The modern-day imperial cult

I've been getting some inquiries about Gene Bridges. I believe that's prompted by James White's 5/21 DL riposte. A few preliminaries before I talk specifics:

i) I don't have the original statement by Gene. A friend of mine transcribed what White read on the DL. So I'm going to be commenting on (most of) the excerpts from the DL. Some of Gene's remarks seem to be directed at White in particular. I don't know the original context. I'm guessing that he's miffed by White's role in The Statement on the Gospel and Social Justice–among other things. 

ii) Gene used to be a guest blogger at Triablogue. His posts are still up. He stopped posting 10 years ago. He wasn't asked to leave. He just dropped out, of his own accord, for whatever reason. I never asked. Somewhat later, for reasons I won't discuss, his connections with Triablogue were formally severed. That was a team decision. 

iii) If memory serves, Gene used to work at a gay health hotline. If so, I think his background in the gay community is skewering his analysis of the culture wars.

Theological Conservationism

A Primer for Bossmanham.

Our friend BSmnhm, takes issue with the notion that some Calvinists believe Arminianism to lead to liberalism. By way of reply, he cites groups like the PCUSA and Robert Schuller, as if the existence of these proves that Calvinism leads to it too, or, more properly, "Neener, neener!"

This misses the point..so it seems we'll have to do some explaining for our friend. When representatives of Calvinism, like Philip Ryken state that the road to liberalism frequently leads through Arminianism, they do so from the perspective that Calvinism is a conserving force in theology, not a liberalizing force.

Indeed, one can cite example after example of historical instances in which Arminianism has led directly to theological drift and outright apostasy. The Socinians and Arminians were quick friends centuries ago. The Free Will Baptists nearly died out because of that union, and, if not for the New Connexion would have done so. After Francis Turretin passed on, Amyraldianism and then Arminianism arose in Geneva, and a generation later, Geneva was apostate. Today, we have Open Theists and Universalists.

Ah, says, Bossmanham, what about theological drift in the PCUSA? What about it? Does the PCUSA adhere to the Westminster Standards? No. The liberals had to leave those behind, and with it Calvinism qua Calvinism. Ah, but what about the Neo-Orthodox, aren't they liberals, and didn't they arise, as with Barth, out of Calvinism? Yes on both counts...but what this neglects is this: Neo-Orthodoxy is not a response to evangelical orthodoxy, rather it is a move within the liberal movement back toward orthodoxy...a conserving force, which proves the point, where Protestant theology moves in a more conservative direction, it tends toward more Calvinistic underpinnings. Where it moves in a more Arminian direction, it has a more liberalizing tendency.

The Missing Ingredient

With all this talk of us Calvinists not being kind and loving enough when speaking to Arminians, I thought I would check the recipe book to see if there was something we're missing here. After all, maybe we're just missing something important. Well, since Reppert, Birch, and of course, our most model citizen of late BSmanham surely have the corner on theological discourse and Christian love, I asked around, and, after doing some digging I found their secret ingredient:



There we go. Apparently, we here at Triablogue missed the last few shipments of product from Amsterdam. I've placed a bulk order through the "usual channels" and I am assured that soon we'll have enough ecstasy to go around by the end of the week. Until then, we'll just let the Arminians play with their pretty glowsticks and pacifiers over in the corner.

Love, love, love, that's all we need.

Post Script: I also called the designer, and when our shipment arrives, the furry wall will be installed too.

Acting Like a Grown-Up

Apparently, Momma's Boy, thinks his critics can't act like grown-ups. I left a comment at his blog in which he reacts, and does not interact, with Steve's review of his new book. I don't know of any others, as, at the time, nothing else had been posted. There was, ironically, a note about the lack of moderation saying, "Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it."

Apparently, Momma's Boy, didn't like what was said, so instead of manning up, he decided to run from the playground and take is marbles with him. Instead of not moderating comments, he decided to moderate them. This looks suspiciously like either Dr. Beckwith or his administrators do moderate comments and do disapprove comments, despite the disclaimer.

So, for the benefit of others, I'll comment here. Dr. Beckwith is more than welcome to at least attempt a reply.

Apparently, Dr. Beckwith, you and I are reading two different reviews. For example, you write:

I do not believe that this review is the consequence of reading the book very carefully. In one place, for example, the reviewer confuses Protestantism with comments I made at a Boston College conference about anti-creedal Protestantism.

Really? This is what Steve actually wrote:

The first thing I note is that he merely recycles the stock arguments for Catholicism, as if no Protestant had ever heard of these before, much less answered them. Likewise, he recycles the hackneyed objections to Protestantism, as if this would leave us speechless. It’s all rather childish.

“In a nutshell, I argued that Protestants who don’t believe creeds are necessary—those who says things like ‘no creed but Christ’—do in fact accept creeds in the sense that they embrace fundamental doctrines that they believer are unassailable” (76).

Beckwith states this trite little truism as if he’d discovered some hitherto unknown and irrefutable objection to the Protestant faith. But, course, many Protestants are confessional Protestants of one kind or another, viz. Calvinists, Lutherans, &c.

Perhaps there’s some storefront church in Chicago where his objection would trigger an epiphany on the part of the listener, but for the rest of us, it’s rather like a Tibetan tourist in America who just discovered McDonald’s. This may be something new and amazing to him, but it’s no revelation to the natives.

What makes Beckwith think he came up with an explosive objection to the Protestant faith when he unfurls this utterly commonplace observation? My best guess is that this simply reflects the superficiality of his own evangelical dossier.

“Moreover, much of what these anti-creedal Protestants believe about Christ, the Trinity, the nature of scripture, and so forth are not easily derived form a reading of the Bible or mere appeal to the words of Christ” (76).

That’s another stock objection to the Protestant faith. At one level it’s difficult to respond to, not because it’s inherently difficult to respond to, but because it’s difficult to know who he has in mind. Who has he been reading all these years? More to the point, who has he not been reading all these years? It seems to be an expression of his own provincial ignorance. The evangelical literature on these topics is abundant. It’s hard to know where to start with someone like Beckwith, because I don’t know when he came on board. How much remedial education does he need?

Apparently, Dr. Beckwith is unaware that these statements he made at Boston College, which he recycles by repeating them in his book are also popular objections to Protestantism qua Protestantism (not mere "anti-confessional/creedal Protestantism). That's the problem here. The problem with Dr. Beckwith's evaluation of Steve's statements is that, ironically, while critiquing Steve, he misrepresents what Steve actually wrote. This is but one of several problems with his (hasty) commentary.

Indeed, I can add another misrepresentation of another source, McGrath. Dr. Beckwith writes:

“The idea, that the Reformation’s view of forensic justification as a virtual theological innovation, is put forth even more strongly by none other than the great theologian and Oxford professor, Alister McGrath” (84).

What does McGrath actually write?

First, this is the quote from McGrath, proper:

"A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification ­ as opposed to its mode ­ must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum." (Alister McGrath - Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Vol. I. .....Pg. 186)"

Here's some of the rest of what McGrath says:

"The pre-Augustinian theological tradition, however, may be regarded as having taken a highly questionable path in its articulation of the doctrine of justification in the face of pagan opposition"

[ibid. 18-19]. McGrath mentions that "

For the first three hundred and fifty years of the history of the church, her teaching on justification was inchoate and ill-defined"[ Ibid. 23].

The Council of Trent was faced with a group of formidable problems as it assembled to debate the question of justification in June 1546. The medieval period had witnessed the emergence of a number of quite distinct schools of thought on justification, clearly incompatible at points, all of which could lay claim to represent the teaching of the Catholic church." [Ibid, 259]

there was considerable disagreement in the immediate post-Tridentine period concerning the precise interpretation of the decretum de iustificatione" [ibid. 268]. Put another way, even at that time, Catholics were uncertain about how to interpret the decree.

Indeed, regarding the whole idea that the Protestant conception of justification has no ecclesiastical predecessors (which Steve directly quotes Beckwith as having written), McGrath writes the polar opposite, even telling us that a good case can be made that Augustine misunderstood the Bible itself because, "

"The term iustificare is, or course, post-classical, having been introduced through the Latin translation of the bible, and thus restricted to Christian writers of the Latin west. Augustine was thus unable to turn to classical authors in an effort to clarrify its meraning, and was thus obliged to interpret the term himself. His establishment of a relationship between iustificare and iustitia is of enormous significance, as will become clear." (McGrath, 31)

So, once again, Dr. Beckwith is either citing his sources carelessly or selectively (and thereby misrepresenting them to his audience) and/or recycling this use of McGrath by Roman Catholic popularizers like Robert Sungenis and even Dave Armstrong, something a number of folks have long ago documented. Search, for example, James Swan's blog.

Dr. Beckwith would do well to actually interact with his critics now instead of (hastily) reacting to them. Does he do that? Judging by the quickness with which he closed the comments down on his blog and chose to tell us that some people cannot behave like grown-ups, the answer must be "No." Indeed, he mirror reads yet again, by labeling his critic(s). Grown-ups who write books don't run away from comments and corrections left on their blogs. Indeed, that is, in my opinion, dishonest. Let the readers decide if somebody has been childish. After all, if your cause is good, right, and true, and your critics aren't behaving like grown-ups, then just let them do damage to their own position. We certainly do around these parts, as the comboxes here will certainly demonstrate. Interact with your critics, don't react to them.

Dr. Beckwith, you chose to write this book, and you chose to react to Steve's review. We've interacted with your commentary more than once now, and you can't seem to muster the fortitude to even publish a single comment on your own blog when offered in good faith. I urge now a third time to interact with Steve's review, not merely react to it. As it stands now, you have given me (and I should think other readers) no reason not to agree with Steve's comment that your scholarship appears to be a bit hastily, overlooking the obvious objections.

