Founders and Augustine: What They Have in Common by Peter Lumpkins

James Galyon continues to cook up some good old-fashioned Founders stew concerning the non-negotiable dogma Founders will never drop—one must be born again in order to believe in Jesus Christ (//link, link, link).

Interestingly, while he continues to pump out posts concerning the Founders dogma on new birth preceding faith, mentioning both me and his fellow Calvinist brother, Mr. Bob Ross** not in the best of light, he concedes in his last post about the simultaneous work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with means: 

“The problem with many [Calvinists] who stress monergism (i.e., regeneration preceding faith) is that they tend to over-emphasize chronology…The Holy Spirit is indeed sovereign in His work of regeneration, but He always employs His Word in the process…I believe, without reservation, your belief was due to God’s simultaneous work of quickening.” 

Indeed Galyon goes on to invoke the mysteries concerning the new birth:

“Is there a bit of mystery in trying to understand this?  Certainly.  So rather than trying to explain it, may we simply receive what God has declared in Holy Scripture.” 

If this were all there was to it, I assure Dr. Galyon virtually all non-Calvinists would delightfully allow the Scripture to speak on behalf of whether regeneration precedes faith.  Nonetheless, there is more to it. 

First, if invoking mystery is a valid assertion, not to mention possessing such attractive appeal, why do Founders Calvinists in general and Galyon particularly persist in making regeneration precedes faith a dogma upon which to insist?  Could it be the principle is as significant to Founders’ brand of Calvinism as it is in Sproul’s brand?  Recall, for Sproul, “regeneration precedes faith” is the central operating theological maxim which defines Reformed faith.  Indeed, for Sproul, if this dogma is surrendered, Calvinism collapses in under its own weight.

In addition, while Galyon speaks about the “mystery” of the new birth, even suggesting saving faith and the new birth are a “simultaneous work of quickening,” he nonetheless speaks in terms of causality, faith being a “result” (i.e. effect) of the new birth.  Galyon asserts:  “Saving faith was awakened as a result of the new birth.” 

Incidentally, if all Gaylon and Founders Calvinists are suggesting is, a) the new birth is a bit mysterious and b) repentant faith and the new birth are so intrinsically bound that it’s hard—even impossible—to suggest which is first when the Word of God is preached, no non-Calvinist I know would categorically deny such an assertion. 

At this point, Galyon is simply confusing. In essence, Galyon not only guts Sproul’s theological maxim, which, for Sproul, defines Reformed faith, he also reduces the supposed Calvinistic dogma of regeneration precedes faith to regeneration happens simultaneous with faith.  The two are definitively not the same.

As for other parts of Galyon’s essay, I have some real questions. 

First, Galyon mentions “historic orthodox Protestant” on the one hand and “revivalistic” which he defines as “non-Reformed evangelical” on the other. The former include Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed while everybody else is “non-Reformed.”  ‘Historic orthodox Protestants” affirm “monergism” while ‘revivalistic” embrace “decisional regeneration.”  Galyon assures us “decisional regeneration” is not a derisive*** term, but only describes the position that “regeneration results ultimately from the decision of an individual.” 

And, Galyon quotes me as an example. I must confess I didn’t know I believed my regeneration ultimately resulted from a decision I made.  All this time I thought I was regenerated because God invaded my life, giving me new life, new hope, new meaning. 

More problematic are the inadequate categories Galyon employs.  For example, there are many Calvinists who fit into the “revivalistic”—regeneration does not precede faith—side of the equation, and perhaps as many baptismal regenerationists fit into the “historic orthodox Protestant” side as do those like Galyon who do not embrace baptisimal rebirth.  In short, the categories are moot for Dr. Galyon’s purposes.

