It seems to me that the main thrust of this blog is the error of the hardshell faction of Primitive Baptists, specifically the belief that God regenerates BEFORE conversion, and that He regenerates without means, without hearing the Gospel. It is my theory, that they acquired this heresy from reformed theology, and took it even further. As I have shown in previous articles, Reformed theology teaches "means" on one hand, including unscriptural ones (sacraments, including baptism) and the Gospel (the only means in my view).
However, many Reformed folk also teach that God has regenerated many who are never converted and who never hear the Gospel. Many more think it is possible but just aren't sure. I am well aware that "Reformed Baptists" definitely hold these teachers in high esteem, so I must assume that the same thoughts about regeneration occurring BEFORE conversion, and regeneration and WITHOUT conversion are part of their theological thoughts as well. To date, I have not been able to find any reformed pastors who totally rule out "regeneration without conversion", except for the non Calvinist type like the Cumberland Presbyterians.. Let's see what some famous Reformed teachers have to say.
RC Sproul: "God may grant his mercy unilaterally at some point..." Sproul has also adopted giving Communion to baptized infants. (from Ligonier.org)
Daniel Strange: "The possibility of salvation among the unevangelized is very real." (He wrote a book on such titled "The Possibility of Salvation Among the Unevangelized: An Analysis of Inclusivism")
Millard Erickson: "The basis of acceptance would be the work of Jesus Christ, even though
the person involved is not conscious that this is how provision has been
made for his salvation. . . ."(from thegospelcoalition.com) His saying that God has made "provision" seems odd since "Provisionalism" is the term used by non Calvinists.
Clark Pinnock: “I agree that inclusivism is not a central topic of discussion in the Bible and the evidence for it is less than one would like. But the vision of God’s love there is so strong that the existing evidence seems sufficient to me.”
The Westminster Confession: “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.” (Notice it says "elect infants, not ALL infants. I reject this, as I believe ALL dying in infancy are among the elect, but more on this later. Also, to whom does "incapable" refer? Some would say those with mental disabilites, but again it says "elect" not "all". "Incapable" could also mean they simply have no way to hear the Gospel because no one has preached it to them.)
Reformed theologian Schleiermacher actually argued for universalism.
Second Halvetic Confession: "We recognize that God can illuminate whom and when he will, even without external ministry, for that is in his power." (Does "external ministry" include hearing the Gospel?)
Herman Bavinck Dutch Reformed theologian: "...the Reformed refused to establish the measure of grace needed for a human being still to be united with God, though subject to many errors and sins, or to determine the extent of the knowledge indispensably necessary to salvation. Furthermore, they maintained that the means of grace are not absolutely necessary for salvation and that also apart from the Word and sacraments God can regenerate persons for eternal life."
Reformed theology gets stranger the further I dig into it. Why is it necessary to receive grace by "means", sacrament and Word for some, but for others no means are necessary? On this I have to "defend" the hardshells, because if God does indeed regenerate persons without means, then He would do so far ALL. It seems to me that they define "unconditional" differently than those who are calvinistic but NOT reformed.
Is it possible the hardshells gleaned their "new" Baptist doctrine from the Reformed Presbyterians? I think it's very likely that they did along with "time" or "temporal" salvation, the main difference being that the Reformed position says even the non elect can have "temporal salvation" and can be "illuminated by the Spirit for a while, only to be finally lost and damned for the glory of God." I totally reject both of these premises. The former for teaching that the regenerated need not know the Truth in this life, the latter for claiming that God abandons any he has illuminated by His Spirit. This belief is like a piece of string. If put in a straight line with Reformed Calvinism on one end and Arminianism on the other, it appears that they are very far apart. But if you take the string and make a circle, the two opposite ends actually touch and become indistinguishable. In both camps one can "lose" his salvation. In both camps, you can never be sure if you are truly saved. Do you KNOW you have life? Jesus said you can! Ken Mann
No comments:
Post a Comment