The Recent Disputes Over Baptismal Regeneration And The Southern Baptist Convention

There's been a lot of discussion lately about how Southern Baptists view the reference to baptism in the Nicene Creed. I've seen the usual false claims about how everybody in the early church believed in baptismal regeneration, all of the church fathers believed in it, nobody opposed it before the Reformation, and so on. Few opponents of baptismal regeneration say anything significant about the extrabiblical evidence for their position, and the few who speak up typically only mention a small percentage of that evidence. For example, it's seldom mentioned that the ancient sources who held some kind of highly efficacious view of baptism widely disagreed about the nature of that efficaciousness. Christians of the patristic era disagreed about the meaning of "baptism for the forgiveness of sins". That's not a later development. There's a major need for opponents of baptismal regeneration to improve their handling of the issue. Here are some resources to that end.

Debating the sacraments

On the question of the sacraments, Baptists are at a tactical disadvantage. There will always be people who are drawn to sacramental realism because they like the idea that infant baptism creates the presumption that their child is now heavenbound. Or that weekly communion is a quick fix. Spiritual shortcuts have a psychological appeal for many people. We see that in Baptists circles, too, where the "sacrament" of the altar call is functionally equivalent to Catholic sacraments. The primary exception is Reformed Baptists, who are more consistent. This is one reason why debates over credo/paedobaptism make so little headway. It's not just an exegetical question but a psychological question. In that respect, the Baptist position is an uphill climb. Sacramental realism has perennial appeal for many people.

Notice that what I've said is irrelevant to truth and evidence. I'm just making a sociological observation. Theological debates often stall because the underlying motivations are psychological. And there's not much that can be done about that. 

It's like ecumenists who have a deep yearning for "unity". They seem to be temperamentally wired to long for "unity", or a sense of continuity with the past. That's why some of them convert to Catholicism–drawn by the mystique of Christian unity and continuity (even though Catholic reality is something else entirely). 

I'm not saying this is a reason to forego debates over the sacraments. But we should have low expectations about achieving progress in that direction. It's more a case of peeling away occasional individuals. 

Conversion continuum

I'd like to make a general observation about conversions to Catholicism. Conversions range along a continuum. Theological identities are packages. Some packages have far more in common than others. 

Some conversions involve a minor adjustment in the convert's theology. Suppose a paedobaptist becomes a credobaptist or vice versa. That changes one variable, leaving pretty much the rest of his theology intact. 

Suppose a Baptist becomes a Lutheran. He has to make many more adjustments to his overall theology. 

But depending on the theological package, some variables are more central than others. The prophethood of Muhammad and Joseph Smith are cornerstones of Islam and Mormonism. If they were false prophets, then that falsifies the whole package. For the contents of the package depend on the authority of Muhammad or Joseph Smith.

A further consideration is that conversion often involves, not merely changing one or more of your theological positions, but changing your supporting arguments for or against the positions in question. 

Take the case of Luis Dizon, who recently switched back to Roman Catholicism. I believe he was a Reformed Baptist. Moreover, he's a Christian apologist, so I assume he was used to arguing for his Reformed Baptist beliefs and arguing against Roman Catholicism. Let's compare some of the contents of each package. 

I. Reformed Baptist

1. Sola Scriptura

2. The Protestant canon

3. Absolute predestination, unconditional election, reprobation

4. Definite atonement

5. Spiritual inability

6. Monergistic regeneration

7. Sola fide

8. Imputing Adam's demerit to his posterity, imputing the demerit of the elect to Christ, imputing the merit of Christ to the elect

9. Perseverance of the saints

10. Penal substitution

11. Believer's baptism

12. Exclusivism

II. Roman Catholicism

1. Apostolic succession

2. The pope as Christ's vicar on earth

3. The Magisterium as the authoritative interpreter of Scripture

4. The Catholic canon

5. Infused merit, congruent merit, supererogatory merit.

6. The priesthood

7. Seven sacraments

8. Baptismal regeneration/justification

9. Transubstantiation

10. Penace, auricular confession, absolution, indulgences

11. Indissolubility of marriage

12. Purgatory

13. Intercession and veneration of saints

14. Immaculate Conception

15. Assumption of Mary

16. Perpetual virginity of Mary (including in partu virginity)

17. Mary as Queen of Heaven, Mother of the Church, and Mediatrix

18. The Rosary

19. Renuciation of capital punishment

20. Inclusivism (Vatican II)

In each case, that's a sample. Compare the two packages. To convert from one to the other, he most now repudiate all the positions he use to believe and defend as a Reformed Baptist. Conversely, he must now believe and defend all the positions he used to repudiate. 

What is more, he must now renounce all the arguments he used to deploy in defending the Reformed Baptist position and opposing Roman Catholicism. Conversely, he must now adopt most-all of the Catholic arguments he used to view as bogus. 

Consider how artificial that is. Has he really vacated all the former arguments at one stroke? Did he eliminate them one by one? Did all the arguments he used to find convincing become unconvincing while most-all of the arguments he used to find unconvincing become convincing? Is it like reversing the domino effect, where all the dominos used to fall in one direction but now they all fall in the opposite direction? 

Surely it must feel schizophrenic to change sides so that you find yourself arguing with your mirror image. You're now resorting the same arguments whose weaknesses you used to recognize. Has your perception really undergone a complete gestalt shift? 

BTW, these aren't symmetrical alternatives. An intellectual conversion from Catholicism to evangelicalism is a lot simpler because there was no direct evidence for many Catholic dogmas. Rather, that was contingent on the authority of the Magisterium to promulgate dogma. All it takes to drop out of Catholicism is to lose your conviction in the authority of the Magisterium. Pull that one cornerstone and the entire edifice crumbles in a heap of dust. 

The visible/invisible church

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/visible_invisible.html

Progressive covenantalism

I already did a little post on Kingdom through Covenant:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/kingdom-through-covenant.html

But this book has proven to be unexpectedly controversial, so I’m going to spend more time interacting with some of the arguments.

The book has even been boycotted in some quarters. I think that’s unnecessary. The position of the authors is a respectable position. And they make a case for their position. So even if you disagree with them (as I do), their argument ought to be taken seriously.

