Back in 2006 at the Southern Baptist Convention held in Greensboro, NC, there was a breakout session lead by Paige Patterson, the President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on “Reaching Today’s World Through Differing Views of Election.” The sessions drew such large crowds that only standing room was available in the convention hotel ballroom. For those that were unable to attend these sessions, here are some quotes from both men…
Quotes and implications from Patterson:
1. “My fervent prayer is that whatever your beliefs are about the sovereignty of God … you will join me in taking the Gospel to the ends of the earth.”
2. “I would caution my non-Calvinist brethren against the conclusion that the doctrine of Calvin automatically means that a person will not and cannot be evangelistic,” Patterson said. “… One of the commands that the Lord gives is to take the Gospel to the ends of earth. No Calvinist worthy of his stripe would thereby disobey a command of God.”
3. “It’s very unfair to a Calvinist to refer to him as a hyper-Calvinist. It prejudges him. … I think instead you ought to ask him, ‘What do you believe?’ If he’s wrong about it — if he goes too far in one direction — you can correct that. I don’t like name-calling.”
4. “This is an old discussion. It’s a discussion that predates Calvin. It is a discussion that predates Augustine. … God’s people have always struggled to try to figure out what is it that God has done on one hand and what is it for which we are responsible on the other.
“It’s a good discussion, it’s a healthy discussion, as long as we don’t begin to anathematize one another for our various perspectives and as long as the discussion of this theology or any other theology does not become an impediment to the most important thing, which is getting the Gospel of Christ to 6.5 billion people.”
5. Within SBC history, Patterson said, “both sides of this discussion are well-represented.” He said there are two “streams” of belief flowing into the same river. One stream was the Charleston, S.C., stream, which was “more Calvinistic,” the other was the Sandy Creek, N.C., stream which was “more revivalistic,” Patterson said. Yet the Sandy Creek statement of faith also had a “very Calvinistic strain”, he added.
6. Patterson urged Southern Baptists not to follow the example of the English Baptists who divided over the issue. After the split, those who held to limited atonement (the particular Baptists) became “anti-missionary and anti-evangelistic,” while those who held to general atonement (the General Baptists) emphasized doctrine so little that they “became universalists,” Patterson said.
“The splitting of the two did them no favors and pushed them in opposite directions that were very unfortunate,” he said. “… If we allow Satan to have his way, we’ll divide up over it, as we certainly should not,” Patterson said.
Quotes and Implications from Al Mohler:
1. Mohler agreed that there are “hyper-Calvinists” — those who reject the need to spread the Gospel — within the SBC. But he said it is by nature a small group.
“If you ever find a vital hyper-Calvinist movement, you will have a living oxymoron.”
2. Five-point Calvinism, Mohler said, “is not hyper-Calvinism.”
“However, if one takes an additional logical jump from that point and says, ‘Therefore, we should not present the Gospel to all persons,’ they are in direct conflict with the Scripture and direct disobedience to the call of God and in direct contradiction to the model of the apostles,” he said.
3. The majority of the founders of the SBC, Mohler said, held to Calvinist beliefs.
“They were themselves representative of a great Baptist movement that itself was a part of the great evangelical movement,” he said. “… It is no accident that [British missionary] William Carey held these very beliefs, and thus he went to India to begin the modern missionary movement. It is no accident that those who founded this denomination likewise held those beliefs, and those very beliefs compelled them into world missions.”
4. Calvinism, Mohler said, is “part of the stream that has brought us to this place.”
“Dr. Patterson and I have discussed this far more extensively than a one-hour presentation here would allow,” Mohler said. “It’s a part of the vibrancy of our friendship in the Gospel. … We owe it to each other as brothers in Christ, who share an affection for the Gospel … to, as iron sharpens iron, talk about these issues so that we can be evermore faithful in preaching and teaching the Gospel.”
You can read more of the discussion here. It’s worthy of your time and attention.
What I don’t understand is why there are some in Southern Baptist Churches that want to run Calvinists out of Southern Baptist leadership at both the local church and convention levels. If the gospel is central, and neither Calvinists nor non-Calvinists are violating the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, shouldn’t we be able to lovingly disagree while taking the gospel to the ends of the earth as united brothers in Christ?
I will leave you with one final quote from Paige Patterson from back in 1999:
Having close friends who are five-point Calvinists, Patterson said, he respects their commitment to the Bible as the word of God and their belief in the reality of sin.
___Pressed by another listener as to whether those who hold to Calvinism are to be accepted as part of the convention, Patterson replied that the Baptist Faith & Message is the SBC’s agreed-upon, adopted statement of faith.
___“There’s plenty of room under the umbrella for anyone who is anything from a one- to five-point Calvinist,” Patterson said, stipulating that any Southern Baptist would have to agree upon the doctrine known as perseverance of the saints or “once saved, always saved.”
___“There’s room for a two- or three-pointer like me, provided he can explain what is meant by two and three,” Patterson said. “There’s room for four- and five-pointers whom I believe lack scriptural justification for that, but I’m certainly not in favor of running them out.”
You can find the rest of the story surrounding this quote here.
What are your thoughts about Calvinism in the SBC? Do you see it as a threat? Or, should affirming the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 be enough to serve in SBC leadership and Southern Baptist churches? Should either group encourage churches or SBC leadership to get rid of their Calvinist or non-Calvinist pastors/leaders? Why or why not?
[like]
Chris Roberts (63)
Dave Miller (61)
Bob Hadley (48)
Debbie Kaufman (45)
dr. james willingham (44)
Les (30)
cb scott (29)
Rick Patrick (27)
Bill Mac (26)
Christiane (26)
I was there for that debate. It was good.
I remember Mohler’s comment about Calvinists who would walk across the country to debate a point of Calvinism but wouldn’t walk across the street to share Christ with a lost person. Great comment.
I was just a little disappointed in the “debate.” Both said some good things, but they bent over backwards to be cordial, and never really got into the nitty-gritty.
It was less of a debate about Calvinism than it was an hour-long assurance that Calvinists and Non-Calvinists could coexist – as you have pointed out here.
It was a good discussion.
I’d love to see a debate series that would combine the John 3:16 people and the T4G folks in which genuine, direct, and cordial debate takes place on each of the key points.
Dave, a few years back, Tom Ascol and James White were supposed to debate Ergun and Emir Caner, but the it never happened. I would have loved to have heard that debate. Ergun and White would have went at it; and Emir and Tom would have brought some civility to the discussion. I think it could have been beneficial.
Magnificent. I mean, that was some very encouraging stuff. I’ve never understood folks on one side of that debate that hate the other. This is certainly a point upon which Chrisitans of good conscience can disagree while both are conservative Christians.
Good stuff, yo.
I have been in SBC churches for over 50 years and have yet to see where ones beliefs in this area ever caused division in the church. I could see where extremists on either side could cause it, I just have never experienced it. While I dislike putting labels on folks, I do agree with what is commonly called Calvinism. I would rather be known as a Christian and them explain my beliefs as I see them in Scripture. From my viewpoint, however, I have seem very little difference between ‘Calvinists’ and ‘non Calvinists’ as far as how they evangelize and conduct themselves in their daily walk with the Lord.
John,
You can count yourself fortunate. I wish I could say the same, but I ran across a church that not only destroyed itself in its “hyper-Calvinism,” but also did spiritual damage to some people in its congregation. One of the guys can’t even hear the word Calvin without having a visceral reaction.
That quote from Mohler made me think of them. They were not the exception by any means. I have sometimes referred to them as 6 point Calvinists.
Both theological streams do flow into the same river on this one. It is seen in all its facets within the SBC and sometimes it gets ugly. Whether it be blogs, Facebook or Twitter, the name calling is horrific. Historically, we are mutts as Baptist, because we have these two streams. Picking one over the other is not the answer, as history shows us. Yet how is it that my more Calvinistic brothers boot me to the curb when I do not agree with every aspect of their theology and my Arminian brothers kick me while I am down there because I don’t agree with something that they hold dear.
I have been told that there is no middle road in all of this, nor is there anyway to be a Calminian or Armvinist. Well, I wouldn’t claim either of those positions neither. What I do claim is a limited understanding of God and His Word that only grows when the Spirit stretches me in faith, grace, and practice. I love and respect people on both sides of the aisle and really don’t have a “dog in this hunt.”
So should churches pick and choose their theology. Well, first they need to know some theology. The level of Bible ignorance within the church is appalling. Lets at least get people to understand what the Baptist Faith and Message says before we go head hunting. Study that, teach that, and when the dust clears from all the unopened Bibles; the rest will sort itself out.
Martin, I appreciate your comment. Do you think that there is a middle road between the two theological systems?
Some have said or implied that there is a middle road. Ironically enough, a few Arminians (including Roger Olson) have said that the recent book Whosoever Will is essentially in agreement with the Arminian position.
I have read that on Olson’s blog, but I have not read the book. I guess I should get a copy and check it out.
I watched this discussion online. While watching I kept thinking how dangerous this “Calvinism” would be to the local church. Before that I was like most SBC church members…I was unwilling to even think about theology or acknowledge that theology mattered. This discussion was what started my study of theology that resulted in my coming to the Reformed understanding of the Bible.
My imperfect understanding of the totality of the gospel comes down on the side of Calvinism. The imperfect understanding of others may well fall on the other side. And as I read the BF&M, and as I also read Herschel Hobbs, that’s OK. Priesthood of the believer, competency of the soul, etc.
When us mortals somehow imagine we have perfect understanding of all God has said, to the exclusion of anyone who disagrees with out position, that’s when the name-calling starts, and that violates what Jesus told the Pharisees was the “weightier matter” of the gospel. And also trashes what Jesus said would be the hallmark of Christians, and the focal point of the new commandment He gave us personally.
That’s when it gets ugly.
Jared,
While the Calvinist/Non-Calvinist debate may have been a cause for division within the SBC just a few years ago, I do not see that as the primary source of what will ultimately divide our Convention. It seems that many of the prime leaders within the SBC who were on either side of the divide put down their weapons and signed a truce. Parties to that truce have moved foward together in implementing the GCR at all levels. I believe the cooperating Southern Baptist/Nominal Southern Baptist identification will be our undoing.
I do have a question about the following statement you wrote:
“Or, should affirming the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 be enough to serve in SBC leadership and Southern Baptist churches?”
To serve as a leader in the SBC, one must affirm his/her support of the BF&M2000. Perhaps you did not mean this, but do you think that all Southern Baptist churches must use the BF&M2000 — either as a doctrinal statement or as a way of screening candidates — to be considered “in good standing” within the SBC? If yes, does that mean affirming it in its entirety or can there be exceptions? Thanks for the clarification. God bless,
Howell
Howell,
Southern Baptist churches are autonomous. They are free to use whatever they want. I do think however since the convention has affirmed the BF&M2000 that those which serve in Southern Baptist entities should affirm the BF&M2000. However, since churches are autonomous, no, I don’t think they should have to affirm the BF&M2000 in order to be in good standing with the convention. I do think churches should affirm one of the BF&M’s in the SBC’s history though. If I had my way, yes, I would like all churches to affirm the BF&M2000; but, how many Southern Baptists even know what the BF&M2000 says? Concerning exceptions, I don’t think heresy or immorality should be tolerated. I think the first 7 artcles of the BF&M2000 should be strictly encouraged; but, the final 10 articles should allow more lenancy. Did I answer your question(s)?