There She Is! Not So Wounded As We Were Led to Believe...

For the Nerds...Paramount has released the first photo of the new old Enterprise for Star Trek XI.

Pelagian Dualism

Beowulf2k writes:

I'm not an Arminian.

No, you're a Pelagian. The unborn and infants qua infants have no sin, so they are innocent. Ergo, universal infant salvation.

Tell us, when exactly do infants become sinners? What's the magic age? Where is the exegetical argument? If it varies from individual from individual, where's the exegetical argument for that?

I deny inheritance of Adam's sin for the soul outright, per Ezekiel 18:20.

One of the problems with this appeal is that the selected text doesn't deal with the imputation of Adam's sin to anybody. It addresses an altogether different situation. Like many anti-Calvinists, B2K doesn't exegete the Bible, he quotes selected verses as if they make his case for him.

More on this spooftexting later.

I might be willing to allow that the body does inherit Adam's sin and consequently physical death if you'd like me to, although I can conceive of physical death accruing to all men from Adam without any inheritance of his sin even by the flesh itself.

1. If the former, that's dualism and Gnosticism. The body is bad, it dies as a consequence of Adam's sin. The soul, however, is good. B2k likes to throw around the charge of heresy with respect to Augustine, but apparently he doesn't bother to consult the Bible or church history for other heresies - like Docetism and its children.

2. If the latter, then men were created in a perishable state.

But Ezekiel 18:20 specifically denies any possibility of the death of the soul (i.e. the second death) coming from inheritance.

Let's look at the context of Ezekiel 18. We have to ask ourselves what Ezekiel is discussing. What he's discussing the statements of his audience that they are being held responsible for the sins of their fathers. He tells them that they are responsible insofar as they agree with them.

Indeed, God specifically says He does hold other generations accountable for the sins of the fathers no less than 4 times within the Law itself:

(i) Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

(ii) Exodus 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

(iii) Numbers 14:18 The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

(iv) Deuteronomy 5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,


So, rather than saying that infants are innocent, we should be asking how God can say what He says in Ezekiel as well as what He says in the Law. Ezekiel 18 doesn't represent a change in the Law. Indeed, we should ask ourselves what the recipients of Genesis would have thought, knowing the Law, when reading the Law and seeing that the father of us all fell into sin, and not just in any way, for he plunged the whole race into sin in the process.

The sort of namby pamby spooftexting that B2K offers is what you get when you divorce a verse of the Bible from the context. Ezekiel 18 is not a get out of jail free clause for people who have allegedly committed no sins. It doesn't address the concept of original sin, infant mortality, or the imputation of Adam's sin. Moreover, the argument that this text addresses runs like this:

My father sins. His sins are imputed to me. This occurs from one generation to the next, eg. each male from one generation to the next has his sins imputed to me.

But that's not the argument for the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity.

That argument runs this way:

Adam sins. We are born in his likeness. His sin is imputed directly to us. Further, Adam was the best of us. The fact that we sin is proof that, if we were Adam, we would do no better. So, we approve of his sin when we sin, and we would , in any other world, do no better. Thereby the imputation of Adam's sin to us is proven.

The point of Ezekiel 18 is simply this, men are not held to account for the sins of their father if they repent of their sins. This text would only apply to the situation at hand if infants could repent of their fathers' sins, but that's not B2K's argument. No, his argument is that infants are born in a state of innocence.

And traducianism is just plain stupid. Each soul is clearly a new production of God not a combo of shards of the parents' souls.

So what, Calvinism doesn't select for traducianism. There are Calvinists who believe God creates each soul - in the image of fallen Adam, as a penalty of the Fall. Further Adam and Eve were not created innocent by nature. Rather, they were created in a state of righteousness, though mutable.

In short, infants haven't sinned so they can't go to hell. It's that simple.

1. The Bible says that the wicked go astray from the womb and speak lies from birth.
2. The Bible says that people are conceived in sin and there is no soul that does not commit sin.
3. In short, you've just stated there are two ways of salvation, one for infants and one for everybody else. Do you even bother to think about what you write, or are your fingers divorced from your cortical matter?
4. You've also turned innocence into a form of merit. Thereby we can conclude you have no room for salvation by grace. You believe in salvation by merit, yet you criticize Romanists too. How ironic.
5. Let's assume infants are born "innocent." In that case, "innocence" must also equate to "holiness." "Innocence" and "holiness" are not convertible.

So, why does a person sin if he is born "innocent?" If he's born innocent, he should remain innocent. Where's the exegetical argument for libertarian freedom?

The Day After

True or False?

Boldly Going Where We've Gone Before - With Time Travel!

Lately, I've noticed more and more Trek references around here....(C'mon, Manata, "Norman" from I Mudd...I bet you wear Spock ears too ;) )....So I thought I'd remind everybody that there is a new Trek movie in production.

Leonard Nimoy is starring as Spock...and so is Zachary Quinto.



Rather than bore you with photos and more details, I'll just refer you here. Take a look at the Quinto photos. The kid really does look like Nimoy. That's just..weird.

Oh, and while you're there...scroll down to Miscellaneous and participate in the abortion discussion. Registration is free.

Success Rates

I'd planned to take a year off blogging - but John Loftus provides some low hanging fruit from which it's good to make a wider point or points:

Loftus writes:

If God sent Jesus to save the world by dying on the cross for our sins (the greater deed) then he should at least be as passionate as Christians are to help people believe (the lesser deeds). Why would God do the greater deed and not also do the lesser deeds? This doesn't make sense of an omniscient, omnibenelovent, and omnipotent God. The excuses given for the paucity of evidence reveal that the Christian expects way too little from the God they believe in.

1. Note how John assumes what he needs to prove, namely that Jesus died for "our" sins - defined by his Arminian upbringing as "everybody without exception.

2. Neither does he address the concept of "divine silence."

3. And he doesn't bother with telling us if this is an internal or an external critique.

a. If internal, this might be effective against some Arminians, but it doesn't begin to touch Reformed theology.

b. If external, he's given us no reason to accept his standards of critique, whatever they may be.

4. Indeed, what divine omniscience has to do with this isn't even stated.

First let's look at what one thinks (as he doesn't give any specific texts) would be a standard text, John 3:16.

For God so loved the world, that He gave His one and only Son, so that all the ones believing may not perish but have eternal life.

A. God loves the world. No problem. But love is not God's only attribute.
B. For whom did Jesus come to die? All the ones believing. John 3:16 is a marvelous text for particular redemption.

Indeed, this text is followed by John 3:17, which merely recapituates 3:16. The world is condemned already. Jesus did not come into it to condemn it. Rather, he came to save it.

This is all stated to explain the illustration of the serpent lifted up in the wilderness. It may help Arminians in general to read that narrative.. How many people for whom the serpent was lifted up actually died, according to that text? None. The people who died had already done so. So, what's the point? The point is simple: Jesus came to redeem the cosmos by being lifted up for the believing ones. Their salvation through Him is the means of cosmic redemption, the same way that God saved the nation of Israel through the serpent being lifted up. The believing ones looked to it, and the nation was saved.

So, what does this mean for John's post?

Well, for starters, the target group isn't "the world" defined as "everybody." The target group of people in the world is the elect. All the elect will be saved, and by this the world is saved. God isn't in heaven wringing His hands hoping that people will all come to Christ. Sure, He offers some people who ultimately reject Christ salvation, but that's for their inculpation, and the call is general because God doesn't write a big "E" across the forehead of the elect, who are scattered in geography and history. The force of a gospel presentation generally is to call the elect and inculpate the reprobate, and God need not present the gospel to everybody anyway:

1. Divine silence is a judgment for sin.
2. People are condemned already. The reprobate are already condemned. In a sense not hearing the gospel is a mercy, for "to whom much is given, much is required."

Likewise common grace itself is indexed to the Noahic covenant...for the purpose of maintaining the world until God's purposes of redemption are accomplished...and that very covenant was made with Noah and his familo, so it too is indexed, ultimately, to the elect.

So, God is "passionate" about calling the elect. His "omnibenevolence" extends to "everybody" insofar as God's ultimate purposes are concerned, is being fulfilled. Love is not God's only attribute, and God certainly knows all things, for He's foreordained them. The great redemptive purposes of God are not a failure. The success rate is 100 percent (something that can't be said of Arminianism, given general redemption), and "divine silence" is not a testament against the truth of the Bible or the Gospel. Rather, it is proof of it. God did the "greater deed," by sending Christ to die for the elect, and He does the "lesser" by making sure each and every one of them is saved.

If this is the best John Loftus can do these days, we welcome it, for this sort of namby pamby argumentation does Reformed theology a great favor.

Bellicosio Canonics

I realize Turretinfan is engaged in an ongoing debate with Matthew Bellisario, and commentary from the audience is restricted to the end - on the debate blog - but this just begs for an immediate response:

Fist of all Tradition does not produce any new content in regards to the Word of God. So there is no need to even entertain that part of your question.

That depends on your POV. Dogmatically, see Mary, Assumption of...there is no biblical evidence for this dogma. It comes exclusively from "tradition." Ergo, tradition does, as a matter of dogma, produce new content in regards to the Word of God. Is the documentation for this tradition written or oral? If written, why isn't it Scripture?

If you mean with respect to the canon of Scripture, rather than answering the question, Mr. Bellisario simply assumes what he needs to prove, viz. by saying:

I don't know how you have determined that from my writings up to this point. The Church faithfully gives us the complete Word of God in the means and methods that God chose to use, which includes Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Church.

If the Church gives you the complete canon of Scripture, yet you believe dogmas not found in Scripture, indeed which come only from Sacred Tradition, then they can't be found in the canon of Scripture. Ergo, they are not part of the canon of Scripture. So now one has to answer why these teachings are not canonized, especially if they are truly of Apostolic origin.