The authors label the old covenant as the “covenant with Israel” (635). The implication of this designation is that the new covenant is not a covenant with Israel. Yet their OT prooftexts for the new covenant consist of passages in which God is speaking to Israel. Where God is making promises to Israel. For instance, Ezk 36:22-36 is explicitly and specifically addressed to Israel. In terms of the historic setting, moreover, God is addressing the Jewish exiles in Babylon. God is evidently referring to their postexilic restoration.

As noted above, the old covenant has a built-in tension. God demands obedience from Israel, yet they disobey. The law holds out life, but due to sin it cannot ultimately save. There is nothing in the law-covenant that changes the human heart, which is what the people desperately need (639).

But don’t we see the same tension in the NT church? Don’t many NT epistles bear witness to a similar tension?

Isn’t this tension inevitable in a fallen world? In inaugurated eschatology, we have a foot in both the fallen world order and the new world order.

In the New Testament, it is clear that the new covenant texts are applied to Christ and the church (cf. Lk 22:20; 2 Cor 3; Hebrews 8, 10). Even though the new covenant is made with the “house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (Jer 31:31)…the NT applies it to the church through the mediatorial work of Jesus Christ (645-46).

i) The authors spend a lot of time exegeting the OT. But they need to show how their application arises from their OT prooftexts.

ii) It’s one thing to say their OT prooftexts apply to the church, quite another to say their OT prooftexts include the church to the exclusion of Israel, even when their OT prooftexts have specific reference to Israel. How can they use their OT passages to erect an antithetical contrast between Israel and the church despite the setting and the wording of the very passages they adduce? Even if you say Israel typifies the church, those are not polar opposites. And from a Presbyterian standpoint, “the church” is another phase in the history of the God’s people.

Their OT prooftexts don’t single out the church to the exclusion of Israel. It wasn’t given as a promise to the church rather than Israel. At least, that’s not something you can derive from the OT passages on their own terms.

iii) The mediatorial work of Christ can apply to Israel as well as the church. That’s not a differential factor that uniquely selects for the church. Jesus is Israel’s Messiah, as well as the Savior of the nations.

iv) They appeal to Heb 8-10, but that’s arguably a Jewish church. A messianic congregation. That’s how many scholars and commentators classify the audience. Because the members of that church were messianic Jews, they were tempted to revert to Judaism (i.e. the Mosaic covenant) in the face of persecution. Unlike Christianity, Judaism was a religio licita.

It’s counterintuitive to invoke Heb 8-10 as a way of contrasting Israel to the church when that very letter was addressed to Jewish Christians.

[The new covenant] will indeed have a (human) covenant mediator, namely Jesus Christ, who is prophet, priest, and king in one person. In the old covenant community, these covenant mediators sinned and the community suffered because of faulty mediators. In the new covenant, however, our covenant mediator is without sin and as a result, the community will never suffer because of a faulty mediator (510).

i) But this fails to distinguish the Baptist position from the Presbyterian position (e.g. WCF).  Presbyterians can draw the same distinction.

ii) In addition, this distinction can stand on its own. It doesn’t need to be grounded in a theory of immediate revelation.

Under the new covenant all will know the Lord, not in a mediate but in an immediate fashion, and all will have the law written on their hearts and will experience the full forgiveness of sin (649).

It’s unclear what the authors mean by this:

i) Christians don’t enjoy innate knowledge of the gospel. Knowledge of the Gospel is mediated by the written word (i.e. the NT). And that’s something the new covenant shares in common with the old covenant.

Indeed, why to the authors spend so much time prooftexting their position from Scripture if the Holy Spirit gives Christians direct knowledge of the gospel? Their methodology contradicts their argument.

ii) Inscribing the law on the heart is a picturesque metaphor. They seem to think it denotes regeneration (649). Does that mean they think regeneration was mediate under the old covenant, but immediate under the new covenant? Surely they don’t believe Levitical priests mediated regeneration.

Therefore in the new covenant community there will no longer be a situation where some members urge other members to know the Lord (510).

Really? Christian parents shouldn’t urge their kids to know the Lord? A pastor shouldn’t urge his parishioners to know the Lord? We can just take that for granted?

The newness of the new covenant, at its heart, is found in the promise of complete forgiveness of sin (650).

That’s unclear. Weren’t OT saints completely forgiven? Are the authors suggesting the old covenant only offered partial forgiveness whereas the new covenant offers full forgiveness? If OT saints weren’t completely forgiven, did they go to hell when they died?

Fact is, the sacrificial system didn’t actually confer forgiveness–not even partial forgiveness. Rather, it symbolized forgiveness, and prefigured forgiveness. It’s not a difference of degree. OT saints were fully forgiven through the retroactive merits of Christ.

The church, unlike Israel, is new because she is comprised of a regenerate, believing people rather than a “mixed” group. The true members of the new covenant community are only those who have professed that they have entered into union with Christ by repentance and faith… (685).

i) Profession, regeneration, and faith are not mutually inclusive. It’s possible to be regenerate, yet lack conscious faith. It’s possible to have conscious faith, yet lack profession. Consider infants, the retarded, or the senile.

ii) How does their claim operate at a concrete level? As a rule, families form the core constituency of churches. Nuclear families or extended families. “Tribal groupings.” This is no less true in Baptist churches than in Presbyterian churches. And it’s often the case that some family members are pious while other members are impious. This gives rise to a distinction between the invisible church and the visible church.

There are ways of finessing this distinction in practice. A church can reserve communicant membership for those who make a credible profession of faith.

iii) It’s unclear how our authors define membership. Do they mean formal church membership? A public rite of initiation (e.g. baptism)? Or do they mean what God does to constitute members of the covenant community, irrespective of what we do by way of membership ceremonies?

Under the new covenant, what was true of the remnant (elect) within Israel will now be true of the entire covenant community and in greater ways (688).

Remnant themes aren’t confined to the OT. The same themes are sounded in the NT. Cf. G. Hasel, “Remnant,” ISBE 4:134; M. Elliot, “Remnant,” New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, 725.

