SharperIron's Doctrinal Statement: Questions from Readers
The SharperIron Doctrinal Statement is available here.
Salvation and regeneration
This one came to us via the site contact form in July of 2011.
I would be interested in joining your group and adding to the discussion, however, you require that a person believe your Doctrines Statement and I have a problem with statement #8, which defines “Salvation” as being the result of the inner transformation of the man. This is not Salvation. Your statement is a fine example of the error of Roman Catholicism, which fails to understand the difference between, and relationship of, what Jesus has done FOR us and what the Holy Spirit is doing IN us. Salvation (which is the promise of the believers resurrection from the dead) is what Jesus has done FOR us, outside of us. The new-birth is what the Holy Spirit is doing INSIDE of us (it comes to every believer as a RESULT of trusting the the Gospel of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection). The new-birth is not the Gospel itself and it is not a biblical definition of Salvation.
Would I be allowed to join dispite my refusal to accept your false definition of Salvation?
Response
Thanks for reading our Doctrinal Statement.
Let me see if I can help a bit. Our doctrinal statement is actually lifted from the American Council of Christian Churches and was designed by them to accommodate a pretty broad range of groups that embrace the fundamentals of the faith. It is consciously designed to reject Roman Catholicism, along with many other errors.
That said, it’s just a doctrinal statement and these things are always imperfect.
Statement 8 reads as follows:
[We believe in…] “Salvation, the effect of regeneration by the Spirit and the Word, not by works, but by grace through faith.”
First, the words “saved” and “salvation” are used in a variety of ways in Scripture. A few examples: “Work out your own salvation” (Phil. 2:12), “salvation ready to be revealed” (1 Pet.1:5), “eternal salvation” (Heb. 5:9), “salvation belongs to our God” (Rev. 7:10). The root idea is “deliverance” or “rescue,” and it applies mainly to God’s work of rescuing believers from sin and its penalty.
Many use the term “salvation” broadly and include regeneration as part of it. Item 8 in our doctrinal statement uses the term specifically for the deliverance that comes to those who have become the sons of God (John 1:12) by believing.
The statement does not deny that resurrection is part of that salvation. Many blessings not mentioned in statement 8 are part of our salvation or inseparably linked to it, such as being glorified (Rom. 8:29-30), receiving an inheritance (1 Pet.1:4), becoming like Christ (1 John 3:2), our union with Christ (Rom. 6) and much more. So the term “salvation” properly includes God’s work both within us and outside of us.
The new birth/regeneration is not something the Spirit “is doing” in believers, but something He does immediately and fully when we believe. If any man is in Christ he is a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17, emphasis added). 1 Peter 1:23 describes believers as having been born again. Similarly, 1 Peter 1:3 describes believers as “begotten again.” Ephesians 2:5 refers to believers as having been “made alive” and links this to being “saved” by grace. So “salvation” and regeneration can be spoken of as distinct but are truly inseparable.
So the statement is an accurate, though brief, summary of the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. Still, if we were going to revise it (maybe someday we will), it would probably simply say:
“Salvation, the gift of God, not by works but by grace through faith.”
So if you believe that salvation is God’s gift for all who believe and that all who believe are also regenerated, there is no reason why you could not agree with the doctrinal statement.
Total depravity
Another inquired in February of this year, also via the site contact form.
Hello Brother Aaron! Of course you don’t really know IF I am your ‘brother in the Lord’ because you do not know what I believe. Fair enough? I came across your ‘fundamental’ web site while googling for fundamental Christians.
…
I see that one of the requirements of ‘joining’ this forum is to believe that all humans are totally depraved. It’s suprises me that you would make this a ‘requirement’ for entering a forum which is suppose to be ‘open’ to discussing, debating, analyzing or simply sharing what one believes (as a Christian) is sound doctrine. Now I am quite aware that YOU…have the option of deciding ‘what can’ and ‘what cannot’ be ‘debated.’
