What is regeneration (being born again)? Although the Baptist Faith & Message defines this word, a new doctrinal statement, A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation (“Statement”), has taken a very different understanding.
Here’s the relevant section of the BF&M:
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.
The first sentence gives a general definition of regeneration. The word “whereby” is important to our discussion because it gives a sense of order, or sequence. It is equivalent to “by which,” so we could change the word order and restate it this way:
Believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus by a work of God’s grace known as regeneration.
It is vague enough that we could take regeneration to mean the process that culminates in us becoming new creatures (the position of the Statement), or it could mean that regeneration is a necessary antecedent to us becoming new creatures (in other words, that it must take place first).
The second sentence, however, clarifies this vagueness. Regeneration is “a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit.” Does this “heart change” occur after conversion? No! In the BF&M, conversion—“repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ”—is called a response to regeneration.
This is the order presented in the Baptist Faith and Message:
- A person hears the gospel (though a gospel presentation is not explicitly mentioned, it is assumed because without it a person could not be convicted of sin, repent, and have faith in Christ).
- The Holy Spirit changes a person’s heart by convicting them of sin (regeneration).
- A person responds to the gospel with repentance and faith.
- The believer becomes a new creature in Christ Jesus.
This is consistent with John 3:3 and 5, which say:
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Here, seeing / entering the kingdom of God is dependent on being born again (regenerated). The order is this:
- One is born again / born of water and the Spirit
- One sees the kingdom of God / enters the kingdom of God
If it were the other way, the verses would read:
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one sees the kingdom of God he cannot be born again.”
Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one enters the kingdom of God, he cannot born of water and the Spirit.
The Statement
Look, however, at the order presented in Article Five of the Statement:
We affirm that any person who responds to the Gospel with repentance and faith is born again through the power of the Holy Spirit. He is a new creation in Christ and enters, at the moment he believes, into eternal life.
We deny that any person is regenerated prior to or apart from hearing and responding to the Gospel.
It is quite clear from this affirmation and denial that signers of this document believe that regeneration comes after a person’s faith. The order is presented this way:
- A person hears the gospel.
- A person responds to the gospel with repentance and faith.
- A person is born again (regenerated) by the Holy Spirit.
A Step Away from the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding
The Statement equates regeneration with seeing/entering the kingdom of God—also known as salvation, the end result of the conversion experience. Thus, it is attempting to deny that salvation precedes faith, a charge often leveled at Calvinists for saying regeneration precedes faith.
Salvation and regeneration are not synonyms, and Calvinists aren’t alone in treating the two terms as describing two differing things. Calvinists don’t have a monopoly on this distinction— the BF&M identifies regeneration with a heart change produced by the Spirit occurring prior to repentance and faith. This understanding of regeneration is not exclusive to Calvinism—it is also the official position of the Southern Baptist Convention.
I agree with the BF&M that regeneration is when the Holy Spirit changes our heart, which is a necessary prerequisite for the sinner to believe the gospel. Before the heart change we are opposed to the things of God and cannot understand them (1 Cor. 2:14). Thus it is necessary for the Spirit to change our hearts to take away that opposition, enable us to understand, and incline us towards God. Regeneration does not save anyone, instead it inclines them to God enables them to respond to the gospel. The human response to regeneration—repentance and faith—is immediate.
For much of my life I went to a non-Calvinist church that equated being “born again” with “being saved,” but even that church recognized the need for the Spirit’s enabling, they just didn’t call it “regeneration.” Until I read this Statement, I never realized that so many Southern Baptists deny the need for the Spirit to change our hearts before we can believe the truth of the gospel.[1]
Engage
I want you to think about this for a moment. Regeneration should be something that unites Southern Baptists, not divides us. The following is an affirmation and denial that I put together. It goes against the Statement, but it is consistent with the BF&M. This isn’t a Calvinist affirmation and denial, but something both Calvinists and non-Calvinists can sign together:
We affirm that regeneration (being born again) occurs when the Holy Spirit removes a sinner’s heart of stone, which is opposed to God and spiritually blind, and gives him a new heart that is inclined toward God. Subsequent to being regenerated by the Holy Spirit, he immediately responds to the gospel with repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. At the moment he believes, he enters into eternal life and is a new creation in Christ Jesus.
We deny that regeneration (being born again) is equivalent to receiving the benefits of salvation, that is, eternal life, or that a sinner can respond favorably to the gospel with repentance and faith prior to or apart from the regenerating work of the Spirit.
Could you sign this affirmation and denial?
[1] The Statement denies the need for the Spirit to actually change the sinner’s heart prior to conversion. The Holy Spirit’s drawing has been explained elsewhere to be equally applied to all who hear the gospel and does not actually effect any change in the sinner’s heart:
“We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned. While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel.
“We affirm that God, as an expression of His sovereignty, endows each person with actual free will (the ability to choose between two options), which must be exercised in accepting or rejecting God’s gracious call to salvation by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel.”
Amen! Amen! Amen!
Wow! Great article, Andrew.
The fact that the “Trads” statement disagrees with the BF&M2000 is enough to cause serious concern.
I, with you, stand with the BF&M.
Andrew,
I think you’re reading too much into the BF&M 2000 and going beyond the original intent of the article.
You place the order this way:
1. A person hears the gospel (though a gospel presentation is not explicitly mentioned, it is assumed because without it a person could not be convicted of sin, repent, and have faith in Christ).
2. The Holy Spirit changes a person’s heart by convicting them of sin (regeneration).
3. A person responds to the gospel with repentance and faith.
4. The believer becomes a new creature in Christ Jesus.
Many Southern Baptists would not call #2 in this list “regeneration.” Instead, they would interpret the vagueness to mean that the entire process can be put under the umbrella of “regeneration” (because it encompasses the whole process) but that the term specifically refers to #4 – “The believer becomes a new creature in Christ Jesus.”
