The following is some interesting testimony from the famed "Mt. Carmel Old School Baptist Church Trial," held at the turn of the 20th century, but respecting a division that took place in said church around the early 1890's, and other Old School or Regular Baptist churches on the question of who was the original Old School Baptist church at Mt. Carmel church in Virginia.
The dissenting factions came to be known as the "means" and the "anti-means" factions. The "means" faction believed in means in regeneration, the necessity of faith for regeneration and complete salvation, and in perseverance, as opposed to simple preservation, and also believed in Sunday Schools, Bible classes, and missions, and in ministerial education. Both sides were five point Calvinists. Each side claimed to represent the historic Calvinistic Baptist faith. Here are some interesting exerpts from the "means" side. Notice how they cite the great Abraham Booth whom I have recently cited.
Notice also how two leading Hardshells are mentioned, Elders Purifoy and Dalton, and how the means side (Elders Burnam, McIrntoff, and Huff) affirm that Purifoy and Dalton at one time believed in "means" before they became "anti-means." They also avow that one of the great leaders among the Hardshell founding fathers, in the 1832-1882 period, in the formative years, Elder John Clark, founder and editor, in that period, of the famous periodical, "Zion's Advocate," was a believer in gospel means. They cite material from the first issue of the paper, in 1854, where this position was taken by that leading paper, the paper that competed with the "Signs of the Times" periodical, edited by the infamous Elder Gilbert Beebe. Beebe and Clark became leaders of two camps within the "anti-mission movement." Clark accused Beebe of Arianism and of believing in Parker's "two-seedism," of his "eternal vital union" doctrine, or the "eternal children doctrine."
There was a division in the 1880's within this movement, one in which the "means" faction separated itself from the "anti-means" faction. It also took place at a time when the movement was also dividing over the question of the extent of predestination.
Excerpts from the Testimony at the Mt. Carmel Trial
Q. Did I understand you to say, Mr. Burman, that faith was necessary to regeneration?
A. It is inseparable from regeneration, Mr. Leedy. We do not say that a man must believe in order to be regenerated. We don’t say that a man must be regenerated in order to believe, but being regenerated he believes, and believing he is regenerated. They are simultaneous and inseparable.
Q. You believe that faith is necessary to salvation then?
A. Oh, yes, certainly, just as much as regeneration is.
The Trial and Decision of Mount Carmel Church-Part 1
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/824/36/
Q. Now, Mr. Mclnturff, will you be kind enough to produce those writings to which you referred?
A. I would just like to show that at one time Brother Dalton there (indicating) wrote one of the best articles on the subject of “Means” that I have ever seen. It is just gold. It is just exactly what we believe and a great deal better than I could express it myself. Now I had noted down here a good many places for different things, I didn’t know what you were going to ask me. I was going to show you that old Brother Clarke who was the founder of Zion’s Advocate taught the same, and Dr. Gill, the great commentator, did too. And that Dr. Purifoy did the same but we have already spoken of him. On page 59 in the first volume of Zion’s Advocate, I have copied an article from it. Well, it is simply an editorial that I wrote. It is the beginning of the third number, March, 1891.
“Commenting upon Romans 1:16, he says that the gospel ‘is a means made use of by God in quickening dead sinners, enlightening blind eyes, unstopping deaf ears, softening hard hearts, and making of enemies friends’ (Vol. VIII. p. 437) Same volume; page 339, upon Acts XXVI, 18, he says ‘Now, though this is all the work of the spirit, by whom only the eyes of the understanding are enlightened; yet this is ascribed to the apostle, not as the efficient cause, but as the instrument and means, through preaching of the gospel, which the spirit of God would, and did, make use of.’”
Dr. Purifoy published in Zion’s Advocate in 1879 and here are his exact words taken from it. I can produce the original. Here are his exact words:
“I firmly believe that it is the duty of every gospel minister to preach repentance and remission of sins, in the name of Jesus, to all the unregenerate with whom he comes in contact in his pulpit ministrations. As he does this in the name of Jesus, realizing the utter inability of the sinner to repent until the grace of repentance is given him from on high, he has an assurance from the scriptures, that God’s word will not return unto Him void, but will accomplish that whereunto he sends it, and prosper in the thing he pleases. Thus the gospel ministry is instrumental in God’s hands, through Jesus, in raising dead sinners to newness of life---spiritual life---just as the apostles were instruments in His hands in casting out devils, healing the sick, and raising the dead.”
Q. In what respect do you differ from the “anti-means” party?
A. I think Elder McInturff in his testimony defined the difference.
Q. You adopt that then as your view?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Have you any authorities of the church or church writers showing that the use of means does not conflict with the doctrine of the church as laid down in this deed, and if you have please produce them?
A. I have, sir. I hold in my hand a copy of Booth’s works, Volume One. The title of this book is Booth’s Reign of Grace.
Mr. Downing: When was that book published?
The Witness: 1813.
The Witness: I will read from the fourth chapter, page 79,
“We have seen in the preceding chapter, that Grace presided in the eternal counsels, and reigned as an absolute sovereign in the decree of election. Let us now consider the same glorious grace, as exerting its benign influence in the regeneration and effectual calling of all that shall ever be saved. Election makes no alteration in the real state of its objects. For, as they were considered in that gracious purpose, in a sinful, dying condition, so they continue in that situation, till the energy of the Holy Spirit, and the power of evangelical truth reach their hearts. The means being decreed as well as the end, it is absolutely necessary, to accomplish the great design of election, that all the chosen, in their several generations, should be born of the Spirit and converted to Jesus; called of God, and bear his image.
“That important change which takes place in the mind and views of a sinner when converted to Christ, is frequently signified in the infallible word, by being called of God---called by grace---called by the gospel. In performing this work of heavenly mercy, the eternal Spirit is the great agent and evangelical truth the honoured instrument. Are men, in their natural state, considered as asleep in sin, and dead to God? When they are called, their minds are enlightened, and spiritual life is communicated. The Spirit of God, speaking to the conscience by the truth, quickens the dead sinner; shows him his awful state, and alarms his fears. The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live. Awake thou that sleepest. Are they considered as having departed from God, and at a distance from him; in the way of destruction, yet afraid to return? Then the language of the gospel is, return to the Lord, and he will have mercy upon you; and to our God for he will abundantly pardon. Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out. Such a revelation of grace being made in the gospel, and such invitations being addressed to perishing sinners, the Spirit of truth, in effectual calling, gives them encouragement from these declarations to return to God, and enables them to look for salvation from the hand of Him against whom they have sinned, and from whom they have so deeply revolted. Such, in a general view, is the nature of that heavenly blessing which is the subject of our present inquiry .”
