Ligon Duncan wants citations from Calvin that show he put faith in the gospel as the instrumental cause of regeneration or new birth. I have already referred him to several citations. Let me offer a few more from Calvin.
On I Cor. 4: 15 he writes:
"For in Christ. Here we have the reason why he alone ought to be esteemed as the father of the Corinthian Church -- because he had begotten it. And truly it is in most appropriate terms that he here describes spiritual generation, when he says that he has begotten them in Christ, who alone is the life of the soul, and makes the gospel the formal cause. Let us observe, then, that we are then in the sight of God truly begotten, when we are engrafted into Christ, out of whom there will be found nothing but death, and that this is effected by means of the gospel, because, while we are by nature flesh and hay, the word of God, as Peter (1 Peter 1:24, 25) teaches from Isaiah, (Isaiah 40:6, 7, 8,) is the incorruptible seed by which we are renewed to eternal life. Take away the gospel, and we will all remain accursed and dead in the sight of God. That same word by which we are begotten is afterwards milk to us for nourishing us, and it is also solid food to sustain us for ever."
Calvin believed that men were born again by the gospel and by faith in it, for faith is what unites one to Christ, and the results of this faith union are all the blessings of salvation, including initial regeneration.
Does Duncan believe like Calvin that faith unites a sinner to Christ and then all the blessings of salvation are enjoyed and received? If not, then he is not in line with Calvin.
On Eph. 1: 19 & 2: 8 Calvin wrote:
"...as preaching is the instrument of faith, so the Holy Spirit makes preaching efficacious."
"For by grace are ye saved. This is an inference from the former statements. Having treated of election and of effectual calling, he arrives at this general conclusion, that they had obtained salvation by faith alone. First, he asserts, that the salvation of the Ephesians was entirely the work, the gracious work of God. But then they had obtained this grace by faith. On one side, we must look at God; and, on the other, at man. God declares, that he owes us nothing; so that salvation is not a reward or recompense, but unmixed grace. The next question is, in what way do men receive that salvation which is offered to them by the hand of God? The answer is, by faith; and hence he concludes that nothing connected with it is our own. If, on the part of God, it is grace alone, and if we bring nothing but faith, which strips us of all commendation, it follows that salvation does not come from us."
What Duncan needs to do is show us how Calvin did not include regeneration in his use of the word "salvation." Also, he needs to show us how the "salvation" under discussion in Ephesians chapter two excludes regeneration. Can he do it? Will he?
Calvin continued:
"When, on the part of man, the act of receiving salvation is made to consist in faith alone, all other means, on which men are accustomed to rely, are discarded. Faith, then, brings a man empty to God, that he may be filled with the blessings of Christ. And so he adds, not of yourselves; that claiming nothing for themselves, they may acknowledge God alone as the author of their salvation."
Again, I think Calvin is very clear.
All these citations are from Calvin's commentary.
Mar 17, 2009
Answer to Ligon's Comments
I received the following comment from Ligon Duncan regarding my review of his writings on regeneration preceding faith.
Here is what he wrote:
"I am looking forward to seeing your citations from Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, et al on this, Mr. Garrett. More importantly, I am looking forward to reading your Scriptural case for your views.
By the way, you have misrepresented my position, substantially. And your readers may want to know that I emphatically reject "hyper-Calvinism" (and I know what that term means), I unreservedly embrace the necessity of the free offer of the Gospel and the use of means in salvation, and I reject "Hardshellism."
My views pertaining to divine monergism in salvation and the necessity of human response (in faith and repentance) are what the great Baptist theologian Don Carson would call "compatibilism." God's sovereignty and man's responsibility are compatible, not contradictory. It's both/and not either/or."
Yours sincerely,
Ligon Duncan
Here is my reply
Dear Ligon:
I have numerous postings here in the Gadfly concerning Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Booth, Alexander, Sproul, Ascol, Grudem, etc. Look at these links.
Calvin
See here
And here
Grudem
See here
And here
And here
And here
And here
And here
Sproul
See here
And here
And here
Luther
See here
Booth
See here
And here
And here
Edwards
See here
And here
Alexander
See here
And here
And these miscellaneous posts:
See here
J. P. Boyce
See here
B. H. Carroll
See here
Spurgeon
See here
And here
Bill Ascol
See here
Do you agree with these men?
Schwertley
See here
Kuyper
See here
And here
Walvoord
See here
Smallman
See here
Perkins
See here
As far as my case against the pre-faith view of regeneration, just spend a little time here in the Gadfly and you will find plenty of scriptures that refute your Hyperism.
Why don't you try your hand first on John 5: 40 and John 1: 12?
As far as your not being a Hyper Calvinist, that can be determined quite easily. Let me interrogate you a little and we will see. Are you up to a formal debate on the topic? Do you want to do what others, like James White, refuse to do? If it is so easy to defend your born again before faith view, from the scriptures, then "go for it."
How is the gospel a means in regeneration? Will you tell me? Others have refused to do so. Can it be a means in regeneration if it is not believed? How can we be "begotten by the gospel" without believing it? Does not "begotten by the gospel" mean "begotten by believing" it? If not, why not?
Is the rejection of means in regeneration an element of Hyper Calvinism?
What part of "Hardshellism" do you reject? They too say regeneration precedes faith and that this therefore is apart from gospel means. They say infants are regenerated in the womb apart from faith and repentance. Do you agree?
You speak of the "necessity of human response." Do you mean that this response is necessary before one can be said to be regenerated?
Can a man be regenerated without this "human response"?
Here is what he wrote:
"I am looking forward to seeing your citations from Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, et al on this, Mr. Garrett. More importantly, I am looking forward to reading your Scriptural case for your views.
By the way, you have misrepresented my position, substantially. And your readers may want to know that I emphatically reject "hyper-Calvinism" (and I know what that term means), I unreservedly embrace the necessity of the free offer of the Gospel and the use of means in salvation, and I reject "Hardshellism."
My views pertaining to divine monergism in salvation and the necessity of human response (in faith and repentance) are what the great Baptist theologian Don Carson would call "compatibilism." God's sovereignty and man's responsibility are compatible, not contradictory. It's both/and not either/or."
Yours sincerely,
Ligon Duncan
Here is my reply
Dear Ligon:
I have numerous postings here in the Gadfly concerning Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Booth, Alexander, Sproul, Ascol, Grudem, etc. Look at these links.
Calvin
See here
And here
Grudem
See here
And here
And here
And here
And here
And here
Sproul
See here
And here
And here
Luther
See here
Booth
See here
And here
And here
Edwards
See here
And here
Alexander
See here
And here
And these miscellaneous posts:
See here
J. P. Boyce
See here
B. H. Carroll
See here
Spurgeon
See here
And here
Bill Ascol
See here
Do you agree with these men?
Schwertley
See here
Kuyper
See here
And here
Walvoord
See here
Smallman
See here
Perkins
See here
As far as my case against the pre-faith view of regeneration, just spend a little time here in the Gadfly and you will find plenty of scriptures that refute your Hyperism.
Why don't you try your hand first on John 5: 40 and John 1: 12?
As far as your not being a Hyper Calvinist, that can be determined quite easily. Let me interrogate you a little and we will see. Are you up to a formal debate on the topic? Do you want to do what others, like James White, refuse to do? If it is so easy to defend your born again before faith view, from the scriptures, then "go for it."
How is the gospel a means in regeneration? Will you tell me? Others have refused to do so. Can it be a means in regeneration if it is not believed? How can we be "begotten by the gospel" without believing it? Does not "begotten by the gospel" mean "begotten by believing" it? If not, why not?
Is the rejection of means in regeneration an element of Hyper Calvinism?
What part of "Hardshellism" do you reject? They too say regeneration precedes faith and that this therefore is apart from gospel means. They say infants are regenerated in the womb apart from faith and repentance. Do you agree?
You speak of the "necessity of human response." Do you mean that this response is necessary before one can be said to be regenerated?
Can a man be regenerated without this "human response"?
Upcoming Posts
Besides my preparations for the upcoming August debate on the purpose of water baptism, and whether one is born again at the point of faith, and my work on my book, "The Hardshell Baptist Cult," I am working on these postings and hope to publish them soon.
Baptism For Remission
Baptism & Filth Removal
Boyce on Regeneration
Fuller on Regeneration
Reviewing Kuyper on Regeneration
Hardshell Proof Texts IX (spiritual death)
Some of these writings are taking tremendous amounts of time and energy and I hope the Lord blesses the work to come to fruition.
Baptism For Remission
Baptism & Filth Removal
Boyce on Regeneration
Fuller on Regeneration
Reviewing Kuyper on Regeneration
Hardshell Proof Texts IX (spiritual death)
Some of these writings are taking tremendous amounts of time and energy and I hope the Lord blesses the work to come to fruition.
How To Dumb Down A Church
How To Dumb Down A Church
By Bruce Oyen
If pastors want to dumb down churches, here are some things to do. They are not listed in order of priority, and this is not a complete list.
1) Preach mostly devotional and relational sermons, instead of doctrinal ones.
2) Follow the advice of church growth experts to assure numerical growth, even if the advice is not Biblical.
3) Equate numerical success with the blessing of God.
4) Use music with catchy melodies and repetitive words, instead of solid Biblical content.
5) Seek acceptance in the communtity, even if it requires compromising sound Bible teaching.
6) Promote a "don't be judgmental" attitude toward unbiblical churches and religions.
7) Don't hold church members accountable for sinful behavior and false doctrines.
8) Equate faithfulness to longstanding church traditions with faithfulness to Bible teaching.
9) Make nonChristians the main focus of church services, instead of God and Christians.
10) Don't emphasize the importance of dedicated Christian living.
11) Don't give opportunity for anyone to be saved at church services, and don't challenge Christians to give out the Gospel during the week.
12) Don't emphasize your church's doctrinal distinctives.
By Bruce Oyen
If pastors want to dumb down churches, here are some things to do. They are not listed in order of priority, and this is not a complete list.
1) Preach mostly devotional and relational sermons, instead of doctrinal ones.
2) Follow the advice of church growth experts to assure numerical growth, even if the advice is not Biblical.
3) Equate numerical success with the blessing of God.
4) Use music with catchy melodies and repetitive words, instead of solid Biblical content.
5) Seek acceptance in the communtity, even if it requires compromising sound Bible teaching.
6) Promote a "don't be judgmental" attitude toward unbiblical churches and religions.
7) Don't hold church members accountable for sinful behavior and false doctrines.
8) Equate faithfulness to longstanding church traditions with faithfulness to Bible teaching.
9) Make nonChristians the main focus of church services, instead of God and Christians.
10) Don't emphasize the importance of dedicated Christian living.
11) Don't give opportunity for anyone to be saved at church services, and don't challenge Christians to give out the Gospel during the week.
12) Don't emphasize your church's doctrinal distinctives.
Duncan on Regeneration II
Duncan continues:
"Two Old Testament prophets in particular emphasize that God must give us new spiritual life if we are to follow after Him: “I will give you a new heart and a new spirit, and I will put my Spirit within you,” promised the Lord through Ezekiel. Likewise, he said through Jeremiah, “I will put my law within them, on their heart.”
Where does Ezekiel or Jeremiah, in these passages, teach that one is born again before faith? Why does Duncan exclude a believing and penitent heart from the "new heart" and "new spirit"?
