Pages

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Regeneration and The Flyswatter: Part One, Bad Apologetics

The following is a guest post by Sam Hughey of the Reformed Reader.

Regeneration Before Faith


Gene M. Bridges (who frequently posts on Baptists Discussing Reformation) and Bob Ross (Calvinist Gadfly swatter) have exchanged comments regarding the Reformed view of Regeneration Before Faith. I think this is an edifying example of good and bad Apologetics and can be useful to all of us in our Apologetical development (especially mine). The source document is found here.




Gene Bridges affirms the view that man must be regenerated before man can have salvific faith while Bob Ross responds (to the contrary) with several Apologetical and Biblical errors:

1) Criticizing one’s activity does not disprove one’s view of Scripture. Gene’s ‘bloviating’ on numerous Internet Blogs fails to prove Gene’s use of Scripture is either correct or incorrect and certainly has no bearing on his use of time in so doing.

2) Forcing one’s presupposed conclusion onto another’s statements for the purpose of disproving their view is Apologetical suicide and shows the inability (or unwillingness) to accurately and honestly deal with the facts. Many of us make this same error and often without serious consideration as to what we are doing.

Bob Ross claims that any words resembling the phrase regeneration precedes faith belongs to the Hardshell Doctrine or is, at the least, ‘a’ Hardshell Baptist doctrine. While Hardshell Baptist doctrine includes the view that regeneration precedes faith, one is not necessarily a Hardshell (Primitive) Baptist on that merit. The reasoning is absurd. This type of fallacious reasoning would associate one with anything any other religious groups believes merely on the basis of ‘some’ type of similar belief. Is an Evangelical Christian in agreement with a Roman Catholic, Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, etc., merely because all these groups believe in God?

Bob Ross claims Gene’s view of Regeneration preceding Faith fails to agree with Reformed Theology and is disproved merely on the grounds that one individual disagrees with him. Bob Ross stated,

Gene's ignorance of Reformed theology is appalling and is refuted by none other than John Frame, professor of theology at Reformed Theological Seminary.

Is the whole of Reformed Theology proven or disproved solely on the view of John Frame? Bob Ross believes this. John Frame’s statement is this,

I hold the Reformed view that children in infancy, even before birth, can be regenerated and saved, presumably before they have any conscious doctrinal beliefs.

So, how does Frame’s statement disagree with Bridges’? Both (Frame and Bridges) believe salvation occurs prior to the recipient having salvific faith. Both believe salvation occurs prior to belief. Both believe salvation is accomplished without man’s doctrinal involvement. Something that should be noted here is if Bob Ross is correct, that the unborn are not saved unless they have a conscious doctrinal belief then one must assume they either are taught the correct Biblical doctrinal belief, while still in the womb, or no unborn child is saved because they cannot have a conscious doctrinal belief.

Bob Ross continues with one of the most absurd remarks I have ever read/heard;

If a child is regenerated in infancy or even before birth and holds no "conscious doctrinal beliefs," you have a REGENERATED UNBELIEVER. Don't give me that nonsense about "The relationship is logical and causal, but not temporal." Reformed Theological Seminary professor John Frame clearly holds to a temporal relationship.

Perhaps Bob Ross does not understand the Biblical doctrine of Regeneration but it should be clear to anyone, Reformed or not, if Regeneration occurs one is no longer an unbeliever. To assume one can be Regenerated and still be an unbeliever is absurd and speaks contrary to Scripture.

Bob Ross attempts to defend his un-Biblical view of regeneration using Carroll as his defense with the following statement from Carroll (source not given),

As the founder of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. Carroll said,

(1) Every one born of God has the right be called a child of God.
(2) But no one has the right until he believes in Jesus.
(3) Therefore the new birth is not completed without faith.
No one, according to Dr. Carroll, is regenerated without faith!

That nobody is regenerated without having faith is not the issue. ‘WHEN’ they have this faith is the issue and Carroll clarifies ‘WHEN’ with his following statement,

The true scriptural position [concerning regeneration] is this: There is, first of all, a direct influence of the Holy Spirit on the passive spirit of the sinner, quickening him or making him sensitive to the preaching of the Word. In this the sinner is passive. But he is not a subject of the new birth without contrition, repentance and faith. In exercising these he is active. Yet even his contrition is but a response to the Spirit's conviction, and the exercise of his repentance is but a response to the Spirit's conviction, and the exercise of his repentance and faith are but responses to the antecedent spiritual graces of repentance and faith. Carroll goes on to state that "repentance and faith are fruits of regeneration, (An Interpretation of the English Bible, Volume 4, p. 287).

Notice, Carroll clearly states that even faith is a response to the Holy Spirit’s conviction and faith is the fruit of regeneration, not the cause of it.

But Carroll is not the only Reformed Theologian who disagrees with Bob Ross and if Reformed Theologians are what makes or breaks Bob Ross’ theology, the following must be taken into equal consideration:

1. Q. What is meant by the word regeneration? A. Regeneration is God's causing a person to be born again. 9. Q. Does faith come before the new birth? A. No, it is the new heart that truly repents and believes, From John A. Broadus' A Catechism of Bible Teaching, reprinted in A Baptist Treasury, pp. 67-68.

In our natural state we are totally depraved. No inclination to holiness exists in the carnal heart; and no holy act can be performed, or service to God rendered, until the heart is changed. This change, it is the office of the Holy Spirit to effect. . . . But, in his own time and manner, God, the Holy Spirit, makes the word effectual in producing a new affection in the soul: and, when the first movement of love to God exists, the first throb of spiritual life commences, From John L. Dagg’s A Manual of Theology, pp. 277, 279).

Regeneration is a change of the soul's affections from self to God―an act of God by which the governing disposition of the soul which was formerly sinful becomes holy, 2 Cor. 2:17―this making us new creatures, From J.B. Tidwell’s Christian Teachings, p. 54.

This change [i.e., regeneration] is one that is wrought in the moral nature of man by the Spirit of God. Nothing but divine power could produce the change. . . . God's power works this change. . . . The man who experiences regeneration knows as well as he knows daylight from darkness that he himself did not work the change, From W.T. Conner’s The Gospel of Redemption, p. 189.

Two of the most influential Baptist documents also support the view that faith is the fruit of regeneration, not the cause of it:

Regeneration is a change of heart, wrought by the Holy Spirit, who quickeneth the dead in trespasses and sins enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the Word of God, and renewing their whole nature, so that they love God and practice holiness. It is a work of God's free and special grace alone, From The Abstract of Principles, VIII

Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, From The Baptist Faith and Message, IV. Salvation, A.

Bob Ross boasts that he has had no takers for an open debate on B.H. Carroll’s view. Perhaps it is because Carroll and many other Reformed (Baptist) Theologians have already settled the issue? If anyone accepts Ross’s invitation to debate him, perhaps he can explain why Carroll would say faith precedes regeneration but also says it is the fruit of regeneration.
_________________
Sam Hughey
The first to plead his case seem right; until another comes and examines him.—Proverbs 18:17
The Reformed Reader, Committed to the Historic Baptist faith!

No comments:

Post a Comment