As far as the Council of Trent goes, it merely represented the universal teaching of the Church on the Biblical Canon up to that point, but declaring it infallibly. You bring up the Latin translation which has nothing to do with Biblical Canon, so I do not understand your attempt to besmirch it here in your argument.

Here is what TF had stated:

On the other hand, the canon appears to pose some interesting problems for your counterplan of papist tradition. Although your rebuttal claims, “The universal Church guided by the Holy Spirit has determined the Canon as well as the full Revelation of God,” you must be aware of the fact that there are several glaring problems with you claim. After all, there is some kind of definition of the Canon provided by Trent, but Trent at the same time endorsed as “authentic” the “old Latin Vulgate” of the day – a version riddled with errors.

I guess we should spell this out for Mr. Bellisario, following his own argumentation:

1. You have claimed that the canon was determined infallibily by Trent.

2. Trent also says:

But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.

3. In your answer, which simply repeats your previous assertions, have also claimed that Trent is declaring what the Church has always believed. Fair enough.

4. But the Vulgate contains errors. This is no great secret.

5. So, what TF is asking you, implicitly, is how you can acknowledge the decree concerning the canon's content on the one hand yet deny the Vulgate on the other. In addition, your appeal to Trent, following the plain meaning of the language, implicates the Roman Catholic church in infallibly declaring that a particular text, a text which contains errors, is the only authentic version of the Bible - not the autographa, rather it's the Latin the Vulgate and, therefore, its errors. This is the Roman Catholic version of King James Onlyism.

6. You have also claimed this is the work of the Holy Spirit.

7. Therefore, TF's opponent believes the Spirit of God worked to guide the Roman Church into validating an error laden text as the only authentic text, and that infallibly. So, the only correct version of the Bible is the Vulgate. It contains errors, so it cannot be said to be inerrant. Yet the decision of Trent is said to be infallible and the work of God.

Think about that. As TF stated:

The promulgation of the Nova Vulgata by John Paul II seems to confirm the fact that the Old Latin Vulgate, endorsed by Trent as authentic, was not actually as good as the Latin could get. Even the Nova Vulgata has problems that should be addressed, and the sorry tale of the Clementine Vulgate just demonstrates the great futility of Rome attempting to define the content of Scripture at any detailed level.

Trent infallibly defined the Canon and agreed with the Church, her writings and her councils up to that point.

1. Trent's canon is at variance with the writings of a number of the writings of the Church, including those of none other than Gregory the Great and Cardinal Cajetan and others (see below). Are we to believe that they did not know and believe in the correct canon of Scripture?
2. How did the Church muddle along without Trent?
3. How can one hold the Reformers be held responsible for rejecting books that ecumenical councils had not agreed upon up to that point?

The Councils of Hippo 393, and Carthage 397 and 419 for example justified and authorized the Deuterocanonicals for use as Sacred Scripture.

None of which were ecumenical. They express the opinion of a region, not the opinion of the whole church. Mr. Bellisario has moved from the church universal to the church regional. In addition, Carthage disagrees with Trent.

He continues:

Even the Protestant scholar Bruce Metzger admits that the early Christians regarded the Deuterocanonicals as being Scripture.

Metzger (2001) points out in his notes from the RSV the following:

"During the early Christian centuries most Greek and Latin Church Fathers, such as Irenaeus, Tertulian, Clement of Alexandria, Clement of Alexandria, and Cyprian (none of whom knew any Hebrew), quoted passages from the Apocrypha as "Scripture," "divine Scripture," "inspired," and the like. In this period only an occasional Father made an effort to learn the limits of the Palestinian Jewish canon (as Melito of Sardis), or to distinguish between the Hebrew text of Daniel and the addition of the story of Susanna in the Greek version (as Africanus)."

Note the bait and switch...the argument over the canon has now moved from the content of the canon itself to what is and is not "Scripture." Yet Scripture is a broader category than "canon." Further, the category of the DC does not select for any particular list.

Mr. Bellisario is appealing to Metzger. Okay, let's go to Metzger:

“The early Christian Church, which began within the bosom of Palestinian Judaism, received her first Scriptures (the books of the Old Testament) from the Jewish synagogue. Since, however, the Gentile converts to Christianity could not read Hebrew, the Greek translation of the Old Testament (called the Septuagint), which many Jews had also come to use, was widely employed by the Church. Because of the antagonism which developed between the Synagogue and the Church, the Jews abandoned the use of the Greek Septuagint, and this circulated henceforth solely among the Christians. Almost the only manuscript copies of the Septuagint which have come down to us today were written by Christian scribes,” B. Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (Oxford 1977), 175.

“In the first place, the number of Apocryphal books is not identical in all copies of the Septuagint. This circumstance suggests that there was no fixed canon at Alexandria which included all of these peripheral books. In the second place, the manuscripts of the Septuagint which contain these disputed books were all copied by Christian scribes, and therefore cannot be used as indisputable proof that the *Jewish* canon included all the books in question. In the third place, though Philo, the greatest of the Jewish Hellenists in Alexandria, knew of the existence of the Apocrypha, he never once quoted from them, much less used them for the proof of doctrine, as he habitually uses most of the books of the Hebrew canon. It is extremely difficult, therefore, to believe that the Alexandrian Jews received these books as authoritative in the same sense as they received the Law and the Prophets,” ibid. 176-77.

“The question remains, however, how such books came to stand so closely associated with the canonical books as they do in the manuscripts of the Septuagint. In attempting to find at least a partial answer to this problem, it should not be overlooked that the change in production of manuscripts from the scroll-form to the codex or leaf-form must have had an important part to play in the ascription of authority to certain books on the periphery of the canon,” ibid. 177.

“The prevailing custom among the Jews was the production of separate volumes for each part of the Hebrew canon…When the codex or leaf-form of book production was adopted, however, it became possible for the first time to include a great number of separate books within the same two covers…For whatever reason the change was instituted, it now became possible for canonical and Apocryphal books to be brought into close physical juxtaposition. Books which heretofore had never been regarded by the Jews as having any more than a certain edifying significance were now placed by Christian scribes in one codex side by side with the acknowledged books of the Hebrew canon. Thus it would happen that what was first a matter of convenience in making such books of secondary status available among Christians became a factor in giving the impression that all of the books within such a codex were to be regarded as authoritative. Furthermore, as the number of Gentile Christians grew, almost none of whom had exact knowledge of the extent of the original Hebrew canon, it became more and more natural for quotations to be made indiscriminately from all the books included with the one Greek codex,” ibid. 177-78.

“From the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament an Old Latin Version was made, which of course also contained the Apocryphal books among the canonical books. It is not strange, therefore, that Greek and Latin Church Fathers of the second and third centuries, such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Cyprian (none of whom knew any Hebrew), quote the Apocrypha with the same formulas of citation as they use when referring to the books of the Old Testament. The small number of Fathers, however, who either had some personal knowledge of Hebrew (e.g. Origen and Jerome) or had made an effort to learn what the limits of the Jewish canon were (e.g. Melito of Sardis) were usually careful not to attribute canonicity to the Apocrypha books, though recognizing that they contain edifying material suitable for Christians to read,” ibid. 178.

“Whether it was owing to the influence of Origen or for some other reason, from the fourth century onward the Greek Fathers made fewer and fewer references to the Apocrypha as inspired. Theologians of the Eastern Church, such as Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Amphilochius, drew up formal lists of the Old Treatment Scriptures in which the Apocrypha do not appear,” ibid. 178-79.

“Subsequent to Jerome’s time and down to the period of the Reformation a continuous succession of the more learned Fathers and theologians in the West maintained the distinctive and unique authority of the books of the Hebrew canon. Such a judgment, for example, was reiterated on the very eve of the Reformation by Cardinal Ximenes in the preface of the magnificent Complutensian Polyglot edition of the Bible which he edited (1514-17). Moreover, the earliest Latin version of the Bible in modern times, made from the original languages by the scholarly Dominican, Sanctes Pagnini, and published at Lyons in 1528, with commendatory letters from Pope Adrian VI and Pope Clement VII, sharply separates the text of the canonical books from the text of the Apocryphal books…Even Cardinal Cajetan, Luther’s opponent, at Augsburg in 1518, gave unhesitating approval to the Hebrew canon in his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament, which he dedicated in 1532 to Pope Clement VII. He expressly called attention to Jerome’s separation of the canonical from the uncanonical books, and maintained that the latter must not be relied upon to establish points of faith, but used only for the edification of the faithful,” 180.

“It was not easy for all Roman Catholic scholars to acquiesce to the unequivocal pronouncement of full canonicity which the Council of Trent made regarding books which, for so long a time and by such high authorities even in the Roman Church (see above, p180), had been pronounced inferior. Yet, despite more than one attempt by noted Catholic scholars to reopen the question, this expanded form of the Bible has remained the Scriptural authority of the Roman Church,” ibid. 190).

“The position of Eastern Orthodox Churches regarding the canon of the Old Testament is not at all clear. On the one hand, since the Septuagint version of the Old Testament was used throughout the Byzantine period, it is natural that Greek theologians such as Andrew of Crete, Germanus, Theodore the Studite, and Theophylact of Bulgaria, should refer indiscriminately to Apocrypha and canonical books alike. Furthermore, certain Apocrypha are quoted as authoritative at the Seventh Ecumenical Council held at Nicaea in 787 and at the Council convened by Basil at Constantinople in 869. On the other hand, writers who raise the issue regarding the limits of the canon, such as John of Damascus and Nicephorus, express views which coincide with those of the great Athanasius, who adhered to the Hebrew canon,” ibid. 192-93.

“What was perhaps the most important synod in the history of the Eastern Church was convened at Jerusalem in 1672…The Synod expressly designated the books of Wisdom, Judith, Tobit, Bel and the Dragon, Maccabees (four books), and Ecclesiasticus as canonical,” ibid. 193-94.