Jared,
You betcha! Thanks for the clarification. I would disagree as to the requirement that all churches must affirm the BF&M2000 in order to be considered Southern Baptist. That would elevate the BF&M2000 from a confession to a creed. As a Convention of autonomous, cooperating (some more than others) churches, the imposition of the BF&M2000 (or any confession of faith, for that matter) upon the churches would violate the spirit and letter of our SBC Constitution. If compliance was mandated (however strict or lenient), I think the enforcement of such would prove problematic. I do agree, however, that most Southern Baptists do not know what the BF&M2000 says. I confess I have not memorized it either and, with rare exceptions, do not even refer to it in my day to day ministry. Thanks again for the quick response. God bless,
Howell
Howell, should the sbc be able to disfellowship any self-proclaimed churches then if no doctrines should be considered binding? Shouldn’t there be some essentials? the Trinity, the deity of Christ, salvation through faith alone by grace alone in Christ alone?
1) The BF&M is the official expression of those doctrines and practices which identify Southern Baptists.
2) Employees of the SBC and its entities should be required to give assent to the BF&M. Autonomy, to a certain extent, is overwhelmed by accountability when one becomes an employee.
You are free to believe as you please, but not to be an SBC employee and believe as you please.
3) While Howell is right that churches cannot be coerced into compliance with the BF&M, significant variance from it could be grounds for a church’s messengers to be challenged at a convention – state or national.
In other words, we have NO authority to enforce compliance, but we DO have the authority to withhold fellowship from those who do not comply.
Jared,
You will search in vain to find where I said that doctrine was unimportant. You will not find me saying that there are no essentials that should be “binding” (although we may have to define that term). What I did say is that the BF&M2000 should not be made binding upon the churches of the SBC in order for them to be considered “in good standing.” I hate to bring in our Constitution — which, by the way, trumps the BF&M — which states:
Article III. Membership: The Convention shall consist of messengers who are members of missionary Baptist churches cooperating with the Convention as follows:
1. One (1) messenger from each church which: (1) Is in friendly cooperation with the Convention and sympathetic with its purposes and work. Among churches not in cooperation with the Convention are churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior. And, (2) Has been a bona fide contributor to the Convention’s work during the fiscal year preceding.
As to “disfellowhshiping” or the “challenging of messengers” at the state or national level, there is no question that each level (association, state, and national) is autonomous and reserves the right to determine its membership and whether or not messengers are seated.
Who gets to decide “significant variance?” Who gets to determine if a church is in “compliance” with the BF&M2000? Who gets to interpret what this document means? Should this start at the local level, the state level, or the national level? I do not have much heartburn for requiring employees of the SBC entities or Trustees to assent to the BF&M2000. I would vigorously oppose any effort to mandate that autonomous churches assent to any confession of faith, no matter how good it might be. And, unless and until the SBC Constitution is amended to require compliance with what would then be considered a creed instead of a confession, then this is a moot point. However, it is intructive as to where our Convention (not denomination) maybe headed in the near future. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
This is why it’s a long process to break fellowship with any church. We have a pretty wide acceptance, with just a few notable exceptions.
The majority of churches that have left the SBC over issues such as those articulated in BFM2K left because they chose to do so. Would there have been disfellowship votes? Possibly.
However, the way we are structured, this is the case: at least down here in the South, a church loses nothing for leaving the SBC except access to fund SBC ministries.
In all, I wouldn’t think churches would want to be a part of the SBC if they didn’t at least generally agree with the confessional statements of the SBC.
As to those employed by CP dollars, I have no issue with expecting agreement with the ‘official’ confession of faith—at point of hire or point of major promotion. I’m not sure if Trustees should fall under that—another discussion.
On the whole the definition of “missionary Baptist churches” should serve to regulate those who deny the deity of Christ or salvation by grace or any truly key doctrine you can name. That is, if you use an appropriate definition there, one fitted to the context of 1845.
Dr. Patterson has hired anyone from a one-to-five pointers to teach at SWBTS; has Dr. Mohler been as open to do the same at Southern?
Ron, you already know the answer. Mohler will hire anyone qualified that can affirm the Abstract of Principles. He remains true to Southern’s original charter.
Jared,
So Dr. Patterson sees the affirmation of the BFM 2000 as enough to hire a professor; he is open to all Southern Baptists and Dr. Mohler is restrictive? My Brother … you wrote about the two streams in SBC life, I celebrate that, Dr. Patterson celebrates that, do you agree that both streams should be allowed in all six of our seminares?
Ron, the Abstract has been the guiding document for SBTS (and SEBTS, I think) since those seminaries were formed. The charter requires that profs and administrators sign the Abstract and teach in compliance with it.
It would be an ethical breach for Al Mohler and SBTS not to comply with the Abstract.
Paige Patterson and SWBTS are not bound to the Abstract.
Our seminaries do in fact have two different sets of guiding documents.
So If Dr. Patterson made the decision not to hire 4 or 5 pointers at SWBTS … you would be fine with that decision?
Ron, you’re comparing apples to oranges. If Patterson returned to a founding document for his seminary, that was part of its charter that all professors affirm, then “yes,” I would be fine with him excluding 4 or 5 point Calvinists. However, if he just decided to exclude them, I would be against this. Mohler serves the charter; get mad at the Seminary founders, not Mohler.
It’s not really a matter of “Dr. Patterson does this” and “Dr. Mohler does that.” Both are following their guiding documents.
Jared,
Dr. Patterson is following the guiding document of Southern Baptists in his hiring — the BFM 2000. He is open to all Southern Baptists in his hiring practices and he has proved it with his hires.
Do who is dividing … according to the guiding document for Southern Baptists as a whole?
Ron,
SBTS was around long before the SBC had its own Statement of Faith. The Founders of SBTS were clear in their intent to hold all professors to account to the Abstract of Principles, written specifically for the Seminary. Southern, for quite a while, was the SBC’s only Seminary and as a whole the SBC accepted Southern’s standards. Other seminaries were created by the SBC that didn’t require such standards, yet had their own sets of Confessions (Southwestern, I believe, has its own Statement of Faith that has to be agreed to; along with Southeastern, which uses the Abstract as well). So the acceptance of Southern as an SBC seminary is an acceptance of its standards. Since you are the SBC, it’s your own fault for this. If you want to change that, get up and make a motion at the Annual Meeting. Complaining here about about historical precedent doesn’t actually accomplish anything.
Having said that, let me make two more points:
1) The presidents of the SBC appointed Trustees who in turn elected Mohler as President. THEY (and by extension WE) gave Mohler the mandate to bring Southern back from the brink of theological collapse. He did his job, using the Abstract. In case you don’t remember, at the time of his election the BF&M had been compromised by a weak, misleading statement on Scripture and various gaps for liberals to insert their theological errors legitimately at the Seminary. The Abstract didn’t have as many gaps. The Trustees knew this and they used this to change the face of the Faculty (there’s even a good story about failing to appoint Grant Osborne as a faculty member and having to “settle” for David Dockery instead – best trade the SBC ever made IMO). So Ron, without the Abstract that you rail against, we might have lost Southern forever. We should all be thankful for Boyce’s and Broadus’s vision.
2) I’ve taken classes at Southern. Contrary to popular belief (including, apparently, yours), all professors are not 4- or 5-point Calvinists. There are plenty of 3-pointers. Paige Patterson, himself, signed the Abstract at Southeastern. And guys like Richard Land teach adjunctly, having to sign the Abstract, at Southern. The faculty isn’t nearly as monolithic as you seem to imply.
On a personal note Ron – I’ve meant to ask you before, but are you the Ron Hale that serves on staff at West Jackson Baptist Church in Jackson, TN?
I was present that day for the cordial discussion. I have more robust debates with my family members regarding where we want to eat.
While I don’t think this issue (soteriology) needs to divide us, I do think that it is the luggage cart that carries an awful lot of other baggage — alcohol, emerging church methods and so on. I don’t think it’s either the Young or the Reformed part but the Restless part that is driving the wedge. Also, while there’s room for everyone under that big umbrella, we need to hold it straight and not offer a disproportionate amount of covering (positions, speaking opportunities, etc.) to one view. The minority view should not feel like the majority view.
Rick, if it’s not a BF&M issue, then why does it matter who affirms what. The convention sees it as a non-issue. Until the messengers speak publicly, their silence = unconcern. In other words, if the messengers don’t care, then there is no “disproportionate” amount of positions or speaking opportunities for either view. Until churches publicly say they care, we are wrong to assume they do; and we are wrong to put words in their mouths.
They ARE speaking publicly. They simply cannot properly orchestrate microphone time on the floor of the convention. There is definitely an undercurrent of dissatisfaction. Besides, the Baptist Faith and Message only deals with doctrine, when the concerns are more about methods, style and identity. I’m not sure there is an article in the BFM that addresses preaching naked, but someone who did so could be very sound in their beliefs but need correction regarding their methods and practices. That’s why I say it’s the restless part, not the reformed part.
Thanks to you, a horrendous image is now burned into my mind. Probably forever. (5th sentence)
I’ve had nightmares about that very thing.
I just thought of a new Wheel of Fortune “Before and After.” NAKED AND UNASHAMED OF THE GOSPEL. Sorry for the horrendous image.
If I had any character, I’d ban you for life for that one.
Rick, I don’t think your claim of disproportionate leadership is really legitimate. Go talk to your local associational leaders, your state convention leaders, and then look at the vast majority of NAMB, IMB, WMU, Guidestone, and Executive Committee staff. The majority of these are decidedly non-Calvinistic.
The interesting thing, however, is that this is NOT true of the majority of conservative Evangelicalism. It’s much closer to half-and-half. And when I went the Evangelical Theological Society meeting last November, it looked like majority Calvinistic. If you actually want to be proportionate, then we need to see a lot more Calvinists in leadership positions.
Do you think that who attends ETS each year really says anything about conservative evangelicalism?
The Reformed community has always been very visible in the Evangelical academy. I think it’s fair to say that Reformed evangelicals as a whole have generally taken intellectual pursuits (theology, history, science) more seriously that non-Reformed evangelicals. So, it’s not surprising that they dominate the ETS scene. Reformed evangelicals have dominated quite a few evangelical academic organizations over the last 30 years or so (ex. American Scientific Affiliation).
All that said, I don’t think who attends an academic conference really says much about pew-sitters on Sunday mornings in conservative evangelical congregations.