In other words:
1. The person hears the gospel.
2. The Holy Spirit calls and convicts. (effectual or resistible, depending on your theological persuasion)
3. The sinner responds in repentance and faith. (conversion)
4. The believer becomes a new creature in Christ Jesus. (regeneration)
I think that is the way that many on the committee see the statement. Under the umbrella of “regeneration” as describing the entire process, the specific definition is not finished until #4 takes place.
Millard Erickson would be of this persuasion, except he would call #2 “effectual” or “special calling.” W.A. Criswell saw it this way as well.
Kyle,
My intent with this article is to show, both from the Bible and from the BF&M that regeneration occurs when the Holy Spirit changes a person’s heart and occurs prior to repentance and faith. I might be willing to call the whole process “conversion,” but “regeneration” is much more limited in scope. Of course, I’d love to interact with anything you have to put forth either from the Bible or the BF&M to support a different view.
I agree that “regeneration precedes faith” is acceptable according to the BFM, but I think you are stretching things to make it demanded. Most Baptists probably interpret the statement this way:
Umbrella statement: “Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus.”
What does this regenerative process consist of? “It is a change of heart.”
Who does the saving? “…wrought by the Holy Spirit…”
How does the Spirit begin the process? “… through conviction of sin.”
What is our role in the process? “We respond to conviction of sin in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus.”
What is the result of this process: “Believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus.”
The fact that it says “believers become new creatures” and not “unbelievers become new creatures” is a sign that one can take this statement either
1. that regeneration precedes faith
or
2. that regeneration “becoming new creatures” happens only to believers, and is thus subsequent to the process.
Either way is permissible in the BF&M. That’s why the statement is as broad as it is. It is wrong for non-Calvinists to say that the BFM excludes the Calvinist position. It is also wrong for Calvinists to say that the BFM excludes the non-Calvinist position.
Kyle,
I think the big difference here is that a lot of people say “regeneration” but are talking about the whole process, whereas the BF&M identify “regeneration” with the Holy Spirit changing a person’s heart. I think the one use of the word is incorrect, but I don’t think they’re denying anything in the BF&M.
Where the Statement goes wrong on regeneration is that it denies the need for the Holy Spirit to actually change a person’s heart prior to repenting and believing the gospel (#2).
Also, regeneration before faith isn’t
Andrew,
Kyle is correct in his argument as to what many (I am not saying a majority although I believe I could) SB believe the statement says and let me add, believe that is what the Scriptures teach. Once again, your argument seems to be that the statement on salvation is in direct opposition to the BF&M2000… it is not. It is different from your interpretation of the BF&M… and your interpretation of Scripture but we BOTH KNOW the issues on both sides and we BOTH KNOW both sides are equally able to stand on BOTH the BF&M and the Scriptures.
So in a sense, this renders your whole argument and post nil. We categorically deny regeneration prior to repentance and faith; we categorically deny God’s choosing who is and is not going to be saved and your smooth presentation here does not do anything but repeat this same ole argument.
><>”
Kyle,
I think you forgot to consider that the BF&M verbatimly states that Regeneration is a “CHANGE OF HEART”, probably alluding to Ezekiel 36:26-27.
The question now is: How can you believe the Gospel and repent of your sins if your heart is darkened by Sin and “wholly opposed to God and his law” (as the Abstract of Principles puts it)?
-Jeph
Jeph,
See my reply above to Kyle. The framers are using “regeneration” as a blanket term that encompasses the whole moment of salvation (that’s why the first statement reads as a summary view).
Just as Andrew seems to read the statement as excluding the non-Calvinist position, others could read it as to exclude the Calvinist position (which is why it is “believers” who are made new creatures, i.e. after faith).
The best way to read it, however, is that the term is being used broadly enough to encompass both theological traditions, without ruling out either one.
Kyle,
Thank you. I’ve re-read your comments and here’s what I can say: Though I agree with Andrew for the most part, I think your explanation makes more sense to me (no offense to Andrew). Yes, the BF&M’s statement on regeneration was wonderfully worded in such wise that it is able to accommodate both convictions. Otherwise, all non-Calvinist within the SBC are not essentially Southern Baptists, which is so unlikely.
God bless,
-Jeph
Progress.
><>”
“regeneration” as a blanket term that encompasses the whole moment of salvation”
to be born into eternal life:
in ‘the WHOLE moment of salvation’, we will die to rise with Him, reconciled to the Father and to one another in Christ’s peace.
This most holy ‘moment’ of salvation is in God’s eternal ‘time’ when we are held in His Hands like trusting children with no cause to be afraid anymore . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZND53eM-Ks
OK, I’m in agreement with this blog, thanks Andrew, and Have been a “reformed Baptist” for 20 years. However, I think Kyle makes a good observation. There are those who do not believe regeneration precedes faith and they believe the article is written broadly enough to include them. And I am OK with that! I get the point about the mollifying of the heart, and yes I believe that is regeneration and with out it no man shall see God. But I’m not one of these creatures that the Traditional statement identified as trying to change the SBC to my reformed leanings. It makes me shudder to think I’ll run in to one of those creatures! I’m terrified! But apparently they must be lurking everywhere. Hmmmm, funny I never met one yet.
Having voted for the Baptist Faith and Message on the convention floor in June 2000, I obviously join you in standing with it now.
I also join with the SBC President who appointed that committee, along with 27% of the committee’s membership (thus far) who have signed the Statement, apparently not interpreting as mandatory the placement of regeneration before faith in the same way that you have interpreted it here.