Where do these two prophets eliminate the means of the gospel to produce this new heart and spirit? Where does either prophet say that God will regenerate sinners in order that they might repent and believe?
Also, how, in Duncan's system, does he present the invitation or command of God for the sinner to "make you a new heart"? (Ezekiel 18: 31) When God so commands sinners, what does he mean except to look to Christ for this? Except to believe in Christ? How does Duncan tell sinners to do this? Does he not say, as the Bible, to "look and live," and to "repent and live"? (Numbers 21: 8; Ezekiel 18: 32) According to Duncan, such commands are Arminianism and are not part of the gospel! To preach and believe such, according to him, is "dangerous" for the Christian!
Duncan continues:
"But perhaps it’s the Gospel of John which most clearly shows that regeneration is God’s work. “The Son gives life to whom He wishes”; “The Spirit gives birth to spirit”; “You must be born again,” says Jesus to Nicodemus. But John had already told us that believers were born “not of natural descent nor of human decision, nor or a husband’s will, but of God.”
Did you see anything in the verses cited by Duncan that say "clearly" that regeneration precedes the look of faith? Did I miss it? Who denies, especially among the Calvinists who put faith before regeneration, as did Calvin, Edwards, Alexander, etc., that regeneration is the work of God? Again, that is charging an opponent with believing what he does not. Further, there is no logical consequence, from the traditional view, that makes regeneration to be not of God. This is a false assertion by Duncan with no proof to substantiate it.
Certainly the great Calvinists mentioned did not see any problem with faith being a means in the new birth, a catalyst as it were to effect it. Certainly they did not believe that faith or regeneration was strictly the result of human decision. However, this does not mean that the will is not involved at all in this work of grace, for the prophet, in describing this gracious work, said - "your people will be willing in the day of your power." (Psalm 110: 3)
Duncan says:
"A person can no more choose to be reborn than a baby can choose to be born. God must do this great spiritual work. As our friend, John Blanchard, puts it: “Becoming a Christian is not making a new start in life. It is receiving a new life to start with.”
Then what means the commands to "make you a new heart and a new spirit"? Is the sinner not called upon to "choose life"? (Deuteronomy 30: 19)
If the sinner's will or choice is not involved in regeneration, then what is the purpose of exhorting sinners to salvation? Is it therefore wrong and unscriptural to call upon sinners to choose to be saved?
Is not faith a decision? Is not repentance? Why can't it be both a gift and a duty or choice? Is not being converted? Why do the Hyperists exclude from regeneration the "willing mind"? (II Corinthians 8: 12) Was there not a choice on the part of the serpent bitten Israelites as to whether they would "look" or not?
Duncan writes:
"Third, the Bible teaches that God must enable us to believe."
Who denies this but the Pelagian? The question is, is this "enabling" a pre-regeneration work, or regeneration itself? Also, why is the power of the Spirit and the word not sufficient to enable the sinner? Also, in stead of saying that regeneration is faith enabling, why not say that regeneration is coming to faith? Why not see the giving of faith as the giving of ability?
Duncan writes:
"Paul tells the Philippians, “To you it has been granted to believe....” In other words, God empowered them to have faith in Christ. In Ephesians 2:8, our whole salvation, including our faith, is called “the gift of God.”
But, who among Calvinists who put faith before regeneration, deny that faith is God's gift and creation? Ironically, the verses that Duncan cites do not teach the born again before faith error. Clearly the "quickening" is identified with the creation of faith. Also, the text says that men are saved through faith. Why exclude regeneration from this salvation, as Duncan must do? In fact, the salvation under consideration cannot be divorced from regeneration, for that is the main aspect of salvation discussed from Ephesians 1: 19-2:8. Why does Duncan put faith after regeneration and before salvation? This would imply that regeneration does not save a man.
When was this faith granted? To whom was it given? Duncan says the faith was given after regeneration, not in order to it. He also has faith being given not to unsaved, dead sinners, but to saved, born again people! This is truly against scripture.
Duncan continues:
"Faith is called the fruit of the Spirit’s work in the Book of Galatians, and the Scripture also insists that saving faith results from a regenerate heart. For instance, John says, “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God”, not ‘will be born of God.’ In other words, faith is the result and evidence of regeneration."
Yes, faith is a fruit and product of the Spirit's work, but this is quite different from saying that faith is the fruit or product of regeneration.
I John 5: 1 does not teach that the new birth precedes faith, but that it precedes the life of faith. See my posts on this much misused verse by the Hyper Calvinists.
See here
And here
Duncan writes:
"Paul puts it even more strongly: “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit.” That is, nobody can believe without the Spirit’s power. Luke describes Lydia’s initial experience of faith in this way: “The Lord opened her heart to respond” to Paul’s message."
Yes, no one can confess Christ as Lord apart from the Spirit of God, and apart from his power, but this is quite different from saying "no one can confess Christ as Lord except by being first born again."
Also, the reference to Lydia having her heart opened in order to attend to the gospel is not a reference to her regeneration and salvation, but to a work that prepared her for it. Duncan, in order to have teeth in his argument on this passage, must demonstrate how the opening of the heart is regeneration or new birth.
Duncan writes:
"You see, faith itself is the fruit of regeneration, not the cause of it. You must be alive before you can believe."
But, again, this is not scriptural. I simply refer again to John 5: 40 where receiving spiritual life, or being regenerated, is the effect of coming to Christ! Duncan reverses this by saying that men must first have life before they come!
Faith is not, strictly speaking, the fruit or product of regeneration, but an essential element of it.
Duncan writes:
"...the inability of man and the sovereign grace of God in salvation. These biblical doctrines are compromised by the assertion that faith precedes regeneration."
Wrong! Did Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Alexander, Booth, etc., all deny the inability of man and the sovereignty of God's grace in salvation because they did not teach the born again before faith error? These great Calvinists "compromised" those doctrines by their putting faith before regeneration?
What does Duncan and his Hyper Calvinists brethren "compromise" by their insistence that regeneration is completed before faith? Is it not that they have compromised the biblical teaching that regeneration occurs through the means of the gospel? Those who teach that regeneration precedes faith deny means in regeneration.
(Dr. J. Ligon Duncan III - "UNDERSTANDING THE TIMES - Which Came First? Faith or Regeneration" - July 20, 2005)
See here
In conclusion of this two part review of Duncan's defense of the born again before faith error, I must say that this is a very weak defense, and one easily disproven. Surely the defenders of the born again before faith error can do better, can they not? Why not just cite some passages that expressly say that faith is what comes later, after one has experienced new birth? No text he cited proves that men have spiritual life before they believe or come to Christ. In fact, as I have shown, John 5: 40 is by itself enough to overthrow all the speculations of Duncan.
"Two Old Testament prophets in particular emphasize that God must give us new spiritual life if we are to follow after Him: “I will give you a new heart and a new spirit, and I will put my Spirit within you,” promised the Lord through Ezekiel. Likewise, he said through Jeremiah, “I will put my law within them, on their heart.”
Where does Ezekiel or Jeremiah, in these passages, teach that one is born again before faith? Why does Duncan exclude a believing and penitent heart from the "new heart" and "new spirit"?
Where do these two prophets eliminate the means of the gospel to produce this new heart and spirit? Where does either prophet say that God will regenerate sinners in order that they might repent and believe?
Also, how, in Duncan's system, does he present the invitation or command of God for the sinner to "make you a new heart"? (Ezekiel 18: 31) When God so commands sinners, what does he mean except to look to Christ for this? Except to believe in Christ? How does Duncan tell sinners to do this? Does he not say, as the Bible, to "look and live," and to "repent and live"? (Numbers 21: 8; Ezekiel 18: 32) According to Duncan, such commands are Arminianism and are not part of the gospel! To preach and believe such, according to him, is "dangerous" for the Christian!
Duncan continues:
"But perhaps it’s the Gospel of John which most clearly shows that regeneration is God’s work. “The Son gives life to whom He wishes”; “The Spirit gives birth to spirit”; “You must be born again,” says Jesus to Nicodemus. But John had already told us that believers were born “not of natural descent nor of human decision, nor or a husband’s will, but of God.”
Did you see anything in the verses cited by Duncan that say "clearly" that regeneration precedes the look of faith? Did I miss it? Who denies, especially among the Calvinists who put faith before regeneration, as did Calvin, Edwards, Alexander, etc., that regeneration is the work of God? Again, that is charging an opponent with believing what he does not. Further, there is no logical consequence, from the traditional view, that makes regeneration to be not of God. This is a false assertion by Duncan with no proof to substantiate it.
Certainly the great Calvinists mentioned did not see any problem with faith being a means in the new birth, a catalyst as it were to effect it. Certainly they did not believe that faith or regeneration was strictly the result of human decision. However, this does not mean that the will is not involved at all in this work of grace, for the prophet, in describing this gracious work, said - "your people will be willing in the day of your power." (Psalm 110: 3)
Duncan says:
"A person can no more choose to be reborn than a baby can choose to be born. God must do this great spiritual work. As our friend, John Blanchard, puts it: “Becoming a Christian is not making a new start in life. It is receiving a new life to start with.”
Then what means the commands to "make you a new heart and a new spirit"? Is the sinner not called upon to "choose life"? (Deuteronomy 30: 19)
If the sinner's will or choice is not involved in regeneration, then what is the purpose of exhorting sinners to salvation? Is it therefore wrong and unscriptural to call upon sinners to choose to be saved?
Is not faith a decision? Is not repentance? Why can't it be both a gift and a duty or choice? Is not being converted? Why do the Hyperists exclude from regeneration the "willing mind"? (II Corinthians 8: 12) Was there not a choice on the part of the serpent bitten Israelites as to whether they would "look" or not?
Duncan writes:
"Third, the Bible teaches that God must enable us to believe."
Who denies this but the Pelagian? The question is, is this "enabling" a pre-regeneration work, or regeneration itself? Also, why is the power of the Spirit and the word not sufficient to enable the sinner? Also, in stead of saying that regeneration is faith enabling, why not say that regeneration is coming to faith? Why not see the giving of faith as the giving of ability?
Duncan writes:
"Paul tells the Philippians, “To you it has been granted to believe....” In other words, God empowered them to have faith in Christ. In Ephesians 2:8, our whole salvation, including our faith, is called “the gift of God.”
But, who among Calvinists who put faith before regeneration, deny that faith is God's gift and creation? Ironically, the verses that Duncan cites do not teach the born again before faith error. Clearly the "quickening" is identified with the creation of faith. Also, the text says that men are saved through faith. Why exclude regeneration from this salvation, as Duncan must do? In fact, the salvation under consideration cannot be divorced from regeneration, for that is the main aspect of salvation discussed from Ephesians 1: 19-2:8. Why does Duncan put faith after regeneration and before salvation? This would imply that regeneration does not save a man.
When was this faith granted? To whom was it given? Duncan says the faith was given after regeneration, not in order to it. He also has faith being given not to unsaved, dead sinners, but to saved, born again people! This is truly against scripture.
Duncan continues:
"Faith is called the fruit of the Spirit’s work in the Book of Galatians, and the Scripture also insists that saving faith results from a regenerate heart. For instance, John says, “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God”, not ‘will be born of God.’ In other words, faith is the result and evidence of regeneration."
