Calvinism, Monergism, and Southern Baptists by Peter Lumpkins

   One cannot get along very far in understanding the Reformed Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention without also understanding the significance of certain theological "buzz" words. One non-negotiable term I've run across in various contexts is "monergism."

Plainly put, monergism is the view that the Holy Spirit is the exclusive agent who affects the regeneration of Christians.* Mostly, the term is used to contrast synergism which obviously means the Holy Spirit "works with" at least one other agent (i.e. human will) to affect regeneration. At least, that's how it's supposed to operate.

The significance for Reformed Resurgence Calvinists, mostly made up of Founders Ministries, may be easily observed, for example, in Timmy Brister's recent critique of Morris Chapman. He writes:

"What I understand Chapman to be saying is that there is one aspect in which God is sovereign (i.e. “God’s initiative”), and there is another aspect in which humans are responsible (i.e. the “faith response”), and the two are mutually exclusive. In other words, God does one part, and you do the other—an idea what theologians have called synergism (two parties working together to accomplish the same end goal) (//link).  

Now, while Brister does not specifically use the term monergism but only synergism his explanation leaves no doubt he was specifically lamenting the absence of monergism in Chapman's comments. Perhaps a more explicit place to see the significance of monergism for Reformed Resurgence Calvinists is in Brister's critique of James Leo Garrett's series on Calvinism in the Alabama Baptist state paper a good while back. In the critique of Dr. Garrett, Brister laments Garrett's gaffe in omitting any discussion of monergism which is crucial if people are ever to understand Calvinism:  

"Understanding the difference between monergism and synergism is foundational and essential to framing the theological tenets of Calvinism and seeing the clear contrast of other theological frameworks. In the six articles provided by Dr. Garrett, not one time was monergism and synergism addressed–a crucial aspect of “understanding Calvinism.” The question that must be asked is whether the schema of synergism is supported through Scripture. Given that the alternatives to Calvinism are supported through a synergistic theological framework, the question of biblical warrant and support is a worthy one to ask" (//link).

A couple of things.  

First, non-Calvinists do not dispute monergism proper. In other words, I know of no evangelical non-Calvinist who would argue other than the sole, exclusive agent Who affects regeneration is the Holy Spirit. After all, the change which comes upon a person's heart is a miracle of the Holy Spirit. And, He needs absolutely no assistance from us to transform us into new creatures in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17-21).  

Albeit, the spiritual transformation He exclusively works in and on us by no means takes place apart from conditions. Non-Calvinists usually confess regeneration is conditioned upon saving faith, and consequently the new birth is subsequent to rather than antecedent to, saving faith. 

Furthermore, such a view is not even exclusively characteristic to non-Calvinists, for many Calvinists argue saving faith first, then regeneration. Or, more precisely, they argue, faith, repentance, conversion and rebirth are so intrinsically bound together in Scripture, so far as experience goes, they are virtually indistinguishable. Whatever the case, neither the term monergism nor synergism apparently has been a substantial part of the theological vocabulary of Southern Baptists. 

While I could be mistaken,** after a search in both Boyce and Dagg, I found no usage whatsoever of these allegedly significant Calvinistic terms. In fact, I did an extensive search through several histories of Baptists, including English Baptists, and found no usage. Perhaps my readers can instruct me to the contrary. However, it seems historical theology among Southern Baptists has made it quite well without these specific terms. Would it follow, therefore, the specific theological nuances these terms carry within certain Calvinistic communities also be historically lacking, in large part, among Southern Baptists?

Interestingly, I managed to find one Baptist source which made extensive use of monergism vs. synergism in its theological spectrum:  

--"This synergistic, or co-operative, or Semi-Pelagian theory of regeneration and salvation, basing the decision of man’s eternal destiny upon his natural free-will, had, for its ablest advocate, Origen (born A.D. 185, died 254)... 

--“The monergistic or scriptural theory of regeneration teaches that there is but one efficient agent or actor in the renovation of the soul, namely, the Holy Spirit; that the will of fallen man is, like all his other faculties, utterly depraved, and has not the least ability or inclination to act holily until it has been renewed by Divine grace..."    

--“[Monergism, or Paulinism, or Augustinianism] was plainly set forth by Christ and His Apostles..."  

--“Pelagianism has been called human monergism — a system of salvation according to which man is represented as saving himself; Semi-Pelagianism has been called synergism — a system of salvation according to which Divine grace and human free-will equally cooperate to effect man’s salvation; and Augustinianism has been called Divine monergism — a system of salvation according to which God alone is represented as saving the sinner..." 

--"…the great monergistic, Pauline, Christian doctrine of Divine predestination and election, justification by faith alone, salvation by grace alone" 

The quotes above are taken from C. B. Hassell's A History of the Church of God. Hassell is one of Primitive Baptist's premier theologians. For him, both the terms and the meaning of the terms of synergism and monergism are, in Brister's words critiquing Dr. Garrett's historical overview of Calvinism, "foundational and essential to framing the theological tenets of Calvinism and seeing the clear contrast of other theological frameworks."

