Prevenient Grace (1)

Is all grace given to men irresistible, or never given in vain? If grace is irresistible in regeneration, as Calvinists teach, does this mean that grace before or after initial regeneration or rebirth is likewise irresistible? How does a belief in "common grace" relate to "irresistible grace"? How does "prevenient grace" relate to what may be called "preparatory" grace or "preparationism" as in Puritan theology? What about conviction of sin? Does it precede or follow the grace of the birth of the Spirit? If it precedes, is it then an example of prevenient grace? Is conviction of sin a gracious work of God that always brings salvation? What about the experience of sinners being "awakened"? Is it regeneration or a preparation for it? Are there means that God uses to bring about the new birth? If yes, are those means examples of prevenient grace? Is there any gracious work that God does in the hearts and minds of sinners prior to their salvation, or is regeneration the first work? 

Is it true, as many claim, that a belief in prevenient grace is peculiar to Armianism? Or, are there Calvinists who believe in prevenient grace? Does the grace of faith precede regeneration? If so, is the giving of faith not an example of prevenient grace? Does divine giving of light precede giving life, or does illumination or enlightenment, or the giving of saving knowledge, precede salvation? If yes, is this illumination an example of prevenient grace? These are some of the questions we will address in this series, and is a subject I have been wanting to write for some time but have been busy with other topical series.

I will begin this series with a citation from the great theologian John Owen, a Calvinist. Owens wrote (emphasis mine). 

"First, in reference to the work of regeneration itself, positively considered, we may observe that ordinarily there are certain previous and preparatory works, or workings in and upon the souls of men, that are antecedent and dispositive to regeneration. Yet regeneration does not consist in them, nor can it be educed out of them."  (From Pneumatologia; "Works of the Holy Spirit Prepatory to Regeneration" as cited here)

This citation answers one of our questions. It shows that a belief in prevenient grace, what Owen calls "preparatory works," is not unique to John Wesley nor to Arminians. As we will see in this series, Owen is not alone, for there are other Calvinists who believe in some version of prevenient grace.

First, we need to define "prevenient grace." The word "prevenient" needs clarification first. It means what comes before, coming from Latin. Just as the word "convenient" means a "coming together," so prevenient means a coming before. It is similar, in the KJV or 1611 English, to the word "prevent," which in today's English means to keep something from happening, but in old English it meant to precede. So we read such texts as this: "I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried: I hoped in thy word." (Psa. 119: 47) The Psalmist is not saying, of course, that he kept the dawning of the morning from occurring, but that he got up before the dawn to cry to the Lord in prayer. We also read in the new testament where Jesus is said to have "prevented" the coming of Peter into the house, which means he went in before Peter. (Matt. 17: 25)

The great Calvinist theologian Charles Hodge in his Systematic Theology, volume II, Chapter 14, under "Vocation," and under "common grace," wrote (emphasis mine):

"Hence it is that the greatest of all gifts secured by the work of Christ, that without which salvation had been impossible, the Holy Ghost, in the influence which He exerts on the minds of men, has in all ages and in all parts of the Church been designated as divine grace. A work of grace is the work of the Holy Spirit; the means of grace, are the means by which, or in connection with which, the influence of the Spirit is conveyed or exercised. By common grace, therefore, is meant that influence of the Spirit, which in a greater or less measure, is granted to all who hear the truth. By sufficient grace is meant such kind and degree of the Spirit’s influence, as is sufficient to lead men to repentance, faith, and a holy life. By efficacious grace is meant such an influence of the Spirit as is certainly effectual in producing regeneration and conversion. By preventing grace is intended that operation of the Spirit on the mind which precedes and excites its efforts to return to God. By the gratia gratum faciens is meant the influence of the Spirit which renews or renders gracious. Cooperating grace is that influence of the Spirit which aids the people of God in all the exercises of the divine life. By habitual grace is meant the Holy Spirit as dwelling in believers; or, that permanent, immanent state of mind due to his abiding presence and power. Such is the established theological and Christian usage of this word. By grace, therefore, in this connection is meant the influence of the Spirit of God on the minds of men."

This again shows that some Calvinists do not reject either common grace or prevenient grace. He also rightly equates the work or influence of the Spirit with grace. He also connects any means that God uses to effect salvation as graces. He defines "prevenient grace" with "that operation of the Spirit on the mind which precedes and excites its efforts to return to God." He also says that such views of grace are "the established theological and Christian usage of" the word "grace." I agree with Owen and Hodge on this question. I get irritated when I hear people say, especially bible teachers who should know better, that Calvinists 1) believe that regeneration or rebirth precedes faith, and 2) deny prevenient grace and call such Arminianism. Neither is true. I have numerous articles in this blog that show that many great Calvinists, like John Calvin himself, believed that men were born again by faith and in prevenient grace.

Hodge wrote further:

"The Influences of the Spirit granted to all Man. That there is a divine influence of the Spirit granted to all men, is plain both from Scripture and from experience."

There are many bible texts which teach this truth and we will examine some of them in this series. Hodge gives several examples. In one example of them he wrote:

"The martyr Stephen (Acts vii. 51) tells the Jews, “As your fathers did...ye do always resist the ‘Holy Ghost,” as the prophet Isaiah lxiii. 10, said of the men of his generation, that they vexed God’s Holy Spirit. The Spirit, therefore, is represented as striving with the wicked, and with all men. They are charged with resisting, grieving, vexing, and quenching his operations."

If the Holy Spirit was active in urging and influencing those who rejected him, was this activity an act of grace? Was it not resisted? Was this influence of the Spirit upon the unregenerate not an example of prevenient grace?

J. L. Packer, well known theologian, wrote:

"The Reformers reaffirmed the substance of Augustine's doctrine of prevenient grace, and Reformed theology still maintains it. Calvin used the term "regeneration" to cover man's whole subjective renewal, including conversion and sanctification. Many seventeenth century Reformed theologians equated regeneration with effectual calling and conversion with regeneration (hence the systematic mistranslation of epistrepho, "turn," as a passive, "be converted," in the AV); later Reformed theology has defined regeneration more narrowly, as the implanting of the "seed" from which faith and repentance spring (I John 3:9) in the course of effectual calling." (See my previous posting for this citation here)

Both Arminians and Calvinists believe in such grace, although Hyper Calvinists and those who put regeneration before faith and evangelical conversion generally deny it. Notice how Packer admits that Augustine believed in prevenient grace. Packer also wrote (See here):

"Regeneration is the work of what Augustine called “prevenient” grace, the grace that precedes our outgoings of heart toward God." 

But, this is where Packer and Hyper Calvinists get it wrong. Regeneration or being born of God is not to be equated with the workings of God that leads to it. Packer is implying that Augustine believed that there was no preceding grace or preceding work of the Spirit in a person prior to his rebirth. In this statement he makes Augustine to contradict himself. Why would he do this? Especially since he has already admitted that Augustine believed in prevenient grace? And admitted that "Reformed theology still maintains it"? 

In "Prevenient Grace," a sermon by the famous Charles Haddon Spurgeon in 1865, we find that this great Calvinist likewise believed in prevenient grace. He said (emphasis mine):

"I selected this text, not so much for its own sake, as to give me an opportunity for saying a little this evening upon a doctrine not often touched upon, namely, that of PREVENIENT GRACE, or the grace which comas before regeneration and conversion. I think we sometimes overlook it. We do not attach enough importance to the grace of God in its dealings with men before he actually brings them to himself." 

I agree with this observation of Spurgeon. Many Calvinists reject it outright because they think it is an Arminian tenet, and they do so without investigating the matter.

Spurgeon said further:

"Now, when I look at the life of a man, even before conversion, I think I can discover something of God’s moulding and fashioning in him even before regenerating grace comes into his heart. Let me give you an illustration of my course of thought. When God created man—we are told in the book of Genesis—he made him “out of the dust of the earth.” Mark him beneath his Maker’s hand, the framework of a man, the tabernacle for an immortal soul; a man made of clay, fully made, I suppose, and perfect in all respects excepting one, and that soon followed: for after God had formed him out of the dust, then he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. Now it strikes me that during the early part of the history of the people whom God means to save, though they have not received into their hearts any spiritual life, nor experienced any of the work of regeneration, yet their life before conversion is really a working of them in the clay."