Aaron,
First, I think your definition of Evangelicalism would differ with mine. I would define it historically, looking back on the legacies of Billy Graham, Harold Ockenga, and Carl F.H. Henry – yesterday’s Christianity Today. And because of that, I added “conservative” to Evangelical. And it seems clear that much of that specific arena is Reformed in its theology (seems like I remember Roger Olsen made some comment a few years ago as to the academy being dominated by Calvinism for the past hundred years or so). Also, I would say that actually I do think ETS says something about Evangelicalism as a whole. The reason why is because the academy eventually trickles down to the pews. The liberal Baptist Churches of today were influenced heavily by the SBC seminaries of yesterday (another reason the CR was necessary – if you go to Louisville you can see this quite clearly).
According to a Lifeway study in 2006, ten percent of our pastors are Calvinist. When I look at “face time” at the Pastors Conference and convention, it seems like we are moving much closer to your desired 50/50, which I consider disproportionate.
Rick,
The LifeWay study only reported on those who claimed to be be 5-point Calvinists. Probably half of all the Calvinists in the SBC wouldn’t be 5-pointers. So that number is probably much higher. Still, we are no where close to 50/50, thus I think your point is heavily exaggerated. Just to show you what I mean, we can examine the “face-time” at the SBC Annual Meeting last year. Of the 72 people I counted who actually spoke from the platform in some capacity – only 6 were Calvinists. However, at least 4 of those (and possibly 1 more) were 4-point Calvinists and don’t count towards the LifeWay 10%. So that means there were 2 people on the platform out of 72 who were 5-point Calvinists – a grand total of 2.78%. And even if you add in all who held to Calvinism, you would have only 8.33%, below the 10% representation (and my guess of about 20% total Calvinists in the SBC, considering both 4- and 5-pointers together).
Now, at last year’s Pastors’ Conference you did have 16 speakers, 8 of which would have broadly been considered Calvinists. Yet, only 4 of those were clearly 5-pointers. So then you have only 20% of the group there. That’s clearly higher, but no where near the 50%.
When you combine the two events, you come out with 14 combined Calvinists out of 88 for 15.9% and 6 total 5-pointers for 6.8% – still below the recognized 10% and potential 20%.
Finally, just in looking at this year’s numbers from the announced Pastors’ Conference, we see that there are only 5 total Calvinists out of the total 12 announced – a lower percentage than last year, with only 2 real 5-pointers in the group (16.7%).
Given those numbers in context, Rick, it looks like there’s actually some room for including more Calvinists at the SBC table.
D.R.,
You raise an interesting point about the Calvinist label. I believe in three points but do NOT consider myself a Calvinist. Thus, I think it’s fair to lump the four and five pointers together if they identify themselves that way.
While I think it’s still high, I will graciously yield to you the 20 percent figure. However, I really do think the Pastors Conference was 50 percent Calvinist, as your own numbers attest. I cannot vouch for all of the denominational posts and convention platform personalities, but I will grant that if we are at 5 percent there is room to push that to ten or even twenty. In exchange, let the Pastors Conference have two Calvinist speakers and everything will line up at twenty percent.
Rick,
I would hope that we don’t need to stoop to having quotas on our denominational meetings. My point was not to advocate for that, but to show that your view of disproportionatism wasn’t all that accurate. If you want fewer Calvinists on the Pastors’ Conference stage, then perhaps the best thing is to put up a candidate for Pastors’ Conference President who will run on the “Fewer Calvinists” Platform. After all, the President is elected by the Pastors and he alone chooses the speakers. But I would note that there are many more Calvinists being put on Pastors’ Conference stages all over. Did you happen to notice Jerry Vines’ Pastors’ Conference this year? Even the creator of the John 3:16 conference has chosen to include more Reformed folks. That’s actually saying something.
I actually think it’s closer to 30% concerning 4 & 5 pointers. Recent seminary statistics say that over 55% of Southern Baptist seminary graduates are 4-point Calvinists.
What a coincidence. The Bible is 4-point Calvinist as well!
D.R.,
The church that I serve is the one you named. We have one of Southern’s brightest and best as our Interim. He is a great preacher of the Word and the Gospel! He and his wife are loved and respected by our church family and he has my utmost respect.
In my few short questions and comments last night that were in line with the subject of this tread by Jared, it saddens me that you would charge me with …”complaining” …. “railing” … and knowing the “point” level of hiring by SBTS.
If you wish to carry on a conversation with me, I think I am first deserving of an apology.
<
Ron,
First, let me say that I would normally give someone the benefit of the doubt for asking an honest question seeking an honest answer, but I remember a discussion you were involved in some time back about the same topic of hiring Calvinists at Southern. These same answers were given and the issue was debated ad nauseum. So for you to make the same comments and raise the same objections over here doesn’t warrant the benefit of the doubt. Thus I stand by my comments that I believe you to be complaining and railing.
Secondly, you’re a regular contributor to (and most times supporter of) SBC Tomorrow, a decidedly anti-Reformed blog. If you want to support Lumpkins that’s fine, but don’t be surprised if Calvinists don’t often give you the benefit of the doubt.
Third, if my meager comments were so offensive to you that need to seek an apology, then perhaps blogging isn’t for you. And it’s hard to take this seriously when elsewhere you called another of Jared’s blogposts “childish” and “fleshly”. And I didn’t notice any apology over there.
Fourth, I’d like to see you actually address the objections made to your “questions” on Mohler and Southern.
Finally, I wonder why you haven’t raised the same objections about hiring practices with David Dockery or some of the Union Trustees who sit in the pew at WJBC. After all, almost every professor hired by Dockery in Union’s School of Theology and Missions is Reformed in their soteriology. And there’s no founding documents at Union that make this a requirement.
Are some of you guys saying Mohler “has” to hire only Calvinists or 5-point Calvinists, because of the Abstract document?
Can a non-Calvinist serve at SBTS?
It sure seems like that is what some of you are saying.
David R. Brumbelow
PS – I sure miss the list of new blog posts you used to have SBC Voices.
David,
Professors at Southern and Southeastern must be able to affirm the Abstract of Principles. I think it’s a 4-point Calvinist document; but, Paige Patterson has referred to himself as a 3-point Calvinist; and he was able to sign it at Southeastern. I consider it affirming 4-points of Calvinism, but some that are 3-pointers may be able to sign it as well?
I never knew I had such power. I mention the new blog listings in my previous comment, and they now have magically reappeared. Now, what else can I demand of you all?
Jared, thanks for your answer, although I do not find it all that reassuring. Does this mean we will perminantly have a “Calvinist” seminary? Does this mean we can also have one or more SBC seminaries that do not allow 5-point Calvinists – to balance out the one or two that exclusively do?
David R. Brumbelow
David, we should have always had “Calvinist” seminaries, if the predecessors at Southern and Southeastern had stayed true to the charter. They were founded as “Calvinist” Seminaries; and it’s in their charters that they must always affirm the Abstract of Principles. Evidently, even 3-point Calvinists can sign the document.
Also, there’s not an SBC seminary that only hires 5-point Calvinists. Evidently, all of our seminaries hire 3-5 point Calvinists. BTW: I’ve never met a 2-point or 1-point Southern Baptist Calvinist. I guess they’re out there though.
“However, if one takes an additional logical jump from that point and says, ‘Therefore, we should not present the Gospel to all persons,’ they are in direct conflict with the Scripture and direct disobedience to the call of God and in direct contradiction to the model of the apostles.”
I’m glad that someone these days still knows what hyper-calvinism actually is. Most appear to use the term to slander those who deny the free offer of the gospel.
I think this article shows how “times have changed”.
From: Biblical Recorder
Date: January, 18, 1888
Title: Rev. Thos. Dixon’s Sermon Before the Convention
By. C.A. Woodson
The sermon of Rev. Thos. Dixon, before the Convention at Durham, was doubtless a complete surprise to his friends, and the many representative Baptists, gathered from different parts of the state…Bro. D’s sermon was a relentless onslaught on the doctrine of Predestination, dear to many who heard him, and one of the best established doctrines of the Baptist church…Toward our dear brother Dixon I have the kindest personal feelings, but that does not prevent me from adding that his sermon was a strong argument for a course at our excellent Seminary at Louisville, Ky. Let out dear brother attend that school three years and much of his Arminianism will evaporate. It cannot stand the searching glare of the Gospel Sun. (bold mine)
I think the convention mentioned above was the North Carolina convention and not the SBC. The Sandy Creek Baptist association was, of course, in North Carolina.
A part of the problem we face involves the very distant past and the more recent past. In the very distant past, the origin of nearly all of our Baptist churches, with the execption of a few General Baptists, were very much in the mold of Sovereign Grace. In 1787 in the union of Separate and Regular Baptists one of key principles was that “the preaching that Christ tasted death for every man shall be no bar to communion.” the implication being that the original and predominant majority held to particluar redemption or limited atonement, but because there was a verse in the bible (Heb.2:9) that said Christ “tasted death for every man,” and because they were ashamed of having had a falling out over the issue with those whom they had called brethren they moved to correct such conduct. the majority view was Regular Baptist’s Particular Redmeption and even most of the Separate Baptists also held that view. As late as 1814 when Mt. Pisgah Baptist church was organized, their articles of faith specified that Chrit died for the church; they knew nothing of His dying for evey one without exception. The reason for this approach has to do with the fact that the power is in the blood. How could people be in Hell for whom Christ had shed His sin-purging and sin-cleansing blood? In any case, due to the fact that one dear brother inparticular in Virginia had suffered for the faith and could not get his mind around Particular Redemption, and the set-to seemed so out of accord with the Spirit of Christ, the Calvinists as the deominant majority adopted the article cited above….
Then came the terrible strife with the Primitive Baptists…which really was more than an issue over Calvinism. It really involved a view of eccelesiology tht did not allow for church work done through organizations outside the local congregation (other than the local association). The influx of congregational churches with people like Luther Rice and others and their usage of societies produced part of the set-to. O yes, there was a problem over how funds were raised for missions, too. In any case there were some cunning people around who wanted to push the Sovereign Grace issue to the breaking point (from both sides of the coin), people with agendas that even now we don’t really know. However, the dominant majority of Southern Baptist continued to be Sovereign Grace until the 1900s (with some exceptions I do add). then there came a concerted effort to push the Calvinists out, though it was not open. I had, for example, a DOM tell me that I should not preach these truths. I pointed to a book on his shelf, Luther’s Rice’s Memoirs, and said, “See that book. He says it is in the Bible and you had better preach it.”(referring to the fact that Rice did clearly advocate preaching Sovereign Grace). Even so, the Sovereign Grace believers and ministers have continued in this denomination that their ancestors and predecessors founded to this day. My own pastor was a self-identified oxymoron as Dr. Mohler declared, that is, a he was a supralapsarian, hyper-calvinist who won souls to Christ. Indeed, I think it is funny to read in Who’s Who in Religion, 2nd edn.Chicago:Marquis Pubs., 1977, that he was the founder and first President of the American Race Track Chaplaincy (founded when he was pastor of the First Baptist Church of Hialeah, Fla.). He once pleaded with a relative of mine until tears ran down the man’s cheeks to trust Christ. So I am not bothered by some being hypers as I know some who would put the most Arminian to shame. Pshaw I have known of Arminians and Evangelicals who weren’t worth two cents in being concerned enough to win souls to Christ. Some of these Calvinists have simply not learned about the evangelistic tracts of the 1700s and the theological justifications for such efforts or that Jonathan Edwards was the key theological figure behind the Great Century of Missions, a participant inthe First Great Awakening, and his Humble Attempt surely contributed to the Second Great Awakening as well as the launching of the Missions Century.
