"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.

Thoughts On Critical Race Theory

In the heated debate over "Critical Race Theory" (involving "institutional" or "structural" racism), it seems to me that the focus is on the wrong place. The right place is to talk about "hate." People have been hating one another since the fall of man in the Garden of Eden. It characterizes humanity in its fallen depraved state. Wrote the inspired apostle Paul:

"To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men. For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another." (Titus 3: 2-3 KJV)

We are simply prone or disposed to hate due to our depraved nature. We do what we do because of who we are. Hate is in our hearts. We hate God (the true God) and his strict rules. We hate others who we think do not treat us fairly or respectfully. We are daily filled with resentment. 

Do some people hate others because of their race or ethnicity? Yes. Is it anything new? No. Will the world's best thinkers and wise men give us the cure for this inbred hate? No. 

What real difference does it matter if I hate my neighbor because he is black, white, brown, red, etc., or if I hate him for some other similar reason? If I hate fat people, is that not as bad? If I hate Democrats or Republicans, how is that any better than race hatred? 

Every race is guilty of hatred against other races and ethnic groups. Blacks hate whites. Whites hate blacks. It is not one sided. 

One of the signs of the times for the consummation of the present age and the return of the Lord Jesus Christ was given by Christ in his Olivet discourse, saying that one of those signs involved "nation rising against nation," or ethnic group against ethnic group (the Greek word denoting ethnic groups rather than nation states). There will be a greater hatred and warfare among ethnic groups in the very last days. 

Gill on Efforts at Revival

"It is proper, in declining times, for good men to bestir themselves and be in action, to attempt the revival of religion, to do all that in them lies to support the cause of God, and to vindicate his honour and glory." 

(Gill in commentary on Psalm 119:126)

I do not believe that the Hardshells will agree with Gill on this, as they have historically decried all efforts of Christians to bring revival. 

Further, it seems to me, based upon this statement, that Gill, had he been alive at the time, would have denounced what the first Hardshells said against such efforts at revival.

Reprint from The Old Baptist Test