Next, Dr. James White addresses the question as to whether the great Catholic apologist, Thomas Aquinas (died 1274), taught the born again before faith view. He begins by saying:
"I will be brief here as I’m not usually in the habit of defending Thomas Aquinas. But to say that he did not hold to regeneration preceding faith is not correct. The following citations are from the First Part of Book Two, Question 113 of his Summa Theologica.
In Article 8, he stated that the “infusion of grace” is the cause and “naturally prior” to “whatever is required” for justification.
On the contrary, The cause is naturally prior to its effect. Now the infusion of grace is the cause of whatever is required for the justification of the ungodly, as stated above (Article [7]). Therefore it is naturally prior to it."
Surely White knows that Aquinas believed that regeneration occurred in water baptism, just as Augustine. Aquinas in Summa Theologiae, Second Part, "Question 66. The sacrament of Baptism," wrote (emphasis mine):
"He also sets down two things as pertaining to the ultimate reality of the sacrament—namely, “regeneration” which refers to the fact that man by being baptized begins the new life of righteousness; and “enlightenment,” which refers especially to faith, by which man receives spiritual life, according to Habakkuk 2 (Hebrews 10:38; cf. Habakkuk 2:4): “But (My) just man lives by faith”; and Baptism is a sort of protestation of faith; whence it is called the “Sacrament of Faith.”"
Notice that Aquinas says that it is by faith that a man receives spiritual life and in baptism regeneration occurs. So, for White or Sproul to say that Aquinas taught that sinners are regenerated or born again before faith or baptism is false. Just because Aquinas says that grace is infused before a sinner wills to be saved does not mean that the infusion of grace was regeneration, but it was what preceded an eventual regeneration. Aquinas also believed that when Jesus spoke of being born again "of water and of Spirit" (John 3:5) that the water was baptism and he also believed that "the washing of regeneration" (Titus 3:5) denoted being regenerated in water baptism.
In Question 68 Aquinas wrote the following about being born of water is a reference to water baptism:
"On the contrary, It is written (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Again it is stated in De Eccl. Dogm. xli, that "we believe the way of salvation to be open to those only who are baptized."
And he also wrote:
"But for this end is Baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be incorporated in Christ, by becoming His member: wherefore it is written (Galatians 3:27): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ." Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men."
Here are plain statements that show that Aquinas did not believe that regeneration or rebirth precedes faith. So, when White tries to read into Aquinas his view (that regeneration precedes faith) from the fact that Aquinas says grace must be given or infused prior to faith, or prior to willing to be saved, he is misinterpreting Aquinas.
Aquinas also wrote in the same section:
"Reply to Objection 1. At no time, not even before the coming of Christ, could men be saved unless they became members of Christ: because, as it is written (Acts 4:12), "there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." But before Christ's coming, men were incorporated in Christ by faith in His future coming: of which faith circumcision was the "seal," as the Apostle calls it (Romans 4:11): whereas before circumcision was instituted, men were incorporated in Christ by "faith alone," as Gregory says (Moral. iv), together with the offering of sacrifices, by means of which the Fathers of old made profession of their faith. Again, since Christ's coming, men are incorporated in Christ by faith; according to Ephesians 3:17: "That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts.""
Could anything be more clear? Incorporation into Christ occurs in regeneration, and Aquinas says this incorporation into Christ occurs after faith. A person is not joined to Christ, is not "in Christ," before he believes or receives Christ by faith.
White wrote further in his commentary on things Aquinas said:
"Following this, he then stated that God’s part “is the infusion of grace” – which is turning man’s free will towards God. Aquinas is speaking of “order” here – the first in line is the infusion of grace and then man’s faith. Now the motion of God the Mover is the infusion of grace, as stated above (Article [6]); the movement or disposition of the moved is the free-will’s double movement; and the term or end of the movement is the remission of sin, as stated above (Article [6]). Hence in their natural order the first in the justification of the ungodly is the infusion of grace; the second is the free-will’s movement towards God."
So, how do the words of Aquinas affirm regeneration before faith? And, if they did, would that not contradict what he plainly said in the citations I gave above? Further, if I understand Aquinas rightly, he does say that God first moves the will, but he also says that the sinner's "free will" also is a mover, so that it is both wills acting together ("double movement") that bring remission of sin and all that is connected with it.
White wrote further:
"If we go back to Article 6, as referenced above, we see that grace is the cause of man’s will leading to faith.
"The entire justification of the ungodly consists as to its origin in the infusion of grace. For it is by grace that free-will is moved and sin is remitted."