Why is the issue coming back? Not to make Calvinists. The real aim is to have another great awakening, the Third Great Awakening, the one that wins the whole earth by peaceful means and gentle persuasion for a thousand generations in order to make sure the promises to Abraham of a seed of faith as innumerable as the stars of heaven, the sand of the sea, and the dust of the earth. The paradoxes that limited atonement will win more souls, unconditional election is attractive, irresistible grace is appealing in its weakness, predestination and reprobation are both evangelistic doctrine sof invitation, inviting the worst and hmost hopeless of sinners to come to Christ, quikening the dead by the challenge to do the impossible, “Wake up and live.” Really should be, “Come alive and wake up.” But paradoxes are always absurd and suprarational. Like Jesus said to Peter regarding the rich young ruler that his requirement of him did reveal that what the Lord asked of every one is the IMPOSSIBLE. And that word, impossible, spells the doom and end of Satan’s power over all the earth. He received his mortal blow 2000 years ago, and his minions grow desperate as they see the approach of the vast army with only one combatant clad with a vesture dipped in blood. The King of kings and Lord of lords does reign even now. hile terrible trials remain to be endured, we shall overcome by His favor and grace even if we perish in the attempt. Gloria in Excelsis Deo!
Something to ponder that many in the SBC dont like to recognize. If you agree with and adhere to the BFM2000, then by definition you HAVE to agree with at least 2 points of the Doctrines of Grace (aka Calvinism). Article III of the BFM2000 clearly speaks of Total Depravity. Article V of the BFM2000 clearly speaks to Perseverance of the Saints. Thus every “good” baptist in the SBC who agrees with the BFM2000 is a 2-point calvinist! WOW look at that!
Furthermore, if you simplify and define Unconditional Election simply as that there is NOTHING that we as humans can do to earn God giving us grace/salvation; that he offers grace and Salvation based upon His good will and not by any actions that we do; then the BFM affirms that too!! You may disagree with the MEANS of election, but in the Calvinist System, the means are discussed in “Irresistible Grace” and “Limited Atonement”. Based on this, I would argue that MOST SBC folk are 3 point Calvinists!! OH NO! WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT!
Thus when you get down to it, the “DEBATE” relies on only two points. Is that enough to divide over? I think not!
Unfortunately, though, the BF&M2000 equivocates on the place of regeneration in the ordo salutis:
IV.A. “Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.”
So believers become new creatures through regeneration, meaning that faith precedes regeneration; but sinners respond to regeneration with faith, meaning that regeneration precedes faith. What?
Chase,
The sentence before the statement on Regeneration states, “There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.” I see no equivocation.
Ron,
The statement, “There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ,” is true whether regeneration takes place before or after faith. How does that remove the equivocation?
Chase,
Major Premise: Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus.
Minor Premise: It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Conclusion: Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace. [You may have forgotten it, but you left this last sentence out of your above post; which in the last sentence in that BFM2000 paragraph.]
Very logical!
Ron,
Regeneration is not repentance or faith. This is clear even in the BF&M2000, as it states that sinners respond to regeneration in “repentance… AND faith”. Regeneration is “the spiritual transformation in a person, brought about by the Holy Spirit, that brings the individual from being spiritually dead to become a spiritually alive human being.”
You didn’t present a logical argument at all. The issue is which of these statements is true:
a. Regeneration precedes faith.
b. Faith precedes regeneration.
Chase,
B is the correct answer.
Don,
I disagree. Someone who is spiritually dead cannot have faith.
When you guys solve this one, alert Baptist Press!
I’m afraid we will be arguing this question when Jesus Christ returns (just before the Tribulation!).
Chase,
I’m curious why you believe a spiritually dead person cannot have faith?
Don,
1 Cor. 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Ro. 8:7-8 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Eph. 2:4-5 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
I cant say that it’s a good thing or a bad thing, but some people seem oblivious. My kids attend a Christian school at another SBC church. My oldest son, bless his heart, is already a deep-seated Calvinist. His Bible teacher had little idea about the debate going on in the SBC. My son proceeded to inform her stirring up a debate in the classroom. Needless to say, she knows all about the debate now.
As for criteria for orthodoxy between the two sides, given assent to the gospel otherwise, I generally ask people two questions: Do you know that God is absolutely sovereign? Do you know that people are culpable for their sins? As long as both questions are answered in the affirmative, whatever track people use to try to harmonize those truths is secondary. I believe the Bible is fairly clear regarding Reformed theology, but some are not so convinced for various reasons.
Man, what a great discussion this is!
Mohler and Patterson were right. That is how we should behave toward one another on this issue. I don’t understand why that can’t be the case.
Good history on the Abstract at Southern. I cannot believe that some of the profs who taught for years at Southern actually signed that document in good conscience. How could profs like Carver, Elliott, Stagg, Marshall-Green and a host of others sign that document. They must have laughed their heads off in the faculty lounge on occasion.
Until Mohler came, the faculty policed the faculty hiring. The Presidents did what they could (McCall fired about a dozen on one occasion), but they did not insert themselves into the life of the hiring and review process they way that Mohler has done. That is the key to institutional renewal.
I remember during the CR that the moderates argued, and continue to argue today, that the historical Baptist position is not to use confessional documents as a test for service in the denomination because that would be creedal and violate the Priesthood of the Believer. Their failure to mention or deal with the existence of the Abstract and its use is either intentional or such an oversight that they were not and are not credible on this issue. Boyce and Broadus even referred to the Abstract as a creed.
The Abstract does not require that profs be 5 point Calvinists. Go and read it. Limited Atonement, for example, is nowhere found in that document. Manly, Jr., who wrote it, surely believed in limited atonement, but did not include it in the document. I do not believe the absence of a statement on that topic was an intentional statement on the issue. But, it is not there. So, when applying it today, limited atonement is not a requirement.
And Mohler does not restrict hiring to 5 pointers. That is not accurate.
I am wondering what speakers one of the commenters above thought should not have spoken at the Convention. I do not believe that the speakers are chosen for their adherence to Calvinism. I don’t even remember them speaking on that topic.
The speakers that are chosen are usually chosen on the perceived basis of popularity. And there are several Reformed speakers who are popular.
I thought the speakers were good. I would be disappointed if we started trying to balance speakers based on a theological perspective, especially when the matters that are disagreed about are not really the topics of the speeches.
Chase,
I’ll try to deal with each of your texts one at a time, or any others you might give. Then I’ll give the Biblical evidence showing faith always precedes regeneration.
1 Cor. 2:14 does indeed teach that the natural cannot receive certain spiritual truths, vs 10 refers to them as the deep things of God. Paul is addressing the church at Corinth and is contrasting those who have the Spirit (believers in Christ) wth the lost (natural man).
I assume, though you did not say it, that you believe people must receive the Holy Spirit before they can believe the Gospel. That theory I believe has two problems. First, it is not mentioned in the verse. It must be inferred into the verse. Second, and more importantly the Bible clearly states the Holy Spirit is received after believing – John 7:39, Acts 2:38, Gal. 3:14, Eph. 1:13.
Can you give me just one verse in the NT which clearly states one receives the Holy Spirit before believing?
I could be wrong but I’ve never heard any Calvinists use the term “receive” the Spirit before believing. Receiving the Spirit and His benefits is much different than His work of regeneration.
Mike,
I agree with your statement “receiving the Spirit and His benefits is much different than His work of regeneration.”
I only know of one Calvinist who believes a person receives the Spirit before believing (though he offered no Scripture). He believed 1 Cor. 2:14 taught “inability”. Therefore in order to maintain his position he said a person receives the Spirit twice. He realized the context is speaking of those who have and have not received the Spirit. He concluded 1 Cor. 2:14 must teach the Spirit must be received twice, because he thought only those who have received the Spirit could believe.
Don,
Taken in context with the rest of the chapter, it is clear that 1 Cor. 2:14 is referring to the Gospel. I do not have time to give a thorough explanation of this, so I would suggest that you read a solid exegesis of the chapter instead; it would be more profitable than what I would have to say anyway. Try John Gill: http://www.ewordtoday.com/comments/1corinthians/gill/1corinthians2.htm
I must ask you one thing, though: does faith please God? If so, how can those in the flesh have faith, given that “they that are in the flesh cannot please God?” (Ro. 8:8)
Don,
Also, in your comments about the Spirit being received multiple times, you are also confusing the multiple workings of the Spirit in the elect: specifically, his works of regeneration and giving faith, and his work of applying justification through Christ once faith has been given.
Regeneration is like conception in the birth of a child; it is the giving of the life that will produce in 9 mos. a baby tht must be cared for until he or she reaches a stage of physical, emotional, and social development where he or she can provide for self. Anagennao i used by Jesus in Jn.3:3-8, and it would seem that Nicodmeus caught the conception idea of it when he asked, “Can a man entered into his mother’s womb…?” In James 1:18 we are brought forth by the word, Anakueo, a term used of the delivery of a child at birth. Here is where the word comes to bear, namely, in the conversion process. In the conception according ot our Lord it is the work of the Sprit, the birth is from above, anothen. Regeneration and conversion are not a result of logic; they are a reflection of the analogy of the natural process of birth used by our Lord to indicate how one acquires the new nature needed for entrance into the Heavenly Kingdom. The folks of the REformation and of the 1600s and 1700s wer as aware as we might be of what the Greek actually presents on the issues of regeneration and conversion. The idea of regeneration and conversion be contemporaneous does not necessarily negate the Sovereignty of God’s grace in the process (though the contemoraneousness makes as little sense as thinking conception and birth occur simulataneously), and there is no real ground for separating the two events of conception and delivery at birth as some have done (meaning some who say a regenerate person could long continue without the effect of conversion). However, a child dying in infancy obviously has not occasion to experience in this life the conversion effect of regenration. Regeneration prepares the child for Heaven to which he or she immediately precedes in the event of premature death. The idea that conversion precedes regneration is absurd as it is to suppose that conception follows birth.
Dr. Willingham,
You are correct in saying conversion does not precede regeneration. Conversion occurs during regeneration, both of which are preceded by faith.
Don,
One of the things that has caused me to see regeneration as prior to faith is 1 John 5:1.
“Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ (faith) HAS BEEN born of God (regeneration).”
Also, the way I read John 3 it appears to me that Jesus is arguing that Nicodemus must be “born again” (regeneration) before he is able to understand the kingdom (faith, belief). I don’t think Jesus’ is telling Nicodemus “go get yourself born again”. I think he is simply making a declarative statement that in order for Nicodemus to be saved he must be born of the Spirit.
