"And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." (Romans 8: 10 KJV)
By the "body" is meant the human mortal flesh, or physical body. By the "spirit" is meant the counterpart to the body, the spirit, soul, or mind that indwells the body, and not the Holy Spirit.
A Christian is one who has a mortal corrupt body just like all others. Though he is promised a resurrection, for his body, yet it is only in his spirit or soul that he now, in conversion, has been "made alive," or spiritually "resurrected."
Why does the body die? What is the cause of its death? It is "because of" sin. Death is the product or effect of sin. Sin comes first, then death. The act of condemning precedes the infliction of the punishment.
The spirit of man is also "dead" because of sin and so the need for a resurrection of his soul as well as his body. The soul is made alive in regeneration and conversion, in being united to Christ by the gift of faith.
Why does the spirit live? What is the cause of its resurrection from spiritual death? It is "because of righteousness," just as death is "because of sin."
Justification is the basis for regeneration so regeneration cannot precede justification, logically speaking, or in regard to the order of God's decrees.
Dec 10, 2008
Edwards on Justification
Jonathan Edwards wrote:
"I do not now pretend to define justifying faith, or to determine precisely how much is contained in it, but only to determine thus much concerning it, viz. That it is that by which the soul, which before was separate and alienated from Christ, unites itself to him, or ceases to be any longer in that state of alienation, and comes into that forementioned union or relation to him, or, to use the scripture phrase, it is that by which the soul comes to Christ, and receives him. This is evident by the Scriptures using these very expressions to signify faith. John 6:35-39, “He that cometh to me, shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me, shall never thirst. But I said unto you, that ye also have seen me and believe not. All that the Father giveth me, shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” Verse 40, “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up the last day.” — John 5:38-40, “Whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the Scriptures, for — they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come unto me, that ye might have life.” Verse 43, 44, “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honor one of another?” — John 1:12, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” If it be said that these are obscure figures of speech, which however they might be well understood of old among those who commonly used such metaphors, are with difficulty understood now. I allow, that the expressions of receiving Christ and coming to Christ, are metaphorical expressions. If I should allow them to be obscure metaphors, yet this much at least is certainly plain in them, viz. that faith is that by which those who before were separated, and at a distance from Christ (that is to say, were not so related and united to him as his people are), cease to be any longer at such a distance, and come into that relation and nearness, unless they are so unintelligible, that nothing at all can be understood by them."
And:
"God does not give those that believe a union with or an interest in the Savior as a reward for faith, but only because faith is the soul’s active uniting with Christ, or is itself the very act of unition, on their part. God sees it fit, that in order to a union being established between two intelligent active beings or persons, so as that they should be looked upon as one, there should be the mutual act of both, that each should receive the other, as actively joining themselves one to another. God, in requiring this in order to an union with Christ as one of his people, treats men as reasonable creatures, capable of act and choice, and hence sees it fit that they only who are one with Christ by their own act, should be looked upon as one in law. What is real in the union between Christ and his people, is the foundation of what is legal: that is, it is something really in them, and between them, uniting them, that is the ground of the suitableness of their being accounted as one by the judge. And if there be any act or qualification in believers of that uniting nature, that it is meet on that account the judge should look upon them and accept them as one, no wonder that upon the account of the same act or qualification, he should accept the satisfaction and merits of the one for the other, as if these were their own satisfaction and merits. This necessarily follows, or rather is implied."
And:
"And thus it is that faith justifies, or gives an interest in Christ’s satisfaction and merits, and a right to the benefits procured thereby, viz. as it thus makes Christ and the believer one in the acceptance of the supreme Judge. It is by faith that we have a title to eternal life, because it is by faith that we have the Son of God, by whom life is. The apostle John in these words, 1 John 5:12, “He that hath the Son hath life,” seems evidently to have respect to those words of Christ, of which he gives an account in his gospel, chap. 3:36, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life.” And where the Scripture speaks of faith as the soul’s receiving or coming to Christ, it also speaks of this receiving, coming to, or joining with Christ, as the ground of an interest in his benefits. To as many as received him, “to them gave he power” to become the sons of God. Ye will not come unto me, “that ye might have life.”"
