I have noticed in my perusals of some of the so-called defenses of time salvation the consistent failure of its proponents to give a definition which captures the essence of its teaching. In most every attempt that I have ever read, the author always gives it a very modest definition. Instead of defining what it truly is and what it teaches in its extreme form, our modernists often skirt the issue by stating that it has to do with the "blessings in this life" or that God often rescues His people from temporary dangers, all the while neglecting to address the real issues which are at stake. Some of those issues include:
What is the purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ?
What is the correct interpretation, using sound hermeneutics, of those Biblical passages which connect the reception of the gospel with salvation (e.g. Romans 1:16; Romans 10; James 1:18)?
Is faith in Christ necessary for salvation?
Do the scriptures teach that conversion and sanctification are definite elements of eternal salvation?
It is not at all obvious to the reader that these are the real issues under consideration based on the superficial definitions of time salvation often presented. Notice in the citations we inscribe below the omission of weightier theological subjects such as regeneration, faith, conversion, justification, sanctification, or perseverance, which is actually what the doctrine actually compromises.
First, we have a statement from Elder Robert Webb (emphasis mine - KF):
"My understanding of the term has reference to the blessing of obedience here in time. 'If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.' Isaiah 1:19,20 In other words there is a deliverance from the chastening rod of God and a salvation or deliverance from the pitfalls found in serving idols, living in sin, and all the unhappiness a child of God experiences by his disobedience to God. By the Child of Gods obedience to God's Word he is saved (blessed) here in time."
http://www.carthage.lib.il.us/community/churches/primbap/Comments1.html
Here we see that time salvation, according to the author, refers to the blessing of obedience here in time.
So all that the teaching means is that God blesses His people while in this life? Well, who denies that? If this is the summation of its assertion, then count me as an adherent along with all of Christendom. But unfortunately, this is not an appropriate disclosure of what this heresy suggests, and it's sad if there are church folks who think it is.
If this is all that time salvation amounts to, then why is there currently a controversy among the Primitive Baptists? Do those who have left the teaching of time salvation no longer believe that God blesses His people's obedience here in time? It's laughable to even consider such a thing. Those ostracized elders have abandoned this heresy for they understand what it teaches in its extreme form, such as the false assertion that many unbelievers are saved. But one, however, would not know this is part of the controversy based on Webb's modest definition of the concept.
No one denies that God blesses His people "while they live here" and its pointless to spend time defending that which is crystal clear to all. The definition given by Webb is therefore vague for one who does not know what time salvation teaches. What Webb does not explicitly state but what he means is that obedience to Christ is optional and does not necessarily follow regeneration. A person can be regenerated but never come to a state of obedience unto God. If he does so, though, then he gets the blessing of a time salvation "in this life". This antinomian view allows eternal salvation for the "unconverted regenerate" our ultraists have invented, and explains why many have ventured off into no-hellism/universalism or come dangerously close. The scriptures, though, are most clear on the relationship between salvation and obedience. Though obedience is not the cause of our salvation, there can be no salvation without it. Regeneration changes the individual necessarily, effectively causing the person to now live a general course of holiness (Ezek. 36:27; Rom. 2:10; 6:18; 8:14; Philip. 2:13).
Hebrews. 5:9 expresses it nicely:
"And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"
We would ask our moderns "Did Jesus become the author of ETERNAL salvation to those that DON'T obey him?"
Another modest definition of time salvation failing to capture the true issue at stake is one rendered by Conditionalist Deacon J.W. Jones of the Bear Creek Association (approx. 1924):
"We are stating frankly that we find no fault with the phrase, because the brethren clearly set forth their meaning of the phrase, which is ‘salvation from error, false doctrine, afflictions, misery, persecutions, perplexities, disasters, calamities, adversities, temptations, etc.,’"
We are careful to be too critical of Jones's definition. It is possible that in his day the teaching of time salvation had not evolved to the degree that it has today, and may not carry with it all the theological compromises which the contemporary version does. Weighing his statement compared to today's presentation of the subject, however, we would say that it fails to address the heart of the matter. Just as we stated above, we do not deny that there are times in our lives in which God delivers us from various and sundry things. Given this definition one could easily be duped into thinking that this is ALL that time salvation suggests. For instance, if I have a drug addiction and the Lord delivers me from it, can I say that I got a time salvation? If this is all that is meant by the teaching, then guess what? I would say that the entire Christian community believes in it! Do not all Christians believe that God can and does deliver His people from addictions, depression, etc.?
It is so obvious that God visits His people and rescues them from certain predicaments, it's amazing to me that there is even a need to bundle up the idea and call it a doctrine of the scriptures.
So God often rescues His people in time. Ummm...obviously.
He writes further:
"If preaching that Joseph saved the lives of his people in the day of famine is not eternal salvation is heresy then we are guilty. If preaching that the "great salvation" wrought by Jonathan was a national salvation and not eternal salvation, is heresy, then we are guilty. If preaching these and many other salvations--that is, salvation from many things, is heresy, then we are guilty."
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/1400/70/
Here Jones asserts something that no one as well denies. Who in their right mind would assert that the deliverance from the famine wrought through Joseph was eternal? Instead of giving a thorough exegesis of some pivotal scripture around which the true matter circulates, he is out to prove something to which no bible reader would object! Citing some Biblical account in which someone was delivered from some temporary danger is not evidence for what out ultraists are calling upon their people to accept and swallow today.
Yes, the deliverance from the famine was temporal! Yes, Daniel was delivered in time from the lion's den! Yes, the Hebrews experienced a temporal deliverance from the Egyptians! It's time to move past these modest examples of time salvation, and get to where the rubber meets the road!
Next, we have a quotation from Elder Tom Hagler Jr. in his book "How One is Born Again":
"2 Corinthians 11:24 'Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.' Obviously, Paul means he received forty stripes except (or less) one, for a total of thirty-nine stripes."
http://www.basicbibledoctrines.com/downloads/Born_Again.pdf
This explanation demonstrates the lengths to which our modernists must go to substantiate their claims. Hagler is at such pains to prove his doctrine that he references a scripture in which the word "saved" doesn't mean deliverance in any context, eternal of temporal! It means "except", as he himself states! Despite this poor defense, his statement demonstrates one of the fundamental strategies employed by today's ultraists. The tendency is to reference a passage in which the word 'saved' does not speak of eternal deliverance, and then extrapolate this idea to account for those passages in the Bible in which either the perseverance of the saints or gospel-means pattern of salvation is set forth, and claim as well that this too is speaking of a temporal salvation. It is by this bait-and-switch tactic that many of the people are being deceived and led astray
A final thing I've noticed is the tendency of ultraists to extract modest statements from the teachings of John Gill as if to suggest that this learned theologian espoused this teaching. Elder Michael Gowens, one of the leading proponents of this teaching today, stated in a recent questionaire regarding current theological tensions among the Primitive Baptists that Gill used the concept frequently. I cannot help but chuckle when I read such desperate attempts to provide justification for this heresy. Did Gill use the term temporal expression in his commentaries? Yes. Did he claim that there were times when God granted his people a temporal deliverance from some dire situation? Yes. And so does every other Christian! What Gill did not do, however, was use the expression to dismiss the gospel-means pattern for salvation and the perseverance of the saints, pervert the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, or question the certainty of conversion and experimental sanctification as do our moderns. More importantly, he did not claim that many unbelievers and antichrists were saved.
It's hard to expect the church members to know what time salvation actually entails from a theological standpoint as long as its proponents gloss over the doctrine by giving such vague definitions as those cited above. Instead of busying themselves with such defenses that do not encapsulate the reason why the doctrine was invented and the purpose it currently serves, our modernists should focus their thoughts on the matters truly at stake. Time salvation in its ultimate sense states that the purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ is not in any way connected to deliverance from sin or eternal judgment, and that subjective faith and holiness are not necessary for salvation. Based on the definitions given above, however, one would not know that this is what it means. At present, we wonder just how many of the rank and file members understand no more about the doctrine than that it has to do with "blessings while we live here in this world". I know there are many because I have met with them personally. After I explained to them what this heresy really teaches, they told me they never knew that it meant that sinners don't have to believe in Christ for salvation. Without a doubt, some of these modest definitions in which the true matter is avoided are to blame.
The proponents of time salvation should cease doing this, and get to the heart of the matter. To this day, though, I have not read a single work by any of our modernists in which a thorough exegesis is given of the passages in which they cite as support of their novelty.
After all, it's much easier to just say that it has to do with the "blessings of this life", and leave it at that.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Chpt. 110 - Mediate or Immediate?