But if this were easy we wouldn’t have such divergent view points 2000 years later…
Mike,
I would agree with your take on 1 John 5:1 if that were the complete thought of the verse. Have you ever noticed every time a Calvinist uses 1 John 5:1 to show regeneration precedes faith they only quote the first half of the verse? There is not a period after God in the first part of the verse. Look at the context which goes back to the last few verses in ch 4 and extends to vs 2 in ch 5. The subject is loving our brothers.
The first half of vs 1 tells how to identify a brother (whosoever believeth). The second half tells us that we are to love that brother.
1 John 5:1 is not referring to the order of salvation. But how to recognize a brother and to love him.
I’ve seen many try to pull the first half of 1 John 5:1 from its context, but I haven’t seen any Calvinist use it in its context. For those who have access to James White’s video on the text you will see what I mean.
I don’t think that is ripped out of the context of 1 John. I concede that John’s main point is not to point to the order of salvation. But I think in a sense regeneration and the fruits of it are what drives the entire letter.
Notice how many times it says throughout the letter “born of God”. There are numerous evidences of one that has been born of God. One such thing is “believing that Jesus is the Christ”…another such thing is loving others.
By the way I don’t think 1 John 5:1 alone could bear the weight of saying that regeneration precedes faith…nor is it meant to. But this is one particular place along with others that I see belief is a fruit of regeneration and not the other way around.
Mike,
Again I say 1 John 5:1 can only be used by Calvinists when taken out of context.
I could say “money is the root of all evil” 1 Tim. 6:10 and you would rightfully object. Even though I gave the exact words Paul used, I didn’t give the whole context. When the whole context is used the meaning is completely different. Such is the case with 1 John 5:1. Which is why Calvinists never exegete the text in context.
Some food for thought: Why is there so little mention of Titus 3:5 by Calvinists? After all, Titus 3:5 is the only vs in the NT that uses the word “regeneration” with respect to the new birth. If one is going to discuss a particular word one would think they would go to the text in which it is used.
Notice that no Calvinist has used Titus 3:5 in this thread, though they have mentioned regeneration many times. More importantly, RC Sproul never mentions the vs in “Chosen By God” even though he mentions regeneration over twenty times in one chapter alone. Yes, I know Sproul is not a Southern Baptist, but I know many on this blog follow his brand of Calvinism. Why would the Calvinist of Calvinists leave Titus 3:5 out of his book? Was it just an oversight? I think not, but we’ll soon see why.
Don,
Honest question – have you ever studied Greek? Do you know the difference in present, imperfect, aorist, and perfect tense? And do you know the difference between active and passive voice?
Don,
I think our understanding of “context” may be different. To me to place something in its context means to place it within the complete thought of the original authors argument.
Again I concede that the MAIN point of 1 John 5:1 is not to say that regeneration precedes faith. But my contention is that it is assumed and fits in John’s overall article. How do you know if someone is born again?
Throughout his letter he gives various marks of a person born of God…one of these is “believe in Jesus”, and right after that in 1 John 5:1b is to love the brethren. This does NOT mean that to quote 1 John 5:1a is to rip it out of its context. It’s just not mentioning all of the other evidences of regeneration (b/c those aren’t really under discussion).
And there is a huge difference between leaving out the second clause of a series and leaving out an adjective of explanation.
And there is little mention by us Calvinists of Titus 3:5 because it doesn’t support our system and we would just as soon everybody forget that verse. I wish you hadn’t mentioned it. LOL. I’m just being silly…you’ll have to forgive me.
Honestly, I can’t answer for Sproul–but for me I don’t know that Titus 3:5 is really an argued passage. It doesn’t really refer to the order of salvation. It doesn’t really support or dismiss Calvinism or Arminianism. That’d just be my guess.
Please explain how it would be benefiting Calvinists to leave that verse out of the discussion? I just don’t see it really supporting either position.
Mike,
Its good to see you laugh.
I wouldn’t classify myself as an Arminian. I’m a Baptist and as such I believe in eternal security. It’s the first four points of the TULIP with which I have problems.
I’ll show why Titus 3:5 is a problem for Calvinists in a bit.
Don,
Above I asked you about your knowledge of Greek tenses because it seems that this would have been important in your exegesis of 1 John 5:1. However, I misread Mike’s comment at 1:47 pm in conjunction with your comments on Calvinsts’ misreadings of that verse and erred in my understanding of what you were trying to infer (or not infer) of the ordo salutis in 1 John 1:5. I thought you were trying to make conclusions about the ordo salutis based on this verse.
I should have been asking Mike if he had any knowledge of Greek tenses, given that his exegesis of the passage would need support from them.
So let me just go ahead and make my point here:
Mike, as a Calvinist, I have to respectfully disagree with your reading of 1 John 5:1 based on the tense and mood of the verbs in the verse. First, the word “believes” is a present active participle and indicates continuing action in the present. Secondly, the phrase “has been born again” is a translation of the Greek word “gegennetai” and is a perfect passive indicative verb, thus indicating a completed past action that has abiding effects in the present.
Thus a natural interpretation of the verse is:
“Everyone who is actively placing their faith in Jesus Christ does so as a result of his having been born of God in the past” (and “everyone who is presently loving the Father loves those who also have been born of God in the past”).
Clearly this exegesis emphasizes the context of the verse in question – namely that the present outward actions of faith are evidence that the inward action of regeneration that has taken place in the past. This verse says nothing of the past event of salvation in one’s life, but rather of the present results of it, which are abiding faith in Christ.
Sorry Mike, I don’t think this passage says what you want it to say, though I would add that overall I agree that regeneration precedes faith in the ordo salutis (though so immediately that it appears simultaneous), we just don’t conclude it from this passage.
D.R.,
I do have knowledge of Greek….I’m not the greatest at it but this is my third semester of taking Greek. I would interpret the passage the exact same way that you do, but I guess give it a little more theological weight.
But as I conceded earlier by no means is this able to bear the weight of the entire debate.
I completely agree with this statement:
“Clearly this exegesis emphasizes the context of the verse in question – namely that the present outward actions of faith are evidence that the inward action of regeneration that has taken place in the past.”
But I think I differ a tad on this one:
“This verse says nothing of the past event of salvation in one’s life, but rather of the present results of it, which are abiding faith in Christ.”
I don’t think you can separate the past event of salvation from one’s life from the present results. But at the end of the day I have to say if this were the only verse that we had I’m not sure you could conclusively say “regeneration precedes faith”…only that “regeneration precedes present faith”…and that’s obvious.
But great points! I will gladly concede 1 John as not really arguing for either. (I still tend to lean towards it defending the Calvinistic position, but I’ll happily throw that one out).
Don: It is not a passage that tells us to love our brothers. It is a passage that say one is not a born again Christian if they do not love his/her brother.
1Jn 4:21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.
We cannot look at 1 John 5:1 in a vacuum. Clearly, there is a commandment to love our brother. Further, it is in the active voice meaning this is something we must do.
Dear Don: You are indulging in wishful thinking. Birth does not occur in conception; it is the result, the effect of conception. Read J.P. Boyce’s Abstract of Systematic Theolog, and White’s Circular Letter on the Holy spiri in 1803 in the Philadelphia Baptist Association’s Minutes. Bro. Leake provides a salient point in I Jn.5:1, and there are others. A good reading in the Puritans might be helpful. Also John Gill has some pertinent remarks.
O yes, and faith comes after regeneration. The faith that saves is not that faith a human can produce (cf. Jn.2:23-25, et. al.). Consider Mk.11:22 & Gals.2:20. There our Lord exhorts His disciples to have the faith of God, that is the faith that has its source in God. The grammatical form is genitive of source. The power to believe in a saving sense must come from God, due to human spiritual deadness. These truths of man’s deadness, helplessness, inbility and of God’s sovereignty over the process from begining to end are all invitations, paradoxical interventions designed to restore human responsibility. The problems associated with realizing the value of TULIP along with Predestination and Reprobation is that each one is an invitation, the most intense and evangelistic nvitations every devised by the heart of God. The father of the son in Mk.9:23-24 is brought to understand that he is unable to believe, that even his best expression of faith is unbelief. Thus, he cries, “Help my unbelief. Help me overcome it.” We make our inability our plea to God in Christ as the reason for His help. I think it was David who prayed forgive my sin, for it is great. And the lady in Mt.15:21-28 found reprobation, a dog, as an invitation to trust God…and received Christ commendation of her great faith!!!! The theology of the First and Second Great Awakenings and of the launching of the Great Century of Missions is the same theology that is beginning to come back in order that we might have the Third Great Awakening, the one that wins every soul toChrist on earth in, hopefully, this generation, and then for 999 more generations after this one in order to fulfill the promises to ABraham of a seed as innumerabl asthe stars of Heaven, the dust of the death, and the sand of the sea.
I have been praying for this awakening for 38 years, ever since 1973 when I preached to the pastors’ prayer meeting of the Sandy Creek Baptist Association on the subject, A Great Awakening. I also preached on the subject, A Third Great Awakening for the fifth and 10th anniversaries of that prayer meeting. Sandy Creek was born out of the the labors of people converted in the First Great Awakening and experienced the Second Great Awakening and helped to launch the Geat Century of Missions. Sandy Creek also supplied the fellow who would suggest the founding of Southern Seminary and would lead the SBC in its educational conventions in 1857,58,59 that founded that institution. Now, we are in desperate need of another such awakening. The promises to be read and pleaded for such a visitation are thos recorded by Jonathan Edwards in his Humble Attempt which inspired William Carey to begin praying for the spread of the Gospel in foreign lands and for a reviving of churches. He became the father of missions and Sandy reek along with other churches and other denominations experienced the Second Great Awakening in 1801. In 1816 Luther Rice lead Sandy Creek to enlist in the missionary cause and to launch the Great Century of Missions. The first Missionary to China came from te Sandy Creek Baptist Association and from the Mt. Pisgah Baptist Church, organized in18014 with Articles of Faith that specified that Christ died for the church. The Articles said nothing about the rest of the world on that issue.
Chase,
Where in the context of 1 Cor. 2:14 is the word Gospel or similar term or phrase used?
Also, within the context: What would allow the natural man to be able to receive the things of the Spirit?
Don,
You asked, “Where in the context of 1 Cor. 2:14 is the word Gospel or similar term or phrase used?”
In v. 2, Paul states, “For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” This is “the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory,” (v. 7-8) as well as “the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” (v. 9)
The gospel is what “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man,” but what “God hath revealed … unto us by his Spirit.” (v. 9-10)
You also asked, “What would allow the natural man to be able to receive the things of the Spirit?”
Through regeneration, “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,” (v. 12), i.e., the Gospel. As such, “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (v. 14)
You should read John Gill’s commentary on the chapter, to which I posted a link earlier. You will find it more helpful than I.
Chase,
I agree we receive the Spirit through regeneration. The question is do we receive the Spirit before we believe or after?