And:
"God will neither look on Christ’s merits as ours, nor adjudge his benefits to us, till we be in Christ."
And:
"The entire active uniting of the soul, or the whole of what is called coming to Christ, and receiving of him, is called faith in Scripture. However other things may be no less excellent than faith, yet it is not the nature of any other graces or virtues directly to close with Christ as a mediator, any further than they enter into the constitution of justifying faith, and do belong to its nature."
And:
"From the premises it follows, that before the sinner is already interested in Christ, and justified, it is impossible God should have any acceptance of, or pleasedness with the person of the sinner, as in any degree lovely in his sight, or indeed less the object of his displeasure and wrath."
(Emphasis mine - SG)
See here
"I do not now pretend to define justifying faith, or to determine precisely how much is contained in it, but only to determine thus much concerning it, viz. That it is that by which the soul, which before was separate and alienated from Christ, unites itself to him, or ceases to be any longer in that state of alienation, and comes into that forementioned union or relation to him, or, to use the scripture phrase, it is that by which the soul comes to Christ, and receives him. This is evident by the Scriptures using these very expressions to signify faith. John 6:35-39, “He that cometh to me, shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me, shall never thirst. But I said unto you, that ye also have seen me and believe not. All that the Father giveth me, shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” Verse 40, “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up the last day.” — John 5:38-40, “Whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the Scriptures, for — they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come unto me, that ye might have life.” Verse 43, 44, “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honor one of another?” — John 1:12, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” If it be said that these are obscure figures of speech, which however they might be well understood of old among those who commonly used such metaphors, are with difficulty understood now. I allow, that the expressions of receiving Christ and coming to Christ, are metaphorical expressions. If I should allow them to be obscure metaphors, yet this much at least is certainly plain in them, viz. that faith is that by which those who before were separated, and at a distance from Christ (that is to say, were not so related and united to him as his people are), cease to be any longer at such a distance, and come into that relation and nearness, unless they are so unintelligible, that nothing at all can be understood by them."
And:
"God does not give those that believe a union with or an interest in the Savior as a reward for faith, but only because faith is the soul’s active uniting with Christ, or is itself the very act of unition, on their part. God sees it fit, that in order to a union being established between two intelligent active beings or persons, so as that they should be looked upon as one, there should be the mutual act of both, that each should receive the other, as actively joining themselves one to another. God, in requiring this in order to an union with Christ as one of his people, treats men as reasonable creatures, capable of act and choice, and hence sees it fit that they only who are one with Christ by their own act, should be looked upon as one in law. What is real in the union between Christ and his people, is the foundation of what is legal: that is, it is something really in them, and between them, uniting them, that is the ground of the suitableness of their being accounted as one by the judge. And if there be any act or qualification in believers of that uniting nature, that it is meet on that account the judge should look upon them and accept them as one, no wonder that upon the account of the same act or qualification, he should accept the satisfaction and merits of the one for the other, as if these were their own satisfaction and merits. This necessarily follows, or rather is implied."
And:
"And thus it is that faith justifies, or gives an interest in Christ’s satisfaction and merits, and a right to the benefits procured thereby, viz. as it thus makes Christ and the believer one in the acceptance of the supreme Judge. It is by faith that we have a title to eternal life, because it is by faith that we have the Son of God, by whom life is. The apostle John in these words, 1 John 5:12, “He that hath the Son hath life,” seems evidently to have respect to those words of Christ, of which he gives an account in his gospel, chap. 3:36, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life.” And where the Scripture speaks of faith as the soul’s receiving or coming to Christ, it also speaks of this receiving, coming to, or joining with Christ, as the ground of an interest in his benefits. To as many as received him, “to them gave he power” to become the sons of God. Ye will not come unto me, “that ye might have life.”"