Regeneration is both Mediate and Immediate, just like the whole of salvation is both conditional and unconditional. To argue that regeneration cannot be both mediate and immediate is invalid, for regeneration is in fact both.
In this series I will be writing on "Regeneration, Immediate or Immediate?" and on "Salvation, Conditional or Unconditional?" In discussing this topic, we must first define "mediate" and "immediate."
The term "mediate," as respects the debate over the nature and causes of "regeneration," denotes what is done by an agency or instrument, by some means, what is done indirectly, and through second causes.
The term "immediate," on the other hand, denotes what is done without an instrument or means, what is done directly, by the First Cause alone. "Immediately" is not used here in the sense of "instantly."
Next, the term "regeneration" needs to be defined. This is a little more difficult to define due to 1) its limited use in scripture, and 2) the use of the term by theologians and among Christians generally.
Do we equate the experience of being "quickened" with being "regenerated"? Do we equate being "born of God" with being "regenerated"? Do we equate being "converted" with being "regenerated"?
What other terms do we equate with being "regenerated"? Such as created, resurrected, saved, taught, washed, forgiven, drawn, called, liberated, sanctified, etc.? The answers to these questions are important because the term "regeneration," though only used twice in scripture, is referred to by other terms. Simply put, the scriptures use many terms to speak about being "regenerated."
Some Christians, like the old Regular Baptists, and the founders of the "Primitive Baptists," believed that regeneration was not the same as being born again. Alexander Campbell, who at one time was identified with the Regular Baptists, believed that they were distinct. Both Campbell and the old Regulars and Hardshells saw regeneration as first occurring and then conversion (birth) coming next. The difference, however, was that Campbell would later identify "conversion" and rebirth with being baptized. The old Regulars and Hardshells, however, saw conversion and rebirth as being accomplished before baptism, at the time when the person turned to the Lord in repentance and faith.
Further, many old Baptists, like Andrew Fuller, believed that the first moment in the work of regeneration was immediate, but that complete regeneration was mediate. They taught that biblical regeneration was both mediate and immediate.
When God begins his work of regeneration, he completes it. (Phil. 1: 6) So, though God's first act is to operate immediately, it does not logically necessitate that the following acts, in completing regeneration, are likewise immediate. The question is this - "is one ever said to be regenerated, or born of God, in scripture, who was not changed in his belief about God and salvation?" And - "does biblical regeneration exclude faith, repentance, or enlightenment?"
Those who promote a very narrow view of what it means to be regenerated will say that regeneration only gives an "ability" to believe, an "ability" to repent, an "ability" to "know" and be "converted." But, if faith is necessary for pleasing God (Heb. 11: 6), then is not this "ability" to be equated with "faith"?
Those who object to mediate regeneration do so based upon their logic and reason, upon philosophy, and not because they have any scripture to support their rejection of means. Hardshells think that mediate regeneration would bring absurd "logical" consequences, such as a denial that the Spirit of God comes in "direct contact" with the human spirit. But, this is false. A surgeon, when he operates, will often directly touch his patient and also use instruments. The surgery would be both mediate and immediate. God "operates" upon the heart in regeneration. Why do Hardshells think that this work cannot be done by instruments of God's own making? Why do they think that the use of such instruments would detract from the glory of his surgical work and eliminate God's Spirit coming into direct contact with the human spirit?
In an article titled "A Contrast Between Calvinism and Hopkinsianism," by Ezra Stiles Ely, in Chapter Ten, in that section "Of Effectual Calling," the writer contrasts the views of the Hopkinsians with that of "Others," or of Hopkin's Hyper Calvinism versus historical creedal Calvinism.
According to Ely, the views of the Hopkinsians are described thusly:
"The divine operation in regeneration, of which the new heart is the effect, is immediate, or it is not wrought by the energy of any means as a cause of it but by the immediate power and energy of the Holy Spirit, It is called a creation, and the divine agency in it, is as much without a medium, as in creating something from nothing. Men are not regenerated, in the sense in which we are now considering regeneration, by light or the word of God." (yr. 1811) See here
The views of Samuel Hopkins (1721 –1803) were truly Hyper Calvinistic. His regeneration before faith view was not readily accepted by all, however. Sadly, it was accepted and promoted by some able Baptists, such as Andrew Fuller. But, it was successfully refuted by other able Baptists, such as Abraham Booth.
Booth attacked Hopkins and his born again before faith error and his denial of means in regeneration. He also attacked Fuller for embracing the regeneration before faith error of Hopkins. Later, Alexander Campbell, with others, would attack this hybrid notion of the Hopkinsian Hyper Calvinists.
It has been the contention of Bob Ross and myself that the idea that regeneration occurs prior to and without faith, and that conversion and regeneration are separate and distinct experiences, is not the original view of the first Calvinists and Reformers, but was a later invention by 18th and 19th century neo Calvinists. This later hybrid or novel invention is part of what historians of Calvinism properly call the "New Divinity."
The following work by an able historian demonstrates that the view of the "hybrids" is a novel doctrine among Calvinists, a "New Divinity." The following citations are from "Theology in America: Christian Thought from the Age of the Puritans to the Civil War" by E. Brooks Holifield. This "New Divinity" is also sometimes called "Hopkinsianism."
Holified wrote (emphasis mine - SG):
"Conversion required regenerating grace, and this truth too the New Divinity had misunderstood. First, the Edwardeans had insufficiently appreciated the "common work of the Spirit of God preparatory to a saving faith." Hart believed that Hopkins allowed for "no preparatory work of the Spirit," but Hemmenway saw that the problem lay in differing understandings of preparation. The difference was visible in the readiness of the Old Calvinists to talk of degrees of preparation, to claim that some of the unregenerate might be "more prepared than others." The New Divinity could tolerate no such idea of progress in the unregenerate state, no such gradualism in the religious life. The Old Calvinists also said that the same means of grace that prepared the heart also produced its regeneration; the New Divinity denied that means ever regenerated anybody."
Notice that it was not the "old Calvinists" who said that regeneration preceded faith and conversion, but the newer Calvinists who promoted a "new divinity," a new paradigm of "regeneration." The view of Hopkins and the "New Divinity" in rejecting the use of means in regeneration was an aberrant view and not in keeping with prior tradition.
Holifield continues:
"To the Old Calvinists, one of the worst errors of the Hopkinsians was their failure to recognize that regeneration occurred through illumination of the mind by the means of grace. A recurring theme in Old Calvinist polemics was the assertion that "all judicious Calvinist divines" believed that "conversion or regeneration is wrought by light, by the moral power of divine truth." In the Old Calvinist order of salvation, the Spirit first illumined the mind with a "common doctrinal understanding and belief of truth." This truth brought a sense of guilt, a fear of puhnishment, and an affecting view of the holiness and mercy of God; and the assent to truth moved the will toward a heartfelt consent and faith. How, the Old Calvinists asked, could the will ever consent to anything without first understanding it? Only the conviction that faith came "through the truth" made such means of grace as sermons and meditations worth defending." (pg. 154-55)
The "Old Calvinists" rejected the idea that regeneration was wholly "immediate," that it was effected apart from understanding of truth. They rejected the idea that "regeneration" could be divided up into two kinds, the first being mediate and the second being immediate. They did not divorce regeneration from conversion, but saw them as being the same in scripture.
Hollifield continues:
"The New Divinity allowed no middle ground between sinners and saints. One either loved God above self or one loved self above God. This is why Hopkins found it so distressing to read Jonathan Mayhew's 1761 sermon on Striving to Enter in at the Strait Gate, in which Mayhew encouraged the unregenerate to use the means of grace to strive toward holiness and suggested that their striving made them more acceptable to God. Bellamy also taught that the means of grace helped people overcome sin, but Hopkins saw in Mayhew's doctrine a gradualism that made no immediate demand for repentance. He replied to Mayhew four years later in his Enquiry Concerning the Promises of the Gospel, in which he argued that the Bible made no promises of salvation to "the exercies and doings of the unregenerate." In telling his followers to strive, Hopkins thought, Jesus was addressing true disciples. Hopkins acknowledged that the New Testament held out salvation to everyone who desired it. But in the New Testament, he said, to desire salvation was to desire "holiness for its own sake," and the unregenerate never wanted to be saved in this sense. In the background stood Edward's conception of true virtue."
One can see some elements of Hardshell Hyper Calvinism in these comments from the leaders of the "new divinity." They rejected the idea that God did any preparatory work in the heart of the sinner prior to his regeneration, and in this they departed from the teachings of the primitive Calvinists as well as from the teachings of scripture. They also affirmed, like today's Hardshells, that a mere "desire" to be saved, or to be good and holy, was an evidence or effect of "regeneration." But, such was not the original teaching of the Reformation Calvinists nor of scripture.
