BF&M: Regeneration Comes Before Faith

Tony,

“Why not accept the Baptist Identity we’ve settled upon in the BF&M 2000?

Oooooo, you have stepped in it now! 🙂

Grace Always,

Greg Alfords last blog post..Michael Spencer on "Additional Doctrines," Baptist Style

Tony,

It’s going to be real interesting to see how these guys are going to explain this away. 🙂

Les

Les Puryears last blog post..Our Only Contentment is God Himself

am i the only one who thinks good baptists can agree to disagree on this issue, with some believing regeneration takes place BEFORE faith, and others believing it takes place AFTER faith?

could paul & other NT writers have even guessed we would be so concerned with the orto salutis (order of salvation) 2000 years later? i’m not saying it’s not important, and i’m especially not saying that it is not a worthwhile endeavor, but i think we’re asking questions that the biblical writers weren’t necessarily concerned about. thus we are stuck making inferences and piecing together systematic explanations because paul never said, “here is the order of salvation!”

i personally believe faith precedes regeneration, but i haven’t etched this belief in theological stone yet. i’ve gone back and forth on this one, and i’m okay with that.

Mikes last blog post..my son "got" a girl at the dance – awesome story!

Mike,

Sure, Baptists can disagree, in the sense that no one will come and kick you out for your preference (unless that preference is ‘regeneration precedes faith’, or you attach ‘Calvinist’ to ‘faith precedes regeneration,’ in which case many will try to put you out or shame you out, OR you happen to be a pastor AND either of those, in which case you receive a Donald Trumpism: you’re fired.)

But should we be satisfied with disagreement? What if Jesus had told Nicodemus, “unless you see the kingdom of God, you cannot be born again?” Jesus puts the impossible condition prior to the result in order that there be no doubt that only God can accomplish it. This makes a huge difference in our evangelism and preaching.

Rob Faircloths last blog post..Top Ten Lists and Christmas Giveaways

rob,

i see where you’re coming from, but i’m not sure one’s orto salutis really affects evangelism. i do not believe regeneration precedes faith, and when i do evangelism i share the simple gospel that Jesus came, lived the perfect life we cannot, paid for our sins on the cross, rose again, and ask the person if they’ll put their trust in Him and so on and so on. my best friend is a hardcore calvinist, and guess what – he does evangelism the exact same way.

please don’t confuse the orto salutis (order of salvation) with the gospel and evangelism. when that happens, calvinists tend to neglect evangelism whild arminians tend to try and convince the lost or win them with archaeological evidence or something.

so, i think there is room for those believing regeneration comes before faith and those who believe regeneration comes after faith. and take another look at john 3. i don’t think that’s the best calvinist passage, more of a salvation passage, and don’t forget Jesus soon exits the dialectic and delivers some powerful theology about how God loves the “world.”

Mikes last blog post..my son "got" a girl at the dance – awesome story!

Regeneration preceding faith makes the most sense. It explains why some have faith and some do not. Otherwise faith becomes an exercise of the will. I don’t really know (or care, frankly) what BH Carroll thought about it, but regeneration preceding faith is pretty standard Calvinist theology. If Carroll didn’t believe that regeneration preceded faith, that doesn’t make him a bad Christian, but probably makes him an inconsistent Calvinist.

Tony,

Thanks, my brother, for your post spawned by my current one on B.H. Carroll. Also, I very much appreciate the spirit in which you state your point. I’ll post more on Carroll a bit later and will allow J.L. Dagg an opportunity to throw a few pitches.

For now, however, I’ll just mention a few things about the BF&M concerning which you rightly raise an issue that is “strange” to me but is “familiar” to you.

You quote:

Following, you conclude that “our faith & repentance is said to be a response to God’s work of regeneration. So, it is the cause that precedes the effect. Agree or disagree, that is what is says.”

Just a few considerations, if I may.

First, I concede if that is all that is said about “regeneration” in the BF&M, your point would weigh in at a much heftier advantage, Tony. However, consider also:

This paragraph precedes the statement you quoted and offers a decidedly sweeping statement about redemption in its broadest sense, a significant part of which is regeneration. The first observation I would note, Tony, is the absence of a clear definition about how we might define “regeneration.” We do know, a bit later, what regeneration includes. Yet, there is no hard definition about what regeneration is other than it obviously a) is intrinsically a part of salvation in its “broadest sense” and b) it may be implied that regeneration–including all that the term means–is the beginning of the Christian life.

I need to add here that what is striking is in no sense whatsoever is regeneration–either explicitly or implicitly–suggested to mean a spiritual resurrection from the dead as our Calvinist brothers insist upon. Such must be read into, definitively not out of the confession.

Moving on to the section you quote, I cannot fully agree that “our faith & repentance is said to be a response to God’s work of regeneration” with your capstone conclusion that regeneration is the “cause that precedes the effect .”