And:
"God will neither look on Christ’s merits as ours, nor adjudge his benefits to us, till we be in Christ."
And:
"The entire active uniting of the soul, or the whole of what is called coming to Christ, and receiving of him, is called faith in Scripture. However other things may be no less excellent than faith, yet it is not the nature of any other graces or virtues directly to close with Christ as a mediator, any further than they enter into the constitution of justifying faith, and do belong to its nature."
And:
"From the premises it follows, that before the sinner is already interested in Christ, and justified, it is impossible God should have any acceptance of, or pleasedness with the person of the sinner, as in any degree lovely in his sight, or indeed less the object of his displeasure and wrath."
(Emphasis mine - SG)
See here
Bob Ross on Invitations
Check out three good articles that Bob Ross posted regarding the giving of gospel invitations.
See here
See here
Dec 9, 2008
Gene Asked
Gene Bridges asked me the other day (See entry on Steve Hays) - which comes first, the tree or the fruit? I know what he wants me to say. I used to hear this question asked all the time when I was a Hyper Calvinist Hardshell. What Gene and the Hardshells want to do is get a person to equate becoming a tree with being regenerated and bearing fruit with believing and repenting.
A person must first have a nature given to him and then that nature will bear fruit. Who denies this? No one. The real question is whether faith and repentance are fruits of this new nature. Are they? Do the scriptures speak of faith as the fruit of the new nature begotten in conversion? No. They speak of faith, with love, repentance, and other graces, as being part of the new nature, what is essentially and characteristically a part of it. The scriptures rather put faith as a fruit of the Holy Spirit in the same way it speaks of life as also being the product of the Spirit.
The oldest Baptist confessions speak of all post salvation good works and graces as being the fruits of faith, because the condition of faith is the condition of new life. To speak of faith as being the fruit of regeneration is to make faith something that chronologically comes later, and not integral to the regenerated state itself. The "fruit of faith" is equivalent to "fruit of regeneration."
To speak of faith as being a fruit of regeneration is to speak of faith as being the fruit of itself. If faith be the fruit of regeneration, and all good deeds the fruit of faith, then good deeds are an indirect, or 2nd generation fruit.
When the Holy Spirit changes a corrupt tree into a righteous one, in the transforming experience of the new birth, he changes that tree's nature, which includes changing its state of unbelief to a state of faith.
A person must first have a nature given to him and then that nature will bear fruit. Who denies this? No one. The real question is whether faith and repentance are fruits of this new nature. Are they? Do the scriptures speak of faith as the fruit of the new nature begotten in conversion? No. They speak of faith, with love, repentance, and other graces, as being part of the new nature, what is essentially and characteristically a part of it. The scriptures rather put faith as a fruit of the Holy Spirit in the same way it speaks of life as also being the product of the Spirit.
The oldest Baptist confessions speak of all post salvation good works and graces as being the fruits of faith, because the condition of faith is the condition of new life. To speak of faith as being the fruit of regeneration is to make faith something that chronologically comes later, and not integral to the regenerated state itself. The "fruit of faith" is equivalent to "fruit of regeneration."
To speak of faith as being a fruit of regeneration is to speak of faith as being the fruit of itself. If faith be the fruit of regeneration, and all good deeds the fruit of faith, then good deeds are an indirect, or 2nd generation fruit.
When the Holy Spirit changes a corrupt tree into a righteous one, in the transforming experience of the new birth, he changes that tree's nature, which includes changing its state of unbelief to a state of faith.
