Ascol on Garrett on Calvinism in the Alabama Baptist, Pt. 1

Bob Terry, Editor of The Alabama Baptist, writes:  " This week, The Alabama Baptist attempts what many believe impossible. We offer our readers an in-depth look into the theological understandings often called Calvinism"  >>>

Mr. Terry surely is to be commended not only for rightly perceiving how crucial this issue is in Southern Baptist life, but also for securing such an able scholar to pen the series of essays:

"To write the articles, The Alabama Baptist was fortunate to enlist James Leo Garrett Jr., distinguished professor of theology, emeritus, at Southwestern Seminary. Garrett did his undergraduate work at Baylor University. He earned the bachelor of divinity degree from Southwestern Seminary, the master of theology degree from Princeton Theological Seminary, a doctor of theology degree from Southwestern Seminary and a doctor of philosophy degree from Harvard University."

Not surprising is that Dr. Tom Ascol of Founders Ministries decided to offer his critique of Dr. Garrett's series. And, it should be noted that Dr. Ascol is particularly careful to offer the distinguished scholar--not to mention, Ascol's former professor at SWBTS--his well deserved honor.  What is surprising is Ascol's particular points he chooses to critique from Dr. Garrett's first essay. 

Hence, since Dr. Ascol's current post is on Garrett on Calvinism in the Alabama Baptist, I thought it worth my time to post a short piece on Ascol on Garrett on Calvinism in the Alabama Baptist.  One should read Dr. Ascol's well written reflection in full to get the most out of this post.

First, as I've already noted, Dr. Ascol offers to his former Professor the respect he deserves.  Nor is there any questioning of any motives.  Frankly, however, this specific disclaimer about "questioning motives" is becoming terribly frustrating.  Can we not carry on a civil conversation with one another without mentioning the motives of others or disclaiming at the beginning that our reflections on the issue at hand have nothing to do with our personal view of another's heart?   I trust my Lord to assist me in squashing this bug in my own corn patch.

Secondly, Dr. Ascol rightly quotes Professor Garrett pertaining to the age-old discussion concerning Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, suggesting Calvinists and Arminians pose answers traveling different avenues through this congested area:  "Dort and the Arminians provided very specific answers--Dort in the direction of divine sovereignty and the Arminians in the direction of human accountability." 

Though rightly quoting Garrett, Dr. Ascol wrongly implied the professor had not considered what Dordt actually affirmed .  He writes "Dr. Garrett implies that the Canons of Dort deemphasize human responsibility in their defense of divine sovereignty... Yet, consider a sample of what Dort actually says about man's responsibility"  (emphasis mine).  And, after rehearsing several quotes from the Dordt's Canon, Dr. Ascol concludes: 

"Do these words suggest that Dort in any way slights man's responsibility before God? Hardly...But, as the sample quotes above demonstrate, historic, evangelical Calvinism does not diminish human responsibility at all."

A few reflections are in order.  First, note that in the selected quotes Dr. Ascol assembles from Dordt's Canons, the focal pattern is on human sinfulness before God and consequent human guilt.  Does Dr. Ascol believe that Professor Garrett implies that only Arminians emphasize human sinfulness before God, thus framing their answer to the problem by leveraging human responsibility contra divine sovereignty?  If not, it is hard to understand how the Canons quoted are applicable here. 

In addition, since Dr. Ascol quoted some of the Canons to instruct our Professor Garrett in what Dordt actually said, if I may, allow me to quote for Dr. Ascol some other juicy tidbits Dordt actually said: 

"But that others who are called by the gospel obey the call and are converted is not to be ascribed to the proper exercise of free will...but it must be wholly ascribed to God, who, as He has chosen His own from eternity in Christ, so He calls them effectually in time, confers upon them faith and repentance..." ( Canons, Third & Fourth head, Article 10, emphasis mine)

"Faith is therefore to be considered as the gift of God, not...to be accepted or rejected at [man's] pleasure, but because it is in reality conferred upon him, breathed and infused into him; nor even because God bestows the power or ability to believe, and then expects that man should by the exercise of his own free will consent to the terms of salvation and actually believe in Christ, but because He... produces both the will to believe and the act of believing also" (Canons, Third & Fourth head, Article 14, emphasis mine).

 Now, from these actual statements from the Canons, it seems to me that given the Professor's unsurpassed credentials, perhaps the benefit of the doubt should be extended to him.  After all, it just may be that Dr. Garrett had not in mind by suggesting that since Dortian Calvinists tended to play down human responsibility, they meant to play down man's responsibility as a sinner before God. 

Rather, because Dort explicitly said "others [i.e., the Elect] who are called by the gospel obey the call and are converted is not to be ascribed to the proper exercise of free will..." they effectively negate human responsibility to act.    Indeed, according to Dordt in the quotes unfurnished by Dr. Ascol, the supposed will--free or unfree--plays no role whatever in the divine salvific exchange:  "nor even because God bestows the power or ability to believe, and then expects that man should by the exercise of his own free will consent to the terms of salvation and actually believe in Christ."  Here, not even consent to the terms of salvation is required. 

And, as the Canon goes on to say, God produces not only the will to believe but also the act of believing itself.  Is there any wonder Dr. Garrett rightly concludes: 

"When a congregation is taught that repentance and faith are accomplished by the Holy Spirit without any human accountability or obligation, that the grace of God overwhelms the elect so they cannot resist or continue in unbelief and that only a fixed number of human beings from eternity has been predestined to salvation, one should not be greatly surprised to find that the personal witnessing of members declines if not ceases." (Does Dortian Calvinism Really Matter?, The Alabama Baptist, James Leo Garrett, Jr., Thursday, August 02, 2007).