Several reasons present themselves why I must dissent from the view you’ve stated:

a) To assert that repentance and faith is a response to regeneration wrongly assumes that repentance and faith stand in a demarcated position to regeneration. This does not seem to be the case. Repentant faith is a part of regeneration. How then can it be a response to regeneration?

On the other hand, however, if you will look closely at the confession, you will see that repentant faith is a response to the “conviction of sin” wrought by the Spirit. This makes perfect sense, at least to me. I know prima facie what it means to respond through repentance and faith to conviction of sin.

Thus, it seems, Tony, rather than suggesting that “our faith & repentance is said to be a response to God’s work of regeneration” it is more consistent with what our confession states if we view our faith & repentance as a response to the conviction of sin within God’s work of regeneration.”

b) Even more, the language you employ of cause and effect–regeneration is the cause and repentant faith the effect–is absolutely foreign to this document. Not only is this language absent, once again the mistaken assumption is made that repentant faith is a response to regeneration itself rather than a response within regeneration. This, I think, is fatal for the view you espouse.

c) Most devastating to your view that regeneration is the cause that precedes the effect of repentant faith is what’s stated elsewhere in the confession. Under the section on the Holy Spirit we’re instructed of the Spirit’s deity; His inspiration for inscripturation and His illumination for interpretation.

We further confess His exaltation of Christ, His conviction of men’s sins, His calling men to Christ and His effecting regeneration. Then, we confess these words:

Were we to accept your view, Tony, along with our Calvinist brothers’ view that regeneration precedes faith, making it is the cause that precedes the effect, we have either,
a) a blatant contradiction or
b) we strangely confess that, a regenerated person–prior to their expressing repentant faith in Christ– is baptized into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit.

Honestly, I do not like either of those options. And , while I concede my way of viewing the BF&M may not be the best way, I think it presents a better option than either of the above.

Grace, Tony.

With that, I am…
Peter

JohnMark,
To the contrary, Carroll is both consistent and clear in what he states concerning Regeneration. The chart you attempted to reproduce is what Carroll called the upper and underside of regeneration.

Moreover, the upper side, Carroll believed was inexplicable–like the wind–to which Jesus referred in John 3. It was only the underside of regeneration which we could understand. Thus, his sermon I quoted in my post, entitled–“The Human Side of Regeneration.”

The conclusion Carroll drew in that sermon was to decrust the beautiful biblical experience of being born again that speculative theology had encased.

With that, I am…
Peter

peter lumpkinss last blog post..B.H. Carroll and Being Born Again

Peter,

I tried to follow your convoluted logic, but really are you serious? Do you even understand what you wrote?

You do understand that words have specific meaning right?

What about “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.” don’t you get?

Furthermore: “Regeneration, or the new birth, is [a work of God’s grace]… It is a change of heart [wrought by the Holy Spirit]”

Honestly, you discredit yourself.

Grace Always,

Greg Alfords last blog post..Michael Spencer on "Additional Doctrines," Baptist Style

I believe that repentance is a result of regeneration, not the cause of regeneration. When a person is changed by God, repentance is one of the things that occurs, we see our sin as God sees it, we repent.

Debbie Kaufmans last blog post..Can You Tell I’m Attempting To Win Books? You Can Too

To understand the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, we need to understand its roots. The New Hampshire Confession of Faith and the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message are virtually identical in the wording of the sections on the way of salvation, justification, the freeness of salvation, repentance and faith, and election, but the two documents differ significantly on the wording of the section concerning regeneration. Notice the section concerning regeneration from the New Hampshire Confession of Faith (1833), with the additions made by J. Newton Brown in 1853 enclosed in brackets:

“[We believe] That in order to be saved, we must be regenerated or born again; that regeneration consists in giving a holy disposition to the mind; and is effected in a manner above our comprehension or calculation, by the power of the Holy Spirit, [in connection with divine truth,] so as to secure our voluntary obedience to the Gospel; and that its proper evidence is found in the holy fruit which we bring forth to the glory of God.”

The New Hampshire Confession of Faith places regeneration before faith and repentance (“voluntary obedience to the Gospel”) in logical order. In contrast, the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message (under the influence of the non-five-point Calvinist E. Y. Mullins) places faith before regeneration in logical order:

“Regeneration or the new birth is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit, whereby we become partakers of the divine nature and a holy disposition is given, leading to the love and practice of righteousness. It is a work of God’s free grace conditioned upon faith in Christ and made manifest by the fruit which we bring forth to the glory of God.”

Both the 1963 and 2000 confessions use identical wording in their discussions of regeneration, and they both leave out the statement in the 1925 confession that puts faith before regeneration:

“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.”

Thus, the 1963 and 2000 confessions accommodate five-point Calvinists, but the 1925 confession does not. To the 1925 phrase “a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit” is added the phrase “through conviction of sin” in the newer confessions. This is acceptable to a non-five-point Calvinist. God’s takes the initiative to save His elect people. He puts them under a special type of conviction by the Holy Spirit that is somewhat similar to Wesley’s prevenient grace. The logical order is special conviction, repentance/faith, regeneration. In the next phrase (“to which the sinner responds”), the question is whether “which” responds to regeneration or conviction. The five-point Calvinist says the sinner responds to regeneration whereas the non-five-point Calvinist says the sinner responds to conviction. Thus, both groups are accommodated.