Those Calvinists, or Hyper Calvinists, who put regeneration or rebirth before faith and repentance, or before evangelical conversion, do not believe that there is any pre-regeneration gracious acts of the Spirit but have made "regeneration" to be "the first act of God" upon a sinner in effecting regeneration, and thus deny that there is any such pre-regeneration acts of grace. I wrote about this in this post (here). I showed that these Calvinists define regeneration as solely what God does to the exclusion of what God effects in so doing. In that post I wrote the following and cited the words of the great Calvinist theologian Archibald Alexander, from his work titled "A Practical View of Regeneration" (Published in The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, volume 8, 1836), in which I gave these introductory words and then gave what Alexander wrote (See here):

"Another error of those who separate regeneration from conversion, faith, and repentance, is to define "regeneration" simply as respects the "cause," whereas biblical "regeneration" includes both causes and effects, and primarily focuses upon the effect.  On this point the great head of Princeton Seminary, Archibald Alexander wrote:

"Evangelical repentance, conversion and regeneration, are substantially the same. They all signify a thorough change of views, affections, purposes and conduct; and this change is every where declared to be essential to salvation."

"Curious inquiries respecting the way in which the word is instrumental in the production of this change are not for edification. Sometimes regeneration is considered distinctly from the acts and exercises of the mind which proceed from it, but in the Holy Scriptures the cause and effect are included; and we shall therefore treat the subject in this practical and popular form. The instrumentality of the word can never derogate from the efficient agency of the Spirit in this work. The Spirit operates by and through the word. The word derives all its power and penetrating energy from the Spirit. Without the omnipotence of God the word would be as inefficient as clay and spittle, to restore sight to the blind."

I then made these comments on these words of Alexander:

"Alexander pinpoints the error of those Hyper Calvinists who restrict the definition of regeneration to include only the "cause." He correctly states that the scriptures include what is effected in the definition. A man cannot then be said to have been "regenerated" who lacked the "effects," or constituent elements of regeneration. In other words, a man cannot be said to have been "saved" who lacks the "things which accompany salvation." Thus, to say a man is regenerated before he believes and repents is to define regeneration strictly by the cause to the exclusion of the effect."

Alexander also wrote:

"Ezekiel was commanded to prophesy over the dry bones in the valley of vision. Thus ministers are now sent to call upon those who are dead in trespasses and sins, to awake and arise from the dead, but none will obey their voice, unless a divine power accompanies their words...That the word of God is indeed the instrument or means of producing this change is evident from many plain testimonies of Scripture..."

I then made these observations on what Alexander said:

"Those Hyper Calvinists who limit their definition of the word "regeneration" to the cause of the change, to the exclusion of the effect, or actual change, greatly err. Alexander is correct to affirm that scripture defines the experience of regeneration in such a way as to include the effect, or to what is actually effected by the cause of regeneration."

As we will see, Spurgeon also spoke of the story of Ezekiel and the dry bones to illustrate how there are things that happen to a sinner before his being brought to life. This story was one of the means for me rejecting Hardshellism and Hyper Calvinism and the idea that God does not use the preaching of the gospel as a means in raising dead sinners to spiritual life. God used Ezekiel's prophesying to the dead bones to resurrect them.

Spurgeon said further:

"You would, perhaps, say that all I have talked about as yet has been providence rather than grace. Very likely, but I think that providence and grace are very near akin; at any rate if providence is the wheel, grace is the hand which turns and guides it. But I am now about to speak of GRACE PRECEDING CALLING IN ANOTHER SENSE." 

Calvinists almost universally agree that the elect will be kept from dying until they have been effectually called and often use Jude 1: 1 to prove it, where Jude says "preserved in Jesus Christ and called." Would that preservation not be an act of grace?

Spurgeon said further:

"It strikes me that it is impossible to say, concerning the elect, when the grace of God begins to deal with them. You can tell when the quickening grace comes, but not when the grace itself comes."

There is certainly grace given to sinners before he saves them.

Spurgeon said further:

"I should say that there is what I cannot call by any other name than formative grace, exercised upon the vessels of mercy at their very birth. It seems to me to be no small mercy that some of us were born of such parents as we were, and that we were born where we were. Some of us began right, and were surrounded by many advantages. We were cradled upon the lap of piety, and dandled upon the knee of holiness." 

These are providential means that prepare the way for a sinner's regeneration.

Spurgeon said further:

"This formative grace many of you, I have no doubt, can trace in the examples and influences which have followed you from the cradle through life. Why, what a blessing to have had such a Sunday-school teacher as some of you had! Other children went to schools, but they had not such a teacher, or such a class as yours. What a privilege to have had such a minister as some of you had, though perhaps he has fallen asleep now!...Furthermore, while there was this formative grace, there seems to me to have gone with it very much of preventive grace." 

Again, all means that God may use in his providence to prepare a sinner for his salvation may be called examples of prevenient grace.

Spurgeon said further:

"Beloved, I have thanked God a thousand times in my life, that before my conversion, when I had ill desires I had no opportunities; and on the other hand, that when I had opportunities I had no desires; for when desires and opportunities come together like the flint and steel, they make the spark that kindles the fire, but neither the one nor the other, though they may both be dangerous, can bring about any very great amount of evil so long as they are kept apart. Let us, then, look back, and if this has been our experience bless the preventing grace of God." 

I too have thanked God a thousand times also for things he did in my life prior to my being born of the Spirit, things which kept me from going over the abyss, from my heart being hardened by divine judgment, even from suicide. 

Spurgeon said further:

"Again, there is another form of grace I must mention, namely, restraining grace. Here, you see, I am making a distinction. There are many who did go into sin; they were not wholly prevented from it, but they could go as far into it as they wanted to do...Oh! how often God has thrown a man on a sick bed to make him well!" 

 Indeed we see restraining grace at work in the lives of God's elect before he calls them.

Spurgeon said further:

"We shall get still further into the subject when we come to what Dr. John Owen calls the preparatory work of grace. Have you ever noticed that parable about the different sorts of ground, and the sower of the seeds? A sower went forth to sow, and some of the seed fell on stony ground; you can understand that, because all men have stones in their hearts. Some fell on the thorns and thistles; you can comprehend that, because men are so given to worldly care. Another part of the seed fell on the beaten path; you can understand that—men are so occupied with worldliness. But how about the “good ground”? “Good ground”! Is there such a thing as “good ground” by nature? One of the evangelists says that it was “honest and good ground.” Now, is there such a difference between hearts and hearts? Are not all men depraved by nature? Yes, he who doubts human depravity had better begin to study himself. Question: If all hearts are bad how are some hearts good? Reply: They are good comparatively; they are good in a certain sense. It is not meant in the parable that that good ground was so good that it ever would have produced a harvest without the sowing of the seed, but that it had been prepared by providential influences upon it to receive the seed, and in that sense it may be said to have been “good ground.”" 

I have already cited from Owen and will yet cite him further in the next chapter. Hyper Calvinists who deny that the word of God is a means in effecting salvation, be it regeneration or rebirth, will argue that the heart being good and honest in the parable means that it was regenerated, and so they say regeneration precedes the sowing of the seed of the word of God and cannot therefore be a means in making the heart good. However, both Owen and Spurgeon are correct in declaring that this honest and good heart is what preceded salvation. That is clear in the parable, for the result of receiving the seed was salvation, so the heart being good and honest could not denote salvation. (See Luke 8: 12)

Spurgeon said further:

"Now let me show you how God’s grace does come to work on the human heart so as to make it good soil before the living seed is cast into it, so that before quickening grace really visits it the heart may be called a good heart, because it is prepared to receive that grace. I think this takes place thus: first of all, before quickening grace comes, God often gives an attentive ear, and makes a man willing to listen to the Word. Not only does he like to listen to it, but he wants to know the meaning of it; there is a little excitement in his mind to know what the gospel tidings really are. He is not saved as yet, but it is always a hopeful sign when a man is willing to listen to the truth, and is anxious to understand it. This is one thing which prevenient grace does in making the soil good. In Ezekiel’s vision, as you will recollect, before the breath came from the four winds the bones began to stir, and they came together bone to his bone. So, before the Spirit of God comes to a man in effectual calling, God’s grace often comes to make a stir in the man’s mind, so that he is no longer indifferent to the truth, but is anxious to understand what it means." 