I am going now to introduce Mr. Benjamin Keach.
I will read a part of his exposition on the parable of the Marriage Supper from “Exposition of the Parables,” page 546.
“Therefore this compulsion only denotes the powerful argument they should use, together with those efficacious influences and operations of the Spirit, which Christ put forth with the preaching of the gospel; it being by the ministration of the word, that he makes the souls of obstinate sinners willing; they are said to compel them, whereas indeed it is Christ by them; they are but instruments in Christ’s hand in the doing of it: ‘We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us,’ 2 Cor. IV. 7. The gospel hath to do with men as rational creatures, and as such Christ is presented unto them, and arguments are used to persuade them to accept him, but because all men are naturally blind, and their wills are stubborn and obstinate, ‘ye will not come to me, that you may have life,’ John V. 40. Christ, by the preaching of the gospel, and operations of his Spirit, enlighteneth their understandings, and bows and inclines their wills. And this is that which is only meant by compelling them to come to the wedding. Neither can this seem strange to any that observe divers places of scripture, where the same word is used, it is said Christ ‘Compelled his disciples to go into a ship.’
It is true, all that believe and receive Jesus Christ are compelled; grace hath such power in it, that it doth in some sense constrain the soul, ‘the love of Christ constraineth us,’ 2 Cor. V. 15. And as the spouse says, Cant. I. 4, it draws, but how is it? Is it against the consent of the will? Is there any force put upon that noble faculty? No sure, the will acts freely, and is not denied its own proper choice, but it is overruled and persuaded by the working of the Holy Ghost, cheerfully and freely to choose accept of Jesus Christ. ‘My people shall be willing in the day of my power.’ Psa, XC, 3. Jesus Christ, as I have formerly told you, will accept of no pressed soldiers, no, no, they must be all volunteers, but naturally the will is corrupt, depraved, and wills only that which is evil, and it is averse to all things that are truly and Spiritually good and so remains, until grace, or the Holy Spirit takes away that enmity and averseness which is in it, and so makes it willing; and this is done generally by the powerful preaching of the gospel, God being pleased to accompany it with the operations of his own Spirit and divine power; and this is all, no doubt, which is meant by compelling them to come in."
(The Trial and Decision of Mount Carmel Church-Part 2)
See here
Jan 18, 2009
Jan 16, 2009
Reformers on Regeneration
"In the early Protestant writings on conversion, there is reference to the three basic elements of faith, repentance, and the renewal of the will. Luther tended to identify conversion with faith, Calvin with repentance, and Melancthon with the renewal of the will."
(Encyclopedia of Religion in the South By Samuel S. Hill, Charles H. Lippy, Charles Reagan Wilson Published by Mercer University Press, 2005)
See here
(Encyclopedia of Religion in the South By Samuel S. Hill, Charles H. Lippy, Charles Reagan Wilson Published by Mercer University Press, 2005)
See here
New Birth = Faith (Luther)
The following information regarding the views of Martin Luther on "regeneration" and its relation to faith is taken from schaff's encyclopedia.
"The Reformation restored to regeneration its firm connection with God's act of salvation in Christ. In the forgiveness of sin man finds the basis of a new existence. The faith that receives this blessing is the immediate reality of a new life. Faith itself is, according to Luther, the new birth. In faith we are both justified and sanctified. This view was not affected by Luther's association of regeneration and baptism. He assumed even the difficulty of the idea of faith in infants in order to maintain the same saving operation in children and adults. The same intimate connection of justification and new life is found in Melanchthon's Loci of 1521 and in the Apology. The latter does not limit the term "justification" to the conception of a mere declaration of being just, but unhesitatingly denotes "justification" as "regeneration" and faith as the "rightness of heart" demanded by God as "obedience toward the Gospel." Justification included moral renewal and the endowment of the Spirit. This merging was due to the apprehension of justification not as a transcendent act of God but as a human experience; but in the commentary on Romans (1532) Melanchthon began to connect more strictly the judgment of God declaring man as just with Christ's work of atonement and to exclude from it every reference to the transformation of man that begins with faith. Calvin conceived regeneration as "penitence" and restricted it to the moral act of the mortification of the old man and the generation of the new. The Formula of Concord (q.v.) left the conception of regeneration vague, while it, on the other hand, clearly defined justification, thus exposing the relation of faith to morals, now excluded from justification, to neglect. The period of the Reformation left to later theology a number of unsolved questions regarding regeneration (I don't agree with this - SG), such as the relation of the Spirit to the individual. The Augsburg Confession (q.v.) states that the Spirit effects faith (Art. 5) and that faith conditions the possession of the Spirit (Art. 20). These statements are not contradictory if by the Spirit that effects faith is understood the Spirit of God incorporate in the Word and the congregation, -and by the Spirit that is imparted to faith the individualized spirit dwelling in the believer. But as this distinction was generally unobserved, there resulted a different interpretation of regeneration in the process of salvation. If Luther's conception of regeneration as the "gift of faith" was to be adhered to, it must neccessarily be considered as the presupposition of the life of faith in general and consequently as preceding justification. But if one holds the idea that only the individual possession of the spirit effects regeneration, then regeneration is the consequence of the sonship attained in faith. In the latter instance regeneration is reduced to a secondary position but receives a richer ethical import. Still more important for the later development of the doctrine was the question in regard to the relation of regeneration to baptism. Some dogmaticians adhered to the bold thesis of Luther that the baptism of infants and the regeneration of adults by faith in the Word were essentially the same process. But the later theologians taught in connection with the doctrine of baptism a regeneration which was not at the same time a renovation of life, but communicated to the soul chained by hereditary sin the capacity to believe. In this way the conception of regeneration was considerably emptied 'and placed where it could no longer serve as an expression of the experience of salvation.