Second, while one appreciates the history lesson Galyon gives us on regeneration preceding faith, citing the debates Augustine had with Pelagius, one wonders the purpose of rehearsing this bit of heresy history.  Initially it works decidedly against the conclusion Galyon proposed.  That is, if the work of the Spirit in regeneration is simultaneous with saving faith as Galyon suggests, appealing to Augustine as authority only confuses matters.  Augustine is the first, post-apostolic defender of regeneration precedes faith!  I am open for correction, but from what I know of Augustine, he’d have no sympathy for Galyon’s “simultaneous” working of the Spirit non-sense. His case for baptismal regeneration rests upon the regeneration of infants quite apart from the presence of repentance and faith.

Nonetheless, Galyon offers his reasoning for bringing up Augustine and Pelagius:

“Those affirming the Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican creeds and confessions are modern theological heirs of Augustine.  Many within the revivalistic camp, influenced greatly by the theology of Charles G. Finney, are the modern theological heirs of Pelagius.” 

In a stroke of the pen—or swipe of the keyboard—Galyon makes many in the non-Reformed camp heirs of heresy and all those affirming Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican creeds heirs of orthodoxy.  Interestingly, I am the only one Galyon quoted from the “revivalistic” camp. 

Am I, therefore, an heir of heresy? 

Galyon doesn’t say but I suppose one is justified in connecting the dots.

Third, Galyon desires to just let Scripture do the talking for us. 

Great! 

I like that! 

In fact, I demand it.  Rather than depending on the Doctor of Grace to define orthodoxy, which seems unavoidably implicit to Galyon’s historic point, why not show decisively from Scripture regeneration precedes faith? 

Indeed one may look in vain, if I recall correctly, for Augustine’s numerous expositions on this non-negotiable maxim.  Instead, Augustine depended much on his quite sophisticated penchant for philosophical inquiry, rather than clear affirmations of Scripture.

Not that Galyon did not attempt to employ Scripture to prove his position himself.  However, as many Calvinists like to do at times, the exposition required is assumed, not argued.

For example, like other Calvinists of Galyon’s brand, Lydia’s “open heart” is offered as a proof text for her being born again prior to saving faith being employed (Acts 16:14). The fact is, however, the text says absolutely nothing about regeneration.  Nothing.  It says God opened her heart.  What non-Calvinist argues God does not open a person’s heart to hear the Word of God?  But there is zero reason to argue such an opening constitutes the new birth. Theology imposed upon the text is a hermeneutical restriction even Calvinists must follow.

Dr. Galyon continued piling up verses—2 Cor. 4:6; James 1:8; Rom. 10:17; 1 Pet. 1:23; John 1:12-13; 1 John 5:1—none of which definitively suggests regeneration precedes faith.  None.  Yet, somehow we’re supposed to assume it does.

For my part, while Dr. Galyon is to be commended for his normally irenic approach, he nonetheless subtly insults every non-Calvinist in the SBC—non to mention every Classic Calvinist who does not embrace the regeneration precedes faith dogma.  For not only are we tied to heresy because we do not embrace the “historic orthodox Protestant” view which he, Founders and the millions who embrace baptismal regeneration do, we evidently don’t have the common sense to pick up our Bibles and see regeneration precedes faith in texts where it's just there--or at least where they tell us it's there. 

After all...

Augustine says it…

    I believe it…

        and that settles it.

With that, I am…

Peter

**Bob Ross, unfortunately, is shunned by Founders Calvinists because he disagrees with regeneration precedes faith and ably argues against their non-negotiable position, demonstrating it as an aberrant departure from classic Calvinism which he convictionally embraces.

***It's doubtful "decisional regeneration" is used as an objective description rather than a derisive term

Comments

[Byroniac]

David, Bob Ross is extremely knowledgeable about Spurgeon, and that cannot be denied, so it is probably fair to say he is an expert and I should admit that.

[Donn R Arms]

Thanks Peter,

As you can imagine, Jay has enough to do defending what he HAS written without having to defend what others have written. You can check out his blog at http://www.nouthetic.org/blog/

Blessings!

Donn R Arms

[peter lumpkins]

Donn,

Much appreciation for setting the record straight on the author. I'm very sorry.