Baptist Theologues last blog post..

Oops, I said, “In the next phrase (“to which the sinner responds”), the question is whether “which” responds to regeneration or conviction. ” That should be “the question is whether ‘which’ refers to regeneration or conviction.”

Hobbs chaired the 1963 BF&M, and Rogers chaired the 2000 BF&M. Neither one was a five-point Calvinist. I doubt that either man would have allowed the wording on the above article if it did not accommodate non-five-point Calvinists.

Baptist Theologues last blog post..

Todd,

Thanks. First, in my view , Todd, what you have just done for our bloghost is surrendered his thesis (obviously, that’s his concern, not yours). He concluded in no uncertain terms: “Agree or disagree, that is what is says.” But if it is as ambiguous as you assert, his point vanishes.

Second, you can have your comma. Still, you have repentant faith–clearly a part of regeneration–responding to regeneration. For me, that makes nonsense. It is much clearer to accept the repentant faith responding to conviction the Holy Spirit creates.

Third, you mistakenly attributed my criticism of the regeneration precedes faith with my own view. If one holds to regeneration itself causing repentant faith itself, the contradiction stands.

As for Piper, I think the idea that there is a simultaneous display at work within the corpus of regeneration is the favored view among non-Calvinists. However, if we’re going to make such an argument, then the language of regeneration precedes faith–cause leading to effect–needs to seriously be reevaluated.

Finally, I haven’t one reservation with the BF&M being a “rubbery” document, soft enough to include Calvinists and Non-Calvinists. But, when the statement is made that it clearly affirms regeneration precedes faith, then it’s time to warm up the engines.

And, know I do not think that, either Adrian Rogers or Jerry Vines knowingly signed their name to a revision confession which explicitly taught a doctrine neither of them could swallow.

With that, I am…
Peter

peter lumpkinss last blog post..B.H. Carroll and Being Born Again

Todd,

Clearly there is a disconnect, here. I am definitively not arguing here my theological position. That is not what Tony’s post is about. Unless I misunderstood Tony, while his personal theological preferences presumably agree with the BF&M, his post is not about what he personal theological belief per se; rather, agree or disagree, it is about what the BF&M , in his view, clearly affirms; namely regeneration precedes faith.

Consequently, Todd, when you write “You state that repentant faith is “clearly a part of regeneration,” but I would have to disagree” you are fundamentally missing the points I’ve been making. Unless you can show that I somehow have missed what the BF&M is affirming about repentant faith, the issues you now raise have no relevance to what I’m suggesting here.

With that, I am…
Peter

peter lumpkinss last blog post..B.H. Carroll and Being Born Again: Take 2

Mike,

As someone commented above, when faith precedes (leads to) regeneration, our tendency is to believe that faith, as a human work, produces the redeemed life, whereas Scripture plainly teaches that men are dead prior to the saving work of God, and that faith itself is the gift of God. When faith is viewed as a human work in this way, all manner of devices, manipulations and pressures are put on believers to produce “conversions” and on unbelievers to make “decisions”, because — when faith precedes regeneration — it is the “conversion” and the “decision” that procure eternal life.

On the contrary, the gospel of John is quite “Calvinist” (it is probably better to say that ‘Calvinism is quite Johanine’). Those who receive Christ are “born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13). No one comes to Christ “unless the Father who sent me draws him” (6:44) and “no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father” (6:65). Actually, then, the narrative of Nicodemus is preceded by the ‘dialectic’ of John 1 and is followed by the ‘dialectic’ of John 6, teaching that no one has the ability to believe (be born, come to Christ, etc) unless God gives it first.

Thanks for the cautionary words, but I do not confuse the ordo salutis with the gospel: in fact, I would go so far as to say that a proper understanding of the ordo salutis helps to ensure that we preach the biblical gospel, for when faith precedes regeneration (belief precedes spiritual life) men come to depend upon their own work, however slight, in earning or producing salvation. However, when men are viewed as dead in sin (Ephesians), unable to produce any good work, and that they must be made alive before they are made to believe, we attribute all good works in salvation where the attribution belongs — solely on the grace of God.

