The Chicken or the Egg-Which Comes First-Regeneration or Faith, That's the Real Question

Nice post, but I disagree. You fail to see that the text answers how the
Father draws people to Jesus. In v. 45 Jesus says, "Everyone who listens to the
Father and learns from him comes to me." Those that are drawn by the Father are
those that listen to and learn from the teachings of Jesus for he speaks the
words of the Father. These are the ones that come to believe in Jesus as opposed
to those who will only believe if He does a miraculous sign. It is still a
matter of choice, and Judas chose poorly.# posted by Daniel Partin : 2/02/2006
9:13 AM

That's a nice sentiment, but it reverses the text. It would end up saying that we are given because we come, chosen because we believe (e.g. those who are chosen are chosen because they choose Christ first), and are drawn because we listen, and we are His sheep because we hear. Daniel needs to read the text.

Which came first, the chicken on the egg? The real question is really "Which came first" regeneration or faith? Daniel would have us believe that faith precedes regeneration. This is the classic synergist inversion of the ordu salutis.

What does Scripture have to say about that. Since we're talking about texts from John in particular, let's take a look at what John actually says. Steve's done a good job, and he's alluded to much of what I'm writing here. I consider this a more detailed look.

Does Regeneration Precede Faith?

A Brief Exegetical Comparison between 1 John 2:29 and 1 John 5:1

This paper originated from a discussion at the Baptistboard regarding consistent exegesis of these two Scriptures. The key question is, in John’s theology (and therefore the theology of Scripture) does regeneration precede faith? If so, then it directly proves the Reformed ordu salutis (the logical order of salvation), which in turn has important ramifications for our theology of God, the way we proclaim the gospel to the lost, our overall soteriological framework, and, implicitly our doctrines regarding providence, foreknowledge, and theodicy.

Does regeneration precede faith? The alternative is that regeneration occurs after faith. The way this question is answered and that fact that there is an alternative is proof positive that, while they essentially arrive at the same destination, non-Reformed and Reformed soteriology approach this issue from two completely incompatible directions. If one is true, the other is automatically false. How then shall we address this issue? We will look first at points of agreement between the two camps, then at the points of divergence, then take a brief look at what John has to say about the logical causal relationships involved.

First, let us remember, the issue is the logical, causal, not the temporal order. Both Arminians and Calvinists agree that they are so close in time as to be considered simultaneous. Also, we all agree that the "believing" in 1 John 5 is a reference to saving faith as well as the faith by which we live each day. We all agree that faith is the agency of salvation. We both agree that regeneration is defined as "the new birth/being born again."

Second, one can test the consistency of the assertion I make regarding the relationship between faith and regeneration in 1 John 5:1 by looking at the grammatical structure of 1 John 2:29. If one uses 1 John 5:1 to say that regeneration occurs after faith, then, logically, since the grammatical constructions are exactly the same, then practicing righteousness also precedes regeneration, if you are going to interpret these verses consistently.

The most literal reading of 1 John 5:1 is "every one believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God (perfect passive, "has been born of the agency of God...not the agency of man...the agency of God...man is passive, not active in the voice of the verb, indicative mood, this is a real action, a fact, an actuality, not a hypothetical, potential, theoretical, or rhetorical action). When verbs are passive, that means the object of the verb is being acted upon by another. The person believing (pres. active indic.) that Jesus is the Christ (or all that are believing or each one or every one believing...) has been born of God. Now, this alone is not enough to conclude, in my opinion, that regeneration precedes faith. Simply, it would be eisegesis to draw any conclusion from this verse if this verse was alone. It is, however, not alone. Grammatically and contextually, 1 John 2:29 is an exact parallel from which we conclude that practicing righteousness is a result of the new birth.

1 John 5:1 is used by Arminians to assert the truth of regeneration through faith. However, that would require an active or at least middle voice verb. Middle voice is extremely rare in koine. In fact, middle voice is usually the last grammatical choice when parsing a verb form. We tend to find active or passive verbs. I know of nobody that looks at 5:1 or 2:29 and says gegennhtai is middle voice. It is most definitely passive.

Now, mind, the verb "to be born," gegennhtai, e.g. is born of Him, is passive. They did not cause their own birth. God caused their birth. Just as John 6:37 says those who are given to Christ by the Father come to Him. "All that the Father gives me will come to me." There is not an exception to this. We come after being given by the Father to Christ. I believe, by comparing this with the construction of 1 John 2:29...same author, same topic, same letter, same theme, same grammatical construction, we have overwhelming evidence that regeneration precedes faith, unless, of course, we believe in salvation by works, which, I would hope no Protestant would believe.

My question is, "Is this consistent?" Yes, it most certainly is consistent.

Look at 2:29. "If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him." Now, we're not Catholic, and, consistently, we all agree that righteousness is a product of the new birth, e.g. regeneration results in righteousness in the life of the believer. This means that in 1 John 5:1, "believing" in Jesus as the Christ is the result of being born of Him. Why? Because it is inconsistent to say otherwise. Why reverse the logical/temporal order? Nothing in the text demands it. In order to reverse the order and argue for an asymmetrical parallel, one must find something within the text that would lead one to do that. That evidence simply is not there. Let's look more closely at the grammatical constructions of the two clauses under our scrutiny:

2:29 b "everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him."

and

5:1 a "Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God."

Literally,

Every one practicing righteousness has been born of Him (God)

Every one believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God (Him).

See the grammatical parallel is exactly parallel. In Greek it is also exactly parallel. Therefore, we are certainly and undeniably dealing with one of John's parallel statements.

The verbal constructions are exactly parallel. Again, going back to the Greek, we can see that "everyone who practices righteousness" is a present participle. In 5:1, the one believing is also a present participle.

So we have:

Every one practicing righteousness

present participle

has been born of Him (God)

and

Every one believing that Jesus is the Christ

present participle

has been born of God (Him)

Thus, as you can see, we have different verbs, same verb forms.

In both passages the same verb for "to be born," gegennhtai is used and the form is the exact same form, perfect passive . (In fact, exegetically, this is the very reason we teach from this verse that righteousness is a result of being born again).

So we have:

Every one practicing righteousness

present participle

has been born of Him (God)

perfect passive

and

Every one believing that Jesus is the Christ

present participle

has been born of God (Him)

perfect passive

Thus, as you can see, we have different verbs, same verb forms, and same verb, same verb forms. Whenever there is that exact a grammatical parallel, we generally conclude the relationships between the verbs/ideas expressed are the same or similar, unless there is some other warrant within the text to do so. In this case, I do not see any such textual/contextual warrant. Thus, the question the Arminian must answer, is simply "Why do you reverse the logical/temporal relationships between faith and regeneration?" Does not exegesis determine theology? It seems to me the only reason one concludes that this verse somehow proves the concept that regeneration is the result of faith is one thing, tradition, a theological presuppostion. Say what one will about the Reformed position, with regard to this text, the conclusion we reach concerning the logical/temporal order that regeneration precedes faith is derived from consistent exegesis of these texts. One simply can not lay charge to exegeting our tradition into these texts.

Both groups teach, from 2:29 that practicing righteousness is a result of being born again. On this there is no dispute. We do teach this. Every pastor, teacher, and seminary professor I have ever heard has taught in part using 1 John 2:29 that practicing righteousness is the result of being born again. Since practicing righteousness is, indeed, one of the tests for a true believer that John lays out in this epistle, since he is dealing with Gnostic/Judaizer hybrids that were not practicing righteousness, we have more than sufficient warrant to do this. Also, another one of the tests John lays out is the test of faith in Jesus as the Christ, e.g. believing. Again, there is no soteriological or exegetical dispute from either party about this. We know that John is saying here that practicing righteousness is a result of the new birth, (which we call "regeneration" in theological jargon), because his point is to put this forth as a test by which his readers can know a true Christian, one who is not a mere professor of Christ, but a true convert, a true disciple of our Lord. In other words, if he was not saying that practicing righteousness is the result of regeneration, e.g. being born again, the statement would be meaningless as a test for assurance of our own salvation or the validity of another's profession of faith.

However, one group teaches, from this text, 5:1, that being born again is the result of believing. The other group, using consistent exegesis, teaches that the believing is a result of regeneration, again, because the test John has laid out is just that, e.g. faith in Christ is proof that one is regenerate. In short, the grammatical constructions does not allow for the assertion that regeneration is the result of faith. It supports regeneration preceding faith, for, if practicing righteousness is the result of being born again, then believing in Jesus as the Christ is the result of being born again, particularly if one looks at 2:29 and believes, as we both do, that practicing righteousness is a result of regeneration. The language simply can not support the theological conclusion that regeneration results from faith, particularly from this text. If we conclude a logical and even temporal order from 2:29 in the relationship between the practice of righteousness in the true believers life and regeneration, then we have every right to draw the same conclusion regarding the relationship between believing that Jesus is the Christ and regeneration from the corresponding verse, 5:1, particularly when John is using this statement as a test for personal assurance and a test for fellowship. We know we are born again because we believe. We know others are born again, because they believe. Why? Because believing is the result of the new birth, just as practicing righteousness is also the result of the new birth. If we say that believing causes the new birth, then we must necessarily conclude, if we are going to consistent, that practicing righteousness is also a cause of the new birth. Such a statement would rightly be quickly condemned as false teaching.