First, the “mixed” community interpretation of the warning passages assumes that the nature of Israel and the church is basically the same, but this begs the question (692).

i) It doesn’t require that assumption. For passages like Heb 6:4-6 & 10:26-39 have reference to the church. That doesn’t necessitate comparing the church to Israel. Rather, that stands on its own two feet.

ii) But as a matter of fact, the author of Hebrews does compare NT apostates to OT apostates. He begins with OT apostates (Heb 3-4), then draws a parallel with NT apostates. So the old covenant community and new covenant community are analogous in that respect. It supplies an ominous precedent.

To the extent that they differ, it’s a difference of degree, not of kind. NT apostates are even more culpable than OT apostates.

Second, this interpretation contradicts biblical teaching regarding the nature of the new covenant church (692).

That rejoinder begs the question. The nature of the new covenant church is the very issue under review. And the apostasy passages are part of the evidence we use in defining the nature of the new covenant community.

No one disputes the fact that apostasy takes place in the new covenant age. What is at dispute is the status of those apostates. Should they be viewed as “new covenant breakers” (assuming they were once full covenant members) or, as those who professed faith, who identified with the church, but who, by their rejection of the gospel, demonstrated that they were never one with us? (692-93).

i) That’s a false dichotomy.

ii) Doesn’t the author of Hebrews describe the would-be apostates as covenant members on the brink of becoming covenant-breakers (e.g. Heb 6:1-5; 10:26,29)? If that’s not the language of covenant incorporation, what terminology would he use to describe covenant incorporation?

When apostasy takes place, we reevaluate the person’s former profession and thus their covenant status (693).

Why bundle those together? Certainly we reevaluate their former profession, but must we also reevaluate their covenant status? The authors assume what they need to prove.

Kingdom Thru Covenant rejoinder

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/09/20/gentry-and-wellum-respond-to-kingdom-through-covenant-reviews/

Bock on Kingdom Thru Covenant

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/09/11/kingdom-through-covenant-a-review-by-darrell-bock/

Kingdom through Covenant: A Review by Douglas Moo

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/09/12/kingdom-through-covenant-a-review-by-douglas-moo/

Circumcision, baptism, and Baptists

What’s the Baptist position on outlawing circumcision?

i) Many Baptists are dispensationalists. I assume they support the right of Jewish parents to circumcise their sons.

ii) Baptist theology also tends to accentuate the discontinuity between the old covenant and the new covenant, although there are many variations on this emphasis. Baptists who subscribe to the LBCF see more continuity than new covenant Baptists (e.g. D. A. Carson). Dispensationalists see continuity in terms of ethnic Israel's future restoration.

Considered in isolation, if you emphasize the newness of the new covenant, you might be more inclined to support a legal ban on circumcision. Circumcision null and void.

iii) On the other hand, Baptists also tend to stress separation of church and state, although there are variations on this emphasis as well. And Baptists who stress separation of church and state often ground this in their view of the old covenant. They say the old covenant in toto is obsolete. The OT theocracy was part of Israel’s unique, unrepeatable, cultic holiness. It represents a temporary stage in the history of redemption.

If you begin with that frame of reference, you might be inclined to oppose the state outlawing circumcision because you don’t think the state has the duty to regulate religion. That’s too theocratic. Rather, you’d support religious freedom. Individual conscience.

Search Engine 101 for Mr. Garrett

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

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

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

Mr. Garrett, writes:

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

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

Has Gene commented each time in refutation?

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

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

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

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


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

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

He quotes me as follows:

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

He then comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diagramed it looks like this:

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

-leads to-/by way of-

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

-leads to—

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

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

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

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

C. Time factor:

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source


Also:

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

Source.


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

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

Thus Saith the Ross

Bob Ross keeps spewing lies, this time about Reformed Paedobaptists.

Turretinfan has responded:


I answer:

a) In general, Reformed Paedobaptists (PB) distinguish between covenant members and communicant members. Communicant members normally only include those who have demonstrated regeneration by a credible profession of faith.

b) The idea that Reformed PBs "maintain their church membership primarily by infant baptism" is inane. Such a stratagem would work for precisely one generation. In fact, it may sadly be the case that some PB's do not properly remove from their rolls covenant breakers. On the other hand, the primary way in which the membership of PB churches is maintained in Christian lands is by evangelization of covenant members. That is to say, PB churches tend to gain the same communicant members that non-PB churches tend to gain: children raised in the church.

c) While some small minority of Reformed PBs may have taught an idea of baptismal regeneration, it would be improper to characterize such as the standard teaching. Instead, the bigger issue is the question of whether we should assume that the children of believers are regenerate or unregenerate before we see evidence either way. Some say we should assume that they are regenerate, others say contrariwise.

My commentary:

I agree with Turretinfan. That said, Mr. Ross is echoing sentiments that many Baptists today actually believe. That's because Baptists, since the 19th century in particular, have often talked past, not to, their Paedobaptist brothers. The irony with Ross is that he's a former Landmark Baptist, but here, his Landmarkism is showing. The only thing that is missing is the declaration that only Baptists constitute a "true church."

But is that really true? No. Presbyterians admit credo-baptized persons into their membership. None other than John L. Dagg stated that a Paedobaptist paster/TE is to be regarded as a true minister. So, on a strictly Baptist view of the local church's right composition, the Presbyterian local church is a true local church if it contains any credo-baptized persons giving a credible profession of faith - period. It might also shock some Baptists to know that Presbyterians credo-baptize on the mission field. They will even baptize you by immersion if you request it...and, for the record, while I believe that baptism by immersion is the ideal, I am willing to sacrifice mode but not meaning, with respect to baptism.

As to Ross' actual comments, they could equally be used against Baptist churches. Baptists are baptizing way, way too many underage children. On the very day Johnny Hunt was elected SBC president, I understand that his church baptized a fairly good sized number of preschool/1st grade children. That's not historic Baptist tradition.