I agree completely. God certainly gave an "attentive ear" to Lydia before she heard and believed the gospel preached by Paul. The record is that "the Lord opened her heart so that she attended to the things spoken by Paul." (Acts 16: 14) I wrote on this text in this post (here). I showed that the Hyper Calvinist view that this opening of the heart was regeneration was false. They interpret the text in this way in order to prove their thesis that says 1) regeneration comes before faith and 2) the word of God is no means in effecting regeneration. In that post I also cited what Spurgeon said in his rejection of this view. I cite where Spurgeon said the following in preaching upon this text:

"We do not well if we forget the prevenient providences which work before our conversion, to bring us unto that spot where God was pleased to manifest himself unto us." 

"Observe next, that in Lydia's case there was not only preventing providence, but there was also grace in a certain manner preparing the soul. The woman did not know the Saviour; she did not understand the things which make for her peace, yet she knew many truths which were excellent stepping-stones to a knowledge of Jesus." 

"She worshipped God; worshipped him in sincerity; worshipped him looking for the coming of the Messiah, Israel's consolation; and so her mind was prepared for the reception of the gospel. Doubtless, dear friends, in many of us there was a preparation for Christ before Christ came to us in quickening grace."

"Still, dear friends, we ought to ascribe all this preparatory work to sovereign grace, for grace—free favour does much in which no grace of effectual salvation is perceptible. I mean that before grace renews the heart there is grace preparing us for grace; grace may be setting the mind in activity, clearing us from prejudice, ridding us of a thousand infidel and sceptical thoughts, and so raising a platform from which divine grace conducts us into the region of the new life. Such was the case of Lydia, such is the case of many; providence and grace co-work before the effectual time is come." 

"Note again, for we will only hint at these things rather than dwell upon them, that it was assuredly a work of grace, for we are expressly told, “whose heart the Lord opened.” She did not open her own heart. Her prayers did not do it; Paul did not do it; the Lord himself must open the heart, to receive the things which make for our peace. To operate savingly upon human hearts belongs to God alone." 

"...although the Lord opened the heart, Paul’s words were the instrument of her conversion. The heart may be opened, and willing to receive, but then if truth enter not, what would be the use of an open door? But God always takes care to open the heart at a time when the messenger of mercy shall be going by, that the heart may give him admittance." ("Lessons from Lydia’s Conversion" - here)

Spurgeon said further in his sermon on prevenient grace:

"The next mark of this gracious work is an ingenuousness of heart. Some persons will not hear you, or if they do they are always picking holes and finding fault, they are not honest and good ground. But there are others who say, “I will give the man a fair and an honest hearing; I will read the Bible; I will read it, too, honestly; I will really see whether it be the Word of God or not, I will come to it without any prejudices; or, if I have any prejudices I will throw them aside.” Now, all this is a blessed work of preparatory grace, making the heart ready to receive effectual calling."

I look back upon my own conversion and see how God had prepared me by prevenient grace prior to my actual conversion.

Spurgeon said further:

"Then, when this willingness and ingenuousness are attended with a tender conscience, as they are in some unconverted people, this is another great blessing. Some of you are not converted, but you would not do wrong; you are not saints, but you would not tell a lie for the world. I thank God that there are some of you so excellent in morals, that if you were proposed to us for Church-membership, we could not raise any objection to you on that ground, at any rate. You are as honest as the day is long: as for the things of God, you are outwardly as attentive to them, and as diligent in them, as the most earnest and indefatigable Christians. Now, this is because your conscience is tender. When you do wrong you cannot sleep at night; and you do not feel at all easy in being without a Saviour—I know some of you do not. You have not come to any decision; the grace of God has not really made you feel your thoroughly ruined state; still you are not quite easy...You know you have not believed in Jesus Christ, and the world keeps you back from doing so; but still there is a kind of twitching in your conscience; you do not know what it is, but there is a something got into you that makes you say at times, “O God, let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his;” yes, and you even go farther than this, and ask to live the righteous man’s life too. Now, remember, this will not save you: “Ye must be born again.” But for all this the Church of God should feel deeply grateful, for they have seen in themselves that this is often God’s preparatory work—clearing away the rubbish and rubble, and digging out the foundations, that Jesus Christ might be laid therein, the corner-stone of future hope and of future happiness." 

Years ago when I was working with Bob L. Ross of Pilgrim Publications, and author of several scholarly books, we talked about regeneration in the context of the errors thereupon by Hardshells and Hyper Calvinists and I recall him saying about the "ordo salutis" that they place regeneration "too soon" in their paradigm. What we would call pre-regeneration workings of the Spirit they would call regeneration. This is evident when we discuss what is called "conviction of sin," an experience that occurs prior to conversion. Hardshells say that conviction of sin is evidence of regeneration while Arminians and many Calvinists say it is what precedes regeneration. In my series titled "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" I have some chapters on "Conviction of Sin." (See here, here, here)

Spurgeon said further:

"Another work of grace is the creation of dissatisfaction with their present state. How many men we have known who were consciously “without God and without hope in the world.” The apples of Sodom had turned to ashes and bitterness in their mouth, though at one time all was fair and sweet to their taste. The mirage of life with them has been dispelled, and instead of the green fields, and waving trees, and rippling waters, which their fevered imagination had conjured up in the desert, they can see now nought but the arid sand and wasteness of desolation, which appal their fainting spirits, and promise nothing; no, not even a grave to cover their whited bones, which shall remain a bleached memorial that “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.” Multitudes have been brought to see the deluge of sin which has covered even the high places of the earth, they find no rest for the sole of their foot, but as yet they know not of an ark, nor of a loving hand prepared to pull them in, as did Noah the dove in olden time. Look at the life of St. Augustine, how wearily he wanders hither and thither with a death thirst in his soul, that no fount of philosophy, or scholastic argument, or heretical teaching could ever assuage. He was aware of his unhappy estate, and turned his eye round the circle of the universe looking for peace, not fully conscious of what he wanted, though feeling an aching void the world could never fill. He had not found the centre, fixed and stedfast, around which all else revolved in ceaseless change. Now, all this appetite, this hunger and thirst, I look upon as not of the devil, nor of the human heart alone, it was of God. He strips us of all our earthly joy and peace, that, shivering in the cold blast, we might flee, when drawn by his Spirit, to the “Man who is as a hiding-place from the storm, a covert from the tempest, and the shadow of a great rock in a weary land.”

This is what occurred to me before I was born of the Spirit. The Lord showed me the vanity of life, of my life, wherein I saw my future life as not worth living, as bringing forth more evils than good, and so death seemed like a good way to prevent it. The Lord also showed me that I was lost and condemned and that if I did kill myself that I would not be any better off, but in a far worse state. When I was thus made to see my lost condition by the working of God's grace, God was not lying to me, as the Hardshells who believe that conviction of sin is evidence of a saved state. If God was telling me that I was lost and yet I was not really lost, then that would make God a liar. I have written on this several times. See this post as an example. (here)

Is God showing kindness an act of grace? Is God being good to all also an example of his grace? 

 

"More Would Have Been Saved If..."