Yes, faith is a fruit and product of the Spirit's work, but this is quite different from saying that faith is the fruit or product of regeneration.
I John 5: 1 does not teach that the new birth precedes faith, but that it precedes the life of faith. See my posts on this much misused verse by the Hyper Calvinists.
See here
And here
Duncan writes:
"Paul puts it even more strongly: “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit.” That is, nobody can believe without the Spirit’s power. Luke describes Lydia’s initial experience of faith in this way: “The Lord opened her heart to respond” to Paul’s message."
Yes, no one can confess Christ as Lord apart from the Spirit of God, and apart from his power, but this is quite different from saying "no one can confess Christ as Lord except by being first born again."
Also, the reference to Lydia having her heart opened in order to attend to the gospel is not a reference to her regeneration and salvation, but to a work that prepared her for it. Duncan, in order to have teeth in his argument on this passage, must demonstrate how the opening of the heart is regeneration or new birth.
Duncan writes:
"You see, faith itself is the fruit of regeneration, not the cause of it. You must be alive before you can believe."
But, again, this is not scriptural. I simply refer again to John 5: 40 where receiving spiritual life, or being regenerated, is the effect of coming to Christ! Duncan reverses this by saying that men must first have life before they come!
Faith is not, strictly speaking, the fruit or product of regeneration, but an essential element of it.
Duncan writes:
"...the inability of man and the sovereign grace of God in salvation. These biblical doctrines are compromised by the assertion that faith precedes regeneration."
Wrong! Did Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Alexander, Booth, etc., all deny the inability of man and the sovereignty of God's grace in salvation because they did not teach the born again before faith error? These great Calvinists "compromised" those doctrines by their putting faith before regeneration?
What does Duncan and his Hyper Calvinists brethren "compromise" by their insistence that regeneration is completed before faith? Is it not that they have compromised the biblical teaching that regeneration occurs through the means of the gospel? Those who teach that regeneration precedes faith deny means in regeneration.
(Dr. J. Ligon Duncan III - "UNDERSTANDING THE TIMES - Which Came First? Faith or Regeneration" - July 20, 2005)
See here
In conclusion of this two part review of Duncan's defense of the born again before faith error, I must say that this is a very weak defense, and one easily disproven. Surely the defenders of the born again before faith error can do better, can they not? Why not just cite some passages that expressly say that faith is what comes later, after one has experienced new birth? No text he cited proves that men have spiritual life before they believe or come to Christ. In fact, as I have shown, John 5: 40 is by itself enough to overthrow all the speculations of Duncan.
Mar 16, 2009
Baptism & Good Conscience
I found this good writing on I Peter 3:21 and concerning baptism being "the answer (appeal or pledge) of a good conscience towards God..." I agree with what this writer has written and am glad to post it here.
"In some Bible translations, a part of I Peter 3:21, in reference to water baptism, is translated thusly - "an appeal to God for a good conscience." This translation, however, is incorrect. The New International Version (NIV) has the correct translation - "the pledge of a good conscience toward God."
"Answer" (KJV) is from the Greek word "eperotema."
"Liddell and Scott's Greek English Lexicon gives three meanings for the Greek word "eperotema" which has been translated in the RSV as "appeal". The first meaning of the word is a question; the second, an answer to a question, especially an affirmative answer to a question, hence having the meaning of sanction or approval; the third is equivalent to the Latin "stipulatio" which means, an obligation, a contract, or a commitment, or a pledge. This meaning is also supported by Moulton and Milligan's The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament."
"Now you will notice from this definitive Greek lexicon (i.e. dictionary) that nowhere does it give the meaning of this word as "appeal". A question and an appeal are by no means one and the same thing. They are quite different. An appeal is one thing and a question is quite another thing. In fact, "eperotema" rarely has even the meaning of question. Generally it means a response to a question - a specific response in fact - and from there it went on to have the meaning of agreement, which became further extended to have the meaning of contract, commitment, pledge. For those of you who would like to study the matter technically, you can refer to E.G. Selwyn's standard commentary on 1 Peter which gives a careful discussion of this matter."
"From A Good Conscience"
"What is more, the genitive in the Greek text is correctly translated as the pledge of a good conscience, not for a good conscience. It is a pledge made from a good conscience. Baptism is a pledge to God made from a good conscience. How do we have a good conscience? We have a good conscience when we repent of our sins - when we genuinely, honestly, and sincerely do something with no double-mindedness and no deceitfulness. That is what it means to do something from a good conscience. No fraud, no lies, no untruthfulness - that is a good conscience. You cannot have a good conscience when you are being untruthful, or not wholly truthful. But baptism then is a pledge to God made out of or from a good conscience. When with a genuine heart, with a right attitude, I make my pledge of total commitment to God, that is baptism."
"This word "eperotema" is particularly interesting because it expresses a question and a response. You make a pledge (as those who are about to be baptized are going to do) in answer to a question. The response amounts to a commitment, a pledge. When they say "I do", that is a pledge, a commitment, in response to the question posed to them in baptism. This word is particularly suitable because in the Early Church it was their practice before baptism to ask the baptismal candidate certain specific questions which he or she must answer in the affirmative. And we have noticed that "eperotema" is not only an answer, but an answer in the affirmative. This is very important, and hence the choice of this word here begins to be very clear. This answer constitutes a pledge. This is also the reason why, in the Church, baptism was called a sacrament and is still called a sacrament.
A Sacrament
Do you know what a sacrament is? In the Church we have basically two sacraments: the sacrament of baptism and the sacrament of communion, also known as the Eucharist, or the Lord' s Supper. What does sacrament mean? The English is simply a transliteration of the Latin word "sacramentum" which means an oath. That is the basic meaning of a sacrament. It means an oath, an obligation, a vow. In legal terminology it means a pledge. For example, it means money deposited by the parties before a legal suit. That is, you pledge by paying this money before a legal case.
But this word had a particular meaning. It was used of a military oath of allegiance. A military oath of allegiance was called the sacramento, when the Roman armies made their oath of allegiance to their country and to their emperor. This they sometimes did by the raising of their hands as you see today when a president takes an oath, or when somebody takes an oath in a court of law, symbolizing that he or she is doing this in all honesty and truth, with a good conscience. "I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Sometimes it was done with a clenched fist over the heart, again representing a good conscience, a pure heart. It may at other times be done by soldiers with a drawn sword as they commit their swords and their lives to their nation and to their emperor. The Germans made great use of this. The Nazis, required of every German soldier the military oath of allegiance, the sacramento. So this word sacramento had the particular significance of the military oath of allegiance.
Why is baptism called the sacrament? Precisely because there the pledge is made. We make our oath of allegiance to Jesus as our King. We crown Him King of our lives. We owe our loyalty to Him once and for all at baptism. It is a pledge made to God from a good conscience. It is very important that the conscience is good."
Confessing Christ Before Baptism Vs. At Baptism
"Then you may say, "Did I not already confess Jesus before baptism?" Indeed you did, but that is not the same as the oath of allegiance. That is a very important thing to understand. Does the soldier who makes the oath of allegiance to the country and emperor, not already love his emperor and his country before he makes the oath of allegiance? Indeed he does, but it is at the making of the oath that it takes on a legal aspect of commitment. It becomes a binding vow. He places himself under oath, hence the "sacramento". Up to that point he can say he loves the country but he did not make any vow. Up to that point he loves the emperor but he did not make any commitment, any pledge. But in baptism, the Christian has made his oath of allegiance to his King and God. It is just like two people, who love each other before marriage, but they have not made a commitment in a legal sense until they have made their marriage vows. Of course they love each other before that and they have made some sort of commitment, but that commitment only became legal at the wedding.
In the same way, at baptism your commitment becomes, as it were, legal in God's sight, established forever in the heavens. Now this is the first point that I'd like to make very clear to you, so that you understand what you are doing in baptism. Anyone who is not clear about this should withdraw from baptism. In baptism, you have pledged your oath of allegiance. You have committed yourself wholly to God as King.
So the first thing about baptism is that it is a pledge, a legally binding pledge every bit as marriage is, every bit as the military oath of allegiance is. Any soldier who went back on his oath of allegiance understood and gladly accepted the penalty that the country and the emperor would impose upon him as a breach of faith, as an apostate, as a traitor to his country and his people.
See here
"In some Bible translations, a part of I Peter 3:21, in reference to water baptism, is translated thusly - "an appeal to God for a good conscience." This translation, however, is incorrect. The New International Version (NIV) has the correct translation - "the pledge of a good conscience toward God."
"Answer" (KJV) is from the Greek word "eperotema."
"Liddell and Scott's Greek English Lexicon gives three meanings for the Greek word "eperotema" which has been translated in the RSV as "appeal". The first meaning of the word is a question; the second, an answer to a question, especially an affirmative answer to a question, hence having the meaning of sanction or approval; the third is equivalent to the Latin "stipulatio" which means, an obligation, a contract, or a commitment, or a pledge. This meaning is also supported by Moulton and Milligan's The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament."
"Now you will notice from this definitive Greek lexicon (i.e. dictionary) that nowhere does it give the meaning of this word as "appeal". A question and an appeal are by no means one and the same thing. They are quite different. An appeal is one thing and a question is quite another thing. In fact, "eperotema" rarely has even the meaning of question. Generally it means a response to a question - a specific response in fact - and from there it went on to have the meaning of agreement, which became further extended to have the meaning of contract, commitment, pledge. For those of you who would like to study the matter technically, you can refer to E.G. Selwyn's standard commentary on 1 Peter which gives a careful discussion of this matter."
"From A Good Conscience"
"What is more, the genitive in the Greek text is correctly translated as the pledge of a good conscience, not for a good conscience. It is a pledge made from a good conscience. Baptism is a pledge to God made from a good conscience. How do we have a good conscience? We have a good conscience when we repent of our sins - when we genuinely, honestly, and sincerely do something with no double-mindedness and no deceitfulness. That is what it means to do something from a good conscience. No fraud, no lies, no untruthfulness - that is a good conscience. You cannot have a good conscience when you are being untruthful, or not wholly truthful. But baptism then is a pledge to God made out of or from a good conscience. When with a genuine heart, with a right attitude, I make my pledge of total commitment to God, that is baptism."
"This word "eperotema" is particularly interesting because it expresses a question and a response. You make a pledge (as those who are about to be baptized are going to do) in answer to a question. The response amounts to a commitment, a pledge. When they say "I do", that is a pledge, a commitment, in response to the question posed to them in baptism. This word is particularly suitable because in the Early Church it was their practice before baptism to ask the baptismal candidate certain specific questions which he or she must answer in the affirmative. And we have noticed that "eperotema" is not only an answer, but an answer in the affirmative. This is very important, and hence the choice of this word here begins to be very clear. This answer constitutes a pledge. This is also the reason why, in the Church, baptism was called a sacrament and is still called a sacrament.
A Sacrament
Do you know what a sacrament is? In the Church we have basically two sacraments: the sacrament of baptism and the sacrament of communion, also known as the Eucharist, or the Lord' s Supper. What does sacrament mean? The English is simply a transliteration of the Latin word "sacramentum" which means an oath. That is the basic meaning of a sacrament. It means an oath, an obligation, a vow. In legal terminology it means a pledge. For example, it means money deposited by the parties before a legal suit. That is, you pledge by paying this money before a legal case.