A final note:  I'm perplexed why Dr. Ascol strangely defends the Canons of Dordt.  Note again his words:  "But, as the sample quotes above demonstrate, historic, evangelical Calvinism does not diminish human responsibility at all."  Does Dr. Ascol really desire to defend Dordt as historic, evangelical Calvinism? 

One could name a host of Calvinists who were both dedicated Baptists and rightly dubbed evangelical.  But to defend Dordt in the same breathe as Spurgeon and Fuller seems, at least to me, fantastic.  Andrew Fuller clearly rejected Dortian Calvinism.  As for Spurgeon, it is not clear that he embraced the Dortian concept that one is irresistibly born again first, and only then he irresistibly repents and believes on Christ as Dr. Ascol holds.

May Professor Garrett's essays receive the wide reading they truly deserve. 

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter: Spurgeon did believe this and it is clear. Read both Spurgeon's personal testimony and "In Defense of Calvinism".

http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/conversn.htm

[peter]

Debbie,

So, that's all you received from his post? Interesting.

But, I must say, I read you two links and attempted to find where Spurgeon taught that one is born again prior to exercising repentant belief in Christ. Sometimes, I am so clumsy. Would you be so kind as you cite the actual reference?

On the other hand, what do you think Spurgeon meant when he said this:

"if I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate...Is not this waiting till the man is cured and then bringing him the medicine? This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners." (The Warrant of Faith" [No. 531, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit page 532)"

Mr. Bob Ross has an outstanding compilation of Spurgeon quotes you may find helpful in this regard. Find them here http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2007/08/spurgeons-views-continue-to-be.html

And, you are welcome to travel to Founders and gather some quotes to the contrary, Debbie. However, you will only demonstrate my original point that Spurgeon does not appear clear, since quotes are readily available to *both* sides.

Grace always. With that, I am...

Peter

[volfan007]

boy, i sure do like spurgeon. and peter, thanks again, my bro. for a clear and painfully true post that many are sure to not take so well.

david

[peter]

David,

Thanks for dropping by and, as always, your warm encouragement is appreciated. It cannot be overestimated how much Bob Terry has contributed to the discussion. One hears so much from SBTS these days, specifically from Drs Nettles, Schriener and a host of other Five Point Calvinists. It is good to possess a balanced view as did Dr. Garrett.

Also, it would be a interesting query how the professors above views Dordt and whether they defend The Canons of Dordt as a classic statement of "historic, evangelical Calvinism" as does Dr. Ascol. Indeed, this is the first time I think I've heard such a defense--at least from Founder's anyway.

Grace, David. May Tennessee receive much needed rain as do we in Georgia.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Richard Coords]

Peter, nice.........ZZZzzzzzzing!

Here's another:

Calvinist, D. James Kennedy, writes:

“Our faith and our repentance are the work of God’s grace in our hearts. Our contribution is simply the sin for which Jesus Christ suffered and died. ***Would you be born anew?*** There has never been a person who sought for that who did not find it. Even the seeking is created by the Spirit of God. Would you know that new life? Are you tired of the emptiness and purposelessness of your life? Are you tired of the filthy rags of your own righteousness? Would you trust in someone else other than yourself? Then look to the cross of Christ. Place your trust in him. ***Ask him to come in and be born in you today.*** For Jesus came into the world from glory to give us second birth because we must--we MUST--be born again.” (Why I Believe, p.140, emphasis mine)

[Richard Coords]

Peter,

Also in terms of human responsibility, John Calvin comments on Jacob & Esau at Romans 9:11:

“When God prefers some to others, choosing some and passing others by, the difference does not depend on human dignity or indignity. ***It is therefore wrong to say that the reprobate are worthy of eternal destruction***.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, pp.120-121, emphasis mine)

So the reprobate do not make themselves worthy of Hell, but rather that God is the One who makes them worthy for Hell? Am I reading that correctly?

[grosey]

:) I just knew my dear friend Peter, that the consideration of things calvinistic could not be long laid aside.
Brother, the issue of human responsibility, may I see in my terse aussie dialect, is that evrey man is responsible to repent Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

However men (and women) will not come to Him that they may be saved.
And so because we will not come:
Phil 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

And just as well too,
for as josiah Conder wrote
’Tis not that I did choose Thee,
For Lord, that could not be;
This heart would still refuse Thee,
Hadst Thou not chosen me.
Thou from the sin that stained me
Hast cleansed and set me free;
Of old Thou hast ordained me,
That I should live to Thee.

’Twas sov’reign mercy called me
And taught my op’ning mind;
The world had else enthralled me,
To heav’nly glories blind.
My heart owns none before Thee,
For Thy rich grace I thirst;
This knowing, if I love Thee,
Thou must have loved me first.

AAAH Peter,
the Dortian (not Dorkian) calvinists have been accused of being too cerebral and to have taken Calvin to extremes... I think they were just terse. They dotted the i's and crossed the t's.
ANd brother.. its still what Paul said
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
2 Thess 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And though it may not suit us to admit it, it is what the scriptures teach.

Now, having set the match, bro, you bring the kerosene.
Steve

[peter lumpkins]

Richard,

As always, you add a new dimension to the discussion. I haven't the faintest idea what Calvin meant by such. And, while I am familiar with the work by Calvin, the bulk of what little I know of Calvin is with his Institutes and commentaries.