Rob Faircloths last blog post..Top Ten Lists and Christmas Giveaways

Tony,

Thanks for the response. And, we’ll let you have the last word. Grace…
With that, I am…
Peter

peter lumpkinss last blog post..B.H. Carroll and Being Born Again: Take 2

rob,

like i said, i see where you’re coming from, but i still think arminians, calvinists, and “back-and-forthers” like me have the same gospel to preach, and the lost who have no idea what an orto salutis is can be saved. but, since now we’re talkin’ bible, i’ll make a couple comments about that.

first, i completely agree that a theme in john’s gospel is the inability of mankind to be saved without the work of God. BUT, we have to look at ALL of john’s gospel. it emphasizes that humans can’t will themselves saved or even respond, so the question arises, “how can people respond to this Christ?” the answer is delayed until the discourse on Jesus’ final night – here Jesus explains that the Holy Spirit (the paraklete) will convict the world and will empower the testimony of the disciples. you can’t look at the first half of John divorced from the latter half. it’s a unity, and the latter answers questions raised in the earlier portions.

and 2nd, about faith being a gift from God, i just hope you’re not basing this on ephesians 2:8. that verse says, “for by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God” (NASB). people need to realize that the words “and that/this” are from “kai touto” and are not talking about grace or faith. kai touto doesn’t match their gender, so it doesn’t refer to either of those words. in fact, it is an adverbial accusative and has the rough meaning of “so especially” or “and thusly (with emphasis).” in other words, since we’re saved by grace through faith, salvation is a gift from God and not achieved by works. this is clarified in verses 9 & 10.

look, i believe there are calvinistic passages in the bible, and i don’t want to do hermeneutical backflips to try and get around them for the convenience of my own theology. but, in the same breath, i don’t want to ignore the unity that is john’s gospel or the greek behind ephesians 2:8.

it’s not as clear cut as calvnists and arminians really want it to be, which is why i think there should be plenty of room for both in the SBC. i’m not going to lose any sleep over a b.h. carroll redux.

Mikes last blog post..a plea – don’t view evangelicals through pres. bush

Todd,

Regrettably, Todd, I am uninterested in a further dialog with you.
I trust your day well.

With that, I am…
Peter

peter lumpkinss last blog post..B.H. Carroll and Being Born Again: Take 2

Mr Lumpkins &tc,

I feel like a tadpole swimming with a bunch of bullfrogs, possibly about to be eaten alive, but allow me to join the party a bit late and attempt to push some water around.

I agree with Tony that the BF&M is not ambiguous when it says that repentance and faith are the response of the believer to the regeneration wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction.

Peter’s point that the ‘preamble’ in Section IV — that salvation includes many things — precludes a ‘regeneration precedes faith’ understanding of part A seems a bit of overreach. That is, the preamble seems to state the general truth, while the parts state more specific understandings. This is perfectly normal for such statements.

Additionally, much of the BF&M’s discussion seems to include language that seems limited by our understand and perception of what occurs in salvation (in the broadest sense). For instance, the preamble states that salvation is ‘offered freely to all who accept Jesus’. Yet we know that those who accept Jesus are, at that point, saved, so that it makes little sense to offer salvation to one who is already saved. Similarly, part A refers to the ‘grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ’, so that it makes little sense to refer to believers — who presumably already new creatures — becoming new creatures.

‘All who accept Jesus’, ‘believers,’ and such language seem to be identifiers from our point of view of those upon whom God has bestowed salvation (broad sense). In fact, it would be more accurate of the BF&M to refer to ‘grace whereby unbelievers become new creatures in Christ.’ But we know what those things mean.

Similarly, when someone says that ‘regeneration precedes faith,’ he is not saying, as Mr Lumpkins maintains, that one could be ‘saved’ — baptized into the body of Christ — but be unaware of the fact and not profess faith for another 10 years. Speaking for myself, ‘regeneration precedes faith’ means that I am eliminating the possibility of the opposite: that faith precedes regeneration, in the sense that man is spiritually dead before God does a saving work on him, and that until God performs (starts to perform) that saving work, the man can produce no faith whatsoever.

The ‘preceding’, therefore, may be instantaneous in fact, while what we observe of the sequence may not be as clear in particular cases. I wonder if all would agree to eliminate the possibility that one who is still dead in sin can exercise faith.

Well, I sense that a hundred sticky tongues are coiled and aimed…

Rob Faircloths last blog post..Top Ten Lists and Christmas Giveaways

rob,

i’ll concede that those dead in sin cannot respond to the gospel with faith in Christ . . . apart from the convicting power of and witness to Christ by the Holy Spirit

Mikes last blog post..a plea – don’t view evangelicals through pres. bush

john mark,

i don’t think it’s “confusion” so much as good, old-fashioned disagreement, the kind that should be allowed in the SBC. i’m not confused about regeneration, nor do i believe rob (who posted above) to be, we just simply see it differently lol.

luther also believed in a real presence in communion, not a symbolic one. are we going to say the SBC doesn’t have room for each church to make it’s own decision here?

calvin also believed in a high level of church & state intermingling, and apparently that the uneducated lay people shouldn’t have any real power in the church. how baptist are those ideas?

hey man, be careful about appealing to the reformers. martin luther is one of my heroes, but Christ is my Lord! not trying to sound smart-mouthed or anything, i promise, but once we start citing writings of the reformers as authoritative we lose the right to criticize absolute papal authority in a certain other religion.