Which gets us to another point. Historically, Baptists would baptize in the teen to adult range of years, even if our children made professions of faith much eariler. So, in reality, Baptist tradition is not too far away from Paedobaptist tradition. We did (once) distinguish between the "congregation" which included communicant and noncommunicant persons and the membership, which consisted of communicant persons (members baptized upon a credible profession of faith). The problem today is, many Baptist churches no longer do that. However, the point I'm making is that, if you really pay attention, PB's and CB's are not really too far apart on this issue.

Ross is correct to some degree in that there are Paedobaptist Reformed communions which do, in fact, regard their infants as not only covenant members, but presume them regenerate. That would be those following in the Dutch Reformed, Kuyperian tradition. However, the presumption is most Presbyterian churches is that these children are not regenerate, so what Ross is doing is assuming his Baptist ecclesiology, which says that all "members" are "regenerate," and then imputing that to Paedobaptists, such that he assumes, without benefit of argument, that these children are presumed regenerate. No,that would be true of some Reformed Paedobaptists, not all RP's.

I'm a Baptist, not a Presbyterian. I affirm professor's baptism by immersion. However, I'm also a Christian. I believe in truth telling such that Baptists and Presbyterians need to stop talking past each other, and each of us needs to fairly and accurately represent the other side. It's a pity Mr. Ross seems incapable of that much, but then, his truth telling record for the past few years has been on a steady decline.

The Warrant To Believe

Martin said:

Actually, whilst it may not be readily apparent, every man relies on a warrant to believe - although since, no man fully grasps all the implications and nuances of the gospel when they first believe, the details of the warrant may vary from person to person. But every person who puts their faith in Christ, must have reason to believe that God would show them mercy else they wouldn't do it would they? So, it seems to me that the matter of a warrant to believe *is* important. If someone who is considering the gospel happens to have heard of election and predestination then thay may well have questions about how can they put their faith in Christ if they can't be sure that He died for them? To say, in effect, 'believe, then you'll find out' seems to me to be unsatisfactory because it would not be answering that person's question.

TF replied:

It is sufficient warrant that man is commanded both to repent and believe. In other words, a command from God is sufficient ground, even if we have no reason to suppose that God will justify those who do believe.

Furthermore, it is also a sufficient response to someone who protests, "What if I am not one of the elect?" to say

"While it is true that God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, nevertheless seize hold by faith of the promise that those who come to him he will not cast out. Do not come to God demanding your share of Christ's blood, but begging God that you might be adopted as one of His sons, and share in the benefits procured by Christ."

Here! Here!

Martin, this confuses assurance with the warrant to believe. The question, as TF has plainly stated so well," is "What constitutes the warrant to believe?"

Put another way, "What impels the Gospel call?"

The scope or sufficiency of the atonement does not impel the Gospel - Amyraldians and Arminians frame it that way.

The ability of man does not frame the call - Arminians frame it that way.

Questions about their personal election and predestination do not impel the Gospel - hyperCalvinists frame it that way.

And notice the subjectivity of the way it is framed. If a man says, "If I am not able, I will not convert," he is substituting his autonomy as an excuse for his unbelief.

If he asks how he can know he is elect, he is saying he will believe, if God will subjectively reveal it to him that he is elect. That's an excuse not believe.

If he says, "I will only believe if I know a priori that Christ died for me," he's trying to excuse his unbelief by asking for a subjective warrant.

And all of these would ultimately amount to a violation of Sola Scriptura at some point, because God is being called upon to engage in continuing revelation, especially for the man who asks to know if he is elect before he believes. If he really wanted to convert, he would just do so. So the impertinence of that question inculpates him. Sure, he may have a real question, but the answer is not to look for assurances, the answer is to be found in simply doing what God says to do.

The command itself impels the call - the Bible frames it that way, period. And this - and only this - is truly objective. Questions about whether Jesus died for me, whether I am elect or not, or if I have the ability to comply are really irrelevant, for they are impertinent.

Why? It's like being presented with a "Tablet of Stone." God says, to wit, "Repent and believe,sinner, and you will be saved." That's a command - not just an "offer," a command, according to Acts and 1 John. He says in effect, "Trust me; trust my command, trust my promise to save you." God says this, and we have an objective warrant. That, Martin, is the warrant to believe that the Bible gives.

To all sinners who hear the call:

God does not say, "Believe because Jesus died for everybody."

God does not say, "Believe because you are elect."

God does not say, "Comply because you are all able."

He says, "Do this, and you will live."

It's very simple, and I think He does this to draw attention to the fact that if we start asking those questions, we are, at some level asking for personal, subjective assurances when we are still "children of wrath." God's children have every right to know these things - for they belong to our assurance, but assurance is given as a gift to us after we are converted, not before, for "children of wrath" have no such right. They have no "right" except condemnation. God gives this command, makes this "offer" indiscriminately, and He makes it equal for us all thereby. There are no special qualifications or rules for the elect vs. the reprobate. They are all, when confronted by the preaching of the Gospel, given the same command, presented with the same offer. It's man who tries to add these assurances, and that panders to the self-interest of sinners. This offer will call the elect; it will reveal the reprobate by inculpating them.

Speaking personally, I think saying this has done a lot of harm in Baptist churches in particular, for their pews are lined with unregenerate "members," yet they say they affirm regenerate, not mixed, membership. Presbyterians believe in mixed membership, yet in my personal experience these days, they do better with regenerate membership than us Baptists have in many years.

And it's perfectly logical. If we ask, "How can I know...?" We're asking an epistemological question. I can know, because God made a promise in His Word - Jesus said that He will not cast out the ones who come to Him, not because I have a subjective sense of assurance before I convert that tells me that Christ died for me or I am one of the elect or that I have the ability to do this (eg. Libertarian Freedom). I can know if I do what God says I should do,because that's the means that God has licensed. So, we are driven not to subjective assurances and feelings or attempts to divine God's secret decrees or figure out if we are truly able, but to God's Word itself, and thus to His promises, and to the centrality of Christ Himself.

I have frequently asked General Redemptionists and others to find me a single text of Scripture that says that we are appeal on the basis of "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for you," or "Jesus died for you." To date, nobody has been able to demonstrate the offer. One Roman Catholic at Beggars All tried recently but found not a one. For all the farrago of words, he finally said, that it was the general drift of the New Testament. If that's true,then where's the actual argument? Where's the text that teaches it? It's merely an assertion.