According to Jesus you must be born from above, conceived from above, given spiritual life from above, before you can believe. The faith God requires of man is the faith that He gives. The manifestation of the reception of new life is through the believing response to the Gospel. God brings us forth, in the delivery of spiritual birth, by the word of truth, Jas.1:18. The requirement for faith is made in order that we might know we must have it at God’s hand.
Acts 16:30-31: and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Romans 10:9-14: that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.” How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed?
Interpretations as to sequence of events?
Mike,
FAITH precedes REGENERATION
As promised here is why Calvinists have a problem with Titus 3:5. I’d be interested in your, or anyone else’s, comments.
The following is my first proof text showing faith precedes regeneration. This one is my favorite because it is the only verse in the Bible that mentions the word “regeneration” with respect to the new birth.
Not only does the verse mention “regeneration”, but it partially defines the word. Which leaves no room for doubt in the Ordo Salutis as to where “regeneration” should be placed.
Titus 3:5
“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”
My first question would be: What is washed?
I would be very interested in the Calvinist’s answer to that question.
But instead of waiting I’ll give you mine.
The washing of regeneration I believe must be the washing away of our sins. I say that because I don’t find anything else in scripture that it could possibly be. Note the following:
Rev. 1:5
“…and washed us from our sins in his own blood.”
Acts 3:19
“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.”
Acts 10:43
“…whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.”
Acts 22:16
“…and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”
Romans 3:25
“… a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins.”
Assuming I am correct on the washing of our sins; my second question would be: Do sins get washed away before or after one repents and believes? The above verses should help answer that question if you have any doubt.
I trust you all said one repents and believes before washing.
Now my third question: If repentance and faith occur before our sins are washed, does that not prove they must also precede regeneration since regeneration is the washing of the sins?
The washing of sins is not the only thing involved when one is regenerated, but it is the part God wanted us to know.
Even though Titus 3:5 should settle the fact that faith precedes regeneration, I’ll have more texts to further substantiate the point.
Don,
I don’t necessarily see the “washing of regeneration” as the remission of sins (although that certainly is a result) but more going back to Ezekiel 36. To me Paul is talking about the entire process whereby one is born again. Again, I think he is using similar language as Jesus in John 3.
I just don’t think that from this text you can say–see faith is what brings about the new birth. Nor do I think without other text you could say “see the new birth brings about faith”. It’s just not what this text is about…
But I do think there is a ton of wisdom in seeing these as inseparable graces…where the Holy Spirit makes us alive together, and perhaps instaneously through our new birth we respond in faith/repentance, and at that moment all the benefits of new birth become ours.
You’ll have to admit that the word faith does not even occur in Titus 3. So again I don’t see this as Paul arguing for an order of salvation but merely showing that we are saved by grace. (I don’t think either of us get a point from this text, LOL).
I need to reword something in that first paragraph. Rather than saying “To me Paul is talking about the entire process whereby one is born again”….what I am intending to say is that Paul is not saying “how we are saved” he is simply stating that we are–God has done it.
And notice that this entire section is grounding verse 1-2 in Titus. Essentially he is saying “relate to unbelievers in this way”…b/c don’t forget that you once were lost but God by his own mercy decided to save you.
Mike,
If the washing of regeneration is not the washing or remission sins, what do you think it is?
What did you mean by “more going back to Ezekiel 36?
The reason faith is not mentioned in Titus 3:5 is because the verse is telling us what God did to bring about salvation and not what man did.
Since we both believe one must have faith to be saved, I’m curious where you would place faith in the verse.
Don,
Here are two interpretations of the “washing” in Titus 3:5.
Calvin:
“By the washing of regeneration I have no doubt that he alludes, at least, to baptism, and even I will not object to have this passage expounded as relating to baptism; not that salvation is contained in the outward symbol of water, but because baptism tells to us the salvation obtained by Christ. Paul treats of the exhibition of the grace of God, which, we have said, has been made by faith. Since therefore a part of revelation consists in baptism, that is, so far as it is intended to confirm our faith, he properly makes mention of it. Besides, baptism — being the entrance into the Church and the symbol of our ingrafting into Christ — is here appropriately introduced by Paul, when he intends to shew in what manner the grace of God appeared to us; so that the strain of the passage runs thus: — “God hath saved us by his mercy, the symbol and pledge of which he gave in baptism, by admitting us into his Church, and ingrafting us into the body of his Son.”
“Now the Apostles are wont to draw an argument from the Sacraments, to prove that which is there exhibited under a figure, because it ought to be held by believers as a settled principle, that God does not sport with us by unmeaning figures, but inwardly accomplishes by his power what he exhibits by the outward sign; and therefore, baptism is fitly and truly said to be “the washing of regeneration.” The efficacy and use of the sacraments will be properly understood by him who shall connect the sign and the thing signified, in such a manner as not to make the sign unmeaning and inefficacious, and who nevertheless shall not, for the sake of adorning the sign, take away from the Holy Spirit what belongs to him. Although by baptism wicked men are neither washed nor renewed, yet it retains that power, so far as relates to God, because, although they reject the grace of God, still it is offered to them. But here Paul addresses believers, in whom baptism is always efficacious, and in whom, therefore, it is properly connected with its truth and efficacy. But by this mode of expression we are reminded that, if we do not wish to annihilate holy baptism, we must prove its efficacy by “newness of life.” (Romans 6:4.)”
Gill:
“by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; by the former is meant, not the ordinance of water baptism; for that is never expressed by washing, nor is it the cause or means of regeneration; the cause being the Spirit of God, and the means the word of God: and besides, persons ought to be regenerated before they are baptized; and they may be baptized, and yet not regenerated, as Simon Magus; nor is it a saving ordinance, or a point of salvation; nor can it be opposed to works of righteousness, as this washing is; for that itself is a work of righteousness; see Matthew 3:15 and if persons were saved by that, they would be saved by a work of righteousness, contrary to the text itself: but regenerating grace is meant, or a being born of water, and of the Spirit; that is, of the grace of the Spirit, comparable to water for its purity and cleansing virtue: hence such who are regenerated and sanctified, are said to be washed and cleansed, having their hearts purified by faith, and their consciences purged from sin by the blood of Christ.”
Depending upon your view of baptism, the “washing” is either baptism itself, or simply a description of regeneration: whereby our old, sinful, dead self is renewed, enabling faith.
Chase,
“whereby our old, sinful, dead self is renewed, enabling faith”
Do you have a verse of Scripture to support your statement?
Don,
I am not aware of a verse that clearly states, “Regeneration precedes faith.” This is a doctrine deduced by good and necessary consequence.
It seems that an association of regeneration and water is made in Scripture:
Firstly, the “washing of regeneration” in Titus 3:5, followed by John 3:5:
“Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
Either Christ is saying that baptism is necessary to salvation (i.e., salvation by works), or he means something else. This verse is thought to be a reference to Ezekiel 36:25:
“Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.”
It seems clear, from what has been argued earlier, that the natural man cannot believe. Something must precede faith, in order to make faith possible.
I should clarify, that when I said, “I am not aware of a verse that clearly states, ‘Regeneration precedes faith,’” I did not intend that there was no scripture that supports the doctrine, e.g. Jn. 3:3. It just seems that those don’t convince people very much.
I am going to argue for the something else. Let context be your friend. You don’t even have to look far for this one.
Water is physical birth and Spirit is spiritual birth. It literally follows in the next verse here. Our misunderstanding comes from not knowing what “born again” meant in the conversation. “Born again” was used to refer to a person who converted to Judaism as a proselyte, hence Nicodemus’ confusion in the matter. This is why the early battle over circumcision was such a big deal. The prevailing thought early on was that you had to literally be Jewish to be saved. Jesus is teaching that physical status is not enough and Paul uses this same argument if you will:
Jeff,
I hope I didn’t give the impression that I think Jesus was arguing for salvation by works. I was attempting to connect “born of water,” with other instances of water being used to refer to regeneration. I am arguing for the “something else” as well.
Chase,
I didn’t think you were arguing for works either. I just wanted to throw out a clarifying interpretation on that verse in John 3 since you left it hanging out there. Hope that wasn’t too presumptuous of me.
Jeff,
It’s fine. I just couldn’t tell from your post if you had taken what I said the wrong way. Sorry for the confusion!
Chase,
I probably contributed to the misunderstanding with the way I worded that. Hard to remember that you always have to be so careful in this medium. Shalom.
Don,
new heart. It’s new covenant language. Surely a result of regeneration is eventually the washing of sins…but as you are arguing (and I would too) that doesn’t happen until faith.
Put the phrase “giving us a new heart” into Titus 3:5 where it says “washing of regeneration” and I think you’ll have my position.
Where would I put faith in this verse? If I had to, I’d probably put it in parenthesis as assumed in verse 7 “by grace through faith”.
Again though I think to try to find an ordo salutis in this text is to make it say something it’s not intended to.
Mike,
Am I correct in assuming you are referring to verse 26 in Ezekiel 36?
Titus 3:5 says the “washing of regeneration.” It does not say the “result of regeneration is ‘eventually’ the washing of sins.” Your changing the text to fit your theology.
I agree a new heart happens during regeneration. My question does one get a new heart before or after faith.
You placed faith in verse 7. Does that mean one comes to faith after they washed, since you did not put it in verse 5.
Don,
Again you are placing “washing of sins” into this text. You are forcing your assumption to dictate mine. All the text says is “washing of regeneration”. I am saying that is essentially saying we have been given a new heart. I do not think that Paul is trying to answer our questions in this text (Titus 3:5).
If you want a place to answer that question of “does a new heart come before or after faith” I think a decent place would be Ephesians 2. But we are dealing with theological systems here too and I’m sure we both have tons of verses. For me I believe it is argued in Scripture that unregenerate man is spiritually dead (and as such it is impossible for him to see the beauty of Christ–and therefore it is impossible for him to respond to the gospel in faith. Therefore, unless God does a work of grace–give a new heart–he will never respond in faith.) But I understand you’re theological system probably has an element of prevenient grace (or something that makes men able to respond in faith). So this is more than simply being able to say “here are verses that clearly show it”. We both are going to have theological presuppositions that we bring to the text in question.
And you are correct that I am referring to Eze. 36:26-27.
As far as where I would place “faith” that is kind of a moot point. Because Paul is not arguing for an order of salvation here…it’s just the whole. I simply put it in verse 7 b/c it is typical Pauline language to say “justified by grace through faith”.
Don,
Regeneration is the sine qua non of salvation, and is sufficient for such in certain cases, namely, elect infants and others who do not have sufficient mental ability to believe.
“We may throw the dice, but the LORD determines how they fall (Prov 16:33)
Don,
I guess since I interjected with Mike’s exegesis of 1 John 5, to be fair perhaps I should weigh in on your exegesis of Titus 3:5 and Romans 3:25. To be honest, if the right conclusion is made that 1 John 5:1 doesn’t communicate order in salvation (which I would say you would concur), then I would say the same is actually more true of these two passages.