But, for White's inference from the words of Aquinas (in red) to be proof that he believed in regeneration before faith, you would have to have good reason to believe that by "infusion of grace" Aquinas means regeneration. Where is the evidence that this is what Aquinas meant? I have already cited texts like Acts 18:27 where we are told of people who had "believed through grace." That does not equate, however, to mean "believed through the grace of regeneration." White is reading his interpretation into the words of Aquinas. White and Sproul have it in their minds that the first giving of grace to a person has to be regeneration, that there can be no pre-regeneration grace. But, that is an error, and one that Calvin and the old Calvinist Reformers did not believe. I have already shown where Aquinas believed in prevenient grace, grace that precedes salvation.
Dr. Sproul in his article "Regeneration Precedes Faith" (see here) said (emphasis mine):
"No man has the power to raise himself from spiritual death. Divine assistance is necessary. This grace, according to Rome, comes in the form of what is called prevenient grace. "Prevenient" means that which comes from something else. Rome adds to this prevenient grace the requirement that we must "cooperate with it and assent to it" before it can take hold in our hearts."
Where is the proof that the great apologist for Catholicism disagreed with that?
White wrote further:
"Then, going back to Article 8 we see that this infusion leading to our wills having faith and our sins remitted relate to God’s justification. In all of it, “grace is the cause of the forgiveness of sin and of obtaining of justice”.
"And since the infusion of grace and the remission of sin regard God Who justifies, hence in the order of nature the infusion of grace is prior to the freeing from sin. But if we look at what is on the part of the man justified, it is the other way about, since in the order of nature the being freed from sin is prior to the obtaining of justifying grace. Or it may be said that the term “whence” of justification is sin; and the term “whereto” is justice; and that grace is the cause of the forgiveness of sin and of obtaining of justice."
(emphasis by Dr. White)
So again, I ask, how does admission that grace precedes faith (as Acts 18: 27 also plainly says) by Aquinas prove that he believed regeneration preceded faith? All Arminians admit that grace precedes faith, but they do not mean that they believe regeneration precedes faith.
White wrote further:
"And lastly, from his comments on 2 Corinthians 3:3, Aquinas wrote the following. Men’s hearts were “made receptive as a result of filling and understanding”, and then he quoted Ezekiel 36:26.
"It is written not with ink, I say, but with the Spirit of the living God, i.e., by the Holy Spirit, by whom you live and by whose teaching you have been instructed: “In whom you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit” (Eph. 1:13). He suggests where it is written, when he says, not on tablets of stone, as the Old Law, to exclude hardness; as if to say: not in the stony hearts of the hard-hearted, as the Jews: “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit” (Ac. 7:51); but on tablets of human hearts, i.e., hearts opened by charity, and human, i.e., made receptive as a result of filling and understanding: “I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh” (Ez. 36:26)." (emphasis by Dr. White)
Again, these words do not mean what White thinks they mean. Aquinas quotes Ephesians 1:13 which says that being "sealed with the promised Holy Spirit" occurs "after you believed." I also suggest that the writing that God does on the tables of the heart is not done apart from faith. Do we not read in the Bible where God exhorts people to write his word upon their hearts and minds? (Prov. 3: 3; 7:3) The bible is clear that the benefits of the new covenant are received by grace through faith, and having God's word written on the tablet of the heart is one of those benefits. This is the clear message of the Book of Hebrews.
White concludes by saying:
"We have read how Augustine, The Council of Orange, and Aquinas each were relating their belief that the infusion of Grace that we receive prior to coming to faith is an active and effectual infusion leading to “all men gladly assenting”. All who received this infusion of Grace through the removal of the heart of stone would then have faith. Certainly the most compelling statements we have read above were those of Augustine where he clearly established his belief that there must first be an act of regeneration (the turning of the heart from stone to flesh) before a man can come to faith. But Augustine’s clarity may be the most detrimental to Dr. Allen’s assertion here because it is Augustinianism that is a chief villain in this story Dr. Allen is presenting."
I don't believe that Augustine, Aquinas, nor the Council canons of Orange, said that all who receive grace would become believers, nor that they said that the heart of stone must first be removed before faith is possible. White is misinterpreting those people and twisting what those men meant. If Augustine, as White affirms, "clearly established his belief that there must first be an act of regeneration before a man can have faith," why can White not simply give us where Augustine said that? I have already shown where he said just the opposite. I suggest that White not only reads his view into the writings of the men we have been examining, but he also reads his born again before faith view into the sacred writings. But, more on that in the chapters to follow.