But this word had a particular meaning. It was used of a military oath of allegiance. A military oath of allegiance was called the sacramento, when the Roman armies made their oath of allegiance to their country and to their emperor. This they sometimes did by the raising of their hands as you see today when a president takes an oath, or when somebody takes an oath in a court of law, symbolizing that he or she is doing this in all honesty and truth, with a good conscience. "I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Sometimes it was done with a clenched fist over the heart, again representing a good conscience, a pure heart. It may at other times be done by soldiers with a drawn sword as they commit their swords and their lives to their nation and to their emperor. The Germans made great use of this. The Nazis, required of every German soldier the military oath of allegiance, the sacramento. So this word sacramento had the particular significance of the military oath of allegiance.
Why is baptism called the sacrament? Precisely because there the pledge is made. We make our oath of allegiance to Jesus as our King. We crown Him King of our lives. We owe our loyalty to Him once and for all at baptism. It is a pledge made to God from a good conscience. It is very important that the conscience is good."
Confessing Christ Before Baptism Vs. At Baptism
"Then you may say, "Did I not already confess Jesus before baptism?" Indeed you did, but that is not the same as the oath of allegiance. That is a very important thing to understand. Does the soldier who makes the oath of allegiance to the country and emperor, not already love his emperor and his country before he makes the oath of allegiance? Indeed he does, but it is at the making of the oath that it takes on a legal aspect of commitment. It becomes a binding vow. He places himself under oath, hence the "sacramento". Up to that point he can say he loves the country but he did not make any vow. Up to that point he loves the emperor but he did not make any commitment, any pledge. But in baptism, the Christian has made his oath of allegiance to his King and God. It is just like two people, who love each other before marriage, but they have not made a commitment in a legal sense until they have made their marriage vows. Of course they love each other before that and they have made some sort of commitment, but that commitment only became legal at the wedding.
In the same way, at baptism your commitment becomes, as it were, legal in God's sight, established forever in the heavens. Now this is the first point that I'd like to make very clear to you, so that you understand what you are doing in baptism. Anyone who is not clear about this should withdraw from baptism. In baptism, you have pledged your oath of allegiance. You have committed yourself wholly to God as King.
So the first thing about baptism is that it is a pledge, a legally binding pledge every bit as marriage is, every bit as the military oath of allegiance is. Any soldier who went back on his oath of allegiance understood and gladly accepted the penalty that the country and the emperor would impose upon him as a breach of faith, as an apostate, as a traitor to his country and his people.
See here
Duncan on Regeneration I
In a famous debate by Hardshell apologist, Elder John R. Daily, this elder cited from a section of John Gill's "Body of Divinity" wherein Elder Daily attempted to show that John Gill held that one was regenerated before faith and apart from gospel means. Elder Daily had agreed with Elder Throgmorton that John Gill clearly believed in means in regneration in his "Commentaries," but he maintained that Dr. Gill had "changed his mind" by the time he wrote his later works and thus wrote against the "means" position at that time. I showed in my series on "Gill and the Hardshells" that this was a falsehood and that Daily had misread and misinterpreted the comments of Gill in his "Body of Divinity."
See here
And here
When Elder Daily quoted the part he wanted, while dishonestly omitting other pertinent parts, he made this statement - "Seems like John Gill put his studying cap on here."
What is interesting about this statement is that it was also made by another Hyper Calvinist in our time, by Ligon Duncan, when he introduced his remarks on regeneration preceding faith.
In "UNDERSTANDING THE TIMES Which Came First? Faith or Regeneration," from July 20, 2005, Duncan said:
"Put on your thinking caps! Let me ask you a question. What do you think: must a person believe in order to be born again, or must one be born again in order to believe? To restate the question in theological terms, does faith precede regeneration, or does regeneration precede faith? To put it even more precisely, is faith the activity of a regenerated heart, or is it the activity by which we receive regeneration?"
(Dr. J. Ligon Duncan III - "UNDERSTANDING THE TIMES Which Came First? Faith or Regeneration," July 20, 2005)
See here
It is obvious that both Daily and Duncan believe that it takes superb intelligence to be able to grasp the concept of regeneration (new birth) preceding faith. Those who put on their "thinking caps" are the Hyper Calvinists while those who reject the "born again before faith" error are those who have failed to put on their "thinking caps"!
This is ironical, prideful, and arrogant. It is ironic because it is the Hyper Calvinist who teaches that it is not natural intelligence that enables one to understand spiritual truth, but revelation through the word and Spirit of God. This is the kind of statement that one would expect from those who think they are superior in intelligence and in their knowledge of biblical truth, and from "hair-splitting theologians" who seek to be wise above that which is written. It smacks of "elitism." This is the kind of statement that one would expect from those who can only find their doctrine by "logical deductions" rather than from express statement of scripture. Of course, most of the time their premises or conclusions are incorrect.
Notice also how Duncan uses words like "precede" in his attempts to separate faith from regeneration. This too is ironic because it is men like Duncan who will insist that they do not believe in any "chronological" order to faith and regeneration, only a "logical" order. But, clearly, this is not the case, for such men truly believe in a chronological order.
Duncan writes:
"Now, why, some of you may be wondering, would anyone want to ask such an abstract, impractical, and frankly, boring question? Well, I trust that I can offer a convincing reply. Indeed, there are at least three reasons why this is an issue of the utmost importance for faithful Christians to understand, and about which we ought to have a biblical view."
This is standard Hyperistic "spin." They promote this "question"! They are the ones who "raise" it regularly and incessantly! They insist that understanding and accepting their man-made "ordo salutis" is the question of questions! To them the whole gospel rests upon this question! To them, if one does not put regeneration and salvation before faith, then he is unsound in the gospel or not preaching the gospel at all.
Duncan continues:
"To begin with, this issue involves the heart of the good news and the grace of God. One’s answer to this question necessarily reflects one’s understanding of the whole of the gospel message. For instance, if you say that belief must precede the new birth, then you must also say (1) that all men are not really spiritually dead before regeneration; (2) that saving faith is not a gift of God; (3) that the natural man does accept the things of the Spirit; (4) that an unbeliever can believe at any time by his own power, apart from God’s regeneration; and, (5) that men can come to Christ without the Father drawing them."
Are these five consequences true logical deductions, reductio ad absurdum, of those who put faith before regeneration?
The scriptures do put faith before salvation, including rebirth. This does not mean that there is any gap in time between faith and the new birth. As soon as one believes, he is born again. And, we can say the same thing in the reverse. As soon as one is born again, he believes. Still, when two things are mentioned, one must be put first and the scriptures more often than not put faith before salvation, including regeneration.
According to Duncan, the great Calvinist theologians, such as John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Jonathan Edwards, Archibald Alexander, John Gill, Abraham Booth, Charles Spurgeon, etc., men who did not put the new birth prior to faith, were men who did not understand the basic gospel! Were men who were guilty of the five consequences listed by Duncan? Duncan says John Calvin and Martin Luther, because they did not put the new birth before faith, did not believe men were spiritually dead prior to faith and regeneration! Were men who did not believe faith was a gift of God! Were men who believed that the natural man received the things of the Spirit and could believe at any time they choose! Were men who believed that sinners could come to Christ without being first drawn!
Does putting faith before regeneration cause one to logically deny that sinners are spiritually dead? I have dealt with this accusation before.
See here
But such an argument wrongly assumes that unbelief (or the absence of faith) is not an essential part of spiritual death. Likewise, it wrongly assumes that belief (or faith) is not an essential part of spiritual life.
Also, how does putting faith before renovation of soul make faith to be other than a gift from God? Surely Duncan can prove his assertions rather than just merely asserting them. Why does he limit God in his power and methods, in his modus operandi? Is God not able to give faith when he regenerates? Can he not make a person a believer and in doing so regenerate him? Besides, where is the passage that puts salvation before faith? Is not salvation uniformly put after faith? Oh yes, I know, Hyper Calvinists, like Duncan, will say that one is regenerated before faith but saved after faith, as if to imply that a man is not saved when he is regenerated. This is both confusing and unscriptural. The scriptures most often used the word "saved" for what occurs after one believes. But, the Hyperist cannot say that this salvation is regeneration or the new birth, for this would destroy his "gospel"!
When Paul spoke of God giving faith, by irresistable power, in Ephesians 1: 19, he equated this experience with being "quickened" from spiritual death. (Eph. 2: 1) He gives faith to the dead sinner and this giving of faith is the essence of the new life. But, according to Duncan and the Hyper Calvinist, he does not give faith to the dead sinner, but gives faith to the spiritually alive sinner. But, this is completely out of line with the scripture statements. It is the "dead" who both "hear" and "believe" and are alive because of it.
Duncan says that if we believe God gives faith to the spiritually dead, by which they live, is to believe that the "natural man receives the things of the Spirit." But, as I have pointed out, in the above linked posting, the Hyper Calvinist himself also believes, in some sense, that God gives a "thing of the Spirit," yea "life" itself, to the dead sinner, or natural man! So, his argument, if it proves anything, proves too much. It makes it impossible even for God to give life (a thing of the Spirit) to the dead sinner! By this kind of "logic" a sinner must be alive before he can receive life (a thing of the Spirit)!
Also, it is not a case that those Calvinists who put faith before regeneration, teach that the dead sinner can believe at any time he chooses! Duncan must demonstrate how this is so. His mere asserting it proves nothing. Certainly the Father must draw the sinner before he is spiritually resurrected! But, this drawing, in itself, is not regeneration. If if is, then people may be said to be drawn who have not come to Christ. But, the coming to Christ is believing and receiving him, and this is indeed the result of the drawing of the Spirit through the word. Duncan's system has a man who is "drawn," and spiritually "alive" or quickened, but who has not come to Christ! Yet, Jesus taught that spiritual life is the result or effect of "coming" to Christ. He said, in John 5: 40, that men come to him for "life." Thus, Duncan is wrong. He would reinterpret this passage to say - "you will not have life that you might come unto me." Or, "you must have life before you can come to me." But, this is not what he said. As long as John 5: 40 is in the Bible, the Hyper Calvinist will not be able to put life before coming to Christ.
Duncan continues:
"Now, these are serious contentions, to say the least. Moreover, there is a real danger of losing sight of vital biblical truth in our generation if we do not come to grips with this question. Two of the great emphases bequeathed to evangelical Christians from the sixteenth century reformers by our Lutheran and Calvinist forebears, in their Herculean labor to recover the biblical gospel, are the inability of man and the sovereign grace of God in salvation. These biblical doctrines are compromised by the assertion that faith precedes regeneration."
And what is Duncan trying to do? Is he not trying to be a "reformer" himself? Is he not trying to "refine" the teachings of Luther and Calvin? He apparently doesn't believe that Calvin or Luther went far enough. This is what I hear from Hyperists all the time. They claim to be the refiners of what these first reformers taught! He is wiser than they! He is the corrector of these men! What pride and arrogance!
It is underhanded for Duncan to use the names of Luther and Calvin in such a manner as to leave the impression that these men agreed with him and the Hyperists in putting regeneration before faith. They are really inconsistent and contradictory on this matter. In one breath they will claim agreement with Luther and Calvin on the "ordo salutis," and then, in the other breath, say that they are improving and refining their views! They will in one breath say that these men were in agreement with them, and then say, in the other breath, that these men did not distinguish between regeneration and conversion!
