
"So, Mr. Garrett, I do not affirm that a person can be a "regenerated unbeliever." I affirm exactly the opposite, insofar as the order is logical, not temporal - a caveat that your fellow chronic strifemaker have called, "doubletalk." I took that then to mean, as I still do, that they would rather be dishonest and drop the caveats that I have given than actually speak honestly."
No, Gene, you are just kidding yourself. You admit that, logically speaking, your ordo salutis creates a "regenerated unbeliever." This is real "doubletalk."
"You, Mr. Garrett, would do well not to associate with these individuals.
So, before you go casting about with the questions you have asked of us, Mr. Garrett, I suggest you acquaint yourself with the archive functions of this blog and others. It's really not difficult. Search Engines are your friend."
I have answered these things. But, these words demonstrate further, don't they, your great literary skills, and your Christian kindness, and your deep humility?
"Further, Charles simply isn't on my radar, not now, and not in 2 years. The only reason you are on my radar now is because you have chosen to be a follower of this blog. Are you, I wonder, following this blog in order to stir up more strife?"
Is that where you want the discussion to go? To discussing motives for visiting blogs? Impugn my motives, do you? Why? Are you playing God here? Insinuating that I love strife? Why, because I fight Hyperism? Brother Gene, I visit blogs for different reasons. I have been visiting Triablogue because it provided good writings on topics I was interested in. Also, I knew you had your discussions with Charles and Bob, and so I wanted to also follow to see what you might write on Calvinism.
"Indeed, I have little time to deal with people online who are more concerned about being Baptist than being Christian."
Are you not the insinuator and the judge of motives! Now you also insinuate that I am not as holy as you, not as spiritual, a man of strife, but now you imply I am sectarian, and care more for being Baptist than Christian. How did you arrive at those conclusions?
"I am Baptist and I am Reformed, but I am not obsessed with either one.
harping on the doctrines of grace 24/7."
So, I am also "obsessed"? I "harp on" the doctrines of grace 24/7? That is totally uncharitable and demonstrates a "spirit" of superiority. Gene, in all kindness, it is you who are "putting on airs." Perhaps you ought to check all my blogs and look at the wide range of topics in all of them BEFORE you say such things. I wonder, do you "harp on" anything, brother Gene?
"Because Mr. Ross, like Charles, has proven himself to be unteachable, incorrigible, and uncorrectable, I have long since relegated him to the status of the factious man of Titus 3. If Mr. Garrett had bothered to check the archives of this blog, he would know that."
"Proven themselves to be unteachable and incorrigible"? Why, because they do not adopt your "born again before faith" error? You are free not to have dealings with any man, but it seems odd to me that you and James White use such reasons for running from serious discussion. Gene, I have read all your discussions with Bob and Charles. Where did you get the idea that I had not? All I did was cite your promise about engaging Bob and Charles and anyone who writes against the so called "reformed view" of regeneration. But, if you now feel more led to battle the Catholics and Muslims, then go ahead.
"I haven't felt the need to address Ross in about 2 years. I also know, and Mr. Garrett may not, of others who have tried to deal privately with Mr. Ross over the past few years, but to no avail. They have received largely the same sort of treatment from him as have Dr. White and myself."
"Same sort of treatment"? What kind is that? The same kind you dish out to folks like me?
"If you really believe what you believe, demonstrate it.
The same goes for Charles, Mr. Garrett, and Mr. Ross. If you three really believe what you believe about soteriology, then get off your high horse about Founders, James White, myself, and others who differ with you and demonstrate what you believe by interacting with the atheist, the Orthodox, the Romanist, etc. on your blogs. Dare I say, you won't find that at the Flyswatter or the BaptistGadly."
We have, we are, and we will continue to demonstrate it; And, we will continue to hear you all make excuses for why you do not want to debate or discuss the topic with us. Bob writes much against the Pedo Baptists, does that not count? Gene, have you even looked at my other blogs?
"Instead, what you find are endless, pointless, and largely ignored by us (for reasons explained above) posts that do little but seek to stir up strife."
More accusations. More uncharitableness. More excuses. More "pot shots." Ad hominem argumentation and attacks! You talk about how no one will want to engage us because of our poor attitude. Look at your attitude and harsh judgment against us, brother Gene!
"Occasionally, they'll interact with an Arminian (to their credit), but I don't see them doing what Dr. White and his team do or we do here. In other words, it's time for them to demonstrate they can do more than criticize their brothers. If they can't - or won't - then we have no reason to conclude that they want to do nothing more than stir up strife."