Of further interest, the link on Brister's critique of Garrett took one to monergism.com.  From there, monergism.com linked to...Would you like to guess?  An article by C. B. Hassell taken from the official Primitive Baptist website. (//link).

In my view, Southern Baptists really need to take a long, sober look where the most visible Calvinists in our convention possibly desire to take us. Primitive Baptist theology could be but a handful of trustees away.  

With that, I am...  

Peter  

*Dictionary of Theological Terms, Donald K. McKim, Westminster John Knox Press, 1996  

**I've learned when it comes to history, never say never...

Comments

[gabaptist]

Bro. Lumpkins,
May we hear from Dr. Dagg? "Faith and good works do not exist, before the grace consequent on election begins to be bestowed" Dagg, Manual of Theology, 312.
A sinner cannot come to full knowledge of his/her sin unless the Holy Spirit convicts and makes them able to respond to His Grace. All Reformed thinkers believe in this.
The difference between Primitive and Reformed Baptists lies in the maturation of this grace. Primitives struggle for years under an assurance that this grace is given while those Reformed within SBC circles and other denominations of like faith take the revivalist thought that trusting the Word of God, one should take immediate steps toward trusting this grace.
True to our revivalist heritage, we missionary Baptists broke from our "non-revivalist" brethren over this procedure. This is why the antimissionary Baptists distrusted modern methods of Sunday Schools, missionary societies (and all other societies including abolitionists and Masons). They believed comingling with the world made one Arminian. Though they were mistaken, they were true to their own beliefs. Calvinistic Missionary Baptists worked alongside their more Arminian brethren to evangelize the world. The SBC has remained Calvinistic in its understanding of salvation being grace alone and that the sinner must be "awakened" to their condition. A dead man cannot save himself; a only one made alive to his trespasses and seeing the grace of God, he clings to this blessed hope.
Never should we believe a dead man meets a holy God "half-way". It is grace that you have been saved; not of works. A lot of Calvinists may err on waiting too long to see this grace, but this does not mean that they are trusting in human works.
Blessings to you!

[Todd Burus]

Peter,
I would ask you to look to the message that Paige Patterson gave at the John 3:16 Conference last year. In it he was addressing the topic of total depravity and he said that yes, man is totally depraved, However, he then went on to give a completely non-Calvinistic account of this by telling a story about a pilot who was involved in a runway accident as a battleship was destroyed and so he floated, nearly blind, nearly deaf, nearly dead, out at sea. After a while a Coast Guard rescuer lowered down to him and offered him a hand. Though the pilot could hardly see or hear him, he knew the man was there to rescue him and reached out to him and was rescued. Thus, Patterson said, is the state of man coming to salvation.

Peter, this, though not called such, is synergism. Of course, using more terminology that is uncommon to Baptists, Patterson and others such as Jerry Vines try to defend this view against such a charge by giving an argument for what in the end amounts to Prevenient Grace. Alright, well grant them that. However, what makes the difference between grace that is prevenient and grace that is saving? grace that makes you responsive and grace that makes you regenerate? If it is God then I don't think there is a problem because that is, for all intents and purposes, the Calvinist view. However, I don't think Patterson and Vines would hold to that, in which case their difference maker must be man.

Like I said, synergism.

[peter lumpkins]

GaBaptist

Thanks. Dagg is not clear. He appears to have moments when he sounds precisely like the Princeton theologians and times not. He very well could fit the Calvinist I described. I'll be glad to get the quotes it you like. Boyce on the other hand appears to me to suggest a logical priority of regeneration but there are better men than I who dispute my understanding. Perhaps Mr. Ross or Ian will comment here.

Furthermore, the "dead man cannot save himself" language is the exact problem concerning which confusion reigns. When this language is employed, the assumption is, any understanding other than "monergism" the way the strict Calvinist applies it, is self-salvation. No Bible-believing Arminian believes such, much less any Southern Baptist biblicist.

Grace, GaBaptist.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Todd,

"Peter, this, though not called such, is synergism." To the contrary, Todd, it is how Primitive Baptist Calvinism interprets synergism. I noted in my OP: "regeneration is conditioned upon saving faith."

I'll say again: The Holy Spirit regenerates. He regenerates fully. He regenerates completely. He regenerates unilaterally. He regenerates without one, single contribution the sinner makes to His work in regeneration. Such regeneration is definitively not synergistic. He is exclusively the single Agent Who bestows regenerate life to the believer.

One reason you may not grasp this is because you assume the total inability of sinful humans prior to regeneration which makes impossible the conditions non-Calvinists insist must be for regeneration. And, there the disagreement is profound.

But whether the Holy Spirit is the exclusive Agent Who regenerates there is no disagreement. Why would we argue otherwise?