Holifield continues:
"The debate over the promises of salvation furnished the context in which Hopkins employed the New Divinity distinction between regeneration and conversion. Expanding on a point that Edwards had once made in reference to infants, Bellamy concluded in 1750 that regeneration preceded conversion, which he defined as an exercise of the heart that flowed from a new direction. Hopkins used the same distinction to counter Mayhew. He argued that God regenerated the sinful by laying a foundation in their mind by which they could discern the excellence of Christian truth and embrace the gospel with their hearts. This regeneration was an "unpromised favor," a divine work, immediate, instantaneous, and imperceptible. The conditional promises of the New Testament-do this and you will be saved-were directed to men and women who were regenerate but not yet converted. They still had to turn to repentance, faith, and holiness. This turn constituted their conversion, and in it they were active. Mayhew was right (was "wrong" - SG)
"New Divinity distinction between regeneration and conversion." The idea that there was a clear distinction, and separation, between "regeneration" and "conversion," in scripture, was part of the "New Divinity" among Calvinists, and was not the teaching of the old divinity.It is a misrepresentation of the view of Edwards to say that he taught that regeneration preceded faith and conversion and that it was accomplished strictly in an immediate fashion, apart from the instrumentality of the gospel truth.
"The conditional promises of the New Testament-do this and you will be saved-were directed to men and women who were regenerate but not yet converted." This is the teaching of neo-Hardshells. However, the difference between the 19th century promoters of the "New Divinity" and today's Hardshells lies chiefly in the fact that the Hyper Calvinistic "New Divinity" advocates nevertheless taught that all the regenerated would be converted by the gospel. Further, the "salvation" that follows "regeneration," and that results from "conversion," was final salvation, or eternal salvation, and not the modern "time salvation" taught by today's Hardshells.
Holifield continues:
"In describing regeneration as immediate, Hopkins threw into question the old Puritan assumption that God normally produced regeneration through such "means of grace" as sermons and prayers. The initial change, he said, came from the Spirit-not from "any medium or means whatsoever." Means of grace were necessary. They accomplished a "preparatory work"-producing the knowledge, conviction, and humiliation that normally preceded regeneration. They ensured that the saint would be "prepared to act properly when regenerated." But as Edwards had also argued, the means could not bring about regeneration, which was an immediate act of the Spirit."
Notice that our historian says that it was "the old Puritan assumption that God normally produced regeneration through such means of grace." The view that regeneration is not produced by means is the novel Calvinistic doctrine, a "New Divinity."
Edwards says that "regeneration" is an experience "effected by" both "repentance" and "conversion." That is a Calvinist "ordo salutis," for not all Calvinists insist that regeneration is distinct from conversion, and on the former preceding the latter.
Holifield writes:
"Hopkins further disturbed the Old Calvinists when he added that the unregenerate became "more vicious and guilty in God's sight" the more knowledge they derived from the means of grace. This was the point that first caused opponents to accuse him of espousing a "New Divinity." Almost a century earlier, Samuel Willard had warned about the special danger of remaining unfruitful under a gospel ministry. Edwards made a similar observation. Bellamy taught that even the best religious performances of the unregenerate remained "sinful," because the sinner was interested in "only what he can get." But Hopkins emphasized the point in a way that drew spirited reactions. He insisted that resistance from the awakened brought greater blame than resistance from someone who knew nothing of the gospel." See here
Thus, it appears that it is an historical fact that the idea that men are regenerated apart from the gospel and faith, and that conversion and regeneration are separate experiences, is not the "Old Calvinist" position. I have yet to find those "hybrid" or "hyper" Calvinists who teach Hopkinsianism and a "New Divinity" to come forward and disprove the historical fact that such was not the original view of the great Calvinist Reformers, but was a later novel invention by their supposed heirs.
Though some affirm that Jonathan Edwards taught the hybrid "born again before faith" view, the following citations show otherwise. Edwards did not think that regeneration was different from conversion.
Edwards wrote (all emphasis mine - SG):
"If we compare one scripture with another, it will be sufficiently manifest that by regeneration, or being begotten or born again, the same change in the state of the mind is signified with that which the Scripture speaks of as effected by true repentance and conversion. I put repentance and conversion together, because the Scripture puts them together (Acts iii. 19), and because they plainly signify much the same thing.'"
Edwards represents the older Calvinistic and Puritan view that regeneration was the same as conversion and that such was accomplished by means of the light of gospel truth.
Edwards also wrote:
"Regeneration is that whereby men come to have the character of true Christians; as is evident, and as is confessed; and so is circumcision of heart; for by this men become Jews inwardly, or Jews in the spiritual and Christian sense (and that is the same as being true Christians), as of old proselytes were made Jews by circumcision of the flesh. Rom. ii. 28,29, "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God...That circumcision of the heart is the same with conversion, or turning from sin to God, is evident by Jer. iv. 1—4, "If thou wilt return, 0 Israel, return (or, convert unto me)—circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and put away the foreskins of your heart." And Deut. x. 16, " Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff-necked...Circumcision of the heart is the same change of the heart that men pass under in their repentance; as is evident by Levit xxvi. 41, " If their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they accept the punishment of their iniquity."
This is very plain. "Circumcision of the heart," or regeneration, "is the same with conversion" and "the same change of the heart that men pass under in their repentance."
Edwards wrote:
"This inward change, called regeneration and circumcision of the heart, which is wrought in repentance and conversion, is the same with that spiritual resurrection so often spoken of, and represented as a dying unto sin, and living unto righteousness...That a spiritual resurrection to a new divine life, should be called a being born again, is agreeable to the language of Scripture, in which we find a resurrection is called a being born, or begotten...This change, which men are the subjects of when they are born again, and circumcised in heart, when they repent, and are converted, and spiritually raised from the dead, is the same change which is meant when the Scripture speaks of making the heart and spirit new, or giving a new heart and spirit."
Edwards believed that regeneration, Circumcision of heart, repentance, and conversion, and being born again, were all words denoting the same experience.
Edwards wrote:
"It is needless here to stand to observe, how evidently this is spoken of as necessary to salvation, and as the change in which are attained the habits of true virtue and holiness, and the character of a true saint; as has been observed of regeneration, conversion, &c, and how apparent it is from thence, that the change is the same. For it is as it were self-evident: it is apparent by the phrases themselves, that they are different expressions of the same thing. Thus repentance (metanoia) or the change of the mind, is the same as being changed to a new mind, or a new heart and spirit. Conversion is the turning of the heart; which is the same thing as changing it so, that there shall be another heart, or a new heart, or a new spirit."
"The apostle does in effect tell us, that when he speaks of that spiritual death and resurrection which is in conversion, he means the same thing as crucifying and burying the old man, and rising a new man." (pgs. 466-470)
Again, Edwards does not divorce regeneration from conversion and evangelical repentance.
Edwards wrote:
"It appears from this, together with what has been proved above, that it is most certain respect to every one of the human race, that he can never have any interest in Christ, or see the kingdom of God, unless he be the subject of that change in the temper and disposition of his heart, which is made in repentance and conversion, circumcision of heart, spiritual baptism, dying to sin and rising to a new and holy life; and unless he has the old heart taken away and a new heart and spirit given, and puts off the old man, and puts on the new man, and old things are passed away, and all things made new." (pg. 471, from "THE W0RKS of PRESIDENT EDWARDS, IN FOUR VOLUMES." A REPRINT OF TBE WORCESTER EDITION, WITH VALUABLE ADDITIONS AND A COPIOUS GENERAL INDEX. VOL. II.) See Here
Again, this is further evidence that Edwards would have rejected the view of Hopkins and of the "New Divinity" had he lived to see its rise.
Edwards also wrote:
"Much has been said concerning regeneration by light, and by moral suasion. If they who use this language mean no more, than that men are not regenerated in paganism, and so without the light and motives of the gospel; and that under the gospel they are commonly regenerated in consequence of attention to the gospel and of awakening and conviction in view of the truths and motives of it; and that the regenerate turn from sin to God in view of those truths and motives, though not by them as the efficient cause; I shall not oppose them, though I think their phraseology in many instances leads to a different understanding. In the sense now explained, we may understand the following texts, "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth;" "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever;" "I have begotten you through the gospel," etc." (pgs. 109-113 From the "WORKS of JONATHAN EDWARDS" by TRYON EDWARDS. VOL. II) See Here
Edwards believed in mediate regeneration, but he in other places affirmed that regeneration was also "immediate." It is wrong to insist that regeneration cannot be both.
In this series I will be writing on "Regeneration, Immediate or Immediate?" and on "Salvation, Conditional or Unconditional?" In discussing this topic, we must first define "mediate" and "immediate."