Why then does the Arminian hold to this position? T R A D I T I O N. If one clearly and unequivocably draws a conclusion regarding the logical and temporal order from 2:29, then consistency demands one draw the same conclusion regarding the logical and temporal order expressed in 5:1. Even if one does not draw such a conclusion, per se, from those texts, it is certain that one reads a logical, temporal order in 2:29. Again, there is no reason, other than the satisfaction of your own soteriological system which you must bring to the text, to insert a reversed order into 5:1, when the linguisitic and therefore exegetical parallel is exactly the same.

Another objection one might make is "Regeneration is the result of saving faith, but John is not talking about saving faith here, he is talking about persevering faith, e.g. continuing faith, and we have no qualm that continuing, persevering faith is a result of regeneration." This would beg the question of Sandemanianism here too, for the Reformed contend that saving faith is that faith that God causes to persevere anyway. Again, then, that does nothing to support the theological contention that regeneration is the result of saving faith. In fact, it removes one of the proof texts, in fact one of the major ones, Arminians use to make that very assertion. That too, then, would be the readiing of the text done in order to satisfy one's theological presuppostions, nothing more.

The question then becomes, "Is this 'saving' faith?" I believe it is, because the object of the faith is the person of Jesus as the Christ, which we know is the key proposition one must believe in order to be justified by the agency of faith. There is nothing in this text that indicates otherwise, and I do not find any evidence in Scripture that saving faith is anything less than an ongoing action. In fact, the participle "believing ones" in John 3:16, pisteuwnv, which we all agree has is "saving faith," is the same form as here, pisteuwnv Moreover, this believing is put forth as a test for knowing if an individual is, in fact, saved, e.g. justified. One that is believing, e.g. in possession of and exercising "saving faith," e.g. believing Jesus Christ is born again, has been born again; e.g. does so because one has been born again. In the same way, one that is practicing righteousness is doing so as a result of being born again. Regeneration precedes practicing righteousness. Regeneration precedes saving faith. Grammatically, I see no warrant, and contextually I see no warrant in this epistle for concluding otherwise in 5:1.

Thus, the most consistent exegesis is the one that sees both believing (which both sides of the debate agree is referring to saving faith as well as "everyday faith by which we live" in the way John uses it in this epistle) and righteousness is the result of being born again, (regeneration). The Reformed view on this verse is the most exegetically consistent position, therefore, I do believe that, in context, yes, we can use it to conclude believing that Jesus is the Christ (that thing which is the agency through which we are justified) is the result of the new birth (regeneration) and not vice versa, most especially if we are going to use 2:29 to teach that practicing righteousness is a result of the new birth, e.g. regeneration.

Objection: I just don't see enough in this verse to make any dogmatic statements about which came first.

As I pointed out, as consistent Protestants, we all make the dogmatic statement from 1 John 2:29 that the intent of John is to state that practicing righteousness is the result of being born again, e.g. regeneration. I ask again, on what basis can you then take the exact grammatical parallel that he offers in 5:1 and support faith being antecedent, not resultant of regeneration? How can you use 2:29 to make a dogmatic statement about the relationship between regeneration and works and then be hesitant about doing the same thing from 5:1? Using your same logic, we can not make a dogmatic conclusion about regeneration and works from 2:29. Do you also think that 2:29 there is insufficient information in 2:29 to conclude that regeneration precedes the practice of righteousness? If so, then it could be possible that we are regenerated by works, not faith. After all, if 5:1 does not contain sufficient information to conclude regeneration precedes believing, then 2:29 does not contain sufficient information to make statements about practicing righteousness not following regeneration as well.

Certainly you could argue that they had been born prior to the present, but can we really be certain that the author's intent was to say that the birth preceded their becoming believers? Is it the author's intent to say that regeneration is not antecedent to practicing righteousness in 2:29? That's what Arminians teach, just as Calvinists teach. Again, why say that is his intent in 2:29 but not the intent of 5:1?

If you teach that a lifestyle of righteous living is the result of regeneration, as you do, then it is grossly inconsistent on your part not to teach otherwise regarding the logical / temporal order of regeneration and faith from the exact linguistic parallel you find in 5:1.

I repeat: Why then does the Arminian hold to this position? T R A D I T I O N. If one clearly and unequivocably draws a conclusion regarding the logical and temporal order from 2:29, then consistency demands one draw the same conclusion regarding the logical and temporal order expressed in 5:1. 2:29, I would point is very clearly a test of regeneracy. On this there is no dispute. On this we all conclude rightly regarding John's intent in 2:29. Do you see a change of intent by the time he reaches 5:1? Other than the nature of the test (e.g. believing, not practicing righteousness), there is no change of intent.

Even if one does not draw such a conclusion, per se, from those texts, it is certain that one reads a logical, causall order in 2:29 and teaches consistently from it that practicing righteousness is a result of regeneration. Again, there is no reason, other than the satisfaction of your own soteriological system which you must bring to the text, to insert a reversed order into 5:1, when the linguisitic and therefore exegetical parallel is exactly the same. 1 John 5:1 in no way whatsoever supports the contention that faith is antecedent to regeneration. If you say that faith is antecedent to regeneration, you must insert it into the text. Say what you will, the Reformed exegesis is derivative of a consistent flow of thought from 2:29 and 5:1. We make no insertion into the text.

John puts forth 2:29 and 5:1 as tests for assurance of believers' salvation / tests for the salvation of false teachers and thus the validity of their message. It is clearly John's intent to say that practicing righteousness is one of the means by which we know we and others are regenerate. Likewise, we know, by the fact that we believe, that we are regenerate. There is no reason here to conclude, then, that faith is antecedent to regeneration that does not involve you inconsistently teaching that the logical and temporal order of practicing righteousness is antecedent to regeneration as well. That problem is insurmountable for Arminians. Do you not believe that regeneration precedes practicing righteousness, particularly since this is put forth as a test of regeneracy? Do you not conclude from this that the logical salvific order is regeneration precedes works? Of course you do. Why then be reticent to do this same thing in 5:1? Again, because it would challenge your tradition.

You say "intent." I ask again, is this not John's intent in 2:29? If it is his intent, is 2:29 insufficient grounds on which to conclude that regeneration precedes the believers' practicing righteousness? If it not his intent, then on what grounds can you teach this is so, based on 2:29?

I am more willing to draw my theology from consistent grammatical constructions that the satisfaction of my tradition. You may be more reticent, but that does not change the fact that we all rightly conclude a logical and temporal order from 2:29, and only one of us argues otherwise, sometimes even referring to 5:1 in the process.

Also look at John 6:37.

"All that the Father gives to Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out."

Again, we have another construction from which we conclude that there is a temporal order being taught. The Father gives to the Son. Those that come will not be cast out, and as v.39 teaches, they will all be raised up on the last day.

Do you believe that there is insufficient information there to conclude the logical / causal order, in this case temporal (from our perspective) between the Father giving and those coming? The action of the Father comes before the action of coming to Christ by the individual. It comes before the raising of those persons by Christ. Christ saves them and raises them because they come and because the Father has given them to Him. Is this not a set of clauses that are dependent upon each other for their logical and temporal order. Are they not executed in their grammatical order?

Likewise 6:44 is a similar construction. While we may disagree about the effectiveness of the drawing, I do not think that either of us will dispute that Jesus is very clear that any person that comes to Christ does so because He is drawn by the Father. Surely, 6:44 is sufficient to teach that much! The Remonstrants in the Opinions certainly agreed.

1 John 4:7 presents another test for regeneracy does it not?

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves (Greek: pas ho agapwn) is born of God and knows God. (1 John 4:7)

Do you agree that there is sufficient textual warrant for concluding that the person that loving (every one who loves) does so, because one is born of God and knows God? By definition, "regeneration" itself is defined as "being born again, being born of God." I know of no text in systematic theology that defines it otherwise. If you are going to say that there is insufficient textual evidence that John's intent is not to teach that regeneration does not precede faith, you must also conclude from all these texts:

There is insufficient textual evidence to conclude that (a) drawing precedes coming, (b) believing precedes being raised again, (c) giving precedes coming and being raised again, (d) regeneration precedes works, and (e) loving the brethren precedes regeneration. In none of these instances does any of the texts support such a contention.

John has a very specific style. He writes in parallel constructions and spells out the relationships between them. John 8:43 is very clear:

Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.

First, note: "Why do you not understand what I am saying?" It is because you cannot hear My word. This is stated verbatim. Jesus says there is a causal relationship between their ability to understand and hearing. They do not understand because of their inability to hear. John then parallels this with:

8:47 He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.

John writes a grammatical construction exactly like I John 2:29, 5:1, and 4:7! He first spells out, verbatim, the causal relationship between ability to hear and understanding in v. 43 and endcaps with v.47's end that says "for this reason..." "He who is of God, hears the words of God." for this reason, you do not hear them, because you are not of God. There is a logical, temporal, causal relationship, verbatim. Notice, Daniel, that John does not say that they are not of God because they hear. They do not hear, because they are not of God.

Again, 1 John 2:29, 4:7, and 5:1 also are this same construction:

He who is of God hears the words of God.

They hear because they are "of God."

You do not hear them because you are not of God

They do not hear because they are not of God

Everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him.

They practice righteousness because they are born again.

Everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.

They love because they are born again and know God.

Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.

They believe because they are born again.

Though 6:44 is not as exact a parallel, we conclude a direct causal relationship between drawing and coming to Christ from that text. Those that come come because they are drawn.