Duncan accuses Luther and Calvin of compromising Biblical truth, yea, the gospel itself, by their putting of faith before regeneration! By Duncan's judgment, these men were in great error, and denied the gospel, all because they did not put regeneration before faith!
Duncan is a Presbyterian and it is ironic that he goes against the great Calvinist leaders of his own denomination! Not only Calvin, but also men like Jonathan Edwards and Archibald Alexander, did not put regeneration before faith, and are thus guilty of denying the heart of the gospel!
Duncan continues:
"Finally, far from being an abstract or impractical question, this question has direct impact on matters of daily Christian living, like assurance of salvation and an understanding of the magnitude of God’s grace."
Duncan here states that those who put regeneration before faith have greater assurance of salvation and a better understanding of the "magnitude of God's grace." But, again, he merely asserts this without the least shred of evidence from the scriptures to support it. If God's grace is the cause of a man coming to faith and of his regeneration, then how does this lesson understanding of God's grace? How does a belief in regeneration preceding faith increase one's assurance? Is it not a fact that the Hyper Calvinists have historically been those who lacked assurance? Who continuously were "looking within" themselves for evidences rather than to Christ? Is it they who sing - "tis a point I long to know, am I his or am I not"?
Duncan writes:
"Now these two very different sorts of questions are connected to a proper understanding of the relationship between regeneration (the new birth) and faith.
A biblical view of this issue will, on the one hand, aid this woman in her search for assurance, and on the other hand lead the student to a deeper appreciation of how far God goes to save helpless sinners."
How does Duncan know that those who put regeneration before faith have greater assurance? Assurance of salvation does not come from a correct understanding of the relationship between faith and regeneration but comes from trusting in Christ. Are those Hyperists who put regeneration before faith in possession of greater trust in Christ?
A "biblical view of this issue"? If Duncan and the Hyperists really wanted to get the "biblical view" of this matter, all they have to do is to recall John 5: 40! That passage says "life" comes after one has believed in Christ, after they have "come" to him.
Duncan writes:
"There are many well-meaning evangelicals today who are quite adamant in their assertion that faith precedes regeneration, and it would not be difficult to multiply examples. For instance, one theologian recently insisted that God cannot (and, to say the same thing, God will not) regenerate a heart that will not admit him. More often, though, we hear it put positively: any person who is willing to trust in Christ as his personal Savior and Lord can receive the new birth."
Duncan here is truly ironic, if not hypocritical. It is laughable, that he, as a Hyperist, speaks of his counterparts, those who do not put regeneration before faith, be he a true Calvinist or Classical Arminian, as they who are "quite adamant in their assertion that faith precedes regeneration." I dare say that he and his Hyper Calvinist associates, such as those who participated with him in the T4G conference, far outdo his counterparts in their being "adamant" about regeneration preceding faith! It is Duncan and the Hyperist who say that getting the "ordo salutis" correct is the heart of the gospel! Also, it is the Hyperist view that may best be described as "assertion," not the classical view.
Secondly, notice how Duncan shows the tendency of Hyper Calvinism, its "killing" or "chilling" effects for evangelism to the lost. They dislike gospel invitations, or at least any that calls upon the dead alien sinner to believe, repent, or to be born again. Again, Duncan and the Hyperists will not call upon the lost to come to Christ for life and new birth! Why do they decry this kind of invitation so much? Do they want us to give invitations in the same manner as the Hardshells? Who only call upon those who are already saved to believe and repent? Who say it is unscriptural to call upon men to be born again?
What about the sinner "admitting" Christ into their hearts and minds? Is there not scripture for this? Is it Duncan's position that it is wrong to do this? Is he saying that only the already regenerated should have this kind of invitation? It seems to me that Revelation 3: 20 clearly demonstrates that it is acceptable to call upon sinners to open the door of their hearts to the Lord as he knocks. Is it the view of Duncan, as it is that of the Hardshells, that Revelation 3: 20 is only an invitation to the already born again?
Does not Duncan believe, like historical Calvinism teaches, that "thy people will be willing in the day of his power"? That the elect are made willing to receive Christ in regeneration?
Duncan writes:
Now behind these positions lie three presuppositions:
First, that the natural man is not spiritually dead in sin. Though he is at enmity with God and a slave to sin, and morally and spiritually blind, this view says he is not so dead in sin that he cannot believe in God for salvation. That is, this view says that all men are capable of ordinary initial saving faith, and they do not need to be regenerated to exercise it."
I must say that this is not good debate. It is generally a practice in gentlemanly and Christian debate, not to charge your opponent with believing a proposition which he does not avow, and in fact denies. If one believes that an opponent's views on a particular passage or doctrine involves certain logical consequences that makes his opponent to deny what he affirms, then he may so say. But, this is quite different from saying that the person actually believes it. I see this uncharitable action very often in the ongoing internet discussions between Arminians and Calvinists, with the Hyper Calvinists being the worst of the lot.
Duncan here repeats what he said earlier about the five supposed consequences of putting faith before regeneration. It is misrepresentation and does not properly represent those who put faith before regeneration, at least among historic Calvinists and classical Arminians.
No, one can believe, consistently, as Luther, Calvin, Edwards, etc., that one is born again by faith through the power of the Spirit and word of God, and still believe in total depravity and that faith is a gracious gift.
Duncan writes:
"But however pious or well-intentioned are such views, they are actually dangerous to the believer’s spiritual life, first and foremost because they distort and contradict clear biblical teaching, and they place human reason over the expressed teaching of Scripture. Furthermore, a faith before regeneration view entails certain unavoidable consequences."
A belief that faith precedes regeneration is "dangerous to the believer's spiritual life"? How so? I rather believe it is the Hyperist view, one that insists that faith must come after regeneration, and that regeneration occurs apart from the means of the gospel, is the more "dangerous" view. Certainly it is the Hyperist view of Duncan that has more often killed evangelism. Since when did the view that faith, through the gospel, ever kill evangelism?
As far as which view "distorts" the "clear biblical teaching" on the subject, I find that it is the Hyperist view of Duncan that "distorts" the biblical teaching. Does salvation and life not come, consistently in scripture, after hearing and believing the gospel?
I find more irony in Duncan's remarks in that he accuses those who believe in the means of faith, and that, in scripture, faith precedes life and salvation, of "placing human reason over the express teaching of scriptures." Anyone who is familiar with the writings of the Hardshells and other Hyperists will laugh at this accusation of Duncan, for it is they who attempt to prove their born again before faith error by the use of human "logic" and not from any clear express statements of scripture. They cite no verses that clearly say men are born again before faith, but the other side cites many. Again, John 5: 40 is quite clear. "Life" is the result of coming to Christ.
Duncan writes:
"First, it robs glory from God by teaching that the ultimate ground of our salvation, that which distinguishes us from the lost, is our unaided free choice rather than the grace of God. It tends to build up the pride of a converted sinner: “I chose God,” someone will boast, “and was reborn as the result.” In other words, God loved me savingly, but only in response to what I did. I chose God; the unconverted person did not; and, hence, my choice is the difference between us. God could not save me without my unaided choice of Him.”
Now, I can appreciate, to some degree, being a Calvinist, Duncan's fight against Armininism, especially in its Pelagian form. However, the words of Duncan indicts the greatest leaders among the Calvinist ranks! It indicts the great men of his own Presbyterian denomination! Will he charge these supposed consequences upon John Calvin? Upon Jonathan Edwards? Upon Archibald Alexander? What arrogance to charge these men with such consequences for their not believing his born again before faith error!
Did Jesus put the "ultimate basis of salvation" upon the sinner in John 5: 40, because he put coming to him in faith before receiving spiritual life? Did the great named Calvinists above boast about their faith because they put it before salvation? Bunk! Instead of these brethren, like Duncan, attempting to "refine" the views of these men, they ought to "reform" back to their views!
Duncan wrote:
"And thirdly, it robs assurance from the believer. He or she begins to question the first motions of the heart towards God: were they really sincere, or flawed? Did I have enough faith? Was it misdirected? How can I know that my initial faith was good enough to warrant regeneration?"
This has already been addressed as it is a recap of what he said earlier in his article. But, here he is a little more detailed. Did Duncan show us how putting faith after regeneration cured all this? I am one who used to believe as Duncan, but now I do not. From my own experience, I have not found any difference in my degree of assurance based upon my understanding of the "ordo salutis." Rather, I find assurance connected with obedience.
Duncan writes:
"Now, whatever the current popular view is, God’s word clearly teaches that regeneration is prior to faith, not that the new birth takes place apart in time from the exercise of faith in Christ; no, that’s not what we’re saying. Those things come together in time. Theologians would say they are concomitant: faith always accompanies regeneration, but regeneration is prior to faith in production; that is, a sinner believes in Christ because God has regenerated him, not vice versa."
If regeneration and faith always come together, then why all the hubbub from Duncan against those who say faith precedes? Why insist that faith follows regeneration and then, at the same time, insist that it doesn't? If regeneration doesn't exist without faith, then why decry calling men to faith and to regeneration?
Actually what Duncan and the Hyperists do is to say that regeneration produces faith, but say also that faith produces salvation and justification, and thus leave most minds confused. Duncan creates a character who is born again, but who has not yet believed or been saved and justified. One is born again before faith but saved after faith, as though being born again is not being saved.
Duncan wrote:
"The reasons for this are simple and biblical.
First, the Bible teaches that all men are spiritually dead and thus unable to believe. All are under sin and none has the fear of God. In fact, there is no one who seeks God. Romans 8:7, 8 makes very clear the spiritual condition of man before regeneration: those who are in the flesh are hostile towards God, cannot please God, and are not even able to obey the law of God. Jesus Himself insists that men are slaves to sin.
Furthermore, Paul and Jesus both tell us that the natural man cannot see or understand spiritual things. This is why Paul describes the unregenerate as “dead in trespasses and sin”; not simply under condemnation for sin, but unwilling and unable to change. Such persons are in no shape to exercise saving faith."
I have already written against this kind of argumentation on "total depravity," and addressed the passages mentioned by Duncan, showing that those passages do not teach that one is born again before faith.
See here
Duncan wrote:
Second, the Bible teaches that regeneration is the work of God. The work of God can change our hearts and release us from spiritual bondage."
Who denies that regeneration is the work of God? Did Calvin, Edwards, and Alexander, deny it because they did not put the new birth before faith? According to Duncan, such men denied that regeneration is the work of God.
Duncan defines regeneration as being a work that "changes our hearts," yet he seems not to want to see this change of heart as involving a change of belief!
In our next article I will finish this review of Duncan.
See here
And here
When Elder Daily quoted the part he wanted, while dishonestly omitting other pertinent parts, he made this statement - "Seems like John Gill put his studying cap on here."
What is interesting about this statement is that it was also made by another Hyper Calvinist in our time, by Ligon Duncan, when he introduced his remarks on regeneration preceding faith.
In "UNDERSTANDING THE TIMES Which Came First? Faith or Regeneration," from July 20, 2005, Duncan said:
"Put on your thinking caps! Let me ask you a question. What do you think: must a person believe in order to be born again, or must one be born again in order to believe? To restate the question in theological terms, does faith precede regeneration, or does regeneration precede faith? To put it even more precisely, is faith the activity of a regenerated heart, or is it the activity by which we receive regeneration?"
