Garrett vs. Dr. Ligon Duncan

Through the years I have written critical analyses against several men who wrote apologetically for the proposition "regeneration precedes faith." One of those men was Dr. J. Ligon Duncan III and his article titled "UNDERSTANDING THE TIMES Which Came First? Faith or Regeneration," July 20, 2005. I referred to it in my blog when I wrote against his thesis in that article. (See here) I wrote it in 2009.

The credentials of Dr. Duncan are quite well known in Calvinist circles, he being a leading Presbyterian of the Calvinist tradition. Dr. Duncan did communicate with me as I wrote a series on his error. Let me cite a few paragraphs from that analysis. 

To them the whole gospel rests upon this question! To them, if one does not put regeneration and salvation before faith, then he is unsound in the gospel or not preaching the gospel at all.

Duncan continues:

"To begin with, this issue involves the heart of the good news and the grace of God. One’s answer to this question necessarily reflects one’s understanding of the whole of the gospel message. For instance, if you say that belief must precede the new birth, then you must also say (1) that all men are not really spiritually dead before regeneration; (2) that saving faith is not a gift of God; (3) that the natural man does accept the things of the Spirit; (4) that an unbeliever can believe at any time by his own power, apart from God’s regeneration; and, (5) that men can come to Christ without the Father drawing them."

Are these five consequences true logical deductions, reductio ad absurdum, of those who put faith before regeneration?

------------------------

The scriptures do put faith before salvation, including rebirth. This does not mean that there is any gap in time between faith and the new birth. As soon as one believes, he is born again. And, we can say the same thing in the reverse. As soon as one is born again, he believes. Still, when two things are mentioned, one must be put first and the scriptures more often than not put faith before salvation, including regeneration.

According to Duncan, the great Calvinist theologians, such as John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Jonathan Edwards, Archibald Alexander, John Gill, Abraham Booth, Charles Spurgeon, etc., men who did not put the new birth prior to faith, were men who did not understand the basic gospel! Were men who were guilty of the five consequences listed by Duncan? Duncan says John Calvin and Martin Luther, because they did not put the new birth before faith, did not believe men were spiritually dead prior to faith and regeneration! Were men who did not believe faith was a gift of God! Were men who believed that the natural man received the things of the Spirit and could believe at any time they choose! Were men who believed that sinners could come to Christ without being first drawn!

Does putting faith before regeneration cause one to logically deny that sinners are spiritually dead? I have dealt with this accusation before.

But such an argument wrongly assumes that unbelief (or the absence of faith) is not an essential part of spiritual death. Likewise, it wrongly assumes that belief (or faith) is not an essential part of spiritual life.

Duncan continues:

"Now, these are serious contentions, to say the least. Moreover, there is a real danger of losing sight of vital biblical truth in our generation if we do not come to grips with this question. Two of the great emphases bequeathed to evangelical Christians from the sixteenth century reformers by our Lutheran and Calvinist forebears, in their Herculean labor to recover the biblical gospel, are the inability of man and the sovereign grace of God in salvation. These biblical doctrines are compromised by the assertion that faith precedes regeneration."

And what is Duncan trying to do? Is he not trying to be a "reformer" himself? Is he not trying to "refine" the teachings of Luther and Calvin? He apparently doesn't believe that Calvin or Luther went far enough. This is what I hear from Hyperists all the time. They claim to be the refiners of what these first reformers taught! He is wiser than they! He is the corrector of these men! What pride and arrogance!

It is underhanded for Duncan to use the names of Luther and Calvin in such a manner as to leave the impression that these men agreed with him and the Hyperists in putting regeneration before faith. They are really inconsistent and contradictory on this matter. In one breath they will claim agreement with Luther and Calvin on the "ordo salutis," and then, in the other breath, say that they are improving and refining their views! They will in one breath say that these men were in agreement with them, and then say, in the other breath, that these men did not distinguish between regeneration and conversion!

Duncan accuses Luther and Calvin of compromising Biblical truth, yea, the gospel itself, by their putting of faith before regeneration! By Duncan's judgment, these men were in great error, and denied the gospel, all because they did not put regeneration before faith!

Duncan is a Presbyterian and it is ironic that he goes against the great Calvinist leaders of his own denomination! Not only Calvin, but also men like Jonathan Edwards and Archibald Alexander, did not put regeneration before faith, and are thus guilty of denying the heart of the gospel!

----------------

Duncan writes:

"There are many well-meaning evangelicals today who are quite adamant in their assertion that faith precedes regeneration, and it would not be difficult to multiply examples. For instance, one theologian recently insisted that God cannot (and, to say the same thing, God will not) regenerate a heart that will not admit him. More often, though, we hear it put positively: any person who is willing to trust in Christ as his personal Savior and Lord can receive the new birth."

Duncan here is truly ironic, if not hypocritical. It is laughable, that he, as a Hyperist, speaks of his counterparts, those who do not put regeneration before faith, be he a true Calvinist or Classical Arminian, as they who are "quite adamant in their assertion that faith precedes regeneration." I dare say that he and his Hyper Calvinist associates, such as those who participated with him in the T4G conference, far outdo his counterparts in their being "adamant" about regeneration preceding faith! It is Duncan and the Hyperist who say that getting the "ordo salutis" correct is the heart of the gospel! Also, it is the Hyperist view that may best be described as "assertion," not the classical view.

In the first couple of years writing in the Baptist Gadfly I wrote against a lot of the proponents of the born again before faith error. Besides Duncan I dissected the writings of R.C. Sproul, James White, Tom Ascol, and others of the same caliber.