But in my opinion, I think your ‘reasoning’ (about what can and cannot) be discussed is wrong. Aaron, there is more to God’s Truth than what just you (and I) know to be Truth. I believe you should let ‘people’ share whatever they believe. In time, IF you are continually faithful to God’s Word, you will separate the sheep from the goats. Who knows, you might even find out as I have that many who say they ‘know Jesus’ as their Savior are not really children of God to begin with. Also I absolutely believe that the Scriptures are quite clear that though all humans are sinners, NOT all humans are totally depraved. I am hoping and praying you are NOT a Calvinist. (Did you know that John Calvin absolutely believed water baptism was ‘part’ of the gospel package? He was a lot like Martin Luther in his beliefs.)
Luke 8:15 –– But the good soil represents honest, good-hearted people who hear God’s message, cling to it, and steadily produce a huge harvest.
Hope to hear from you soon…
Response
Thanks for contacting me.
What do you believe “total depravity” means? We have found that many misunderstand our position on this because they are not clear on how we’re using the term. And many mistakenly believe that the doctrine of total depravity came from Calvin.
What we mean by the term is that in Adam all sinned and consequently, all are born sinners by nature. That’s the depraved part. The “total” part is that every part of human beings’ nature is tainted by sin.
The doctrine of total depravity does not claim that every human being is as sinful as it is possible to be or that everyone is equally wicked. It does teach that apart from a gracious convicting work of the Spirit, human beings do not seek God or believe what He says.
Hope that’s helpful.
Rejoinder
Aaron,
I hope and pray you are a teachable person. If you do not believe ‘total depravity’ means total depravity you should change your wording. Aaron, you are kind of talking out of both sides of your mouth. On one hand you say you don’t believe that all humans are equally (i.e. totally) depraved, and then you say that no humans (in and of themselves) seek for God. History shows this world was (is) full of examples of unsaved religious people (totally depraved?) people who ‘sought’ the Creator God of the universe.
Unfortunately in many instances there were no true Christians (i.e. true messengers of Truth) around (in past history) to direct these people to the God of the Bible. (When the Gentile who have no (direct) Law (written Mosaic Law) do instinctively the inner hidden law of God that the Lord has put in all people these laws will be used to judge these people.) In the Bible Cornelius sought for the God of the Bible–—even though he did not know Him. (He did not get ‘saved’ until Peter came and preached the gospel to him.) John Calvin would teach that Cornelius had no choice in the matter. Calvinism teaches (falsely) that God ZAPS people (even those who were not seeking God) so that they have no choice in the matter. This is where the foolish idea of total depravity originated. In Acts chapter 17 the Apostle Paul told the unregenerated Greek philosophers that if they sought to know the God of the Bible they would find Him.
Response 2
The “total” in “total depravity” refers to all of a human being’s nature. It means there is no part of him that is not depraved. This has never meant that every person is as sinful as every other person, though it does mean we all begin at the same point. Our nature is the same but we do not all make the same choices. The result is that some become more wicked than others in their conduct.
Consequently, there is no need to change the wording in our doctrinal statement. In any case, it’s a very old term and though we could use different wording, that wouldn’t undo the history. It makes sense to me to continue to use the term as it has been used for centuries.
Your understanding of Calvin is not accurate. Neither he nor Augustine taught that people “have no choice.” Rather, he understood that a being is only able to choose what his nature permits him to choose. God cannot choose to sin. A sinner cannot choose to seek God—not because anyone is preventing him from choosing, but because he does not want to and cannot—on his own—want to.
Persons like Cornelius seek God when God draws them. Calvin et. al., have never taught that people who are being drawn do not seek God prior to believing. But in these cases, it’s a gracious drawing that moves them toward God and not their own nature.
Yes, Paul told his hearers they would find God if they sought Him. He did not say they were able in themselves to seek Him. Rather, he described what would happen if they did and urged them to do so. Preaching the gospel involves a call to all to repent and believe (seek God). God graciously produces results in hearers. When He draws them, they see the truth of the gospel message and choose to repent and believe. These ideas are far older than Calvin or even Augustine.
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
- 2 views
Well done on both counts. Thanks for taking the time to respond to these folks.
Shayne
fundamental- (noun) some thing basic to another more complex thing, as in a fundamental of the faith.
fundamentally- (adv) at a thing’s essence.
fundamentalist- (noun) any person or group insisting on agreement to certain essentials of their belief.
fundamentalist- (adj) a person or group characterized by fundamentalism.
Fundamentalism- (noun) a movement consisting of such persons or groups.