The term "mediate," as respects the debate over the nature and causes of "regeneration," denotes what is done by an agency or instrument, by some means, what is done indirectly, and through second causes.
The term "immediate," on the other hand, denotes what is done without an instrument or means, what is done directly, by the First Cause alone. "Immediately" is not used here in the sense of "instantly."
Next, the term "regeneration" needs to be defined. This is a little more difficult to define due to 1) its limited use in scripture, and 2) the use of the term by theologians and among Christians generally.
Do we equate the experience of being "quickened" with being "regenerated"? Do we equate being "born of God" with being "regenerated"? Do we equate being "converted" with being "regenerated"?
What other terms do we equate with being "regenerated"? Such as created, resurrected, saved, taught, washed, forgiven, drawn, called, liberated, sanctified, etc.? The answers to these questions are important because the term "regeneration," though only used twice in scripture, is referred to by other terms. Simply put, the scriptures use many terms to speak about being "regenerated."
Some Christians, like the old Regular Baptists, and the founders of the "Primitive Baptists," believed that regeneration was not the same as being born again. Alexander Campbell, who at one time was identified with the Regular Baptists, believed that they were distinct. Both Campbell and the old Regulars and Hardshells saw regeneration as first occurring and then conversion (birth) coming next. The difference, however, was that Campbell would later identify "conversion" and rebirth with being baptized. The old Regulars and Hardshells, however, saw conversion and rebirth as being accomplished before baptism, at the time when the person turned to the Lord in repentance and faith.
Further, many old Baptists, like Andrew Fuller, believed that the first moment in the work of regeneration was immediate, but that complete regeneration was mediate. They taught that biblical regeneration was both mediate and immediate.
When God begins his work of regeneration, he completes it. (Phil. 1: 6) So, though God's first act is to operate immediately, it does not logically necessitate that the following acts, in completing regeneration, are likewise immediate. The question is this - "is one ever said to be regenerated, or born of God, in scripture, who was not changed in his belief about God and salvation?" And - "does biblical regeneration exclude faith, repentance, or enlightenment?"
Those who promote a very narrow view of what it means to be regenerated will say that regeneration only gives an "ability" to believe, an "ability" to repent, an "ability" to "know" and be "converted." But, if faith is necessary for pleasing God (Heb. 11: 6), then is not this "ability" to be equated with "faith"?
Those who object to mediate regeneration do so based upon their logic and reason, upon philosophy, and not because they have any scripture to support their rejection of means. Hardshells think that mediate regeneration would bring absurd "logical" consequences, such as a denial that the Spirit of God comes in "direct contact" with the human spirit. But, this is false. A surgeon, when he operates, will often directly touch his patient and also use instruments. The surgery would be both mediate and immediate. God "operates" upon the heart in regeneration. Why do Hardshells think that this work cannot be done by instruments of God's own making? Why do they think that the use of such instruments would detract from the glory of his surgical work and eliminate God's Spirit coming into direct contact with the human spirit?
In an article titled "A Contrast Between Calvinism and Hopkinsianism," by Ezra Stiles Ely, in Chapter Ten, in that section "Of Effectual Calling," the writer contrasts the views of the Hopkinsians with that of "Others," or of Hopkin's Hyper Calvinism versus historical creedal Calvinism.
According to Ely, the views of the Hopkinsians are described thusly:
"The divine operation in regeneration, of which the new heart is the effect, is immediate, or it is not wrought by the energy of any means as a cause of it but by the immediate power and energy of the Holy Spirit, It is called a creation, and the divine agency in it, is as much without a medium, as in creating something from nothing. Men are not regenerated, in the sense in which we are now considering regeneration, by light or the word of God." (yr. 1811) See here
The views of Samuel Hopkins (1721 –1803) were truly Hyper Calvinistic. His regeneration before faith view was not readily accepted by all, however. Sadly, it was accepted and promoted by some able Baptists, such as Andrew Fuller. But, it was successfully refuted by other able Baptists, such as Abraham Booth.
Booth attacked Hopkins and his born again before faith error and his denial of means in regeneration. He also attacked Fuller for embracing the regeneration before faith error of Hopkins. Later, Alexander Campbell, with others, would attack this hybrid notion of the Hopkinsian Hyper Calvinists.
It has been the contention of Bob Ross and myself that the idea that regeneration occurs prior to and without faith, and that conversion and regeneration are separate and distinct experiences, is not the original view of the first Calvinists and Reformers, but was a later invention by 18th and 19th century neo Calvinists. This later hybrid or novel invention is part of what historians of Calvinism properly call the "New Divinity."
The following work by an able historian demonstrates that the view of the "hybrids" is a novel doctrine among Calvinists, a "New Divinity." The following citations are from "Theology in America: Christian Thought from the Age of the Puritans to the Civil War" by E. Brooks Holifield. This "New Divinity" is also sometimes called "Hopkinsianism."
Holified wrote (emphasis mine - SG):
"Conversion required regenerating grace, and this truth too the New Divinity had misunderstood. First, the Edwardeans had insufficiently appreciated the "common work of the Spirit of God preparatory to a saving faith." Hart believed that Hopkins allowed for "no preparatory work of the Spirit," but Hemmenway saw that the problem lay in differing understandings of preparation. The difference was visible in the readiness of the Old Calvinists to talk of degrees of preparation, to claim that some of the unregenerate might be "more prepared than others." The New Divinity could tolerate no such idea of progress in the unregenerate state, no such gradualism in the religious life. The Old Calvinists also said that the same means of grace that prepared the heart also produced its regeneration; the New Divinity denied that means ever regenerated anybody."
Notice that it was not the "old Calvinists" who said that regeneration preceded faith and conversion, but the newer Calvinists who promoted a "new divinity," a new paradigm of "regeneration." The view of Hopkins and the "New Divinity" in rejecting the use of means in regeneration was an aberrant view and not in keeping with prior tradition.
Holifield continues:
"To the Old Calvinists, one of the worst errors of the Hopkinsians was their failure to recognize that regeneration occurred through illumination of the mind by the means of grace. A recurring theme in Old Calvinist polemics was the assertion that "all judicious Calvinist divines" believed that "conversion or regeneration is wrought by light, by the moral power of divine truth." In the Old Calvinist order of salvation, the Spirit first illumined the mind with a "common doctrinal understanding and belief of truth." This truth brought a sense of guilt, a fear of puhnishment, and an affecting view of the holiness and mercy of God; and the assent to truth moved the will toward a heartfelt consent and faith. How, the Old Calvinists asked, could the will ever consent to anything without first understanding it? Only the conviction that faith came "through the truth" made such means of grace as sermons and meditations worth defending." (pg. 154-55)
The "Old Calvinists" rejected the idea that regeneration was wholly "immediate," that it was effected apart from understanding of truth. They rejected the idea that "regeneration" could be divided up into two kinds, the first being mediate and the second being immediate. They did not divorce regeneration from conversion, but saw them as being the same in scripture.
Hollifield continues:
"The New Divinity allowed no middle ground between sinners and saints. One either loved God above self or one loved self above God. This is why Hopkins found it so distressing to read Jonathan Mayhew's 1761 sermon on Striving to Enter in at the Strait Gate, in which Mayhew encouraged the unregenerate to use the means of grace to strive toward holiness and suggested that their striving made them more acceptable to God. Bellamy also taught that the means of grace helped people overcome sin, but Hopkins saw in Mayhew's doctrine a gradualism that made no immediate demand for repentance. He replied to Mayhew four years later in his Enquiry Concerning the Promises of the Gospel, in which he argued that the Bible made no promises of salvation to "the exercies and doings of the unregenerate." In telling his followers to strive, Hopkins thought, Jesus was addressing true disciples. Hopkins acknowledged that the New Testament held out salvation to everyone who desired it. But in the New Testament, he said, to desire salvation was to desire "holiness for its own sake," and the unregenerate never wanted to be saved in this sense. In the background stood Edward's conception of true virtue."
One can see some elements of Hardshell Hyper Calvinism in these comments from the leaders of the "new divinity." They rejected the idea that God did any preparatory work in the heart of the sinner prior to his regeneration, and in this they departed from the teachings of the primitive Calvinists as well as from the teachings of scripture. They also affirmed, like today's Hardshells, that a mere "desire" to be saved, or to be good and holy, was an evidence or effect of "regeneration." But, such was not the original teaching of the Reformation Calvinists nor of scripture.