It would be meaningless for us to say, "They hear because they are of God but being of God is not logically/causally antecedent to hearing. It would be meaningless for us to say, "They practice righteousness because they are born again, but regeneration is not antecedent to practicing righteousness. It would be meaningless for us to say, "They love because they are regenerate, but there is not logical/temporal order to loving the brethren and regeneration. It would be meaningless to say "They believe because they are born again," but the logical and temporal relationships are inverse. It would reverse the meaning of 6:44 to say they are drawn because they come. Why be drawn if they can come and are coming? Causal relationships depend on their logical / temporal order. Exegesis determines this order for all of these. There is no reason to draw one conclusion from three of these but not the fourth, unless you have a theological tradition you are trying to satisfy.

Therefore, not only is there a logical order, there is a causal relationship between regeneration and practicing righteousness, loving the brethren, and believing. Regeneration precedes and is the cause each activity. Works does not result in regeneration. Love is the result of regeneration, and believing is the result of regeneration. Regeneration precedes faith. 1 John 5:1 is clear. I stand by my exegesis and my "dogmatic" conclusion. I do, based on the text, not my tradition.

Was this John's intent? God is creating a people for himself by calling them out of darkness into His light by enabling them to believe the Gospel. The passage shows that the new birth (regeneration) both enables and precedes faith. The verb tense, as viewed from the original Greek (which was originally in this paper, I would add, but I'm not sure how to use a Greek font...Evan's the expert on that...so I removed it), make's the apostle' s intention unequivocal:

Every one who goes on believing [present, continuous action] that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God [perfect, completed action with abiding effects]. So faith is not the cause of, but the evidence of the new birth. To drive the point home, it is important to note is that John speaks of other actions that take place as the result of the new birth several times in this epistle (1 John 2:29, 1 John 3:9, 1 John 4:7, 1 John 5:1, 1 John 5:18). For example in 1 John 3:9 he says, "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God." The exact same sequence of words is utilized. It is indicating a cause and effect relationship between the new birth (cause) and the Christian who does not continue in a life of sin (effect). Both show that the cause of regeneration brings about the effect of a life that does not continue sinning. So not only does the tense of 1 John 5:1 show belief being actualized as the result of regeneration but this is also a continuation of a pattern of speech that John uses throughout the entire epistle. Therefore it is extremely unlikely that the Apostle means anything else by this than faith is the result of our spiritual birth ... that the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit is the immediate cause of the desire that give rise to faith in the Savior. John's frequent repetition of the events that come about as the result of regeneration reveal an unmistakable intent.

A papistical syncretistic mariolatrous schismatic

***QUOTE***

1. Jonathan Prejean Says:
February 1st, 2006 at 1:12 pm

And by the way, these are the same folks who referred to Dr. Paul Owen as “Paul-the-papistical-syncretistic-mariolatrous-schismatic-Owen.” What could possibly be the point in wasting time on this nonsense? They have no argument, no reason, no facts, just assertion and rhetoric. People who aren’t even going to abide by a modicum of reason don’t deserve to have their delusions treated seriously.

***END-QUOTE***

Several corrections are in order:

1.“Paul-the-papistical-syncretistic-mariolatrous-schismatic-Owen,” is my coinage. Everyone is more than welcome to adopt my coinage, but if Prejean wishes to find fault, he should go to the source.

2.Prejean says that we “have no argument, no reason, no facts, just assertion and rhetoric."

There are only two little problems with this accusation:

i) Anyone who bothers to study the many essays on Paul Owen posted over at Triablogue will find plenty of facts and reasons marshaled against him.

So Prejean either speaks in studied ignorance of the public record, or else he speaks with a forked tongue.

ii) In the very course of saying that we “have no argument, no reason, no facts, just assertion and rhetoric,” Prejean, himself, offers no argument, no reason, no facts to back up his allegation, but only assertion and rhetoric.

3.In what respect is my characterization of Owen nonsense?

i) Why would a Roman Catholic like Prejean take exception to my statement that Owen is a schismatic? Does Owen’s breakaway sect have any serious purchase on apostolic succession?

ii) Owen says that Protestants are still under the Pope. Indeed, he even says the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is a “fundamental doctrine.” I say that makes him a papist.

In (i)-(ii) I’m not offering a value-judgment, just a statement of fact. I’m not saying schism is good or bad. I’m not saying the papacy is good or bad.

I’m merely describing Owen’s own affiliations, or lack thereof.

iii) Is Owen a syncretist? Well, to take just one example, he recently said that Muslims adore the true God. I call that syncretism.

iv) As to the charge of Mariolatry, Owen belongs to an Anglo-Catholic sect. One of the distinguishing features of Anglo-Catholicism is its Catholic Mariology.

Now, as late as last year, Owen identified himself as a “convinced Presbyterian,” and quoted very liberally from the Westminster Confession. But by Puritan and Old School Presbyterian standards, Owen is now a Mariolater.

Indeed, you could argue that he’s a Mariolater by classic Anglican criteria as well. There’s a reason the Tractarians were so controversial in their day and age.

To be taught by God

***QUOTE***

Nice post, but I disagree. You fail to see that the text answers how the Father draws people to Jesus. In v. 45 Jesus says, "Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me." Those that are drawn by the Father are those that listen to and learn from the teachings of Jesus for he speaks the words of the Father. These are the ones that come to believe in Jesus as opposed to those who will only believe if He does a miraculous sign. It is still a matter of choice, and Judas chose poorly.

# posted by Daniel Partin : 2/02/2006 9:13 AM

***END-QUOTE***

Daniel is half-right. V45 does unpack the “how” of v44. But he’s wrong to suppose that this in any way negates the predestinarian force of v44. Rather, it reinforces v44.

The believers in view are not autodidacts. To be taught by God (v45) stands in contrast to the natural learning process.

The reason some do not hear is because they cannot hear, and they cannot because their ears are hardened (12:37-41). They are not his sheep (10:26).

Others hear because they are his sheep (10:3,5). Only those whom the Father gives to Jesus come to Jesus (6:37; cf. Chap 17).

The teaching in view (6:45) isn’t outward teaching, addressed to the ear, but inward teaching, addressed to the heart. It’s a metaphor for inner illumination or regeneration, having its background in Johannine pneumatology (1:12-13; 3:3-8; 1 Jn 2:20,26-27) and OT prophecy (Isa 54:13; Jer 31:31-34; Ezk 36:24-26).

Yes, Judas made a choice, and a poor choice at that. Reformed theology doesn’t deny that men make choices.

But that only pushes the question back a step. The question is what lies behind the choice. Sinners make sinful choice (3:6,19-20).

Our choices reflect our spiritual paternity: like father, like son—whether divine or diabolical (Jn 1:11-13; 3:20; 8:44; 1 Jn 3:8-10).

Countercult Apologetics Journal

The first edition of the Countercult Apologetics Journal is online at

http://www.rctr.org/journal

Among other things, Jeff Downs has managed to recruit some major talent in the form of Paul L. Maier and Winfried Corduan.

Eurosceptics

For those of you who care to monitor the culture wars on the other side of the pond, here's a place to start:

http://eu-serf.blogspot.com/

John 6: 37-65: Does the Father Draw Judas?

Sandemanian theology allows for someone to be given to the Son by the Father and be drawn by the Father, yet not be raised up on the last day. Does the text of John 6 allow for this? Is this an accurate understanding of the text? My answer is “Absolutely not.” Opponents to the sovereign grace of God have attempted every conceivable means to dodge the plain teaching of this passage, but every single attempt, no matter how genuine it seems at first, collapses in light of fair and consistent exegesis of the passage. Before I respond to Jodie Sawyer’s interpretation of the text, I would like to first present the text myself:

36But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

This passage initiates as an explanation of unbelief. We must keep this in our minds as we exegete the passage. Jesus is explaining why, even after what he has said about himself, many do not believe. If any interpretation of this passage does not account for Jesus’ explanation of unbelief, it is an interpretation that turns the text on its head. Jesus, in this explanation of unbelief, distinguishes between the category of believers and the category of unbelievers. But he starts with those who come to Christ. He tells us:

A. The Father gives a number to the Son
B. The number will come to the Son (as a result of the Father’s giving)
C. Coming to the Son (believing in the Son) results in being raised up on the last day

A always leads to B, and B always leads to C. Verse 37 is very crucial: “All that the Father gives me will come to me.” Not only does this verse tell us that all whom the Father gives to the Son will come to the Son, but it also tells us that the coming to the Son is a result of the Father’s giving. Therefore, the Father’s giving determines the coming to the Son, not the other way around. The most ultimate action in this passage is the Father’s giving of the number to the Son. That is the action that determines everything else in the order of this presentation. From the beginning, the notion that the number the Father has given to the Son encompasses the entirety of the human race must be rejected. The number that is given is the very same number that is raised. It is inescapable. No one can be given and yet not be raised, for “All whom the Father gives to me will come to me.”