“The position of the Russian Orthodox Church as regards the Apocrypha appears to have changed during the centuries. During the Middle Ages Apocryphal books of both the Old and the New Testament exerted a widespread influence in Slavic lands. In subsequent centuries Constantinople’s leadershp gave way to the Holy Synod ruling from St. Petersburg, whose members were in sympathy with the position of the Reformers. Through a similar influence emanating from the great universities of Kiev, Moscow, Petersburg, and Kazan, the Russian Church became united in its rejection of the Apocrypha. For example, the Longer Catechism drawn up by the Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow and approved by the Most Holy Governing Synod (Moscow, 1839) expressly omits the Apocrypha from the enumeration of the books of the Old Testament on the ground that ‘they do not exist in Hebrew’,” ibid. 194.

“As a result, there appears to be no unanimity on this subject of the canon in the Greek Orthodox Church today. Catechisms directly at variance with each other on this subject have received the Imprimatur of Greek Ecclesiastical authorities, and the Greek clergy may hold and teach what they please about it,” ibid. 195.

Mr. Bellisario continues:

In fact all of the ancient churches are unanimous with the acceptance of the Deuterocanonical books, which you haphazardly reject.

Not all of them agree with you either, and, further, we do not "haphazardly" reject the DC's. We do so on a principled basis. For example, our theory of inspiration does not extend to pious frauds. It does you no favors in a debate to make such statements.

And, by the way, readers should know that the actual question from TF was (emphasis mine):

But even setting aside the issue of the detailed level of the canon (and – after all – the difference between the Tridentine canon and the Reformed canon is not very large), and further setting aside the issue of how on earth the New Testament church would have any kind of authority over the already-existing canon of the Old Testament, there is the problem of the canon of oral tradition (the previously discussed category of HMDT) and living authoritative interpretation (the previously discussed category of IAT).

If difficulty in identifying the canon is supposed to be a problem for those who follow Sola Scriptura as defined by the WCF, it would seem that if no canon of HMDT and IAT can be found then a doubly-large problem exists for your counterplan.

Indeed, that is the question I hereby pose to you: where is the counterplan’s canon, not simply the canon of Scripture, but the canons of the HMDT (which one would presume is a fixed quantity) and the IAT (to date, since, apparently in your view IAT can produce new content that is also the “Word of God”)?

So, here's my question to the readers of this blog. Was this ever actually answered? Is simply saying, "The Church faithfully gives us the complete Word of God in the means and methods that God chose to use, which includes Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Church," an answer?

Perseverance of the Saints (Howell)

There seems to be some confusion on certain skeptical (and Arminian) blogs with respect to apostasy and backsliding. Folks are acting as if a profession of faith or even the sustaining of certain experiences over time constitutes a valid conversion experience in the past. Likewise, they are acting as if, in the case of apostates, we, their critics, have stated that their experience was not "real" (to them). Neither propositions are true: This should clear it up (emphases mine):

Perseverance of the Saints

DELIVERED BY
R. B. C. HOWELL

---

The Privileges of Believers In Christ Include
Their Perseverance In Grace Unto the Attainment of Final, and
Complete Salvation

Philippians 1:6 "Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ."

To persevere in grace unto the attainment of final, and complete salvation, is another, and the last in the catalogue which I shall at present particularly consider, of the inestimable privileges growing out of the union of believers with Christ. I need not tell you that a result so glorious will not be achieved without a struggle. The utmost energies of minds renewed and sanctified by the Holy Spirit, will be imperatively demanded. Battles are to be fought; victories are to be won; labors are to be endured; before the end is gained.

. . . Not for thee
Spreads the world her downy pillow;
On the rock thy couch must me,
While around thee chafes the billow."

But in every struggle, every conflict, Jehovah is your guide and support, and has promised that you shall be "more than conquerors," through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Many excellent christians however, in opposition to the doctrine maintained by us, hold, to use the language of one of their most distinguished divines, that--"A believer may totally lose his faith, and regeneration, and may continue in apostasy, and so eternally perish."[1]

Either this proposition is not defensible, or that which asserts the final perseverance of the saints--in other words, the continuance of all believers "in a state of grace to a state of glory"--must be abandoned. Both cannot be true. To which shall we adhere? It is our interest, and our duty, to know the truth, on this, and all other topics; and thanks to our God, the means are accessible and at hand by which the whole inquiry may be fully and satisfactorily determined.

Before entering upon the argument however, whether in refutation of the opinion stated, or in defence of our own conclusion, it is necessary, if you would clearly comprehend the question to be examined, that several preliminary observations should be submitted..

In the first place, we predicate final perseverance in grace of those only who are "born again"--the saints of Christ Jesus--and not of mere professors of religion. Let this fact be kept constantly in memory. Professors of religion, members of the Churches, are not all, as a matter of course, the children of God, and followers of the Redeemer. Many, in every age, have assumed the outward forms of godliness, in whose hearts true piety had no dwelling place. In the estimation of enlightened christians of every class, such are expected to "fall away." Their relations to the Church are not congenial; their spiritual duties are burdensome; they soon become weary; and in going back to the world, they return to a course of life which their hearts always preferred. Their apostasy is a natural consequence, and always to be anticipated.

It is, secondly, necessary that you discriminate carefully, between backsliding, and apostasy. The former is the act of turning back from God; the latter is the forsaking, or the renouncing of the religion of Christ. Backsliding consists either in the relinquishment of evangelical doctrine; or in the loss of spirituality of mind; or in the gradual departure from correct morals. All these evils are embraced in apostasy. The backslider commits transgressions, but returns to his allegiance, and obtains forgiveness, and acceptance. The apostate continues; dies in his sins; and "so eternally perishes." We teach that none of the true children of God--he believing, the pardoned, the regenerated, the sanctified--become apostate, but to backsliding, of every character and degree, all, it is but too evident, even the best, and most devoted, are constantly, and painfully liable.

A third preliminary remark--Final perseverance in grace is never accomplished without the divinely appointed instrumentalities. The means, and the ends, are invariably associated. And will believers in Christ always employ those means? If they do, the result can never be doubtful. Messiah himself says they will. If a man love me he will keep my words, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."[2] "This is the love of God that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not grievous."[3] The saints of the Redeemer--

"Have proclaimed him King, and in their hearts
His title is engraven, with a pen
Dipt in the fountain of eternal love,"

With these considerations before you, we proceed to weigh carefully, and prayerfully, in the balances of divine truth, the principal objections to the conclusion that all believers in Christ will persevere in grace unto the attainment of final and complete salvation, never "totally losing their faith, and regeneration," but pressing onward till they reach, and wear, the crown of eternal life.

The first of these objections may be stated thus--Many of the angels apostatized; our first parents also, fell from their original state of holiness; why then, may not christians "lose their faith and regeneration," and so bring upon themselves eternal perdition?

We have here brought before us two classes of intelligent beings; angels in heaven; and men in their primal state of innocence. Let us consider them separately. Angels belong to another world. Of the cause, and nature, of their apostasy, I may be permitted to remark, we know very little. Upon this topic our Heavenly Father has not deemed our instruction necessary. Allusions to the subject in his word, are made only incidentally. No argument therefore, can be predicated upon the fall of angels, in support of the doctrine which teaches the apostasy of christians. Here we dismiss this part of the objection.

But our first parents also fell from their original state of holiness. If so, may not christians under similar influences, fall and be lost?

This proposition demands our serious investigation. I observe, that between their primitive condition, and that of truly regenerated men of subsequent ages, no such similarity exists, as will admit of conclusive reasoning from the one to the other. Let several facts, evincive of the truth of this statement, be considered. You will, in the first place, remember that the covenant of God with them was wholly different from that upon which you now stand. To Adam Jehovah said--"Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not ear of it; for in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."[4]

The obligation of this covenant was a simple negative, upon a single point. How easy would have been compliance. The conditions were explicit--obey, and live; disobey, and die. The result need not be repeated.

With this, contrast the Gospel Covenant--"I will put my laws into their mind, (saith Jehovah) and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people; and they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord; for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest; for I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins, and their iniquities will I remember no more."[5]

Well may this be distinguished as "the covenant of grace!" How utterly unlike the Adamic. With our first parents all was unbending justice; with you all is favor, mercy, boundless forbearance. In the covenant with them, no provision was made for the pardon of sin; in the Gospel covenant, this is one of the strongest features. Besides all this, they were, until they sinned, utter strangers to pain, and sorrow, and wasting wretchedness. They had not experience of evil. You have known all its bitterness. And further, They disposed of their own life, and alas! incurred its dreadful forfeiture! "Ye are lead (to sin) and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also, appear with his in glory."[6]

Their condition was wholly different from yours. Almost its antipodes. The reasoning from analogy therefore--is here clearly out of place--it is not legitimate. Neither, as you now see, from the fall of angels nor of our first parents, from their original state of holiness, can any valid arguments be adduced, proving that regenerated men, once depraved and sinful, but now redeemed and sanctified, are liable to "loose their faith, and regeneration, or to continue in apostasy, and so eternally perish." The objection is without relevancy, or force.

The threatenings, cautions, and warnings, with which the word of God every where abounds, imply, it is alleged, if they do not aver, the probability that some true christians will apostatise, and forever perish. They are therefore presented as a second objection to the doctrine it is my purpose to establish.

That such threatenings and cautions, and warnings, are of constant recurrence in the divine word, and that they are in their character, appalling, is most true. The premises are therefore cheerfully conceded, but the conclusion from thence, does not appear to me, by any means natural, or a matter of course. The reasoning is illogical, as I shall presently fully demonstrate. Let two important facts be here fixed carefully in the mind. The Church of Christ is composed, not of the regenerate alone, but of the unregenerate also. This is the first fact. The second is, that all these threatenings, and cautions, and warnings, are addressed to the members of the Church as a body. Both these truths will, I suppose, be readily admitted by all.