Having suffered through a week of being told that the SIGNERS of documents don’t know what they are signing, it stretches credibility to suggest that the very DRAFTERS of the BFM2000 did not realize what they were drafting.
Rick,
Care to interact with what I wrote before blowing it off? Perhaps explain why the BF&M says the Holy Spirit changes someone’s heart prior to repenting and believing the gospel, when the Statement denies that a sinner is unable to respond to the gospel.
But Andrew, I’m not trying to blow it off or be rude, merely to point out that your interpretation that the BFM says what you say it says is not necessarily what all others say it says.
I do not believe that a Calvinist ordo salutis has been written into the BFM 2000 — and many others feel the same. Perhaps the Page Committee can clarify the wording so that everyone agrees with the understanding I have now, that the BFM is neither a Calvinist nor a Traditionalist document, but inclusive of both views.
I have thought it peculiar that it seems to reflect/lean toward a Reformed ordo salutes, though it is not necessary to draw that conclusion to affirm what it says; there are other ways of taking it. So I would agree, as it stands it is neither Calvinist nor non-Calvinist.
Chris,
I think the phrase “to which” narrows any broad interpretation. How do you understand the “to which” in the BFM statement?
Chris is correct. This document was intentionally crafted to work for everyone… so this whole argument as to whether the BF&M2000 is reformed or not is a moot point… it can be taken either way.
There is no validity in attempting to argue which way it leans… it leans in the direction of the person who is reading it.
><>”
Joshua,
Grammar is a funny thing. Namely:
“It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.”
So does this mean:
1. Regeneration occurs which brings a change of heart through the conviction of sin, and after regeneration the sinner responds in repentance
2. Regeneration occurs after a change of heart which follows the conviction of sin, a conviction which the sinner must respond to which then brings about regeneration
In other words, is the sinner responding to regeneration, or to conviction which then brings about regeneration?
I hold the first view, but the grammar is ambiguous enough that a person could hold the second without abusing the BF&M too much. I won’t fault a person who understands it this way; I employ even more creative gymnastics to accept the newer Article 3 of the BF&M while continuing to hope against hope that we someday go back to the much better 1925 rendering.
And I must say that I am very disturbed to find myself agreeing with Bob. Truly, the end is nigh…
“I hold the first view, but the grammar is ambiguous enough that a person could hold the second without abusing the BF&M too much.”
I could agree with this. I tried to clarify when I said, “I can see how some can read it and belief it allows for the idea that regeneration follows faith. I think they’re wrong, but that’s more of an issue with how we label things.“
“the BFM is neither a Calvinist nor a Traditionalist document, but inclusive of both views”
There is no doubt that BFM2000 provides enough theological wiggle room to embrace both Calvinist and non-Calvinist belief and practice depending upon which grid you use to view its content. Perhaps, therein lies the problem which is fueling much of the current debate.
In his analysis of the BFM2000 revision shortly after its publication, Russell Dilday felt there was “a distinct Calvinistic slant to the statement” and a “trend shifting Baptist identity from its Anabaptist, free church tradition to a reformed evangelical identity” http://www.baptiststandard.com/2001/5_14/pages/dilday.html
Rick,
I can see how some can read it and belief it allows for the idea that regeneration follows faith. I think they’re wrong, but that’s more of an issue with how we label things.
However, the Statement denies that it is necessary for the Spirit to effect a heart change prior to us being able to believe. Whether we call that heart change regeneration or not, we need to all agree that it is there.
Andrew,
The statement does not make such a denial and in Dr. Haskins’ clarification, he said:
“And they do think that every person has the opportunity to respond to the Gospel under the leadership of the Spirit who is willing to move upon the heart of anyone.”
God be with you,
Dan
How does this affirmation not deny that it is necessary for the Spirit to effect a heart change prior to us being able to believe?
We affirm that God, as an expression of His sovereignty, endows each person with actual free will (the ability to choose between two options), which must be exercised in accepting or rejecting God’s gracious call to salvation by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel.
Andrew Wencl has written well from one theological perspective relating to soteriology.
Yet, it is one perspective held by many in the ranks of the SBC. There is another.
Consider the words of Herschel H. Hobbs, chairman of the revision committee, to the 1963 BF&M in his commentary on regeneration as affirmed by Southern Baptists.
“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 8:16). 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. Two Greek verbs are translated “repent.” One means to regret something, but does not imply a change of one’s nature. The other means a change of mind, heart, and attitude. It involves a change of attitude. m hating God one loves Him; from loving sin one hates it. Thus one abhors sin not only because of what it does to him, but to god. This is true repentance necessary for regeneration. True repentance will be followed by faith. Indeed, repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace. If one truly repents he will turn to Jesus Christ in faith as his Savior. Faith means to believe. But in its truest sense it is more than intellectual. It involves an act of the will whereby one trusts in Christ and commits himself to Him, His will and way. 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. Bit it is not he end of Christian experience. It is the beginning.”
The above quote was from “The Baptist Faith And Message” written by Dr. Hobbs in 1971 in response to the requests of numerous Southern Baptists seeking clarification on various articles within the BF&M 1963.
Andrew, please forgive the typos in the quote of Dr. Hobbs. Even my proof reading is becoming poor as I continue the journey homeward.
In searching online I found the Mohler interacts with what Hobbs wrote in a book that came out about the BF&M 2000. Alas, it is not in my library!
Andrew,
I have read that interaction of which you speak. I think that interaction does reveal that we do have two specific and credible perspectives among Southern Baptists relating to regeneration as it is affirmed in the BF&M.
