Comments on: BF&M: Regeneration Comes Before Faith

By: Dr. Paul W. Foltz

Dr. Paul W. Foltz — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:16:47 +0000

Regeneration is conception; Conversion is the bringing forth of life.
Regeneration is the first step of The Holy Spirit in the application of
Redemption, wherein graces of repentance and faith are implanted in the sinner who is awakened to who and what he is, and the danger he is under.

By: Dr. James Willingham

Dr. James Willingham — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 03:26:58 +0000

About 40 yrs ago I came to the conclusion from my study of the subject of regeneration and conversion that the former did indeed preceed the latter. One of the reasons for this in my thinking was that the word which our Lord used in his famous remarks about the new birth to Nicodemus was used in Mt. 1:20 by the Angel of the Lord to inform Joseph that the child in Mary's womb was conceived (gennathen). Interestingly enough Nicodemus caught some of that idea in our Lord's remarks for he wants to know how one could enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born. The term in John three seems to encompass the whole process. In Jas.1:18, "Of his own will He begat (apekunsen) (brought us forth as in the delivery of a child at birth) with the word of truth." The bringing forth seemed to me to be the conversion experience, involving , as it does, repentance and faith. A number of writers and scholars were helpful in the process. It was a pleasure to find that among those who held this view, I found a circular letter in the Philadelphia Assn. (I think the author was White and the subject was the Holy Spirit), John Gill, James Petigru Boyce, E. C. Dargan, and others. The idea that a seed of new life is placed in the person by the Holy Spirit and that his life is subsequently drawn forth by the preaching of the word seems to make sense. Among the writers who hold that regeneration and conversion were simultaneous is A. H. Strong. There are problems with virtually every view of the relationship between the two taken. I prefer this one as it explains how babies dying in infancy go to Heaven. God regenerates them. On the other hand, there are those who use such approach to justify their failure/refusal to seek conversions. The problem with those who put conversion before regeneration is that of manipulaton. A friend of mine had an evangelist who told a lie in order to get people to respond. He finally got people forward, and he justified the lie on the basis that it worked. I once told that incident in a class at seminary, and one fellow student said that it was okay as long as some one got saved. Personally, it made me sick. There are extremes to be found on all sides. One thing I have found is that it pays to look outside the box, to see what the extremes involve. While there are people who hold this position who do nothing for the Lord, I know people who hold every other position on the issue who also do nothing for the Lord. Evil can be found in any position. I believe in seeking conversions. I do not believe that the end justifies the means. God appointed both the ends and the means. Our Lord Jesus Christ took no shortcuts. He went to the cross, knowing full well the horror it would involve. We must seek to win people to Christ Jesus, seek their conversion with all legitimate means used in the proper manner. Manipulation is to be avoided like the plague; regeneration is what we hope will be manifested in a true and lasting conversion. Across 51 yrs. as a professing Christian, 50+ yrs as a licensed minister, 47 yrs. as an ordained minister, 28 yrs. of actually pastoral work, and preaching in many places (16 states & 2 foreign countries). Every doctrine as far as I am concerned is an invitation to be saved, and every verse of the Bible can, conceiveably, serve that purpose. I have read where one person was converted as a result of reading the genealogy of our Lord. People were converted where the preacher had a total negative message and did not even want to see them converted (study Jonah). Lost preachers have preached the Bible and won themselves and others to Christ. Elias Keach, son of the famous Baptist minister of the 1600s in England, came to America and decided he could make a living by preaching so he claimed to be a minister and in the preaching of his first sermon - if memory serves - he won himself to Christ (after all he had heard his father many times no doubt). He returned to England and there served as a Baptist minister and even wrote some tracts that are quoted in the histories of that period. God has a great sense of humor and love for the lost. He also makes use of truths that seem remarkably like the paradoxical intervention techniques used by some psychiatrists and psychologists of this age (whom I had the privilege to study while working on an M.A. in counseling at Liberty Univ. where they focused on eclectic psychotherapy, a method which assesses the individual then looks at as many of the available therapies as possible and seeks to develop a treatment from them that fits the individual). Some people need reverse psychology (to use the more popular term) in the Gospel message presented to them. Jesus did this. I am always amazed at people whose prior theological commitments blind them to the reality of the words actually before them, but then we all have this problem due to our own failing nature. Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..A preternatural and invisible hand

By: Cap Pooser

Cap Pooser — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:03:25 +0000

Peter,
I have not been trying to prove the confessions were moving toward Calvinism. None of them express my beliefs without modification. That is consistent with the preface of each of them. Again I expressed the 1925 as aberrant not because it doesn’t fit my belief system, but because it strays from the norm contained in other confessions. ( See Webster’s Unabridged dictionary) I appreciate your interaction. Too bad we can’t sit down across the table with some hot chocolate and a few napkins to draw on like cafeteria 101 at NOBTS. Maybe we could communicate more clearly and concisely! One thing I can say I have learned . You are definitely not Arminian, because they taught that saving faith was subsequent to regeneration! At 71 ,this internet stuff is not my best suit. Until next time, I am by His grace alone, Cap

By: Peter Lumpkins

Peter Lumpkins — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:09:45 +0000