The text expands upon what is involved in coming to the Father and being raised up on the last day. But it does not abandon what has already been stated. It is only after establishing that the ultimate determining factor for those who come is the giving of the Father that we then read, “For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” This gives us the “human side” of v. 37-39. But it has not added any more qualifications that have not already been presented. Looking on the Son and believing in the Son is paralleled to coming to the Son, and it has already been established that all who are given to the Son will come to the Son. Those who behold the Son are only those who are given to the Son by the Father. Therefore, any interpretation that isolates v. 40 from the rest of the text and then eisegetes that interpretation into the preceding verses is absolutely against the thinking of the passage. There is one more thing must be noted from v. 40 that we will later see to be important. There is no disjunction between those who believe and those who are raised. The very one who believes is the very one who is raised. No one denies this. But we must recognize the structure of this verse so that we can recognize it later in v. 44. Here in v. 40, the one who believes is the one who is raised. We continue in the text:

41So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” 43Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”

Jesus, detecting their unbelief, does not respond with an attempt to “woo” them so that they could choose him out of their own “free will.” Rather, he explicitly proclaims their inability to believe. He states emphatically that there is no reason for these unbelievers to grumble because it is not within their capacity to believe. They have not been drawn. Therefore, they do not believe. Now, at this point in exegesis the opposing side interjects that God draws all men to Christ (and this is where they usually flee to John 12). But this is a simple abandonment of the context. Furthermore, the Greek structure does not allow for a disjunction between those who are drawn and those who are raised:

οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με, ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν, καὶ ἐγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.

The very him who is drawn is the same him who is raised. “…Father draws him, him I will raise…” Moreover, the ending phrase, “And I will raise him up in the last day” is the same ending phrase that is found in v. 40. As surely as there is no disjunction between those who believe and those who are raised, there is no disjunction between those who are drawn and those who are raised. If someone is going to assert that text allows for one to be drawn but not be raised, he must also concede that the text allows for one to believe and not be raised. Nevertheless, the text does not allow for either one.

Jesus starts with, “Do not grumble among yourselves.” His statements are a response to their grumbling and to their unbelief. We must ask why Jesus said this. What was the message He was trying to convey? If all are indeed drawn, then Jesus was basically saying, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him. And the Father has drawn all of you. Therefore, all of you are able to come, but you are unwilling to do so. Why do you not believe, since the Father has drawn you and made you able to believe?” But the context shows us that this isn’t Jesus’ intention at all. He isn’t showing them that they have been drawn and made able to come and yet they still do not believe. Rather, He is explaining their disbelief on the basis that they have not been drawn and are not able to come. We have established that this passage seeks to explain unbelief (verse 36). The phrase “Do not grumble among yourselves” continues this thought. Jesus is answering their unbelief. The fact that they do not believe has been established, and Jesus explains it by the fact that they are unable to do so. Then the passage brings more clarity further on:

64But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

Jesus says, “I told you that…” but He hadn’t used those words (“granted him by the Father”) yet. He is obviously alluding to what He earlier told them about being drawn by the Father, that no one is able unless they are drawn (verse 44). Once again the context of this verse is unbelief. “But there are some of you who do not believe.” The “this” in “this is why I told you” is very important. What is the “this” or the “for this reason”? It is because “there are some of you who do not believe.” So what are Jesus’ intentions in telling verse 65? Is it to draw a portrait of ability, saying that the unbelievers are able to believe, and yet they do not? Absolutely not. In fact, the reason Jesus told us that no one can come unless he is made able is because he is explaining unbelief. He tells those who do not believe, very frankly, that the reason they do not is because they are reprobate and cannot. The fact that they do not believe is explained by their inability, so that nothing happens apart from God’s intentions. “This is why I told you. I told you that no one is able unless he is made able. I told you this because even now some do not believe. But remember: it is because they are unable to do so. Because of this reason, because no one is able unless he is made able, you aren’t to be surprised when certain people reject the Gospel. God must grant faith first.” John Calvin, in his commentary on John 6, writing specifically about verse 37 and later verse 44, says this:

Verse 37: To make sure that their unbelief does not take anything away from His teaching, Christ says that the reason for their obstinacy is that they are reprobate and do not belong to God’s flock. So, Christ is here distinguishing between the elect and the reprobate, so that His authoritative teaching is not undermined even though many people do not believe it.

What this statement [verse 44] amounts to is this: we should not be surprised if many people refuse to embrace the Gospel, since no one is ever able of himself to come to Christ unless God first comes to him by His Spirit. So it follows from this that not everyone is drawn, but that God gives this grace to those whom He has elected. This is not the kind of drawing that is violent, as if it were compelling men through external force. However, it is a powerful impulse of the Holy Spirit which enables men to be willing to follow Christ, men who had been unwilling and reluctant previously. Therefore, it is a false and ungodly assertion that nobody is drawn unless they are prepared to be drawn, as if a person could make himself obey God through his own efforts. Men’s willingness to follow God has already been given to them by God, who made their hearts to obey Him.

This is clear and consistent exegesis of the passage. It accounts for the context, for Jesus’ interaction with the crowd, for the order of Jesus’ presentation, and for the thought process in the mind of our Lord as he presents these concepts. After having made the text clear, let’s look at the statements of Jodie Sawyer in her comments on this passage (if anyone is wondering why I am responding to Jodie, it must be noted that she was the only person who actually interacted with me concerning this text. Furthermore, she has been an active proponent of the Sandemanian position on my blog lately, and this text destroys her position):

I believe you’re on the shakiest of ground when you treat John 6:44 as if it proves that everyone who is drawn will be raised up. Here’s the immediate context in chap 6:

“Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

Here is v 44:

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day”

There is no fair argument that the last ‘him’ can only refer to the one who is drawn because it artificially clips off the main criteria in the first statement. [No person] can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day

We note that from the beginning Jodie is the one who is on “the shakiest of ground” because her treatment of v. 44 causes her to abandon the context of the preceding verses. She does not make an argument from the presented order of the passage or the grammatical structure of v. 44, but on mere speculation of what she thinks v. 44 allows for. Jodie’s statements amount to a mere assertion that there is “no fair argument” for my treatment of v. 44. But what is her basis of saying so apart from her own traditions and speculation of the text? She says this “artificially clips off the main criteria in the first statement.” How so? Let’s see where she goes:

The Lord is saying that there is a group of people who come to Him and all persons of that group were drawn by the Father. Each persons who fits in that group, i.e. the person who meets both criteria, will be raised up on the last day. According to this passage, there certainly may be a class of people who were drawn and who never came. John 6:44 does not settle that argument.

Jodie sets up an A + B = C scenario. For her, v. 44 tells us that being drawn (A) + coming (B) = being raised (C). Her thinking is that A, in and of itself, cannot lead to C, and therefore, someone can have A, but if he does not have B, will not get to C. This thinking is not necessarily wrong. What is wrong, however, is that she believes that the text allows for someone to have A but not have B. Verse 37, however, tells us from the beginning that the Father’s action of giving the number to the Son always results in their believing and their being raised up. The text does not give any separate criteria, or allow for someone to meet one criteria and not the other. V. 40, additionally, while establishing a criteria for those who are raised, does not allow for someone to meet the initial criteria and not meet the second criteria. The Father’s giving of the number to the Son is the most ultimate and determining action in this passage. It is the one action that determines the rest. All others necessarily follow it. So as surely as the one who meets the criteria of being given to the Son by the Father will meet the criteria of believing, and as surely as the one who meets the criteria of believing will meet the criteria of being raised, the one who meets the criteria of being drawn will meet the criteria of being raised. This is the knotless thread of the passage.

Furthermore, Jodie’s assertion that “according to this passage, there certainly may be a class of people who were drawn and who never came” turns the text on its head and makes no sense out of Jesus’ explanation of unbelief, his explanation that necessarily assumes that there are those present in the crowd who have in fact not been drawn.

To rephrase the statements, the subject of the first statement can be replaced with proper names. I’ll add the not to keep the negative element of the clause.

Judas can (not) come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Here we have a theological problem, because Judas emphatically did not come to Jesus, but not a tortuous grammatical problem.

Saul can (not) come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Ed Norton can (not) come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

It’s pretty clear that the subject is the antecedent of the ‘him’ following the second verb, which is ‘draws’. And the ‘him’ in the clause after the conjunction ‘and’ is referring to the person who fits both criteria. The idea that it is somehow narrowing in on only the pronoun of the second clause, is absurd. The second clause is a dependent clause, it can’t be separated from ‘he who comes’.

The passage is saying that it is impossible to come to Christ without the drawing ministry of the First Person of the Trinity. It is also assuring us that, due to that glorious ministry, we can come and we will be raised up.

Jodie’s examples ignore the context of the passage. This is not how genuine grammatical exegesis is performed. We don’t force concepts into the mind of the Biblical author that was never in his mind and then conclude whether or not what is actually contained in the text rules out other interpretations. I could do the same exact thing with v. 40, after rewording it to match the structure of v. 44:

“No one can have eternal life without seeing the Son and believing in him; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Now with a proper noun:

“Judas can [not] have eternal life without seeing the Son and believing in him; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Using the same standard, we must conclude that there is nothing in the text that necessitates that the one believing in the Son will be raised up on the last day. Asserting that Judas is in the category of those who are drawn is just as careless as assuming that Judas is in the category of those who believe. In other words, the text must remain in tact of how it is presented. Judas is not in the group who believes, so it would make no sense to judge the grammatical structure of v. 40 (which necessitates that all who believe are raised) based upon eisegeting his proper noun into the verse. The same rule applies to v. 44 and the group of those who are drawn. The verse, according to how it was actually presented allows for no disjunction between those who are drawn and those who are raised, just as v. 40 allows for no disjunction between those who believe and those who are raised.