Andrew,
Allow me a question here, if you will? Having read the Hobbs article and those of other recognized Southern Baptist theologians, would you agree that those of both perspectives can equally state; Regeneration: I Stand with the BF&M?
It is obvious that the chairman of the 1963 BF&M revision committee would declare that to be true in his case. It is also just as true that the chairman of the 2000 BF&M would declare that to be true in his case. Yet, these two men, who held the same post for a period of time with the same accountability to the SBC, hold differing positions relating to regeneration.
CB
Just to clarify your statement concerning the respective views on regeneration between Hobbs and Rogers… are you saying that their positions were from opposing perspectives?
I am not sure that is an accurate statement. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you have written.
><>”
Bob Hadley,
I need to thank you. I have made an error here. I have here the work from the SBTS faculty on the BF&M 2000. Obviously, I was thinking of Al Mohler as the primary in that particular work and did not write with accuracy in my comment. I apologize for my mistake and thank you for calling it to my attention.
Dr. Hobbs did chair the 1963 committee. Dr. Rogers did chair the 2000 committee.
Dr. Hobbs wrote the commentary on the 1963 BF&M. Dr. Mohler was the editor of the SBTS faculty exposition of the 2000 BF&M.
Again Bob Hadley, thank you for the correction.
Thanks CB for reminding me that I have Dr. Hobb’s book in my office. I offer his insight pertaining to our current dilemma from another quote in his book:
“In all likelihood the only thing that would divide Southern Baptists with regard to their faith would be for one group – to the right or left of center or even in the center – to attempt to force upon others a creedal faith. So long as they hold to the competency of the soul in religion they will remain as one body in the faith.”
The BFM2000 revision diminished long-held Southern Baptist doctrines of soul competency and the priesthood of the believer.
LOL!!
Max,
One thing that Baptist blog comment threads have proven to me in these last several years is that Southern Baptists are an independent thinking people.
Let it suffice for me to state here that I disagree. LOL. I do not believe that the BF&M 2000 has diminished the potency of any biblical doctrines whatsoever.
Max, thanks for the comment. It makes me know that when we say it is by grace alone we are saved, we are right. We could never save ourselves.
CB – Yep, we could never save ourselves. But God … ! It is certainly all of our hope that Baptist ideals would merge properly with sound Biblical doctrine. Baptist distinctives of “soul competency” and “priesthood of the believer” have all but been removed from SB discourse in recent years. Russell Dilday made a good case that the importance of these doctrines had been diminished in the BFM2000 revision. http://www.baptiststandard.com/2001/5_14/pages/dilday.html
It appears I’m not the first Voices writer to take the BF&M this way:
https://sbcvoices.com/regeneration-before-faith/
Andrew, your statement satisfies only Calvinists with its assertion that regeneration precedes repentance & faith; it is not any kind of consensus statement. However, the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 IS. The new Statement of “Traditional Baptist” soteriology does NOT contradict the BFM 2000. You are looking at it, as we are all wont to do, through the lenses of your own beliefs. I understand that. But as has been pointed out previously, there is more than one way to read the BFM statement on regeneration. See if this will help:
1) You as a Calvinist can read it: Regeneration is change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit, which (change of heart then) results in conviction, repentance & faith, BUT …
2) Non-Calvinists can read it: Regeneration is a change of heart –which change of heart happens through the conviction of the Holy Spirit (which must come first) and then the subsequent (free) response of repentance and faith. This view would not see regeneration taking place before faith, but as describing the whole process of being born again.
Thus Calvinists & non-Calvinists alike may adhere to the BFM with a clear conscience. And the non-Calvinist (or “traditional” by their definition) signers of the recent “Statement” are NOT contradicting the BFM in any way in their view, or mine. (I did not sign the Statement, though I agree with it generally, because of concerns with Article II and the free will, among other things, but NOT because of any contradiction with the BFM on regeneration.)
I have no wish to argue with you on which position is right; only that you might see that there is more than one way to interpret the BFM statement on regeneration, and that the BFM is purposefully (and I might add, appropriately) broad enough to include both Calvinist and non-Calvinist understandings. It is broad enough to keep us all under the “big tent” of the BFM for cooperative mission — unless we implode with quarreling over it first.
OK, while I was writing my first response, CB Scott quoted Hobbs, who is a much better statesman for the alternative position than I am. But the point is, there is more than one way to interpret the BFM on regeneration. I am not going to tell you that your Calvinist interpretation is inappropriate; just give those who disagree with you the same courtesy and we can live happily under the “big tent”! If not, there is going to be an ugly war that nobody is going to “win.”
“…there is going to be an ugly war that nobody is going to “win.”
Yep. That is, it is a war that no one in the SBC will win. On the other hand, the minions of hell may count many scalps.
I hope no one is suggesting that my article is fostering division.
Andrew,
I am not suggesting such. Yet, I do fear that more can come of this than is necessary.
For the life of me, I just cannot see this as a hill on which to die…..and I have been on many hills.
Hi Andrew,
By suggesting that the traditional document implies a temporal sequence of faith then regeneration, you are not reading it properly. Your words:
“It is quite clear from this affirmation and denial that signers of this document believe that regeneration comes after a person’s faith. The order is presented this way:
A person hears the gospel.
A person responds to the gospel with repentance and faith.
A person is born again (regenerated) by the Holy Spirit.”
______________________________________________________
Now let’s look at the words of the article itself:
“We affirm that any person who responds to the Gospel with repentance and faith is born again through the power of the Holy Spirit. He is a new creation in Christ and enters, at the moment he believes, into eternal life.
We deny that any person is regenerated prior to or apart from hearing and responding to the Gospel.”