I plan to consider sometime in the future his EPoG. Thanks, my brother. With that, I am...

Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter: Read and reread. It would be hard to miss.....unless one wanted to miss it.

[peter]

Dear Brother Steve,

Thanks for a good word even if I must contend with some of it. The spirit in which you offer a Calvinist perspective should be modeled elsewhere, I assure you, my Grosey.

First, no NonCalvinist with whom I am acquainted contends against the Apostle’s assertion that “God commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17.30). I certainly embrace such, proclaiming it boldly now for over 25 years.

NonCalvinists do contend against, however, the idea that somehow what God commands to all and from which all are absolutely obligated to respond to the command, the actual ones who do hear the call and consequently fulfill their obligation to repent, is limited to a select number and *only* a select number fortunate enough to possess the equipment to do it. That is, if one *cannot* eat unless God gives the meat, how is it loving for God to keep the meat but *require* we eat?

I have to tell you, Grosey: some of us NonCalvinists have a problem with that. Hence, NonCalvinists are unashamed to affirm that what God actually calls someone to do, He also enables them to do it. In short, if one “ought” to do it, then it seems to follow that one can, in fact, do it. If this is not so, blame goes bye-bye.

I think you mentioned four Scripture passages. I’m unsure how Phil. 2.13 is supposed to fit in speaking about either Election proper or any other subject pertinent to our discussion. The Apostle was clearly writing to saved folks with notes of encouragement throughout.

And, as for Acts 13.48: “And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” a few notes are in order.

First, this verse does not lend itself so easily to Calvinist interpretation. A. T. Robertson notes that “This verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency. The is no evidence that Luke had in mind an *absolutum decretum* of personal salvation.” (Word Pictures, Vol.3, p.200).

Moreover, John Polhill writes of Acts 13.48: “In this phrase [appointed for eternal life] we encounter the same balance between human volition and divine providence that is found throughout Acts.” (Acts, NAC, p.308).

NT scholar, Ajith Fernando, in the NIV Application Commentary records that “After considerable emphasis on the human response to the gospel…Luke redresses the balance by emphazing God’s foundational role in salvation. All those who believed “were appointed for eternal life.” (p.388).

He then concludes that “It is never merely a person’s own choice that saves them, it is always God’s love and mercy.” NonCalvinists could not agree more.

You’ll be happy to know, Grosey, while I could add other exegetical witnesses to not only Acts 13.48, but also the other two Scriptures you cite, I will temper myself.

Indeed most exegetes are usually more judicious than systematic theologians in their judgment of textual intricacies. Thus, there is plenty of corn to shuck on every single verse either Calvinists or NonCalvinists gather for their particular point.

I’m tired. Grosey. I’m going to bed. Have a grace filled day.

With that, I am…
Peter

[peter]

Debbie,

My sister. I made two simple requests. First, supply precisely, from the links you offered, where Spurgeon explicitly noted regeneration preceded faith. That is not an unreasonable request. Indeed, it begs for more of a response than "It would be hard to miss.....unless one wanted to miss it." Please.

Secondly, I asked what you thought Spurgeon meant by this:

""if I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate...Is not this waiting till the man is cured and then bringing him the medicine? This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners." (The Warrant of Faith" [No. 531, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit page 532)"

From my perspective, I have not requested alot.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

And Peter, I think you need to read the entire articles. Founders has never said that Charles Spurgeon did not believe regeneration proceeded repentence, unless you can show me. Spurgeon has always been misrepresented by those such as yourself and David Hunt, for the likes I cannot understand. He is very clear in his writings. I also suggest that you read the writing of how Charles Spurgeon discovered Calvinism. Bottom line, Spurgeon could not claim to be Calvinist if he believed anything other than that I have described. True representation of another's writings and beliefs is the only Christian way to go. Disagree with Calvinism.. I have no problem with that, but do it honestly. I could point it out to you and you still would deny it.

Read Peter, read. All of Spurgeon.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter: What do Calvinists believe Peter? This is what Spurgeon believed whole heartedly. Of course we believe in invitations and pleading for those to come to salvation. It's the mode in which God has chosen to work. You claim to have been Calvinist at one time, you should know this.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Here is the link to Spurgeon's piece that you spoke of.
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0531.htm

Reading the entire piece is detrimental to understanding. Repentence is not the cause of salvation. Salvation is the cause of repentence. Spurgeon was fighting against hyper-Calvinists if you remember. The Bible is the mode by which God works to miraculously open a person's heart, turning it from stone to flesh. We have the privilege of being used by God in the process. Read the London Baptist Confession of 1689. Spurgeon believed these things.

http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html

[peter lumpkins]

Dear Debbie,

Good morning. I trust you had a great night. As for your response, my sister, I take it that you cannot produce the precise citation from the links you offered that demonstrates Spurgeon explicitly taught one is born again before one repents and believes. Hence, I can only judge the two sources irrelevant at this point.

My other request--the one where I actually cited a statement from Spurgeon--about what you think Spurgeon meant, you have continued to ignore. For what reason, it's hard to tell, since you seem so bent on defending Spurgeon's Calvinism.

What's really a hoot, Debbie, is that only an absolute, total dweeb would question whether Spurgeon was a Calvinist--a Five Point Calvinist at that. The only question I raised is whether he believed in rebirth before repentance. All Calvinists definitively do not believe such.

Grace, Debbie. With that, I am...

Peter

[Richard Coords]

Peter,

My brother in Law is a bulldog Calvinist and he agrees with Spurgeon and D. James Kennedy on this point, in terms of rejecting the doctrine of Preemptive Regeneration.