But I would be fully understood, and therefore, will refer you to testimony. I do not admit that the unconverted have any right to a place in the Churches. The word of God, we very well know, does not approve their admission. On the contrary, it is strictly prohibited. But those who administer the affairs of the kingdom of Christ upon earth, are men. They are imperfect; their administration also must therefore be imperfect. Our best efforts may be exerted to preserve the body pure from unworthy members, but we cannot read men's hearts, and in despite of all our vigilance, very many find their way into the Church, who are strangers to repentance and faith; some probably, for some reasons, seeking to appear what they know they are not; and others candid, and sincere, but misled, and deceived. I state the simple fact that there are unconverted men in the Churches. So it has been in every age---in apostolic as well as in our own times. A Judas, and a Simon Magus, were then members of the Churches, and stood side by side, with a James, and a John. So now, the converted and the unconverted, the eminently holy, and the profoundly depraved, meet and mingle in the sanctuary, and at the very table of the Lord. Such, to a greater or less extent, are all the Churches. This we know to be true, by the institution in the word of God of disciplinary measures to exclude the unworthy when discovered, and by our own personal observation.

To the Churches as bodies, so composed, are all the fearful passages in question addressed. To the members of the Church at Rome for example, Paul said--"If ye live after the flesh ye shall die."[7]

To those of the Churches of Galatia, "Be not deceived God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap; for he that soweth to his flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption."[8]

To the members of the old Jewish Church the prophet Ezekiel said--"When the righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he love? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned; in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sins that he hath sinned, in them shall he die."[9]

Does any one deny that these, and all similar threatenings, are, in fact, addressed to the members of the Churches. If they are not addressed to members of the Churches, they can have no influence upon the argument; they are directed to those who are not members, and whose claims to religion, since all truly religious men unite with the Churches, are at best, exceedingly questionable. They are in truth, however, addressed to the Churches, all of whose members are professedly righteous, and claim to be accepted of God through Christ. They are so regarded by their brethren, and by all others. For a season, they all act in accordance with their profession. No difference in zeal, and good works, can be perceived between the truly converted and unconverted. They all, whatever may be really the fact, bear the same character. They are known as christians--men of God.

Uniting with the Church however, important as this act may be, is any easy matter. It is but the beginning of the christian life. Next comes the period of trial. Will all who join the Churches, bear the test to which sooner or later, they will most surely be subjected. Remember also that the period which is to try the strength of their faith, patience, obedience, and fidelity, extends through their whole life upon earth. With these facts before you, survey the scene which I will now sketch, as it passes. For one, the seductions of sense, ere long, prove too mighty; he yields; lives after the flesh, and dies. Another, carried away by the fascinations of the world,--wealth, ambition, honor, pleasure--is found sowing to the flesh; he reaps corruption. Then the righteous man--he who had been eminent for zeal, and good works, foremost in the sacred ranks, is overthrown, turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and miserably perish! A succession of similar events continues. Their profession when tested, prove unequal to the trial! They have fallen; and are probably lost forever. Behold the picture. Is it imaginary? Alas! far from it. Do these facts, however, prove that the persons in question have "lost their faith, and regeneration?" Surely not. The facts all concur to demonstrate that they never possessed these high endowments. True they professed religion. But the indubitable evidence of a man's faith and regeneration" is, not alone that he has been excited, and experienced fears and sorrows, and confidence and raptures; nor that he does many righteous acts, and is lauded as eminently devoted; but it is that he sustains the tests to which he is subjected in the christian profession. The "refiners fire" consumes the dross only; the pure gold all remains, and is by the process, rendered but the finer, and the brighter. Can it be proved that these men who have fallen, although they previously maintained the character of great piety, were ever rally regenerated? Never. Such proof is impossible, as long as men can appear to be what they are not. Then their fall is very far from showing that the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints is not true.

Do not, however, the truly converted also, sometimes fall? We have seen that there are in the Churches two classes of persons. So, I beg you to observe, are there two classes of persons among the fallen. The one class, now free from the Church, seem to delight in sin; their hearts grow daily, more and more obdurate; their conscience appears but a feeble impulse; their sin against God has no restraint, except their desire to subserve their own personal and family reputation, and interest. The other class are, after a while at least, overtaken by remorse; repentance pursues them; and with self loathing and tears, they return, and assure us that, throughout all their wanderings, they were doing violence to their consciences, and their judgment, and were supremely miserable. The former were unregenerate apostates; and latter converted backsliders. If some like Hymeneus and Alexander make shipwreck of their professed faith and good conscience, and thus go down miserably to eternal death; others, like a David and Peter, return from their sins, and give themselves anew to the service of him who has graciously said--"I will heal their backslidings; I will love them freely."[10]

These general remarks apply to all the individual instances of apostasy recorded in the scriptures, and which are constantly occurring within the circle of our own observation. Prophecy foretells them and time witnesses the truth of the prediction. Many of Christ's own personal disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Men are still characterised by like conduct. Were such ever changed in heart? They have been, we have said, under spiritual influences; they have done many things religiously; but all the testimony accessible forbids the conclusion that they were ever renewed. Of those in the Philippian Church, and they may be safely assumed as examples of all others, Paul does not intimate the former regeneration, but says--"Many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ; whose end is destruction."[11]

Of what value then, we may be asked, are all these threatenings, and warnings, and cautions? They are, I answer, of infinite benefit to those who without having experienced any change of heart, have nevertheless professed religion. True, they have assumed a most dangerous position. Deception--

"--So potent is its spell,
That none, decoy'd into that fatal ring,
Unless by Heaven's peculiar grace, escape."

Still they are not beyond the boundaries of mercy. They may yet repent, believe, and be saved. But how are they to be reached? Threatenings, and cautions, and warnings, are addressed to the whole Church. Were they not, these graceless professors would never apply them to themselves. The appalling declarations of Jehovah of which we speak, may bring dismay, and trembling to the heart of the contrite; they at the same time however, apprise the unrenewed of their danger, and thus become the means of their salvation. They are promotive also of the highest interests of the true christian. What in fact, are they all, but so many expressions of love, by which their Father in heaven assures them to the inseparable connection which always subsists as well between sin and misery, as between holiness and salvation. They in all cases, imply the opposite promises; and do often, most effectually, the work of mercy. If we truly "have fellowship with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord," the fears they excite will serve to make us cleave to the truth with increased tenacity, and to walk before God with growing carefulness, and humility. By how much therefore the awakening and deliverance of the erring, and the carefulness, and security of these who love Christ, are valuable, by so much are the threatenings, cautions, and warnings of the word of God fraught with benevolence and grace.

Upon a careful examination of this whole topic you must now clearly see that the threatenings, the cautions, and the warnings, of the word of God, and all the individual instances of apostasy recorded in the scripture, and that occur in our own day, afford no proof that any true believer in Christ will ever "lose his faith, and regeneration," or will not persevere in grace unto the attainment of final and complete salvation.

Many, in the third place, object to our conclusion on this subject from the apprehension that the doctrine may inspire a dangerous security, and create a carelessness in the use of the means of salvation. They think its practical tendency injurious.

Such may be the effect of crude and erroneous notions of the doctrine. Ignorance and error, are always productive of evil. But no such consequences are attendant upon it when truly and fully comprehended. Does any one, professedly a christian, and properly instructed, deliberately, and intentionally, practice sin against God? This fact ought instantly to convince him that he is yet unrenewed in the spirit of his mind; and he may perhaps be moved thereby to seek as never before, and obtain, salvation. It is essential to the very nature of grace that it lead to holiness and obedience in this life, as well as to salvation in that which is to come. But it is said, men are free agents, and therefore, have the power to throw away their "faith and regeneration." Yes, men are free agents; but will they therefore act contrary to nature? Because you are a free agent will you leave the abodes of civilization, resort to the fields, and "eat straw like the ox." Never. You will not, because it is in opposition to your nature. The nature of the christian is renewed. His will is turned to God, and it determines him to serve God. Can you will in opposition to your will? His affections are holy. You love your Lord Jesus Christ.--Can you then love and follow sin? Can you have experience of its criminality, and ingratitude, and misery, and not instinctively reject it? Can you know Christ, and deliberately, and finally forsake him? Can you have faith in the Redeemer, and cherish an impure heart? Can confidence of your safety in Christ become the motive which impels you to rebel against him, and follow the life of a sinner? Surely not. Such things cannot be. Yet they must all occur before it can be rendered probable that the doctrine, which teaches the final perseverance of the saints, is of injurious practical tendency. But there is another, and a still plainer test, by which the strength of the objection may be tried. I appeal to facts. They are numerous, and at hand. Look around you, and tell me, are those who believe in the doctrine that christians "fall from grace, and eternally perish,"--and there are many such--more circumspect, spiritual, religious, or less likely to become apostates, than those who believe in the final perseverance of the saints? We know they are not. They are, to say the least, as frequently as men of any other class, overcome by the evils which so thickly beset the paths of the christian. All the testimony in the case disproves therefore, the injurious practical tendency alleged.

These I believe, are all the objections of any importance, to the doctrine which maintains the final perseverance of the saints--the fall of the angels, and of our first parents, from their original state of holiness; the threatenings of the word of God; the individual examples of apostasy recorded in the scriptures, and that occur in our own day; and the alleged injurious practical tendency of the doctrine. We have candidly and impartially considered them all, and have seen that they are without weight, and fall far short of disproving the proposition that all true believers will at last, gain the crown of eternal life.

We now turn to consider briefly, some of the leading arguments in favor of the doctrine.