I really don’t follow your exegesis here, but no where is Paul attempting to speak to the ordo salutis. In Titus 3:5, Paul is explaining the means by which God saves, which is “in accordance with His mercy, by means of the washing of regeneration and by means of renewal of the Holy Spirit” (“dia” meaning “through” refers to both washing and renewal – we see that by noting their identical Greek cases). So what is being communicated here is the means by which one is saved, not the order.
As for Romans 3:25, the NASB translates it as, “whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed.”
I really don’t know how you got out of this verse that there is any communication of the ordo salutis. In essence, Paul says that we receive the propitiation Christ provides through the vehicle of faith. The propitiation of God’s wrath was effected in order to demonstrate that He must punish sin, whether past or present.
Again, at no point is there any suggestion that Paul is trying to communicate the ordo salutis. As Mike truthfully says, no one gets a point from these texts.
D.R.,
I agree Paul is not trying to establish the order of salvation in Titus 3:5. However, I do believe we can at least determine some of the order from the verse. Maybe I was not clear in what I stated, I’ll try again.
Paul said in Titus 3:5 we are saved by “the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost.”
I believe the “washing” is the washing or the remission of our sins. I also believe one must come to faith before their sins are washed. If my two statements are true, then faith must precede regeneration, because faith precedes washing and washing is by regeneration.
Maybe you believe the “washing” is not washing of sins. Or, you might believe washing comes before faith. If so, could you give Scripture.
If my statements are true, I don’t see anyway around the fact that Faith precedes Regeneration.
I trust this helps you to understand my position. Though I realize you cannot agree with it.
“the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost.”
Titus 3:5
from Psalm 51:
“3 Have mercy on me, God, in your goodness; in your abundant compassion blot out my offense.
4 Wash away all my guilt; from my sin cleanse me.
5 For I know my offense; my sin is always before me.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8KRHWJrRvA
Don,
I think I am finally getting what you are saying, but you are right – you aren’t very clear.
What you mean is that if “washing” refers to sins being disposed of (i.e. propitiated and expiated), and this takes place at, or is a specific benefit of, regeneration, then faith must already have taken place, since according to Romans 3:25, this is how the propitiation is to be received.
Is that what you are saying?
If it is, then I see three main problems with that now (I may see more problems with it later as I consider it further). The first problem is that these verses don’t prove that faith can ONLY PRECEDE regeneration. They do not rule out the possibility that faith and regeneration could take place simultaneously. This is actually the view of many Calvinists (most notably, if I am not mistaken, is Albert Mohler).
The second problem with this is the last phrase in Titus 3:5 – “by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit”. The renewal here could imply all the Holy Spirit does including the imparting of the gift of faith. If that is the case, then this would be speaking of the totality of the work of salvation (faith and regeneration) and no order could be established.
A third problem is the possibility of interpreting the passage with the regeneration and renewal as both modifying the washing. And then taking the Holy Spirit as a subjective genitive which describes the washing as a whole. Thus it would be rendered “saved through the Holy Spirit’s washing of regeneration and renewal”. The focus then would be on the work of the Holy Spirit apart from any response of man. In this case, it would be no more instructive of the ordo salutis than is Acts 15:11: “But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” There we only see the work of God’s grace with no view toward faith.
There may be other problems with this position as well. But clearly I don’t think this necessitates that faith precedes regeneration, though it is certainly could legitimately be used as a supporting argument against regeneration preceding faith.
Mike,
Yes, I’m trying to say the “washing” is the “washing of sins”. I could be wrong, but I can’t find anything else that is washed that would make sense. If it is not the “washing of sins” what do you believe is “washed.” Please be sure your answer contains in some form the word “wash.”
Don,
Check out Ezekiel 36:25, “I will sprinkle clean water on you”….okay it doesn’t say the WORD “wash” but I think it means wash. And then you see in 36:25-27. This is what has led many to see a reference to Ezekiel 36 in John 3 (and I’ve seen some even refer to that here). That is why I say what he means by “washing of regeneration” is essentially a new heart–Paul is simply going back to this very important OT passage…that’s why the word “washing” is here with regeneration and also I believe why it is also in John 3.
I’m simply not convinced that “washing” is the “washing of sins”…and that is the linchpin of your whole argument (from Titus 3:5). I do understand though that IF it is “washing of sins” then you are perhaps on to something…because indeed our sins are not washed away until faith links us to Christ and all His benefits. There is no fault in your logic here…it’s just that I don’t think both of your propositions are true. I don’t think it can be proven that “washing”=”washing of sins”.
Mike,
I agree it can’t proven that “washing”=”washing of sins”, but I’m still waiting for someone to show me it could be something else.
Ezekiel 36:25-26 agree completely with my position on Titus 3:5. Please note the order in verses 25 & 26.
1. Cleanse- which I would take as the “washing of sins”
2. Given a new heart
3. Receive a new spirit
Note it does not say they receive a new heart and are then cleansed. Instead they are first cleansed and then receive a new heart.
Again I would ask do people come to faith before or after cleansing. If it’s before then faith precedes regeneration. If it’s after regeneration precedes faith. I think you know my answer, but what’s yours?
Don,
I don’t see Eze 36 or Titus 3 giving a sequence but speaking of the whole act of regeneration. And again there is nothing to make us interject washing of sins into these texts.
To give you a picture of what I think is happening in these verses consider Paul’s conversion. This “washing” is much the same as Paul’s scales coming off his eyes. Or again in 2 Cor 4:1-6 this is the process whereby darkness is overcome by light. This washing and cleansing is just a picture of what God is doing in us, but nit forensically for us…though it certainly leads to that.
‘not” instead of “nit”
Sorry one more thing. I think washing in Titus 3 means washing. You have to admit that you are putting a ton of weight on what you admit cannot be proven from the text. Again I’m not arguing that this text teaches reg. precedes faith…I’m simply saying no point for either of us.
Mike,
This is why I could I never be a Calvinist. I’m just not smart enough. I just don’t have the brains to know when God really means what He says and when He doesn’t.
I must admit I never would have thought “cleanse or washed” really means scales falling or turning from darkness to light.
I also thought when God gave a sequence of events, He actually meant it as a sequence of events.
If it is not sins that are washed, what then do you believe is being “washed or cleansed”?
Don,
Here and in Ezekiel 36 I believe when he says “washed or cleansed” the author simply means washed or cleansed. It is, as I read it, a metaphor for the inward change of heart that is taking place.
Notice how the NASB translates this verse: “He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit”. And look at D.L.’s next to last paragraph above. I agree with him there. The “rebirth and renewal” IS the washing of the Holy Spirit. There is no mention of the washing of sins. What is being washed? Us.
The way that I see this taking place is that there is the washing/cleansing/new heart of Ezekiel 36, Titus 3, John 3, etc. and then it’s direct and necessary antecedent (even simultaneous if you will) faith comes about. Faith then takes hold of Christ and at that point we see the benefits of taking hold of Christ–(forgiveness, justification, etc.)
So all I am saying is that regeneration leads to a new heart. A new heart responds in faith (I don’t see this as a long period as the Puritans did), and at that point and only then do we enjoy the benefits of Christ. This may not be the best way to say this but one is transformative the other is forensic.
And, I agree that when God gives a sequence of events he means it as a sequence of events…but I don’t see anywhere in this text that the authorial intent is sequential.
Mike,
Just to make sure I understand you, when a person gets saved how many washings or cleansings are there, 1 or 2?
Also, please explain where you would put the washing(s) in the order of salvation.
Don,
Honestly, I’m not sure that I can answer your question. Biblically we see this washing of regeneration…and then I think there also is a sense of being washed/cleansed of sin (justification).
The reason I can’t answer these is because as I understand it “washing” is not really some separate category but a metaphor of other things like justification, regeneration, etc. so again there would be the “washing of regeneration” and the “washing of our sins”. I just don’t equate these whereas you do.
I’m simply not convinced from this text that you have warrant to add the words “washing of sins by regeneration”. As I stated earlier that’s placing a ton of weight on something that you admitted could not be proven.
But that’s cool…we can just agree to disagree on this particular text.
The word of God and is teachings can increase the level of one’s intelligence. In fact, while we all have our moments of stupid, we are equipped with brains which God can turn on, set to thinking, and develop into first class instruments of intellectualism. That last term does not mean using big words, but, rather, the wherewithal to do some real honest and serious thinking. The mental realm for the believer under biblical tutelage admits of wonderful developments from being informed by scriptural precepts. I have found the life of the mind informed by the Bible to be an utterly fascinating and progressive and growing experience.
Mike,
Based on your comments on Ezekiel 36, would it be fair to say you believe the cleansing in verse 25 is the giving of a new heart?
In verse 36, a new heart and a heart of flesh are mentioned. Is the new heart the heart of flesh, or is the new heart a heart of stone which is later replaced with a heart of flesh?
Probably…Though that may be a tad simplistic.
And yes it is the heart of flesh.
Mike,
Does this new heart (heart of flesh) need to be cleansed or has it been cleansed already?
And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, Col. 2:13.
I believe regeneration and conversion happen one right after the other with no time in between. It happens so fast(and this through the hearing of the Gospel and believing it) that it is as if both happen at the same time.
Debbie,
If by conversion you mean faith, then yes I agree a person is regenerated as soon as he believes. Which startes with cleansing.
That depends on what you mean by cleansed.
I see where you are going and we are going to end up at the same spot you are equating this washing with something that is more akin to justification, and forensic declaration. I’m saying that Eze 36 and Titus 3:5 is transformative. It is nature changing.
Mike,
Here’s another text which fits perfectly wth Titus 3:5 & Eze 36:25-26.
Acts 15:9 “And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith”.
Notice the text does not give the error of Calvinism by saying “they had a purified heart so they were enabled to believe”. Instead the purifying (cleansing in your NASB) came by faith.
Once again, all Scripture concurs that Faith precedes Regeneration each and every time. One comes to faith before they are given spiritual life.
That’s a pretty serious leap don’t you think? “All Scripture concurs…”
LOL.
I don’t think this particular text refutes the Calvinistic claim that regeneration precedes faith. This will be frustrating to you I’m sure…and I’m certain that I’ll be getting the charge of “making my theology drive the text”. However, in this particular instance I think you would have some contextual warrant to say that this “purifying their hearts by faith” is speaking of the forensic aspect. I could be wrong about that and at the end of the day it’s probably speaking of the whole of salvation.
This text isn’t saying that regeneration comes by faith it’s saying that salvation comes by faith. The Holy Spirit was given to the Gentile believers just as to the Jewish believers…and salvation (what Paul calls here cleansing/purifying) is given to Gentiles by the same means that the Jews were–by means of faith.
Which again I’m never going to say that this doesn’t happen by means of faith. Again in my view regeneration and faith are essentially inseparable but distinguishable and one is the foundation of the other.