In "The Primitive Baptist" periodical for April 26, 1845 (See here) we find one of the writings in a series by Elder C.B. Hassell under the title "CHARGES, Exhibited against the Chowan Association in the Kehukee Letter of October, 1843; and which were considered as among the reasons why the latter could not fellowship the former" (pg. 116). In it Hassell wrote (emphasis mine):

"Mr. Judson, the leading Baptist missionary to Burmah, wrote back to his friends in America, to this effect, viz. that thousands of heathen were sinking down into hell, because the ladies of the United States wore so many jewels. For, argued he, if the ladies would throw their jewels and finery into the missionary fund, thousands of poor pagans might be saved from the flames of endless torment, who would otherwise go there and be lost to all eternity! It is fair to presume this man sent back to America the best gospel he was master of; and if the preaching above described was his best, what think you of his worst, which of course was to be made to the poor heathens? Does any man in his senses believe an individual, entertaining such a sentiment as this above mentioned, is an ambassador of Christ; or has any of his gospel to preach to any body, either heathen or civilized? I certainly do not; but naturally conclude, if this is his preaching to professors of Christianity — civilized and enlightened people; that held out to the ignorant barbarians, is a great deal worse; provided any thing can be worse, than to predicate the salvation of the human soul on ear-bobs, rings, or money. And still, we have reason to believe ninetenths of the so-called gospel sent to the heathen in the 19th century, by missionary boards to be no better than this; but precisely of the same character." (pgs. 122-123)

I can see why Calvinists or Predestinarians, especially Hyper Calvinists, would have problems accepting the words of Adoniram Judson that said that "many more sinners would have been saved had the people given more support to missionaries," as did Hassell. Yet, Hassell certainly believed that a person must believe the Gospel and in Christ to be saved. In a recent post I gave several citations from Hassell where he clearly believed that evangelical faith was essential for salvation (See here). In that post I cited these words of C.B. Hassell, from his book "History of the Church of God":

"Should the Lord create an humble, teachable and inquiring disposition in the heart of an inhabitant of China, Japan or the unexplored parts of Africa, He would sooner send an angel from Heaven, or a minister from the uttermost part of the earth, to show him the way of salvation, than leave him destitute of that knowledge, for which he longs and prays without ceasing. The alms and supplications of such persons spring from right principles and motives, and go up as a memorial before God, not to merit His favor, but to plead with Him to fulfill His gracious promises." (pg. 203 of Hassell's History)

I also cited the following words of Hassell, which were taken from the same periodical for the same year, in the previous month (March 1845):

"On the contrary we believe, the gospel is God's system of salvation for ruined man, and that He saves them by grace of His and not by works of theirs. Kehukeeites believe, that the Saviour took the law place and stead of his people, and for them and in their behalf fulfilled it to a punctilio...This they are made to believe by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, and this belief is counted to them for righteousness without the deeds of the law. They are then no longer under the law but under grace--no longer dead in trespasses and sins but alive to holiness,-- having their fruit unto the same and the end thereof everlasting life. This belief in Christ, caused by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, is their creation anew in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that they should walk in; and henceforward they abound in good works to God, begotten by the active principle of grace within them, not from a principle of slavish fear, by which they expect to escape eternal punishment." 

"Charge 3. The Report indirectly charges Kehukee Baptists with believing or teaching, that those who finally die in a state of impenitence, are taken to heaven by an absolute decree of God. The Report need lay claim to no originality here, for this same charge was full grown in the apostolic age and must be quite grey headed by this time...Paul denied the charge, treated it as a slander and so does the Kehukee Association."

In the same periodical for the same year, we find these words for January 25th, 1845: 

"Well, says one, how are we to come in possession of that of which you have been speakiing? (belief of the truth - SG) I know of no other way but the way prescribed in the written word of God. You must receive it by the hearing of the word of truth, when spoken unto you in the demonstration of the spirit and power of God, who is the author of it. For we are told that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God; and how can we hear without a preacher, and how can they preach except they be sent?"

This was the position of those who supported this old periodical. In another post on the beliefs of Elder C.B. Hassell I cited from his personal creed. (See here) Item number four of that creed says:

"The absolute that the Holy Ghost will find all the chosen in Christ, regenerate their soul, lead them unto Christ, and show them the way of salvation and the riches of their inheritance, pure and undefiled in heaven above."

So, Hassell does not deny that faith in Christ is produced by the Spirit and the word of God (like the 1689 London confession says and which he accepted) and that it is a necessary condition for salvation. That being so, why does he object to the words of Judson? With this introduction, let me answer the objection or difficulty that Hassell mentions against what Judson had said. 

First, it must be said that what Judson said is true when looked at from one perspective. Secondly, it must also be said that what Judson said is false when viewed from another perspective. Let me illustrate this point. If I am in outer space looking down on the north pole I say that the earth is spinning counter clockwise. However, if I am in outer space looking up on the south pole I say that the earth is spinning clockwise. In looking at the salvation from the standpoint of the means God uses, i.e. the Gospel or word of God, we must say that people who have those means have an opportunity to be saved whereas those who have not those means have no opportunity. It is also reasonable to assume that more people would be saved if the means were available than if they were not. I believe that this is the way God wants us to look at the matter. However, that does not mean that more will be saved than God determined. 

No one who God predetermined to be saved will be lost, nor die without hearing the Gospel and coming to saving faith and repentance. On the other hand, it is perfectly appropriate for us to say that those who have the means of salvation have a greater chance of being saved than those who have not those means. The Bible does not warrant us to say that because God has determined to save x number of people that therefore there are no means of salvation, nor that the Bible and Gospel preachers are unnecessary. To prove that Judson's statement is not unbiblical, and is not contradictory to what Hassell and other Calvinists believe, I will give some examples from the word of God.

Case Number One

"Then He said to me: “Son of man, go to the house of Israel and speak with My words to them. For you are not sent to a people of unfamiliar speech and of hard language, but to the house of Israel, not to many people of unfamiliar speech and of hard language, whose words you cannot understand. Surely, had I sent you to them, they would have listened to you." (Eze. 3: 4-6 nkjv)

This text upholds the proposition of Judson. The foreigners mentioned (those of a foreign language) would have heard God's words had the Lord sent Ezekiel to preach to them. But, he did not. Therefore, they did not get the benefit of hearing God's word, which would include salvation. Judson could truly say that more people would have heard the word of God and "listened" to it had the American people given more money to the support of foreign missionaries. On the other hand, if God had predetermined that the foreign nations hear the word from the mouth of Ezekiel and be saved thereby, then he would have sent Ezekiel to them and moved the hearts of his people to contribute money to Ezekiel for that end.

Case Number Two

"20 Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, who[e] are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you.” (Matt. 11: 20-24 nkjv)

What is said about "mighty works" being a means in bringing people to salvation applies to the gospel as a means. Jesus said that the doomed sinners named "would have" repented had they had the mighty works done in their day and seen by those sinners. So, we can say that "more would have been saved via repentance had God sent workers of miracles to those doomed sinners." Further, saying this does not mean that more will be saved than God had predetermined or foreknew. A text that aligns with the above text is this:

"And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch. And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them. And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)" (Acts 5: 12-14 nkjv)

"More" people believed and were "added to the Lord" because of the miracles, signs and wonders, done by the hands of the apostles, and because the apostles were enabled to give their full time to the work of the ministry by the monetary support of Christians.

Case Number Three

"1 Again the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 2 "Son of man, speak to the children of your people, and say to them: 'When I bring the sword upon a land, and the people of the land take a man from their territory and make him their watchman, 3 when he sees the sword coming upon the land, if he blows the trumpet and warns the people, 4 then whoever hears the sound of the trumpet and does not take warning, if the sword comes and takes him away, his blood shall be on his own head. 5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, but did not take warning; his blood shall be upon himself. But he who takes warning will save his life. 6 But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at the watchman's hand.' 7 "So you, son of man: I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore you shall hear a word from My mouth and warn them for Me. 8 When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you shall surely die!' and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. 9 Nevertheless if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul." (Eze. 33: 1-9 nkjv)

Here again we see that the reasoning of Hassell and the Hyper Calvinists is not cogent nor overthrows true biblical predestination. Without a watchman to warn the wicked there is no opportunity to heed the warning of coming divine judgment and repent and seek God's forgiveness and deliverance. However, the more people who hear the warning the more opportunity there will be for people to do as did the Ninevites when they heard such a warning, that is, repent of their sins and get reprieve from the announced judgment.