Jodie’s incorrect exegesis is displayed in her conclusions about the passage. She concludes, “The passage is saying that it is impossible to come to Christ without the drawing ministry of the First Person of the Trinity. It is also assuring us that, due to that glorious ministry, we can come and we will be raised up.”

Yes, the passage assures us who believe that the Father has given us to the Son and has drawn us, so that we will without fail be raised up on the last day. But what about Jesus’ immediate audience? What about those in unbelief? What about those who grumble? What was Jesus assuring them? The concept that Jesus was giving assurance to those in unbelief is absolutely ridiculous. Can you imagine such a thing? It makes no sense of Jesus’ explanation whatsoever. Jesus is not giving them the assurance that they have been drawn. How would that authenticate his teaching at all? Rather, he is making known there inability to come on the basis that they have not been drawn, so that they have no excuse to grumble. Jesus’ concluding statements are the direct opposite of Jodie’s concluding statements:

64But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

Jesus explains unbelief in light of the fact that they are unable to do so because they have not been drawn. His intentions are clear.

Evan May.

Feel the love!

Brought to you by America’s premier Ivy League institution.

Best taken with a violin playing in the background, or maybe a Yanni soundtrack. (Angel-choir not included.)

**************************************************************************************************************

Please respond to this brief set of questions (It's optional, but we encourage that you answer).

Which statement best describes you?

Please rate how warm or cold you feel toward the following groups (0 = coldest feelings, 5 = neutral, 10 = warmest feelings)

Straight Men
Gay Men

Straight Women
Lesbian Women

Please rate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements.

I am personally motivated by my beliefs to be nonprejudiced towards gay people.

Because of today's standards I try to appear nonprejudiced towards gay people.

Because of my personal values, I believe that using stereotypes about gay people is wrong.

Although I don't necessarily agree with them, I sometimes have prejudiced feelings (like gut reactions or spontaneous thoughts) that I don't feel I can prevent.

No spontaneous prejudiced thoughts come into my mind when I encounter an unfamiliar gay person.

I attempt to appear nonprejudiced towards gay people in order to avoid disapproval from others.

Have you ever met a gay person?

Do you have a family member who is gay?

Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?

In your view, is homosexuality something a person is born with or is homosexuality due to other factors such as upbringing or environment?

Do you feel that homosexuality should be considered an acceptable alternative lifestyle or not?

In the next task, you will be presented with a set of words or images to classify into groups.

Good
Joyful, Beautiful, Marvelous, Wonderful, Pleasure, Glorious, Lovely, Superb

Bad
Agony, Terrible, Horrible, Humiliate, Nasty, Painful, Awful, Tragic

Gay People
Images and symbols of Gay People

Straight People
Images and symbols of Straight People

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Instructions

The Razored Apple-False Assurance Is Not a Fruit of the Spirit

I realize my posting in the past week or so has been light. There are a few reasons for this. For one thing, I'm working on a booklet on a particular period in Baptist history about a particular Baptist group that has to be completed and ready for publication by the end of February. When that is complete, you'll see me more frequently, unless something catches my eye. In fact, I'm toying with the idea of posting exerpts from that publication here. We'll see. At any rate, I have, however, been watching the ongoing discussions on assurance and "free grace" theology on the blog.

I've kept quiet on those, at least on the blog, for numerous reasons:

First, I am Southern Baptist in background, though that is shortly to change. I find this discussion tiring, because it has gone on ad infinitum within the SBC for several years, since the SBC leadership is largely dominated by purveyors of this theology. Antonio hasn't said anything I've not heard before, and he makes the same blunders and gives the same non-answers I've heard before, so there's no real use in debating him on my end.

Secondly, this particular issue is very close to home for me. I've seen this theology fill churches with bloated memberships of over 29,000 while less than a third of those show up on Sundays. If your theology can't grow a church beyond big numbers, I'm not interested. Also, don't, like the current president of the SBC, ask me to help you "baptize a milliion" when your own church, at which you preach your antinomian version of eternal security and your Sandemanian defintion of saving faith, has increased in membership over the years and has a roll in which less than 1/2 of your people show up on any given Sunday morning and that number has continued to decline while you member numbers grow. In 4 years 2001 - 04, you baptized 945 people and added 784 by other means, yet your membership only grew by 657. In addition, those 1729 new members resulted in 326 fewer worshippers. Shame on you for wanting to baptizing a million and call them members of the local church and not growing them into functional church members. Double shame for all the ones who come down the aisle for the umpteeth time to "rededicate" their life to Christ and pray yet another sacramental prayer. Triple shame if you've baptized any of them repeatedly. Oh, and incidentally, don't chastise sacramentalists when you elevate the sinners prayer to a sacramental status of its own. You claim to believe in "non-sacramental" baptism and practice of the Lord's Supper, then you use sacramental prayers on a regular basis.

Third, there's a difference between true and false assurance, a difference the purveyors of this theology simply don't like to realize. When they look you in the eye, as a gentleman from a 5000 member church on which I once served on staff and did with me a few months ago, and claim Simon Magus was truly converted since, according to the text he believed, yet the whole of church history tells us that he, Helena, and Meanander founded Gnosticism, there's a serious disconnect with the facts of history and the Bible that these folks simpy refuse to acknowledge. If Simon was truly converted, why do the early historians credit him with the founding of Gnosticism, the very thing that John in 1 John credits to the apostates who "went out from us" and proved by doing so "they were not of us?" That doesn't make sense.

Finally, apropos four, my job is to sow certainty in the hearts of the flock, but this doesn't mean I sow indiscriminately or hand out salvific assurance like candy through what I teach or write. With respect to assurance, as Evan and Steve have repeatedly noted, that certainty is no more and no less than that which Scripture itself warrants, and any exegetical argument must account for all the evidence and for what the Promisor gives and what the promisee is entitled to receive.

Speaking for myself , on judgment day, I would rather face my Lord's judgment for having sown as much certainty as Scripture warrants and not having handed out candy apples that promise false assurance. Assurance is not Halloween candy to be distributed to all who walk down the aisle and pray the sinners prayer. If you don't believe that this is the way the free grace folks handle assurance, look only at the plethora of evangelism tracts that end in the sinner's sacramental prayer and then say something along the lines of "if you prayed that prayer, then you can know you now know you have eternal life." Usually, they follow this up with a request to write them or call them for more information. The assurance that free grace theology offers amounts, in my opinion, to handing out out candy apples on with razors in them. I didn't see that on the list of fruits of the Spirit. Maybe I've missed it.

Finally, I'd like to present an article by Jim Eliff, an SBC evangelist that illustrates what I mean. Note what he says about assurance, about the way churches are being grown, etc. Note especially what he says about preaching about unregenerate church members and his regard for the providence of God in helping people deal with their doubts. This is especially relevant, in my opinion, in that one of the major objections the free grace folks raise is the idea that allowing people to doubt will somehow overwhelm them. I have italicized this for your benefit.

Southern Baptists, an Unregenerate Denomination

by Jim Elliff

"How are you doing?"

"Pretty well, under the circumstances."

"What are the circumstances?"

"Well, I have a very effective arm. It moves with quite a bit of animation. But then I have my bad leg."

"What's wrong with it?"

"I guess it's paralyzed. At least it doesn't do much except twitch once a week or so. But that's nothing compared with the rest of me."

"What's the problem?

"From all appearances, the rest is dead. At least it stinks and bits of flesh are always falling off. I keep it well covered. About all that's left beyond that is my mouth, which fortunately works just fine. How about you?"

Like the unfortunate person above, the Southern Baptist Convention has a name that it is alive, but is in fact, mostly dead (Rev. 3:1). Regardless of the wonderful advances in our commitment to the Bible, the recovery of our seminaries, etc., a closer look reveals a denomination that is more like a corpse than a fit athlete. In an unusual way, our understanding of this awful reality provides the most exciting prospects for the future—if we will act decisively.

The Facts

Out of the Southern Baptist's 16,287,494 members, only 6,024,289, or 37%, on average, show up for their church's primary worship meeting (usually Sunday morning). This is according to the Strategic Information and Planning department of the Sunday School Board (2004 statistics). If your church is anything like normal, and is not brand new, your statistics are probably similar. In other words, if you have 200 in attendance on Sunday morning, you likely have 500-600 or even more on your roll. Many churches have an even worse record.

Discerning who among us is regenerate is not an exact science, but a closer look at these numbers will at least alert us to the fact that most Southern Baptists must certainly be dead spiritually. That is so, unless, of course, you claim that there is no difference between a believer and a non-believer.

In the average church you can cut the 37% Sunday morning attendance by about two-thirds or more when counting those interested in a Sunday evening service, or other gatherings held in addition to the principal meeting of the church. In 1996, the last time the SBC kept these statistics, the number of Sunday evening attenders was equal to only 12.3% of the membership (in churches that had an evening meeting). One might ask what makes us claim that the rest are Christians, if they involve themselves with God's people only on such a minimal, surface level? How are they any different from the people who attend the liberal church down the street—the "church" where the gospel is not even preached?

And remember that the numbers of those attending include many non-member children and guests, often making up a third of the congregation's main meeting attendance. When all factors are considered, these figures suggest that nearly 90% of Southern Baptist church members appear to be little different from the "cultural Christians" who populate other mainline denominations.