Salvation, I remark, in the first place, is preeminently the work of God. This great truth constitutes a primary article in the faith of all evangelical christians. He has redeemed, regenerated, and sanctified his people, with a view to their salvation, and the glory of all his attributes demands that the end proposed shall be accomplished. His love to his people is unchangeable, and therefore they cannot be the objects of it at one time, and not at another. His faithfulness to them, and to his promises, is not founded upon their merits, but his own will and goodness; it cannot therefore be violated. His wisdom foresees every obstacle in the way, and is capable of removing it, and directing them into the right path. Has he chosen an end so glorious, and will he fail to choose the means necessary for its accomplishment? His power is absolute, and perpetually exerted for their preservation, and protection. And will he not save his people? To them all, the divine declaration is made--"To an inheritance, incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you," ye "are kept by the power of God, through faith unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time."[12]

The nature of their connection with the Lord Jesus Christ, I observe secondly, justifies the assurance that all the truly regenerate will persevere in divine grace unto eternal life.

"We are bound to give thanks always to God, for you brethren, beloved of the Lord," says an apostle, "because God hath from the beginning, chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth; whereunto he hath called you by our Gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."[13]

Again. The atonement by Jesus Christ, God the Father has accepted for the forgiveness of your sins. Will he revoke his act of pardon; and will the law once satisfied by Messiah, again turn upon you, and demand at your hands a second satisfaction? Is not the law just, and holy? Again. By your adoption into the family of Jehovah, you are proclaimed from on high, "Heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ."[14]

Will this proclamation be reversed, and you disinherited? How can this be, since you receive all these blessings by the Will and Testament of our Lord himself, and to give full effect to his actions, the Testator is dead? And again, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life."[15]

You believe, and therefore have everlasting life. Shall this life be extinguished? This cannot be, since it is impossible that that which is everlasting can after a few years cease to exist. Once more. Jesus Christ is our Advocate to plead our cause before the Father in heaven. Will he fail of success? Now if in Christ Jesus you were from the beginning chosen, to salvation, and to secure it you have been actually called, and endowed with faith, and sanctification; if through him you have been pardoned, and the claims of the law against you fully satisfied; if you are recognized, and proclaimed heirs with Christ of the heavenly inheritance; if you already have everlasting life; and have his glorious promise--"Because I live ye shall live also;"[16] what can we conclude but that your connection with Christ secures effectually, your final and complete salvation.

The perseverance of the saints in grace unto eternal life, is also evident, thirdly, from the work of the Holy Spirit.

"Now he," said Paul, "which establisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts."[17]

By this holy anointing the people of God are distinguished as already consecrated to be kings, and priests, on high; by the sealing they are received, recognized, and acknowledged, as his peculiar treasure; and by the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts--that is the giving of a part as a pledge of the future bestowment of the whole--he fully ratifies our title to eternal salvation. Further. Our regeneration, and sanctification constitute important parts of the process by which we are fitted and qualified for heaven, and give undoubted proof that it is the intention of the Holy Ghost to save us. Will he, after all this, fail of his design?

God--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost--purpose the salvation of all believers. This truth is now placed beyond the reach of controversy. On this point there is, I must think, no question in the mind of any intelligent christian. No deficiency can exist on the part of Jehovah, nor of any of the persons in the adorable Trinity. If all believers are not saved, the failure cannot be chargeable to God.

Finally. The salvation of all believers is a result guaranteed by the influence of the new nature in the soul of the regenerate.

In every instance of true conversion to God, the will, the affections, the desires, the purposes--all the powers of the mind--are, as we have already said, turned from sin to holiness. The old unsanctified nature, followed worldly things; the new spiritual nature follows of choice, the things of God. This is now the ruling influence of the soul. Men, as a general rule, act always in accordance with the impulses of their nature. This every one knows to be true. To suppose that any one will do otherwise, long at a time, is both unphilosophical, and unscriptural. This principle is recognized by our Saviour himself. "The tree is know by its fruit." "A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things; and an evil man out of the evil treasure, bringeth forth evil things."[18] Christians are, by inspiration, addressed as "Holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling."[19] All men undoubtedly act in accordance with their nature; the nature of believers is holy; they will therefore pursue a course of holy action. Will they then, ever finally abandon themselves to a life of sin? If so they will act in opposition to their nature, to suppose which, we have seen, is against both philosophy and scripture. Into snares, and temptations, they, as has been shown, may, and do, often fall, and not unfrequently, go very far into worldliness, and transgression. But if their nature is renewed, grace will ultimately triumph. The enlightened conscience will not always remain silent. They return to the path of life. This is the doctrine of Paul, who asks--"How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"[20] The grace of the Father, the love of the Son, and the promptings of the Holy Ghost, combine with the desires and aspirations of the soul, and bear the believer onward, and upward, until he stands accepted, and glorified, in the midst of the shining hosts "who have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb!" If additional proofs of the correctness of this doctrine were needed, they are abundantly supplied by direct, and unequivocal declarations of God himself. I must of many, satisfy myself with one, or two. He says--"I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish."[21] Truly, he "shall confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless, in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ."[22]

The perseverance in grace of all true believers, unto the attainment of eternal life, is, as we have now fully shown, guaranteed by the perfections of God the Father; by their relations with our Lord Jesus Christ the Son; by the work in their hearts of the Holy Spirit; by the character of the new nature with which they are endowed; and by the express declarations of the divine word of truth. With glowing spirits, therefore, and boundless gratitude and love, we too, may join in that apostolic exultation, which so gloriously delineates the privileges of all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ--"If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also, freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth, Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died; yea rather, that is risen again; who is even at the right hand of God; who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, 'for thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.' Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors, through him that loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."[23]

I have now brought in review before you, some of the most distinguished privileges of believers in Christ. How strong the emphasis with which they speak the infinite love and grace of our Heavenly Father! It is yours to enjoy the free and full pardon of sins; to receive from Jehovah entire justification; to be admitted, and approved, among the adopted children of the Most High, an heir of the kingdom of grace on earth, and of glory in heaven; to have conferred upon you all the blessings described in the promises of the divine word; to be animated and sustained by the power of hope; and to persevere in grace unto the attainment of final and complete salvation. How rich are these honors! Surprising unspeakably, is their magnitude! Their excellency, what mind can justly conceive! They clothe you with a dignity and glory, not inferior to those of the tallest of the angels in his presence. And by your side stands God himself, your Father, your Friend, your Deliverer and points you to exalted seats in that "house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." There you will soon be received, perfect, glorified, immortal. Who can describe the rapture which will thrill your bosom, when Messiah shall say--

"Ye blessed of my Father come, ye just
Enter the joy eternal, of your Lord;
Receive your crowns, ascend and sit with me,
At God's right hand, in glory evermore."

---

[1] Limborch's Theol. v. cap. lxxx.

[2] John 14:13, 19

[3] 1 John 5:3

[4] Gen. 2:16, 17

[5] Heb. 8:10-13

[6] Col. 3:3, 4

[7] Rom. 8:13

[8] Gal. 6:7, 8

[9] Ezek. 18:24

[10] Hosea 14:4

[11] Phil. 3:18, 19

[12] 1 Pet. 1:4, 5

[13] 2 Thess. 2:13, 14

[14] Rom. 8:17

[15] John 3:36

[16] John 14:10, 20

[17] 2 Cor. 1:21, 22

[18] Matt. 12:33, 35

[19] Heb. 3:1

[20] Rom. 6:2

[21] John 10:28

[22] 1 Cor. 1:8

[23] Rom. 8:31-39

I Remember When

HT: Steve:

Our Modern Chains

I remember when there were no cell phones. I remember life without laptops, desktops, and I-Pods. I remember when we talked to our neighbors and didn't look away from each other as we walked down Main Street. I remember IBM Selectrics and White-Out. I remember 45's and LP's. I remember when...

Now Can We Move On?

Turretinfan notes:

David Ponter writes: "What is clear now, beyond any doubt whatsoever, is that the doctrine of unlimited atonement was a Reformed doctrine. The evidence now is of such efficacy that only a proverbial fool would insist otherwise." (source)

My commentary:

I don't know about everybody else, but I sure am glad that's been cleared up at last. (Oh, and thanks for telling those of us who differ that we're fools - I really appreciate that). So, now that the issue is finally settled, can we now look forward to some posts from that side of the aisle that actually demonstrate they actually believe what they say they believe?

As TF has also noted:

He is in a position to do research on so many more useful issues - issues that actually would help to defend the gospel from false gospels: issues on which apparently he and we Calvinists are in agreement.

Indeed. I've said this for quite sometime now. While some of these folks twitter on about the scope of the atonement, it's mighty hard to find some of their leaders actually interacting with the atheist, the Romanist, the Orthodox, the Muslim, the Mormon, the Arian, etc. Meanwhile those of us called by various perjorative terms are now doing, and have been doing for quite some time that work. Personally, I've always found that odd. We're told we're too restrictive on our views of the atonement, while they are so very expansive, but we're the ones, not them, who are doing the work of evangelism and apologetics on the internet. Well, then, now that the issue has apparently been settled so that the rest of us are just "proverbial fools," perhaps we will actually see that trend reverse in the near future. I surely do hope that will be the case.

Search Engine 101 for Mr. Garrett

Apparently, Stephen Garrett, one of Bob Ross' acolytes has problems using search engines.

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

James White has addressed the latter. I shall now address the former.

Mr. Garrett, writes:

Charles and Bob have done plenty of writing and "exegeting" scriptures that disprove Hyperism.

Good for you! I, of course, am no hyper-Calvinist. So, how does exegeting texts that refute hyperism affect anything I have stated?

Has Gene commented each time in refutation?