One reason I did not catch this is my familiarity with much of Jay Adams' material. Not only is his understanding of regeneration precedes faith identical to our contention here, but also he employs very similar language in his understanding of evangelistic invitations. Though I don't have his book--Preaching with Purpose--where I presently am, it may be there he unloads concerning his reservations with 'inviting' people to 'accept Jesus' etc.

Nonetheless, it was wrong to attribute to him a work he did not pen. For that, again, I am very sorry.

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Ian D. Elsasser]

Dr. James Galyon said:

“Ian:
Which phrase should be employed then? Which phrase do you use which describes that position without misrepresenting it?”

James:

I do not really have a phrase per se for whatever it is you are describing since the phrase “decisional regeneration” seems a broad brush to cover opposition to altar calls and Arminian views of conversion to divine begetting. I have also not engaged in the Arminian/Calvinist debate in many years and find it not as much of a concern as other issues necessary for the life of churches in our day. For my part, I hold that conversion and the new birth occur together (= simultaneous, coextensive, concomitant, at the same time, etc.) which is held by many Calvinists and some Arminians/non-Calvinists (see Malcolm Yarnell’s reply to a question, “Do you teach that regenration precedes conversion at SWBTS...Do respond in detail...thanks and GOD bless you!!”).

Too many Calvinists assume that the antecedence of regeneration is necessary to the Calvinistic system, which is incorrect. They needlessly engage in debate with non-Calvinists to convert them to this view in an attempt to defend their Calvinism over against Arminianism. How unnecessary.

I appreciate your desire to find an adequate term in place of “decisional regeneration” and hope that Peter’s alternate suits. If he is happy with “conditional regeneration” for his view, then you are on your way for further discussion without offense.

[Ian D. Elsasser]

The incorrect first name is my gaff which apparently led everyone else in the wrong path. Not sure why I had Jay in mind. My apologies to James Adams and Jay Adams.

It doesn't change the essence of the point that the author of the booklet and those who use the phrase wrongly attribute to Arminians/non-Calvinists that man regenerates himself, for this is not their belief. Like Calvinists, they believe that the begetting is of God/His Spirit.

Furthermore, not all Calvinists hold to regeneration preceding faith and with good cause. And not all calvinists are against the use of altar calls or similar tools for those under conviction who wish to seek counsel on the way of salvation.

Hence, the phrase "decisional regeneration" misrepresents its opponents and arises from a narrow theological framework (Reformed) which even opposes Calvinists who do not share the perspective.

[Byroniac]

David, yes, I am aware that several hold that opinion concerning him.

[Donn R Arms]

Would everyone please stop ascribing the booklet "Decisional Regeneration" to Jay Adams? It was written by James E Adams, not Jay E Adams.

[volfan007]

Darby,

lol. I used to watch him paint a lot.

Byroniac, Bob Ross is an expert on Spurgeon and his theology.

David

[Byroniac]

I've personally met Bob Ross at his bookstore in Pasadena, TX. I only found out later (through reading his blog) that he regards RPF as hybrid-Calvinism and not true, historic Calvinism. Though I would have to disagree with him there, he has a lot of good Spurgeon materials at his bookstore. I think he (or his business) holds the copyright to several works of Spurgeon.

[Darby Livingston]

I thought Bob Ross was the guy on PBS that painted happy little trees.

[peter lumpkins]

Dr. Galyon,

Thanks for your consideration of another term than "D-R".

For your benefit as well as all other readers' benefit, allow me to quote but a few lines from Adams. I'm indebted to Ian for the online version of Adams' little tract (see link above as well as Ian's own relevant quotations from Adams).

Adams writes beginning under the heading, 'What Is “Decisional Regeneration”?' these words:

---"...many errors concerning the new birth...depart from Scripture by attributing to man ability to regenerate himself"

---"...the twentieth century Church must combat a more subtle falsehood [than Baptismal Regeneration of the 19th Century]: Decisional Regeneration. Decisional Regeneration...sees the new birth as the result of a mechanical process that man performs."