To make matters worse, we tell a lot more people that they are true Christians (because they prayed a prayer sincerely) than we can convince to be baptized. Our largest pizza supper may bring in a hundred new "converts," but we will likely get only a few of those on the roll. After that, the percentages that I have been mentioning kick in. In other words, if you compare all who we say have become Christians through our evangelistic efforts, to those who actually show signs of being regenerate, we should be red-faced. In the Assembly of God's 1990s "Decade of Harvest," out of the 3.5 million supposedly converted, they showed a net gain of only 5 new attenders for every 100 recorded professions. When one considers all of our supposed converts, including those who refuse to follow Christ in baptism and who never join our churches, our numbers are much the same. Doesn't anybody see that there is a serious problem here?

Let me illustrate in rounded figures by looking at some of the churches where I have preached as a guest speaker. Each could be any Baptist church in any city. In one church, with 7,000 on the active roll, there were only 2000 in attendance on Sunday morning, and a mere 600-700 on Sunday evening. When you account for those attenders who are not members of this flagship church (i.e. guests and non-member children), you have about 1500 actual members coming in the morning and 500 or so in the evening. Where are the 5,500 members who are missing on Sunday mornings? Where are the 6,500 who are missing in the evening?

Another church had 2,100 on the roll, with 725 coming on Sunday morning. Remove guests and non-member children and the figure drops to 600 or less. Only about a third of that number came out on Sunday evening, representing less than 10% of the membership. Yet another church had 310 on the roll with only 100 who attended on Sunday morning. Only 30-35, or approximately 10%, came to the evening worship service.

These are all considered fine churches. All have an extremely competent level of leadership and vision. Some shut-ins and those who are sick, out of town, or in the military, certainly affect the figures a little. But those who are justifiably absent are not enough to alter the bleakness of the picture, especially when we remember that these numbers represent people who have been baptized and have publicly declared their allegiance to God and the Body of Christ. Even if you generously grant that the 37% are all true believers (an estimation that most pastors would say is way off the mark), one still has a church membership that is more dead than alive. If we are honest, we might have to ask ourselves, "Do Southern Baptists believe in a regenerate membership?"

Missing Christians are No Christians

What do these facts and figures, as general as they are, suggest? First, they reveal that most of the people on our rolls give little evidence that they love the brethren—a clear sign of being unregenerate (1 Jn. 3:14). It is impossible to believe that anything like real familial affection exists in the hearts of people who do not come at all, or who only nominally check in on Sunday morning as a cultural exercise. Love is the greatest mark of a genuine believer (1 Jn.3:14-19). Attendance alone does not guarantee that anyone is an authentic believer, but "forsaking the assembling," is a serious sign of the unregenerate heart. The phrase: "They went out from us, because they were never of us" (1 Jn. 2:19) may have doctrinal overtones, but it nonetheless represents many on our membership rolls.

Second, these numbers suggest that most of those who do not attend (or who only come when it is convenient), are more interested in themselves than God. To put it in Paul's words, they are "fleshly-minded" and not "spiritually-minded" (Rom. 8: 5-9). The atmosphere that most pleases them is that of the world and not God. They can stand as much of God as makes them feel better about themselves, and they find a certain carnal security in "belonging" to a local church. But beyond that, they will politely resist getting involved. They use the church, but are not really a part of it. For some, the extent of what they can take is an Easter service now and then; for others it is an occasional sterile (and somewhat Pharisaical) trip to church on appropriate Sunday mornings as fits into their schedule. But their apathy towards regular and faithful church attendance betrays their true affections. The fact is, you do what you love to do.

Third, the numbers indicate that some people have joined other denominations and our churches have not kept up with their movements—a sign of inadequate pastoral oversight and the built-in deficiencies of the "inactive membership" concept. I'm quite certain Paul never dreamed of "inactive membership." Embarrassingly, some left on the rolls are dead—physically! It goes without saying that a dead person is about as inactive as one could be! But others, though presumably alive physically, have disappeared without a trace. I believe it was our beloved Dr. Roy Fish of SWBTS who said, "Even the FBI could not find some of them." Yet, if we want to claim them as members, we are responsible to keep up with them.

All of these people have "prayed the prayer" and "walked the aisle." All have been told that they are Christians. But for most, old things have not really passed away, and new things have not come. Most are not new creatures in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). In too many cases, obvious signs of an unregenerate heart can be found, such as bitterness, long-term adultery, fornication, greed, divisiveness, covetousness, etc. These are "professing believers" that the Bible says are deceived. "Do not be deceived" the Bible warns us concerning such people (see 1 Cor.6:9-11; Gal. 5:19-21; 6: 7-8; Eph. 5:5-6; Titus 1:16; 1 Jn. 3:4-10; etc.).

Jesus indicated that there is a good soil that is receptive to the gospel seed so as to produce a fruit-bearing plant, but that the "rocky ground" believer only appears to be saved. The latter shows immediate joy, but soon withers away (Mt. 13:6, 21). This temporary kind of faith (which is not saving faith, see 1 Cor.15:1-2) is rampant among Southern Baptists. In The Baptist Faith and Message we say we believe that saving faith is persistent to the end. We say we believe in the preservation and perseverance of the saints (once saved, always persevering). In other words, if a person's faith does not persevere, then what he possessed was something other than saving faith.

In John 2:23-25 Jesus was the center-piece for what turned out to be a mass evangelism experience in which a large number of people "believed" in Him. Yet He did not entrust Himself to even one of them because "he knew their hearts." Is it possible that we have taken in millions of such "unrepenting believers" whose hearts have not been changed? I say that we have. Our denomination, as much as we may love it, is on the main, unregenerate. Even if you double, triple, or quadruple my assessment of how many are true believers, we still have a gigantic problem. It is naive to believe otherwise.

There are those who would say that such people are "carnal Christians" and don't deserve to be thought of as unregenerate. It is true that the Corinthian believers (about whom this phrase was used; see 1 Cor. 3:1-3) acted "like mere men" in their party spirit. Christians can commit any sin short of that which is unpardonable.

Undoubtedly, however, Paul did suspect that some of the Corinthians were unbelievers, for he later warns them about such a possibility in 2 Cor.12:20-13:5. A long-term and unrepentant state of carnality, is, after all, the very description of the unregenerate (Rom. 8:5-14, 1 Jn. 3:4-10, etc.). In calling some people "carnal" Paul did not mean to imply that he was accepting as Christian a lifestyle that he clearly describes elsewhere as unbelieving. He wrote, in the same letter: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. Do not be deceived" (1 Cor. 6:9-11, etc.). Apparently there were some, even then, who were deceived into thinking that an unrighteous man or woman who professes faith in Christ could really be a Christian!

Is Follow-up the Problem?

A great mistake is made by blaming the problem on poor follow-up. In many churches there is every intention and effort given to follow-up, yet still the poor numbers persist. One church followed up "by the book," seeking to disciple people who had been told they were new converts during the crusade of an internationally-known evangelist. The report of the pastor in charge was that none of them wanted to talk about how to grow as a Christian. He said, "In fact, they ran from us!" I have known some churches to go to extreme efforts to disciple new believers. We must do this. Yet, like the others, they generally have marginal success. They have learned to accept the fact that people who profess to have become Christians often have to be talked into going further, and that many, if not most, simply will not bother. Authentic new believers can always be followed up, however, because they have the Spirit by which they cry, "Abba Father" (Rom. 8:15). They have been given love for the brethren, and essential love for the beauty and authority of the Word of God. But you cannot follow-up on a spiritually dead person. Being dead, he has no interest in growth.

It was the preaching of regeneration, with an explanation of its discernible marks, that was the heart of the Great Awakening. J. C. Ryle, in writing of the eighteenth century revival preachers, said that they never for a moment believed that there was any true conversion if it was not accompanied by increasing personal holiness. Such content was the staple of the greatest of awakening preaching throughout the history of revival. Only such a powerful cannon blast of truth could rock the bed of those asleep in Zion.

Facing the Dilemma

What must be done? I suggest five responses:

1. We must preach and teach on the subject of the unregenerate church member. Every author in the New Testament writes of the nature of deception. Some books give major consideration to the subject. Jesus Himself spoke profusely about true and false conversion, giving significant attention to the fruit found in true believers (Jn. 10:26-27; Mt. 7:21-23; Mt. 25:1-13, etc.). If this sort of teaching creates doubt in people, you should not be alarmed, nor should you back away from it. Given the unregenerate state of so many professing Christians, their doubts may be fully warranted. In any case, as one friend told me, "Doubts never sent anyone to hell, but deception always does." Most will work through their doubts, if they are regenerate and if we continue to preach the whole truth. Contrary to popular opinion, all doubts are not of the devil. Speak truthfully the whole counsel of God. You cannot "unsave" true believers.

It is true that there may be some who are overly scrupulous and overwhelmed by such examination. But most who will be affected are those who are too self-confident, having based their assurance on such shaky platforms as their response to an invitation, praying a perfectly worded "sinner's prayer," or getting baptized. If they are unregenerate, they may take offense and leave. But if they are truly regenerate, patient teaching and care will help them to overcome their doubts and gain biblical assurance. Such preaching may even result in true conversion for some who are deceived. And don't forget that the overconfident ones are not the only ones at risk. Quiet, sensitive, insecure people can be deceived also.

2. We must address the issue of persistent sin among our members, including their sinful failure to attend the stated meetings of the church. This must be done by reestablishing the forgotten practice of church discipline. Each church should adopt guidelines that state just what will happen when a member falls into sin, including the sin of non-attendance or very nominal attendance. Such discipline for non-attendance is clearly found in the history of Baptists—but more importantly, in the Bible.