Ultimately, what he teaches is that God sovereignly "pops faith" on "the elect" at the fore-appointed time, and hence they repent, believe and are saved, and are thus made born again by God and are regenerated and baptized into the Body of Christ. So you can see that he still holds to all 5 points of Calvinism, while differing on the timing of regeneration. It is bizzare that anyone would suggest that one believes because he is already saved, when the Bible clearly states that believes and *then* is saved, which is a point that even Calvinist, James White, acknolwedged in his book, Debating Calvinism, when he tried to distinguish between *regeneration* and *salvation.*

In terms of Calvin's quote, the way that I understood it, was to mean that, symmetrically speaking, God doesn't elect to Heaven on the basis of a person's good, no more than He elects to Hell on the basis of a person's bad. To me, Calvin was expressing the doctrine of Unconditional Reprobation, on par with Supralapsarianism, which R.C. Sproul argued against in his article on "Double Predestination," when he insisted that Election and Reprobation are *not* symmetrical.
http://www.the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter: Read my comments again, to say that I ignored the statement is to not have fully read my comment. I did. You are wrong. Period. Read all of Charles Spurgeon's sermons and writings as I have over the years. He is a Calvinist through and through. Of course he believes that changed heart that is the cause of repentence and not the other way around. I have shown this to you, yet you have ignored it. To take Spurgeon's words out of context has been tried by David Hunt whose books were shown to be false and even taken off the market for awhile. Don't make his mistake.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Richard Coords, you also vastly rewrite what Calvinists believe as it seems you have done to your brother n'law, James Kennedy and Spurgeon. You may say this but you would be wrong. I am done here as there will be no convincing but you do an injustice by doing as Peter has, has Jerry Vines has, as David Hunt has, and making up what Calvinists or Spurgeon believes and then presenting that as fact.

[Richard Coords]

Debbie Kaufman: prove it.

[Richard Coords]

Debbie Kaufman = Hand-Wringer.

[peter]

Debbie,

Again, Good morning to you. Words easily escape me, my sister, in precisely how to respond.

This site, Debbie, is an open forum. We invite dissent. We invite criticism. We invite challenge to the views we present here. Personally, I've learned over the past year or so, to alter some things--albeit minor things, but altering nonetheless--things about which I was mistaken.

That said, Debbie, your contribution seems to have been, pop in, boldly--and, in my view at least, ridiculously--charge not only me but others with misrepresenting views, leave a series of links and pop out again. Why you've chosen to leave such a questionable, snapshot of yourself, I cannot answer.

In addition, since you have read Spurgeon so faithfully and widely thru the years, Debbie, you had the perfect opportunity to teach me something that is obvious and clear in Spurgeon's thought patterns which I suggested is vague.

Instead, you chose to offer links, sprinkled with a few choice condemnations and the curious, childish grade-school discipline--"Read, Peter, Read." OKay...

More importantly, were I you, my sister Debbie, I would not be concerned so much with what I'm reading but who is, in fact, reading you.

One doesn't have here the convenience of deleting a comment better left not posted as on some sites. Comments are what they are unless I unilaterally view them "over the top"--"over the top" is totally subject to the way my day is going :^); then, I delete them myself.

I say that, Debbie, to let you know the comments you've posted thus far, surely from any semblance of objectivity, stand as a poor reflection of someone such as yourself who loves truth and sincerely pursues it.

Believe it or not, hundreds of people read this blog. The impression you've left for them in this thread lacks, at bare minimum, a couple of quarts.

Unfortunately, the comments stay unless you email me otherwise.

Grace ever, my sister. With that, I am...

Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter: Pop in? Pop out? Would you have me camp here? I read, I comment, I leave just like everyone else. When you misrepresent something I cannot let it stand. If that is a problem then carry on. I just think it behooves you to read what Spurgeon actually writes and not use a quote here and there. It does not serve the discussion to argue against phantom beliefs. I have read Spurgeon and studied his works for fifteen years, but you carry on.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Richard: I have given proof as have many others I have read. It seems neither you nor Peter are accepting of the proof and due to time and space constraints I just can't keep offering proof that keeps getting rejected as if it is not there. I really hate arguing just for the sake of arguing.

[volfan007]

debbie,

you really ought to go to calvinist flyswatter and talk to the man who has studied spurgeon more than anyone else on this planet...bob ross.

david

[peter]

Debbie,

I hope it is surely not as hot in Ok as in Georgia or Tennessee. Records are set daily here.

I suppose, given your response, you are comfortable with your comments. So be it, my sister.

With that, I am...

Peter

[selahV]

Peter: it is horrible here in OK. 105 with heat index of 112. takes our breath away. no rain for a long long time. we have cracks in the ground you could fall into (ha, not really, but you could definitely lose your marbles in if ya dropped them on your way home.)
I read an interesting verse today. Thought you might like to see it again. I say again because I know how often you read the Word.
Where does it come from--no looking it up.

"The words of the wise are like prodding goads, and firmly fixed [in the mind] like nails are the collected sayings which are given [as proceeding] from one shepherd. But going further [than the words given by one Shepherd] my son, be warned. Of making many books there is no end [so do not believe everything you read], and much study is weariness of the flesh."