There is no reason to break with the view offered by the Reformation in connecting regeneration with the origin of faith, or as Luther has it, that the new birth is faith. By faith not only is the divine judgment of justification appropriated but a union is effected with Christ transforming the believer into a new person. Faith has thus not only a religious but an ethical meaning, in that it represents a receptive attitude toward the vivifying and determining influence of the Redeemer. Man's relation to God cannot be measured by the diagnosis of the state of his own soul, but merely by the worth of Christ, the object of his faith; hence the certainty of salvation is not jeopardized. Owing to the condition of appropriation by faith, it is impossible to ascribe to the baptism of infants unconditionally the effect of regeneration; for the realization of the state of grace offered in baptism is not completed with that act. The advent of a new personality can only proceed in the light of self-consciousness. Moreover, the conceptions of regeneration and conversion form an indivisible unity; they denote the same beginning of a new life, only that regeneration characterizes it as an act of God and conversion, as a new tendency of life assumed by the believer."
See here
These views of Luther go contrary to those who promote the "born again before faith" error.
Thus, from what I have shown during the past month, in this blog, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Archibald Alexander, Charles Spurgeon, Abraham Booth, and Martin Luther, great lights in historic creedal Calvinism and biblical predestination, all taught against this view. Ironically, those today, like John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, James White, Tom Ascol, et als, claim to present the "reformed" faith! Will they come forward and sign propositions about what the Bible and the great lights of Calvinism have historically taught?
I have been asking these questions, along with Bob Ross and others, for a long time and all we get is the ire of the Hyperists, but no rebuttals to our writings!
For almost three years now I have asked simple questions all over the Calvinist blogosphere that no one has dared to answer! Why? Because to answer them would uncover their Hyper Calvinism and neo Hardshellism!
Here are two of those simple questions. I will call them "Hard Nuts for the neo Reformed Calvinist."
1. Does begotten by the gospel not mean all the same as begotten by believing it?
2. How is the gospel a means in regeneration if one must be regenerated before faith?
Will any come forward now and answer them? If not, why not?
"The Reformation restored to regeneration its firm connection with God's act of salvation in Christ. In the forgiveness of sin man finds the basis of a new existence. The faith that receives this blessing is the immediate reality of a new life. Faith itself is, according to Luther, the new birth. In faith we are both justified and sanctified. This view was not affected by Luther's association of regeneration and baptism. He assumed even the difficulty of the idea of faith in infants in order to maintain the same saving operation in children and adults. The same intimate connection of justification and new life is found in Melanchthon's Loci of 1521 and in the Apology. The latter does not limit the term "justification" to the conception of a mere declaration of being just, but unhesitatingly denotes "justification" as "regeneration" and faith as the "rightness of heart" demanded by God as "obedience toward the Gospel." Justification included moral renewal and the endowment of the Spirit. This merging was due to the apprehension of justification not as a transcendent act of God but as a human experience; but in the commentary on Romans (1532) Melanchthon began to connect more strictly the judgment of God declaring man as just with Christ's work of atonement and to exclude from it every reference to the transformation of man that begins with faith. Calvin conceived regeneration as "penitence" and restricted it to the moral act of the mortification of the old man and the generation of the new. The Formula of Concord (q.v.) left the conception of regeneration vague, while it, on the other hand, clearly defined justification, thus exposing the relation of faith to morals, now excluded from justification, to neglect. The period of the Reformation left to later theology a number of unsolved questions regarding regeneration (I don't agree with this - SG), such as the relation of the Spirit to the individual. The Augsburg Confession (q.v.) states that the Spirit effects faith (Art. 5) and that faith conditions the possession of the Spirit (Art. 20). These statements are not contradictory if by the Spirit that effects faith is understood the Spirit of God incorporate in the Word and the congregation, -and by the Spirit that is imparted to faith the individualized spirit dwelling in the believer. But as this distinction was generally unobserved, there resulted a different interpretation of regeneration in the process of salvation. If Luther's conception of regeneration as the "gift of faith" was to be adhered to, it must neccessarily be considered as the presupposition of the life of faith in general and consequently as preceding justification. But if one holds the idea that only the individual possession of the spirit effects regeneration, then regeneration is the consequence of the sonship attained in faith. In the latter instance regeneration is reduced to a secondary position but receives a richer ethical import. Still more important for the later development of the doctrine was the question in regard to the relation of regeneration to baptism. Some dogmaticians adhered to the bold thesis of Luther that the baptism of infants and the regeneration of adults by faith in the Word were essentially the same process. But the later theologians taught in connection with the doctrine of baptism a regeneration which was not at the same time a renovation of life, but communicated to the soul chained by hereditary sin the capacity to believe. In this way the conception of regeneration was considerably emptied 'and placed where it could no longer serve as an expression of the experience of salvation.
There is no reason to break with the view offered by the Reformation in connecting regeneration with the origin of faith, or as Luther has it, that the new birth is faith. By faith not only is the divine judgment of justification appropriated but a union is effected with Christ transforming the believer into a new person. Faith has thus not only a religious but an ethical meaning, in that it represents a receptive attitude toward the vivifying and determining influence of the Redeemer. Man's relation to God cannot be measured by the diagnosis of the state of his own soul, but merely by the worth of Christ, the object of his faith; hence the certainty of salvation is not jeopardized. Owing to the condition of appropriation by faith, it is impossible to ascribe to the baptism of infants unconditionally the effect of regeneration; for the realization of the state of grace offered in baptism is not completed with that act. The advent of a new personality can only proceed in the light of self-consciousness. Moreover, the conceptions of regeneration and conversion form an indivisible unity; they denote the same beginning of a new life, only that regeneration characterizes it as an act of God and conversion, as a new tendency of life assumed by the believer."
See here
These views of Luther go contrary to those who promote the "born again before faith" error.
Thus, from what I have shown during the past month, in this blog, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Archibald Alexander, Charles Spurgeon, Abraham Booth, and Martin Luther, great lights in historic creedal Calvinism and biblical predestination, all taught against this view. Ironically, those today, like John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, James White, Tom Ascol, et als, claim to present the "reformed" faith! Will they come forward and sign propositions about what the Bible and the great lights of Calvinism have historically taught?