---The practice of Decisional Regeneration in the Church must be exposed in order to save men from the damning delusion that because they have decided” or “signed a card,” they are going to heaven..."

---'Can a man be born again by answering “yes” to a certain group of questions? Can a man be born from “above” by walking to the front of a building? Can a man become a true Christian by responding to an invitation as a result of being “crept up on” unawares?' (all above emphasis added)

Dr. Galyon, clearly Adams' diatribe is an inexcusable, unstudied mockery of every non-Calvinist I know--including myself--pertaining to our view of regeneration. And, he dubs our alleged view "decisional regeneration."

In addition, what non-Calvinist has not had to tortuously endure the junior-high theological idiocy of their view trampled as a "mechanical process" which "man performs" in order to "save himself"? And, of course the rhetorical questions which, once again, possess no resemblance to their view, questions like: "Can a man be saved by "making a decision" or "signing a card" or "walking an aisle" or "saying a specific prayer"?

The truth of the matter is, the Adams' tract may represent the most often repeated, consistent nomenclature one can encounter when particularly conversing with Founders' Calvinists.

Once again I am indebted to Ian for this source. I like you had read it years ago. And, I'd completely forgotten about it. Yet reading Adams is like discussing Calvinism with the majority of Founders.

Given that, I suggest you pick it up again, my brother Dr. Galyon. Adams also makes the same links you made in your historical skeleton I briefly assessed in this post: Pelagius > Finney > non-Reformed.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Dr. James Galyon]

Peter:
It has been quite some time (over a decade?) since I read Jay Adams' tract. However, I thank you for providing the term "conditional regeneration." I shall employ it.

[peter lumpkins]

Dr. Galyon,

Did you happen to read Jay Adams' tract? If so, do you agree or disagree with how he is characterizing non-Calvinist views of regeneration? Also, given his characterization, is "decisional regeneration" employed positively or negatively?

And, not to answer for Ian, but is it acceptable to say something like,

Most in Reformed circles say regeneration...........

On the other hand, the majority in non-Calvinist communions possess quite a contrary view. Many if not most hold to conditional regeneration.

By conditional they do not mean a person creates the new birth or assists the Holy Spirit in His work in the new birth. They reject as strongly as any the role of human means being the cause of the new birth.

Rather they insist the conditions of repentance and faith must be present prior to the new birth, the conditions of which are initiated by the preaching of the gospel and the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. Some in fact believe repentance, faith, and the new birth are so closely bound together that it is impossible to "unravel" them.

Whether they are consistent in their view is another question altogether....

With that, I am...
Peter

[Dr. James Galyon]

Ian:
Which phrase should be employed then? Which phrase do you use which describes that position without misrepresenting it?

[Ian D. Elsasser]

James:

One that does not misrepresent, just as Calvinists request of those who do not share their perspective. I can disagree with someone without having to employ a cliche in my argumentation. But the phrase "decisional regeneration" as it comes from the pen of Jay Adams is defined with a faulty premise.

[Dr. James Galyon]

Ian:
Which phrase should be employed then?

[Ian D. Elsasser]

Peter Lumpkins said:

“Ian,

Please repost the link you had above. I appreciate your taking the time to document the derisive term "decisional regeneration" as used by paedo-Baptist-hyper-Calvinists.”

Peter:

Thank you for removing the original comment for me so that I could repost it with the corrected html codes. Wow. What a mess it makes when not closed properly.

Thank you also for the support of my observation. The phrase “decisional regeneration” should be put to rest, for it is unhelpful and misleading.

[Ian D. Elsasser]

Jay Adams in his booklet Decisional Regeneration, the main source on this subject, lumps “decisional regeneration” under the description of teachings that “depart from Scripture by attributing to man the ability to regenerate himself” and says:

“Decisional Regeneration” differs from Baptismal Regeneration only in the fact that it attaches the certainty of the new birth to a different act. This doctrine, just as Baptismal Regeneration, sees the new birth as the result of a mechanical process that can be performed by man.