Case Number Four

"I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.’" (Acts 26: 17-18 nkjv)

Would the Gentiles under consideration have been saved had Paul not gone to them to preach the gospel and thus to effect the things enumerated? Did the monetary contributions of the first Christians aid in Paul being able to go to the Gentiles all over the Roman world?

Would Hassell agree with this statement: "more would have been saved had God sent his word to more people?" Then why disagree with the statement that says: "more would have been saved had the church sent the word to more people?"

After all, one can be sent by the church and by the Lord at the same time, just as both the Spirit and the bride (church) say "come." (Rev. 22: 17)

"As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away. So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus. And when they arrived in Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. They also had John as their assistant." (Acts 13: 2-5 nkjv)

Who sent Paul and Barnabas? God the Spirit, the church at Antioch, or both? Answer; Both. The work they were sent to do was described in the text above in Acts 26: 17-18. They were also helped to do this by the financial support of the churches. In these two great missionaries going out to preach the gospel they were doing what Christ commanded. Notice this text:

"Then the master said to the servant, ‘Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled." (Luke 14: 23 nkjv)

Would it not be proper to say that more people would accept the invitation to the wedding (context) because more servants went out into the highways to compel people to come in? Is not the result of such going out a greater filling of the house with guests? Now notice these words of the great missionary:

"For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more." (I Cor. 9: 19 nkjv)

If Paul said he did things in order that "more" might be won to the Lord, what is wrong with Judson saying that if people did more in support of missionaries that more would be saved? Notice this text:

"Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles." (Rom. 1: 13 kjv)

So, I ask: was there more "fruit" produced by Paul going to the Gentiles in Rome than would have otherwise been produced had he not gone? In the same Roman epistle Paul wrote:

"Therefore I have reason to glory in Christ Jesus in the things which pertain to God. For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not accomplished through me, in word and deed, to make the Gentiles obedient—in mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man’s foundation." (Rom. 15: 17-20 nkjv)

I could have added this text to Case # 2 above, for it does speak of how the miracles done by Paul, and by the power of the Spirit of God, were a means "to make the Gentiles obedient" and to inform them of Christ and so be saved. With this in mind I ask: would more be saved by Paul's going to preach in places where Christ was not known? And, was he not able to go to more such places because the people supported him monetarily?

God Promises Success

God has promised to give success to the preaching of his word. Thus, when there are more missionaries going to more places in the world, there will be more people saved. These texts teach this truth:

"So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it." (Isa. 55: 11 nkjv)

"He who continually goes forth weeping, Bearing seed for sowing, Shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, Bringing his sheaves with him." (Psa. 126: 6 nkjv)

In broadcasting seed God promises success. Therefore more sowing of Gospel seed will issue in more people likely being saved. Paul testified: "I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase." (I Cor. 3: 6 nkjv) Will there be an increase where there has been no planting?

Hyper Calvinism is behind the thinking of C.B. Hassell. He was leaning upon his own understanding in trying to reconcile predestination with contingencies, or first causes with second causes. What Judson said was true, and yet it is also true that all who God predestined to be saved will be saved. Both things are true even if you cannot comprehend how.

 

John 8: 47 and Hyper Calvinism

This writing is a follow up to my recent posting titled "Because You Are Sons?" (See here)

Back in 2008 I dealt with this text in my series of writings called "The Hardshell Baptist Cult." (See here) It is one of the chief texts used by those Hyper Calvinists who put regeneration or rebirth before faith. They are convinced that Jesus is saying that a person must first be "of God" by regeneration before he can hear and believe the word of God. However, that is certainly not what the text is intended to teach us.

"He who is of the male species, has XY chromosomes, you have not XY chromosomes because you are not of the male species."

This sentence does not tell us that being of the male species precedes having XY chromosomes, nor vice versa. It simply is saying that being male and having male chromosomes are essentially related. We can either say "he who has XY chromosomes is a male" or say "he who is a male has XY chromosomes." Both are true. That being so, we may say -- "he who hears God's word is of God, you are not of God because you are not hearing his word" in addition to saying "he who is of God hears God's word, you hear not because you are not of God." 

We can do this because hearing God's word and being "of God" are essential to each. In other words, you cannot have a person who is "of God" but who is not hearing God's word, and you cannot have a person who is hearing God's word but who is not "of God." We can therefore say "you are not of God because you are not hearing God's word." So, both statements are true. We can say "People don't hear God's word because they are not of God" and also say "people are not of God because they don't hear God's word" for both are true. Notice this sentence again:

"He who has XY chromosomes, is a male, and you have them not because you are not a male."

That sentence does not tell us which comes first, being male or obtaining male chromosomes. When the existence of two things depends upon each other, we can say either "you don't have X because you do not have Y," or "you don't have Y because you don't have X."

This being true, the words of Christ may be paraphrased as follows:

"Whoever is of God hears God's words, you do not hear God's words, therefore, you are obviously not of God."

Further, John 8: 47 cannot contradict what Jesus elsewhere taught about becoming "of God," i.e. being born "of God." Jesus did say that one had to hear the word of God before being born "of God." In John 5: 25 Jesus said that the "dead" must "hear" the voice of Christ in order to come to life. Many other verses of scripture teach the same. Said the Lord to Israel: "Incline your ear, and come to Me. Hear, and your soul shall live." (Isa. 55: 3) So, John 8: 47 cannot contradict such verses. 

 

Did Allah Say The Jews Did Not Kill Jesus?

Muslims deny that Christ died by crucifixion. They do so in spite of the historical proof of it, attested to by non Christians and atheists. A large portion of Muslims disbelieve this historical fact based upon some statements in the Quran which they interpret to mean that Christ was saved from crucifixion by Allah putting in his place a substitute so that he only "appeared" to have been the one crucified. If this is true, then Allah is the reason why Christians have been duped into believing that Christ was crucified from a false gospel record.

Furthermore, Allah, through Muhammad, told the Christians in his days to judge themselves by the gospel. But, if the gospel had been corrupted prior to the time of Muhammad, then ergo the Christians were being advised by Allah and Muhammad to abide by a false gospel. That is one of the dilemmas of Islam. So we read in the Quran:

"Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are ˹truly˺ the rebellious" (Quran 5:47). 

How could people of the Gospel judge by the Gospel if it had been corrupted and so much added to it? Also, since Allah promises to preserve his word, whether in the Torah, Gospels, or Quran, how can a Muslim say the Gospel has been altered and changed? The Gospel that was in existence in the days of Muhammad is the same Gospel we have today, and in it the crucifixion is testified to.

Here is the chief text in the Quran that Muslims think denies the crucifixion of Christ.

"They were condemned for breaking their covenant, rejecting Allah’s signs, killing the prophets unjustly, and for saying, “Our hearts are unreceptive!”—it is Allah Who has sealed their hearts for their disbelief, so they do not believe except for a few—and for their denial and outrageous accusation against Mary, and for boasting, “We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” But they neither killed nor crucified him—it was only made to appear so. Even those who argue for this ˹crucifixion˺ are in doubt. They have no knowledge whatsoever—only making assumptions. They certainly did not kill him. Rather, Allah raised him up to Himself. And Allah is Almighty, All-Wise." (Surah 4:155-158; See here)

However, as we will see, this text is capable of being interpreted in a manner where the crucifixion of Christ is not denied. Many Christians who debate Muslims point these things out.

First of all, it seems that the above passage contradicts this passage in the same Quran.

"Lo! God said: "O Jesus! Verily, I shall cause thee to die, and shall exalt thee unto Me, and cleanse thee of [the presence of] those who are bent on denying the truth; and I shall place those who follow thee [far] above those who are bent on denying the truth, unto the Day of Resurrection. In the end, unto Me you all must return, and I shall judge between you with regard to all on which you were wont to differ." (Surah 3: 55; See here)

The apparent conflict arises from the various meanings of the Arabic word mutawaffika in Surah 3:55. This Web Page (here) gives the many different translations of that text. It seems clear to me that the word means just exactly as it is often translated by Muslims themselves, and means "I will cause thee to die."