No, do I need to do so? There is a vast literature on the subject. Further, Charles simply isn't on my radar, not now, and not in 2 years. The only reason you are on my radar now is because you have chosen to be a follower of this blog. Are you, I wonder, following this blog in order to stir up more strife? If so, it won't work. I would rather spend my time on issues other than those I was addressing two years ago. Indeed, I have little time to deal with people online who are more concerned about being Baptist than being Christian. I've stated before that such a way of thinking is just as poisonous to Baptists and the wider Church in general as is harping on the doctrines of grace 24/7, or the scope of the atonement, etc. can be. I am Baptist and I am Reformed, but I am not obsessed with either one. I will defend my sacramentology and soteriology when I feel it is necessary, but I will not get involved in the crypto-Landmarkism that is creeping into Baptist life once again. Anybody who knows me knows how I feel about that.

That said, I have addressed Mr. Ross and Charles, according to the dashboard from which I compose articles for this blog, no less than 10 times, eleven times, if we include Sam Hughley's guest blog, and that is just from this blog alone . I have also addressed him at the Strange Baptist Fire blog.

Because Mr. Ross, like Charles, has proven himself to be unteachable, incorrigible, and uncorrectable, I have long since relegated him to the status of the factious man of Titus 3. If Mr. Garrett had bothered to check the archives of this blog, he would know that. Ergo, until the other day, and related to a completely different subject, I haven't felt the need to address Ross in about 2 years. I also know, and Mr. Garrett may not, of others who have tried to deal privately with Mr. Ross over the past few years, but to no avail. They have received largely the same sort of treatment from him as have Dr. White and myself. Sorry, but I don't have time for that. If the local churches to which Charles and Ross belong will not discipline them or if they have made the attempt and been ignored for all I know, then there isn't anything more I can do. There is no presbytery to which I can make an appeal, and, since I live several states from either of these men, I have no desire to appeal to their associations, particularly since the answer is likely, in this age, to be "these churches are autonomous, so we can't help you."

This is a good place to pause for a moment and make a wider point. Awhile back in talking about the Crypto-Amyraldians on the internet who delight in little more than posting about the scope of the atonement I noted that if these people really believed what they believed, in their case about the scope of the atonement, then they needed to demonstrate it by rolling up their sleeves and interacting, as we do regularly here, with the Romanists, the Orthodox, the atheists, the Mormons, etc. Instead, when we go to their blogs, we find little else but constant harping on us or the scope of the atonement. If you really believe what you believe, demonstrate it. The same goes for Charles, Mr. Garrett, and Mr. Ross. If you three really believe what you believe about soteriology, then get off your high horse about Founders, James White, myself, and others who differ with you and demonstrate what you believe by interacting with the atheist, the Orthodox, the Romanist, etc. on your blogs. Dare I say, you won't find that at the Flyswatter or the BaptistGadly. Instead, what you find are endless, pointless, and largely ignored by us (for reasons explained above) posts that do little but seek to stir up strife. Occasionally, they'll interact with an Arminian (to their credit), but I don't see them doing what Dr. White and his team do or we do here. In other words, it's time for them to demonstrate they can do more than criticize their brothers. If they can't - or won't - then we have no reason to conclude that they want to do nothing more than stir up strife - something the crypto-Amyraldians are not guilty of doing, I might add.


Indeed, Mr. Ross continues to spew the same material repetitively as if nobody has answered him. Often, he moves from one topic (the relationship between regeneration and faith) to another (Paedobaptism), as if one necessarily entails the other or if belief in one entails affirmation of the other.

Speaking of lies, let's see what Mr. Garrett has cooked up:

He quotes me as follows:

"Regeneration is distinct from salvation in that it leads directly to conversion, which leads to justification leading to the others."

He then comments:

Is this so? Is this not a bunch of nonsense? Does it not deny that regeneration = salvation? Not only does the "ordo polutis" of Gene create the monstrosity of a "regenerated unbeliever," but also a "regenerated yet condemned" unbeliever! What kind of "regeneration" is it that does not convert, save, or justify?

How did what I wrote lead to the concept of a "regenerated unbeliever?" Mr. Garrett, a graduate I see Wingate University, apparently needs to retake English 101 with either Dr. Little-Sweat or Dr. Christopher, if they are still teaching, for he suffers from a case of reading incomprehension.

Is regeneration the same as "salvation?" No, "salvation" is a much wider concept. It can include "regeneration," it may include others concepts. In context, I am, of course referring to Charles' (and others') continued misuse of theological terminology. To refer to "regeneration" as if it is the same thing as "salvation" is simply sloppy.

Did I say anything about regeneration not leading to conversion, and directly so? NO. That's exactly the opposite of what I wrote. I said it leads directly to conversion, and then justification, and "others" (eg. other aspects of "salvation").

In fact, I have been over this with Mr. Ross and his followers several times. I guess Mr. Garrett needs to have it spelled out one more time:

A. This is the current dominant expression. Regeneration defined in 2 ways/senses.

Narrow sense: The work of regeneration itself is the work of the Holy Spirit alone. This expresses the actual phenomenology of God Himself regenerating, God’s own work defined as resurrecting the lost soul to life.” He operates immediately upon the heart to prepare the way for the truth… The Scripture attributes the birth to the will of God exclusively, thus showing that in some aspect it is not to be regarded as due to the reception of the truth. John 1:13. “(James Boyce, Abstract of Theology, Regeneration and Conversion).

Broad sense: The entire process leading up to a saving profession of faith and even continuing on (as a person is considered to be regenerate). Thus, this broader view is, functionally, the first view (eg. the one held by Dr. Masters). This expresses the broader psychology of the person, the object of God’s regenerating work. This usage may encompass all that leads up to the actual moment of conversion, or it may include that which follows (the fruits of regeneration itself, e.g. a regenerated person is a regenerate person; we know he is regenerate because of the fruit his life shows). James Boyce, stated it this way, “The Spirit acts mediately through the word.” (ibid)

So, Regeneration, in its strictest sense, refers solely to the Holy Spirit’s work in the sub-conscious life of man: “by a creative word God generates the new life, changing the inner disposition of the soul, illuminating the mind, rousing the feelings, and renewing the will. In this act of God the ear is implanted that enables man to hear the call of God to the salvation of his soul.” Regeneration in its broadest sense refers to what occurs when the regenerated heart comes in contact with the gospel and the Holy Spirit effectively applies God’s word to the mind.

B. Order: External and effectual call-This encompasses instruction in the gospel, the means of grace, conviction, knowledge of the true God, personal sin, guilt and condemnation, sorrow for sin, and knowledge of Christ as Savior. (This expresses the broader psychology). The Holy Spirit then brings this person over into spiritual life (the immediate phenomenonlogy), then they believe, repent, and are justified, and begin living the Christian life (back to the broader psychology).

Robert Reymond even gives this order in his New Systematic Theology (771) in discussing the order of salvation: Two divine acts. 1. Effectual call, via (2) regeneration. The result is 2 human acts: (3) repentance and (4) faith.

When it is said that “regeneration precedes faith,” theologians articulating this view are referring to the narrow sense (the phenomenology of God’s sovereign agency), not the broader psychology and process. Thus, they tend to divide View 1 (Dr. Masters’ view) above up and express it in terms of: Calling (External and internal/effectual, inclusive of elements 1 to 6 above), Regeneration (God’s immediate agency), and Conversion (repentance and faith).

Diagramed it looks like this:

External and Internal (Effectual) Calling (encompasses instruction in the gospel/Word of God, the means of grace, conviction, knowledge of the true God, personal sin, guilt and condemnation, sorrow for sin, and knowledge of Christ as Savior.) (May or may not take a short or long time) This is underwritten by the Holy Spirit striving with the soul of the person, which is what makes the call “effectual.”*

-leads to-/by way of-

Regeneration (the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit and the individual’s passing from spiritual death to spiritual life)

-leads to—

Conversion (immediate Faith and Repentance) The analogy is that he is born, and like a baby cries and breathes so does he.

*Some like Berkhof state that the external call precedes regeneration, then the effectual call results and then follows conversion. John Murray makes regeneration the link between effectual call and conversion as diagrammed above. Either view falls well within this second view of the order.

In regeneration in the broader sense the implantation of the incorruptible seed, the changing of the heart, the drawing power of the triune God, and the external call of the gospel all come together and give birth to the converted soul, who believes, repents, and is justified.

In Presbyterianism and some Reformed Baptist theology you find that except in the case of elect infants, elect imbeciles, and John the Baptist (Lk. 1:41-44) regeneration always accompanies either the preached word, the written Word, or an intellectual knowledge of the gospel held in the mind received in the past. There are people who hear or read the gospel who immediately are regenerated and saved, and there are people who hear the gospel for years and know it intellectually but who are not saved until the Holy Spirit comes and opens their eyes spiritually.

C. Time factor:

(a)External and Effectual calling, as defined above: may take any amount of time, short or long on a case by case basis.

(b) With respect to the time of conversion itself: Regeneration itself in, the narrow sense, (the Spirit’s giving of New Life) is immediate and immediately followed by repentance and faith (conversion) such that (emphasis mine):

“The very first conscious exercise of the renewed soul is faith; as the first conscious act of a man born blind whose eyes have been opened is seeing.” (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, 41).

REGENERATION is an act of God originating by a new creation a new spiritual life in the heart of the subject. The first and instant act of that new creature, consequent upon his regeneration, is FAITH, or a believing, trusting embrace of the person and work of Christ. Upon the exercise of faith by the regenerated subject, JUSTIFICATION is the instant act of God, on the ground of that perfect righteousness which the sinner’s faith has apprehended, declaring him to be free from all condemnation and to have a legal right to the relations and benefits secured by the covenant which Christ has fulfilled in his behalf. A.A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, Chapter 34, available here: http://www.reformed.org/books/aa_hodge/outlines/chapter34.html

and

This is not a question of order in time, because regeneration and justification are gracious acts of God absolutely synchronous. The question is purely as to the true order of causation; Is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us that we may believe, or is it imputed to us because we believe? Is justification an analytic judgment, that the man is justified as a believer though a sinner, or is it a synthetic judgment, that this sinner is justified for Christ’s sake ? (A.A. Hodge, Ibid.)