This entire discussion is really centered around what your belief is on the depravity of man. As I am sure you know Calvinists believe from various texts (Romans 3, Eph. 2, to name a few) that man is in a state where he is not going to seek after God, his heart is dead in sin, enslaved, given the choice of Christ he is free to choose (in that he can choose that which he wants) but because of the condition of his heart he is not going to choose Christ. Therefore, regeneration must take place first—whereby a dead heart is given life so that it can (and necessarily will) respond to Christ in faith.
Mike,
Jared who wrote this thread also wrote back on Feb. 25 on “10 Reasons Why…”
His #1 reason was “I believe the Bible says what it means and means what it says.” And then adds, “If there is no warrant from the text for typology or spiritualizing, then I do not have authority to spiritualize the text or to typify what is not there. In other words, if the truth is not present in the text that is being preached, then I have no authority to preach truth that cannot be found in the text.”
It safe to assume by your continued spiritualizing of texts that you do not believe “The Bible means what it says and says what it means”?
I understand why Calvinists reason that regeneration must precede faith. I’ve heard and read their arguments. The problem is there is not a single Scripture to validate their claim. Maybe you have one I haven’t heard of yet.
Here’s another text that I’m sure you are going to say it doesn’t really mean what it says.
Your last sentence above “Therefore, regeneration must take place first-whereby a dead heart is given life so that it can (and necessarily will) respond to Christ in faith. In other words life comes first and then faith. The problem is, that is the exact opposite of what the Bible actually says.
Acts 11:18 “…Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.”
Repentance unto life – NOT life unto repentance.
Does this verse mean what it says or should we spiritualize this one as well.
Don,
I’m not engaged in spiritualizing these texts. I’m not using typology either. I agree with Jared on that point. All I am doing is attempting to understand these texts in their context. And not fall into the fallacy of making a word mean what it does in every particular context.
I apologize for the misunderstanding of the term “life” above. I should have been more precise. I don’t mean by saying “dead hear is given life” that a dead heart is given eternal life. I mean that a dead heart is made alive–quickened to believe (Ephesians 2)
But as I’m going through this I think one difference that we have may be a different understanding of regeneration. It seems to me that you mean by regeneration being saved and all of the benefits therein. I mean by regeneration having a new heart…that inevitably leads to faith which therein leads to the benefits of salvation.
So what is happening is that you are taking all of these texts that refer to life or cleansing of sins (what I would term the benefits of salvation) and from these texts you are saying SEE regeneration (the benefits of salvation) happens after faith. If that is what you mean by regeneration then I’m right there with you. The benefits of salvation cleansing of sin, eternal life, etc. most certainly come after faith.
But because my understanding of regeneration is different than yours I do not see this text in Acts 11:18, Titus 3, or Acts 15, speaking of Faith preceding A Quickened Heart. These speak of faith happening before the benefits of salvation. And that’s not spiritualizing the text to say that. There is nothing in this context or its normal usage that would make me believe that this “life” is referring to regeneration. This is eternal life. Repentance leads to eternal life.
Honestly, I have no intention of getting into a full-orbed debate on this. So I’ll give you a few Scripture references where I believe it speaks of regeneration preceding faith, so that you know these aren’t just coming out of nowhere.
But first we see texts that speak of man being dead in sin, unable to come to the Father without the Spirit, unable to discern spiritual things in an unregenerate state, the heart is deceitful, etc. (Ephesians 2:1-4, John 6, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Jeremiah 17:9). So from these it is concluded that unless God steps in with his grace (which I’m certain you would not argue with) man will not believe the gospel, man will not be saved. So God steps in.
I see this as what is taking place in Ephesians 2. Dead, God made us alive, it is by grace you have been saved through faith and that (the whole salvation process, including faith) is the gift of God. I think you see this worked out in Acts 16 with Lydia who it says God opened her heart to believe. You could probably make an argument from John 1:12 (although I wouldn’t want to stake a whole doctrine on it). And again there are some very conservative, solid, evangelical NT and Greek scholars (like Dr. Schreiner) that several places in 1 John argue for regeneration preceding faith.
I would encourage you to check out this article by Dr. Schreiner: <a href="http://www.alliancenet.org/CC/article/0,,PTID314526_CHID598016_CIID1731702,00.html"
Mike,
Can you tell me what verse in Eph. 2 that states in some form one is “quicken to believe”? I didn’t ask for a verse that uses the word “quicken” or the word “believe.” I already know where they are. I looking for the phraze you gave “quicken to believe.”
Also, is it your belief God opened Lydia’s heart by regeneration, which then gave her the ability to believe?
Don,
As per Ephesians 2, I’d be fine with taking the statement “to believe” off of there. It’s kind of an inference from the text…I see the first 3 verses as being dead, enslaved, etc. And I see faith in verse 8 as being a result of this being made alive. You don’t have to agree with that though…it’s not by any means definitive.
So long as you see in Ephesians 2 that we are dead, made alive, raised….and all of this is to resound to the glory of God b/c salvation is his doing and not ours…..I’m not really too wrapped up in what precedes what. Again, I believe that faith and regeneration are inseparable but distinguishable and one is the foundation for the other. I know that which one that we put as the foundation has ramifications but so long as we can agree on Ephesians 2 that salvation is from God and leads to His glory–I’m not going to quarrel over words.
And to answer your final question I would say yes. Her being a “worshiper of God” is probably a reference to her “worshiping God” much the way that the Pharisees did, or the God-fearers. I think from the context you can see that she was there worshiping on the Sabbath. And I say that she’s not a believer as of yet because what we see immediately after is her baptism. And that is pretty typical in Acts to see baptism narrative right after belief. And I don’t think that Paul would be preaching on baptism as if this opening of the heart is to receive baptism only. I say that b/c of what Paul said 1 Corinthians about his ministry being one of preaching the gospel and not baptism. So, I see this “opening up her heart” as regeneration and we see evidence of her belief in the phrase “after she was baptized”
Mike,
Did Jesus also regenerate the disciples when – “Then opened He their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures” Luke 24:45?
Wouldn’t you say there is a difference between opening up the heart to listen and opening the mind to understand?
Mike,
No!
Neither Lydia nor the disciples believed the Scriptures concerning Jesus and the resurrection. Lydia at least had an excuse, she had never heard. Belief always comes from the heart Rom. 10:9. Lydia had never heard but the disciples refused to believe. Who was regenerated? The disciples? Lydia? Neither or both?
Don,
We are dealing with a different point in redemptive history when we look at Lydia and the disciples in Luke 24. So it’s kind of hard to draw a corollary.
For me I would say that Jesus opening up the disciples minds to understand the Scriptures is more akin to what the Spirit does in our lives in illumination. And I don’t think it was merely not believing about Jesus and the resurrection….the way I read this is that Jesus is shaping their OT hermeneutic (which certainly included them coming to grips with the resurrection).
There is a massive difference in these narratives. In the case of Lydia you see baptism immediately following. In the case of the disciples it doesn’t say that at this point Jesus baptized the disciples.
These stories aren’t telling of the same operation of the Spirit. Can we call the disciples regenerated? That’s a tough one because as I said earlier this is a different place in redemptive history. (I’m not arguing for dispensationalism here). Can we speak of the disciples being regenerate? I’m not sure…nor do I really care to dig into that. I think for Lydia the text is pretty clear that a work of God took place in her life, he graciously opened her heart to receive the gospel and she came to Christ. Let’s praise God for that!
Mike,
I’m a bit surprised to hear you say that you don’t know if the disciples were regenerate at this point. I’m glad you said you are not sure, but surprised. If the disciples were not regenerate at this point and time, “Total Inability” and “Irresisible Grace” would become null and void. Don’t you agree?
Just for the record they were not regenerate, the Bible makes that crystal clear. But we’ll look at that later. I’ll start with Lydia since you mentioned her first.
In Acts 16:14 it is said of Lydia that she “worshiped God.” Bear in mind it wasn’t Lydia who said she worshiped God. It wasn’t her mother, father sister, brother or best friend. It was God Himself who said she worshiped Him. God had Luke record the fact for edification.
My question: If your take on 1 Cor. 2:14 is correct, how is it possible she could “worship God”? How could she understand anything spiritual? I would be careful about saying something of the nature that it wasn’t real worship or the like. I believe that would be calling God a liar. Which I know you don’t want to do.
Don,
Our discussion is getting nowhere. So as not to engage in a fruitless debate, I’m going to bow out at this point. I’ve tried numerous times to redirect this back towards worship and trying to say “lets just agree to disagree”. But honestly you seem to have some sort of agenda. I’m not convinced you are really listening to my arguments or even conceding on anything. It’s fine with me if you do not agree that regeneration precedes faith. I only mentioned a verse that helped me…and it sort of spiraled into this. As our discussion has grown I’ve felt that it’s become more about trying to win an argument.
So thanks for the discussion, but at this point I have no interest in continuing to answer questions that will only lead to more questions. You are firmly established in your beliefs and it appears that your questions are only meant as an attempt to expose my position–rather than to humbly and seriously engage in a very difficult topic.
Peace.
Mike,
I do have an agenda. I don’t like Calvinism. I don’t like to see it in the SBC or anywhere else for that matter. I’m not trying to expose your position but the short-comings of the TULIP. I believe it impunes the character of God.
I want to thank you for going as long as you did, most bow out much sooner. I also want to say you were gracious in your comments for which I’m appreciative.
If you ever want to pick it back up, I’ll be around.
God Bless
Don,
In all humility I offer one suggestion. Perhaps you have already done this, I’m not certain. Attempt to write a rather lengthy paper defending Calvinism. I’m not saying that you would be convinced…I’m only saying that it would be of great benefit to you.
Awhile back I placed a phrase on the cork board on the wall by my desk that said, “I could be wrong”. Of course there are things that I am absolutely convinced about. But reminding myself of this daily has caused me to approach those I disagree with in humility and has caused me to make every effort to listen to their position in such a way that I could argue it. If I am going to disagree with someone I want to be able to articulate their own position in such a way that the person I’m disagreeing with would say, “yep that’s my position”. I want to attempt to know where they are coming from. In sum I want to be quick to listen and slow to speak.
Take this suggestion for what you will.
In-Christ,
Mike
Mike,
Your suggestion would have been OK if it were 3 or 4 years ago. However, I’ve since written a book rebutting Calvinism. It’s a bit different than others. I mention no names. I didn’t want the book to be construed as an attack on anyone. The primary way the book is different from others is I don’t try to defend non-Calvinism. Instead, I try to look at most of the texts which are near and dear to Calvinists themselves. I do have a chapter on John 3:16, for reasons I give in the book, but the rest are texts a Calvinist would use. Some are John 6, 10, 17, Rom. 8-9, Eph. 1,2 and others. By the way, the first chapter is Faith Precedes Regeneration, which is what we have been discussing. If you would like one, I’d be happy to send you a free copy.
God Bless
Don,
Thanks for the offer that is very gracious of you. However, I have a good number of books already in line to review. I’m okay with reading books that I disagree with…but I’m certain my review would inevitably lead to more debate, and that’s a battle right now that I’m not desiring to engage in.
Thanks though.
Comments on this entry are closed.