With that, I am...
Peter

[Jonathon Woodyard]

Todd,

Peter says you "assume" the "total inability" of the sinner. I believe Dr. MacArthur did a great job in showing that your assumptions are correct.

You can hear Dr. MacArthurs message on that specific topic at T4G 2008.

Luther covered this in his argument against Erasmus. The will is never free in the libertarian sense. It is what Luther called the necessity of immutability vs. the necessity of compulsion. Erasmus and others claim the Reformed view is one in which God drags the sinner, against his will, to Himself (not implying you say this Peter). That is the compulsion part. Luther rejects this and explains it differently.

For Luther, the necessity of immutability means that our wills are bound by our nature. Our nature is sinful and there is "no good that dwells within" us (Romans 7). We are dead in our sins and there are none who seek after God. We are slaves to sin, and can only choose this. That is our nature! Luther says it is "immutable" in the sense that we cannot change it. Therefore, we need something to happen within us from outside of us. Namely, God taking out our heart of stone and giving us a heart of flesh (Regeneration) after which we freely exercise faith in Jesus Christ.

I will ask this. If God gives the same amount of "helping" grace to all, why do some believe? Because they choose to do so? Is that choosing not a good thing? Yes, we would say it is. But, where I ask, would they get the good within them to make this good choice? Paul is clear, we have no good within us.

The idea that GOd helps me and then, out of some level of goodness within me, I "do my part," seems to leave me with room to boast over the guy who refused to excercise his free will and use that goodness within him to come to Jesus.

God does not help those who help themselves....God helps those who are unable to help themselves.

[volfan007]

Once again, after reading the comments from the Five pointers, we see that they just dont understand how a non-five pointer can believe that salvation is completely a work of God, yet man must receive the gift of God...not based on works....based on surrendering faith.

And, due to our not accepting the reformed, five pointer view...we're accused of adding the works of man to saving faith. Incredible. This is what makes me wonder if the Founders type of Calvinists ever get control of the SBC, if they will really be for a big tent SBC???????

David

[peter lumpkins]

David,

I think you are precisely right. And, I do wonder.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Jonathan,

Five times you cite Luther. That's just peachy. But I think I made clear in the post I was especially concerned with historical theology and its terms within the Baptist context. Nor does Luther's Bondage of the Will serve as my final authority on human fallenness, thank you very much.

Secondly, so am I incorrect Todd "assumed" total inability? If you agree with me, what is your question?

Third, I am afraid you framed what I said based on your own preconceived perceptions, not my words: "If God gives the same amount of "helping" grace to all...Is that choosing not a good thing?...The idea that GOd helps me and then...I "do my part"...God does not help those who help themselves....God helps those who are unable to help themselves."

I uttered not a word about "'helping' grace," "choosing," "do my part." To cast what I wrote in the mold of a works-oriented, part-me-part-God-kind-of-salvation at best humors me and at worst draws unpleasant pictures in my mind of a nutty fruitcake.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Byroniac]

Peter,

I guess I am having trouble understanding your position. There seems to be a difficulty escaping works-based salvation, though I believe you when you say you do not hold to works for salvation. Granted, our side has its own problems. But it seems we have an easier time justifying the idea that God gets all the glory in salvation.

If I am understanding you correctly, God has done all He can in salvation. He has made salvation a genuine possibility for all, and as many as hear the Gospel hear the invitation to salvation. My question then is, what becomes the deciding critical factor in salvation? Why do some become saved and others not? Isn't the deciding critical factor man's choice to receive salvation in Christ? How is exercising faith not a work (is it because God gives that faith to all as a gift in order to make salvation possible, or is it because of another reason)? What makes one man differ from another in receiving Christ's forgiveness and regeneration from God?

I used to hold to a non-Calvinism position, and I would have (correctly, as you do) denied that salvation is by man's works, but I would have still said that faith is something man exercises to become saved, even if that faith is a gift of God given to all in order to make salvation possible. I might have had a different view than you do now, but I think my old position agreed with yours that man must receive salvation by faith in order to be saved.

I also wonder if Christ died for all, then in what sense did He die for those already in Hell before He was ever born? Did He die to make them guilty of rejecting Him by virtue of the fact His first coming was already prophesied though it remained in the future at that point? And to add to a question of my own, why did He create those He knew would never accept Him, especially in this sense of dying for those who would never accept and believe?

To paraphrase something I heard Bob Ross tell me in his bookstore one time that I liked: we all limit the Atonement, unless we're universalists, by limiting either its scope or its power. I can't help but ask a bunch of questions. At this point in my Christian walk, I have more questions than answers. I do appreciate my non-Calvinist friends (yes, even I have a few) and though we do not agree on everything, we do agree on Christ, and that is sufficient.

[volfan007]

Byroniac,

Faith is faith, and works are works. Faith is not works. Choosing to surrender to the call of God is not works...it's surrendering to the call of God.