Cap, I have no problem whatsoever in affirming with you about Mullins' fallibility, Cap. I, too, zip my pants up as did he. But you are skirting the question. The question is not whether Mullins was correct. The question is not even whether the 1925 BF&M was correct. Nor is the question whether I can produce Bible verses to substantiate my personal position (For the record, that does not mean I cannot nor have not!). Rather, the question is what did our confession (and Mullins) affirm. I have consistently stated that our confessions have moved away from and not toward or even in sympathy with the robust Calvinism of Philadelphia and London. I gave evidence from the document itself as well as from the chief author of the document. Your sole rejoinder has been, 'But it's "aberrant"'! I fear, my brother Cap, given the circumstances, your "it's aberrant" translates to "it's not fitting in with my theory." It's probably time to end this little discussion. I have enjoyed myself though. With that, I am... Peter Peter Lumpkinss last blog post..On Blogging in 2009: The First Three Months

By: Cap Pooser

Cap Pooser — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:40:31 +0000

Peter,
I called the 1925 aberrant because it is. It strays from the norm. I know of no other confession, before or after , that makes faith a condition of regeneration. I ask again, do you see support for this position in the Biblical references of the 1925? Can you give any passage of scripture that teaches that faith is the condition for regeneration? After all, Mullins put his pants on the same way I do, one leg at a time, and is subject to error the same as I am. The question is : Is what I confess consistent with the Bible? (Isaiah 8:20) Regards, Cap

By: Peter Lumpkins

Peter Lumpkins — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:02:03 +0000

Cap, Thanks. We agree on Mullins' powerful influence on the 1925 statement. Yet, whether Mullins was biblically wrong or not is not germane to the historicity of the document we're discussing. His theology must be weighed as another question. Thus, it seems incontrovertible that the 1925 BF&M was a decisive move--right or wrong--away from and not in sympathy with historic Calvinism. I think your "see[ing] it as an aberration from the NHCF and the subsequent BFM statements" sufficiently captures the proof of such quite nicely by itself. Even so, Cap, to milk recent SBC revisionary confessions of faith for more Calvinism than they can produce--desperately by-passing our first agreed upon convention-wide statement in 1925, calling it "aberrant"--is, from my point of view, an exercise in futility. What possible reason could there be for doing such a thing? Founders has historically lamented the wane of Calvinism, most of which has been since 1925. Nor have they been hesitant to lay much of the blame at the feet of Mullins himself as you are quite aware. Yet, were we to accept your theory of the 1925 Confession as being "aberrant," that would imply the more recent revisions were a waxing toward Calvinism. Founders may soon need no reason to exist! :^) Ever a pleasure, my brother Cap. With that, I am... Peter Peter Lumpkinss last blog post..On Blogging in 2009: The First Three Months

By: Dr. Paul W. fOLTZ

Dr. Paul W. fOLTZ — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:13:43 +0000

cap,
i could use some, and also the church, Grace Baptist, where I attend.

My home address is;
1545A Government St
Ponce De Leon, Fl 32455-6707
836-9900
on dial up, if busy.

By: Cap Pooser

Cap Pooser — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:45:12 +0000

Peter,
As to Mullins influence, I agree. But I also see it as an aberration from the NHCF and the subsequent BFM statements. Do you see support for his view in the Biblical texts in the 1925 BFM? I would just like to see where what he believes is Biblical. John 1:12 is followed and explained by John 1:13 (per Dr. R.E. Glaze, remember him? ) as ep exegetical. Even that old professor (who was not sympathetic to Calvinism) said that those who believe are those who have been born of God, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man. Regards, Cap

By: Peter Lumpkins

Peter Lumpkins — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:45:18 +0000

Tony, My comments close auto after 2 weeks. But you are correct! Sometimes old posts can gain new life :^) Cap and I go all the way back to 1987 at NOBTS. However, then I would have much more agreement with him. Grace, brother. With that, I am... Peter Peter Lumpkinss last blog post..On Blogging in 2009: The First Three Months

By: Peter Lumpkins

Peter Lumpkins — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:38:54 +0000

Cap, Attempt to wiggle around the statement all you wish, my brother Cap. The 1925 BF&M explicitly says "“[Regeneration] is a work of God’s free grace conditioned upon faith in Christ..." This is exactly what Mullins himself believed: "As we have already seen, faith and repentance are conditions of regeneration. No unbelieving or impenitent man is regenerated." Or, again,

"In the conversation with Nicodemus Jesus expressly declares that the natural man is unfit for the kingdom of God; that a new birth from above is necessary; and that the Spirit of God works the change. Man is not wholly passive in the change thus wrought. For “as many as received him,” to these he gave the power, or authority, to become the sons of God. (Joh. 1:12.) Faith is the condition of the new birth" (emphasis added).

Unless you are prepared to argue Mullins either was non-influential in the making of the 1925 confession or that Mullins embraced a "regeneration before faith" position, your points about the NHC stand moot. Calvinists will fare better, in my view, arguing for the strong Calvinistic influence of London and Philadelphia rather than attempting to gloss over the obvious departure from Calvinism in the NHC, not to mention the undeniable wedge the Mullins Committee drove between Calvinism and Non-Calvinism in 1925. As for your umbrella, I did read it. Thank you! With that, I am... Peter Peter Lumpkinss last blog post..On Blogging in 2009: The First Three Months