(Dr. J. Ligon Duncan III - "UNDERSTANDING THE TIMES Which Came First? Faith or Regeneration," July 20, 2005)
See here
It is obvious that both Daily and Duncan believe that it takes superb intelligence to be able to grasp the concept of regeneration (new birth) preceding faith. Those who put on their "thinking caps" are the Hyper Calvinists while those who reject the "born again before faith" error are those who have failed to put on their "thinking caps"!
This is ironical, prideful, and arrogant. It is ironic because it is the Hyper Calvinist who teaches that it is not natural intelligence that enables one to understand spiritual truth, but revelation through the word and Spirit of God. This is the kind of statement that one would expect from those who think they are superior in intelligence and in their knowledge of biblical truth, and from "hair-splitting theologians" who seek to be wise above that which is written. It smacks of "elitism." This is the kind of statement that one would expect from those who can only find their doctrine by "logical deductions" rather than from express statement of scripture. Of course, most of the time their premises or conclusions are incorrect.
Notice also how Duncan uses words like "precede" in his attempts to separate faith from regeneration. This too is ironic because it is men like Duncan who will insist that they do not believe in any "chronological" order to faith and regeneration, only a "logical" order. But, clearly, this is not the case, for such men truly believe in a chronological order.
Duncan writes:
"Now, why, some of you may be wondering, would anyone want to ask such an abstract, impractical, and frankly, boring question? Well, I trust that I can offer a convincing reply. Indeed, there are at least three reasons why this is an issue of the utmost importance for faithful Christians to understand, and about which we ought to have a biblical view."
This is standard Hyperistic "spin." They promote this "question"! They are the ones who "raise" it regularly and incessantly! They insist that understanding and accepting their man-made "ordo salutis" is the question of questions! To them the whole gospel rests upon this question! To them, if one does not put regeneration and salvation before faith, then he is unsound in the gospel or not preaching the gospel at all.
Duncan continues:
"To begin with, this issue involves the heart of the good news and the grace of God. One’s answer to this question necessarily reflects one’s understanding of the whole of the gospel message. For instance, if you say that belief must precede the new birth, then you must also say (1) that all men are not really spiritually dead before regeneration; (2) that saving faith is not a gift of God; (3) that the natural man does accept the things of the Spirit; (4) that an unbeliever can believe at any time by his own power, apart from God’s regeneration; and, (5) that men can come to Christ without the Father drawing them."
Are these five consequences true logical deductions, reductio ad absurdum, of those who put faith before regeneration?
The scriptures do put faith before salvation, including rebirth. This does not mean that there is any gap in time between faith and the new birth. As soon as one believes, he is born again. And, we can say the same thing in the reverse. As soon as one is born again, he believes. Still, when two things are mentioned, one must be put first and the scriptures more often than not put faith before salvation, including regeneration.
According to Duncan, the great Calvinist theologians, such as John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Jonathan Edwards, Archibald Alexander, John Gill, Abraham Booth, Charles Spurgeon, etc., men who did not put the new birth prior to faith, were men who did not understand the basic gospel! Were men who were guilty of the five consequences listed by Duncan? Duncan says John Calvin and Martin Luther, because they did not put the new birth before faith, did not believe men were spiritually dead prior to faith and regeneration! Were men who did not believe faith was a gift of God! Were men who believed that the natural man received the things of the Spirit and could believe at any time they choose! Were men who believed that sinners could come to Christ without being first drawn!
Does putting faith before regeneration cause one to logically deny that sinners are spiritually dead? I have dealt with this accusation before.
See here
But such an argument wrongly assumes that unbelief (or the absence of faith) is not an essential part of spiritual death. Likewise, it wrongly assumes that belief (or faith) is not an essential part of spiritual life.
Also, how does putting faith before renovation of soul make faith to be other than a gift from God? Surely Duncan can prove his assertions rather than just merely asserting them. Why does he limit God in his power and methods, in his modus operandi? Is God not able to give faith when he regenerates? Can he not make a person a believer and in doing so regenerate him? Besides, where is the passage that puts salvation before faith? Is not salvation uniformly put after faith? Oh yes, I know, Hyper Calvinists, like Duncan, will say that one is regenerated before faith but saved after faith, as if to imply that a man is not saved when he is regenerated. This is both confusing and unscriptural. The scriptures most often used the word "saved" for what occurs after one believes. But, the Hyperist cannot say that this salvation is regeneration or the new birth, for this would destroy his "gospel"!
When Paul spoke of God giving faith, by irresistable power, in Ephesians 1: 19, he equated this experience with being "quickened" from spiritual death. (Eph. 2: 1) He gives faith to the dead sinner and this giving of faith is the essence of the new life. But, according to Duncan and the Hyper Calvinist, he does not give faith to the dead sinner, but gives faith to the spiritually alive sinner. But, this is completely out of line with the scripture statements. It is the "dead" who both "hear" and "believe" and are alive because of it.
Duncan says that if we believe God gives faith to the spiritually dead, by which they live, is to believe that the "natural man receives the things of the Spirit." But, as I have pointed out, in the above linked posting, the Hyper Calvinist himself also believes, in some sense, that God gives a "thing of the Spirit," yea "life" itself, to the dead sinner, or natural man! So, his argument, if it proves anything, proves too much. It makes it impossible even for God to give life (a thing of the Spirit) to the dead sinner! By this kind of "logic" a sinner must be alive before he can receive life (a thing of the Spirit)!
Also, it is not a case that those Calvinists who put faith before regeneration, teach that the dead sinner can believe at any time he chooses! Duncan must demonstrate how this is so. His mere asserting it proves nothing. Certainly the Father must draw the sinner before he is spiritually resurrected! But, this drawing, in itself, is not regeneration. If if is, then people may be said to be drawn who have not come to Christ. But, the coming to Christ is believing and receiving him, and this is indeed the result of the drawing of the Spirit through the word. Duncan's system has a man who is "drawn," and spiritually "alive" or quickened, but who has not come to Christ! Yet, Jesus taught that spiritual life is the result or effect of "coming" to Christ. He said, in John 5: 40, that men come to him for "life." Thus, Duncan is wrong. He would reinterpret this passage to say - "you will not have life that you might come unto me." Or, "you must have life before you can come to me." But, this is not what he said. As long as John 5: 40 is in the Bible, the Hyper Calvinist will not be able to put life before coming to Christ.
Duncan continues:
"Now, these are serious contentions, to say the least. Moreover, there is a real danger of losing sight of vital biblical truth in our generation if we do not come to grips with this question. Two of the great emphases bequeathed to evangelical Christians from the sixteenth century reformers by our Lutheran and Calvinist forebears, in their Herculean labor to recover the biblical gospel, are the inability of man and the sovereign grace of God in salvation. These biblical doctrines are compromised by the assertion that faith precedes regeneration."
And what is Duncan trying to do? Is he not trying to be a "reformer" himself? Is he not trying to "refine" the teachings of Luther and Calvin? He apparently doesn't believe that Calvin or Luther went far enough. This is what I hear from Hyperists all the time. They claim to be the refiners of what these first reformers taught! He is wiser than they! He is the corrector of these men! What pride and arrogance!
It is underhanded for Duncan to use the names of Luther and Calvin in such a manner as to leave the impression that these men agreed with him and the Hyperists in putting regeneration before faith. They are really inconsistent and contradictory on this matter. In one breath they will claim agreement with Luther and Calvin on the "ordo salutis," and then, in the other breath, say that they are improving and refining their views! They will in one breath say that these men were in agreement with them, and then say, in the other breath, that these men did not distinguish between regeneration and conversion!
Duncan accuses Luther and Calvin of compromising Biblical truth, yea, the gospel itself, by their putting of faith before regeneration! By Duncan's judgment, these men were in great error, and denied the gospel, all because they did not put regeneration before faith!
Duncan is a Presbyterian and it is ironic that he goes against the great Calvinist leaders of his own denomination! Not only Calvin, but also men like Jonathan Edwards and Archibald Alexander, did not put regeneration before faith, and are thus guilty of denying the heart of the gospel!
Duncan continues:
"Finally, far from being an abstract or impractical question, this question has direct impact on matters of daily Christian living, like assurance of salvation and an understanding of the magnitude of God’s grace."
Duncan here states that those who put regeneration before faith have greater assurance of salvation and a better understanding of the "magnitude of God's grace." But, again, he merely asserts this without the least shred of evidence from the scriptures to support it. If God's grace is the cause of a man coming to faith and of his regeneration, then how does this lesson understanding of God's grace? How does a belief in regeneration preceding faith increase one's assurance? Is it not a fact that the Hyper Calvinists have historically been those who lacked assurance? Who continuously were "looking within" themselves for evidences rather than to Christ? Is it they who sing - "tis a point I long to know, am I his or am I not"?
Duncan writes:
"Now these two very different sorts of questions are connected to a proper understanding of the relationship between regeneration (the new birth) and faith.
A biblical view of this issue will, on the one hand, aid this woman in her search for assurance, and on the other hand lead the student to a deeper appreciation of how far God goes to save helpless sinners."
How does Duncan know that those who put regeneration before faith have greater assurance? Assurance of salvation does not come from a correct understanding of the relationship between faith and regeneration but comes from trusting in Christ. Are those Hyperists who put regeneration before faith in possession of greater trust in Christ?
A "biblical view of this issue"? If Duncan and the Hyperists really wanted to get the "biblical view" of this matter, all they have to do is to recall John 5: 40! That passage says "life" comes after one has believed in Christ, after they have "come" to him.
Duncan writes:
"There are many well-meaning evangelicals today who are quite adamant in their assertion that faith precedes regeneration, and it would not be difficult to multiply examples. For instance, one theologian recently insisted that God cannot (and, to say the same thing, God will not) regenerate a heart that will not admit him. More often, though, we hear it put positively: any person who is willing to trust in Christ as his personal Savior and Lord can receive the new birth."
Duncan here is truly ironic, if not hypocritical. It is laughable, that he, as a Hyperist, speaks of his counterparts, those who do not put regeneration before faith, be he a true Calvinist or Classical Arminian, as they who are "quite adamant in their assertion that faith precedes regeneration." I dare say that he and his Hyper Calvinist associates, such as those who participated with him in the T4G conference, far outdo his counterparts in their being "adamant" about regeneration preceding faith! It is Duncan and the Hyperist who say that getting the "ordo salutis" correct is the heart of the gospel! Also, it is the Hyperist view that may best be described as "assertion," not the classical view.
Secondly, notice how Duncan shows the tendency of Hyper Calvinism, its "killing" or "chilling" effects for evangelism to the lost. They dislike gospel invitations, or at least any that calls upon the dead alien sinner to believe, repent, or to be born again. Again, Duncan and the Hyperists will not call upon the lost to come to Christ for life and new birth! Why do they decry this kind of invitation so much? Do they want us to give invitations in the same manner as the Hardshells? Who only call upon those who are already saved to believe and repent? Who say it is unscriptural to call upon men to be born again?