David

[Todd Burus]

Peter,
Contrary to your assumption, I understand the non-Calvinist position that the Holy Spirit "regenerates fully . . . completely . . . unilaterally." However, this really just becomes an exercise in semantics. As I laid out earlier, there are only two choices a person has in the faith precedes regeneration model when they look at why some believe and some don't: either God grants the "saving" faith to those who believe or they provide it themselves. Unless something has changed, I take your position to be that it is the man who provides the "saving" faith upon which regeneration is conditioned. If this is so, then it seems that the onus would be on you to show how this does not constitute a work added into the process of salvation.

It is like an endothermic reaction in chemistry. Some chemical reactions require the addition of heat to get them going (i.e. they are conditioned upon the presence of heat). This does not change the chemical reaction, that reaction is solely based upon the chemicals in play at the time, but without the presence of heat the reaction cannot occur. The reason heat is necessary is to provide the energy to overcome the strength of chemical bonds. Any chemist will tell you this is work added into the equation. Likewise, in the non-Calvinist understanding, regeneration is based solely upon the reaction (i.e. working) of the Holy Spirit but it needs the presence of "saving" faith to overcome the strength of spiritual bonds. How is this, rightly construed, not also some sort of work? Again, the onus is on the non-Calvinist to make this clear.

[Todd Burus]

David,
But why do they surrender?

[Kevin Jackson]

Hi Peter,

Very interesting post. I appreciate the quotes that you found because they get to the heart of the issues here.

It is a little presumptuous of
Calvinists to demand that non-Calvinists use the terms monergism and synergism in the way that they have predefined them.

It would be like me saying that I believe "God is love" but Calvinists believe that "God is hate". Framing the debate this way would not accurately represent the Calvinist viewpoint, and it would be absurd for a Calvinist to agree to such a definition.

Similarly, Calvinists prefer using the terms "Monergism" and "Synergism" because they are friendly to their view. The terms allow them to frame the debate in such a way that they are certain to win. Your quote from Brister illustrates this when he says that monergism is "...essential to framing the theological tenets of Calvinism...".

When Calvinists frame the debate this way, they misrepresent the non-Calvinist view. The quote from Hassell confirms this. He defines synergism as "co-operative", "Semi-Pelagian", and involving "natural free-will". This does not accurately represent the non-Calvinist/Arminian view. Most non-Calvinists are synergistic only on the question of whether or not faith is irresistibly caused by God.

[peter lumpkins]

Byron,

David struck a very good point. Let's tease it out like this.

If faith is works prior to regeneration, what makes faith not works after regeneration?

Perhaps the Calvinist might say because of regeneration. Fine. Then what makes faith not works because of regeneration for Calvinists, while at the same time Calvinists insist faith remains good works after illumination and conviction accompanying the gospel which is what non-Calvinists maintain?

Furthermore, it seems if faith is, by nature, a good work, then the reformation centerpiece of justification by faith alone reduces to justification by good works alone.

Whatever the case, the Apostle Paul made it crystal clear faith cannot be considered good work. To insist on such flies in the face of Paul's direct teaching.

Thanks David!

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Todd,

Read my follow up to David's comment. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Ross]

Peter,

You said:
"Albeit, the spiritual transformation He exclusively works in and on us by no means takes place apart from conditions. Non-Calvinists usually confess regeneration is conditioned upon saving faith, and consequently the new birth is subsequent to rather than antecedent to, saving faith."

This position does not agree with the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 (IV. Salvation):
"Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace."

[peter lumpkins]

Kevin,

I could not agree more. The two terms carry tremendous baggage with them and, as you say, favor the Calvinist's viewpoint.

Also informing, I thought and still do, just how dependent Southern Baptist Calvinists are for their theological vocabulary on their Primitive Baptist cousins, who surely cannot be miscaricatured by the stunning qualifier, Hyper.

Nothing intrinsically wrong in it, of course. Just interesting.

Thanks again, Kevin.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Todd Burus]

Peter,
Your question of "what makes faith not works after regeneration?" falls flat against Calvinist understanding. The Calvinist who holds to Regeneration-precedes-faith (RPF) believes that faith is a gift from God for the believer, thus being produced by God, thus not produced by man, and thus not being a work of man. It is a gift of God that flows forth from the regenerated heart and is visible through the workings of a life lived by faith in Christ (cf. Galatians 2.20, 5.22-25). Works are no good for justification, but still no less commanded for the believer and achievable for them through faith.

So for faith after justification, unless you are suggesting that some sort of continued faith is necessary to avoid apostasy (which I doubt), then the faith that is a gift and flows forth from the regenerated heart is the same always, and again, not a work produced by man. One must be careful to distinguish between faith and faithfulness (i.e. obedience and submission).

[peter lumpkins]

Ross,

I answered this on the last thread. You can check there if you like.