Holifield continues:
"The debate over the promises of salvation furnished the context in which Hopkins employed the New Divinity distinction between regeneration and conversion. Expanding on a point that Edwards had once made in reference to infants, Bellamy concluded in 1750 that regeneration preceded conversion, which he defined as an exercise of the heart that flowed from a new direction. Hopkins used the same distinction to counter Mayhew. He argued that God regenerated the sinful by laying a foundation in their mind by which they could discern the excellence of Christian truth and embrace the gospel with their hearts. This regeneration was an "unpromised favor," a divine work, immediate, instantaneous, and imperceptible. The conditional promises of the New Testament-do this and you will be saved-were directed to men and women who were regenerate but not yet converted. They still had to turn to repentance, faith, and holiness. This turn constituted their conversion, and in it they were active. Mayhew was right (was "wrong" - SG)
"New Divinity distinction between regeneration and conversion." The idea that there was a clear distinction, and separation, between "regeneration" and "conversion," in scripture, was part of the "New Divinity" among Calvinists, and was not the teaching of the old divinity.It is a misrepresentation of the view of Edwards to say that he taught that regeneration preceded faith and conversion and that it was accomplished strictly in an immediate fashion, apart from the instrumentality of the gospel truth.
"The conditional promises of the New Testament-do this and you will be saved-were directed to men and women who were regenerate but not yet converted." This is the teaching of neo-Hardshells. However, the difference between the 19th century promoters of the "New Divinity" and today's Hardshells lies chiefly in the fact that the Hyper Calvinistic "New Divinity" advocates nevertheless taught that all the regenerated would be converted by the gospel. Further, the "salvation" that follows "regeneration," and that results from "conversion," was final salvation, or eternal salvation, and not the modern "time salvation" taught by today's Hardshells.
Holifield continues:
"In describing regeneration as immediate, Hopkins threw into question the old Puritan assumption that God normally produced regeneration through such "means of grace" as sermons and prayers. The initial change, he said, came from the Spirit-not from "any medium or means whatsoever." Means of grace were necessary. They accomplished a "preparatory work"-producing the knowledge, conviction, and humiliation that normally preceded regeneration. They ensured that the saint would be "prepared to act properly when regenerated." But as Edwards had also argued, the means could not bring about regeneration, which was an immediate act of the Spirit."
Notice that our historian says that it was "the old Puritan assumption that God normally produced regeneration through such means of grace." The view that regeneration is not produced by means is the novel Calvinistic doctrine, a "New Divinity."
Edwards says that "regeneration" is an experience "effected by" both "repentance" and "conversion." That is a Calvinist "ordo salutis," for not all Calvinists insist that regeneration is distinct from conversion, and on the former preceding the latter.
Holifield writes:
"Hopkins further disturbed the Old Calvinists when he added that the unregenerate became "more vicious and guilty in God's sight" the more knowledge they derived from the means of grace. This was the point that first caused opponents to accuse him of espousing a "New Divinity." Almost a century earlier, Samuel Willard had warned about the special danger of remaining unfruitful under a gospel ministry. Edwards made a similar observation. Bellamy taught that even the best religious performances of the unregenerate remained "sinful," because the sinner was interested in "only what he can get." But Hopkins emphasized the point in a way that drew spirited reactions. He insisted that resistance from the awakened brought greater blame than resistance from someone who knew nothing of the gospel." See here
Thus, it appears that it is an historical fact that the idea that men are regenerated apart from the gospel and faith, and that conversion and regeneration are separate experiences, is not the "Old Calvinist" position. I have yet to find those "hybrid" or "hyper" Calvinists who teach Hopkinsianism and a "New Divinity" to come forward and disprove the historical fact that such was not the original view of the great Calvinist Reformers, but was a later novel invention by their supposed heirs.
Though some affirm that Jonathan Edwards taught the hybrid "born again before faith" view, the following citations show otherwise. Edwards did not think that regeneration was different from conversion.
Edwards wrote (all emphasis mine - SG):
"If we compare one scripture with another, it will be sufficiently manifest that by regeneration, or being begotten or born again, the same change in the state of the mind is signified with that which the Scripture speaks of as effected by true repentance and conversion. I put repentance and conversion together, because the Scripture puts them together (Acts iii. 19), and because they plainly signify much the same thing.'"
Edwards represents the older Calvinistic and Puritan view that regeneration was the same as conversion and that such was accomplished by means of the light of gospel truth.
Edwards also wrote:
"Regeneration is that whereby men come to have the character of true Christians; as is evident, and as is confessed; and so is circumcision of heart; for by this men become Jews inwardly, or Jews in the spiritual and Christian sense (and that is the same as being true Christians), as of old proselytes were made Jews by circumcision of the flesh. Rom. ii. 28,29, "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God...That circumcision of the heart is the same with conversion, or turning from sin to God, is evident by Jer. iv. 1—4, "If thou wilt return, 0 Israel, return (or, convert unto me)—circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and put away the foreskins of your heart." And Deut. x. 16, " Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff-necked...Circumcision of the heart is the same change of the heart that men pass under in their repentance; as is evident by Levit xxvi. 41, " If their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they accept the punishment of their iniquity."
This is very plain. "Circumcision of the heart," or regeneration, "is the same with conversion" and "the same change of the heart that men pass under in their repentance."
Edwards wrote:
"This inward change, called regeneration and circumcision of the heart, which is wrought in repentance and conversion, is the same with that spiritual resurrection so often spoken of, and represented as a dying unto sin, and living unto righteousness...That a spiritual resurrection to a new divine life, should be called a being born again, is agreeable to the language of Scripture, in which we find a resurrection is called a being born, or begotten...This change, which men are the subjects of when they are born again, and circumcised in heart, when they repent, and are converted, and spiritually raised from the dead, is the same change which is meant when the Scripture speaks of making the heart and spirit new, or giving a new heart and spirit."
Edwards believed that regeneration, Circumcision of heart, repentance, and conversion, and being born again, were all words denoting the same experience.
Edwards wrote:
"It is needless here to stand to observe, how evidently this is spoken of as necessary to salvation, and as the change in which are attained the habits of true virtue and holiness, and the character of a true saint; as has been observed of regeneration, conversion, &c, and how apparent it is from thence, that the change is the same. For it is as it were self-evident: it is apparent by the phrases themselves, that they are different expressions of the same thing. Thus repentance (metanoia) or the change of the mind, is the same as being changed to a new mind, or a new heart and spirit. Conversion is the turning of the heart; which is the same thing as changing it so, that there shall be another heart, or a new heart, or a new spirit."
"The apostle does in effect tell us, that when he speaks of that spiritual death and resurrection which is in conversion, he means the same thing as crucifying and burying the old man, and rising a new man." (pgs. 466-470)
Again, Edwards does not divorce regeneration from conversion and evangelical repentance.
Edwards wrote:
"It appears from this, together with what has been proved above, that it is most certain respect to every one of the human race, that he can never have any interest in Christ, or see the kingdom of God, unless he be the subject of that change in the temper and disposition of his heart, which is made in repentance and conversion, circumcision of heart, spiritual baptism, dying to sin and rising to a new and holy life; and unless he has the old heart taken away and a new heart and spirit given, and puts off the old man, and puts on the new man, and old things are passed away, and all things made new." (pg. 471, from "THE W0RKS of PRESIDENT EDWARDS, IN FOUR VOLUMES." A REPRINT OF TBE WORCESTER EDITION, WITH VALUABLE ADDITIONS AND A COPIOUS GENERAL INDEX. VOL. II.) See Here
Again, this is further evidence that Edwards would have rejected the view of Hopkins and of the "New Divinity" had he lived to see its rise.
Edwards also wrote:
"Much has been said concerning regeneration by light, and by moral suasion. If they who use this language mean no more, than that men are not regenerated in paganism, and so without the light and motives of the gospel; and that under the gospel they are commonly regenerated in consequence of attention to the gospel and of awakening and conviction in view of the truths and motives of it; and that the regenerate turn from sin to God in view of those truths and motives, though not by them as the efficient cause; I shall not oppose them, though I think their phraseology in many instances leads to a different understanding. In the sense now explained, we may understand the following texts, "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth;" "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever;" "I have begotten you through the gospel," etc." (pgs. 109-113 From the "WORKS of JONATHAN EDWARDS" by TRYON EDWARDS. VOL. II) See Here
Edwards believed in mediate regeneration, but he in other places affirmed that regeneration was also "immediate." It is wrong to insist that regeneration cannot be both.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Hardshell 'Ordo Salutis' is not Primitive
Bob L. Ross, a close friend, and author of several great books on bible doctrine, and publisher of Pilgrim Publications, and Campbellite debater, and cult exposer, wrote a small book - "Hardshellism: Its History And Heresies" - and has also written much against the modern "Reformed" view that affirms that "regeneration precedes faith," or that one is "born again before faith."