Everyone in the church, including new members, should be made familiar with the biblical steps of church discipline. Jesus said that a person who was lovingly, but firmly, disciplined by the church, and yet failed to repent, should be thought of as "a heathen and a tax collector" (see Mt. 18:15-17). Though David committed atrocious sins, he was a repenter at heart (see 2 Sam.12:13; Psalm 51). Every Christian is a life-long repenter and church discipline brings this out. (See "Restoring Those Who Fall," in Our Church on Solid Ground: Documents That Preserve the Integrity and Unity of the Church, www.CCWonline.org)

Leaders must get into the homes of all our erring church members, seeking either to bring them to Christ, or to reluctantly release them to the world which they love more than Christ. Nowhere in the Bible are we taught to keep non-believers on the rolls. As a side benefit from church discipline for the SBC, remember that when we reduce our membership to what it actually is, we will be amazed at the statistical improvements in the ratio of members per baptism and members to attenders. Of course, statistics are not worth dying for, but obedience to God's Word is.

We are never to aggressively pluck the supposed tares from the wheat as if we had absolute knowledge (Mt. 13:24-30; 36-43). We might be mistaken. However, loving church discipline is a careful process by which the obvious sinner in essence removes himself by his resistance to correction. The church is made up of repenting saints, not rebelling sinners (see 1 Cor. 5). The slight improvement in the disparity between membership and attendance in the last couple of years is likely due, in major part, to some churches beginning to practice church discipline—a matter of obedience that thankfully is regaining credence among us. Some have removed hundreds from their rolls in this process, and regained some also.

3. We should be more careful on the front end of church membership. In my estimation, the public altar call (a modern invention) often reaps people prematurely. Others will disagree or can perhaps make significant improvements on the traditional "invitation system." We have used this method in our evangelism because of our genuine zeal to see the lost converted. But in our zeal, we have often overlooked the fact that many who do what our method calls for (i.e. respond to our invitation) may not be converted.

Though sacrosanct to Baptists, careful study should be done related to the historical use of the invitation system evangelistically. For eighteen hundred years the church did not use such a method. It was not until its principle originator, Charles Finney, a true pelagian in his theology, promoted his "new measures." Earlier preachers were content to let true conviction play a greater part in conversion. They needed no props for the gospel—no persuasive techniques to prompt people to make a "decision." Instead of relying on a method, their confidence was in the preached Word and the Holy Spirit. Baptist giant, C. H. Spurgeon, for instance, saw thousands converted without the use of an "altar call." His message was his invitation. We should always offer a verbal invitation in our gospel preaching, meaning we must invite people to repent and believe. But there is no real benefit, while there is much potential harm, in our inviting them to the front of the church and then assuring them that their short walk or tearful response proves their conversion.

We don't need better methods to get people down to the front. What we need is more biblical content and more unction in our preaching. You cannot beat sinners away from Christ when God is bringing them in (see Jn. 6:37, 44-45). When as many as 70-90% of "converts" are giving little, if any, evidence of being saved after their first weeks or months of emotional excitement, questions should be asked, both about our understanding of the gospel and about our methods. Forget the fact, if you must, that there is no clear biblical precedent for the altar call. Even considering the matter pragmatically ought to make us quit. Though prevalent in our churches for decades, it has not helped us. (See "Closing with Christ," www.CCWonline.org/closing.html)

The dangerous practice of receiving new members immediately after they walk the aisle must finally be abandoned. Also, more careful counsel should be taken with those entering in as members from other churches. And add to this a need for much deeper thinking concerning childhood conversion. An alarming percentage of childhood professions wash out later in the teen and college years. For unconverted yet baptized church kids, the more independence they are granted, the more they live out their true nature. (See "Childhood Conversion," www.CCWonline.org/cconv.html)
4. We must stop giving immediate verbal assurance to people who make professions of faith or who respond to our invitations. It is the Holy Spirit's job to give assurance. We are to give thebasis upon which assurance can be had, not the assurance itself. Study 1 John in this respect. What things were written so that they might know they have eternal life? (1 Jn. 5:13). Answer: The tests given in the book. The Bible says that the Holy Spirit testifies to our spirit that we are children of God (Rom. 8:16).

5. We must restore sound doctrine. Revival, I am finding as I study its history, is largely about the recovery of the true gospel. The three great doctrines which have so often shown up in true revival are: 1) God's sovereignty in salvation, 2) justification by grace through faith alone, and 3) regeneration with discernible fruit. Revival is God showing up, but the blessing of the presence of God is directly affected by our beliefs. God most often comes in the context of these and other great doctrines, preached penetratingly and faithfully, and with the unction of the Holy Spirit.

As an illustration of our doctrinal reductionism, repentance is often forgotten completely in gospel presentations, or else it is minimized to mean nothing more than "admitting that you are a sinner." Also, "Inviting Christ into your heart," a phrase never found in the Bible (study the context of Jn.1:12 and Rev. 3:20, the verses used for this), has taken the place of the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone. The doctrine of God's judgment is rarely preached with any carefulness. And comprehensive studies of the meaning of the cross are seldom heard. Merely looking over the titles of the sermons which awakening preachers preached in the past would surprise most modern pastors.

Be Healthy or Be Ashamed

Which army would you rather have? Gideon's first army or his last? No church, and no denomination, should call itself healthy unless more people attend than are on the roll. This is a standard kept by most of the world, and was kept by our great-grandparents in Baptist churches as well. We would be closer to the revival we desire if we would admit our failure, humbly hang our heads, and seek to rectify this awful hindrance to God's blessing. When we boast of how big we are, we are bragging about our shame.

In the Philadelphia Baptist Association Minutes, our first association, our initial American statistical record shows that five times as many people attended the association's churches as were on their rolls. Greg Wills in Democratic Religion in the South (Oxford University Press, 1997, p.14) reports that three times the number on the rolls attended Baptist churches, then located mostly along the eastern seaboard when surveyed in 1791 by John Ashlund. In 1835, the Christian Index of Georgia recorded that "not less than twice the number" of members were in attendance.

Today, in rough numbers, it takes 300 people on our rolls to have 100 attenders. In the 1790s, it took only 33. Or, to put it in larger figures, it now takes nearly 3000 people, supposedly won to Christ and baptized, to result in a church attendance of 1000. Then, it took only 333. Our potency has diminished to such an extent that we must "win" and "baptize" over 2,000 more people to get to the same 1000 to attend.

Apparently, being orthodox in terms of inerrancy and infallibility is not enough, though without these doctrines we have no foundation for true evangelism. A lot has to be done, and a lot undone. And, sadly, we have been actively transporting this mainly American problem overseas for many years.

To conclude, I suggest two remedial steps for the convention as a whole, in addition to what was suggested for the churches:

1. We might reverse some of our proclivity to continue as normal if we introduced our preachers more accurately in our evangelism meetings and convention settings. Try using this introduction: "Here is Brother ______, pastor of a church of 10,000 members, 6400 of whom do not bother to come on a given Sunday morning, and 8600 of whom do not come on Sunday evening. He is here to tell us about how to have a healthy, evangelistic church."

It might be better to ask a man to speak who shepherds 100 members, all of whom attend with regularity and all of whom show signs of regeneration—a man who, in the last year, has baptized 5 people who stick—rather than a pastor of 10,000 members, 7000 of whom do not come—a man who has baptized 1000 in the past year, 700 of whom cannot be found. The smaller, but more consistent numbers of the first pastor reveal a far more effective ministry and thus a far better example for other churches. (Please understand that I don't like this talk about "numbers," but this is the main way we evaluate people and churches as Baptists. I am sure God is not really impressed with any of our statistics.)

2. We should establish a study group to explore our presently deplorable situation and to track its history. This group should also seek to re-examine the biblical mandate to have a regenerate church. Then this study group should report back with a strategy to help us out of the dilemma. They should be painfully honest. I am hopeful that individual churches will act without this prompting, but this would be an added stimulus to getting us to our fighting weight as a denomination. Some church leaders will not act without this sort of backing since independent action would be a departure from the status quo.

Our only alternative is to carry on in the old way—the way that produces 70-90% fallout. By continuing on as we are, we will gradually blur, and eventually obscure altogether, any distinction between the professing and the authentic Christian. In the end, we will look like every other mainline, liberal denomination. We are only one-third to one-tenth alive now. If we want to avoid complete deadness, we must take dramatic measures immediately. Like cotton candy, our apparent size does not add up to much.

Our forebears, especially those who died for the biblical concept of a regenerate church, would hardly recognize our compromised condition. It will admittedly take us down a notch or two, in the estimation of the rest of professing Christianity, when millions are removed from our rolls. But humility and a new reality might be the starting place for God's greatest blessings on us yet!

The next time someone asks how your church and your denomination are doing, tell the truth. Tell them that we have a new confidence in the inerrant Bible. Tell them that we have seminaries that promote orthodoxy, and new evangelistic fervor among the true believers. Tell them we have a lot to be excited about. But also tell them that when considered as a whole, most Southern Baptists need raising from the dead.


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

Jim Elliff is the president of Christian Communicators Worldwide and the former resident consultant for the Midwestern Center for Biblical Revival at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He speaks to conferences in the states and overseas, and often leads churches and pastors in the subject addressed above. For additional free booklets on this subject, write Christian Communicators Worldwide, 201 Main Suite #3, Parkville, MO 64052, or phone (816)584-8601.