I have been asking these questions, along with Bob Ross and others, for a long time and all we get is the ire of the Hyperists, but no rebuttals to our writings!
For almost three years now I have asked simple questions all over the Calvinist blogosphere that no one has dared to answer! Why? Because to answer them would uncover their Hyper Calvinism and neo Hardshellism!
Here are two of those simple questions. I will call them "Hard Nuts for the neo Reformed Calvinist."
1. Does begotten by the gospel not mean all the same as begotten by believing it?
2. How is the gospel a means in regeneration if one must be regenerated before faith?
Will any come forward now and answer them? If not, why not?
Booth on Begotten by Faith
Spurgeon said of Abraham Booth:
"I have read with some degree of attention a book to which I owe much for this present discourse—a book, by Abraham Booth, called "Glad Tidings to Perishing Sinners." I have never heard any one cast a suspicion upon Abraham Booth's soundness; on the contrary, he has been generally considered as one of the most orthodox of the divines of the last generation. If you want my views in full, read his book." ("The Warrant of Faith")
See here
Wrote Bob Ross:
"One of the Baptist champions of the past was ABRAHAM BOOTH ((1734-1806), well-known for his great book, The Reign of Grace. He also wrote a great work entitled, Glad Tidings to Perishing Sinners, in which he refutes the view of "pre-faith regeneration." It is one of the works which helped Baptists of that age avoid the pitfalls of hyper-Calvinism."
"Here are excerpts from Booth's book, which is now out of print:
"It is objected, 'Though it be not necessary for a sinner to know that he is born again, before he believe in Jesus Christ, yet regeneration must precede faith. For the heart of a sinner being naturally in a state of enmity to the Divine Character, he will never turn to God, while in that situation, for pardon and acceptance.' In answer to which, the following particulars are proposed for consideration.
Before this objection can be justly considered as valid, it must be evinced, not only, that regeneration precedes faith; but also, that it is necessary to authorise a sinner's reliance on Jesus Christ: than which, few sentiments are more foreign from the genuine gospel.
[Theory:] Regeneration must precede faith. This, though assumed as a certain fact, may be justly doubted: for the page of inspiration does not warrant our supposing, that any one is born of God, before he believe in Jesus Christ; or, that regeneration is effected by the Holy Spirit, without the word of grace. For we are taught, by the sacred writers, to consider the word of truth, with regard to adults, as the means of regeneration, and of many other happy effects. They teach, for instance,
That it is the instrument of enlightening the mind, of awakening the conscience, and of softening the heart.
That it is the mean, in the hand of the Spirit, of conversion, of sanctification, and of salvation."
Booth continues on page 122:
"Such is the language of inspiration, relative to the high importance of revealed truth, in the great plan of salvation by Jesus Christ! Hence, it appears, that few things are more evidently contained, or more strongly asserted, in sacred scripture, than the instrumentality of divine truth in renewing the hearts of sinners.
For it is there described as the honoured mean, as the seed of God (1 Peter 1:23-25), by which the Holy Spirit effects regeneration, the sanctification, and the consolation, of those that are saved.
But it is impossible for us to conceive of the mind being enlightened, of the conscience being relieved, of the will being regulated, and of the affections being purified by the word of truth, ANY FURTHER THAN IT IS BELIEVED. It may therefore be concluded, that regeneration is not, in order of time, prior to faith in Christ, and justification by him. To contend, indeed, that regeneration must be prior to faith, and to justification, is like maintaining that the eldest son of a nobleman must partake of human nature, before he can have the filial relation to his father which constitutes him an heir to the paternal estate, and entitles him to those honours which are hereitary in the family. For the human nature, derived from his parents, and the relation of a son, being completely of the same date; there is no such thing as priority, or posteriority, respecting them, either as to the order of time, or the order of nature. They are inseparable, nor can one exist without the other."
"Thus it is, I conceive, with regard to regeneration, faith in Christ, and justification before God. For, to consider any man as born of God, but not as a child of God; as a child of God, but not as believing in Jesus Christ; as believing in Jesus Christ, but not as justified; or as justified, but not as an heir of immortal felicity; is, either to the last degree absurd, or manifestly contrary to the apostolic doctrine.
Consequently, as they are the ungodly whom the Spirit regenerates by the truth, so persons of that character are warranted to believe in Jesus."
Wrote Brother Ross:
"Abraham Booth goes on his book to consider some of the objections and arguments of the hyper-Calvinists of his day who taught "pre-faith regeneration." It is noteworthy that some of the same thought is expressed today by hypers, Hardshells, and hybrid Calvinists."
Seehere
Andhere
(Some highlighting and emphasis are mine - Stephen)
"I have read with some degree of attention a book to which I owe much for this present discourse—a book, by Abraham Booth, called "Glad Tidings to Perishing Sinners." I have never heard any one cast a suspicion upon Abraham Booth's soundness; on the contrary, he has been generally considered as one of the most orthodox of the divines of the last generation. If you want my views in full, read his book." ("The Warrant of Faith")
See here
Wrote Bob Ross:
"One of the Baptist champions of the past was ABRAHAM BOOTH ((1734-1806), well-known for his great book, The Reign of Grace. He also wrote a great work entitled, Glad Tidings to Perishing Sinners, in which he refutes the view of "pre-faith regeneration." It is one of the works which helped Baptists of that age avoid the pitfalls of hyper-Calvinism."
"Here are excerpts from Booth's book, which is now out of print:
"It is objected, 'Though it be not necessary for a sinner to know that he is born again, before he believe in Jesus Christ, yet regeneration must precede faith. For the heart of a sinner being naturally in a state of enmity to the Divine Character, he will never turn to God, while in that situation, for pardon and acceptance.' In answer to which, the following particulars are proposed for consideration.
Before this objection can be justly considered as valid, it must be evinced, not only, that regeneration precedes faith; but also, that it is necessary to authorise a sinner's reliance on Jesus Christ: than which, few sentiments are more foreign from the genuine gospel.