Col. 2: 13 & Ordo Salutis
Billy, my friend and brother at classical arminianism blog, See here, left a comment on a Calvinist blog the other day and was involved in a discussion as to whether regeneration preceded faith and brought up the passage in Colossians 2: 13 where being made "alive" is put after the receiving of the "forgiveness" of sins, which is contrary to the "ordo salutis" that the Hybrids insist upon. No one bothered to show how the passage was in accord with the neo Reformed ordo salutis. After I pointed this out, one writer finally responded with verbal assualts, mainly, but then said that the being "made alive" took place when Christ was resurrected. Here is what John Gill said:
"...and this may be said to be done "with Christ", because this is in consequence of his being quickened, or raised from the dead; and by it they were made partakers of the life of Christ, they became one spirit with him; and it was not so much they that lived, but Christ lived in them; and besides, they were quickened, in order to live a life of grace and communion with him here, and of glory hereafter: or it may be interpreted of the quickening of them in justification; and the rather, because of what is said in the next clause..." (Commentary - emphasis mine - SG)
Billy has posted a series the past few days on the crooked arrows of Hyper Calvinism. I do not agree with Billy on everything, but do agree with him on his rejection of the Hybrid's ordo salutis. He posted an entry today on I John 5: 1 and cited some of our own writings on that verse. It is good material to read and evaluate.
"...and this may be said to be done "with Christ", because this is in consequence of his being quickened, or raised from the dead; and by it they were made partakers of the life of Christ, they became one spirit with him; and it was not so much they that lived, but Christ lived in them; and besides, they were quickened, in order to live a life of grace and communion with him here, and of glory hereafter: or it may be interpreted of the quickening of them in justification; and the rather, because of what is said in the next clause..." (Commentary - emphasis mine - SG)
Billy has posted a series the past few days on the crooked arrows of Hyper Calvinism. I do not agree with Billy on everything, but do agree with him on his rejection of the Hybrid's ordo salutis. He posted an entry today on I John 5: 1 and cited some of our own writings on that verse. It is good material to read and evaluate.
Ross on Bridges
I promised to give the links to Bob Ross' corrections of the blunders of Gene Bridges relative to whether Boyce and Carroll taught the born again before faith error. Here are the links to Bob's writings.
The Blunders of Gene Bridges
See here
Gene M. Bridges Falls Down
See here
I have been busy with work the past few days and have not had the time to write. I do however plan to work the rest of this week on the writings I have promised.
The Blunders of Gene Bridges
See here
Gene M. Bridges Falls Down
See here
I have been busy with work the past few days and have not had the time to write. I do however plan to work the rest of this week on the writings I have promised.
Dec 7, 2008
Boyce on Regeneration
J. P. Boyce is often cited, by those of the "born again before faith" view, as one who supported their view. In my recent entry on Steve Hays, the verbose Gene Bridges has left a comment to me about Boyce and Carroll and I have partially responded. I have shown how Boyce did not believe this, for his conclusion says that regeneration is not complete till faith. However, in his speculation on regeneration preceding faith, he said that there is, between regeneration and conversion, "not only antecedence, but in some cases an appreciable interval."
If the "born again before faith" crowd can cite Boyce and claim him as one of their own, then why do they tell us that there is no chronological order between regeneration and faith, only a logical one? If they accept Boyce, then they must quit saying this, and affirm that there is "an appreciable interval" between regeneration and faith!
So, quit being inconsistent in regard to Boyce!
I will have more to say on Boyce and Hyperism soon.
If the "born again before faith" crowd can cite Boyce and claim him as one of their own, then why do they tell us that there is no chronological order between regeneration and faith, only a logical one? If they accept Boyce, then they must quit saying this, and affirm that there is "an appreciable interval" between regeneration and faith!
So, quit being inconsistent in regard to Boyce!
I will have more to say on Boyce and Hyperism soon.
Dec 5, 2008
I Want The Proof
I want the proof where the Bible writers clearly distinguished between what some modern Calvinists call "regeneration" and "conversion." I want them to go to the Bible and show where any writer made a clear distinction between the two. Can they do it? I trow not!
Yes, the "hair-splitting" theologians have put asunder what God has joined together, but the inspired writers did not. In all of the apostolic teaching on salvation, the new birth, regeneration, and conversion, they did not distinguish these things, putting one ahead of the other in a strict "ordo salutis." I defy any Hyperist to come forward and show us where Christ or the apostles made these things distinct and separate!