Further, in the Quran we are given these words that were said to be spoken by Jesus:

"Peace be upon me the day I was born, the day I die, and the day I will be raised back to life!” (Surah 19: 33)

So, the question is not whether Jesus died, but did he die by crucifixion, and if so, why? Christians believe that it was in order that Jesus might die as a sacrifice for sin, and to take the punishment due to sinners. In this way God is just, for transgression must be punished (though Muslims deny this), and also merciful and forgiving, based upon that sacrifice, so that those who receive the sacrifice, atonement, or propitiation, may be saved.

Other Interpretations of Surah 3: 55

Surah 3: 55 is capable of several interpretations and so is not a clear proof that Allah is denying that Jesus was killed by crucifixion. Also, if it means that Jesus did not die by crucifixion, then the Quran contradicts itself and denies what is an historical fact, as we have stated. Here are other possible interpretations:

1) When Allah says "but they (the Jews who boasted that they had killed Jesus and that this proved that he was not the Messiah per the context) neither killed nor crucified him," he may have meant that they did not kill him entirely, for only his body died and not his soul, even as the Quran teaches. Jesus also himself spoke of those who "kill the body but are not able to kill the soul" (Matt. 10: 28).

2) When Allah says "but they neither killed nor crucified him," he may have meant that it was really not the Jews who killed him, but God, for even texts in the Quran uphold this principle. In Surah 8: 17, in commenting upon Muslims who killed unbelievers in battle, Allah says "And you did not kill them, but it was Allah who killed them." So, when Surah 3: 55 says "they neither killed nor crucified him" it could mean that it was God who killed Jesus and that the Jews were merely his instruments. This would be what the Bible itself teaches. Further, as we have seen, Allah in the Quran says "O Jesus! Verily, I shall cause thee to die."

3) When Allah says "but they neither killed nor crucified him," he may have meant just what Jesus meant when he said "Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.” (John 10: 17-18 nkjv)

4) When Allah says "but they neither killed nor crucified him," he may have meant that their boast was untrue, that their thinking that their killing Jesus proved that he was not the Messiah was untrue.

5) The text could also mean "they did not kill him" because Allah raised him from the dead, and this is what is meant when the text says "Rather, Allah raised him up to Himself." Raised him from what? Was it not from the dead, and then later from the earth via the ascension into heaven?

There are some good debates on YouTube between Muslims and Christians. The best debaters for Christians, in my opinion, are Sam Shamoun, David Wood, and James White. Here are some introductory videos that are good.

"The Quran DOESN'T Say What Muslims Think It Says!" by David Wood, a man who has had many debates with Muslims and is an expert on the Christian versus Muslim debate. (See here)

"What the Quran REALLY Says about the Gospel" by David Wood (here)

What The Quran Says About the Gospels

Wrote one source (See here)

"The crux of the argument is this: The Quran affirms the inspiration, authority, and preservation of the New Testament Gospels; yet the Quran also contradicts the Gospels on major theological and historical points. Therefore, the Quran cannot be reliable."

"He has sent down upon you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel." (Quran 3: 3)

Said the source in commentary upon such texts in the Quran:

"These Scriptures from God were available and trustworthy when the Qur’an was revealed in the 7th century A.D., and those who had access to them were repeatedly told to obey them, judge by them, submit to their teaching, and stand fast upon them."

Qur’an 5:47 says, “And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed—then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.”

"Furthermore, Qur’an 5:68 states, “Say, ‘O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord’” (see also 6:114; 3:3-4)."

Under "THE PRESERVATION OF THE GOSPEL" the same source says:

"If the Gospels were trustworthy in the 600s AD, then they are certainly trustworthy today because our extant manuscripts pre-date the Qur’an by centuries. Perhaps even more significant for Muslims is the Qur’an’s statement that no one can change the words of Allah.[3]"

Qur’an 6:115 says, “And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can alter His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing” (see also 18:27)."

The same source makes this commentary on these Quranic texts:

"If the Gospels are the words of God, and no one can change God’s words, then the Gospels must also have been perfectly preserved by God. Otherwise, the Qur’an is wrong."

"Here’s the dilemma for Muslims: If the Gospels are not trustworthy, then the Qur’an is false because it teaches that the Gospels are the inspired, perfectly preserved, authoritative words of God. But if the Gospels are trustworthy, then the Qur’an is false because it teaches contradictory, mutually exclusive facts about key issues. Either way, the Qur’an is false."

"While these verses and others (2:75; 4:46; 5:13; 3:187) do teach that people falsified the Scriptures for money and concealed the truth even though they knew it, there is not a single verse in the Qur’an that teaches the Christian Scriptures have been permanently corrupted, with their message ultimately lost to history."

 

Spurgeon on the Ordo Salutis

The following is another proof that Charles Spurgeon did not believe, at least in his older and more mature years, that people were regenerated, or had spiritual life, before they believed. In his sermon "Life in Christ" (December 31, 1870; See here) he said:

"It is a distinguishing mark of a true follower of Jesus that he sees his Lord and Master when he is not to be seen by the bodily eye; he sees him intelligently and spiritually; he knows his Lord, discerns his character, apprehends him by faith, gazes upon him with admiration as our first sight of Christ brought us into spiritual life, for we looked unto him and were saved, so it is by the continuance of this spiritual sight of Christ that our spiritual life is consciously maintained. We lived by looking, we live still by looking. Faith is still the medium by which life comes to us from the life-giving Lord."

"As surely as I have this day eternal life by reason of faith in Christ Jesus, so surely shall I reach its fullness when Christ who is my life shall appear."

Many think that Calvinists all believe that regeneration precedes faith. But, this is an error. I have numerous articles in this blog and in the Baptist Gadfly blog which shows that many Calvinists as Spurgeon did not believe it, contending rather that sinners are born again, or obtain spiritual life, by faith. This was even the view of John Calvin.

 

A. H. Strong On Union With Christ

A.H. Strong

(1836 - 1921)

“that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith”

(Ephesians 3: 17)

In "Union With Christ - The Application of Christ’s Redemption in its Actual Beginning" by Baptist theologian Dr. Augustus Hopkins Strong, we find the following worthy citations (emphasis mine). 

"Under this head we treat of Union with Christ, Regeneration, Conversion (embracing Repentance and Faith), and Justification. Much confusion and error have arisen from conceiving these as occurring in chronological order. The order is logical, not chronological. As it is only “in Christ” that man is “a new creature” (2 Cor. 5:17) or is “justified” (Acts 13:39), union with Christ logically precedes both regeneration and justification; and yet, chronologically, the moment of our union with Christ is also the moment when we are regenerated and justified. So, too, regeneration and conversion are but the divine and human sides or aspects of the same fact, although regeneration has logical precedence, and man turns only as God turns him." (here)

This has been the ordo salutis I have contended for over the past many years. Union with Christ occurs before regeneration, conversion, and justification and union with Christ is by faith, so faith must precede regeneration just like justification. All follows faith union with Christ. All Arminians believe this and many Calvinists also, including John Calvin and those Particular Baptists who wrote the London and Philadelphia confessions of faith. It is only the Hyper Calvinist, or Hyper leaning Calvinist that wants to say that union with Christ precedes faith and regeneration.

Strong says further:

"Regeneration will involve repentance and faith and justification and sanctification." 

That is true, but faith must take logical priority since it is the the thing that unites a person to Christ, and there can be no regeneration, conversion, justification, sanctification, etc., prior to being in Christ.