When I did a Google search asking the question - "who taught the regeneration before faith view prior to Calvin" I got the response from AI that said both Augustine and Aquinas. Why was that? I then responded to AI and said - "both Augustine and Aquinas did not believe regeneration preceded faith." AI responded by saying "you are right." The only source AI had for the incorrect view was R.C. Sproul! AI said:
"You are completely correct, and that is an important historical correction. Neither Augustine nor Thomas Aquinas taught that "regeneration precedes faith" in the way modern Reformed theology defines it.
The claim that they did is a well-known historical misnomer, largely popularized by modern Reformed theologians like R.C. Sproul. Sproul famously wrote that "Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin...and even Thomas Aquinas" taught that regeneration precedes faith. However, church historians and historical theologians have heavily criticized this reading for anachronistically imposing a later Calvinist framework onto early and medieval church fathers."
AI gives as sources the following: 1) the article I have been critiquing from Sproul "Regeneration Precedes Faith," (here) and 2) the article from Daniel Musick "Faith Precedes Regeneration" (here), and 3) an article from Sproul "The New Birth" (here), and 4) an excellent article from Derek DeMars "Does Regeneration Precede Faith? Examining the Evidence." (here)
The two articles from Musick and DeMars completely refute the born again before faith view and show that this was not the view of Augustine, Aquinas, and the first Calvinist Reformers. The article by Musick was a great help to me in writing these first several chapters in this series. Also, I just read the article by DeMars and I also found it a very good article, expressing my own views generally. Let me cite from some things DeMars said in that article. All emphasis mine, except where words are in red.
“Regeneration precedes faith!” This statement has become a popular slogan among some contemporary Calvinist Christians. It summarizes the theological view that before anyone is able to put their faith in Jesus for salvation, they have to have already been spiritually born again (or regenerated) by a prior work of God within them. Then, and only then, are they capable of exercising faith."
"I’ll explain all this below. But at the start, let me just say to everyone reading this that if you personally lean more Calvinistic, this post is not intended as a tearing-down of Calvinism in general. Please keep in mind from the outset what I just wrote: most Calvinists throughout history have not taught or believed that “regeneration precedes faith!” It’s actually important for you to know that this doctrine is not essential for a Calvinist theological system. And, as I will seek to show below, it is also not biblical."
"For a systematic treatment of this topic by two modern Calvinists who conclude that regeneration does NOT precede faith, see Bruce Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, 264-65, and Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed., 944-59. For much of the below, I’m indebted to the discussion in David Allen, “Does Regeneration Precede Faith?” JBTM 11:2 (Fall 2014)."
"So Where Did This Doctrine Come From?
Not only is the Bible against it, but church history also stands against the false notion of regeneration preceding faith.
Prior to the Reformation, no one saw this idea taught in Scripture. Even after the Reformation, it was the view of only a small minority. None of the major classical theologians taught it — neither Augustine, nor the early church councils, nor Aquinas. Not even such figureheads of Calvinism as Calvin himself, Beza, Edwards, or Spurgeon taught it! (See Allen, “Does Regeneration Precede Faith?” 48-51.)"
"In other words, the idea that regeneration precedes faith does not come from the clear exegesis of Scripture, nor is it accepted Christian tradition. Rather, it is read into Scripture by a small minority of extreme Calvinists who want the Bible to support their system. It is eisegesis. And it is false."
"Concluding Thoughts. So, here’s the takeaway. If you’re a Calvinist, you could still argue that individual election and an effectual calling precede both faith and regeneration. You can argue from verses like Rom 8:28-30 or 1 Cor 1:26-31 that God effectually and irresistibly calls those whom he has unconditionally elected, and that the effectual call produces faith within the elect so that they can then be saved/regenerated. In that sense, God would still be granting the elect their faith. Non-Calvinists will debate that interpretation and deny the notion of an irresistible call, but you’d at least have a case to present. But don’t say the Bible teaches that regeneration precedes faith. It doesn’t."
"If you're not a Calvinist, don’t let anyone confuse you by throwing a bunch of verses around out of context and trying to say that regeneration precedes faith. Christians can still affirm the reality of spiritual death and our inability to save ourselves without thereby having to deny any human moral agency in salvation."
"And for all of us, remember that one thing we can all agree on is that salvation is by God’s grace through faith. Keep in mind that we are all simply trying to make sense out of how it is that God’s grace saves us, and how it “is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph 2:8-9)."
Amen
No comments:
Post a Comment