We can simply say that God has made a single once for all time atonement for sin in Christ, and that the way to know if our sins are covered is to turn to Him and Him only. He will not turn such an one away, not ever.

By the way, at the level of logical argumentation to say that we are to frame the call as "Jesus died for you" is confusion. It confuses the nature of the atonement with the way a person knows if atonement has been made for his sins in particular. That confuses, for all intents and purposes ontology (the nature of a thing, in this case the atonement),thus the ontological question, with epistemology (the way a person knows a particular truth), thus the epistemological question. The way to know (the epistemological question) if Jesus died for you (the nature of the atonement for any person) is to repent and believe the Gospel. It's really simple.

I agree with Dr. Frame that logic is a reflection of God's mind, indeed one of His attributes. The Gospel call issued from the Reformed pulpit is quite logically framed. The Arminian call is confused at best.

So, if a person says,

"Am I able?" The answer is, "It is irrelevant, for if you do not believe, you will be damned."

"Did Jesus die for me?" The answer is, "It is irrelevant, for if you do not believe, you will be damned. The scope and sufficiency of the atonement will do nothing but inculpate you if you do not believe."

"Am I elect or reprobate?" The answer is "Knowing this beforehand is irrelevant to your obligation to do as God says, " for the answer will not matter if you do not comply with God's command.

The Gospel call is given such that all who comply with it will be saved, period. None will be turned away. God is faithful to keep His promises. So, the answers to these questions, if asked before one complies, are irrelevant to doing what God has said you must do. Comply with what God has said, and then we can talk about the answers. Your eternal soul does not hang on subjective assurances given before you comply with the Gospel call as it is given universally. It hangs on what you do when and where confronted.

So, if anybody comes here today and does not know Christ, this is the call to you:

God has said that we are all condemned at His judgment bar for the love of our own wickedness, for things we have done and left undone. Yet God has made a perfect atonement for sin for the ungodly in the Person and work of Jesus Christ, God the Son incarnated in human flesh, crucified, dead, buried, and resurrected on the third day according to the Scriptures. That is the Gospel. Your consequent responsibility is to cast yourself on the mercy of God to come to Christ with the empty hand of your faith, for He is now commanding all men everywhere to repent and turn to Christ. Repent of your wickedness, and place your faith in Christ and Christ only, not a Church, not a philosophy, not Calvinism, not Arminianism, not Catholicism, Orthodoxy, not Baptistery, not Presbyterianism, not Lutheranism, or any other visible organization, not your baptism, not your ecclesiology, not your congruent merits, not your prayers, not "Holy Tradition," nothing else but Christ only and His sole and sufficient merit. He will, as John 6 says plainly, in no wise cast you out. We'll talk theology afterwards. Do this, and you will live.

And for believers it is this:

To our Arminian friends with whom we so often disagree, I encourage you, of course, to take a closer look at how you frame the Gospel when you present it. That said, while these discussions between us and you all often get heated, my challenge to you, and to the Reformed folks as well, is to remember that unbelievers and apostates read our blogs too. Take time to engage them and confront them with the Gospel call from time to time. In the past several months, if you can't tell from comboxes here and there, this has been a particular conviction of mine - to do it myself and to call others to do so.

To my (Quasi)Amyradlian brothers, particularly those of you who have a habit of posting on the atonement, common grace, etc. and nothing but - your work in historical theology in particular, is duly noted, and I thank you for reminding us of the universality of the Gospel call. However, I ask you to remember, the scope and sufficiency of the atonement are no warrant that impels the Gospel call. My challenge to you is to practice what you preach and engage the apostates and unbelievers yourselves and confront them with the Gospel call that you remind us so well is universal. Yes, it is, and all men are required to obey it when they hear it. While these discussions are so often heated between us, remember that the answers to questions about the nature of the atonement as you see it or I see it are really irrelevant to the unregenerate, and there are many on the blogs. What's relevant is their need for Christ. I urge you to put your obvious gifts to better use if you are not already doing so, by engaging these folks with those of us who are doing so already. Not to do so is, I honestly think, particularly to get snippy about it when told this, not a good testimony for you. Practice what you preach to the rest of us. We would welcome your help. We need your help. Beat your swords into plowshares and sow with us a harvest. We can meet behind the barn occasionally - not continually- to discuss these issues about which you continue to devote so much time and attention.

To all believing bloggers across the board, preach the Gospel, in season and out, pray for those you regard as apostates and unbelievers, whether you are none other than Dr. Tom Ascol, Dr. Vern Poythress, Dr. James White, or a slug like myself. What we do here does make a difference. We are not here to talk to ourselves or win arguments or be liked (goodness knows we at Tblog aren't here to be liked). We are here,ultimately, to help each other and others grow and to preach the Gospel to the lost through our writing.

I Feel A Disturbance in the Force

So, let's get this straight shall we:

1. It's okay for the civil government to ban particular religious practices in the geographical limits of Dallas/Tarrant County, TX.


2. It's okay for the authorities to interfere with the FLDS' ecclesiastical beliefs and practices.

3. But it's also okay for Paige Patterson and SWBTS to fire Sherri Klouda based on their ecclesiastical beliefs. (Note, the same judge who ruled against the Santeria priest is the one who ruled in favor of Dr. Patterson).

If you're familiar with Star Wars, you'll know the story:

Palpatine/Darth Sidious uses the Trade Federation to blockade Naboo. Consequently, he comes to power as Chancellor. Later, he manipulates the Trade Federation and it's allies to foment an Separatist rebellion against the considated power of the Republic while on the other using the Jedi to create a Clone Army to fight for the Republic, playing both sides against each other while he tightens his grip on the Republic. In Episode 3, he destroys the Separatist leaders after manipulating Anakin Skywalker to betray the Jedi Order, destroying the Jedi in the process. When he announces the end of the Republic and the beginning of the First Galactic Empire, Amidala says, "So this is how democracy ends, to the sound of thunderous applause."