____________________________________
Notice there is no “then” between the words “faith” and “is born again” in the affirmation. There is nothing “quite clear” that this is some sort of temporal sequence. I, for one, see faith and regeneration as simultaneous. I think both a Calvinist and a traditionalist can each be happy with the wording of the BFM. Using a single reading of the BFM to declare the traditionalists in error I think is divisive.
But, far more puzzling in your article is the following statement:
“Regeneration does not save anyone, instead it inclines them to God enables them to respond to the gospel.”
As I read, I think you might be confusing the work of the Spirit in regeneration with some form of effectual call. Regeneration (being “born again”) IS the saving act. It is not only a heart change that simultaneously aligns our faith, it is the work of the Spirit whereby we are experientially joined in union with Christ in his saving work, connecting us to the source of all life and begetting us “from above.” We would NEVER say that regeneration does not save. I think you have just unwittingly made salvation a human work in saying that regeneration is an enabling while faith and repentance (the human effort) follows immediately after. You may want to rethink the precision in your own statement before criticizing perceived imprecision in others’ opinions.
Jim G.
Jim, you’re trying to tear apart my argument by taking bits and pieces and reading them out of context. Do you really think that I have made salvation more a human work?
No, but saying regeneration does not save anyone leaves you open to misconception.
Jim G.
I’ve explained the two primary views on regeneration and cast my lot with the one that views it as prior to exercising faith. You interpret what I said (that regeneration doesn’t effect salvation) through the other view, not through the framework I placed it in.
Hi Andrew,
Then, and I am asking nicely and sincerely, can you help me understand what you mean by “regeneration doesn’t effect salvation?” I want to understand and not misconstrue.
Jim G.
Jim,
Thus it is necessary for the Spirit to change our hearts to take away that opposition, enable us to understand, and incline us towards God. Regeneration does not save anyone, instead it inclines them to God enables them to respond to the gospel. The human response to regeneration—repentance and faith—is immediate.
When the Spirit changes a sinner’s heart towards God, that is what I call regeneration. Even though the sinner immediately responds with repentance and faith, this occurs at the conclusion of the Spirit’s regenerating work. Since the individual isn’t saved until he has placed his faith in Christ, and regeneration is complete prior to the person excercising that faith, I am saying that regeneration does not effect salvation. I am not saying that it doesn’t lead to salvation, since I view the whole process as pretty much instantaneous.
Hi Andrew,
You and I are describing the exact same occurrence. Where we differ is in our use of terminology and in our understanding of exactly how it all works.
The former can be ironed out through meaningful dialogue (what should be going on now, and is in some places) given the differences in the framework through which we see them. The latter will never be completely mastered, for it is a great mystery. The BFM has plenty of room for both sets of terminology, and quite honestly, both interpretive frameworks.
The real difference is the grid through which we interpret these actions. Some of the differences are semantic and others are real. I feel we are going to continue to have some hard discussions on those.
Jim G.
Perhaps, in the service of Christ, the Spirit stirs in us the image of God . . . we hear the call of Christ and we understand that He will lead us to the Father, in whose image we are made,
and we will then become as we were meant to be.
It is said in my Church that ‘Christ leads us into life’.
I know that is not a great theological explanation, but it captures something for me of an image that even a child can understand and I, for one, need that simplicity.
Shawn,
I’ll respond the same way I responded to Rick:
I can see how some can read it and belief it allows for the idea that regeneration follows faith. I think they’re wrong, but that’s more of an issue with how we label things.
However, the Statement denies that it is necessary for the Spirit to effect a heart change prior to us being able to believe. Whether we call that heart change regeneration or not, we need to all agree that it is there.
This is the main distinction:
“However, the Statement denies that it is necessary for the Spirit to effect a heart change prior to us being able to believe. Whether we call that heart change regeneration or not, we need to all agree that it is there.”
Can we please call it “the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the gospel?”
I did say, “please.”
Well, I don’t think it is just a “label”, I think it is a substantive difference. HOWEVER I am pleased that you can see how we may read the BFM either way. Let’s disagree on that point and go on mission together!
I agree that the Holy Spirit must touch us first: you may see that as regeneration; I/others may see it as conviction or drawing or prevenient grace. To be fair to the signers of the Statement, they do believe that the Spirit draws a person through the preached word; they don’t think man can respond without that drawing of the Spirit. But I personally do not agree with Article II as it is written, and hope they will amend it.
“But I personally do not agree with Article II as it is written, and hope they will amend it.”
Shawn Thomas, I do not know you as far as I know, but if I ever meet you, coffee is on me. I agree with you about Article 2.
CB, to my knowledge, I have only seen your name in the blogosphere, and I have not been in the habit of commenting, so I do not think we have met.
If you will make that a latte, (or just let me put a BUNCH of creme and sugar in my coffee!) I will take you up on it! 🙂
Shawn Thomas,
I consider “cream and sugar” in coffee as a second tier doctrine, so you will get no objection from me. 🙂
Maybe we will meet up down New Orleans way.
Andrew,
Do you agree with this statement?
“We deny that any teaching that minimizes, denies, or confuses justification by faith alone can be considered true to the Gospel. We further deny that any teaching that separates regeneration and faith is a true rendering of the Gospel.”
Sounds like a loaded question. Where is this coming from and where are you taking it?
This statement is from the affirmations and denials statement of “Together for the Gospel” and is signed by both Mohler and Dever. Note that it appears to reject the idea that regeneration precedes faith.
Tim
Of course regeneration and faith cannot be separated. When one is regenerated he 100% of the time will believe.
Tim, I hit return too early. But regeneration and faith are not the same thing.
I don’t see how it rejects the idea that regeneration precedes faith. It rejects the idea that people can be regenerated and then not exercise faith.