Where does this say that anyone other than God or His Spirit is the source of the new birth? The phrase, therefore, is not a generous one. It is not a true representation of Arminianism or non-Calvinism. Neither non-Calvinists nor Calvinists believe that man regenerates himself.

[volfan007]

Selah,

I personally believe that the moment a person is willing to repent and believe, then God gives them faith and gives them the ability to repent. Salvation is a gift from God...all of salvation is a gift from God...every part of salvation is a gift from God. And, the Lord graciously gives this gift to anyone who is willing to surrender their lives to Him in faith.

David

PS. I, too, like the cookie jars to be placed low enough on the shelf so that us children can reach in and get some cookies!

[SelahV Today]

Vofie, I remember reading in one of C.S. Lewis's books that faith is a gift of God. And your statement: "People must choose whether to repent and put their faith in Christ, or turn away from the gift of salvation." seems to ring true with Lewis and the discussion above regarding which comes first. We're given the faith by God. And then we either exercise it for salvation or quench the Spirit and walk away as the rich young ruler did when he couldn't see that had he given all for Jesus, he would have gained far more. Is that what you mean?

I am no expert on any of this. I still don't know what a tenth of the terms mean on this stream. Have to keep googling, but faith of a child is all my brain can retain at times. The rest I leave to Christ to determine and you guys to debate. selahV

[peter lumpkins]

Ian,

Please repost the link you had above. I appreciate your taking the time to document the derisive term "decisional regeneration" as used by paedo-Baptist-hyper-Calvinists.

With that, I am...
Peter

[volfan007]

The things we know from Scripture is this:

God is Sovereign. He planned our salvation. He chose us. He saved us by grace thru faith. Salvation is a total work of God.

We also know that God desires that all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. He will save anyone who believes. He sheds light on the world. He calls out to the world. The death of Jesus was shed for the sins of the whole world. People must choose whether to repent and put their faith in Christ, or turn away from the gift of salvation.

Anything beyond this really goes into man's speculations....thus, we have systems of belief like Calvinism and Arminianism, etc.

As Dr. Reginald Barnard, my old Seminary Professor, used to say,"Calvinism and Arminianism are young men's religions."

David

[gabaptist]

Bro. Peter,
I would like to weigh in. The Founder's view against "Decisional Regeneration" is sometimes misrepresented. What they stress is the sinner should not base his/her decision on "their decision." This doctrine popular among SBC evangelists is not found in scripture. That is, the claim that your salvation or assurance of salvation is dependent on remembering your confession in faith in Christ--"Do you remember the time you were saved" pronouncement. This claim makes your salvation dependent on what you said or did, etc, instead of merely repenting and trusting Christ.
Regeneration and faith arguments are akin to the classic Calvinist (Beza) arguments over the decrees of God--Supra, Infra, and Sublapasarian stuff.
The reason regeneration precedes faith is to assure that salvation is grace alone. A dead man cannot receive Christ. He must be made alive to exercise faith. No one would claim regeneration precedes faith to the extent of "being made saved" without subsequent or almost immediate repentance. The only ones I know who claim this are Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Primitive Baptists who are excluded even from the Old-line Primitives.
BTW, how can depraved human faith repent and believe unless God regenerates and gives faith?...Unless human faith is not as depraved (i.e., no original sin)as one thinks.
Also, I agree with the previous writer. Classic Arminianism is a lot closer to Classic Calvinism than today's discussion.
In Him,
GA Baptist

[Dr. James Galyon]

FYI - I've edited the article. Hope the context is a bit clearer now.

[peter lumpkins]

Chris,

If I recall correctly, Lightner quotes heavily from Douty. My library is not accessible to me presently, but I think I am correct. If so, I'd begin with Douty. He marshals a hefty load of heavy-weights throughout history who've championed unlimited atonement but who were also very committed Calvinists. Of course both he and Lightner are as well as you're aware.