This way I never again have to read the term “fundamental Christian,” of which the only possibly appropriate use I can imagine is in reference to an apostle.
[/rant]
[Jack Hampton] Aaron, you wrote:Thank you for your equivocation (fallacy) on the word “saved”. If you had written something more substantive there would be more to critique. Did you read Aaron’s opening post dealing with the issue of the range of meaning for the word? I would suggest reading it and understanding it to correctly represent those with whom you disagree. If I were to use DA Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies book, then I would mention that you are committing an “illegitimate semantic domain restriction” fallacy with regard to the word “saved”. So my suggestion is to get a broader understanding of the meaning of the word, and the opening post—which you supposedly read—is a good start.So “salvation” and regeneration can be spoken of as distinct but are truly inseparable.If they are inseparable then why do the Calvinists separate them? They teach that “logically” a person is “regenerated” prior to “faith” and no one is saved until “faith” is exercised.
Therefore, according to Calvinism, logically a person is “regenerated” before he is “saved” so therefore these two things cannot be described as being “inseparable.”
At least that is the way I understand it. What am I missing?
Thanks!
Why do you go by “Jack Hampton” here, but over at the CARM forums you go by another name?
Thanks
[Jack] If they are inseparable then why do the Calvinists separate them? They teach that “logically” a person is “regenerated” prior to “faith” and no one is saved until “faith” is exercised.Some Calvinists I know believe regeneration is “logically but not chronologically prior” to faith. Others don’t want to say it’s prior at all.
Therefore, according to Calvinism, logically a person is “regenerated” before he is “saved” so therefore these two things cannot be described as being “inseparable.”
I can’t remember where ol’ John himself stood on that point, if he even said (given how many words he cranked out, it’s probably in his writings somewhere).
So how are they inseparable? I’m not sure I understand the question. How are they not inseparable?
Maybe it helps to put it this way:
In every variant of Calvinism I’m aware of both of these statements are true:
- no regenerated persons are without faith (in the Eph.2:8 sense)
- no persons with faith are unregenerate
- everybody who is saved (as in, “converted”) is regenerate
- everybody who is regenerate is saved (as in “converted”)
Now when we start saying “saved” instead of “converted,” we’re being alot less precise and this is where some confusion can arise. In the Baptist tradition, we have a habit of using “saved” for converted (there is some biblical warrant for this—see below).
But according to Eph.2:8, 1 Peter 1:5 and Phil.2:12, when is a believer “saved,” the moment of belief, during his life as a believer or “at the last time”?
I reproduce the verses for those who don’t have the javascript working and can’t see the Scripture popups.
Php 2:12 NKJV 12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
1 Pe 1:5 NKJV 5 who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
So when is a believer saved, at belief, during his life, or at the last time? The answer is yes. The downside to using “saved” for “converted” is that people get confused and overlook the fact that God has saved us from sin’s penalty at the moment of faith, is in the process of saving us from sin’s power and presence during our Christian life and completes that work (Php1.6) at the Day of Christ.
So, is regeneration inseparable from all of that? Ultimately, yes. But it’s distinct from it. And there is obviously some time between regeneration and the “salvation ready to be revealed at the last time.”
It’s just like being physically alive. Your conception and your life are inseparable but distinct. You can call the whole thing your “life” most of the time and not worry about the distinction because the two are inseparable. But conception is the event that takes you from non-life to life. So it really is distinct from life. It’s just that nobody is alive w/o being conceived and nobody is conceived without being alive (at least for a while).
Add another term, say, “adulthood,” and you have a phase of “life” that is obviously distinct from conception… but still inseparable. You can become adult w/o being conceived and vice versa.
I hope that helps and I haven’t introduced more murk into the waters!
One more thing: FWIW, I do not believe regeneration is “logically prior” to faith. The reason is because it is simultaneously logically subsequent to faith. Just as you have to be alive to believe you have to believe to be alive. So the whole question of logical priority is moot in my view. (That angle did not originate with me… I just can’t remember where I read it. I do remember thinking: bingo!)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Many use “conversion” to mean pretty much the same thing as “regeneration.” Let’s just say that Baptists tend to use “saved” and “salvation” for everything that happens immediately when you believe… and we tend to use “sanctification” for everything that happens after that… and “glorification” for what happens at the end.