[Theory:] Regeneration must precede faith. This, though assumed as a certain fact, may be justly doubted: for the page of inspiration does not warrant our supposing, that any one is born of God, before he believe in Jesus Christ; or, that regeneration is effected by the Holy Spirit, without the word of grace. For we are taught, by the sacred writers, to consider the word of truth, with regard to adults, as the means of regeneration, and of many other happy effects. They teach, for instance,
That it is the instrument of enlightening the mind, of awakening the conscience, and of softening the heart.
That it is the mean, in the hand of the Spirit, of conversion, of sanctification, and of salvation."
Booth continues on page 122:
"Such is the language of inspiration, relative to the high importance of revealed truth, in the great plan of salvation by Jesus Christ! Hence, it appears, that few things are more evidently contained, or more strongly asserted, in sacred scripture, than the instrumentality of divine truth in renewing the hearts of sinners.
For it is there described as the honoured mean, as the seed of God (1 Peter 1:23-25), by which the Holy Spirit effects regeneration, the sanctification, and the consolation, of those that are saved.
But it is impossible for us to conceive of the mind being enlightened, of the conscience being relieved, of the will being regulated, and of the affections being purified by the word of truth, ANY FURTHER THAN IT IS BELIEVED. It may therefore be concluded, that regeneration is not, in order of time, prior to faith in Christ, and justification by him. To contend, indeed, that regeneration must be prior to faith, and to justification, is like maintaining that the eldest son of a nobleman must partake of human nature, before he can have the filial relation to his father which constitutes him an heir to the paternal estate, and entitles him to those honours which are hereitary in the family. For the human nature, derived from his parents, and the relation of a son, being completely of the same date; there is no such thing as priority, or posteriority, respecting them, either as to the order of time, or the order of nature. They are inseparable, nor can one exist without the other."
"Thus it is, I conceive, with regard to regeneration, faith in Christ, and justification before God. For, to consider any man as born of God, but not as a child of God; as a child of God, but not as believing in Jesus Christ; as believing in Jesus Christ, but not as justified; or as justified, but not as an heir of immortal felicity; is, either to the last degree absurd, or manifestly contrary to the apostolic doctrine.
Consequently, as they are the ungodly whom the Spirit regenerates by the truth, so persons of that character are warranted to believe in Jesus."
Wrote Brother Ross:
"Abraham Booth goes on his book to consider some of the objections and arguments of the hyper-Calvinists of his day who taught "pre-faith regeneration." It is noteworthy that some of the same thought is expressed today by hypers, Hardshells, and hybrid Calvinists."
Seehere
Andhere
(Some highlighting and emphasis are mine - Stephen)
Jan 15, 2009
Confessed Hyper Calvinists
A Hardshell wrote:
"However, we are hyper-Calvinists regarding salvation, for we teach regeneration before faith, a different purpose for faith and the gospel, and the definite possibility of God’s elect backsliding into sin and having their faith overthrown (but not losing eternal life)." (emphasis mine - SG)
See here
Another Hardshell wrote:
"It will not be necessary for many of our readers to be introduced to the writer in the general framework of that faith commonly termed “hardshell.” To others, it seems only fair to say the writer does not come to this unbiblical term without a certain amount of bias. He has not always been so classified, but was first accused of “preaching hardshellism” when it became known in the “New Testament”, or Sovereign Grace churches that he preached that one had to first have an impartation of spiritual life in order to effectually and spiritually hear and believe the Gospel of the salvation which is in Christ Jesus."
"In the past few months a new term has been introduced. Only time will tell if it becomes permanent. The term is “New Hardshellism.” It is well when a new term is coined that it should be more accurate than the old term which it replaces. The author of the new term gave its definition as being the same as “Old Hardshellism” except that it referred to those free grace Missionaries who believe (as the “Old Hardshells”) that regeneration was by the Spirit without the means of the gospel. This writer begs to differ, based upon the true origin of what is being called “Old Hardshellism.” Old “hardshellism” was applied to the defenders of Particular Redemption and Limited Atonement of Christ for the elect only. It did not involve the doctrine of Holy Spirit regeneration, per se, for even the New School party gave lip service to this truth for a time."
("WHAT IS “HARDSHELLISM”?" By S.C. Phillips)
(emphasis mine - SG)
See here
Many of today's neo Hardshells, those who call themselves "reformed," and who promote the false idea that men are born again before they are converted, or made believers and disciples, will not admit that they are Hyper Calvinists, even though, as I have often demonstrated, "the shoe fits."
No one wants to be labeled as a "Hyperist." No one wants to admit that their theology and soteriology warrants the label. Some who are thought of as being "Hyper" will even be heard to ask - "are there really any Hyper Calvinists around?"
Well, yes, they are still all around. Few, like the Hardshells cited above, however, will "shell down the corn" and just admit that they are "Hyperists."
Phil Johnson said, in his Primer on Hyper Calvinism, that it "comes in several flavors, so it admits no simple, pithy definition."
He also spoke of "extreme varieties of hyper-Calvinism" and "ultra-high Calvinism" and "modern Hyper Calvinist."
Does he mean the same thing as I do when I say "neo Hyper Calvinist"? And, when I say "neo Reformed"? And, when I say "neo Hardshell"?
He also wrote:
"Hyper-Calvinism is sometimes defined as the view that God will save the elect apart from any means. Some, but very few, modern hyper-Calvinists hold such an extreme view. Those who do hold this view oppose all forms of evangelism and preaching to the unsaved, because they believe God will save whomever He chooses, apart from human means...Another common but incorrect definition equates hyper-Calvinism with fatalism."
See here
Thus, it is clear that an integral part of historic Hyper Calvinism is the denial that the gospel is a means or instrument in the new birth, or in regeneration. Those who promote the "born again before faith" error are guilty of denying means in the new birth. They are therefore to be properly labeled as "Hyper Calvinists."
"However, we are hyper-Calvinists regarding salvation, for we teach regeneration before faith, a different purpose for faith and the gospel, and the definite possibility of God’s elect backsliding into sin and having their faith overthrown (but not losing eternal life)." (emphasis mine - SG)
See here
Another Hardshell wrote:
"It will not be necessary for many of our readers to be introduced to the writer in the general framework of that faith commonly termed “hardshell.” To others, it seems only fair to say the writer does not come to this unbiblical term without a certain amount of bias. He has not always been so classified, but was first accused of “preaching hardshellism” when it became known in the “New Testament”, or Sovereign Grace churches that he preached that one had to first have an impartation of spiritual life in order to effectually and spiritually hear and believe the Gospel of the salvation which is in Christ Jesus."