Hope that helps.

With that, I am...
Peter

p.s. If you interested in an older work, don't forget the Puritan English divine, John Goodwin. His book rocks...

[peter lumpkins]

Dr. Galyon,

Thanks for a superb response. And I'm glad we came to a mutual conclusion: I'm right, you're wrong.

Just kidding...:^)

With that, I am...
Peter

[Chris Poe]

Peter

This is a little off topic, but I'll ask anyway. When it comes to books on the atonement, which would you recommend reading first? Lightner's or Douty's?

[Chris Poe]

I think it's fair to say that when Calvinists use the term "decisional regeneration" that it typically isn't meant as a compliment. :) It's usually a term of opprobrium, at least in my experience. I'm sure that one could find me using it that way myself at least once or twice in the past and that's probably what Peter is reacting to. If I recall correctly Banner of Truth even has a little booklet on "decisional regeneration."

Dr. Galyon is definitely correct that real Pelagianism exists today both within and outside of the SBC. Sometimes it is even openly admitted. I've heard of one Southern Baptist faculty member describing himself as a Pelagian in class. Another friend of mine was taking some seminary extension classes a few years ago and had the teacher proclaim that "Baptists don't believe in original sin"

Dr. Galyon is also correct that classic Wesleyanism/Arminianism is a lot closer to Reformed thought on the subject of regeneration than most would realize, largely because what is considered "Arminian" today isn't the same as the genuine article. One need only look at some of the old Wesleyan, Nazarene and other similar hymns to see their emphasis on the divine initiative in regeneration.

I'm no longer attending a Southern Baptist church and am not so invested in SBC happenings. But I'm going to stay tuned here since I'm hoping to do more study on soteriology in the near future.

[Dr. James Galyon]

Peter:

Thanks for the reply, brother. From your response, I see you weren't reeling to and for for long. ;)

A few thoughts...

I'll need to re-think, re-work my essay, I'm sure, to demonstrate more clearly what I was trying to state originally. Again, my quoting of you was only to show a point of view regarding regeneration which includes conditions. You have been writing a lot recently on regeneration, etc. That's why the quote. Perhaps the reason I am "unsure why [I] would think readers would not put this together" is because I myself did not intend such a bond. My apologies for any unintended implication. What are readers to think when they examine my historical analysis? My intention, and hope, is that they see four different views regarding the doctrine: Augustinianism (Reformed, et al), Pelagianism (heresy), semi-Pelagianism, and semi-Augustinianism (Arminianism). Nowhere did I deem semi-Pelagianism and semi-Augustinianism as less than orthodox. I did not call those positions either heresy or error. Only Pelagianism was impugned, and rightly so. And yes, there are Pelagians within contemporary evangelical circles, including the SBC. However, I do not believe you are one of them, not in the least.

Pardon me for not presenting your view regarding the new birth accurately. I was attempting to keep you in context, etc., both from the information gleaned from your posts and comments.

Sincerely,
James

[peter lumpkins]

Dr. Galyon,

Oops! I meant to say that my linking you with Founders is very similar to your linking me with Mr. Bob Ross. Now I'm not at all insulted you connected us. I do recommend him and his materials most gladly. But why you apparently take issue with my linking you to Founders I haven't a clue.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Dr. Galyon,

Slow down, brother. My body is reeling to and fro!! :^)

I wrote "he continues to pump out posts concerning the Founders dogma on new birth preceding faith, mentioning...me ...not in the best of light..."

The emphasis should answer a couple of your concerns, the first of which is precisely whose "dogma" is foundational to the little post I put up. (And, so far as not embracing regeneration precedes faith, are you saying you do not? Because frankly I cannot tell now, Dr. Galyon. If I've mistaken your position, my deepest apologies. More in a moment on that...).