Know, however, to read the BF&M through an exclusively born-again-before-faith lens must be the boldest move yet of SBC Calvinists.

I am willing to concede and have, the BF&M has--rightly or wrongly--always accommodated a broad understanding of specific details in its soteriological outlook. In point of fact, the 1925 BF&M explicitly placed faith as a condition of regeneration. The 1963 BF&M--like 1925, hardly a time when Calvinists were on the rise either--softened the language and actually made the statement more theologically congenial to even strong Calvinists.

Now, however, there are Calvinists who appear to insist the BF&M specifically confesses--purposely or inadvertently--regeneration precedes faith.

In other words, they are attempting to read out the views of the very authors of the confessions as well as the tens of millions of Southern Baptist non-Calvinists who actually voted them into existence.

For my part, such is both historically and literarily absurd.

Thanks.

With that, I am...
Peter

[volfan007]

Ross,

I am not a five point Calvinist. I can look at the BFM2k's statement on salvation and say a hearty amen. I do not see regeneration before faith at all.

I do see God calling, convicting, and saving..yes. But, you're reading too much into it.

Todd, the only reason that man can be saved is because God chose to come to him...planned to come to him...and calls out to him. Every person on this planet can be saved, because God desires that all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. And, we know that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.... We do know that Jesus would have gathered Jerusalem under His wings but THEY would not...not that He would not, but they would not.

How do the two things fit together? I have no idea, and I dont think the Bible tells us how the two fit together. It's a mystery that some think they have figured out. I dont think they do.

All I know is that the Lord chose me...He planned to save me before the world begun...and He came after me, called me, convinced me, and saved me. And, I had to respond to His work in simple faith and repentance. I had to choose whether I would be saved, or not. How do those two go together. I have no idea. I just know that both are true. I'll let the Lord sort it out for me one day in Heaven when I'm not looking thru a dark glass.

David

[Ross]

Thanks Peter. Sorry but I haven't read any of your past threads on this subject. I'll try to look it up and see what you had to say.

I looked at the 1925 BF&M and you are correct that it explicitly placed faith as a condition of regeneration. It states that regeneration "is a work of God's free grace conditioned upon faith in Christ". However, the BF&M 2000 explicitly states that the sinner responds to the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit in faith and repentance. That's not an interpretation through any kind of lens. Am I right to assume that you hold to the 1925 BF&M instead of the 200BF&M on this point? I don't see anything wrong with that. I reject the 1925 BF&M.

Another question -
What is the "gift of God" that Paul refers to in Ephesians 2:8? Is it faith or something else?

[peter lumpkins]

Todd,

Nice try. Now try answering the question I asked:

"Then what makes faith not works because of regeneration for Calvinists, while at the same time Calvinists insist faith remains good works after illumination and conviction accompanying the gospel which is what non-Calvinists maintain?

Your answer was,"that faith is a gift from God for the believer, thus being produced by God, thus not produced by man, and thus not being a work of man."

I don't think you touched my question to be honest.

But since you've answered this much, I query further how it is that a gift--in this case, belief--once given to a person and received by that person is not, when used, the act of that person? Is the gift given or not? Is it received or isn't it? Does God believe for that person or does that person believe him or herself? Is a person encouraged to let God believe through him or her even though God has allegedly given them the gift of belief?

Paul says Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. There is no hint whatsoever Abraham's faith was a gift, much less produced by God. Granting you the former for argument's sake, however--that is, faith was Abraham's gift from God--the Scripture in no uncertain terms says, Abraham believed God, not God believed God.

I predict there'll be yet another sliver of DoG coming back. After all, the flower's "I" has yet to pop in.

At any rate, we've now gone from regeneration preceding faith (Sovereign passive act) to faith being the elect's gift (Sovereign passive act) to the gift's implementation and, if I'm catching your drift, Todd--faith produced by God, thus not produced by man, and thus not being a work of man--implementation of belief is a Sovereign passive act of God as well.

If it's not--that is, if synergism enters where God's gift and man's gift cooperates on any level whatsoever--it reduces to works.

Now what is it I have missed in what you said, Todd?

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Ross,

Thanks. And, those are fair questions. I'll defer to the comment thread on the post to answer the first question (comment #8).

As for the “gift” in Eph. 2:8, I presume the Apostle is making a broad sweeping statement concerning salvation by grace alone. The evidence overwhelmingly appears to favor this in my view.

With that, I am…

Peter

[Ross]

David,

"I do not see regeneration before faith at all. I do see God calling, convicting, and saving..yes. But, you're reading too much into it."

BF&M 2000:
"It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ."

From Merriam-Webster:
"respond - intransitive verb 1 : to say something in return : make an answer
2 a : to react in response b : to show favorable reaction "

The BF&M 2000 explicitly states that the sinner RESPONDS (answers, reacts) to regeneration in repentance and faith. How can repentance and faith come before regeneration and still be a response to it? Can you honestly read that and understand it to say that faith preceeds regeneration?