It does indeed “reject the idea that people can be regenerated and then not exercise faith.” But words mean something. If you suggest that one precedes the other then you have chronologically separated them. So those words cannot mean that chronologically regeneration and faith are separate.
Tim,
Not convinced, especially given that my answer is plausible and even though I don’t know what everyone believes who wrote the document, I know that at least some of them hold that regeneration precedes faith.
Tim,
It does not deny that regeneration precedes faith, just that the two necessarily go together. One will not be regenerated without faith accompanying it, but the regeneration remains the cause of the faith. I love Piper’s analogy: regeneration is like a candle’s light and heat. If you light a candle, you see both light and heat. Which came first? The light is caused by the heat (the chemical reaction), so the heat technically comes first, yet the two naturally accompany each other so that one can speak technically of what comes first, but the experience of them is simultaneous, and yet without the heat, there would be no light.
Regeneration precedes faith, yet the two so naturally accompany each other that the experience of them is simultaneous and they cannot ultimately be separated. One cannot speak of true faith apart from the work of regeneration, and vice versa.
Andrew,
On John 3:3 and 5, the kingdom of God is ultimately heaven. No one doubts that we must be born again before going to be with the Lord in heaven.
God be with you,
Dan
The kingdom of God is not merely heaven. That’s way too simplistic an understanding of the phrase.
Andrew,
I didn’t say merely, I said ultimately – see Revelation 21. In relation to this ultimate meaning, the Kingdom of God is also the millennial kingdom and is also God’s spiritual reign in our hearts. All these borrow from that ultimate meaning.
Your argument seems to take it that the Kingdom of God, in this context primarily means faith (rather than heaven, the millennial kingdom or God’s reign in our hears). But you don’t provide an argument for that view. To be convincing, you need to say more.
God be with you,
Dan
Godismyjudge,
As your tagline says, God is my judge. It was not in my purview to have an in-depth analysis of the kingdom of God. But I believe that the kingdom of God is something that we enter into at conversion, not just at a later date. Thus, if we enter the kingdom of God when we believe, and regeneration is prior to that, it makes sense that regeneration precedes faith.
Andrew,
Minimally, in a logical order, faith precedes entry in to the Kingdom. The reason is that justification must precede entry into the Kingdom, because without justification we are God’s enemies and under a sentence of death. And since justification precedes entry and faith precedes justification, faith precedes entry.
But more generally, once we see that the Kingdom is not faith, the passage loses it’s force as evidence that faith follows regeneration.
God be with you,
Dan
The astute Andrew wrote: “…The word “whereby” is important to our discussion because it gives a sense of order, or sequence. It is equivalent to “by which,” so we could change the word order and restate it…”
He follows with subsequent similar exercises causing me to conclude that his article, interesting as it may be, is not about what the BFM states but rather is about what Andrew says it states.
That you and I both can stand with the BFM is fine by me.
William,
Did you ever do anything at Keith Green’s ministry? Or, were ever involved in anything that had to do with his ministry? I found an old paper from Kieth Green’s ministry in some of my old college cards, letters, etc.; and a William Thornton was on one of them….on some kind of a team??? or something????
Was that you? BTW, I graduated from UTM back in the 1980’s….
David
Nope, not me David.
William,
If my analysis is wrong, please correct me. Otherwise it seems you are denying the validity of analyzing language constructs.
Andrew,
Did you miss my question of you above in this thread?
Probably. I’ve been happily away from the comment stream for most of the afternoon/evening. Could you repeat it?
Well Andrew,
In all truth, I messed the question up and Bob Hadley brought my attention to my error. So I am glad you missed it.
Here is is with an effort to clean it up.
Having read the Hobbs article and those of other recognized Southern Baptist theologians, would you agree that those of both perspectives on regeneration can equally state; Regeneration: I Stand with the BF&M?
It is obvious that the chairman of the 1963 BF&M revision committee would declare that to be true in his case. It is also just as Dr, Mohler a prominent member of the 2000 BF&M revision committee and editor of the SBTS faculty exposition of the same would declare that to be true in his case. Yet, these two men, who held a similar post for a period of time with the same accountability to the SBC, hold differing positions relating to regeneration.
Both would obviously declare: Regeneration: I Stand with the BF&M.
I think the way I’ve outlined it above is correct. If it’s just the question of labels (#2 is regeneration vs. #1-4 together are regeneration), I think they can say they stand with the BF&M, they’re just not using the terms correctly.
If someone denies that man is unable to respond to the gospel without the Spirit effecting a heart change prior to repentance and believe, I don’t see how they can stand with the BF&M.
Can some of you Calvinists tell me something? From reading many, many, many, many comments in the last few days; I have a question. Would yall consider anyone, who doesnt believe in irresistible grace, a Pelagianist? Would you consider anyone, who doesnt believe in regeneration before faith, a Pelagianist?
It’s really sounding that way to me….
David
That is a fair question.
David,
No.
There are two historically orthodox positions.
1. God gives some type of prevenient grace that leads to salvation but can be resisted and not accomplished. (Arminianism)
2. God gives a regenerating grace that will not be resisted and will accomplish salvation to all who receive such grace. (Calvinism)
I understand your desire to not be labeled Arminians, and that is all good and well. But to completely reject both of these positions is to find one’s self outside of historical orthodoxy.
Our concerns are legitimate and are rooted in the poor wording of the document, not merely because the signers are not Calvinists.
Hope this helps whoever stumbles upon it.
Joshua,
I realize that people involved in an Augustinian framework, like Calvinism and Arminianism are, find it hard to believe that there could be something beyond those philosophical ways of looking at things. But, there is. And, its not semi Pelagian. You know, I used to call myself a Biblicist, but Calvinists got mad at me for saying that; because they thought that I was saying that they didnt believe the Bible. I know that Calvinists believe the Bible. I was simply trying to say that I just try to believe what the Bible clearly teaches, without getting into an “ism.”