Out of that one line I wrote suggesting you did not mention me "in the best of light," you've denied you've:
--impugned me or my character
--been unfair by linking Bob Ross and me as allies
--been unfair in saying I defended Morris Chapman
--taken my words out of context
--intentionally been disrespectful to me in any manner whatsoever

Dr. Galyon: where-ever, in the short phrase, "not in the best of light" do you read I've implied any of the above? In fact, without qualification, I'll say none of the above are implied in my little phrase, "not in the best of light." Hence I agree with you!

True you were more specific with Bob Ross, calling his writing "vitriolic," hardly a word I'd use concerning his works. Ross employs vivid imagery in his writing, and perhaps some sarcasm. But such literary devices hardly qualify for hate-speech. That's my view anyways.

Now that the personal is out of the way, allow me a rejoinder to a few of your responses.

First, while it is true dogma is non-negotiable doctrine as you indicate, I'm not convinced all dogma is necessarily "essential for holding the Christian faith" as you insist.

Second, you asked if you "declared non-Calvinists as heretics or any such thing?" You answer was, "In fact, I have not." I agree. I did not say you did, Dr. Galyon. What I did do is cite your analysis, where you made the theo-historical connection from Pelagius to Finney to "revivalists." Nor did I suggest "all" revivalists. I was careful not to knowing it could haunt me:

"In a stroke of the pen—or swipe of the keyboard—Galyon makes many in the non-Reformed camp heirs of heresy and all those affirming Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican creeds heirs of orthodoxy."

For the record, this was the source of the "not in a good light" phrase I had in mind for me. I was the sole quoted source for the Pelagius-Finney-Revivalist connection section. That's pretty obvious, Dr. Galyon. I'm unsure why you would think readers would not put this together.

Third, you are correct about my asserting regeneration is conditionally oriented. However, from my perspective, such does not reduce to my regeneration ultimately resulting from a decision I made, which is how you've framed what I said.

The fact that conditions are present in no way makes the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit "ultimately result" on me or my decision. You're apparently thinking in terms of the universal principle of causality.

Frankly, I do not come to the table with those type of assumptions when we're speaking of precisely how the Holy Spirit operates on our soul.

With you, I'd like a 'bit more mystery' involved. Hundreds of times conditions are placed upon being saved in some form or another of 'repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.' But if A, then B...Cause/effect type of models I do not get from the Word of God pertaining to God's relations with humans made in His image.

Fourth, I did note your terms framed in the "lack of a better term" qualifier. Nonetheless, I'm not sure how that's supposed to salvage terms which, in my view, are completely unhelpful. That's all.

Again, Dr. Galyon, I think looking at your analysis with Augustine defending orthodoxy and Pelagius defending heresy, what are readers to deduce when you draw the lines for them? Pelagius = Heresy = Finny = revivalists = non-Reformed on the one side and Augustine = Orthodoxy = Reformed, etc. on the other? Now are there exceptions? Of course. Both you and I mentioned them.

But surely it cannot be denied that a valid reading of your essay places those like myself on the wrong side of both history and Orthodoxy. Again, you quoted me and me alone in this section. If I was not applicable in your mind, why am I there?

Now, understand: I'm not the least upset. I've learned people are going to draw conclusions about you no matter what. And, though I think I am neither on the wrong side of history or theology, there is the possibility I could be.

And, if so, I will be judged severely not only for embracing error, but teaching it to other people. "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" I recall the Apostle warning.

Now, as for the "insult" I mentioned, I still think it present but as I said, it is subtle. However, I regret I didn't qualify that more and say it was unintentional. For that, Dr. Galyon, you have my deepest apology. I should have made it crystal clear even if it was an insult, it was not purposely so. Forgive me.

I think I addressed most of your concerns. If not, I'll be glad to respond.

Thank you. With that, I am...
Peter

[Dr. James Galyon]

Another question, Peter (though it is, in a sense, a repeat). In the three posts, where have I been dogmatic regarding "regeneration preceding faith"?