From this I conclude--it is good to heed the wise words of a shepherd but to guard against those of others who prove less than wise. What do you think? selahV

[grosey]

Amen! Selahv..
Guys I would have returned comment and engaged in something interesting, but was rather ashamed by Debbie's comments.
I too have read Spurgeon pretty thoroughly for 30 years now. I pastor a church planted by one of his students. I have ongoing relationship with the Metropolitan Tabernacle folk in London. I circulate the books by Peter Masters (a friend buys them for me to give away). Peter Masters, Debbie, is the current pastor of theMetroploitan Tabernacle in London. I am conducting a wedding on their behalf here next year. In fact I hope to have a pulpit swap with one of their men (from a chapel nearby) soon.
Spurgeon was clearly a 5 point calvinist... no one would or has argued against that (except maybe Otis Fuller).
I don't think I had ever heard the term of "presalvation regeneration" until reading the Founder's blog, although I would concur with Warfield, Charnock et al that the work of regeneration does precede in ordo salutis the work of conversion (which is the human side of the salvation of the individual). Although regeneration precedes conversion theologically, they are nearly instantaneous in time and effect.
I think that while some may posit such a view (i.e. that the elect were never really unsaved, and there are wide variants of possible theological positions on this) CHS certainly regarded his unconverted hearers as unsaved, as passing from death to life at the point of regeneration/conversion.
John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Bye the way, yes, Peter, sadly some proponents of Calvinism are our worst and most embarrassing defence of calvinism.

Steve

[grosey]

Oh Eccles,
SelahV, eccles

[grosey]

ohhh noooo... three in a row!!!! my complette and unmitigated apologies.. I know it must seem extemely arrogant and I beg your mercy and kindness.
Here brethren is a link (oh again I beg your compassion for this foolish man)
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0385.htm
on CH's views.
Steve

[Mary]

Calvin Schmilvin! You are a wise man Pastor Grosey!

[grosey]

:) and one more for the day..
CHS Vol 14 Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit page 248 Regeneration
is the implanting of a new nature, and one of the earliest signs of that is, a
faith in Christ, and a repentance of sin, and a consequent conversion from
that which is evil to that which is good.
Now, brethren, it has been said, and said most truly, that repentance and
conversion are the work of the Holy Spirit of God. You do not need that I
should stop to prove that doctrine. We have preached it to you a thousand
times, and we are prepared to prove that if anything be taught in Scripture,
that is. There never was any genuine repentance in this world which was
not the work of the Holy Spirit. For this purpose our Lord Jesus has gone
on high: “He is exalted on high to give repentance and remission of sins.”
All true conversion is the work of the Holy Ghost. You may rightly pray in
the words of the prophet, “Turn thou us, and we shall be turned;” for until
God turn us, turn we never shall; and unless he convert us, our conversion
is but a mistake. Hear it as a gospel summons —
“True belief and true repentance,
Every grace which brings us nigh;
Without money
Come to Jesus Christ and buy.”
“And yet,” say you, “and yet the apostle Peter actually says to us, ‘Repent,
and be converted!’ That is, you tell us with one breath that these things are
the gift of the Holy Spirit, and then with the next breath you read the text,
‘Repent, and be converted.’” Ay, I do, I do, and thank God I have learned
to do so. But you will say, “How reconcile you these two things?” I
answer, it is no part of my commission to reconcile my Master’s words: my
commission is to preach the truth as I find it — to deliver it to you fresh
from his hand. I not only believe these things to be agreeable to one
another, but I think I see wherein they do agree, but I utterly despair of
making the most of what is written in Scripture, and to accept it all,
whether we can see the agreement of the two sets of truths or no — to
accept them both because they are both revealed. With that hand I hold as
firmly as any man living, that repentance and conversion are the work of
the Holy Spirit, but I would sooner lose this hand, and both, than I would
give up preaching that it is the duty of men to repent and to believe, and
the duty of Christian ministers to say to them, “Repent and be converted,
that your sins may be blotted out.” If men will not receive truth till they
understand it, there are many things which they never will receive.

[Richard Coords]

Steve,

"'How reconcile you these two things?' I answer, it is no part of my commission to reconcile my Master’s words'."

This reminds me of Spurgeon's sermon on "Jacob and Esau" in which he similarly battled with his theological contradictions (refer to the last three paragraphs in the link below).

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0239.htm

It is apparent from these words that according to Spurgeon, regeneration precedes faith, repentance and conversion, though he elsewhere contradicts himself, as previously quoted in this thread. Doubtless, D. James Kennedy would argue similarly, though having gone on record as having stated that one is to pray to be made born again. Therefore, it is my conclusion that these folk are finding that reconciling Calvinism with the Bible to be a difficult chore. So allow me for just a moment, to make it even more difficult.

Regeneration is "in Christ." (2Cor 5:17) Do you agree? My argument is founded upon that principle. Continuing, regeneration involves spiritual life, with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, including the new birth of being made Born Again with a new heart and a new spirit. Do you agree? If true, and if you are a Calvinist who believes in Preemptive Regeneration, then doesn't it inevitably follow that you must also believe in Preemptive Placement in Christ? In other words, since regeneration is "in Christ" and since you believe in Preemptive Regeneration before believing, then isn't it inevitable, therefore, that you must also conclude that one is "in Christ" before he believes and is saved? However, doesn't Romans 8:1 state that anyone who is "in Christ" is redeemed? Morever, doesn't John 3:18 states that unbelievers remain condemned? Therefore, doesn't Calvinism result in a theology where you have condemned unbelievers in Christ who are simultaneously redeemed? How would that make sense? Now I could be blissfully oblivious and just say, "Well it all just sorta happens simultaneously, so I'm not worried about it," but for those who refuse to remain oblvious, a real theological problem remains, unless you are an Arminian. Arminianism has an easy solution: the unbelieving, condemned lost person, remains lost, unless he, by the prevenient grace of God, repents and believes in Christ, at which time God saves him and seals him in Christ, as a regenerated and redeemed, new born child of God. So on the one hand you have Calvinism, with its irreconcilable contradictions (as demonstrated by Spurgeon), while on the other hand, you have Arminianism, with its simplicity and clarity, without having to stumble, trip and fall over Scripture. I can take John 3:16 and just believe it, without having to try and figure out what "world" means, or to try to reconcile how God might love those that He [allegedly] passes by.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Yes Peter, I am very comfortable with my statements.

david: Calvinist flyswatter thinks he knows Spurgeon but alas he does not.