John Leland and my Baptist forefathers fought to end state churches. Today, the buses and facilities belonging to First Baptist Church of Eldorado, TX were used to help the authorities round up the FLDS' women. Is this really what we want?

The churches have lost the Gospel. On the one hand, men and women sit under the thrall of the teachings of Joel Osteen and Rev. Jeremiah Wright, with but only a hairsbreath of difference between their versions of the Gospel. On the other, they claim it's okay to use "ecclesiastical authority" to fire women for teaching Hebrew at SWBTS, while the same civil authority prohibit Santeria rituals and findsways to get at the FLDS. Meanwhile, they increasingly can't agree on the nature of justification, it's place in the hierarchy of fundamental articles of faith, our rule of faith - I could go on and on here, but the common thread is this: When the Church loses sight of the Gospel, it inevitably resorts to the civil authority to do it's bidding, to accomplish what it fails to do by force of argument in the public square of ideas. The end result can be terrifiying, for the end result of a Gospel-lite/less Church is tyranny, and that can cut both ways. One day, theologically conservative Christians may find ourselves on the other side of the argument, facing the civil authority which we ourselves arm with legal precedents to which we approved which are then used against us.

Emperor Palpatine must be proud.

On Gentleman Theologians and the Race For SBC President

I’ve been asked to comment on the following reply to a question posed to Dr. Frank Cox by Dr. Peter Lumpkins. I don’t have a dog in this hunt, but this was brought to my attention by an SBC blogger, whose identity will remain undisclosed at his request.

Question: "There's been significant discussion among Southern Baptists concerning the Calvinist resurgence within the Southern Baptist Convention. I'm sure that you're aware of that only recently there was a conference on Calvinism, which by the way was co-sponsored by one of our seminaries and Founders Ministries. As we listen to the research from Lifeway, it suggests that we have in the Southern Baptist Convention five to ten percent of Southern Baptists who perceive themselves as Calvinists. Also, a whopping thirty percent, around thirty percent of our young seminarians who self-identify as Calvinists. By the way you need to know that when your name was first mentioned that you would be nominated as President, there were some who even labeled you as the quote-unquote anti-Calvinist candidate. What's your take on this phenomenon, Dr. Cox?"

Dr. Cox's answer: "Well, Peter, first of all, let me just say this, while others have dubbed me that way, that was never my intent, never in the equation of my willingness to allow my name to be nominated as President of the Southern Baptist Convention. That decision was made a long time ago through prayer. And the best of my knowledge of my own prayer life, God never discussed Calvinism. But let me just kind of tell you where I am on this issue. I'm Southern Baptist through and through. You know, I guess if I had to use a term to describe me, I would say that the best term would be that I'm a biblicist. I believe the Scripture. I teach the Scripture, I try to practice the Scripture to the best of my ability through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. I just believe that the Scripture teaches that man is a sinner. I know that by experience in my own life, I was born in the sin nature. I believe in the sovereignty of God's great love for us His creation that He sent His Son Jesus Christ to die upon the cross for all of our sins. And when the Scripture says He died for all, I believe He died for all. I believe the Scripture tells us that the way that man is saved is through the atoning work of Jesus Christ, that shed blood on Calvary. I praise God He rose again on the third day. I believe that God has given every single one of us a free will. And so, when you talk to me about my belief system, I believe that I had a choice whether I was going to receive the atoning work of Jesus Christ or whether I was going to reject it. I teach my people...I preached last Sunday night here in our church, Romans chaper one, verse sixteen, I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation unto everyone who believes. I believe everyone has the ability to choose to believe in Jesus Christ. As a biblicist, my responsibility is this, is I'm to share that. I'm to go out and to tell a lost and dying world and to engage sinners in witnessing opportunity to put the claims of Christ out there for them to receive or reject Jesus. That's my responsibility. Here again, what I said a moment ago, I believe the gospel is for all men at all times. I'm so glad He included me. I'm so glad that I had the opportunity when my Sunday School teacher told me about Jesus. I am so glad that my parents taught me from an early age that Christ died for me. And I believe that it is God's will that none should perish but everyone should come to repentance. Will everybody come to repentance? No. They have that freedom of choice to reject. So I would say in regards to the Calvinism issue, if you're going to label me anything, label me a biblicist. I believe God's people go out and share and God's Holy Spirit does His work and I believe that any sinner has the opportunity to receive Christ as Lord and Savior. Now, this anti-Calvinism, anybody that knows me know that that does not define me. That's not who I am. Some of my dearest friends in life hold to the Calvinist view. We have great debate at times over lunch. They're not changing me, I guess I'm not changing them, but we love each other. But there is a part of this new strain of Calvinism that I see in Southern Baptist life. Calvinism has always been in Southern Baptist life. There's always been an ebb and flow of Calvinism in our convention life. At times, it would gain a little bit of strength and at times it would kind of die away. But what I see in Southern Baptist life right now is there is a thing that, I don't know for a better word, I would describe it as aggressive hyper-Calvinism or hyper-Calvinism in an aggressive form. And where it causes sometimes a division in churches, I know right after I was announced that I was going to be nominated for President of the Southern Baptist Convention, talking about emails, my emails all of sudden the load picked up greatly. Here's what I began to receive. I began to receive emails from lay people in churches and they began to ask me about my view of salvation. Did Jesus Christ die for everyone? They wanted to know that. That's important to Southern Baptist to know that their President believes that Jesus died upon the cross for everyone. And they said we're having a problem in our church. The problem we're having in our church is we've called a pastor or we've called a staff member and we didn't know they believed what they believed. And they began to share about the problems that was arising in the church, the division that was there. One of the things that I would say to any young pastor or any staff member who would hold to Calvinism, I would say to them when you are being called to a church, somewhere in that process speak up. Tell them what you believe. That church would be greatly served if that flag was raised and they had the opportunity to understand exactly what that meant. And then, if that church said well, that's not where we are, then that church has spoken and that pastor is going to save himself a lot of heartache as well. When you go into a church you need to be honest with them. If the church says that's not who we are, then praise God, the pastor has learned something and the pastor can go and find a church of like belief. The concern that I have today is this new strain of Calvinism which is really aggressive and it's causing some real division in a lot of churches. As for me, as I said, I'm not anti-anything. I'm a biblicist. Like I said, I have friends who are Calvinists and we dialog and love each other. The only concern I have is this aggressive strain that I see today that seems to gaining a little bit of strength in our convention."