So, Joshua, and any one else, who’d like to answer, are you telling me that anyone, who’s not a Calvinist, or a Classical Arminian, a semi Pelagian.
David
that should say “is a semi Pelagain?”
David
David,
Can you explain to me what an Augustinian framework is? I understand you find points 1 and 2 to be within that framework, but can you explain what the “philosophical framework” is?
Joshua,
Did you by any chance read Hobbs article on regeneration which I posted above in this comment thread?
CB,
I did. Though it sounded like ruminations that are not easily understood by merely reading the BFM document. I think this a large part of the issue with the new Trads document. The framers are assuming background positions when the document only says what is actually printed on the pages.
I am going to read Hobbs’ statement a few more times though.
Joshua,
Fair enough. As you may have read already, I do have some reservations about Article 2 of the “Trad Doc” (New catchy term if I do say so myself;-).
Nonetheless, my point in posting Dr. Hobbs article in his exposition on the BF&M 1963 was that there seems to be sufficient evidence in our history with the development and affirmation of the BF&M since 1925 to give credibility to two perspectives of regeneration within the SBC, both with strong enough arguments to be considered as orthodox without being labeled as heretical to any degree.
In other words, I am making the argument that the BF&M can be claimed by any biblically sound, theologically orthodox Southern Baptist regardless of his foundational perspective of soteriological dogma and he can do so with complete integrity and honorable intent as a Christ follower.
Can you please tell us about your reservations about the article of the TraDoc?
article 2*
Jeph,
I can assure you my reservations do not amount to me calling theologically sound men heretics or making unfounded accusations in the manner you have accustomed yourself to doing in the last few days.
CB,
Didn’t I already apologized for my past behaviors? Are you having a hard time forgiving me?
So you’d know, I have also asked God for forgiveness from the bottom of my heart. Don’t you think I was heard by God? If God has already forgotten my mistake, never to be traced again in his records, why can’t you?
Shows I’m not the only one here who needs to grow up.
-Jeph
Jeph,
Maybe we have a different concept of an apology. In my understanding of an apology, a guy apologizes and does not make excuses or explanations of justification for the wrongful act. Also, when a guy realizes he was wrong and apologizes, he stops doing what brought about the offense in the first place.
Nonetheless, you think what you will. You are free to do so and I will defend your right to do. Hey, maybe I already have.
Regarding historical orthodoxy, what if history was made last week and we now have a third historical option:
3. God gives all men the capacity to respond to His grace by faith, not of their own initiative, but as the Holy Spirit draws them. (Traditionalism)
AS OPPOSED TO
4. Men initiate a step toward God in their own free will, which is then followed by the grace of God who completes the salvation process. (Semi-Pelagianism)
Rick,
How could number 3 accurately be called a “traditional” Baptist or SBC position?
Do you have evidence of this?
Position 3 is Arminian prevenient grace…
Well I’d rather be called an Arminian than a Semi-Pelagian. We really need a new term, however, since BOTH of those views affirm things I categorically deny. If you call me by those names, you will label me falsely. So, a new term is needed. Let’s go with Traditional.
In suggesting Traditional, I do not mean to imply it is the ONLY tradition HISTORICALLY, but merely that it provides a shorthand way to describe THEOLOGICALLY what I believe, by referencing “A Statement of the TRADITIONAL Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation.”
There are lectures on “Was Calvin a Calvinist?” It is fair, then, for lectures to ask, “Are Traditionalists Traditional?” That does not mean the term has no value. It is much better to speak of a system with its own unique name, however flawed some may consider that name to be, than to call it “Non-Something.”
There are more than two historically orthodox positions. The Eastern Orthodox are neither Calvinist nor Arminian. For that matter, neither are the Anabaptists.
As for the Augustinian framework, I’ve posted that in a few other streams during this past crazy week. Calvinists accept most of Augustine’s ideas on nature and grace. Arminians accept some and reject others, but Arminians (as an offshoot of Reformed thinking) still swim in Augustinian waters. I think that is what David is getting at.
Jim G.
Jim G.
Well, David has left the building it looks like. Would love to hear his explanation of the Augustinian philosophical framework he speaks of.
I go with what Andrew said as it agrees with what I perceive to be the NT’s teaching and consonant with the original confessions, practices, etc., of Sandy Creek Assn. and the Charleston Baptist Assn.
Obviously Calvinists are latching on to the “to which” part of the statement. Are there no English teachers reading? Does the “to which” part necessitate a reading that regeneration precedes faith?
But just as obvious: Since a good many of the framers of the BFM2K are not Calvinists, they obviously are not reading it that way, nor are the many non-Calvinists who adhere to the BFM.
So while, at most, the BFM may grammatically support regeneration before faith, it is clear that the intent was not to support regeneration before faith (or the reverse). Calvinists, you are making too much of this.
If I may add a point in favor of regeneration preceding faith (apart from the BFM). It has been characterized as forcing salvation upon people by changing their will so they want to be saved. I wouldn’t word it that way. It is an opening of blinded eyes are a softening of hardened hearts so that they know and understand the truth, and thus they respond.
Look at it this way: If a person is drowning and you throw them a lifeline, the normal, rational, reasonable response is to grab the line. But if the person is wearing a blindfold and has earplugs in, they don’t even know the lifeline is there, can’t hear you calling, and will certainly not grab it. Regeneration does not making people who were previously unwilling to grab the line suddenly want to grab it. It unties the hands and removes the earplugs, so that they hear the call and grab the line.
