I have no fear of such a discussion. I am confident that what I teach on the subject (that faith precedes the new birth) is expressly taught in scripture and can show how the other side can find no express statement to the contrary. They rather rely on inference and deductive reasoning rather than plain statements of scripture to support their unbiblical proposition. If, however, I am wrong, I am willing to be corrected. Anyone want to help me out here?
Tuesday, October 12, 2021
No One Wants To Defend It
Like Bob L. Ross, my dear departed brother, I have fought long against the "born again (or regenerated) before faith" error. For many years I have challenged many Calvinists who affirm such a proposition to defend it in reasoned debate. I challenged James White to debate it but he ignored the challenge, though we had some exchanges on the subject. He simply accused me of being a follower of Bob Ross who was his nemesis on this issue (Bob and Charles took him to task often in their blog "The Calvinist Flyswatter"). Nobody who espouses this proposition wants to debate it. What does that say? They will often be willing to debate other points, but why not this one? Will anyone come forward to defend it in discussion here in the Old Baptist Test?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Who could possibly "help" you in this matter? Where there is no problem, there is no need for help! They cannot defend what does not exist. This one issue is the crux of hyper Calvinist thought. They are the exact opposite of hyper Arminianism. The former teaches "Spirit alone" the latter teaches "Word alone".....both are gross error. Both Word and Spirit must be present. Just as Jesus asked the boy for his few loaves and fishes, and by the power of God saw it multiplied and passed around to feed the thousands, so too does the Word ask us for what little faith we have, and the Spirit multiplies it into saving faith, a faith that is passed around to feed thousands.
No one will debate this point because most view birth as at least concurrent with faith and only argue that birth precedes faith as a logical order, not an order of temporal sequence. Passages of Scripture that give priority to the divine origin of faith in man are all that are necessary to establish this logical order, they do not prove that birth can be thought to have occurred apart from faith - in fact the Scripture militates against this conclusion since faith in man is the very thing effected by divine power.
Now, passages that may appear to give priority to faith in man as in faith preceding regeneration, are not generally thought, even by Arminians, to establish that God’s grace has not instigated the occasion of faith - classic Arminianism affirms prevenient grace. Even in Arminianism, faith is effected after the instigation of God and would only be logically prior to regeneration, not apart from it in time.
-Jason
No one will debate this point because most view birth as at least concurrent with faith and only argue that birth precedes faith as a logical order, not an order of temporal sequence."
Jason, you know that this is not the view of most Hardshells since the 19th century. You know that they teach that millions are born again who have no faith in Christ. Now, if some few are returning to orthodoxy in saying that faith and regeneration go together (thank God for that advance) that does not negate what has been the view of the cult for over a century. Hardshells say faith in Christ is not necessary to regeneration, at least cognitive faith (for many say "faith" is a non cognitive thing).
God acting first to bring about regeneration does not prove that men are regenerated before faith. That is a non sequitur. Regeneration refers to the effect of God's work, not to the work itself, for that would have God experiencing regeneration.
Further, as Spurgeon and other Calvinists have taught, there is prevenient grace, as well as common grace. Grace must precede faith and regeneration but this is not the same as saying regeneration precedes faith or itself. Are you saying that any preparatory work of God before regeneration must be regeneration? You seem to argue this point.
Again, Jesus said that men come to him for life (John 5: 40). The coming precedes the obtaining of life. The coming is equated with believing in and receiving Christ.
God worked the faith and the regeneration that followed. If regeneration precedes faith then it also precedes union with Christ for the union is effected by faith. You would have a regenerated unbeliever, a regeneration that does not in any sense depend upon faith. That is untenable.
Thanks for the comment
Stephen
Said Spurgeon:
He states in his sermon (#656) on this subject:
Now let me show you how God’s grace does come to work on the human heart so as to make it good soil before the living seed is cast into it, so that before quickening grace really visits it the heart may be called a good heart, because it is prepared to receive that grace.
I think this takes place thus: first of all, before quickening grace comes, God often gives an attentive ear, and makes a man willing to listen to the Word. Not only does he like to listen to it, but he wants to know the meaning of it; there is a little excitement in his mind to know what the gospel tidings really are. He is not saved as yet, but it is always a hopeful sign when a man is willing to listen to the truth, and is anxious to understand it. This is one thing which prevenient grace does in making the soul good.
In Ezekiel’s vision, as you will recollect, before the breath came from the four winds the bones began to stir, and they came together bone to his bone. So, before the Spirit of God comes to a man in effectual calling, God’s grace often comes to make a stir in the man’s mind, so that he is no longer indifferent to the truth, but is anxious to understand what it means.
Stephen
Calvin himself does not hold the view of regeneration preceding faith in the same way as todays hyper Calvinist…” It may be thought that the Evangelist reverses the natural order by making regeneration to precede faith, whereas, on the contrary, it is an effect of faith, and therefore ought to be placed later. I reply, that both statements perfectly agree; because by faith we receive the incorruptible seed, (1 Peter 1:23,) by which we are born again to a new and divine life. And yet faith itself is a work of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in none but the children of God. So then, in various respects, faith is a part of our regeneration, and an entrance into the kingdom of God, that he may reckon us among his children”. Calvin, commentary, John 1:13
Calvin said this: “ It may be thought that the Evangelist reverses the natural order by making regeneration to precede faith, whereas, on the contrary, it is an effect of faith, and therefore ought to be placed later. I reply, that both statements perfectly agree; because by faith we receive the incorruptible seed, (1 Peter 1:23,) by which we are born again to a new and divine life. And yet faith itself is a work of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in none but the children of God. So then, in various respects, faith is a part of our regeneration, and an entrance into the kingdom of God, that he may reckon us among his children”.
Dear brother Ken:
Yes, we are familiar with this citation from Calvin. I have cited Calvin a lot on this issue. He taught that faith had the priority because faith unites to Christ and all follows union.
Thanks for the visit and comment.
Stephen
Post a Comment