What about the sinner "admitting" Christ into their hearts and minds? Is there not scripture for this? Is it Duncan's position that it is wrong to do this? Is he saying that only the already regenerated should have this kind of invitation? It seems to me that Revelation 3: 20 clearly demonstrates that it is acceptable to call upon sinners to open the door of their hearts to the Lord as he knocks. Is it the view of Duncan, as it is that of the Hardshells, that Revelation 3: 20 is only an invitation to the already born again?
Does not Duncan believe, like historical Calvinism teaches, that "thy people will be willing in the day of his power"? That the elect are made willing to receive Christ in regeneration?
Duncan writes:
Now behind these positions lie three presuppositions:
First, that the natural man is not spiritually dead in sin. Though he is at enmity with God and a slave to sin, and morally and spiritually blind, this view says he is not so dead in sin that he cannot believe in God for salvation. That is, this view says that all men are capable of ordinary initial saving faith, and they do not need to be regenerated to exercise it."
I must say that this is not good debate. It is generally a practice in gentlemanly and Christian debate, not to charge your opponent with believing a proposition which he does not avow, and in fact denies. If one believes that an opponent's views on a particular passage or doctrine involves certain logical consequences that makes his opponent to deny what he affirms, then he may so say. But, this is quite different from saying that the person actually believes it. I see this uncharitable action very often in the ongoing internet discussions between Arminians and Calvinists, with the Hyper Calvinists being the worst of the lot.
Duncan here repeats what he said earlier about the five supposed consequences of putting faith before regeneration. It is misrepresentation and does not properly represent those who put faith before regeneration, at least among historic Calvinists and classical Arminians.
No, one can believe, consistently, as Luther, Calvin, Edwards, etc., that one is born again by faith through the power of the Spirit and word of God, and still believe in total depravity and that faith is a gracious gift.
Duncan writes:
"But however pious or well-intentioned are such views, they are actually dangerous to the believer’s spiritual life, first and foremost because they distort and contradict clear biblical teaching, and they place human reason over the expressed teaching of Scripture. Furthermore, a faith before regeneration view entails certain unavoidable consequences."
A belief that faith precedes regeneration is "dangerous to the believer's spiritual life"? How so? I rather believe it is the Hyperist view, one that insists that faith must come after regeneration, and that regeneration occurs apart from the means of the gospel, is the more "dangerous" view. Certainly it is the Hyperist view of Duncan that has more often killed evangelism. Since when did the view that faith, through the gospel, ever kill evangelism?
As far as which view "distorts" the "clear biblical teaching" on the subject, I find that it is the Hyperist view of Duncan that "distorts" the biblical teaching. Does salvation and life not come, consistently in scripture, after hearing and believing the gospel?
I find more irony in Duncan's remarks in that he accuses those who believe in the means of faith, and that, in scripture, faith precedes life and salvation, of "placing human reason over the express teaching of scriptures." Anyone who is familiar with the writings of the Hardshells and other Hyperists will laugh at this accusation of Duncan, for it is they who attempt to prove their born again before faith error by the use of human "logic" and not from any clear express statements of scripture. They cite no verses that clearly say men are born again before faith, but the other side cites many. Again, John 5: 40 is quite clear. "Life" is the result of coming to Christ.
Duncan writes:
"First, it robs glory from God by teaching that the ultimate ground of our salvation, that which distinguishes us from the lost, is our unaided free choice rather than the grace of God. It tends to build up the pride of a converted sinner: “I chose God,” someone will boast, “and was reborn as the result.” In other words, God loved me savingly, but only in response to what I did. I chose God; the unconverted person did not; and, hence, my choice is the difference between us. God could not save me without my unaided choice of Him.”
Now, I can appreciate, to some degree, being a Calvinist, Duncan's fight against Armininism, especially in its Pelagian form. However, the words of Duncan indicts the greatest leaders among the Calvinist ranks! It indicts the great men of his own Presbyterian denomination! Will he charge these supposed consequences upon John Calvin? Upon Jonathan Edwards? Upon Archibald Alexander? What arrogance to charge these men with such consequences for their not believing his born again before faith error!
Did Jesus put the "ultimate basis of salvation" upon the sinner in John 5: 40, because he put coming to him in faith before receiving spiritual life? Did the great named Calvinists above boast about their faith because they put it before salvation? Bunk! Instead of these brethren, like Duncan, attempting to "refine" the views of these men, they ought to "reform" back to their views!
Duncan wrote:
"And thirdly, it robs assurance from the believer. He or she begins to question the first motions of the heart towards God: were they really sincere, or flawed? Did I have enough faith? Was it misdirected? How can I know that my initial faith was good enough to warrant regeneration?"
This has already been addressed as it is a recap of what he said earlier in his article. But, here he is a little more detailed. Did Duncan show us how putting faith after regeneration cured all this? I am one who used to believe as Duncan, but now I do not. From my own experience, I have not found any difference in my degree of assurance based upon my understanding of the "ordo salutis." Rather, I find assurance connected with obedience.
Duncan writes:
"Now, whatever the current popular view is, God’s word clearly teaches that regeneration is prior to faith, not that the new birth takes place apart in time from the exercise of faith in Christ; no, that’s not what we’re saying. Those things come together in time. Theologians would say they are concomitant: faith always accompanies regeneration, but regeneration is prior to faith in production; that is, a sinner believes in Christ because God has regenerated him, not vice versa."
If regeneration and faith always come together, then why all the hubbub from Duncan against those who say faith precedes? Why insist that faith follows regeneration and then, at the same time, insist that it doesn't? If regeneration doesn't exist without faith, then why decry calling men to faith and to regeneration?
Actually what Duncan and the Hyperists do is to say that regeneration produces faith, but say also that faith produces salvation and justification, and thus leave most minds confused. Duncan creates a character who is born again, but who has not yet believed or been saved and justified. One is born again before faith but saved after faith, as though being born again is not being saved.
Duncan wrote:
"The reasons for this are simple and biblical.
First, the Bible teaches that all men are spiritually dead and thus unable to believe. All are under sin and none has the fear of God. In fact, there is no one who seeks God. Romans 8:7, 8 makes very clear the spiritual condition of man before regeneration: those who are in the flesh are hostile towards God, cannot please God, and are not even able to obey the law of God. Jesus Himself insists that men are slaves to sin.
Furthermore, Paul and Jesus both tell us that the natural man cannot see or understand spiritual things. This is why Paul describes the unregenerate as “dead in trespasses and sin”; not simply under condemnation for sin, but unwilling and unable to change. Such persons are in no shape to exercise saving faith."
I have already written against this kind of argumentation on "total depravity," and addressed the passages mentioned by Duncan, showing that those passages do not teach that one is born again before faith.
See here
Duncan wrote:
Second, the Bible teaches that regeneration is the work of God. The work of God can change our hearts and release us from spiritual bondage."
Who denies that regeneration is the work of God? Did Calvin, Edwards, and Alexander, deny it because they did not put the new birth before faith? According to Duncan, such men denied that regeneration is the work of God.
Duncan defines regeneration as being a work that "changes our hearts," yet he seems not to want to see this change of heart as involving a change of belief!
In our next article I will finish this review of Duncan.
Mar 15, 2009
Arminius & Total Depravity
Pastor Bruce Oyen sent me the following e-mails with some information about the views of James Arminius on "total depravity." The citation shows that one can believe in total depravity and yet still believe that faith is a means in regeneration. I am glad to share these words of Brother Oyen and of Arminius with the readers of the Gadfly.
Pastor Oyen wrote (emphasis mine SG):
"I am presently reading with great profit theologian Roger Olson's book, ARMINIAN THEOLOGY, MYTHS AND REALITIES.
Perhaps you will find interesting this quote by Olson of Arminius on man's depravity. Olson's quote is from, "A Declaration Of The Sentiments Of Arminius," from volume 1, pages 659-60 of The Works of Arminius. The quote is on page 42 of the Introduction to Olson's book.
Arminius said: "In his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will , and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing, and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine grace."
Following this I was sent this e-mail from brother Oyen:
"Arminian theologian Roger Olson, who wrote ARMINIAN THEOLOGY, Myths And Realities, says this on page 36 of his book: "In some sense, then, Arminians, like Calvinists, believe that regeneration precedes conversion; repentance and faith are only possible because the old nature is being overcome by the Spirit of God. The person who receives the full intensity of prevenient grace (i. e., through the proclamation of the Word and the corrersponding internal calling of God) is no longer dead in trespasses and sins. However, such a person is not yet fully regenerated. The bridge between the partial regeneration by prevenient grace and full regeneration is conversion, which includes repentance and faith. These are made possible by the gift of God, but they are free responses on the part of the individual." On the same page, Olson wrote: "Cooperation does not contribute to salvation, as if God does part and humans do part; rather cooperation with grace in Arminian theology is simply nonresistance to grace. It is merely deciding to allow grace to do its work by laying down all attempts at self-justification and self-purification, and admitting that only Christ can save. Nevertheless, God does not make this decision for the individual; it is a decision individuals, under the pressure of prevenient grace, must make for themselves."
I especially appreciate the former statement by Arminius on man's depravity. I cannot say that I fully endorse what Arminius says about "prevenient grace," but nevertheless do not believe his error is all that great.
I have myself, in former writings, pointed out how the Hyper Calvinists, who puts regeneration before faith, actually defines the experience of regeneration in a manner similar to how the Arminians define "prevenient grace." Both say that either regeneration or prevenient grace is what "enables" the sinner to obey the gospel. What Hyper Calvinists call "regeneration," the Arminian calls a pre-regeneration work, or a preparatory work leading to regeneration.
Pastor Oyen wrote (emphasis mine SG):
"I am presently reading with great profit theologian Roger Olson's book, ARMINIAN THEOLOGY, MYTHS AND REALITIES.
Perhaps you will find interesting this quote by Olson of Arminius on man's depravity. Olson's quote is from, "A Declaration Of The Sentiments Of Arminius," from volume 1, pages 659-60 of The Works of Arminius. The quote is on page 42 of the Introduction to Olson's book.
Arminius said: "In his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will , and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing, and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine grace."
Following this I was sent this e-mail from brother Oyen:
"Arminian theologian Roger Olson, who wrote ARMINIAN THEOLOGY, Myths And Realities, says this on page 36 of his book: "In some sense, then, Arminians, like Calvinists, believe that regeneration precedes conversion; repentance and faith are only possible because the old nature is being overcome by the Spirit of God. The person who receives the full intensity of prevenient grace (i. e., through the proclamation of the Word and the corrersponding internal calling of God) is no longer dead in trespasses and sins. However, such a person is not yet fully regenerated. The bridge between the partial regeneration by prevenient grace and full regeneration is conversion, which includes repentance and faith. These are made possible by the gift of God, but they are free responses on the part of the individual." On the same page, Olson wrote: "Cooperation does not contribute to salvation, as if God does part and humans do part; rather cooperation with grace in Arminian theology is simply nonresistance to grace. It is merely deciding to allow grace to do its work by laying down all attempts at self-justification and self-purification, and admitting that only Christ can save. Nevertheless, God does not make this decision for the individual; it is a decision individuals, under the pressure of prevenient grace, must make for themselves."
I especially appreciate the former statement by Arminius on man's depravity. I cannot say that I fully endorse what Arminius says about "prevenient grace," but nevertheless do not believe his error is all that great.