In an excellent article titled - "Hybrid Calvinism - What is it?" - Ross shows that such an "ordo salutis" is not the primitive teaching of Calvinists but is a "hybrid" or novel invention and is not the older position of the Reformers and primitive Calvinists.
Bob Ross wrote (highlighting mine - SG):
"From time-to-time, we have "new arrivals" to our Flyswatter blogs who are not familiar with what I prefer to call "Hybrid" Calvinism.
In a nutshell, this term refers to the teaching that "regeneration precedes faith," or the idea that a person is actually"born again before faith."
This idea apparently was a post-seventeenth century development which arose among the Pedobaptist [baby baptizer] theologians as a means to supposedly explain how their "covenant children" were "regenerated" as babies or even before they were physically born. These supposed "covenant children" of believers were supposedly "born again" as babies before they ever became believers, which believing supposedly comes later in life.
Hybrid Calvinism is a mixture of (1) Creedal Calvinism on the efficient cause (Holy Spirit) in the New Birth, and (2) the non-creedal idea that the "means" of the Word in creating faith is not an inherent necessary element in the New Birth. It became the "Primitive Baptist" or "Hardshell" view of regeneration by a "Direct Operation of the Spirit apart from Means." It is often called the "Spirit alone" theory.
This theory became part of the "ordo salutis" and the idea is traced by some to Francis Turretin.
W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, pages 492-494, attributes the distinction between "regeneration" and "conversion" to Turretin, and Shedd adopted this approach. He says:
"The divines of the seventeenth century [Puritans] very generally do not distinguish between regeneration and conversion, but employ the two as synonyms. Owen does this continually: On the Spirit, III. v. And Charnocke likewise: Attributes, Practical Atheism. The Westminster [Confession] does not use the term regeneration. In stead of it, it employs the term vocation, or effectual calling. This comprises the entire work of the Holy Spirit in the application of redemption. . . ." Shedd then alleges: "But this wide use of the term regeneration led to confusion of ideas and views. As there are two distinct words in the language, regeneration and conversion, there are also two distinct notions denoted by them. Consequently, there arose gradually a stricter use of the term regeneration, and its discrimination from conversion. Turrettin (XV. iv. 13) defines two kinds of conversion, as the term was employed in his day. . . . After thus defining, Turrettin remarks that the first kind of conversion is better denominated 'regeneration,' because it has reference to the new birth by which man is renewed in the image of his Maker; and the second kind of conversion is better denominated 'conversion,' because it includes the operation and agency of man himself. . . ."
Then Shedd says: "We shall adopt this distinction [by Turretin] between regeneration and conversion. . . . Regeneration is a cause; conversion is an effect."
J. I. Packer also contends that the theory arose in "later Reformed theology:" Packer says:
"Many seventeenth century Reformed theologians equated regeneration with effectual calling and conversion with regeneration . . . LATER REFORMED THEOLOGY has defined regeneration more narrowly, as the implanting of the 'seed' from which faith and repentance spring (I John 3:9) in the course of effectual calling."
Louis Berkhof:
Berkhof likewise acknowledged that the theory had post-Creedal development:
"It is true that some Reformed authors have occasionally used the term 'regeneration' as including even sanctification, but that was in the days when the ORDO SALUTIS was not as fully developed as it is today" (Systematic Theology, page 468).
These are well-known "Reformed" Pedobaptist sources, and they are acknowledging that the "ordo salutis" of modern Reformed theology -- which puts "regeneration" prior to faith -- is in fact a hybrid development which arose "later" than the seventeenth century divines (Puritans) who regarded regeneration and conversion as synonymous.
Contrary to Shedd's idea that "regeneration is a cause," non-hybrids hold that regeneration is indeed an "effect" -- that is, regeneration is the New Birth, and the New Birth is an effect of the Holy Spirit's using the Word of God to bring an unconverted person to union with Christ by faith in Christ.
So non-hybrids contend that no one is born again until he has faith "monergistically" effected in him by the Word as the instrumental cause and the Spirit of God as the efficient cause -- as is plainly taught in our Baptist Confession of Faith, and is known as "Effectual Calling." (1689 London Baptist Confession, Article 10)."
Thus, the Hardshell and Hyper Calvinistic teaching of "born again before faith" is not the original teaching of Calvinists, and is not what was taught in the London Baptist Confession of 1689. "Primitive" and "Reformed" Baptists and Presbyterians who teach the hybrid ordo salutis are not teaching the view of the first greatest Calvinists, including John Calvin.
In an excellent article titled - "Hybrid Calvinism - What is it?" - Ross shows that such an "ordo salutis" is not the primitive teaching of Calvinists but is a "hybrid" or novel invention and is not the older position of the Reformers and primitive Calvinists.
Bob Ross wrote (highlighting mine - SG):
"From time-to-time, we have "new arrivals" to our Flyswatter blogs who are not familiar with what I prefer to call "Hybrid" Calvinism.
In a nutshell, this term refers to the teaching that "regeneration precedes faith," or the idea that a person is actually"born again before faith."
This idea apparently was a post-seventeenth century development which arose among the Pedobaptist [baby baptizer] theologians as a means to supposedly explain how their "covenant children" were "regenerated" as babies or even before they were physically born. These supposed "covenant children" of believers were supposedly "born again" as babies before they ever became believers, which believing supposedly comes later in life.
Hybrid Calvinism is a mixture of (1) Creedal Calvinism on the efficient cause (Holy Spirit) in the New Birth, and (2) the non-creedal idea that the "means" of the Word in creating faith is not an inherent necessary element in the New Birth. It became the "Primitive Baptist" or "Hardshell" view of regeneration by a "Direct Operation of the Spirit apart from Means." It is often called the "Spirit alone" theory.
This theory became part of the "ordo salutis" and the idea is traced by some to Francis Turretin.
W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, pages 492-494, attributes the distinction between "regeneration" and "conversion" to Turretin, and Shedd adopted this approach. He says:
"The divines of the seventeenth century [Puritans] very generally do not distinguish between regeneration and conversion, but employ the two as synonyms. Owen does this continually: On the Spirit, III. v. And Charnocke likewise: Attributes, Practical Atheism. The Westminster [Confession] does not use the term regeneration. In stead of it, it employs the term vocation, or effectual calling. This comprises the entire work of the Holy Spirit in the application of redemption. . . ." Shedd then alleges: "But this wide use of the term regeneration led to confusion of ideas and views. As there are two distinct words in the language, regeneration and conversion, there are also two distinct notions denoted by them. Consequently, there arose gradually a stricter use of the term regeneration, and its discrimination from conversion. Turrettin (XV. iv. 13) defines two kinds of conversion, as the term was employed in his day. . . . After thus defining, Turrettin remarks that the first kind of conversion is better denominated 'regeneration,' because it has reference to the new birth by which man is renewed in the image of his Maker; and the second kind of conversion is better denominated 'conversion,' because it includes the operation and agency of man himself. . . ."
Then Shedd says: "We shall adopt this distinction [by Turretin] between regeneration and conversion. . . . Regeneration is a cause; conversion is an effect."
J. I. Packer also contends that the theory arose in "later Reformed theology:" Packer says:
"Many seventeenth century Reformed theologians equated regeneration with effectual calling and conversion with regeneration . . . LATER REFORMED THEOLOGY has defined regeneration more narrowly, as the implanting of the 'seed' from which faith and repentance spring (I John 3:9) in the course of effectual calling."
Louis Berkhof:
Berkhof likewise acknowledged that the theory had post-Creedal development:
"It is true that some Reformed authors have occasionally used the term 'regeneration' as including even sanctification, but that was in the days when the ORDO SALUTIS was not as fully developed as it is today" (Systematic Theology, page 468).
These are well-known "Reformed" Pedobaptist sources, and they are acknowledging that the "ordo salutis" of modern Reformed theology -- which puts "regeneration" prior to faith -- is in fact a hybrid development which arose "later" than the seventeenth century divines (Puritans) who regarded regeneration and conversion as synonymous.
Contrary to Shedd's idea that "regeneration is a cause," non-hybrids hold that regeneration is indeed an "effect" -- that is, regeneration is the New Birth, and the New Birth is an effect of the Holy Spirit's using the Word of God to bring an unconverted person to union with Christ by faith in Christ.
So non-hybrids contend that no one is born again until he has faith "monergistically" effected in him by the Word as the instrumental cause and the Spirit of God as the efficient cause -- as is plainly taught in our Baptist Confession of Faith, and is known as "Effectual Calling." (1689 London Baptist Confession, Article 10)."