Even those who, like the Hardshells and other Hyperists, separate regeneration from conversion, almost universally admit that 1) the Bible writers did not distinguish them, making each term to refer to a distinct event, and 2) the older Calvinistic writers prior to the 17th century, did not do so; The oldest confessions do not distinguish regeneration and conversion.
You watch any Hyperist or Hybrid Calvinist on his "proof texts" for his "regeneration before faith" proposition, and see if he does not read a distinction into the passage rather than deriving the distinction from the passage. They certainly do this in Ephesians. In Ephesians, however, Paul is not explaining a sub-conscious experience to the Ephesians, or an experience that occurred before they heard and believed the gospel, but was explaining their "conversion" to Christ, why it was that they believed and repented. He lays the reason to something prior, yes, but that thing is not regeneration, but election. Regeneration occurred when they became believers in Jesus.
Yes, I know, the Hyperist says that John 6: 44 teaches that one is regenerated before faith because "drawing" = "regeneration" and "coming to Christ" = conversion. But, this is error by equivocation. Drawing does not mean regeneration.
"Coming to Christ" = regeneration, salvation, forgiveness, and justification. The "drawing" is the influence of God through the word. But, if this is so, then God's influence cannot be equated with regeneration.
The Hyperist really has difficulty with all those passages that put faith before salvation, before conversion, and that equate conversion with birth. He cannot make anything that comes after faith a part of regeneration, because of his proposition that he has taken to the Bible, that affirms that faith and conversion must come after the birth has taken place, and so he makes any benefit after faith to be unconnected with regeneration ("Reformed" Hyperists today like James White) and with eternal salvation (Traditional Hardshell view).
Yes, the "hair-splitting" theologians have put asunder what God has joined together, but the inspired writers did not. In all of the apostolic teaching on salvation, the new birth, regeneration, and conversion, they did not distinguish these things, putting one ahead of the other in a strict "ordo salutis." I defy any Hyperist to come forward and show us where Christ or the apostles made these things distinct and separate!
Even those who, like the Hardshells and other Hyperists, separate regeneration from conversion, almost universally admit that 1) the Bible writers did not distinguish them, making each term to refer to a distinct event, and 2) the older Calvinistic writers prior to the 17th century, did not do so; The oldest confessions do not distinguish regeneration and conversion.
You watch any Hyperist or Hybrid Calvinist on his "proof texts" for his "regeneration before faith" proposition, and see if he does not read a distinction into the passage rather than deriving the distinction from the passage. They certainly do this in Ephesians. In Ephesians, however, Paul is not explaining a sub-conscious experience to the Ephesians, or an experience that occurred before they heard and believed the gospel, but was explaining their "conversion" to Christ, why it was that they believed and repented. He lays the reason to something prior, yes, but that thing is not regeneration, but election. Regeneration occurred when they became believers in Jesus.
Yes, I know, the Hyperist says that John 6: 44 teaches that one is regenerated before faith because "drawing" = "regeneration" and "coming to Christ" = conversion. But, this is error by equivocation. Drawing does not mean regeneration.
"Coming to Christ" = regeneration, salvation, forgiveness, and justification. The "drawing" is the influence of God through the word. But, if this is so, then God's influence cannot be equated with regeneration.
The Hyperist really has difficulty with all those passages that put faith before salvation, before conversion, and that equate conversion with birth. He cannot make anything that comes after faith a part of regeneration, because of his proposition that he has taken to the Bible, that affirms that faith and conversion must come after the birth has taken place, and so he makes any benefit after faith to be unconnected with regeneration ("Reformed" Hyperists today like James White) and with eternal salvation (Traditional Hardshell view).
Why No Rebuttal?
Awhile back I posted some writings on I John 5:1 and showed how the Hyperists misinterpret this passage when they affirm that it teaches that the new birth is an accomplished fact before the gospel is believed.