I have myself, in former writings, pointed out how the Hyper Calvinists, who puts regeneration before faith, actually defines the experience of regeneration in a manner similar to how the Arminians define "prevenient grace." Both say that either regeneration or prevenient grace is what "enables" the sinner to obey the gospel. What Hyper Calvinists call "regeneration," the Arminian calls a pre-regeneration work, or a preparatory work leading to regeneration.
Mar 14, 2009
Calvin on Faith & Regeneration
I have cited numerous quotations from John Calvin to show that he did not believe that regeneration preceded faith. Those who insist that this is the view of the first Calvinist reformers are in error and are generally unwilling to acknowledge their error even when shown the proof of it. Clearly, as one can see from this citation, John Calvin did not put regeneration before faith. Calvin put faith before repentance and regeneration and he did not become Arminian in doing so. He did not relinguish a view in "total depravity" or a belief that faith was the gift of God.
"Although we have already in some measure shown how faith possesses Christ, and gives us the enjoyment of his benefits, the subject would still be obscure were we not to add an exposition of the effects resulting from it. The sum of the Gospel is, not without good reason, made to consist in repentance and forgiveness of sins; and, therefore, where these two heads are omitted, any discussion concerning faith will be meager and defective, and indeed almost useless. Now, since Christ confers upon us, and we obtain by faith, both free reconciliation and newness of life, reason and order require that I should here begin to treat of both. The shortest transition, however, will be from faith to repentance; for repentance being properly understood it will better appear how a man is justified freely by faith alone, and yet that holiness of life, real holiness, as it is called, is inseparable from the free imputation of righteousness. That repentance not only always follows faith, but is produced by it, ought to be without controversy (see Calvin in Joann. 1:13). For since pardon and forgiveness are offered by the preaching of the Gospel, in order that the sinner, delivered from the tyranny of Satan, the yoke of sin, and the miserable bondage of iniquity, may pass into the kingdom of God, it is certain that no man can embrace the grace of the Gospel without retaking himself from the errors of his former life into the right path, and making it his whole study to practice repentance. Those who think that repentance (regeneration SG) precedes faith instead of flowing from, or being produced by it, as the fruit by the tree, have never understood its nature, and are moved to adopt that view on very insufficient grounds.
Certain learned men, who lived long before the present days and were desirous to speak simply and sincerely according to the rule of Scripture, held that repentance consists of two parts, mortification and quickening. By mortification they mean, grief of soul and terror, produced by a conviction of sin and a sense of the divine judgment. For when a man is brought to a true knowledge of sin, he begins truly to hate and abominate sin. He also is sincerely dissatisfied with himself, confesses that he is lost and undone, and wishes he were different from what he is. Moreover, when he is touched with some sense of the divine justice (for the one conviction immediately follows the other), he lies terror struck and amazed, humbled and dejected, desponds and despairs. This, which they regarded as the first part of repentance, they usually termed contrition. By quickening they mean, the comfort which is produced by faith, as when a man prostrated by a consciousness of sin, and smitten with the fear of God, afterwards beholding his goodness, and the mercy, grace, and salvation obtained through Christ, looks up, begins to breathe, takes courage, and passes, as it were, from death unto life. I admit that these terms, when rightly interpreted, aptly enough express the power of repentance; only I cannot assent to their using the term quickening, for the joy which the soul feels after being calmed from perturbation and fear. It more properly means, that desire of pious and holy living which springs from the new birth; as if it were said, that the man dies to himself that he may begin to live unto God.
Wherefore, it seems to me, that repentance may be not inappropriately defined thus: A real conversion of our life unto God, proceeding from sincere and serious fear of God; and consisting in the mortification of our flesh and the old man, and the quickening of the Spirit. In this sense are to be understood all those addresses in which the prophets first, and the apostles afterwards, exhorted the people of their time to repentance. The great object for which they labored was, to fill them with confusion for their sins and dread of the divine judgment, that they might fall down and humble themselves before him whom they had offended, and, with true repentance, retake themselves to the right path.
In one word, then, by repentance I understand regeneration, the only aim of which is to form in us anew the image of God, which was sullied, and all but effaced by the transgression of Adam."
See here
"Although we have already in some measure shown how faith possesses Christ, and gives us the enjoyment of his benefits, the subject would still be obscure were we not to add an exposition of the effects resulting from it. The sum of the Gospel is, not without good reason, made to consist in repentance and forgiveness of sins; and, therefore, where these two heads are omitted, any discussion concerning faith will be meager and defective, and indeed almost useless. Now, since Christ confers upon us, and we obtain by faith, both free reconciliation and newness of life, reason and order require that I should here begin to treat of both. The shortest transition, however, will be from faith to repentance; for repentance being properly understood it will better appear how a man is justified freely by faith alone, and yet that holiness of life, real holiness, as it is called, is inseparable from the free imputation of righteousness. That repentance not only always follows faith, but is produced by it, ought to be without controversy (see Calvin in Joann. 1:13). For since pardon and forgiveness are offered by the preaching of the Gospel, in order that the sinner, delivered from the tyranny of Satan, the yoke of sin, and the miserable bondage of iniquity, may pass into the kingdom of God, it is certain that no man can embrace the grace of the Gospel without retaking himself from the errors of his former life into the right path, and making it his whole study to practice repentance. Those who think that repentance (regeneration SG) precedes faith instead of flowing from, or being produced by it, as the fruit by the tree, have never understood its nature, and are moved to adopt that view on very insufficient grounds.
Certain learned men, who lived long before the present days and were desirous to speak simply and sincerely according to the rule of Scripture, held that repentance consists of two parts, mortification and quickening. By mortification they mean, grief of soul and terror, produced by a conviction of sin and a sense of the divine judgment. For when a man is brought to a true knowledge of sin, he begins truly to hate and abominate sin. He also is sincerely dissatisfied with himself, confesses that he is lost and undone, and wishes he were different from what he is. Moreover, when he is touched with some sense of the divine justice (for the one conviction immediately follows the other), he lies terror struck and amazed, humbled and dejected, desponds and despairs. This, which they regarded as the first part of repentance, they usually termed contrition. By quickening they mean, the comfort which is produced by faith, as when a man prostrated by a consciousness of sin, and smitten with the fear of God, afterwards beholding his goodness, and the mercy, grace, and salvation obtained through Christ, looks up, begins to breathe, takes courage, and passes, as it were, from death unto life. I admit that these terms, when rightly interpreted, aptly enough express the power of repentance; only I cannot assent to their using the term quickening, for the joy which the soul feels after being calmed from perturbation and fear. It more properly means, that desire of pious and holy living which springs from the new birth; as if it were said, that the man dies to himself that he may begin to live unto God.
Wherefore, it seems to me, that repentance may be not inappropriately defined thus: A real conversion of our life unto God, proceeding from sincere and serious fear of God; and consisting in the mortification of our flesh and the old man, and the quickening of the Spirit. In this sense are to be understood all those addresses in which the prophets first, and the apostles afterwards, exhorted the people of their time to repentance. The great object for which they labored was, to fill them with confusion for their sins and dread of the divine judgment, that they might fall down and humble themselves before him whom they had offended, and, with true repentance, retake themselves to the right path.
In one word, then, by repentance I understand regeneration, the only aim of which is to form in us anew the image of God, which was sullied, and all but effaced by the transgression of Adam."
See here
Mar 12, 2009
Good or Bad News?
BAD NEWS FOR THOSE IN NEED OF GOOD NEWS
By Bruce Oyen
Imagine what it would be like to sit in the ER waiting room while your loved, who has just received serious head injuries in a car wreck, is being taken care of by doctors and nurses. Your anxiety level is very high, your heart is pounding, and it is hard to restrain the tears. Then, the ER doctor walks into the room. You can tell by the look on his face that he has bad news. He walks over to you, puts his hand on your shoulder and says, "I'm sorry, your loved one didn't make it. We did everything we could, but the injuries were fatal." Then, you sit there for awhile, stunned into silence. Now, you must cope with the horrible reality of what just happened. You had hoped and prayed for a miracle, but, instead, death came. You had wanted good news, but all you got was bad news.
Maybe that is how a chronic drunk, a longtime gambler, a habitual sex offender, a heroin addict, a slave of pornography, and many others who seem hopelessly given to sinful behavior would feel if they were seeking a way to a new life, but then had the misfortune to read the following statement from chapter 4 of John MacArthur's book, HARD TO BELIEVE: "We can't know Jesus as the Messiah until we surrender to Him. I couldn't know Him as my Savior until I gave up my life to Him. Then I knew. Parading an infinite number of miracles in front of me wouldn't have proved anything. Miracles are beside the point. You will never know whether Jesus can save your soul from hell, give you new life, re-create your soul, plant His Holy Spirit there, forgive your sin, and send you to heaven until you give your life totally to Him. That is self-denial, cross-bearing, and following Him in obedience."
This has the potential to put those just mentioned into stunned silence, for they know all-too-well their long history of trying to change, only to fail again and again. They had been hoping for good news, but instead got bad news from MacArthur.
Such persons don't need to be told what MacArthur says above. They need to be told just what Jesus said in Matthew 11:28 - 30: "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn off me; for I am meek and lowly of heart; and you shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." They need to be told what the jailer in Acts 16:31 was told, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved." If they do these things, their lives will change for the better, for they will have turned from their sins to Christ, who came into the world to save sinners, we are told in 1 Timothy 1:15.
By Bruce Oyen
Imagine what it would be like to sit in the ER waiting room while your loved, who has just received serious head injuries in a car wreck, is being taken care of by doctors and nurses. Your anxiety level is very high, your heart is pounding, and it is hard to restrain the tears. Then, the ER doctor walks into the room. You can tell by the look on his face that he has bad news. He walks over to you, puts his hand on your shoulder and says, "I'm sorry, your loved one didn't make it. We did everything we could, but the injuries were fatal." Then, you sit there for awhile, stunned into silence. Now, you must cope with the horrible reality of what just happened. You had hoped and prayed for a miracle, but, instead, death came. You had wanted good news, but all you got was bad news.
Maybe that is how a chronic drunk, a longtime gambler, a habitual sex offender, a heroin addict, a slave of pornography, and many others who seem hopelessly given to sinful behavior would feel if they were seeking a way to a new life, but then had the misfortune to read the following statement from chapter 4 of John MacArthur's book, HARD TO BELIEVE: "We can't know Jesus as the Messiah until we surrender to Him. I couldn't know Him as my Savior until I gave up my life to Him. Then I knew. Parading an infinite number of miracles in front of me wouldn't have proved anything. Miracles are beside the point. You will never know whether Jesus can save your soul from hell, give you new life, re-create your soul, plant His Holy Spirit there, forgive your sin, and send you to heaven until you give your life totally to Him. That is self-denial, cross-bearing, and following Him in obedience."
This has the potential to put those just mentioned into stunned silence, for they know all-too-well their long history of trying to change, only to fail again and again. They had been hoping for good news, but instead got bad news from MacArthur.
Such persons don't need to be told what MacArthur says above. They need to be told just what Jesus said in Matthew 11:28 - 30: "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn off me; for I am meek and lowly of heart; and you shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." They need to be told what the jailer in Acts 16:31 was told, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved." If they do these things, their lives will change for the better, for they will have turned from their sins to Christ, who came into the world to save sinners, we are told in 1 Timothy 1:15.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)