[Jonathon Woodyard]

Peter,

I wasn't trying to really cause a fight, and my comments were meant to simply state a case for mans "inability" since that is what you accused Todd of asssuming.

Honestly, I am not interested in debate that takes the smart-mouth tone that you seem to enjoy typing with. You are my elder, by a number of years, and the sad thing, one that makes good arguments. However, due to your lack of tact, I care little for what you have to say.

Back and forth debate is good and helpful. Attitudes are not. Thanks for giving us an example of how not to be imitators of Christ. (And the same goes for the Reformed brothers who run their mouths.)

[Ross]

Peter,

Yes I agree. Eph. 2:8 refers to all of salvation as a gift from God. Of course, this salvation includes faith. Consider:
Philippians 1:29
29 For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake

2 Peter 1:1
Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ

Is faith a gift from God?

[scott shaffer]

Peter,

What published work best (besides the Bible!) best articulates your view on this issue?

Thanks

[peter lumpkins]

Jonathon,

I am comfortable in you're doing as you wish.

Know, however, I've been in these discussions far too many times not to know when "tone" is charged toward the other person, as if he or she has been 'unchristian' in the words he or she has typed,when no example is forthcoming, it's best just to move along.

I trust your evening well.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Ross,

Thanks. Because Paul referred in Eph. 2.8, as a gift, the full scope of salvation by grace which includes "faith," remains extremely difficult to be pleaded by Calvinists toward the purpose for which they desire. That was the main point concerning which I brought this up in Founders' critique of Morris Chapman. As with the BF&M, I must insist, you go back there. It may not strike you as the right answer, but it is an answer.

Now, were I to answer you concerning Phil 1:29 and 2Pet. 1:1, I'm not at all sure it'd settle it for you. Sorry, Ross.

You can always throw back to me Acts 5:31 and 11:18. Once I offered what I accept as a plausible explanation, I'd have to get ready for 1 Cor. 4:7, 2 Tim. 2:25, and perhaps Rom. 12:3.

Do we really want to do this? I could and would if I thought definitive and helpful queries would result. Alas, I'm unsure, however.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Scott,

Hope you're well. Precisely what issue? I don't even recall what my main point was in the original piece.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Darby Livingston]

Peter,

I am thankful that this post is about theology. It is refreshing to see the post and comments centered on the discussion of ideas rather than each other.

[Byroniac]

Peter,

I'm still not sure I understand. The way I see it, faith is a gift that God gives to those who will invariably then become believers. Faith produces their good works in the lives of the saved. In that sense, it isn't a work before or after salvation.

David,

What I am having trouble understanding, and I guess this primarily directed to David, is how do you distinguish between exercising faith and works? Both are actions that you personally DO (so on what basis is one thing a work and the other an action of faith?). It's not something that God does, in your system. So if God does not do it, and salvation requires it, that means you have to do it. So, you are in heaven, because of something you did, that others did not do. Why did you do it, and others did not? And how is that not a work? Sorry, but I have never understood that, even when I used to believe it (I just took it for granted that it was something we did that God did not consider a "work").

[peter lumpkins]

Byron,

I am confused. To me earlier, you asserted: "There seems to be a difficulty escaping works-based salvation, though I believe you when you say you do not hold to works for salvation...." And later you asked, "Isn't the deciding critical factor man's choice...? How is exercising faith not a work...?"

In your latest comment, you appear to assert just the opposite: "The way I see it, faith is a gift that God gives...Faith produces their good works...In that sense, it isn't a work before or after salvation."

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Darby,

You are very welcome. I trust your evening well.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Christiane]

Are you saying that each man has a free will
and it is informed by the Grace of God but not in a way that keeps you from acting on your own?
Do you still have to make the decision to live according to Christ? Is it still on you?
I know that God is the cause of our salvation and without Him we would be absolutely lost, but do you believe that He leaves it to us whether or not we will accept His gift?

[Dr. James Galyon]

In regard to historic Southern Baptist teaching on the subject, what about 'A Catechism of Bible Teaching' (1892) by John Broadus? It was the very first work projected for publication by the Sunday School Board (what you youngsters know as LifeWay) when it was first established in 1891.

In Lesson 8 - Regeneration, it includes these questions:

1. What is meant by the word "regeneration"?
A. Regeneration is God's causing a person to be born again.

5. Who produces this great change?
A. The Holy Spirit regenerates. (John 3:5, 6)

7. Are people regenerated through Bible teaching?
A. Yes, people are usually regenerated through the Word of God. (1 Pet. 1:23; James 1:18)

8. Can we understand how men are born again?
A. No, we can only know regeneration by its effects. (John 3:8)

9. Does faith come before the new birth?
A. No, it is the new heart that truly repents and believes.

[Byroniac]

Peter,

My first expression is my (probably faulty) understanding of your's and David's position, viewed through the lens of my understanding. The second statement represented my current views, that faith is not a work but produces good works in the lives of the believer. I neglected to add that it is both a gift of God and what constitutes saving belief. What I do not understand though, is that if salvation is dependent upon man's choice, how is using that faith in making the right choice, not a work? And if salvation hinges upon on what the person does, i.e., making the right choice, how does God get all the glory for it? How is God glorified in one sinner's salvation over another one's not choosing salvation, when He has given what is required for both for salvation? Sorry, I am not trying to be difficult or testing; it is something I genuinely do not understand.