"In the past few months a new term has been introduced. Only time will tell if it becomes permanent. The term is “New Hardshellism.” It is well when a new term is coined that it should be more accurate than the old term which it replaces. The author of the new term gave its definition as being the same as “Old Hardshellism” except that it referred to those free grace Missionaries who believe (as the “Old Hardshells”) that regeneration was by the Spirit without the means of the gospel. This writer begs to differ, based upon the true origin of what is being called “Old Hardshellism.” Old “hardshellism” was applied to the defenders of Particular Redemption and Limited Atonement of Christ for the elect only. It did not involve the doctrine of Holy Spirit regeneration, per se, for even the New School party gave lip service to this truth for a time."
("WHAT IS “HARDSHELLISM”?" By S.C. Phillips)
(emphasis mine - SG)
See here
Many of today's neo Hardshells, those who call themselves "reformed," and who promote the false idea that men are born again before they are converted, or made believers and disciples, will not admit that they are Hyper Calvinists, even though, as I have often demonstrated, "the shoe fits."
No one wants to be labeled as a "Hyperist." No one wants to admit that their theology and soteriology warrants the label. Some who are thought of as being "Hyper" will even be heard to ask - "are there really any Hyper Calvinists around?"
Well, yes, they are still all around. Few, like the Hardshells cited above, however, will "shell down the corn" and just admit that they are "Hyperists."
Phil Johnson said, in his Primer on Hyper Calvinism, that it "comes in several flavors, so it admits no simple, pithy definition."
He also spoke of "extreme varieties of hyper-Calvinism" and "ultra-high Calvinism" and "modern Hyper Calvinist."
Does he mean the same thing as I do when I say "neo Hyper Calvinist"? And, when I say "neo Reformed"? And, when I say "neo Hardshell"?
He also wrote:
"Hyper-Calvinism is sometimes defined as the view that God will save the elect apart from any means. Some, but very few, modern hyper-Calvinists hold such an extreme view. Those who do hold this view oppose all forms of evangelism and preaching to the unsaved, because they believe God will save whomever He chooses, apart from human means...Another common but incorrect definition equates hyper-Calvinism with fatalism."
See here
Thus, it is clear that an integral part of historic Hyper Calvinism is the denial that the gospel is a means or instrument in the new birth, or in regeneration. Those who promote the "born again before faith" error are guilty of denying means in the new birth. They are therefore to be properly labeled as "Hyper Calvinists."
Jan 12, 2009
Faith is the "Receiver"
Those who, like the Hardshells and "Reformed" Calvinists, promote the "born again before faith" error are often heard to say that "God in regeneration (new birth) gives ability to believe," and "God in regeneration gives one a 'receiver' to receive the gospel."
One cannot "receive" the news of the gospel, it is argued by the Hyperist, without first being given this spiritual "receiver," no more than a radio cannot "receive" the "sound waves" without a radio "receiver."
What is wrong with this argumentation?
First, it fails to see that faith itself is the "receiver." It fails to see faith itself as the "ability" to please God.
I have often had Hyperists ask me about Romans 8: 6-8 and about the statement of Paul that "they who are in the flesh cannot please God." The argument is made to prove that one must be regenerated before he can believe. But, I then rebut this argumentation with a question, which is this - "is regeneration alone sufficient to please God?" And, - "can one please God with regeneration and without faith?"
The writer of Hebrews says - "without faith it is impossible to please God." (Hebrews 11: 6) Paul says in Romans 8 - "they who are in the flesh cannot please God." Thus, regeneration alone, if it does not include faith, is not sufficient to please God.
For regeneration to make a man capable of "pleasing God," he must be given faith when he is given new birth.
If a man is regenerated "before" faith, and regeneration is supposed to make it possible to have faith, then one is able to please God by regeneration alone, and faith then becomes unnecessary in the goal of "pleasing God." Do you see?
Faith is indeed the "ability" and the "receiver" that is given to sinners when they are called, drawn, and converted. From this point on, with a regenerated heart, and with the gift of faith, he is able to please God.
A "regenerated unbeliever" cannot please God for he lacks faith, the ability and the receiver that he has been given by God.
One cannot "receive" the news of the gospel, it is argued by the Hyperist, without first being given this spiritual "receiver," no more than a radio cannot "receive" the "sound waves" without a radio "receiver."
What is wrong with this argumentation?
First, it fails to see that faith itself is the "receiver." It fails to see faith itself as the "ability" to please God.
I have often had Hyperists ask me about Romans 8: 6-8 and about the statement of Paul that "they who are in the flesh cannot please God." The argument is made to prove that one must be regenerated before he can believe. But, I then rebut this argumentation with a question, which is this - "is regeneration alone sufficient to please God?" And, - "can one please God with regeneration and without faith?"
The writer of Hebrews says - "without faith it is impossible to please God." (Hebrews 11: 6) Paul says in Romans 8 - "they who are in the flesh cannot please God." Thus, regeneration alone, if it does not include faith, is not sufficient to please God.
For regeneration to make a man capable of "pleasing God," he must be given faith when he is given new birth.
If a man is regenerated "before" faith, and regeneration is supposed to make it possible to have faith, then one is able to please God by regeneration alone, and faith then becomes unnecessary in the goal of "pleasing God." Do you see?
Faith is indeed the "ability" and the "receiver" that is given to sinners when they are called, drawn, and converted. From this point on, with a regenerated heart, and with the gift of faith, he is able to please God.
A "regenerated unbeliever" cannot please God for he lacks faith, the ability and the receiver that he has been given by God.
Jan 9, 2009
What Salvation?
Recently Tom Ascol wrote:
"The gospel that Paul preached to them proclaimed salvation by grace alone received through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone."
See here
What "salvation" is it that is "received though faith"? Will brother Tom Ascol say it is initial salvation, or regeneration? No!