Thus, the Hardshell and Hyper Calvinistic teaching of "born again before faith" is not the original teaching of Calvinists, and is not what was taught in the London Baptist Confession of 1689. "Primitive" and "Reformed" Baptists and Presbyterians who teach the hybrid ordo salutis are not teaching the view of the first greatest Calvinists, including John Calvin.
Substituting Faith for Regeneration
I believe that faith in Christ and regeneration (rebirth) essentially describe the same experience so that one may put one term for the other in scripture and do no harm. Let us look at some passages of scripture where one or the other is discussed and substitute the terms and see if they do not express the truth.
"But without faith (regeneration) it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Heb. 11: 6)
"For they that are after the flesh (unbelievers) do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit (believers) the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded (unbelieving) is death; but to be spiritually minded (believing) is life and peace. Because the carnal mind (unbelieving mind) is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh (in unbelief) cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh (in unbelief), but in the Spirit (in belief), if so be that the Spirit of God (faith) dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ (faith), he is none of his." (Rom. 8: 5-9)
"But the natural man (unbeliever) receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God (is not regenerated): for they are foolishness unto him (unbeliever): neither can he (unbeliever) know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (I Cor. 2: 14)
"And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe (who are regenerated), according to the working of his mighty power." (Eph. 1: 19)
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration (by faith), and renewing of the Holy Ghost." (Tit. 3: 5)
"For by grace are ye saved through faith (regeneration); and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." (Eph. 2: 8)
"He that believeth on the Son (is regenerated) hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not (is not regenerated) the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3: 36)
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me (is regenerated), hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." (John 5: 24)
"Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent (be regenerated)." (John 6: 29)
"Of his own will begat he us (made us believers) with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." (James 1: 18)
"Being born again (made a believer), not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (I Peter 1: 23)
"Therefore if any man be in Christ (is a believer), he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (II Cor. 5: 17)
"But without faith (regeneration) it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Heb. 11: 6)
"For they that are after the flesh (unbelievers) do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit (believers) the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded (unbelieving) is death; but to be spiritually minded (believing) is life and peace. Because the carnal mind (unbelieving mind) is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh (in unbelief) cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh (in unbelief), but in the Spirit (in belief), if so be that the Spirit of God (faith) dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ (faith), he is none of his." (Rom. 8: 5-9)
"But the natural man (unbeliever) receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God (is not regenerated): for they are foolishness unto him (unbeliever): neither can he (unbeliever) know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (I Cor. 2: 14)
"And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe (who are regenerated), according to the working of his mighty power." (Eph. 1: 19)
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration (by faith), and renewing of the Holy Ghost." (Tit. 3: 5)
"For by grace are ye saved through faith (regeneration); and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." (Eph. 2: 8)
"He that believeth on the Son (is regenerated) hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not (is not regenerated) the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3: 36)
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me (is regenerated), hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." (John 5: 24)
"Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent (be regenerated)." (John 6: 29)
"Of his own will begat he us (made us believers) with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." (James 1: 18)
"Being born again (made a believer), not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (I Peter 1: 23)
"Therefore if any man be in Christ (is a believer), he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (II Cor. 5: 17)
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Old Baptist Mission Work
In "The Organization of the Particular Baptists, 1644-1660," By B. R. White, Lecturer in Church History, Regent's Park College, Oxford, we read:
"The earliest known detailed instance of an initiative from London was connected with the dispatch of John Miles (1621-83) to South Wales in 1649. In that year Miles and his friend Thomas Proud, who had recently come to Baptist convictions, arrived in London from Glamorgan. There they encountered the congregation which gathered in the Glaziers' Hall in Broad Street, soon after the latter had prayed for evangelists to preach 'in those places where the Lord had work to be done'." (pg. 1)
"The next mission sponsored by the London churches so far as is now known was that undertaken by Thomas Tillam in Northumberland. Tillam described himself as 'minister, and a messenger of one of the seven churches in London' when he arrived in Hexham on 27 December 1651. He had been commissioned by the church led by Hanserd Knollys which met in Swan Alley, Coleman Street, London, as they later recalled in a letter: 'we gave him our letter of recommendation, and sent him forth to preach the gospel, and to baptize them that did believe the same; and accordingly, as the Lord did assist and direct him, to be instrumental to set them in an orderly way, wherein they might worship God in spirit and truth..."
"Tillam's ministry was, at first, as fruitful as that of John Miles before him. Only seven months after his arrival, on 21 July 1652, eleven men and five women were baptized as founder members of the church at Hexham." (pg. 4)
"Soon the infant congregation itself sent out its first missionary, to Scotland. Early in January 1653, a letter from Swan Alley recognized the Hexham congregation as 'a visible constituted church of God'." (pg. 5)
http://pbl.oldfaithbaptist.org/Ecclesiology/White%20Particular%20Baptist%20Organization.pdf
Another historian writes:
"In 1649, the Glaziers’ Hall, London church held a day of prayer “to seek the Lord that he would send labourers into the dark corners and parts of this land.” On the next day, John Myles and Thomas Proud appeared in their midst, concerned for the needs of Wales. They were apparently baptized and sent, within a fortnight, back to Wales for the purpose of planting churches. On 1 October 1649, baptisms began to take place, and the Ilston church was organized, having forty-three members by October 1650. Myles engaged in an aggressive plan to bring other churches into existence, so that within a year of the first baptism two more assemblies had been formed, and the first “General Meeting” in South Wales was held on 6 and 7 November 1650. White, citing the Ilston church book, states that the commission given to Myles and Proud by the London church was “to gather a ‘company or society of people holding forth and practising the doctrine, worship, order and discipline of the Gospel according to the primitive institution.’”
"Meanwhile, on 8 October 1652 representatives from churches in Abingdon, Reading and Henley had met together to agree upon matter: requiring inter-congregational collaboration and had decided that this would be profitable for mutual advice, financial support, and 'ye carrying on of the work of God'...This meeting was the first at which the names of individual delegates were recorded and it is noteworthy that one of the two from Kensworth was Benjamin Cox." (pg. 6)
http://www.reformedbaptistinstitute.org/?p=138
With such evidence, how can the Hardshells affirm that the old Baptists were not mission supporters prior to the late 18th century? How can they claim that Andrew Fuller and his contemporaries started the work of sending out missionaries?
"The earliest known detailed instance of an initiative from London was connected with the dispatch of John Miles (1621-83) to South Wales in 1649. In that year Miles and his friend Thomas Proud, who had recently come to Baptist convictions, arrived in London from Glamorgan. There they encountered the congregation which gathered in the Glaziers' Hall in Broad Street, soon after the latter had prayed for evangelists to preach 'in those places where the Lord had work to be done'." (pg. 1)
"The next mission sponsored by the London churches so far as is now known was that undertaken by Thomas Tillam in Northumberland. Tillam described himself as 'minister, and a messenger of one of the seven churches in London' when he arrived in Hexham on 27 December 1651. He had been commissioned by the church led by Hanserd Knollys which met in Swan Alley, Coleman Street, London, as they later recalled in a letter: 'we gave him our letter of recommendation, and sent him forth to preach the gospel, and to baptize them that did believe the same; and accordingly, as the Lord did assist and direct him, to be instrumental to set them in an orderly way, wherein they might worship God in spirit and truth..."
"Tillam's ministry was, at first, as fruitful as that of John Miles before him. Only seven months after his arrival, on 21 July 1652, eleven men and five women were baptized as founder members of the church at Hexham." (pg. 4)
"Soon the infant congregation itself sent out its first missionary, to Scotland. Early in January 1653, a letter from Swan Alley recognized the Hexham congregation as 'a visible constituted church of God'." (pg. 5)
http://pbl.oldfaithbaptist.org/Ecclesiology/White%20Particular%20Baptist%20Organization.pdf
Another historian writes:
"In 1649, the Glaziers’ Hall, London church held a day of prayer “to seek the Lord that he would send labourers into the dark corners and parts of this land.” On the next day, John Myles and Thomas Proud appeared in their midst, concerned for the needs of Wales. They were apparently baptized and sent, within a fortnight, back to Wales for the purpose of planting churches. On 1 October 1649, baptisms began to take place, and the Ilston church was organized, having forty-three members by October 1650. Myles engaged in an aggressive plan to bring other churches into existence, so that within a year of the first baptism two more assemblies had been formed, and the first “General Meeting” in South Wales was held on 6 and 7 November 1650. White, citing the Ilston church book, states that the commission given to Myles and Proud by the London church was “to gather a ‘company or society of people holding forth and practising the doctrine, worship, order and discipline of the Gospel according to the primitive institution.’”