[Debbie Kaufman]

BTW: Selah's report of our weather here may give you some idea of the misery here. In Enid it is only a mere 103, so Selah has it much worse.

[Debbie Kaufman]

And now we must say, that regeneration consists in this. God the Holy Spirit, in a supernatural manner—mark, by the word supernatural I mean just what it strictly means; supernatural, more than natural—works upon the hearts of men, and they by the operations of the divine Spirit become regenerate men; but without the Spirit they never can be regenerated. And unless God the Holy Spirit, who "worketh in us to will and to do," should operate upon the will and the conscience, regeneration is an absolute impossibility, and therefore so is salvation. "What!" says one, "do you mean to say that God absolutely interposes in the salvation of every man to make him regenerate?" I do indeed; in the salvation of every person there is an actual putting forth of the divine power, whereby the dead sinner is quickened, the unwilling sinner is made willing, the desperately hard sinner has his conscience made tender; and he who rejected God and despised Christ, is brought to cast himself down at the feet of Jesus. This is called fanatical doctrine, mayhap; that we can not help; it is scriptural doctrine, that is enough for us. "Except a man be born of the Spirit he can not see the kingdom of God; that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." If you like it not, quarrel with my Master, not with me; I do but simply declare his own revelation, that there must be in your heart something more than you can ever work there. There must be a divine operation; call it a miraculous operation, if you please; it is in some sense so. There must be a divine interposition, a divine working, a divine influence, or else, do what you may, without that you perish, and are undone; "for except a man be born again, be can not see the kingdom of God." The change is radical; it gives us new natures, makes us love what we hated and hate what we loved, sets us in a new road; makes our habits different, our thoughts different, makes us different in private, and different in public. So that being in Christ it is fulfilled: "If any man be in Christ he is a new creature; old things are passed away, behold all things are become new."

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0130.htm

[peter]

Debbie,

Thank you for the quote. Now, we are dealing with a direct piece of evidence. Debbie, where in the quote does Spurgeon clearly suggest one is born again before one repents and believes? I read it several times but saw no mention of either faith or repentance or anything synonymous.

Indeed outside the phrase "the unwilling sinner is made willing" --but only if taken in an irresistible sense--there stands no reason, it seems to me, why a Classic Arminian could not embrace that passage from Spurgeon.

And as Aussie, I mean Grosey suggested, many--maybe even most-- Calvinistic Baptists seemed to avoid the "regenerated before faith" teaching.

With that, I am...

Peter

P.S. Unless you've carefully studied the essays of Mr. Bob Ross on Spurgeon, it is better to leave out the discourteous dismissal of his views.

[grosey]

I think some of the difficulties are fairly distributed to both sides of the argument, when one considers that the nature of conviction by the Spirit is similar in effect to the regenerating work of the Spirit.
I understand Richard's extensions of thought, and in part I have found them interesting in the past, but Scripture does not say anything on them, and where scripture is silent there we must be silent too.
I guess Bunyan's view of being justified before faith and then justified by faith is the closest I have seen any puritan writer come to it ( as he does also give the clearest defense of double predestination).
However, bottom line, the puritans are as bound to stand under the same scriptures as any one of us.
I prefer to be ignorant about that which God has not revealed.
While Richard's hypotheses of what Calvinists may or may not believe may possibly be found to be correct in eternity, until we get there we must remain silent about that which scripture does not speak.

[grosey]

Can the Spirit of God work on a person who has not been already justified by faith? Can a holy God look upon sinful man, or work in a sinful man's heart without justly destroying him?
I think these questions are impossible for us this side of eternity to answer, save that He does. What process negates the law of sin and death while the individual is brought to be justified by faith? I dare not say I understand it.
Hence its much easier wiser and safer to say what CHS says.. I know its there. I cannot reconcile these two friends (human responsibility and God's Divine Sovereignty) but I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I've committed unto Him against that day!
2 tim 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, 10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

Brothers we are in Christ, let's thank God we are and go evangelise the lost.
love you brothers,
Steve

[Richard Coords]

Steve,

Thanks for weighing the argument, as well as your candidness. I want to point out one additional matter, as outlined by James White:

“When the time comes in God’s sovereign providence to bring to spiritual life each of those for whom Christ died, the Spirit of God will not only effectively accomplish that work of regeneration but ***that new creature in Christ will, unfailingly, believe in Jesus Christ***....” (Debating Calvinism, p.191, emphasis mine)

