Regeneration Precedes Faith

I’m with Tyler on this one (again). I personally wrestled with the matter and settled it for myself. I’m sure I’m right and some of my best friends are wrong, including my free-will Baptist buddy from seminary days, but I’ve quit arguing.

Don, I think the point Tyler made is worth considering. On the one hand, you denounce Calvinists for claiming Biblical certainty for their doctrine. On the other hand, you proclaim your own Biblical certainty that Calvinists claims are illogical. You seem to think it shameful for Calvinists to speak dogmatically, but you have no problem doing so yourself. Your behavior seems inconsistent, if not downright illogical to me.

[G. N. Barkman]

Don, I think the point Tyler made is worth considering. On the one hand, you denounce Calvinists for claiming Biblical certainty for their doctrine. On the other hand, you proclaim your own Biblical certainty that Calvinists claims are illogical. You seem to think it shameful for Calvinists to speak dogmatically, but you have no problem doing so yourself. Your behavior seems inconsistent, if not downright illogical to me.

Greg, I think you misunderstand me

Earlier in the thread, you said:

[G. N. Barkman]

If God’s sovereign, what the point of prayer? If God is sovereign, what the point of evangelism? The point to all these questions, that appear illogical to some, is that this is the way God designed it. His word reveals these truths to us. To reject what God has revealed because it doesn’t seem logical is brash audacity.

I reacted to the “God has revealed” line. It isn’t revelation, but interpretation on which Calvinism (or any of its alternatives) is based. If it were revealed, the argument is over.

Since the argument persists, among true believers, it isn’t a matter of revelation, but interpretation. To accuse an interpretation of lack of logic attacks the interpretation/interpreter, not the revelation itself. It may be stated dogmatically, I have no objection to being labeled illogical by the other side. If I enter the fray, I will get brickbats from my opponents. It is to be expected. What I object to is the often tendency of Calvinists to claim that their interpretation is revelation.

I thought I was clear enough, but perhaps not?

If we are willing to stand on our interpretations, then it is then a matter of argumentation, logical, illogical, naive, or whathaveyou.

Don, I think you are still missing the point. You are quite dogmatic about what you believe God has revealed. You believe that God’s revelation (as you understand it) renders Calvinist arguments illogical. You want Calvinists to say that their theology is not revealed in Scripture, but that your opposition to Calvinism is. Similar to the evolutionist who insists that his beliefs are science, whereas yours are simply “faith.” (sniff, sniff) Nonsense! His beliefs are as much based upon faith as the creationist’s. The only difference is that he is unable to see or admit the obvious. Both are based upon faith, either in science or in the Bible.

You oppose Calvinism because you believe the Bible reveals truth that render Calvinism impossible. “Illogical” to use your term. I believe it is true because I am convinced the Bible reveals the doctrines that constitute Calvinist soteriology. It took me many years to understand, but now it is as clear as day to me, and I do not apologize for saying that what I believe has been revealed by God.

On matters that are disputed among believers wouldn’t it be better for both sides to say “This is what I believe the Bible is teaching” rather than “This is what the Bible teaches”? Making a dogmatic statement on these matters minimizes the other side and automatically puts them on the defensive and tends to promote disputes rather than dialogue.

Greg, this is getting a bit ridiculous. You claim that if someone rejects your interpretation, they are rejecting God’s revelation. That just isn’t so. I am quite willing to acknowledge that my views are a matter of interpretation and others see things differently. You appear to be claiming divine authority for your views. That is where the humility is lacking.

I don’t know how to state if any more clearly, so l will just quit at this point.

Yes, it would probably be better to say, “This is what I believe the Bible teaches.” But to require that for “all matters that are disputed” eventually means everything the Bible teaches. Is there anything that has not been disputed? Is it never appropriate to say, “The Bible says….”?

When someone says, “The Bible says” something I believe, I shout, “Amen!” When someone says, “The Bible says” something I do not believe, I get defensive. If that is the standard, then nobody ought to say “the Bible says” about anything.