The individual who emailed me has the following concerns, which I echo:

1. He makes this statement:

"I believe everyone has the ability to choose to believe in Jesus Christ." For a biblicist, this statement certainly has no biblical support. None. Nowehere in Scripture are we told that we have the ability to choose to believe in Jesus. However, in many places in Scripture, we are told that we are totally depraved by sin and, without the intervention of God, we will not choose Christ (John 1:12-13; John 6:44; Rom. 3:10-12; Eph. 2:1-9). The biblical view is total depravity of man. It is not a biblical view that man has one single shred of goodness in him and can choose Christ apart from first being regenerated by God.

The reason I second this comment, for those who know my writing, should be self-evident. Dr. Cox’s position seems muddled at best:

a. Does he affirm Universal Prevenient Grace (hereafter UPG) or does he affirm that this is an inborn ability of man? If UPG, he’s firmly in what we can call the Arminian, semi-Augustinian camp. If this is an inborn ability, then he’s placed himself firmly in the semi-Pelagian camp, and all overtures of grace are found solely in the external call. I disagree with both, but of the two, I'm far more comfortable with the former.

b. Where, pray tell, does Scripture say

i. Everybody

ii. Has a choice.

With respect to (i) Did the people living in China in the first century A.D have such a choice? If they did, then that would mean that there is another way of salvation, one that does not entail faith in Christ alone. So much for Romans 11.

Please define "choice." With respect to (ii), where does the Bible teach people have Libertarian Freedom? Like so many SBC pastors who have spoken on Calvinism, Dr. Cox says, yet again, that he’s a biblicist. Shouldn’t a biblicist be able to show us where the Bible teaches LFW?

Does Brother Frank even know what LFW is? Like so many who have gone before him, he says he’s talked with Calvinists about these things. Has he listened to them at all?

Why do I ask these questions? Simply put, if the Bible does not teach LFW, then there goes everything he has to say about people having a “choice,” for we know that he’s not a Calvinist, so he’s not affirming what Calvinists mean by “choice.” He’s using “choice” as a codeword for LFW.

Also, the very word “choice” is prejudicial. In using it, he’s inferring that we Calvinists don’t believe in “choice.” No, we don’t affirm LFW. We affirm “choice.” “Choice” does not entail LFW.

The second concern the person blogger who emailed me has is:

2. My other area of concern is the litmus test that Dr. Cox is raising. He states that he has received emails (how many?) from people asking one question: Do you believe Jesus died for all? Obviously, this is a litmus test to ferret out the five-point Calvinists. Will this be the new litmus test for missionaries, trustees, etc.? It sure sounds like it may be.

I second this concern as well. I would like to see a follow-up question from asking if this was, in fact, a litmus test.

Also, it seems muddled yet again. Calvinists can affirm that “Jesus died for all.” We simply don’t affirm that He took the guilt and sin of every person upon Himself, for, if He did, they would all be saved. We can affirm that “Jesus died for all,” in the sense that He is the one and only propitatory sacrifice for sin ever offered and that all men, if they wish to be saved, must come to God through Christ on His sole and sufficient merit. Statements like the one in 1 John 2:2 are statements of identity, not statements of intention or design that refer to the actual guilt and sin laid upon our Lord. This really isn’t difficult.

The only thing that makes it difficult is for those who feel a need to use the atonement’s scope as a warrant to believe, as if the scope of the atonement provides the warrant for the sinner’s conversion – but that’s hyper-Calvinist logic. I’ve said this before, in hyper-Calvinism, men are told that they have no warrant to believe unless they can discern how they are “elect,” in some subjective sense, and this is no different in principle from Arminianism's presupposition that ability limits responsibility. Notice that Dr. Cox speaks of his childhood in which he was taught Jesus died for him. Here we have a classic case of a man repudiating hyper-Calvinism but buying into hyper-Calvinist thinking. The only difference is that the warrant is placed not on a subjective sense of election but upon a subjective sense of assurance that “Jesus died for me.”

3. I have a few other concerns. Dr. Cox seems to be using the same script that many others have used. Yet again, we read about the ogre of a dishonest pastoral candidate. Yet on the other hand, he infers that there are “hyper-Calvinists” who want to push their Calvinism on the rest of us. I’m reminded of what Tom Ascol has stated in the past on this. These men can’t have it both ways. We’re told that if we don’t lay all our cards on the table, we are “dishonest,” but when we’re honest we’re told we’re “hyper.”

Perhaps the problem lies not in the candidates but the theological ignorance that we find in SBC churches. Take a look at the Sunday School literature Lifeway produces. It’s next to useless. I’ve had to teach from it myself, and I have to say it doesn't teach anything that would challenge anybody to grow. Note to Lifeway: people have to rewrite your Sunday School material so it is even usable. Where is Richard Furman, he who would question the children on the Shorter Catechism used by FBC Charleston? Where are the days when Baptists actually understood the issues when it came to Calvinism or non-Calvinism? Where are the days when a man could teach on the 3 Offices of Christ in the run-up to Easter and at least part of the class knew what you were discussing?

4. What about all those Calvinist churches that were coopted by non-Calvinists? In a different age, would Brother Frank feel differently? FBC Woodstock’s founding documents are clearly of a Calvinist bent, yet you don’t find anybody criticizing Johnny Hunt or the past leadership of his church for coopting that church.

One of the complaints Pastor Search Committees seem to have is the allegedly uninformative language used by Calvinists when interviewed by these committees. Well, aren't terms like "choice," and "biblicist," just as uninformative? It seems to me that if the problem, or at least part of the problem, is the use of vague, uninformative terminology, then there's just as much guilt on the other side of the aisle, if not more. Words like "choice" and "biblicist" are only "informative" if one begs the question with respect to their definition. Ever notice that the same people who complain about the use of such language to a search committee are the same ones who use it when giving an interview or discussing theology? Isn't being interviewed by SBC bloggers leading up to the election a sort of "pastor search?"