Strong says further:

"See A. A. Hodge, on the Ordo Salutis, in Princeton Rev., March, 1888:304–321. Union with Christ, says Dr. Hodge, “is effected by the Holy Ghost in effectual calling. Of this calling the parts are two: (a) the offering of Christ to the sinner, externally by the gospel, and internally by the illumination of the Holy Ghost; (b) the reception of Christ, which on our part is both passive and active. The passive reception is that whereby a spiritual principle is ingenerated into the human will, whence issues the active reception, which is an act of faith with which repentance is always conjoined. The communion of benefits which results from this union involves: (a) a change of state or relation, called justification; and (b) a change of subjective moral character, commenced in regeneration and completed through sanctification.” See also Dr. Hodge’s Popular Lectures on Theological Themes, 340, and Outlines of Theology, 333–429."

Dr. A.A. Hodge was a Calvinist theologian whom I have cited before as having insisted, as I do, that justification by faith must precede regeneration. (See here) Those Hyper Calvinists who say first regeneration, second faith, third justification and sanctification, have a problem with where to put union with Christ and of the adverse consequences of putting it anywhere but at the head. Some do this, such as the Hardshell Hyper Calvinists, but will say that union with Christ is not by means of faith, saying rather that union with Christ occurs apart from faith. They would say vital union with Christ precedes faith. Many Calvinists, along with Arminians, will say however that union with Christ is by faith (as the text at the head of this article says).

There must be a receiving of Christ by the sinner before there can be effects or fruits of that union, such as forgiveness, justification, regeneration, conversion, sanctification, etc. Communion follows union. 

Strong says further:

"H. B. Smith, however, in his System of Christian Theology, is more clear in the putting of Union with Christ before Regeneration. On page 502, he begins his treatment of the Application of Redemption with the title: “The Union between Christ and the individual believer as effected by the Holy Spirit. This embraces the subjects of Justification, Regeneration, and Sanctification, with the underlying topic which comes first to be considered, Election.” He therefore treats Union with Christ (531–539) before Regeneration (553–569). He says Calvin defines regeneration as coming to us by participation in Christ, and apparently agrees with this view (559)."

Those Calvinists who put regeneration before faith must affirm that union with Christ follows regeneration and that union is not by faith, or say that regeneration does not result from union. Which horn of that dilemma do they want to take? Many Calvinists do not say that regeneration precedes faith and therefore those folks who say "Calvinism puts regeneration before faith" state what is not true of all Calvinists.

Strong says further:

“This union [with Christ] is at the ground of regeneration and justification” (534). “The great difference of theological systems comes out here. Since Christianity is redemption through Christ, our mode of conceiving that will determine the character of our whole theological system” (536)."

These words of the learned doctor are powerful and true. 

Strong says further:

"The Scriptures declare that, through the operation of God, there is constituted a union of the soul with Christ different in kind from God’s natural and providential concursus with all spirits, as well as from all unions of mere association or sympathy, moral likeness, or moral influence,—a union of life, in which the human spirit, while then most truly possessing its own individuality and personal distinctness, is interpenetrated and energized by the Spirit of Christ, is made inscrutably but indissolubly one with him, and so becomes a member and partaker of that regenerated, believing, and justified humanity of which he is the head."

So Strong believes, as a moderate Calvinist, that union with Christ precedes the reception of spiritual life. If one does not possess Christ (union), then he is not spiritually alive. The apostle John affirmed this important fundamental truth when he said "whoever has the Son has life, whoever does not have the Son does not have life." (I John 5: 12) How does one "have the Son"? Is it not by "receiving the Son" by faith? Is not "receiving" in the active voice? Jesus said that one must "come to him" (by faith) in order to have spiritual life. (John 5: 43) It is absurd for the Hardshells to teach that many born again folks who possess Christ know nothing about him, much less believe in him! 

Strong says further:

"Union with Christ is not union with a system of doctrine, nor with external religious influences, nor with an organized church, nor with an ideal man,—but rather, with a personal, risen, living, omnipresent Lord (J. W. A. Stewart). Dr. J. W. Alexander well calls this doctrine of the Union of the Believer with Christ “the central truth of all theology and of all religion.” Yet it receives little of formal recognition, either in dogmatic treatises or in common religious experience. Quenstedt, 886–912, has devoted a section to it; A. A. Hodge gives to it a chapter, in his Outlines of Theology, 369 sq., to which we are indebted for valuable suggestions; H. B. Smith treats of it, not however as a separate topic, but under the head of Justification (System, 531–539)."

Many Calvinists put faith before regeneration or the new birth.

Strong says further:

"The majority of printed systems of doctrine, however, contain no chapter or section on Union with Christ, and the majority of Christians much more frequently think of Christ as a Savior outside of them, than as a Savior who dwells within. This comparative neglect of the doctrine is doubtless a reaction from the exaggerations of a false mysticism. But there is great need of rescuing the doctrine from neglect. For this we rely wholly upon Scripture. Doctrines which reason can neither discover nor prove need large support from the Bible. It is a mark of divine wisdom that the doctrine of the Trinity, for example, is so inwoven with the whole fabric of the New Testament, that the rejection of the former is the virtual rejection of the latter. The doctrine of Union with Christ, in like manner, is taught so variously and abundantly, that to deny it is to deny inspiration itself. See Kahnis, Luth. Dogmatik, 3:447–450."

I find that this is true. I find that those Calvinists who put regeneration before faith stumble over the issue of union with Christ and how it affects their views on the ordo salutis.

Strong says further:

"Direct statements. (a) The believer is said to be in Christ. 

 

Lest we should regard the figures mentioned above as merely Oriental metaphors, the fact of the believer’s union with Christ is asserted in the most direct and prosaic manner. John 14:20—“ye in me”; Rom. 6:11—“alive unto God in Christ Jesus”; 8:1—“no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus”; 2 Cor. 5:17—“if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature”; Eph. 1:4—“chose us in him before the foundation of the world”; 2:13—“now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ.” Thus the believer is said to be “in Christ,” as the element or atmosphere which surrounds him with its perpetual presence and which constitutes his vital breath; in fact, this phrase “in Christ,” always meaning “in union with Christ,” is the very key to Paul’s epistles, and to the whole New Testament. The fact that the believer is in Christ is symbolized in baptism: we are “baptised into Christ” (Gal. 3:27)." 

I have written before on how the Bible shows that people "believe into Christ." See my posting on this (here). 

Strong says further:

"Only faith receives and retains Christ; and faith is the act of the soul grasping what is purely invisible and supersensible: not the act of the body, submitting to Baptism or partaking of the Supper."

That is my view and the view of the oldest Calvinists, such as those who wrote the 1689 London Confession of Faith. It is what the Bible plainly teaches.

Strong says further:

"Faith, indeed, is the act of the soul by which, under the operation of God, Christ is received...Faith is the soul’s laying hold of Christ as its only source of life, pardon, and salvation."

Again, that is what the Bible clearly teaches I believe.

Strong says further:

"We append a few statements with regard to this union and its consequences, from noted names in theology and the church. Luther: “By faith thou art so glued to Christ that of thee and him there becomes as it were one person, so that with confidence thou canst say: ‘I am Christ,—that is, Christ’s righteousness, victory, etc., are mine; and Christ in turn can say: ‘I am that sinner,—that is, his sin, his death, etc., are mine, because he clings to me and I to him, for we have been joined through faith into one flesh and bone.’ ” Calvin; “I attribute the highest importance to the connection between the head and the members; to the inhabitation of Christ in our hearts; in a word, to the mystical union by which we enjoy him, so that, being made ours, he makes us partakers of the blessings with which he is furnished.” John Bunyan: “The Lord led me into the knowledge of the mystery of union with Christ, that I was joined to him, that I was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. By this also my faith in him as my righteousness was the more confirmed; for if he and I were one, then his righteousness was mine, his merits mine, his victory also mine. Now could I see myself in heaven and on earth at once—in heaven by my Christ, my risen head, my righteousness and life, though on earth by my body or person.” Edwards: “Faith is the soul’s active uniting with Christ. God sees fit that, in order to a union’s being established between two intelligent active beings, there should be the mutual act of both, that each should receive the other, as entirely joining themselves to one another.” Andrew Fuller: “I have no doubt that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness presupposes a union with him; since there is no perceivable fitness in bestowing benefits on one for another’s sake, where there is no union or relation between.”