"Meanwhile, on 8 October 1652 representatives from churches in Abingdon, Reading and Henley had met together to agree upon matter: requiring inter-congregational collaboration and had decided that this would be profitable for mutual advice, financial support, and 'ye carrying on of the work of God'...This meeting was the first at which the names of individual delegates were recorded and it is noteworthy that one of the two from Kensworth was Benjamin Cox." (pg. 6)
http://www.reformedbaptistinstitute.org/?p=138
With such evidence, how can the Hardshells affirm that the old Baptists were not mission supporters prior to the late 18th century? How can they claim that Andrew Fuller and his contemporaries started the work of sending out missionaries?
How many Salvations again?
The banner sign of the Primitive Baptist denomination is "Two Salvations". There is one eternal salvation, say they, all of God’s grace in which all of the elect share. Yet there is another salvation, it is claimed, accomplished by the works of men (i.e. temporal Arminianism). This salvation is totally optional to the regenerate child of God. If he gets it, he will simply experience a temporal blessing in this life. If he doesn’t---well, no big deal. He will only suffer a temporal judgment from God.
It was part of my growing skepticism when I was subject to this teaching to question a certain aspect of it. Before I thrust off this system altogether as a modern heresy, I first began to have doubts that “Two Salvations” was itself the best way to describe it. I did not think that it was a sufficient description of Hardshellism as it did not take into account all the many passages in the Bible which supposedly spoke of a temporal deliverance. Given the number of scriptures used by elders to treat of a time salvation, I wondered “Are these all part of the same time salvation scheme, or are they separate salvations within themselves? Are there only two salvations taught in scripture, or a half dozen or more?”
Here are some of the various things I was taught, and which are still being taught to the deceived church members. Apart from eternal salvation…
1) There is a salvation in believing the gospel.
2) There is a salvation in obeying the Lord.
3) There is a salvation in calling on the Lord.
4) There is a salvation in baptism.
5) There is a salvation in repentance.
And perhaps others.
Now the question we would like to ask our moderns is this. Are these all part of the same ONE time salvation, or does each one constitute a separate time salvation within itself? If they are separate, does this mean that TWO salvations does not really capture Hardshellism, when there is actually much more than this? If they are part of the same ONE time salvation, is there a timely ordo salutis which shows how these things line-up with each other? Is there a step-by-step order similar to Campbellism in which time salvation is to be achieved? Must one first hear the gospel, believe it, be baptized, call on the Lord, and then repent?
Or is there another order?
Just how exactly does this thing work?
It is the lack of any thorough systematic presentation of time salvation in which the above questions were answered that made me to question, and eventually cast off this system as a confusing scheme for someone desiring a clear-cut soteriology.
In this posting, I am therefore questioning the trademark sign of Hardshellism.
How many salvations again?
It was part of my growing skepticism when I was subject to this teaching to question a certain aspect of it. Before I thrust off this system altogether as a modern heresy, I first began to have doubts that “Two Salvations” was itself the best way to describe it. I did not think that it was a sufficient description of Hardshellism as it did not take into account all the many passages in the Bible which supposedly spoke of a temporal deliverance. Given the number of scriptures used by elders to treat of a time salvation, I wondered “Are these all part of the same time salvation scheme, or are they separate salvations within themselves? Are there only two salvations taught in scripture, or a half dozen or more?”
Here are some of the various things I was taught, and which are still being taught to the deceived church members. Apart from eternal salvation…
1) There is a salvation in believing the gospel.
2) There is a salvation in obeying the Lord.
3) There is a salvation in calling on the Lord.
4) There is a salvation in baptism.
5) There is a salvation in repentance.
And perhaps others.
Now the question we would like to ask our moderns is this. Are these all part of the same ONE time salvation, or does each one constitute a separate time salvation within itself? If they are separate, does this mean that TWO salvations does not really capture Hardshellism, when there is actually much more than this? If they are part of the same ONE time salvation, is there a timely ordo salutis which shows how these things line-up with each other? Is there a step-by-step order similar to Campbellism in which time salvation is to be achieved? Must one first hear the gospel, believe it, be baptized, call on the Lord, and then repent?
Or is there another order?
Just how exactly does this thing work?
It is the lack of any thorough systematic presentation of time salvation in which the above questions were answered that made me to question, and eventually cast off this system as a confusing scheme for someone desiring a clear-cut soteriology.
In this posting, I am therefore questioning the trademark sign of Hardshellism.
How many salvations again?
Hanserd Knollys & Means
English Particular Baptist, Hanserd Knollys, of London Baptist Confession fame, and an early preacher in America, was unlike our modern Hardshells and Hyper Calvinists, for he believed that the gospel was a means in salvation. Knollys said:
"So often as the Gospel comes to any Soul not in word only, but in power and in the Holy Spirit, 1 Thessalonians 1:5, there is a Miracle wrought in them that receive the Gospel, Luke 7:22, and they then receive the Holy Spirit with his graces and gifts… So then we need not stay [i.e. wait] for a Ministry with Miracle, being we have a Word with Miracle."
(Knollys - "The Shining as a Flame of Fire in Zion," London: 1646, as cited by Haykin in "English Particular Baptists of the 17th Century") See at
http://www.campbellbaptist.org/institute/baptist_history_week_03.pdf
"So often as the Gospel comes to any Soul not in word only, but in power and in the Holy Spirit, 1 Thessalonians 1:5, there is a Miracle wrought in them that receive the Gospel, Luke 7:22, and they then receive the Holy Spirit with his graces and gifts… So then we need not stay [i.e. wait] for a Ministry with Miracle, being we have a Word with Miracle."
(Knollys - "The Shining as a Flame of Fire in Zion," London: 1646, as cited by Haykin in "English Particular Baptists of the 17th Century") See at
http://www.campbellbaptist.org/institute/baptist_history_week_03.pdf
Gill, Spurgeon & Hardshells
An author has well said these things about Gill, Spurgeon, and the Hyper Calvinists.
"It is to be regretted that admiration of Gill’s great gifts must have caused many preachers to evade the biblical calls to the unconverted to repent and to turn to Christ. The consequences of this were serious, not only among Calvinistic Baptist in his generation but among those of succeeding generations. Some of his admirers were able to raise themselves above the fatalism to which this system often leads. In some cases, preachers powerfully emphasized the necessity of an experimental knowledge of the great truths of the gospel and thereby caused many hearers to cry to God for salvation. There were others who acknowledged that they had a duty to preach the gospel to every creature but shrank from pressing the claims of Christ directly on their hearers. Sadly others advanced further into fatalism (Hyper Calvinism and Hardshellism - SG) until they embraced what Spurgeon described as “the soul-destroying system which takes manhood from man and makes him no more responsible than an ox. Spurgeon wrote, “I cannot imagine a more ready instrument in the hands of Satan for the ruin of souls than a minister who tells sinners that it is not their duty to repent of their sins or to believe in Christ, and who has the arrogance to call himself a gospel minister, while he teaches that God hates some men infinitely and unchangeably for no reason whatever but simply because he chooses to do so. O my brethren! May the Lord save you from the voice of the charmer, and keep you ever deaf to the voice of error” (14-15)." (emphasis mine - SG)
History of the English Calvinistic Baptists, 1771-1892
From John Gill to C.H. Spurgeon
Pastor’s Fraternal - Heritage Church, Fayetteville, Georgia
February 22, 2008
"It is to be regretted that admiration of Gill’s great gifts must have caused many preachers to evade the biblical calls to the unconverted to repent and to turn to Christ. The consequences of this were serious, not only among Calvinistic Baptist in his generation but among those of succeeding generations. Some of his admirers were able to raise themselves above the fatalism to which this system often leads. In some cases, preachers powerfully emphasized the necessity of an experimental knowledge of the great truths of the gospel and thereby caused many hearers to cry to God for salvation. There were others who acknowledged that they had a duty to preach the gospel to every creature but shrank from pressing the claims of Christ directly on their hearers. Sadly others advanced further into fatalism (Hyper Calvinism and Hardshellism - SG) until they embraced what Spurgeon described as “the soul-destroying system which takes manhood from man and makes him no more responsible than an ox. Spurgeon wrote, “I cannot imagine a more ready instrument in the hands of Satan for the ruin of souls than a minister who tells sinners that it is not their duty to repent of their sins or to believe in Christ, and who has the arrogance to call himself a gospel minister, while he teaches that God hates some men infinitely and unchangeably for no reason whatever but simply because he chooses to do so. O my brethren! May the Lord save you from the voice of the charmer, and keep you ever deaf to the voice of error” (14-15)." (emphasis mine - SG)
History of the English Calvinistic Baptists, 1771-1892
From John Gill to C.H. Spurgeon
Pastor’s Fraternal - Heritage Church, Fayetteville, Georgia
February 22, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)