But even among more Arminian Baptists, all but one of these things is distinct but inseparable from regeneration. For many Arminians, regeneration comes the moment of faith, but even then it is distinct from faith. Distinct but inseparable.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Jack Hampton]Not speaking for caleb, but I think it’s speaking of saving of the soul, plus the body. (Matt 10:28) So it’s both the soul (immaterial) and the body (material) that will be saved. Glory to His name.
Let me ask you a question, Caleb S. When the Bible speaks of anyone being “saved” by faith (and that was exactly what I was speaking about) do you think that the “salvation” being spoken of is anything other than the “salvation of the soul”?
[Jack Hampton] Of course the Greek word translated “saved” has more than one meaning but I do not think anyone understood that when I used the word that I was speaking of anything other than the meaning which Peter speaks of here:Postponed & Semantic Range
“…obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls” (1 Pet.1:9).
Let me ask you a question, Caleb S. When the Bible speaks of anyone being “saved” by faith (and that was exactly what I was speaking about) do you think that the “salvation” being spoken of is anything other than the “salvation of the soul”?
i did not think it would be necessary to spell out this truth because I thought that all of those on this forum would already have this understanding. Perhaps I was wrong with you so if that is the case I apologize. Sorry.
Just letting you know that I have seen your post here, and I will not be able to respond to it at the moment with any kind of depth. I will only quickly point out the semantic range of your phrase. The phrase certainly can mean “the salvation of your souls”. The phrase can mean “the deliverance of your selves.” The phrase can mean the “preservation of your life.” The point here is that simply arriving at the meaning of the words here should not be taken for granted. There is some hard work that is required. The context is VERY significant in the meaning of this verse, and that is what has me bogged down right at the moment. I’ll jump the gun a little and simply note that verse five is going to probably have a huge impact upon how we are to understand the meaning of verse nine.
Caution
My only caution is that your question is very systematic in nature. Certainly, that is not a problem (systematic theology). However, those “questions” have to take a back seat to investigation. The question probably assumes that the meaning is already known for the phrase. The question probably assumes that one is then (upon knowing the meaning) safe to generalize from this passage upon other passages (taken from your words “when the Bible speaks of anyone”), which is quite dangerous. I also am assuming that your question is designed (framed) to lead the reader down an already thought out road. For these reasons, I’m looking more closely at the passage and letting it determine the road to follow before discussion; it is quite fascinating. (anagennaw)
Present Circumstance & Question
Right now I’m trying to analyze the passage for basic structural elements which let the reader know the thought flow. Tomorrow, I hope to continue looking at it. Until then, I’ll leave with a question. Does salvation have both man-centered perspectives and God-centered perspectives in the Bible? One where man is focused upon, and one where God is focused upon?
As a point of logic, Peter’s reference to the salvation of the psuche specifically does not imply that nothing else is saved or even that he has nothing else in mind. There are a couple variations of “part for whole” figures of speech he may be using. One likely possibility is that the reference to soul is intended to convey the idea that if the soul will be saved, there is surely nothing else what God will fail to save in response to our faith.
I’m also not sure psuche doesn’t simply mean “self” there. Need more time to dig into that.
As for meanings of the Greek word for salvation… there is nothing special about the Greek. There is a range of meanings evident in different contexts (several appear in the article) and that range is apparent in any language.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
If we apply the Calvinist’s test in regard to “logical priority” then “regeneration” must be separted from “salvation” because Paul asserts that it is “regeneration” which results in “salvation.”I think we’re still getting some terms confused here.
Though some of the Calvinists who believe in the logical precedence of regeneration to faith may claim their position is the only one held by Calvinists or Reformed people, there are many Calvinists/Reformed folks who would beg to differ.
In any case, the ones I’m aware of who claim logical precedence specifically deny any precedence in time (which just makes me wonder what the point is in claiming it at all, but that’s another subject).
So if by “separated” you mean “separated in time,” no, this is not a common Calvinist view.
If by “separated” you mean “there is a moment when one can exist without the other,” again, this is not the Calvinist view.