All these great Calvinists, with the exception of Fuller, did not put regeneration before faith. Fuller taught that regeneration was begun before faith but was not completed until a person believed. Many Calvinists of the past taught that there was a "strict" or "narrow" definition of "regeneration" and a more "broad" definition of it. Many of them confused God's pre-regeneration work with regeneration itself, putting regeneration too early in the process. This is what Fuller was apt to do and Alexander Campbell strongly objected to his doing so. 

 

By Faith A Partaker Of The Divine Nature

"as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." (II Peter 1: 3-4 nkjv)

Peter clearly is talking about "regeneration," or being born again, though he does not use those terms. Rather he speaks of it when he speaks of God giving "life" and things that pertain to it, and when he speaks of becoming "partakers of the divine nature," wherein one escapes the moral corruption that is in the world. 

He says that this regeneration, this partaking of the divine nature, is by means of ('by") the given promises of God. But, how by the promises? Is it not by hearing of those promises (in the gospel or word of God) and believing them? Are we to believe that people are partakers of the divine nature who know not the promises, much less believe in them? Can it be said of any unbeliever that he is a partaker of the divine nature via the promises? No. Yet, our Hardshell brothers say yes. Peter says that this regeneration, this spiritual life, comes as a result of hearing and believing the promises and by "the knowledge of" the God who called them and made the promises. 

Simply put, this text uproots the regeneration (or life) before faith view. Life is through faith knowledge of Christ. Partaking of the divine nature results from faith in the promises. Paul spoke of believers as being they who are "partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel." (Eph. 3: 6) How partakers? By faith in the promise. He also said "them who through faith and patience inherit the promises." (Heb. 6: 12) Is the promise of spiritual life not one of those promises?

What think ye?

Quickened By Faith

"Buried with him in baptism, wherein also you are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who has raised him from the dead." (Col. 2: 12 kjv)

To be "risen" is to be spiritually resurrected, to becoming alive from a previous death, or quickened. How is this effected in an individual? Paul says he is risen through faith in the working of God. Here are some ways translators have rendered "the operation of God" (KJV):

"risen with Him through the faith wrought by the operation of God" (KJV21)

"risen with Him through faith in the working of God" (ASV)

"risen with Him through faith in the powerful working of God" (ESV)

"risen with Him through faith in the working of God" (NASB)

"risen with Him through your faith in the working of God" (NIV)

"risen with Him through faith in the working of God" (NKJV)

Whether if be "faith wrought by the working of God" (genitive of source) or "faith in the working of God" (objective genitive) faith is still the faith that brings spiritual resurrection, quickening, or regeneration. Regeneration is here plainly said to be "through faith." The faith is both worked by God and is faith in the working of God. "Faith in the working of God" is similar to Hebrews 11: 6.

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

One must believe and trust that God will do as he has promised, that he will save, that he will make new, that he will work in him and for him, that he will reward and do his promised work.

This text is another that clearly shows that regeneration is "through faith." Is that not clearly the case? How could anyone who believes in regeneration before faith deny it? We are risen from death in sin "through faith." 

Repentance Unto Life

John Calvin

1509 - 1564

"by repentance I understand regeneration"

"When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.” (Acts 11: 18) 

I do not want to enter into a discussion of what is meant by God "granting" repentance, an issue between Calvinists and Arminians. Rather, I want to focus on how this text deals with the "ordo salutis." In the text "repentance" (which presupposes faith) is "unto life," which is all the same as "unto regeneration" or "unto quickening." It is not "life unto repentance" but "repentance unto life." 

The "life" of this text cannot be restricted to eschatological life, the life that will be given in the resurrection, chiefly to the body. I take the statement to be that the repentance that had been given to Gentile believers and the life produced by it are viewed as completed acts. The repentance is coextensive with the life. From the moment that there was genuine repentance there was spiritual life from spiritual death. Life is from faith and repentance. 

Repentance is a turning. It is both a turning away and a turning to. The sinner in faith turns away from sin, from unbelief, from belief in false gods, from a course of sin and disobedience. At the same time the sinner turns to God in faith, turns to righteousness, turns to Christ. Turning away from sin and unbelief involves dis-attaching (disunion or separation) oneself from what is false and attaching (union) oneself to what is true and right. It is a turning of the nature of the sinner, the conquering of his "bent" to sin. By union with sin we are dead spiritually. By union with righteousness, with Christ, we are alive spiritually.

In spite of the fact that the text plainly says that repentance precedes life, many will affirm that the text affirms that regeneration precedes repentance and life. I cannot but stand bewildered at this. If a man is regenerated before he repent then he is a dead regenerate, for life comes from repentance and faith.

Wrote Calvin in his Institutes (chapter three, titled "REGENERATION BY FAITH. OF REPENTANCE" - 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." 

What do we receive "by faith"? Both reconciliation (justification) and newness of life (regeneration). All comes from union with Christ and union is by faith.

Calvin continued:

"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 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."

With Calvin faith preceded justification and repentance, and with Calvin repentance and regeneration were virtually the same. He taught regeneration by faith, the very title of this chapter in his Institutes.

Wrote Calvin:

"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."

Notice how Calvin says that conversion consists in being quickened. All the first Calvinists and Reformers interpreted evangelical conversion to be regeneration. 

Wrote Calvin:

"We must now explain the third part of the definition, and show what is meant when we say that repentance consists of two parts—viz. the mortification of the flesh, and the quickening of the Spirit...Both of these we obtain by union with Christ. For if we have true fellowship in his death, our old man is crucified by his power, and the body of sin becomes dead, so that the corruption of our original nature is never again in full vigor (Rom. 6:5, 6). If we are partakers in his resurrection, we are raised up by means of it to newness of life, which conforms us to the righteousness of God. 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." 

Repentance "consists" in being "quickened" (regenerated), and it results from union with Christ by faith. That is the original Calvinist and Reformed position.

Calvin wrote:

"Moreover if it is true, and nothing can be more certain, than that a complete summary of the Gospel is included under these two heads—viz. repentance and the remission of sins (justification and regeneration SG), do we not see that the Lord justifies his people freely, and at the same time renews them to true holiness by the sanctification of his Spirit? John, the messenger sent before the face of Christ to prepare his ways, proclaimed, “repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” (Mt. 11:10; 3:2). By inviting them to repentance, he urged them to acknowledge that they were sinners, and in all respects condemned before God, that thus they might be induced earnestly to seek the mortification of the flesh, and a new birth in the Spirit. By announcing the kingdom of God he called for faith, since by the kingdom of God which he declared to be at hand, he meant forgiveness of sins, salvation, life, and every other blessing which we obtain in Christ..."

Sinners are to be "induced" to "seek" a "new birth in the Spirit"? The first Calvinists, like Calvin, had no problem with believing this without being Arminian or Pelagian. I would that today's Calvinists would go back to what Calvin taught in this regard.

Calvin wrote:

"Repentance is preached in the name of Christ, when men learn, through the doctrines of the Gospel, that all their thoughts, affections, and pursuits, are corrupt and vicious; and that, therefore, if they would enter the kingdom of God they must be born again. Forgiveness of sins is preached when men are taught that Christ “is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption,” (1 Cor. 1:30), that on his account they are freely deemed righteous and innocent in the sight of God. Though both graces are obtained by faith (as has been shown elsewhere), yet as the goodness of God, by which sins are forgiven, is the proper object of faith, it was proper carefully to distinguish it from repentance."

That is my view and the view of many of the greatest Calvinist writers.

Calvin wrote:

"Wherefore, in regard to the whole process of regeneration, it is not without cause we are called God’s “workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them,” (Eph. 2:10)

Though most see regeneration as an instantaneous act, and certainly not a "process," yet Calvin did. Certainly the "renewing" is both initial (once for all) and continuous. So too we may speak of regeneration.

Acts 11: 18 uproots the born again before faith (or repentance) view.