So, you and James White are the standard to follow in apologetics? And, ironically, I feel it is you and James who need to "demonstrate they can do more than criticize their brothers." Oh, and now I am a "brother" at last? You have never called me "brother" and yet you say we criticize our "brothers" (you and James and the "reformed" crowd)? Do I not have a right, as you, to "critique" my brother? To judge his teachings? And, to do so is stirring strife? Then, by that definition, are you not guilty of what you condemn?
"Speaking of lies, let's see what Mr. Garrett has cooked up:
He quotes me as follows:
"Regeneration is distinct from salvation in that it leads directly to conversion, which leads to justification leading to the others."
He then comments:
"Is this so? Is this not a bunch of nonsense? Does it not deny that regeneration = salvation? Not only does the "ordo polutis" of Gene create the monstrosity of a "regenerated unbeliever," but also a "regenerated yet condemned" unbeliever! What kind of "regeneration" is it that does not convert, save, or justify?"
How did what I wrote lead to the concept of a "regenerated unbeliever?""
Now, I am a "liar"! What was the lie Gene? I still do not know! You admit that your "ordo salutis" creates a "regenerated unbeliever," at least LOGICALLY!
"Mr. Garrett, a graduate I see Wingate University, apparently needs to retake English 101 with either Dr. Little-Sweat or Dr. Christopher, if they are still teaching, for he suffers from a case of reading incomprehension. Is regeneration the same as "salvation?" No, "salvation" is a much wider concept. It can include "regeneration," it may include others concepts. In context, I am, of course referring to Charles' (and others') continued misuse of theological terminology. To refer to "regeneration" as if it is the same thing as "salvation" is simply sloppy."
Look at your harsh language Gene. Is this not what you decry in Bob, Charles, and myself? Call me inept. Of course, you and James White are such "exegetes" and expert linguists! I did take "Advanced Composition" at Wingate, with a good Phd. professor. Have you all had such classes?
So, one of my lies is saying that regeneration = salvation? You ought to be ashamed for denying that a man who is regenerated is saved!
And we are "ignorant of theological terminology"? You make me chuckle hearing this! You are the one who creates unbiblical terminology! If it is "sloppy" to call a man who is "born again" a "saved" man, then count me guility! Jesus too! And the apostles!
"Did I say anything about regeneration not leading to conversion, and directly so? NO. That's exactly the opposite of what I wrote. I said it leads directly to conversion, and then justification, and "others" (eg. other aspects of "salvation")."
Oh, now regeneration IS an aspect of "salvation"? I thought it wasn't? If regeneration "leads to" conversion, then conversion is no part of regeneration. If it "leads to" faith, then faith is no part of it. Anyone can see the difficult spot you and White are in with this kind of "doubletalk."
"When speaking of the order of salvation (ordo salutis), Reformed theology always and everywhere insists that regeneration precedes faith."
That is a falsehood. All modern "Reformed" theology, such as you and White promote, is quite different on this point that the older Reformers, such as Calvin himself. Was Calvin a "Reformed"? Did he believe faith followed regeneration?
"Use of means: In the narrow usage, referring to the Holy Spirit’s actual phenomenological task of resurrecting the unbeliever’s soul to new life, there is no means as such, it is His work alone."
Brother Gene, here is where you and White glaringly contradict yourselves! You all will affirm, out of one side of your mouths, that you believe in "regeneration through the means of the gospel," but then you will elsewhere say that the gospel cannot be a means, as you do here! Here you "shell down the corn," come right up and aver that regeneration is accomplished without the means of the gospel! And yet you claim to be "Baptist" and "Reformed" and biblical! And, you get angry if one calls you a Hyper Calvinist, or a neo Hardshell!
You cite from monergism.com. Do you agree with Hendryx? He also believed in regeneration without the gospel as do the Hardshells. He also, like the first Hardshells, believed in a "three stage model" of the "new birth." Do you?
You cite Boyce but Boyce, after writing what you cited, said this:
"From the Scriptural teaching we see that the whole work of Regeneration and Conversion is included under the one term regeneration."
So, do you agree with Boyce on this?
"So, Mr. Garrett, I do not affirm that a person can be a "regenerated unbeliever." I affirm exactly the opposite, insofar as the order is logical, not temporal - a caveat that your fellow chronic strifemaker have called, "doubletalk." I took that then to mean, as I still do, that they would rather be dishonest and drop the caveats that I have given than actually speak honestly."
No, Gene, you are just kidding yourself. You admit that, logically speaking, your ordo salutis creates a "regenerated unbeliever." This is real "doubletalk."
"You, Mr. Garrett, would do well not to associate with these individuals.
So, before you go casting about with the questions you have asked of us, Mr. Garrett, I suggest you acquaint yourself with the archive functions of this blog and others. It's really not difficult. Search Engines are your friend."
I have answered these things. But, these words demonstrate further, don't they, your great literary skills, and your Christian kindness, and your deep humility?
Concludes Snoeberger
Mark A. Snoeberger wrote a paper titled "The Logical Priority Of Regeneration To Saving Faith In A Theological Ordo Salutis." It is my intention to write a review of this paper in the near future. But, for now, let me cite these words from that paper. (emphasis mine)
Snoeberger said:
"The argument that faith precedes regeneration exists in three lines: the presences of
(1) passages expressing faith or repentance unto salvation,
(2) passages expressing belief and repentance unto life, and
(3) passages expressing employment of the Word unto regeneration."
http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2002/Snoeberger.pdf
Well, those are sufficient reasons to believe it, hey?
Of course, as I have pointed out, this is the chief order given in scripture. Sometimes this order is reversed, however, which to me shows that these things take place together, at the same time.
Snoeberger said:
"The argument that faith precedes regeneration exists in three lines: the presences of
(1) passages expressing faith or repentance unto salvation,
(2) passages expressing belief and repentance unto life, and
(3) passages expressing employment of the Word unto regeneration."
http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2002/Snoeberger.pdf
Well, those are sufficient reasons to believe it, hey?
Of course, as I have pointed out, this is the chief order given in scripture. Sometimes this order is reversed, however, which to me shows that these things take place together, at the same time.
Sep 12, 2008
Saved Before Faith?
“A man is not saved because he believes in Christ; he believes in Christ because he is saved.”
- Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Philadelphia, PA: P&R Publishing, 1965), 101.
Taken from http://firstimportance.org/
Friends, that is Hyper Calvinism! That is Hardshellism! Such a doctrine is harmful to evangelism. To preach this stuff gives "Calvinism" a bad name.
- Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Philadelphia, PA: P&R Publishing, 1965), 101.
Taken from http://firstimportance.org/
Friends, that is Hyper Calvinism! That is Hardshellism! Such a doctrine is harmful to evangelism. To preach this stuff gives "Calvinism" a bad name.
Received = Born
"...as many as received (aorist) him...were born (aorist), not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1: 12, 13)
A "Logical" Regenerated Unbeliever?
A logically "regenerated unbeliever" but not an actually "regenerated unbeliever"!
A logically "regenerated unjustified" person but not an actually "regenerated unjustified"!
A logically "regenerated unforgiven" person but not an actually "regenerated unforgiven" person!
A logically "regenerated non-child of God" (not adopted) but not an actually "regenerated (adopted) child of God"!
Well, at least they are admitting that their "ordo salutis" creates a "regenerated unbeliever," at least logically so!
A logically "regenerated unjustified" person but not an actually "regenerated unjustified"!
A logically "regenerated unforgiven" person but not an actually "regenerated unforgiven" person!
A logically "regenerated non-child of God" (not adopted) but not an actually "regenerated (adopted) child of God"!
Well, at least they are admitting that their "ordo salutis" creates a "regenerated unbeliever," at least logically so!
Gene says - "Demonstrate it"
Brother Gene Bridges said (to Bob and Charles at the Calvinist Flyswatter, and to me) - "If you really believe what you believe, demonstrate it."
I have and I am! Did Gene not look over my blog to see what I have written (the very thing of which he and James say I am guilty)?
I can name lots of entries, and of recent date too, where I have completely overthrown much of the argumentation of the "reformed" crowd who put regeneration before faith. Let them address my analysis of John 1:10-12. Let them read what I have written about conviction of sin (in the ongoing Hardshell book), infant regeneration, etc. Let them look at the entries about Spurgeon, Calvin, etc. Let them tell us "begotten by the gospel" does not mean "begotten by faith in the gospel," as I asked in an entry recently.
Now, brother Gene, why don't you "demonstrate" how my "demonstration" is false?
I have and I am! Did Gene not look over my blog to see what I have written (the very thing of which he and James say I am guilty)?