So perhaps irresistable grace is a poor choice of words, because it gives rise to the idea that God is doing something against our will. I would rather think of it as God freeing our will from its slavery, and that will responding normally. No one comes to Christ against their will. No one who wishes to come to Christ is refused.
Take away the theological terminology, and are we that far apart? I know non-Calvinists believe and pray for God to open people’s eyes, and soften their hearts to believe the Gospel. I know they do. So they are praying for God to do what Calvinists call regeneration. They just don’t call it that.
TULIP is useful but not a perfect explicator of “Calvinist” theology. We should not hesitate to think through it and try to do better.
I think TULIP to be an excellent rendering of reformed theology. It is the best way to explain in detail what I believe scripture to be teaching. And it starts where it should start with Total Depravity.
I think until we understand the gravity of the Fall and who we are before Christ, it does have an impact in how we view salvation which I too believe begins with regeneration. To see the need for regeneration before faith, I think we have to understand Total Depravity.
And each one of the doctrines of Tulip along with Predestination and Reprobation are invitations to be saved…as every one would discover, if they went looking for examples in the Bible. Yes, the Lord does provide examples in His ministry of using these truths with those who have not been converted Why? Could it be, because they are soul winning truths? I think so, and have operated on that basis for years. What we need now are Conferences on SOVEREIGN GRACE EVANGELISM, where preachers preach who can all attention to the instances in Holy Scripture where the doctrines of grace are illustrated in evangelistic situations.
Michael Horton in “What Is Reformed Theology” says this in which I agree:
“We actually inherit the moral corruption and the guilt of Adam. We enter the human race as God’s enemies, guilty enough to be condemned even before our first actual act of disobedience. “In sin,” the
Psalmist confessed, “my mother conceived me.” This means that it is impossible for us to lift a finger to cooperate with God in our own salvation.”
Amen Debbie! And I learned that from the Bible without reading a single reformed theologian, even though they do have some good things to say and they get a lot of their ideas from the Book. While I am no Landmarker, I do think our predecessors and ancestors were dying for these truths before any of the Reformers got started. God just don’t care much for pride of lineage as He indicated by His willingness to raise up children to Abraham from the stones.
While wandering through the stacks at SEBTS one day back in 72-73, during my first year in seminary, doing what my professor in Black History at Lincoln Univ., Dr. Lorenzo J. Greene, advised, namely, going down a shelf of books, pulling one down here and there, looking at the title page, author, table of contents and index, leafing through the pages, I came across a statement in an introduction that really turned me on. It was in Dr. Eusden’s Introduction to his translation of William Ames’ The Marrow of Divinity, published by United Church Press (Dr. Eusden was chaplain and professor at Williams College in Maine). Ames’ work was the first textbook in theology ever used at Harvard (or so I understand) back in the 1600s. In that introduction, Eusden said, “Predestination is an invitation to begin one’s spiritual pilgrimage….” I checked that book out, took it home and read it. Eusden was saying, in essence, that was what the Puritan Ames was about. I begin looking through the Bible for examples of the truths of Predestination, Total Depravity/Inability, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement/Particular Redemption, Irresistible/Efficacious Grace, Perseverance/Preservation of the Saints, and, finally, Reprobation being used as invitations. One of the first sermons I ever preached on the subject was on the text, Romans 9:13, bearing the title, The hardest Text in the Bible, and my theme was that it was an invitation to receive God as He really and truly is. We are invited to receive God, first, who does not think like we do (we conceal our thoughts from others, while God just lets them all hang out), “as it is written,” is the basis for this first topic. Second, Who does not love like we do, “Jacob have I loved.” The strangest fact of all in our text is not that God hated Esau; it is that He chose to love Jacob, ergo, how in the world could He every love a sorry creature like me. Third, Who does not act like we do, “Esau have I hated.” What one has to note is how God treated Esau after saying He hated him. Esau could have well said, “With an enemy like that who needs any friends.” First born, greatest honor among the Jews, head honcho of the family, priestly type position, and the only man who we know got more than enough. He said, “I have enough,” and Jacob pressed his gifts upon Esau and Esau took them. And all of this great treatment while Esau was treating such gifts in the most profane manner, trampling them under foot. John Gill said, “God treats the wicked so well, that no one in his right mind could condemn God for send them to Hell.” (seeing how they repaid His kindness). I preached the message in one revival and had a number of conversions. Thanks be to the Lord.
What is even also interesting is that the first time I preached that message was in a regular chapel service at SEBTS on Jan.29, 1975. What I would learn later was that that date was also the birthday of a fellow who was born probably about 7-8 miles from the parsonage of the Gum Springs Baptist Church. His birthday was Jan.29, 1798, and his name was Basil Manly, Sr. It was the 177 anniversary of the fellow who suggested the founding of Southern Seminary in 1835 and who led the SBC’s Educational Conventions in 1857,1858, and 1859 in founding and establishing the Seminary. He also served as the first President of the Board of Trustees, and a preacher boy from his most noted pastorate, FBC of Charleston, was the first President of Southern, Dr. James Petigru Boyce. One of his sons, Basil, Jr., with the help of A.M. Poindexter, drew up the Abstract of Principles for Southern, the same one that was used at SEBTS. I should also add that Basil, Sr., was the clerk of the Sandy Creek Baptist Assn. in 1816, where he also served on the Committee chaired by Luther Rice that drew up the Sandy Creek Confession of Faith of 1816. One could rightly say that Manly, Sr., was the source of the Sovereign Grace views or calvinism of our seminaries, a very humane, kind, and appealing view point where Dr. Boyce could chide a student in response to his negativity toward the Doctrines of Grace that he wished he could persuade him of such truths. Note the kindness.