I've gone back through each of the posts, and I simply don't see it. In the most recent post, which you deal with at length, I've mainly explained that this controversy is not a new one by giving historical details. I conclude, not with arguing about regeneration preceding faith, but speaking about how God uses His Word to bring about the new birth. Isn't one of Bob Ross' contentions that "Reformed" folks don't believe in the instrumentality of the Word in the new birth?

In the Whitefield post I ask what modern evangelicals can learn from Whitefield. I conclude: 1) It is the power of the Holy Spirit using His Word – not gimmicks, giveaways, or the uttering of simplistic formulas – which God uses to bring about the new birth (1 Corinthians 1:18-2:5). 2) The new birth is of divine origin. Human beings have neither the power nor the ability to raise themselves from spiritual death to attain spiritual life (John 3:3-8). 3) That conversion – the reality of experiencing the new birth – means life-transformation. Those who profess Christ but live like the devil have no part of the Kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

What do those things have to do with being dogmatic about regeneration preceding faith? Wesley himself would agree with those conclusions.

In the post regarding regeneration and the SBC, I point out the teaching on this by respected Southern Baptist theologians during the 1800s. I never contend this is the "only" position to hold, or that it "must" be held. I simply demonstrate this is not a novel doctrine for Southern Baptists.

[Dr. James Galyon]

Peter:

How is it I have painted you in a poor light? I did say Bob Ross was vitriolic, which he is. I never said said such of you, for I don't think you are, nor did I state anything which would impugn you or your character. I call you his ally because of the fact that you have commended each others' work, etc., on your blogs. If that was an unfair statement, I apologize. You've certainly defended Morris Chapman recently. Was it unfair to say that about you? I've quoted you in context, haven't I? I've not meant to be disrespectful to you in any manner whatsoever, Peter. If that has happened, it has certainly been unintentional.

How have I insisted upon this as dogma? Dogma is non-negotiable doctrine essential for holding the Christian faith. Have I declared non-Calvinists as heretics or any such thing? In fact, I have not.

Didn't you assert that regeneration is based upon meeting certain conditions, namely the condition of faith? If so, then how have I misconstrued your words?

Didn't you note that I said I was using the terms "historic orthodox Protestant" and "revivalistic" "for lack of a better term"?

I mentioned modern heirs of Augustine and Pelagius for historical and contemporary reference only. Note that I said "many" who are "influenced by Finney" are modern heirs of Pelagius. Peter - I had seminary profs tell me they were Pelagians. Does that mean all Southern Baptists are, or that you are? Certainly not, nor did I imply it. But Pelagianism does exist in contemporary evangelicalism (as do semi-Pelagianism and semi-Augustinianism).

So am I to be commended for being irenic or for subtly insulting both non-Calvinists and Calvinists? And, while I can see how what I stated may insult a Calvinist, how have I insulted every non-Reformed Southern Baptist exactly? I never called anyone holding to a different view a heretic. I didn't connect any dots. Not at all. Pelagius was a heretic. Finney was a heretic. If someone follows the theology of those two, then the dots connect themselves. Finney denied such doctrines as original sin, justification by faith alone, and final perseverance of the saints (arguing saints in heaven could fall from grace). I never said anything like, "The SBC is Pelagian," or "Peter Lumpkins is a Pelagian." Never caricatured one soul on that point.

So, why is it that you can post about your position and it's not an attack on anyone, yet when I seek to demonstrate that 'regeneration precedes faith' has been taught in the SBC by respected theologians and not considered "heresy," that I'm accusing everyone of not holding to my "dogma"?

Also, just curious, is this post about Founders or about me? I'm not writing for Founders or defending Founders. My stuff isn't on the Founders site. I'm writing for me, and only me.

Is Bob Ross "shunned" because he "ably argues" his position, or because he tends to employ ridicule and sarcasm on a very consistent and condescending basis?

Have you never read/heard Lutherans also use the term "decisional regeneration"? Do they use it derisively? Do all Calvinists use it derisively? I don't think they do.