Again, to understand the wording of the 2000 BF&M in regard to regeneration, one must understand how that wording on regeneration developed. The chairman of the 1925 BF&M committee was E. Y. Mullins, who affirmed T, U, and P, but not L and I. His views were clear in regard to the logical order:

“Faith and repentance are conditions of regeneration.”

Edgar Young Mullins, The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression (Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1917), 384.

The present wording came in 1963, and thus the thoughts of Herschel Hobbs (a student of Mullins) are vital for understanding the wording on regeneration. In his commentary on the 1963 BF&M, Hobbs stated,

“Regeneration is the result of conviction of sin, repentance from sin, faith in Jesus Christ, and the confession of that faith. Conviction is the state of mind and heart whereby a lost person recognizes and admits his sinful state and practice. It is a work wrought by the Holy Spirit (John 16:8). Under conviction one will either reject Christ and plunge deeper into sin or else he will receive Christ as his Savior. But conviction itself is not regeneration. Conviction must be followed by true repentance. . . . True repentance will be followed by faith. Indeed, repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace. . . . It means to accept or receive Christ as both Lord and Savior. Thus one will be brought to confess him as such (Rom. 10:9-10). It is thus that one is regenerated, declared righteous as justified before God.”

Hobbs, The Baptist Faith and Message (Nashville: Convention Press, 1971), 60-61.

As mentioned earlier, the 1963 and 2000 versions of the BF&M have the same wording about regeneration:

“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.”

We could paraphrase it as follows to emphasize the view of Hobbs:

It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit uses conviction of sin, and the sinner responds to that conviction in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Five-point Calvinists could paraphrase it as follows:

It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin. The sinner responds to regeneration in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Thus, the views of both groups are accommodated in the wording about regeneration.

Baptist Theologues last blog post..

Tony, I’m trying to stay on topic. The question is whether the BF&M teaches only the five-point Calvinist position, that regeneration precedes repentance and faith (in logical order). We will be wandering off topic if we begin to debate whether regeneration indeed precedes repentance and faith. I think I’ve proven my point that the BF&M accommodates both our views. If you think that I have failed to do so, then let me know your reasons for your opinion. Your last sentence indicates that you believe that repentance/faith precedes conviction. Did you mean to say that, or did you accidentally say that?

Baptist Theologues last blog post..

I think I get it now. Your order is (1) regeneration, (2) conviction, (3) repentance/faith.

Baptist Theologues last blog post..

You are correct. The position that regeneration precedes repentance/faith is also held by many Amyraldians.

You also said,

“I think all one must affirm is T to necessitate their believing that it is regeneration that precedes faith. ”

In saying that, you assume that only regeneration can counteract depravity. Some Arminians, such as Alexander Campbell, did indeed have a Pelagian mindset and thought that people (anyone, at anytime, and without any help from God) could surrender their lives to Christ in repentance and faith apart from either regeneration or special conviction. John Wesley, however, was a different type of Arminian, and he believed that a special act of God (prevenient grace) was necessary to counteract depravity before a person could experience
repentance/faith. Mullins stated, “Sin came in and human nature became so biased that, without God’s prevenient grace the will inevitably chooses evil.”

Mullins, The Axioms of Religion (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1908) 84.

Thus, both conviction in my view (in the sense of prevenient grace) and regeneration in your view counteract the depravity. At that time of special conviction or regeneration the person has the freedom to choose–compatibilistic freedom in your view (advocated by Jonathan Edwards; freedom to do what you are inclined to do–no power of contrary choice) and libertarian freedom in my
view (the power of contrary choice; the ability to generate a choice from a position of equipoise).

Baptist Theologues last blog post..

Rob,

Thanks for the interaction with the corn I’ve planted here. A couple of rejoinders, if you don’t mind.

First, the “preamble” as you call it under the rubic of IV Salvation, is not a “preamble.” Rather it is an opening statement about the subject of salvation, offering a broad outlook including four categories, one of which is regeneration. I haven’t a clue what you mean by over-reach. I said in my first comment to Tony, “This paragraph precedes the statement you [Tony] quoted and offers a decidedly sweeping statement about redemption in its broadest sense, a significant part of which is regeneration. ”

How this is either an over-reach or, for that matter, significantly different from your own statement about the “preamble” being “general truth” while “more specific understandings” are offered later I do not perceive.

More curiously, Rob, you go on to state “when someone says that ‘regeneration precedes faith,’ he is not saying, as Mr Lumpkins maintains, that one could be ’saved’ — baptized into the body of Christ — but be unaware of the fact and not profess faith for another 10 years. For the record, where would you gain such information which I allegedly “maintain” about being “unaware” of being saved but not “profess faith for another 10 years”? What words did I use which implied such?

Your stated position is clear: “Speaking for myself, ‘regeneration precedes faith’ means that I am eliminating the possibility of the opposite: that faith precedes regeneration…” Unfortunately, we are not discussing your position or mine, a point lost elsewhere on another commenter.

