This post is inspired by a recent blog by Peter Lumpkins that details some views of B.H. Carroll on regeneration. I enjoy Peter’s writing, especially when I disagree with him. This is the mark of all competent writers. But what caught my attention was this sentence:
Carroll clearly rejected Founders’ strange insistence upon “regeneration precedes faith”
To me this didn’t sound strange, but familiar. It reminded me of something I have read many times in the Baptist Faith & Message.
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. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.
Notice 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. I would suggest it should not be called strange unless you speak as the Athenians spoke to Paul.
For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean. (Acts 17:20 KJV)
Does All This Really Matter?
I hesitate to bring this up, except that it was so strange to me. How can a plain aspect of our shared confession be considered strange? Why not give glory to God and get on with the mission? Why not accept the Baptist Identity we’ve settled upon in the BF&M 2000?
Great observation and thank you for bringing this to our attention. I spent a lot of time in a thread with Peter and others discussing “regeneration preceding faith” and was disappointed at what I heard. The biggest issue for me is how people who deny this simply read into texts like Ephesians 2.4-5, Titus 3.4-7 and 1 Peter 1.3 a requirement of man providing faith even though it is not there (this is particularly true for the Titus and 1 Peter passages which don’t mention faith anywhere). Of course I, like all other Baptists (Calvinist or not) agree that repentance… Read more »
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,
I also find it interesting that regeneration preceding faith was argued against at the John 3.16 Conference with Dr. Lemke saying that the most serious problem with the doctrine of irresistible grace is that it reverses the biblical order of salvation (placing regeneration prior to faith). I wonder what Jerry Vines thought about this since he was part of the Study Committee for the BF&M 2000?
Todd Buruss last blog post..Disobedient Faith?- John Piper on the Flaw of Free Grace Theology
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Tony, Thanks for this post. I don’t think Carroll’s position is exactly cut-n-dry either. The true scriptural position then is this: There is, first of all, a direct influence of the Holy Spirit on the passive spirit of the sinner, quickening him or making him sensitive to the preaching of the Word. In this the sinner is passive. But he is not a subject of the new birth without contrition, repentance and faith. In exercising these he is active. Yet even his contrition is but a response to the Spirit’s conviction, and the exercise of his repentance and faith are… Read more »
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… Read more »
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: “Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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
Peter, Nice to see you here on a neutral site 🙂 In reading your comment, there are (at least) two things I would like to take issue with. First, when you say that the language says “that repentant faith is a response to the ‘conviction of sin’ wrought by the Spirit,” this is not necessarily as cut and dry as you make it. Unfortunately with the English language it is not always clear as to what a subordinate clause is subordinate to. Is it that the “to which” refers to the “change of heart” or to the “conviction of sin.”… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Peter, It was not my intention to remove the ambiguity in the statement. I believe, per the grammatical evidence I cited, that this is attributing the response to the change of heart (regeneration); but as has been asserted by most here, yourself included, I have no problem with a broadly applicable BF&M. However, I do want to discuss your comment about repentant faith. You state that repentant faith is “clearly a part of regeneration,” but I would have to disagree. There are many convictions which do not produce responses, think about the conviction to not speed because it violates Romans… Read more »
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… Read more »
Peter, First off, why you seem so frustrated with my statements confuses me. I am not trying to attribute anything more to you than what you are saying. Whether it is what you believe personally or not is of no consequence to me, I am simply arguing against your statements. This isn’t personal, please don’t presume that it is. I just disagree with your argumentation. From that, it appears to me that “the points [you’ve] been making” are that arguing for the BF&M saying repentant faith is a response to regeneration “makes nonsense (sic) [to you],” and that “It is… Read more »
@peter lumpkins: I appreciate your careful interaction with my post. This is something I have always noticed about your blog (and blog comments), I wish that more of us had the patience to deal in specific details. So, thanks again for the engagement on this issue. You were right to point the the broader context of the BF&M and note that our “salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification.” Amen! The committees that drafted the BF&M (in all its editions) were not careless when they wrote. I’ve enjoyed reading the statements in light of their historical and contemporary context as… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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
Is maybe the confusion over the definition of regeneration? Since we’re speaking in theological categories? My understanding of regeneration is not that it is the sum total of the fullness of salvation i.e. regeneration doesn’t equal salvation. It does not refer to the whole process that it gives rise to (justification, sanctification), but only the granting of the spiritual capacity to comply with the terms of the covenant of grace. As Michael Haykin says, “The Reformation was not merely about justification through faith alone but, more importantly, it considered “…whether sinners are wholly helpless in their sin, and whether God… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
@Baptist Theologue: Thanks again for the helpful background information. I can see better the connection your making between conviction leading to repentance and faith.
However, this statement describes a process that follows the work of God making the person a new creature. Which is called regeneration and the necessary condition for conviction, repentance and faith.
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… Read more »
I think I get it now. Your order is (1) regeneration, (2) conviction, (3) repentance/faith.
Baptist Theologues last blog post..
Baptist Theologue,
I disagree with one small comment you seem to have made, that “regeneration precedes faith” is a view held only by five-point Calvinists. I think all one must affirm is T to necessitate their believing that it is regeneration that precedes faith. I’d bet there are plenty of people who believe regeneration precedes faith that only hold to three or four points. I’m sure you didn’t mean anything by it, I was just wanting to clarify.
Todd Buruss last blog post..Thanks A Lot!- What Easy Believism Has to Offer Those Who Doubt Their Salvation
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,… Read more »
Baptist Theologue,
Thank you for explaining further.
Just a point of interest, is prevenient grace the dominant position among Baptist non-Calvinists? Though I haven’t heard any 0f them call it this (out of fear of being associated with Methodism?) it seems that this is exactly the position of faith that Paige Patterson and Jerry Vines were advocating at the John 3.16 Conference. Is that a correct (or plausible) assessment?
Todd Buruss last blog post..Thanks A Lot!- What Easy Believism Has to Offer Those Who Doubt Their Salvation
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Baptist Theologue, Thanks for your continued comments. I have just been curious about Patterson and Vines since the conference because of the way in which they spoke. Dr. Patterson proceeded as if he were T but then when it came down to it he denied what I’m pretty sure is the heart of T, that being that we’re dead and unable to do anything to help ourselves. He then gave an illustration where a pilot had wrecked and was mostly blinded and deaf, floating out at sea, when he was able to just barely make out a Coast Guard rescuer… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
@ Peter: I think the related posts plugin I use tends to resurrect posts. I’ve thought about closing older posts automatically, but sometimes leaving them open can re-start a good conversation. Thanks again for your willingness to dialog here on this blog.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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!… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.