This is the kind of direct statement that is very beneficial to the discussion. Essentially, he's saying that a person is regenerated "in Christ" so that he will, with his new nature, come to Christ. Thus, the engine that drives a man to receive Christ, according to White, is everything that is reserved "in Christ." Thus, I infer from White that the gift of God for "the elect" is being unconsciously born again in Christ, and hence you have the necessary drive for "the elect" to irresistably repent, believe and be saved. But wait...wasn't the person who was regenerated in Christ, already saved? "No," says White, for that is just "regeneration." White explains: "In most theological works, regeneration is a subset of the larger and broader term, salvation, which often includes within it justification, forgiveness, redemption, and adoption. Sometimes it can be used in a narrower sense, but in historical discussions of these issues, regeneration has a specific meaning that Mr. Hunt confuses." (Debating Calvinism, p.305) This is precisely where I feel that Calvinism stumbles, and why the Calvinist who believes in post-regeneration, has no difficulty. This is why Darrell's explanation (my brother in law), is that God works on the heart of "the elect" sufficiently to bring him to saving faith, though short of full-blown regeneration that is reserved in Christ. Therefore, if Spurgeon had in mind, Darrell's version of "regeneration," that would satisfactorily reconcile Spurgeon's other statement on regeneration, quoted earlier by Peter. So, I perceive that if Spurgeon had been more explicit in what he understood to be "regeneration," that that might have cleared up some of the apparent inconsistencies on his part.

Additionally, in terms of what theological challenges that we face on "this* side of eternity, I really do believe that the doctrine of Prevenient Grace adequately addresses some of those difficult questions that Arminians face, such as *how* the unregenerate, natural man, condemned in Adam, can be convicted of his sins and repent. I do believe that the Holy Spirit, by a preceding grace, evangelizes and operates upon the heart of the unregenerate man in order to receive Christ (Revelation 3:20; John 16:8; Acts 2:37; Acts 16:14; Acts 26:14), and I do believe that the Holy Spirit regenerates the believer. (Eph 1:13) In terms of John 3:3-8, I treat "see the Kingdom of God" (John 3:3) identically to v.5 which says "enter the Kingdom of God," and therefore I feel that Spurgeon is demanding that we accept *his* interpretation and that if you have any problem with that, take it up with God. Spurgeon frequently placed his interpretations on par with Scripture, insomuch as to say, 'Hey, it's just what the Bible says; take it up with my Master," when his particular argument was *not* so explicitly outlined in Scripture. The problem is that upon being so dogmatic, it left him with no room to revise his interpretation which he had already equated to Scripture.

[peter]

Richard,

Just a note here about White. He seems, to me at least, to fit nicely into what formerly was called by Southern Baptists, the "anti-missions" Baptist (early 19th c)--"hardshellism", if you please or now Primitive Baptist.

Bob Ross has some excellent material which makes a crucial distinction, and I think, a correct one.

Grace.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter: I knowledgeably comment on Calvinist flyswatter and his thoughts are nothing new, quite the contrary.

As for your comment concerning what I have presented not once but a few times on Spurgeon, I told you that no matter what I present you would deny and you have made my prediction true. He is saying exactly that faith is the result of regeneration, not the cause.

All Calvinists believe this and in now way deny or have any problem with this teaching, it is what I see scripture teaching many times. I have nothing more to add to this discussion. Thank you for allowing me to post.

[selahV]

Peter, may I ask of you in regards to: "But that others who are called by the gospel obey the call and are converted is not to be ascribed to the proper exercise of free will...but it must be wholly ascribed to God, who, as He has chosen His own from eternity in Christ, so He calls them effectually in time, confers upon them faith and repentance."?

Is this saying that God does the work of repentance? that the person who hears the gospel preached "Repent and be saved" doesn't really have any obligation to make any movement toward repentance that God is working it out within the person who hears the words? Then that person's actions proves the work of repentance God has already done? thanks, selahV

[grosey]

Thanks Richard for a thoughtful and reasoned response.
May I say that my personal opinion is the same as your brother-in-laws, Darrel, however, I would probably be careful to not go so far as to preach it from the pulpit (in that I would reserve it as a private opinion and not something that I was completely assured as the faith once delivered unto the saints).
Likewise I am also very careful about the "in Christ" statements for the same reason and tread even more carefully here because of folks in the past who have clearly "gone wrong" (I am referring to Barth and the universalism that is implicated into his version of "in Christ"). I think I understand what you are saying by "in Christ" but am not fully competenet to expound all that would be involved in that simple term in every case where it is used and so would be hesitant to build a theology just on that base i.e. does "in Christ" take precedence over justification by faith? Can "in Christ" take the place of (or take precedence over)the penal substitutionary atonement?
That is in a direction I would be hesitant to pursue, as I see the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ as being the central truth of the gospel.
I am not saying that you have gone that irection any further than is safe, I just personally would rather retreat from handling such questions, as they are central to my understanding of the gospel itself.
Steve

[Richard Coords]

Thanks Steve for your answer,

You wrote: "does 'in Christ' take precedence over justification by faith? Can 'in Christ' take the place of (or take precedence over)the penal substitutionary atonement?"

In terms of "in Christ," I want to give two quotes from Adrian Rogers and one Bible verse:

"Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (Romans 8:1)

“Everyone is in Adam or in Christ. ... If you are in Adam, you’re going to face the wrath of God. ... I want to show you that we gain very much more in Jesus than we ever lost in Adam.” (In Jesus there is so much more: Romans 5:6-9)

“Now what does it mean to be in Christ Jesus? Well, God wants us to be saved; He’s given us so many illustrations of salvation; one of the illustrations of salvation is Noah’s Ark. Noah’s Ark, the Bible teaches us in 2nd Peter, is an illustration, a type of the Lord Jesus Christ. And so, if you want to know what it is to be in Christ Jesus, know what it was for Noah to be in that Ark.” (Turning Hurts Into Hallelujahs: Romans 8:8-11)

My understanding of a graphic illustration of "in Christ" is based upon 1st Corinthians 6:16-17: "Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, 'The two shall become one flesh.' But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him."