[Dr. James Galyon]

In regard to Dagg, he seems to hold to a wide view of "regeneration." He describes regeneration in the following manner:

"In our natural state we are totally depraved. No inclination to holiness exists in the carnal heart; and no holy act can be performed, or service to God rendered, until the heart is changed. This change, it is the office of the Holy Spirit to effect.... It is the taking away the heart of stone, and giving a heart of flesh; giving a new heart; putting the law in the heart; quickening or making alive; a resurrection from the dead; an illumination; a conversion, or turning back to God. So great is the change produced, that the subject is called a new creature.... The production of love in the heart by the Holy Spirit, is the regeneration, or the new birth; for 'he that loveth, is born of God'"

Dagg goes on to state, regarding the breadth of the term 'regeneration':

"The term regeneration is sometimes used in a comprehensive sense, as including the whole formation of the Christian character. At other times it is used for the first production of divine love in the heart. In the latter sense, the work is instantaneous."

Dagg speaks of faith preceding regeneration in the "comprehensive sense," but does not believe it precedes regeneration in the "instantaneous sense." Note his statements (bold italics for emphasis, not yelling):

"Faith is necessary to the Christian character; and must therefore PRECEDE regeneration, WHEN THIS IS UNDERSTOOD IN ITS WIDEST SENSE. Even in the restricted sense, in which it denotes the beginning of the spiritual life, faith, in the sense in which James uses the term, may precede. BUT A FAITH WHICH EXISTS BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF SPIRITUAL LIFE, CANNOT BE A LIVING FAITH.... 'We love him, because he first loved us:' but these words do not teach, that our love to God originates in the conviction that we are the favorites of his love. The love of God towards us, OPERATES BOTH AS AN EFFICIENT, AND AS A MOTIVE. 1. As an efficient cause. 'For his great love where with he loved us, WHEN WE WERE DEAD IN SIN, HATH QUICKENED US TOGETHER WITH CHRIST.' Here is an operation entirely distinct from that of mere motive. The dead body of Christ in the grave, was quickened by the Spirit; and a like power quickens the dead soul. 'We believe according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead.' HERE FAITH ITSELF IS ASCRIBED TO THIS DIVINE OPERATION."

[Byroniac]

I understand that exercising faith is not a work in the non-Calvinist belief system. As I understand it, works are not always physical in nature, but can include any mental activity (I hope so, because I have a desk job at work!), which would include decisional processes. What I do not understand is, what is the distinction between exercising faith and doing works? Is it based somehow on an idea of prevenient grace that provides sufficient faith to believe, and perhaps all people do something in regard to that faith (positively or negatively)? That is in essence one question I have.

Another would be do you acknowledge that the critical deciding factor in one's salvation is not God but the person themselves, and how is this still fully God-centered in salvation?

I should not have asked what I did concerning Creation. As I Calvinist, I would have at least as hard a time answering that question as any non-Calvinist believer would. I do not know why God created a set x of particular elect individuals and a set y of particular non-elect individuals, and I do not know why all people are not in x, or in y for that matter, or even why God created people in the first place (other than all of it is at least partly based upon God glorifying Himself, as I'm sure all believers here would agree).

[Dr. James Galyon]

Byroniac:

In all fairness to Peter, David, and other non-Calvinists, they view faith as belief/trust, etc., not as a work meriting salvation. To put it simply, it is like the beggar who reaches out to receive a piece of bread. He has not earned the bread. His work has not produced the bread. He is simply reaching out his hand and receiving the bread as it is given. Is reaching out a work? No. It is the condition of receiving the bread.

Now, can an individual begin to view faith in such a manner as to consider it a work? Yes, when one believes he/she is saved as a result of his/her faith rather than as a result of God's work through Christ. To return to the analogy of the beggar, it would be like him declaring, "Look at this piece of bread I have gotten for myself!" rather than looking to the gracious benefactor who provided it.

[peter lumpkins]

Byron,

O.K. This is what you say about faith:
a)faith is not a work
b)but faith produces good works in the lives of the believer
c)faith is both a gift of God and what constitutes saving belief

Now, if I'm understanding you, Byron, faith as a gift constitutes saving belief and while not a good work produces good works.

If this is not what you said, correct me. Once corrected (if necessary), tell me, from your standpoint, if faith is a synergistic work or a monergistic work? I need to know what you believe concerning the relationship the one believing has to the bestowed gift.