This is why you have to be careful in reading writings from such Hyperists as Ascol, from those who promote the "regenerated (born again) before faith" error. They and he will not say that initial salvation is "received through faith," but will say rather that it is only that "salvation" that is post regeneration, or deliverances that come after regeneration, that is/are "received through faith."
But, the scriptures will not bear this hermeneutic rule.
"The gospel that Paul preached to them proclaimed salvation by grace alone received through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone."
See here
What "salvation" is it that is "received though faith"? Will brother Tom Ascol say it is initial salvation, or regeneration? No!
This is why you have to be careful in reading writings from such Hyperists as Ascol, from those who promote the "regenerated (born again) before faith" error. They and he will not say that initial salvation is "received through faith," but will say rather that it is only that "salvation" that is post regeneration, or deliverances that come after regeneration, that is/are "received through faith."
But, the scriptures will not bear this hermeneutic rule.
Jan 8, 2009
Brister on Driscoll
I read with interest the writing of Timmy Brister in regard to the remarks by Mark Driscoll that I addressed in my previous posting. It showed me how I was not alone in properly understanding what Driscoll was avowing. You can read Tim's writing here
It was interesting also to see the comments that were being offered on Brister's site! So many neo Hardshells around! People who are affirming, as the Hardshells, that one does not have to hear the gospel from a preacher to be saved, and that one is "born again before faith" and apart from the gospel.
What does Jesus preach to the infant and to the imbecile? What does he teach the heathen?
It was interesting also to see the comments that were being offered on Brister's site! So many neo Hardshells around! People who are affirming, as the Hardshells, that one does not have to hear the gospel from a preacher to be saved, and that one is "born again before faith" and apart from the gospel.
What does Jesus preach to the infant and to the imbecile? What does he teach the heathen?
Driscoll a Hyperist?
In a recent blog post, Calvinist pastor Mark Driscoll wrote:
"Third, God is fully sovereign. In regards to evangelism, God’s sovereignty includes selecting when and where we would live, who would we meet, and granting us the opportunity to do evangelism so that the elect will be saved. This is because God is sovereign over both the means and ends of evangelism. God has not only determined who will be saved, but has also determined how He will save them—and this often (not "always"? SG) includes using our evangelistic efforts, though God can also save people apart from us (and the gospel? SG) as He chooses. God often (not "always"? SG) chooses to allow us to be involved in the process so that we might share in the joy of seeing people’s earthly and eternal lives forever transformed through Jesus."
"Lastly, the fact that Jesus remains to this day an active evangelist is of great encouragement to me personally. It means that children who are aborted in the womb, those mentally incapable of understanding the gospel, and those people who have lived in times and places that missionaries did not visit are not necessarily beyond the hope of salvation. Indeed, Jesus could visit and save anyone anywhere because He remains The Evangelist." ("Evangelism" by Mark Driscoll - emphasis mine)
See here
Friends, this is "hardshellism" and "Hyper Calvinism." Notice how Driscoll says the heathen and others can be saved by the personal witnessing and preaching of Christ. Notice also, from the following citations, that this is a view the Hardshells have put forth historically.
Wrote Elder Sarrels:
"...in perhaps the vast majority of cases the elements of conversion––repentance, faith, and justification––may be present only embryonically..." (Systematic Theology, page 369)
"The more advanced intellectual Christian concepts about all of these progressive steps which unfold in the believer's experience do not prove that these do not exist embryonically in the obscure, yet spiritual, exercise of the quickened soul in heathen lands. The child of God, be he heathen or cultured, may not understand all that is woven around his life in God, yet in germ all is there. (See Rom:2:14)"
Now notice what Elder Potter said:
“...the Bible and the ministry are not absolutely essential for the heathen to know there is a God." (Debate on Foreign Missions-Chapter 4 - MR. POTTER’’S SECOND SPEECH)
"And by his Spirit he can, and I will say he will, and does, quicken the benighted soul of the heathen and prepare him for heaven and glory. If that is not true, what mean all the Scriptures I have quoted here to you?" (Fifth Speech)
Elder Claud Cayce wrote:
"A saving knowledge and faith in Christ does not come through the gospel; but one must have that before he can be reached through or by the gospel."
"Third, God is fully sovereign. In regards to evangelism, God’s sovereignty includes selecting when and where we would live, who would we meet, and granting us the opportunity to do evangelism so that the elect will be saved. This is because God is sovereign over both the means and ends of evangelism. God has not only determined who will be saved, but has also determined how He will save them—and this often (not "always"? SG) includes using our evangelistic efforts, though God can also save people apart from us (and the gospel? SG) as He chooses. God often (not "always"? SG) chooses to allow us to be involved in the process so that we might share in the joy of seeing people’s earthly and eternal lives forever transformed through Jesus."
"Lastly, the fact that Jesus remains to this day an active evangelist is of great encouragement to me personally. It means that children who are aborted in the womb, those mentally incapable of understanding the gospel, and those people who have lived in times and places that missionaries did not visit are not necessarily beyond the hope of salvation. Indeed, Jesus could visit and save anyone anywhere because He remains The Evangelist." ("Evangelism" by Mark Driscoll - emphasis mine)
See here
Friends, this is "hardshellism" and "Hyper Calvinism." Notice how Driscoll says the heathen and others can be saved by the personal witnessing and preaching of Christ. Notice also, from the following citations, that this is a view the Hardshells have put forth historically.
Wrote Elder Sarrels:
"...in perhaps the vast majority of cases the elements of conversion––repentance, faith, and justification––may be present only embryonically..." (Systematic Theology, page 369)
"The more advanced intellectual Christian concepts about all of these progressive steps which unfold in the believer's experience do not prove that these do not exist embryonically in the obscure, yet spiritual, exercise of the quickened soul in heathen lands. The child of God, be he heathen or cultured, may not understand all that is woven around his life in God, yet in germ all is there. (See Rom:2:14)"
Now notice what Elder Potter said:
“...the Bible and the ministry are not absolutely essential for the heathen to know there is a God." (Debate on Foreign Missions-Chapter 4 - MR. POTTER’’S SECOND SPEECH)
"And by his Spirit he can, and I will say he will, and does, quicken the benighted soul of the heathen and prepare him for heaven and glory. If that is not true, what mean all the Scriptures I have quoted here to you?" (Fifth Speech)
Elder Claud Cayce wrote:
"A saving knowledge and faith in Christ does not come through the gospel; but one must have that before he can be reached through or by the gospel."