To me, this is illustrative of the Bride of Christ, having been sealed in the Body of Christ as "one spirit" with God. In this union, you have redemption, justification, the indwelling, regeneration, new birth, a new heart, a new spirit and a holy vocation according to the unique gift of the Holy Spirit for each member of the union in Christ.

My understanding in terms of the atonement, is that when Jesus took upon Himself the sins of the world, He "bought" and paid for the souls of all men with His blood, and therefore became the lawful Judge and Lord of all men, and when a man, by the grace of God, believes in Him, he is incorporated into the union of *in Christ.* (Eph 1:13) In contrast, a man who disbelieves, remains condemned *in Adam* under the Law. Galatians 4:4-5 stands out to me in this example: "But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might *redeem those who were under the Law*, that we might receive the adoption as sons."

Do you feel that this understanding negates a fully substitionary atonement?

[grosey]

thanks richard... wow you are fast!
"Do you feel that this understanding negates a fully substitionary atonement?"

No not at all Richard (and I have preached that sermon in parts by Rogers, its a great sermon!!)
However, were "IN Christ" to take precedence over the atonement, then you could follow
others, vis Barth, Chalke and other notables among the ABCUSA, I am sure. This is being highlighted by Baptists in my country, many of whom deny the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ. One of these is the main speaker at our upcoming Convention next week. He has written that Christianity is good for anglo saxon nations, and Buddhism is good for the japanese, so we should not try and change people's religions.
He bases that upon making "In Christ" the main plank of his theology, saying that all are chosen in Christ, and therefore all are saved whether they become Christians or not! Hence because of my exposure to these errant beliefs, I am wary of what I make the main plank of my soteriology.
1 Corinthians 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
It appears to me that the atoning death of the Saviour is the main plank.
I am certain that you agree Richard, and really there is no dispute. I am just sharing where I am coming from.
Steve

[grosey]

Just thinking Richard, perhaps we are talking at different points... were you perhaps alluding to the idea that in my view the Particular atonement is a better understanding of substitutionary atonement?
In which case I would logically say yes, but as I have said elsewhere, 1 John 2:2 is the one verse (and I must say that 2Peter 2:1 doesn't actually cause me that much concern, as its allusion is a general; allusion about the nature of heresy, denying the divinity of Christ and the work of Christ."But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.") that I believe doesn't fit the bill for a five pointer.
"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
I would call myself a 4 and half pointer with gusts blowing to 5.
And yes, I have heard many cases for reading it 5 point, but to be fair ( and I am absolutely certain you would agree with me) I don't think they work exegetically.
Thanks richard for some great interaction
Steve

[Byroniac]

I believe this article is helpful to the discussion: the author was A.W. Pink, and the title is simply, "1 John 2:2".

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Miscellaneous/1_john_2.htm

I believe it makes a good case for a context of Jewish believers as the target audience, hence the dichotomy between the words "ours" and "world," and does so sensibly. It will probably not change anyone's mind, here, however. But I think anyone who reads it will find it interesting.

Full Disclaimer: A.W. Pink affirms "hyper-calvinism" at the end of it. Though I confess to be a full-time as opposed to "part-time" five pointer (*grin* towards Steve), I specifically disavow hyper-calvinism.

[Mary]

So Byroniac, if I may ask you - you believe 1 John 2:2 reads likes this?? :

He is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the elect and not only for the sins of the elect but also for the sins of the elect.

[Richard Coords]

Steve,

Now I understand what you meant when asked whether my interpretation of "in Christ" would take precedence over justification by faith. Like you, I do not believe that everyone is chosen in Christ, just as I do not believe that everyone is sealed in Christ, but rather, only believers are sealed in Christ. In fact, I find agreement with Arminius in the following quote:

“God regards no one in Christ unless they are engrafted in him by faith.”

This is why someone like Baarth could not find Arminius as an ally to his doctrine of Universalism.

As far as a fully substitutionary sacrifice, the charge against Arminianism is that it ultimately denies it. I hope that I haven't done so when I make the following statement: I believe in a "universal purchase" of all mankind but a "particular redemption" of only the elect in Christ. As with Romans 8:1, I believe that only those who are in Christ, by grace through faith, are among the race of the twice-born, redeemed. Phil Johnson described it in conjunction to one of the Lord's parables, where a man purchases a field in order to get to the buried treasure therein. While I do not share agreement in the interpretation of that parable, I nonetheless find agreement in the general concept presented, in that Jesus died with the redemption of the Church in mind, while simultaneously desiring that all men become "in" it, by meeting the condition of God's sovereign decree at John 3:16 of "believeth in Him." I believe that Jesus died for everyone, in that one died for all, but that the *benefit* of His death is applied exclusively to those who are "in Christ" by grace through faith.

[Byroniac]

No, of course not. I believe I would read it as "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins [i.e., context of Jewish believers as the initial audience of John's message] and not for ours only, but also for the whole world [i.e., Gentiles]".

I believe the context of Jewish believers (being spoken to by John, a Jew) makes the most sense. In verse 7, we read of an "old commandment" they had from the beginning: Jews had the commandments of God, but Gentiles never did.

Now, I can't prove all of this, but I believe (and hope) I'm interpreting Scripture accurately. It certainly makes sense to me (though that's never historically been a good test of orthodoxy to be sure).