Rather the question is, what is the BF&M affirming at any given point. Does the BF&M affirm regeneration precedes faith in the sense that Tony suggested in his post? There he wrote: “So, [regeneration] is the cause that precedes [repentance and faith]. Agree or disagree, that is what is says.” I logged on and dissented. It does not.

Thus far in this thread, there has been no real attempt to demonstrate that it does. Instead, most comments, it seems, attempt to bring other baggage to the table instead of deal with the document itself. Baptist Theologue’s stellar comments concerning the history of the BF&M, the context, etc. have been mostly ignored. It’s obvious why.

To make the 2000 BF&M into a strong Calvinistic expression of theology makes zero sense from my view. Adrian Rogers, Steve Gaines, Suzie Hawkins (O.S. Hawkins’ wife), Rudy Hernandez, Charles S. Kelley, Jr., Richard D. Land, Nelson Price, Jerry Vines–most of whom have been seriously critiqued by Southern Baptist Calvinists, many of whom are labeled as rapid anti-Calvinists!–were on this committee that put this document together. We’re now suggesting that these strongly convictional Non-Calvinists purposefully put a doctrinal statement in the BF&M which blatantly contradicted what they believed and taught all of their lives? Incredible.

My encouragement to my Calvinist brothers pertaining to the BF&M is to simply accept it as it is. While it does not categorically affirm regeneration precedes faith, neither does it categorically deny regeneration precedes faith either. From my standpoint, that’s a win/win for both Calvinists and Non-Calvinists alike. We will have to make our theological case on other grounds.

With that, I am…
Peter

peter lumpkinss last blog post..B.H. Carroll and Being Born Again

Todd, Paige Patterson is a three-pointer (TUP) as was Mullins and as am I. Dr. Patterson stated:

“‘There’s room for a two- or three-pointer like me, provided he can explain what is meant by two and three.’ [. . .] Patterson added that he found no scriptural support for the doctrines of irresistible grace or limited atonement as espoused by Calvinists.”

Tammi Reed Ledbetter, “Patterson, Pressler Caution Baptists Against Distractions From Evangelism,” November 15, 1999, accessed November 13, 2004, http://www.baptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=2699

I don’t know if Dr. Patterson arrives at those three points the same way that I do. I assume that most Southern Baptists that are not five-point Calvinists or Amyraldians (TUIP) would use the term “conviction” rather than “prevenient grace.” We are not Pelagians; rather, we recognize that depravity must be counteracted by a supernatural act of God before a person can surrender his life to Christ in repentance and faith. I also assume that most of us use the term “conviction” rather than “prevenient” because “conviction” is a biblical term.

Baptist Theologues last blog post..

Todd, Paige Patterson is a three-pointer (TUP) as was Mullins and as am I. Dr. Patterson stated:

“‘There’s room for a two- or three-pointer like me, provided he can explain what is meant by two and three.’ [. . .] Patterson added that he found no scriptural support for the doctrines of irresistible grace or limited atonement as espoused by Calvinists.”

Tammi Reed Ledbetter, “Patterson, Pressler Caution Baptists Against Distractions From Evangelism,” (Baptist Press article: November 15, 1999).

I don’t know if Dr. Patterson arrives at those three points the same way that I do. I assume that most Southern Baptists that are not five-point Calvinists or Amyraldians (TUIP) would use the term “conviction” rather than “prevenient grace.” We are not Pelagians; rather, we recognize that depravity must be counteracted by a supernatural act of God before a person can surrender his life to Christ in repentance and faith. I also assume that most of us use the term “conviction” rather than “prevenient” because “conviction” is a biblical term.

Baptist Theologues last blog post..

Peter,

My comment about being regenerated, but being unaware for another 10 years, was in response to this from you earlier in the string:

“Were we to accept your view, Tony, along with our Calvinist brothers’ view that regeneration precedes faith, making it is the cause that precedes the effect, we have either,
a) a blatant contradiction or
b) we strangely confess that, a regenerated person–prior to their expressing repentant faith in Christ– is baptized into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit. ”

After looking at it again, I wrongly framed my comment as though you had maintained point b) as your own position, so I apologize. It was not intentional.

The reason I responded as I did was to demonstrate that option b) was not something necessary to the ‘regeneration precedes faith’ position: that all of the events surrounding regeneration/faith/repentance could in fact be so close together as to be effectually instantaneous. Yet from the perspective of death/life, Scripture seems plain in its teaching that there can be no positive response to God — faith, conviction, repentance, conversion — without having first been made alive.

(This leaves me at your point a) — “blatant contradiction”. LOL)

I do think that the BF&M asserts regeneration first. First, the structure suggests it. The definition or preamble (‘salvation involves…’) states the general idea of salvation in its broadest sense and gives a hint to the order it takes: regeneration, justification, sanctification, glorification. This mimics the use of logical progression in Romans 8:28-30.