Revised edition, Copyright © 2005 Christian Communicators Worldwide
201 Main, Parkville, MO 64152 USA
Permission granted for not-for-sale reproduction in exact form including copyright. Other uses require written permission.

Institutional apostasy

Shameless scavenger that I am, I will once again be dragging the remarks of Der Fuersprecher out of the basement and putting them on display in the showroom since they form such a fitting complement to my modest remarks on the church fathers.

My only concern is that he may begin to demand royalties for the use of his classy material, and a junkyard dog like me can scarcely afford his Park Avenue rates, but perhaps we can agree on some installment plan.

***QUOTE***

9. We have the historic precedent of widespread institutional apostasy among the covenant people of God in the OT itself. That this phenomenon would repeat itself in the New Covenant era should surprise few.

i) Apostasy at an institutional level doesn't militate against the existence of true believers who live/operate apart from the sanction/authority of an apostate hierarchical class (The OT itself is essentially a record of this very thing. Cf. especially Elijah's belief that he alone was faithful in all of Israel - yet God's response was that His true remnant, although not visible at an institutional level, numbered 7,000).

ii) We should also note that institutional apostasy is seldom a dramatic event that occurs at a point in time. Rather it is something that develops over time as traditional accretions displace/supersede various aspects of the original religion (and this is not a phenomenon limited to Christianity alone).

iii) The Old Covenant people of God had moved so far from the true religion of YHVH at an institutional level, that the law itself was apparently lost (cf. 2 Kgs 22:3-20), which was followed by a later period of revival/restoration (cf. 2 Kgs 23:1-25).

10. The Gospels record the institutional apostasy that was prevalent in the Jewish nation prior to and during the time of Christ.

i) Christ’s response to their traditional accretions (all allegedly handed down from Moses) was to repeatedly direct them back to the priority of the written Revelation of the OT (cf. his oft used formula “Have you not read…?”).

11. We have the further example (at the close of the apostolic age) of most of the churches in chapters 2 & 3 in the book of Revelation condemned for greater or lesser degrees of apostasy.

# posted by Der Fuersprecher : 1/31/2006 12:10 PM

Der, are you saying the church fathers, Augustine, Ambrose, all the greats, were apostates?

# posted by Hello : 1/31/2006 1:17 PM

What I was pointing out was that the apostasy of the institutional structure of the covenant people of God is not without historical precedent (cf. the OT record for many examples).

This fact is indisputable although those who think in facile terms concerning ecclesiastical development (i.e., those who believe in a church that has remained essentially unchanged and uniform in doctrine for the last 2000 years) will no doubt not appreciate the observation and the implications that follow concerning the probability of historical recapitulation - but I can't do anything about that.

Additionally, I made the point that apostasy isn't something that happens at a point in time, but rather is something that occurs gradually over time.

Hence various individual fathers held greater or lesser degrees of heterodox ideas on a variety of theological topics based on their geographical locale and period in which each lived (e.g., fifth century writers with ties to Antioch would lean more toward sharply dividing the 2 natures of Christ, much as Nestorius did).

In specific answer to your question - let me reframe it, because the question itself reflects a naive understanding of what it means to be orthodox/heterodox.

Were Augustine and Ambrose possessors of a pure and undefiled faith without any errors in their thought?

I'm not inclined to think so. I have many reasons to believe that they were fallible men who were just as subject to their own historical/cultural/sociological influences as you or I, and hence subject to error.

What about the converse? Were they heterodox on every matter of theological articulation?

I would answer that question in the negative (as I think most would). Much (but not all) of the thought of both aligns well with the apostolic faith one finds in the NT record.

The answer, then, lies somewhere in between. Neither possessed a theology that was identical to either that of a pure NT theology or to the theology of the other.

I am generally favorable toward both figures (but especially Augustine) – although I would disagree with both at certain points as well.

# posted by Der Fuersprecher : 1/31/2006 2:24 PM

***END-QUOTE***

You bet your sweet bippy

Evan May may have beaten me to the punch on Paul P.S.M.S. Owen’s latest post (hereafter P.P.S.M.S.O. for short), but his post has so much comedic potential that there’s more than enough raw material for the two of us.

So I’ll play Rowan to Evan’s Martin. And that still leaves plenty of elbowroom for Flip Wilson, Tiny Tim, Lily Tomlin, Goldie Hawn, and Arte Johnson.

[Sorry to all you teens and twenty-somethings for the stone-age allusion to long gone, but unforgettable TV show for. I’m showing my age again. Before there was the Jon Stewart Show, there was Saturday Night Live, and before SNL, there was Laugh-In.]

Meanwhile, back in the Mod, Mod World:

“But when properly understood, these verses [2 Tim 3:16-17] do not promote the imbalanced Anabaptist notion of solo Scriptura…”

Does Anabaptism in fact subscribe to solo Scriptura?

Speaking for myself, Anabaptism is several notches above P.P.S.M.S.O.’s Anglo-Catholicism.

I mean, let’s put in this way. Would you want your daughter to date an Anglo-Catholic? Nuff said.

By contrast, I'd be happy to have my daughter date a nice Amish boy. Farm-boys are real men, unlike nancy-pansy Tractarians who would rather turn the church into a dollhouse for their Mandarin costume drama.

“…which is promoted in modern Evangelicalism, and which in practice denies the authoritative nature of the teaching office of the Church.”

Depends on what he means. A Bible teacher has no more or no less authority than the teaching of Scripture itself. To the extent that he’s true to the teaching of Scripture, his teaching is fully authoritative.

Or is P.P.S.M.S.O.’s position that we should accord divine authority to unscriptural teaching?

The NT has a fair amount to say about false teachers—none of it especially encouraging.

“The Bible is only sufficient for this task within the framework of the teaching authority of the Church.”

And what authorizes the framework? Scripture?

Also, how do we differentiate between a true church and a false church? Scripture?

“But once again, the Bible is powerful for salvation only within the context of the teaching office of the Church…”

I thought P.P.S.M.S.O. was of the opinion that Muslims, Mormons, and virtuous pagans could be saved.

“The nature of the Bible is analagous to our American Constitution.”

Watch P.P.S.M.S.O. play Teddy Kennedy to Justice Alito.

“ The Constitution is the source of American law in our society, but that does not in any way undermine the real authority of judges and courts to interpret and apply the Constitution in individual cases.”

It isn’t entirely clear to me why an expatriate like P.P.S.M.S.O. speaks of “our” Constitution in “our” society, but be that as it may, he is using one contentious example to prop up another contentious example. It all depends on your judicial philosophy.

Do judges have the right to interpret the Constitution, consistent with original intent, in order to apply general principles to special cases? Yes.

Do judges have the right to go into business for themselves by flouting original intent, discovering newly-minted rights in the Constitution which have no textual or historical basis while denying rights explicitly contained in the Constitution? No.

That is to claim Constitutional authority for something that lacks any actual Constitutional warrant. It is the Constitution itself which both empowers and circumscribes the power of the judiciary.

“Ecumenical councils are the ecclesial equivalent of the Supreme Court, and the same principle applies down the line to more geographically limited councils and assemblies. Evangelicalism may on occasion give the deferential nod to the teaching office of the Church catholic, and allow its judgments some degree of consideration, but it then feels free to ignore such rulings if they should contradict what they think they see in their Greek New Testament.”

And what, exactly, is the problem with that?

Let us remember that, historically, the authority of church councils was not moral authority, but legal authority. Where you had state churches, schism and heresy, as defined by the party in power, were crimes against the state, punishable as treason.

Is that the status quo ante to which P.P.S.M.S.O. would return us? Are evangelicals guilty of sedition? Is the chopping block the next stop?

But everything P.P.S.M.S.O. has said up until now is just a warming up exercise for the following assertion:

“This is why Evangelicals feel free to call into question such fundamental doctrines as: the eternal generation of the Son and eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, Episcopal ecclesiology, baptismal regeneration and forgiveness, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, the sacrificial character and real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the priestly nature of the ministry, and indeed the very notion of binding, authoritative Tradition at all.”

The reason he resorts to conciliar authority is because he is impotent to exegete these “fundamental” doctrines from Scripture.

So his analogy does, indeed, hold firm. Like Teddy Kennedy, who treats the Constitution like a piece of silly putty, P.P.S.M.S.O. is prepared to extort from Scripture what he cannot find in Scripture by honest means. Hence, the iron-fisted recourse of conciliar authority.

“Modern Evangelicalism in all its chaotic variety (including its modern ‘Reformed’ expressions) is the offspring of ecclesial anarchy.”

For this statement alone, P.P.S.M.S.O. richly deserves The Flying Fickle Finger of Fate award for his utterly fickle invocation ecclesiastical authority.

Remember who he is. He is a schismatic. He belongs to a breakaway denomination—an Anglo-Catholic splinter-group.

Watching P.P.S.M.S.O. play high churchman is like watching a little brother and sister play king and queen for a day. We’ve all seen this coronation ceremony, haven’t we?

Little sister Jill dons her mommy’s purple bathrobe and rhinestone jewelry, while brother Jack sprays a cardboard crown with gold paint. Jill crowns Jack, and they live happily ever after in their royal tree house.

Next time you see P.P.S.M.S.O. play prelate in his dime store vestments, remind him that the cardboard is showing through the spray paint.