Perhaps we can go further after that.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Byroniac]

Dr. James Galyon, thank you! That makes perfect sense. OK, I get it.

[peter lumpkins]

Dr. Galyon**,

Thank you!

Also, thanks for the Broadus doc. I've read it before but been a long time. I'll give it a good thunk ;^)

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter
**I originally misspelled Dr. Galyon's name

[Byroniac]

Peter, I think it would be a synergistic work, the way I think you are expressing it, though it is divine in origin. God gives the faith, and by it we produce good works. But in my view, it would never fail to produce salvific belief or good works. (Hmmm, wondering if I am being inconsistent somewhere?)

[Dr. James Galyon]

Not as well known to us today is Norvell Robertson. "Father Robertson", as he was known, wrote the 'Church-Members' Hand-Book of Theology'. It was published in 1874 by the Southern Baptist Publication Society (predecessor of the Sunday School Board). He writes:

"Much has been said of the order in respect to time in which the graces of the Spirit are given to us; some contending that repentance must precede faith, and others insisting that faith precedes repentance. Perhaps I may not have devoted as much attention to this question as I ought. But according to my theory (if you will bear with that expression) the question is of no great importance. The light in which I view the subject is this: All those exercises of the mind which have been denominated graces of the Spirit, are the fruits of the Spirit. And when the spirit of life is given to us, it includes potentially every grace of the Spirit."

Robertson was, if you are wondering, very much a "Calvinist."

[Dr. James Galyon]

Peter,
You're welcome. Hope the other "contributions" are helpful as well. BTW, the last name is GAL-YON.

Byroniac,
I'm glad that helped. On the one hand, I don't want those in the 'Reformed' camp claiming our non-Calvinist brothers and sisters are proclaiming salvation by works. On the other hand, I don't want it said of those 'Calvinists' who believe regeneration precedes faith are believing something which is hyper-Calvinistic.

[scott shaffer]

Peter,

Sorry, I should have elaborated. I was wondering if there is a published work that articulates your view of soteriology.

[Timotheos]

Peter,

In this post, are you suggesting that those Baptists who believe regeneration precedes faith are, in their understanding of salvation, actually Hardshell/Primitive Baptists?

Timotheos

[peter lumpkins]

Dr. Galyon,

My deepest apologies for misspelling your name. The embarrassing thing is, I have repeatedly done so. However, I went back and fixed some of them.

A few things. First, you mentioned in your entry on Broadus regarding "historic Southern Baptist teaching on the subject." Not that you implied such, but for clarity, Broadus, of course, does not represent all historic Southern Baptist teaching on the subject.

Again, not that you implied he did but I think readers should know even among "Founders" there was diversity. For example, Broadus would not have agreed with Boyce on the atonement's extent, would he?

That's another subject, I realize. But even at SBTS, there was diversity. Again, Kerfoot had a view of election different than Boyce. But these issues are not the subject of the post.

Note the following which is, however:

"...when one is born into the kingdom of God he is fully a child of God. But if the subject of the new birth is passive only – if regeneration is completed without the use of means and before the subject is penitent or believing, then we have a child of God who is yet in his sins, impenitent, without faith, and hence without Christ, which is philosophically impossible. Moreover, it is contrary to Scripture...(James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23; Gal. 3:26; Rom. 10:17...)"

This, of course, is B.H. Carroll, another worthy representative of historic Southern Baptist teaching on the subject.

What's also noteworthy about Broadus' catechism is the lack of any verbage about monergism. I'm quite sure you and/or others may retort, "Yes but the concept is there." I'd simply say, I'm not so sure Hassell's--and many others today--concept is there. That's actually the lament of my post.

Thanks again for your contributions.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Scott,

I kinda thought you meant that but thought I'd ask anyways. The answer is I haven't the slightest idea. I scan my shelves in front of me and there sits,

Erickson, Grudem, Berkhof, Reymond, Culver, Calvin, Demarest, Geisler, Marshall, Morris, Ladd, Bloesch, Dagg, Boyce, Mullins, Oden, Forlines, Moody, Frame, Guthrie, Williams, Finney, Olson, Carroll, Conner, and Dunning...

And that's just the volumes on the three shelves to my left.

As you can see, there's a fairly good mixture: High Calvinist (Berkhof, Frame & Reymond), Moderate Calvinist (Erickson & Culver), 'low' Calvinist (Geisler), High Arminian (Forlines), Moderate Arminian (Oden), Liberal (Guthrie), Neo-orthodox (Moody), charismatic (Williams), Wesleyan (Dunning) and historic Baptist (Boyce, Dagg, Mullins, Conner, Carroll).

Now you can see, Scott, how and why I am one completely confused Baptist!!

I know I didn't answer but I really don't know how. I do believe I'm about as mainstream Baptist as one could get.

Grace. With that, I am...
Peter