See here
And here
I had more visitors for the first posting than I have had since I have been posting in this blog. Several hundred visited my site to read. Did I get one of the Hyperists to respond and to show how I had erred? No. I find that quite satisfying. I know James White reads here periodically. Why did he not respond? He could respond to my internet skills in search engines, but not to my rebuttal of his "exegesis" of the passage?
So, why no rebuttal? Is it because I clearly showed how their "exegesis" was in error?
See here
And here
I had more visitors for the first posting than I have had since I have been posting in this blog. Several hundred visited my site to read. Did I get one of the Hyperists to respond and to show how I had erred? No. I find that quite satisfying. I know James White reads here periodically. Why did he not respond? He could respond to my internet skills in search engines, but not to my rebuttal of his "exegesis" of the passage?
So, why no rebuttal? Is it because I clearly showed how their "exegesis" was in error?
Reymond on Regeneration
Robert L. Reymond writes:
"Regeneration is not the replacing of the substance of fallen human nature with another substances, nor simply the change in one or more of the faculties of the fallen spiritual nature, not the perfecting of the fallen spiritual nature. Rather, it is the subconscious implanting of the principle of the new spiritual life in the soul, effecting an instantaneous change in the whole man, intellectually, emotionally, and morally, and enabling the elect sinner to respond in repentance and faith to the outward or public gospel proclamation directed to his conscious understanding and will" (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 721-722)."
See here
The verses that Reymond used to prove his "born again before faith" error do not prove it. I have examined all of the verses he has cited in my present series "Hardshell Proof Texts" and showed that they do not teach that error.
But, notice how Reymond (James White's man) says that "regeneration" is not a conscious experience! Tell that to Paul! Tell that to the woman at the well! Tell that to the Philippian jailer! Tell that to Lydia!
Notice also how Reymond says that the change that is effected in regeneration involves changes "intellectually, emotionally, and morally." How can this kind of change be unconscious? How can a man be changed in these ways and not know it? Notice also how Reymond can have these changes, but no change of the heart and mind from unbelief to faith! If a man is changed "intellectually," why does this eliminate faith?
He says this "change" does not involve a change from unbelief to belief, for this is only what comes later, after the intellectual change.
He also says that the gospel is addressed and directed to the "conscious understanding." A man is spiritually unconscious when he is regenerated, then he is made conscious, and then the gospel can be effective. Where is the gospel as a means in regeneration, in this scenario?
"Regeneration is not the replacing of the substance of fallen human nature with another substances, nor simply the change in one or more of the faculties of the fallen spiritual nature, not the perfecting of the fallen spiritual nature. Rather, it is the subconscious implanting of the principle of the new spiritual life in the soul, effecting an instantaneous change in the whole man, intellectually, emotionally, and morally, and enabling the elect sinner to respond in repentance and faith to the outward or public gospel proclamation directed to his conscious understanding and will" (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 721-722)."
See here
The verses that Reymond used to prove his "born again before faith" error do not prove it. I have examined all of the verses he has cited in my present series "Hardshell Proof Texts" and showed that they do not teach that error.
But, notice how Reymond (James White's man) says that "regeneration" is not a conscious experience! Tell that to Paul! Tell that to the woman at the well! Tell that to the Philippian jailer! Tell that to Lydia!
Notice also how Reymond says that the change that is effected in regeneration involves changes "intellectually, emotionally, and morally." How can this kind of change be unconscious? How can a man be changed in these ways and not know it? Notice also how Reymond can have these changes, but no change of the heart and mind from unbelief to faith! If a man is changed "intellectually," why does this eliminate faith?
He says this "change" does not involve a change from unbelief to belief, for this is only what comes later, after the intellectual change.
He also says that the gospel is addressed and directed to the "conscious understanding." A man is spiritually unconscious when he is regenerated, then he is made conscious, and then the gospel can be effective. Where is the gospel as a means in regeneration, in this scenario?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)