Elders R. H. Pittman and S. Hassell wrote in answer to the following question.
"Q. Will any persons be saved unless the gospel is preached to them?"
A. While it is true that the ministry is to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, as the Spirit of God may direct them, and as the providence of God may open the way to them, and it is the duty of other members to help them on their way after a godly sort, and those to whom they minister in spiritual things should minister to them in carnal things, as the Scripture teach, it is at the same time true that all the elect and redeemed people of God, both infants and adults, will be saved. (Psalm 33:12; Isa. 35:10; 45:17; 53:11; Jer. 31-34; Matt. 1:21; 11:25-27; 16:16,17; John 5:25; 6:37-40; 10:27-30; 17:1-3, 24; Rom. 8:28-39; I Cor. 1:26-31; 12:3; Eph. 1:1-14; I Pet. 1-5; Rev. 5:9,10). Jesus is the Great Preacher, and, by His omnipresent Spirit, He preaches His gospel savingly to His people (Isa. 61:1-3,10,11; Luke 4:16-30; Heb. 2:11,12; Psalm 110:3)."
Now, does Driscoll not make himself a neo-Hardshell?
Jan 5, 2009
Campbellite Regeneration
B. H. Carroll Jr. said:
"The truth is, Alexander Campbell was the father of twins, Hardshellism and Campbellism." ("The Genesis of American Anti-Missionism," pages 93, 95)
I have shown how many of the first Hardshell ("anti-mission" or "anti-means") Baptists, many of the Old Regular Baptists, and some among the founders of the Southern Baptists and other groups of Baptists, believed that the "begetting" of the sinner, in regeneration and conversion, was a separate act and experience from "birthing."
I have shown how this was the view of Samuel Richardson, a signer of the first Baptist London Confession of faith. I have also shown how other non-Baptists groups also, in some fashion, split up the new birth into stages, either two, three, or more, with some adopting natural conception and birth as a strict model for the spiritual birth.
I have shown how many of these "birth splitters" eliminated "means" and faith from the "begetting," but allowed them in the "birthing."
I have shown how the Campbellites also have adopted the idea that the "begetting" and the "birthing" are distinct separate events. I have cited Alexander Campbell himself on the matter. But, to add to this, notice how this "Church of Christ" web site promotes this view of the "new birth."
"All of these views have an element of truth, but regeneration is a combination of these three views.
1. One is begotten of God when he comes to faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.
2. One is born of water when baptized or immersed in water.
3. One is born of the Spirit when he receives the Holy Spirit as a gift of God
What about the Evangelical position?
They seem to have confused the begettal with the birth. When you come to faith, you are not “born again”; you are “begotten by God”. When you believe, God gives you the right or authority to become a child of God, but you do not become a child until you are born of water and the Spirit. John 1: 12, 13" (emphasis mine)
See here
Well, what about the "evangelical position"? Is this so?
Yes, most evangelicals do see the begetting and the birthing as denoting the same experience. Many of the "reformed" faith, Baptist or Presbyterian, who believe in the "born again before faith" error, though they might confess that they too do not see the "begetting" as distinct and separate from the "birthing," yet in essence they do, as I have shown in previous writings.
It seems to me that those, like James White, Tom Ascol, Al Mohler, John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, etc., who believe that regeneration is distinct and separate from conversion, and saying the first is without means while the second is by means, are in essence preaching this same paradigm, and making the same distinctions on the words "begetting" and "birthing." They would do well to step up and frankly acknowledge that this is their view, like John Hendryx has done, and quit speaking contradictorily.
I do plan to write against this false "birth model" in the near future.
"The truth is, Alexander Campbell was the father of twins, Hardshellism and Campbellism." ("The Genesis of American Anti-Missionism," pages 93, 95)
I have shown how many of the first Hardshell ("anti-mission" or "anti-means") Baptists, many of the Old Regular Baptists, and some among the founders of the Southern Baptists and other groups of Baptists, believed that the "begetting" of the sinner, in regeneration and conversion, was a separate act and experience from "birthing."
I have shown how this was the view of Samuel Richardson, a signer of the first Baptist London Confession of faith. I have also shown how other non-Baptists groups also, in some fashion, split up the new birth into stages, either two, three, or more, with some adopting natural conception and birth as a strict model for the spiritual birth.
I have shown how many of these "birth splitters" eliminated "means" and faith from the "begetting," but allowed them in the "birthing."
I have shown how the Campbellites also have adopted the idea that the "begetting" and the "birthing" are distinct separate events. I have cited Alexander Campbell himself on the matter. But, to add to this, notice how this "Church of Christ" web site promotes this view of the "new birth."
"All of these views have an element of truth, but regeneration is a combination of these three views.
1. One is begotten of God when he comes to faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.
2. One is born of water when baptized or immersed in water.
3. One is born of the Spirit when he receives the Holy Spirit as a gift of God
What about the Evangelical position?
They seem to have confused the begettal with the birth. When you come to faith, you are not “born again”; you are “begotten by God”. When you believe, God gives you the right or authority to become a child of God, but you do not become a child until you are born of water and the Spirit. John 1: 12, 13" (emphasis mine)
See here
Well, what about the "evangelical position"? Is this so?
Yes, most evangelicals do see the begetting and the birthing as denoting the same experience. Many of the "reformed" faith, Baptist or Presbyterian, who believe in the "born again before faith" error, though they might confess that they too do not see the "begetting" as distinct and separate from the "birthing," yet in essence they do, as I have shown in previous writings.
It seems to me that those, like James White, Tom Ascol, Al Mohler, John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, etc., who believe that regeneration is distinct and separate from conversion, and saying the first is without means while the second is by means, are in essence preaching this same paradigm, and making the same distinctions on the words "begetting" and "birthing." They would do well to step up and frankly acknowledge that this is their view, like John Hendryx has done, and quit speaking contradictorily.
I do plan to write against this false "birth model" in the near future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)