By “distinct,” people usually mean that they can be meaningfully differentiated… as in my illustration earlier of “conception” vs. “life.” The terms have differences—refer to different “things.” But one thing cannot exist without the other. Hence, inseparable.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Jack Hampton] So do you believe that spiritually dead men can believe the gospel?Hi Jack-
I seem to remember this question from before…how do you interpret Romans 5?
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men5 because wall sinned—13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.I would say that natural man cannot believe the things of God unless supernaturally convicted and drawn by God (John 6:44). I think Romans 5 is pretty clear that all men are born under the sin-curse and condemned before God. IIRC, you had a different take on this.
15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
18 Therefore, as one trespass6 led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness7 leads to justification and life for fall men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now ithe law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, jgrace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
And the point of it all is the glory of God.
I would say, though, that the complete salvation of our souls is yet future as well. The reason I say so is that believers are still clearly in a struggle against sin (1 John 1.9 and vacinity, for example). We are delivered entirely from sin’s penalty the moment we believe, but we are not fully delivered from the battle with sin until we are perfected… which I believe is part of what “glorified” means (Rom.8:29ff).
But I’m not sure how we got on that topic… it must be connected in some way to this question:
[Jack] So do you believe that spiritually dead men can believe the gospel?I don’t want to give the question a simple answer. I’d like to be able to, but I don’t think a simple answer is an honest one (for me) in this case. Here’s why:
- A “dead” man cannot believe
- A believing man cannot be “dead”
I don’t think there is any solution to the relationship between quickening and faith because there is no moment (chronologically or “logically”) when a believing man is dead or a quickened man is not believing.
I’m sure several theologians above my paygrade have attempted to do so at great length (I vaguely remember reading a few and thinking, nice try, but no cigar… maybe I’m just not smart enough). In my view, there is a paradox here because you have two very clear assertions in Scripture.
1. “Life” is described as the result of faith.
2. Faith must also be the result of life. (Because those without faith are described as “dead” and the point is clearly to depict our pre-faith condition as completely helpless).
But there is at least one non-Pelagian solution to the paradox for those who can’t buy the Calvinistic/Augustinian one and aren’t content to leave it unsolved: classical Arminians hold that prevenient grace enables sinners to believe… and I think maintains that they remain “dead” even though thus enabled—until they actually do believe.
If the Calvinish solutions seem unpersuasive to you, I’d recommend the classical Arminian route and strongly discourage adopting a semi-pelagian or quasi-pelagian solution (these would involve some version of man’s fallenness/depravity that describes him as being by nature, able to believe. The implications of that idea set off all kinds of chain reactions in the doctrine of sin and salvation—like throwing a wrench into the clockwork. This is why the church rejected Pelagius’ ideas pretty early on).
There was a discussion here not long ago with some Arminians, connected to an article by Dan Chapa (of Society of Evangelical Arminians) you might find interesting. http://sharperiron.org/article/society-of-evangelical-arminians-what-ar…
So, to boil that down to something as short as possible:
I affirm that a sinner cannot respond in faith to the gospel apart from a gracious enabling act of God.
I do not personally believe that this gracious enabling has happened to everybody.
I’m comfortable saying that belief and regeneration seem to each be “logically prior” to the other.
(Oh, about RC Sproule… I do think he’s overstating his point in the part you quoted, much as I enjoy Sproule)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
The word “salvation” speaks of a “deliverance” from something, and when our soul is saved we are completely delivered from the guilt and penalty of sin. We are delivered from the wrath of God. We have already been given eternal life and the Scriptures make it plain that those who have received eternal life shall never perish. Therefore the salvation of our souls is an accomplished fact and nothing can change it.There are three distinct categories/questions we’re talking about here:
The Scriptures do speak about being saved from the habit and dominion of sin but that does not effect the salvation of our souls.
- What is saved/delivered?
- From what is the saved/delivered thing saved/delivered?
- When is it saved/delivered?
Where I differ—and I believe Scripture differs—is that the “habit and dominion” of sin exists in our souls also, not just our bodies. So it breaks down like this:
What is saved/delivered?
- Soul (in the sense of “inner man”)
- Body
- Sin’s penalty (body and soul)
- Sin’s power and presence (body and soul)
- Penalty: upon conversion (body and soul)
- Power and presence: over time, culminating at glorification (body and soul)
[Jack]That the sinner cannot respond in faith to the gospel on his own:[Aaron] I affirm that a sinner cannot respond in faith to the gospel apart from a gracious enabling act of God.What passages from the Scripture would you quote to support those ideas, Aaron?