5. The term “biblicist” is “racist” insofar as the inference is that if you self-identify as a “Calvinist” or “Arminian” or “Non-Calvinist,” or “Amyraldian,” you aren’t a “biblicist.” Honestly, this sort of fast and loose use of language needs to stop.

6. The term “hyper-Calvinist” is used, yet again. If Brother Frank knows of any real hyper-Calvinists in the SBC he should name and expose them. This, by the way, brings up another pet-peeve of mine these days. It seems to be becoming popular to not name names, as if this is the gentlemanly thing to do. I’ll simply say this: Honestly, read 2 Timothy.

7. Dr. Cox yet again talks in vague terms about this “aggressive strain” of Calvinism in the SBC. Honestly, he (and the others who talk about it) really need to do more than talk about “an aggressive strain.” What do they mean by this? Are they referring to Tom Ascol and Founders? If not, to whom are they referring? How many times does Tom Ascol, who, you know, speaks for the organization, have to say that, while he would love it if every SBC church embraced the Doctrines of Grace, Founders does not exist, nor does he desire, for that to happen. Rather, he is more concerned that they get the gospel right.

8. Apropos 7, does Dr. Cox feel the same way about Johnny Hunt and the litany of speakers at the Bailey Smith Conferences who preach vehement anti-Calvinist sermons? What about Brother Bobby, the current immediate past president of the SBC who used his own church newsletter to attack Calvinists and Calvinism?

Oh, and for the record, I don’t have a dog in this hunt. I could really care less who is elected SBC president this year, as long as (a) the election isn’t as free as a Cuban election, as in years past, (b) the new SBC president doesn’t use his position as a means to attack the Reformed / Sovereign Grace wing of the Convention, and (c) he doesn’t use his position to further narrow the parameters of cooperation within the Convention.

While we’re on that subject, did anybody else catch this line?

That decision was made a long time ago through prayer. And the best of my knowledge of my own prayer life, God never discussed Calvinism.

I wonder, did this conversation occur through a private prayer language? If not, what sort of “impressions” did God provide? I’ll simply point readers to Steve’s words to JP Moreland about this sort of thing.

Personally, I find it rather ironic that there will folks who will vote for Dr. Cox who will then stake out a cessationist view on spiritual gifts and PPL. This sort of subjective “God told me to run for SBC President” talk needs to stop too. How exactly does one verify one’s subjective impressions that God spoke to you through prayer to run for SBC President? That’s called bibliomancy. It reminds me more of divination than PPL. Will those who raised concerns over PPL please be consistent? Indeed, how is using this method to decide if you should run for SBC president functionally any different than a hyper-Calvinist thinking he has to subjectively discern whether or not he is elect in order to find a warrant to believe and therefore convert? Answer: it's not! Will the real hyper-Calvinist please stand up?!

The SBC underwent a “Conservative Resurgence” in the 80’s and 90’s. Kudos to the SBC. As a byproduct, one would have hoped that the Convention’s leadership would begin doing a better job modeling the characteristics of good theologians. I agree with Michael Spencer’s comments a few weeks ago in that regard:

Regular, Nashville published, fully Cooperative, SBC saved, trained and ordained authors? Not many. In fact, there were very, very few. A relatively empty shelf of significant influences and books, so to speak.

The subjects of my evedropping efforts were two students discussing Redeemer Presbyterian pastor Tim Keller’s new apologetics book. Keller, the rising star of the PCA and of conservative evangelicalism in general, has written the kind of book Southern Baptists have largely failed to write or promote in the last fifty years. Apologetics is just one area where the shelf of Southern Baptists is largely empty.

I don’t doubt that some Southern Baptist writers have written apologetic materials in the past, but for whatever reason, these materials passed quickly into oblivion, exerting little influence over the denomination that produced them. They are just one category of writing, thinking, teaching and publishing that find Southern Baptists largely awol. Aside from books on church growth, evangelism and the “popular” level of devotional literature, Southern Baptists have shown little interest in making major contributions to the evangelical conversation, including areas that it would seem SBCers would have taken up their pens and addressed.

It’s no surprise that Beth Moore and Rick Warren are the first two Southern Baptist writers you’ll see in most bookstores. It’s no surprise that Presbyterians are writing and publishing the books that SBC ministers in training are reading for their theology. It’s a sad fact that a younger Southern Baptist in the process of spiritual and ministerial formation would have to dig deep to find resources from his/her own tradition, even on areas as prominent as the Lord’s Supper. (Some of these areas have been addressed recently, usually by SBC Calvinist authors.)...

Southern Baptist dearth of formative resources is a serious problem. Try to deepen your devotional life using resources written in the SBC. Try to learn church history or understand Baptist history in its Anabaptist stream. Try to find serious reflection on the pastorate. The shelf is strangely, even embarassingly, empty, and it’s not surprising that younger, intellectually curious Southern Baptists are going to denominations and influences far outside of the Baptist family and the Baptist “ethos” to find formative, helpful resources.

And as I go out the door….does Lifeway, Broadman and the SBC’s publishing arms need to look at this issue more seriously? I know Beth Moore sells, but is it a good thing that there seems to be a bias against publishing serious Southern Baptist work? Is there really such a dearth of good writing in the SBC that our young people MUST be formed by non-Southern Baptists in their journeys?

Looking at some of the folks who have served as SBC president over the past few years and their churches, I see the same problem, only in a different way. The SBC still seems enamored with “theology that sells” with respect to their choice of Convention leadership. Where are the Gentleman Theologians like Broadus, Mell, Boyce, Johnson, Williams, the 2 Manly’s, and so on? The Convention President should be a model for other SBC leaders. He should be a Gentleman Theologian, in this age when Baptists are recovering, one would hope, the gospel, church discipline, and wading into deeper theological water. He doesn’t need to be Calvinist, he just needs to demonstrate something more than the intellectual confusion than we see here.