Then, the individual subparts repeat that progression, defining what each entails. As has been noted, Romans 8:28 does not list ‘sanctification’ (unless it is in the ‘conforming’), but I think all would agree that sanctification would fall somewhere after the foreknowing and before the glorifying. Similarly, the BF&M does not describe faith as one of the subparts, but as a component of regeneration.

Second, IV.A. describes regeneration as ‘new birth,’ ‘becoming a new creation,’ and ‘change of heart.’ If men are dead prior to this, it is difficult to see how the BF&M permits that faith could occur before them.

Third, that section describes repentance and faith as responses to regeneration. Regeneration is the ‘change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction…’ to which the sinner responds in faith. Whether regeneration is viewed as new birth, new creation, change of heart, or even conviction of sin (as the BF&M described), faith is the response to it, not the preceding condition giving rise to it.

Thanks for the dialog. Lord Bless.

Rob Faircloths last blog post..Top Ten Lists and Christmas Giveaways

Rob,
No problem. We all have our share of having to take a second look. As to your further comments, continuing to argue that the BF&M affirms “regeneration precedes faith,” I’d like to respond.

First, your assertion that “from the perspective of death/life, Scripture seems plain in its teaching that there can be no positive response to God — faith, conviction, repentance, conversion — without having first been made alive” is, in my view, not plain at all from Scripture (more on that shortly). That Scriptural assumption should have little to do with what the BF&M asserts, unless, of course, you were on the committee who put the document together.

Nevertheless, such is apparently the presupposition driving those who attempt to make the BF&M into a stronger, Calvinistic theology than it can naturally produce.

The first evidence you offer that the BF&M affirms “regeneration precedes faith” (RPF) is the structure: “The definition… states the general idea of salvation in its broadest sense and gives a hint to the order it takes…” concluding that the structure “mimics” the “logical progression” in Romans 8.

Your Calvinist lens are most potent, here, Rob. The BF&M states what salvation both “involves” and “includes” but says absolutely nothing about “order”—especially “order” in a rigid, logical manner. The theological construct that you embrace (Rom. 8:28-30) cannot be layered onto the BF&M as if that is what they were “hinting” at. That is entirely unfair. It’s also entirely nonsensical when we recall Rogers, Vines, Land, Price and other strongly committed Non-Calvinists were on the BF&M revision committee. Do you think they were using your Calvinistic construct too?

In addition, you write, “the BF&M does not describe faith as one of the subparts, but as a component of regeneration.” If I am understanding Calvinism correctly, RPF presumes the total inability of the spiritually dead to respond in any spiritually meaningful way to the gospel unless the spiritually dead is born again—spiritually resurrected–in order to turn from sin and believe the gospel. If faith is a component of regeneration, how is it that faith is a response to regeneration? Again, if regeneration takes place before faith in the BF&M, how is it that the BF&M flatly states the Holy Spirit baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ “at the moment of regeneration”?

Furthermore, since the BF&M describes regeneration as ‘new birth,’ ‘becoming a new creation,’ and ‘change of heart,’” you believe remains further evidence for your position. You conclude: “If men are dead prior to this, it is difficult to see how the BF&M permits that faith could occur before them.”

Once again, Rob, this is presumptuous on your part. The BF&M definitively does not state the fallenness of man as do you and every strong Calvinist I’ve ever encountered: total depravity = total inability.

Given the statement the BF&M makes pertaining to our sinful nature, I’m frankly surprised any ‘good’ Calvinist would be happy with the document. Read carefully these words and see if they affirm what you mean when you write ”men are dead”:

Once again, it is a mistake for Calvinists to presume Calvinism’s strong influence on this document. Not only is it impossible to connect our statement on human fallenness with “total inability,” arguably, it does not even do an adequate job in affirming total depravity!

Thus, given the BF&M’s backdrop of man’s sinful condition, calling for the salvation sinful man requires, what meaningful reason would there be to argue that the authors nevertheless thought it necessary to assert regeneration precedes faith?

The third evidence you offered has been addressed above. For my part, it is entirely an exercise in futility to argue a strong Calvinistic presence for the BF&M. We would do well, as I suggested above, to demonstrate our theology on other evidences.

With that, I am…
Peter

Regardless of the “confusion,” “lens,” “construct,” “presupposition,” or imposition of improper intent from which its advocates may suffer, the plain language of the BFM states not that regeneration follows faith, but that “faith” follows “regeneration.”

Some of us may wish that it were not so. Some of us may claim that the improper injection of “Calvinism” renders it not so. Some of us may redefine words to ensure that it is not so. Some may even claim that “faith follows regeneration” does not mean the same thing as “regeneration precedes faith.” But despite the handwringing over what implications it might carry, or the theological label attached to the one who said it, it is what it is.

The preference, then, of Founders’ Ministries, and of me, and of whomever else, for “regeneration precedes faith” is not such a “strange insistence” after all.

I must finish building a dollhouse (not for me: dudes would have an “action-figure-pad”). Interestingly, a dollhouse is not able to accommodate dolls unless someone other than the dolls puts it together.