I can name lots of entries, and of recent date too, where I have completely overthrown much of the argumentation of the "reformed" crowd who put regeneration before faith. Let them address my analysis of John 1:10-12. Let them read what I have written about conviction of sin (in the ongoing Hardshell book), infant regeneration, etc. Let them look at the entries about Spurgeon, Calvin, etc. Let them tell us "begotten by the gospel" does not mean "begotten by faith in the gospel," as I asked in an entry recently.
Now, brother Gene, why don't you "demonstrate" how my "demonstration" is false?
The Gadfly's Topics
Over the past several months I have had readers of the Gadfly email me, or make public comments, wherein I have been asked why I don't write on other topics. Some want to know why I don't write more against Armianism, some (like Gene Bridges) why I don't write against the Mormons, Catholics, Muslims, etc., like he and James White do regularly.
First, this blog was set up mainly to write on topics pertaining to Baptist life and doctrine. I have other blogs and web sites set up (see links) to post my other writings.
Second, even here in the Gadfly I have written on the second coming of Christ quite a bit, and have mentioned topics like "elder rule" in Baptist churches, etc.
I do not have the same amount of time, perhaps, to devote to these other topics, at present, as James or Gene.
I have felt a need to get my book on the "Hardshell Baptist Cult" completed and so it occupies the predominant part of the writings here.
Little did I realize when I started the Gadfly that I would be confronting neo-Hardshellism among other Baptist groups, like among those who called themselves "reformed."
Gene posted a blog about my "search engine" ineptness and also took various "pot shots" at brother Ross and myself. It is amazing to me how James and Gene can be so caustic in their tyrades against brother Ross, and now myself, and then turn around and criticize Ross for the same thing. In fact, in James' tyrade recently against brother Ross, wherein he made a whole video to warn us all about brother Ross, he accused Bob of being too much like Peter Ruckman, and gave that as a reason not to debate him. That gave me a chuckle! Several chuckles. Here's why.
First, it seems to me that White is a lot like Ruckman. Also, it seems to me that White does the very things he condemns in Ross! So does Gene. They both condemn conduct in Ross and myself (perceived) of that which they themselves are guilty.
If you want to see the type of language brother Gene used in his diatribe against me, in his blog of yesterday, just visit there and see.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/
I will be making some response to some things Gene said in that blog entry, but must save it for later. Some of us make tents like Paul.
But, why don't Gene and James step up and demonstrate how I did not properly "exegete" John 1:10-13 (my recent writing "Hardshell Proof Texts I")?
And, when I finish the next entry (next day or two) on I John 5: 1, let them come forward and show where I erred?
First, this blog was set up mainly to write on topics pertaining to Baptist life and doctrine. I have other blogs and web sites set up (see links) to post my other writings.
Second, even here in the Gadfly I have written on the second coming of Christ quite a bit, and have mentioned topics like "elder rule" in Baptist churches, etc.
I do not have the same amount of time, perhaps, to devote to these other topics, at present, as James or Gene.
I have felt a need to get my book on the "Hardshell Baptist Cult" completed and so it occupies the predominant part of the writings here.
Little did I realize when I started the Gadfly that I would be confronting neo-Hardshellism among other Baptist groups, like among those who called themselves "reformed."
Gene posted a blog about my "search engine" ineptness and also took various "pot shots" at brother Ross and myself. It is amazing to me how James and Gene can be so caustic in their tyrades against brother Ross, and now myself, and then turn around and criticize Ross for the same thing. In fact, in James' tyrade recently against brother Ross, wherein he made a whole video to warn us all about brother Ross, he accused Bob of being too much like Peter Ruckman, and gave that as a reason not to debate him. That gave me a chuckle! Several chuckles. Here's why.
First, it seems to me that White is a lot like Ruckman. Also, it seems to me that White does the very things he condemns in Ross! So does Gene. They both condemn conduct in Ross and myself (perceived) of that which they themselves are guilty.
If you want to see the type of language brother Gene used in his diatribe against me, in his blog of yesterday, just visit there and see.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/
I will be making some response to some things Gene said in that blog entry, but must save it for later. Some of us make tents like Paul.
But, why don't Gene and James step up and demonstrate how I did not properly "exegete" John 1:10-13 (my recent writing "Hardshell Proof Texts I")?
And, when I finish the next entry (next day or two) on I John 5: 1, let them come forward and show where I erred?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)