“The immediate effect of the divine regeneration of the soul is that the sinner now abhors his sin that he once loved and trusts in Christ for his salvation.”(Boyce and Ryken, The Doctrines of Grace, 149)

When speaking of the order of salvation (ordo salutis), Reformed theology always and everywhere insists that regeneration precedes faith. Regeneration precedes faith because it is a necessary condition for faith. Indeed it the sine qua non of faith. It is important to understand, however, that the order of salvation refers to a logical order, not necessarily a temporal order. For example, when we say that justification is by faith, we do not mean that faith occurs first, and then we are justified at some late time. We believe that at the very moment faith is present, justification occurs. There is no time lapse between faith and justification. They occur simultaneously. Why then do we say that faith precedes justification? Faith precedes justification in a logical sense, not a temporal sense. Justification is logically dependent on faith, not faith on justification. We do not have faith because we are justified; we are justified because we have faith.

Similarly when Reformed theology says regeneration precedes faith, it is speaking in terms of logical priority, not temporal priority. We cannot exercise saving faith until we have been regenerated, so we say faith is dependent on regeneration, not regeneration on faith. (R.C. Sproul, Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology,, 2000 edition, 195).

D. Engagement of mind: Active in “calling” elements. The soul itself is said to be passive with respect to the Holy Spirit’s resurrecting power itself. The mind itself is actively engaged in instruction, conviction, sorrow, etc. (the calling elements), culminating with repentance and faith due to the Holy Spirit’s striving with the soul.

E. Use of means: In the narrow usage, referring to the Holy Spirit’s actual phenomenological task of resurrecting the unbeliever’s soul to new life, there is no means as such, it is His work alone. Means are “preparations” for this work of grace but not the work itself. In the broader sense, however, means are used as preparations and given orientation to the new convert’s spiritual life, because the narrow meaning does not occur independently of the means of grace (the gospel in particular), in order for them to repent and believe. Thus, in this broader sense: Primary: Word of God, Secondary: circumstances, etc. This is God’s ordinary means (emphasis mine):

God’s call is made effectual by the Word and the Spirit. It is important to see that the Word and the Spirit are here conjoined as two vital factors of regeneration. The Holy Spirit is not working apart from the Word or against the Word, but with the Word. Nor is the Word working alone without the presence and power of the Spirit.

The call referred to in effectual calling is not the outward call of the gospel that can be heard by anyone within range of the preaching. The call referred to here is the inward call, the call that penetrates to and pierces the heart, quickening it to spiritual life. Hearing the gospel enlightens the mind, yet it does not awaken the soul until the Holy Spirit illuminates it and regenerates it. This move from ear to soul is made by the Holy Spirit. This move is what accompanies God’s purpose of applying the benefits of Christ’ work to the elect. (Ibid., 190 -191).

Apart from the Word, there is no salvation and no activity of the Holy Spirit in the lives of God’s people. Where the Word is rightly preached, the Spirit is active in power. Where the Word is not rightly preached, the Spirit is not active in power. It is impossible to have a place in which the Word is preached clearly (as the proclamation of Christ), where the Spirit is absent in his power and saving strength. It is equally impossible for the Spirit to be actively present if the preaching of Christ is not the central focus. (Michael Horton, Receiving Christ, In The Face of God, http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/horton/ReceivingChrist
.html )

A person perishing without having heard the gospel (such as the “heathen”) and being converted, with the possible exception of those dying in infancy, perishes in their sins, cut off from God, under the presumptive judgment of God in this life. Ergo, we must do missions and evangelism in order to reach the lost. Some (Boyce, Abstract of Theology, Ch.32: cf: http://www.founders.org/library/boyce1/ch32.html) hold out the possibility that God can regenerate a person to motivate them to pray for more revelation through a missionary.

V. The relation of regeneration to conversion will, therefore, appear to be one of invariable antecedence.

Wherever the appropriate truth is at the time present its relation is almost that of producing cause, for the prepared heart at once receives the truth. Hence, as this is so generally the case, they have been usually regarded as contemporaneous and by some even as identical. But that regeneration is the invariable antecedent is seen,

1. From the fact that the heart is the soil in which the seed, the word of God, is sown, and that seed only brings forth fruit in the good soil. The heart is made good soil by regeneration.

2. Regeneration (as in infants) may exist without faith and repentance, but the latter cannot exist without the former. Therefore, regeneration precedes.

3. Logically the enabling act of God must, in a creature, precede the act of the creature thus enabled. But this logical antecedence involves actual antecedence, or the best conceptions of our mind deceive us and are not reliable. For this logical antecedence exists only because the mind observes plainly a perceived dependence of the existence of the one on the other. But such dependence demands, if not causal, at least antecedent existence. Here it is only antecedent.
VI. There is not only antecedence, but in some cases an appreciable interval.

1. This is true even of conversion regarded as a mere turning to God. Between it and regeneration must intervene in some cases some period of time until the knowledge of God’s existence and nature is given, before the heart turns, or even is turned towards that God.

(1.) This must be true of all infants and of all persons otherwise incapable of responsibility, as for example idiots.

(2.) There is no reason why it should not be true of some heathen. The missionaries of the cross have been sought by men, who knew nothing of Christianity, but whose hearts, unsatisfied with the religion of their fathers, were restlessly seeking for what their soul was crying out.

In such cases, God ensures that they receive the gospel itself through a missionary. Boyce takes this from missions reports. This is an exception, not the rule, and it is speculative.

F. Causality: Regeneration precedes their actual faith by causing it. It is monergisitic.

G. Held by: Princeton/Westminister Presbyterians, early Southern Baptist writing theologians (Boyce, Dagg, et.al.) , late 18th century theologians, some 17th century theologians (Turretin), 20th century theologians, majority of current American traditional Calvinists (Sov. Grace/Reformed Baptists, OPC, PCA, etc.), some Progressive Primitives. This is, currently, the dominant parlance.

This critics have stated that this position “denies the use of means.

This is the same “direct operation” palabber taught by the pedo-regenerationist theologians Shedd, Berkhof, and R. C. Sproul, and other preachers such as James White, Scott Morgan of the Founders, Gene Bridges, Tom Schreiner of the Southern Seminary, and others who advocate “Reformed” theology according to the Berkhof theology book.

None of them has given evidence that they believe that the Word of God is an instrumentality in the “quickening” work of the Spirit in regeneration or the New Birth, contrary to the Creedal Calvinism of all the Calvinistic Confessions of Faith. See: http://www.carthage.lib.il.us/community/churches/primbap/BradleyProgressive.html

By way of reply: Where in this view is means denied? Nowhere.

God’s call is made effectual by the Word and the Spirit. It is important to see that the Word and the Spirit are here conjoined as two vital factors of regeneration. The Holy Spirit is not working apart from the Word or against the Word, but with the Word. Nor is the Word working alone without the presence and power of the Spirit. (Sproul, Ibid.)

While regeneration is a sovereign act of God according to election, it is an encouraging fact both for the sinner and the preacher of the word that God’s regenerating grace is commonly bestowed where the preparatory work is performed. This is the rule, under the gospel dispensation. He who reads and meditates upon the word of God is ordinarily enlightened by the Holy Ghost, perhaps in the very act of reading, or hearing, or meditating. “While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word,” Acts 10 : 44. He who asks for regenerating grace may be regenerated perhaps in the act of praying. God has appointed certain human acts whereby to make ready the heart of man for the divine act. Without attentive reading and hearing of the word, and prayer, the soul is not a fit subject for regenerating grace. (Shedd, Regeneration, cf: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/Shedd_Regeneration.html

These individuals have claimed that this view affirms that regeneration can exist without faith and/or that faith is not considered to immediately accompany regeneration. How is this criticism then true?

“The very first conscious exercise of the renewed soul is faith; as the first conscious act of a man born blind whose eyes have been opened is seeing.” (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, p. 41).

“The immediate effect of the divine regeneration of the soul is that the sinner now abhors his sin that he once loved and trusts in Christ for his salvation.”(Boyce and Ryken, The Doctrines of Grace, 149)

It should be apparent that View 1 can comfortably subsist within View 2 as subset expression or vice versa. Likewise, they are functionally equivalent expressions. There is no “Hardshell Doctrine” to be found here, none whatsoever. The only thing equivalent is the axiom that regeneration precedes faith, but this has always been the view expressed by the Reformed community. This is, it seems, why these critics have to change the subject to infant regeneration. That, however, is a separate issue (see below).

Source


Also:

When I say “regeneration precedes faith,” I am simply stating that their relationship causal and logical, if it is temporal it implies nothing of the interval, and I would affirm it in the limiting case of John the Baptist, but, by the same token I’m not completely convinced of the classic text for that. The ordinary means (that for adults and children of competency in understanding) always is via the accompaniment of the Word of God and the calling to mind of other circumstances. I agree with Boyce on this, except in his third and possibly his second limiting case.

Source.


So, Mr. Garrett, I do not affirm that a person can be a "regenerated unbeliever." I affirm exactly the opposite, insofar as the order is logical, not temporal - a caveat that your fellow chronic strifemaker have called, "doubletalk." I took that then to mean, as I still do, that they would rather be dishonest and drop the caveats that I have given than actually speak honestly.
You, Mr. Garrett, would do well not to associate with these individuals.

So, before you go casting about with the questions you have asked of us, Mr. Garrett, I suggest you acquaint yourself with the archive functions of this blog and others. It's really not difficult. Search Engines are your friend.