Rob Faircloths last blog post..Top Ten Lists and Christmas Giveaways

Regeneration is the first work of the Holy Spirit in the application of Redemption. in it the twin graces of repentance and faith are implanted within the elect sinner. Repentance and faith are the fruit of Regeneration, not its cause. A dead sinner can’t repent, nor believe, unaided by the work of the Holy Spirit. Regeneration precedes conviction. The seeing eye and hearing ear are from The Lord [Proverbs 20;12].
without regeneration, the sinner can’t hear or see the the Gospel of God’s Grace. Dr. Paul W. Foltz

I wonder if any one has read the entire article 4 of 1963 BFM where it states “Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace”. This flows from the NHCF which says “Of Grace in Regeneration We believe that, in order to be saved, sinners must be regenerated, or born again (37); that regeneration consists in giving a holy disposition to the mind (38); that it is effected in a manner above our comprehension by the power of the Holy Spirit, in connection with divine truth (39), so as to secure our voluntary obedience to the gospel (40); and that its proper evidence appears in the holy fruits of repentance, and faith, and newness of life (41).” Further the NHCF article VIII Of Repentance and Faith states “We believe that repentance and faith are sacred duties, and also inseparable graces wrought in our souls by the regenerating Spirit of God whereby, being deeply convicted of our guilt, danger and helplessness, and of the way of salvation by Christ, we turn to God with unfeigned contrition, confession and supplication for mercy; at the same time heartily receiving the Lord Jesus Christ as our Prophet, Priest and King, and relying on him alone as the only and all-sufficient Saviour.”
Since the BFM said in the preface that it used the NHCF as its basis as did the 1925 committee, it would seem to me that to be honest , one would have to interpret subsequent confessions in light of the NHCF. To me, it is clear that the NHCF article VII and VIII place regeneration prior to repentance and faith, counting them as inseparable graces wrought in our souls by the regenerating Spirit of God. But that is just my two cents worth.
In an email from Dr Vines, he espouses the “to which ” refers to conviction view.
Further the Arminian Remonstrance article 3 States:Article 3
That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, incli9nation, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing.”

Regards, Cap

Cap,

I thought this thread was dead. I received notice of your comment via email. A few quick thoughts.

First, though the NHC was used, it needs to be noted that this was definitively decided as a move away from the strong Calvinism of Philadelphia and London (and for that matter, Louisville’s AP!). E.Y. Mullins knew precisely what he was doing when he by-passed those confessions.

Secondly, you write: “it would seem to me that to be honest , one would have to interpret subsequent confessions in light of the NHCF.” This is strained, to say the least, Cap. To by-pass our first confession in understanding contextual matters in our subsequent confessions–merely minor revisions of the first confession–makes very little sense. The bottom line is, whatever role the NHC played as a literary springboard for the 1925 confession, the NHC is definitively not our confession. Rather our confession, as Southern Baptists, began in 1925 with the first convention-wide document.

Nor can Mullins’ theological fingerprints be denied their presence: “[Regeneration] is a work of God’s free grace conditioned upon faith in Christ and made manifest by the fruit which we bring forth to the glory of God” (VII. Regeneration, BF&M 1925). This, of course, was Mullins’ personal view as well. That is, being born again was conditioned upon faith in Jesus Christ.

With that, I am…

Peter

Peter Lumpkinss last blog post..On Blogging in 2009: The First Three Months

Cap,
Amen and amen. see my blog on regeneration listed under my profile @ freegracepreacher.blogspot.com.
I Live in Ponce De Leon. Do you still have the bookstore in Graceville/
if so please advise.

Peter,
The 1925 committee apparently considered the 1925 to be the NHCF revised and amended . See the preface. The preface to the 1963 said : In no case has it sought to delete from or to add to the basic contents of the 1925 Statement. So it is reasonable to assume that since the 1963 did not make faith a condition for regeneration, the committee did not consider it a deletion or addition to the 1925 BFM. Further, if you read the scriptures given to support the 1925 statement, in none of them is regeneration conditioned upon faith. In fact I have never read a verse which conditions regeneration upon faith. I think” what we have here is a failure to communicate” because of a lack of precise and common definitions. The scripture says By grace are you saved, through faith not, by grace are you regenerated through faith. Acts 16: believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, not believe and you will be regenerated.
In your post at 42 you quote from the 1963 on man. Note that it reverses a statement from the 1925. The 1925 states that man is under condemnation and as soon as they are capable of moral action they become actual transgressors. So since the 1963 did not seek to delete from or add to the 1925. I would assume the 1925 to be the correct order.
If repentance and faith are inseparable graces wrought in our souls by the regenerating Spirit of God, how can they be a condition of regeneration, since they apparently can’t exist before regeneration?
BTW did you get a chance to look at my Umbrella of Salvation?
Paul, at 47
I had to close the Berean House in 2004. I still have much of the materials which we gave out without charge if you need any. My home is in Marianna Fl . My son lives in Defuniak Springs. By grace alone, Cap

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.