This article showed up in my Feedly today. Here are 2 quotes from it.

Why do some people repent and respond by faith in Christ to the divine summons to faith while others do not? Concerning those who believe in Christ’s name John immediately says in John 1:13: “[These are they] who have been begotten [egennēthēsan] , not by blood, nor by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of a husband, but by God.”

By this particular reference to God’s “begetting” activity John refers to regeneration, and clearly suggests by his statement that, while faith is the instrumental precondition to justification and adoption, regeneration is the necessary precondition and efficient cause of faith in Jesus Christ. In short, regeneration causally precedes faith.

and

Rather, it [Regeneration] is the subconscious implanting of the principle of the new spiritual life in the soul, effecting an instantaneous change in the whole man, intellectually, emotionally, and morally, and enabling the elect sinner to respond in repentance and faith to the outward or public gospel proclamation directed to his conscious understanding and will. No extra-biblical words have captured better both the divine monergism and the inevitable effects of the Spirit’s regenerating work than the following verse from Charles Wesley’s great hymn, “And can it be that I should gain”: Long my imprisoned spirit lay Fast bound in sin and nature’s night; Thine eye diffused a quick’ning ray, I woke, the dungeon flamed with light; My chains fell off, my heart was free, I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.

[G. N. Barkman]

Yes, it would probably be better to say, “This is what I believe the Bible teaches.” But to require that for “all matters that are disputed” eventually means everything the Bible teaches. Is there anything that has not been disputed? Is it never appropriate to say, “The Bible says….”?

When someone says, “The Bible says” something I believe, I shout, “Amen!” When someone says, “The Bible says” something I do not believe, I get defensive. If that is the standard, then nobody ought to say “the Bible says” about anything.

I thought it would be implied that some matters are not to be disputed, but I’ll clarify: On matters that are deeply disputed among people who are clearly appear to be believers who are trying to interpret the Bible carefully and accurately…

This is a matter where people who by all appearances are genuine believers and who are trying to interpret the Bible accurately come to different conclusions. I’ll stand by my belief that on topics like this it is appropriate to show a little deference to fellow believers who hold a different view and not state my beliefs in a way that minimizes them even though I disagree.

Yes, it would probably be better to show more deference. But let me ask, would you object to my saying the Scriptures teach believers baptism by immersion? Or must I always say, “This is not clearly revealed in Scripture, and many godly born-again believers disagree, but in my opinion, the Scriptures teach believers baptism by immersion.”

My point all along has been that Don seems to want to hold Calvinists to a standard that he does not apply to himself. I will concede that I should manifest more humility and deference to my fellow believer. Please forgive me when I fail, and I thank those who help me see my failure and hold my feet to the fire.

Is it all right for me to likewise point out what appears to be a similar failure in others?

[G. N. Barkman]

Yes, it would probably be better to show more deference. But let me ask, would you object to my saying the Scriptures teach believers baptism by immersion? Or must I always say, “This is not clearly revealed in Scripture, and many godly born-again believers disagree, but in my opinion, the Scriptures teach believers baptism by immersion.”

My point all along has been that Don seems to want to hold Calvinists to a standard that he does not apply to himself. I will concede that I should manifest more humility and deference to my fellow believer. Please forgive me when I fail, and I thank those who help me see my failure and hold my feet to the fire.

Is it all right for me to likewise point out what appears to be a similar failure in others?

I don’t object. I’m sure there are times when it is appropriate to state plainly. If I was teaching on the topic I would probably give both sides and then explain from Scripture why I hold the position that I do. I’m sure you probably do the same in your setting.

I wasn’t intending to point out a failing and was actually referring more to the discussion in general and the way it has progressed to this point. It seems that the interaction could probably go a lot further if neither side feels they are on the defensive. You are absolutely correct that both sides should hold to the same standard that they apply to others.

Some people’s deference seems to disappear on subjects like alcohol, music, and grounds for separation. SMILE

You’re all invited to join me and my Free Will Baptist friend the next time we meet for coffee.