I do not personally believe that this gracious enabling has happened to everybody.
Ro 3:11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. (esv)
Col 1:21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds
2 Co 2:15–16 For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, 16 to one a fragrance from death to death [gospel=stink of death to unbelievers] , to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things?
Eph 2:1–2 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—
That no comprehensive gracious enabling has occurred:
Jn 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
Jn 6:65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
Ac 16:14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia… The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.
Support for this point also flows logically from the first set of verses. They do not merely describe how sinners are at birth but how they live: alienated from God, hostile to Him, repulsed by the gospel, dominated by the prince of the power of air.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Jack Hampton]… the reason why I think that spiritually dead men can believe the gospel.Jack,
Here we see that only those who have “received the Spirit” can understand the things of God:
“For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God” (1 Cor.2:11-12).
How does one “receive the Spirit” that enables a spiritually dead person to believe the things of God? Is the Spirit received prior to faith, as the Calvinists teach? In the following verse Paul asks a rhetorical question that tells us exactly how a person who is spiritually dead receives the Spirit:
“This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” (Ro.3:2). (NOTE: This is Galatians)-DanMiller
Of course no one receives the Spirit and is regenerated by the Spirit PRIOR to faith, as most of the Calvinists teach, but instead the Spirit is not received until a person believes.I would say that natural man cannot believe the things of God unless supernaturally convicted and drawn by God (John 6:44).Since “all men” are drawn (Jn.12:32) then all men can believe. The natural man stays a natural man and does not become a spiritual man because he “resists the Holy Spirit” that accompanies the gospel.
You point out that Galatians 3 gives the manner of reception of the Spirit: “by hearing with faith” (ESV) or “by the hearing of faith” (KJV).
But this passage still leaves the question of the means of receiving the Spirit open. Paul gave the means of receiving: “hearing,” which is modified by the genitive “of faith.”
You want to make the means “faith.” But that’s not exactly what the Text says.
Consider 1 Corinthians 2:12-15:
Why did we receive the Spirit? “That we might understand [the Gospel].”
Can the natural man receive the Gospel? No.
Paul is explaining why some people receive the Gospel and some reject it. That’s key to this passage. “Natural” is not caused by rejection of the Gospel. “Natural” is why people reject it.
I’m not sure what else to say about that. References to the “salvation of the soul” do not saying anything about what it is saved from.
But again, I’m not sure what this really has to do with anything at this point, other than being clear on what salvation is.
Salvation from sin’s penalty is present for both body and soul.
Salvation from sin’s presence and power is yet future for both body and soul.
As for your counterarguments on the verses I listed. I’m not really interested in going circles on all the nuances and possibilities. The general question is which passages are you going to use to interpret other passages? In answer to that, I make the choice I do because of two factors:
1. The passages that are most clear should interpret the ones that are less clear
2. All passages involved should be interpreted in ways that are most in harmony with the overall teaching of Scripture
In the case of the “draw” passages, we have one in which Jesus says nobody can come who is not drawn. We have another that says all are drawn. One must be interpreted in light of the other.
Given the abundance of evidence that sinners are not interested in God, both my criteria above are satisfied best by the view that “no one can come without being drawn” refers to being drawn to faith and that “I will draw all to myself” is either meant to say that drawing is the result of the lifting up (and “all” refers to all who believe) or the drawing has a different sense: something analogous to the general call to repentance (which is issued to all - eg. Acts 17:30).
But in all this detail, let’s not lose sight of the most crucial question: do human beings possess in themselves the ability to repent and believe or is this granted to them by God’s grace?
The former option is the Pelagian error. The latter is the orthodox view. It offers a Calvinist option: “God sovereignly enables faith as He chooses” and an Arminian view “God graciously enables faith for everybody who hears the gospel.” (There are some Arminian variants as to who all is the recipient of this prevenient grace and when it happens).
But taking the view that sinners are naturally neutral toward God rather than hostile to Him creates all kinds of problems with other doctrines and distorted interpretations of many clear passages.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion