I recently posted F.H. Kerfoot's editorial correction to James P. Boyce's teaching that regeneration precedes faith in the Ordo salutis published in Boyce's first edition of the Abstract of Systematic Theology (1887). Kerfoot was recommended to the trustees by Boyce himself to take over the theology chair at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. At first, Kerfoot became co-professor of theology alongside Boyce. However, that lasted only a short time due to Boyce's declining health. Thus, Kerfoot became the head of the theology department and served the chair of theology upon Boyce's death in 1888, approximately a year after Boyce published his Abstract of Systematic Theology. Kerfoot would serve as Southern's theology professor for the next eleven years. After the "Whitsett controversy" vacated the President's seat, and the trustees chose E.Y. Mullins to succeed the fallen Whitsett as president rather than Kerfoot, Kerfoot took a position as secretary of the Home Mission Board serving that role until his death in 1901.
So far as Kerfoot's personal legacy is concerned, his role in producing the first (and only) major edit of Boyce's Abstract of Systematic Theology, the standard theological textbook for Southern Baptist pastors, missionaries, evangelists, scholars, and other vocational ministers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, cannot be minimized. "Kerfoot’s major contribution to his discipline was to reissue in revised form Boyce’s Abstract" says Timothy George, Dean and Professor of Divinity History and Doctrine at Beesen Divinity School. "Kerfoot, for example, advocated a general as opposed to a limited atonement, and held that conversion preceded regeneration, thus reversing Boyce’s Calvinist ordering."
The overall series I posted on Kerfoot understandably spawned some lively discussion. In the midst of the exchange, John 3:3 was mentioned as a prooftext for Baptist Calvinism's regeneration precedes faith doctrine. "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (Jn 3:3, KJV). One perceptive commenter especially noted: "I read in John 3 that unless a man is first born again, he cannot see the kingdom of heaven. Thus, without regeneration no one can see, perceive, understand, act towards, believe, exercise faith, concerning those essential matters of the kingdom of heaven, most centrally Jesus as the King." She remains in good company among Reformed thinkers. Commenting on John 3:3, popular Reformed theologian R.C. Sproul writes:
Once again we encounter the pivotal word unless. Jesus is stating an emphatic necessary precondition for any human being’s ability to see and to enter the kingdom of God. That emphatic precondition is spiritual rebirth. The Reformed view of predestination teaches that before a person can choose Christ his heart must be changed. He must be born again. Non-Reformed views have fallen people first choosing Christ and then being born again...How can a man choose a kingdom he cannot see? How can a man enter the kingdom without being first reborn?...Non-Reformed views have people responding to Christ who are not reborn. They are still in the flesh... This is the fatal flaw of non-Reformed views. They fail to take seriously man’s moral inability, the moral impotency of the flesh.1
I had intention of pursuing this question again specifically focusing on John 3 (actually I've frequently dealt with it before focusing largely on other texts). But to be honest, Dr. Ronnie Rogers has a remarkably clear and concise exposition of John 3:1-21 just posted on Connect 316's SBC Today blog, an essay I encourage every SBC Tomorrow reader to consider.2
Entitled "Does Faith Precede or Result From the New Birth?" Rogers offers a contextually informed, exegetically-driven model of "doing theology" the historic Baptist way. Rogers notes of Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus:
This discussion says nothing to indicate that one must be regenerated in order to exercise faith, but rather it places regeneration as an essential to becoming a citizen of the kingdom, experience salvation. What seems most clear is that revelation from God precedes trust and dependence on God to do what man cannot do for himself, thereby, placing man in a position to believe or disbelieve His revelation. It does not seem immaterial to note that Jesus said nothing about anything even remotely related to unconditional election or selective regeneration, which would have been exceptionally helpful if true.
Historically, Baptists have been incurable but competent, simple but not simplistic, true but not perfect biblicists allowing neither confessionalism, traditionalism, nor theologism to dictate to them what Scripture must mean. For my money, Rogers' essay should be downloaded and used in every adult Sunday School class in the Southern Baptist Convention not only for the truth it reflects, but also the model it remains as a healthy hermeneutic in better understanding the biblical text.
Don't miss this clear, sober exposition of John 3:1-21 by Ronnie Rogers on SBC Today.
1R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1986), 71–72.
2Dr. Rogers also is author of Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist. Check it out on Amazon.com
Hi Dan,
I did a poor job (or lazy attempt) of explaining the phrase "lead to a knowledge of the truth." Yes, I'd say it was a poor job but even more. You claimed Paul's phrase often describes being born again in the NT. I asked where. You failed to provide one example much less often examples. Hence, your claim apparently was a false claim not just a poor explanation.
In the case of the opposition for Timothy, (2 Timothy 2:25) it seems that Paul is not seeking to provide us with an ordo salutis, but rather to point out that repentance is a gift from God. Thank you for conceding the absence of the Calvinist "ordo salutis." But you still do not understand the weight of your claim. Even if repentance is a gift of God in the sense you claim, nothing changes because the text says repentance leads to knowledge of the truth--repentance precedes knowledge, repentance precedes rebirth (at least rebirth as you claim).
You can't escape the language of Paul - "God may grant" is a clear picture of God sovereignly dispensing the gift of repentance. I'm afraid it's you who cannot escape your Calvinism, Dan. I just gave you at least two alternate readings consistent with the text, readings you choose to dismiss without argumentation. You want this to be about God sovereignly choosing who gets gifted with repentance and who doesn't, a notion nowhere in the language. Your theology again trumping the text of Scripture.
For, who could repent without a "knowledge of the truth" or the "power of God unto salvation" which is the gospel? Well, the text says repentance leads to a knowledge of the truth. If repentance leads to knowledge of the truth, it certainly follows knowledge of the truth is absent prior to repentance else what does "leading to" mean? Again, you're confused, Dan.
God must awaken dead sinners to life FIRST which is exactly what He claims to do in Ephesians 2 by "quickening" us to life. Look. This popcorn prooftexting you're pulling is getting old. It shows the desperate position you've placed yourself in by logging on here unprepared for the dialog. We've dealt with Eph 2:1 over and over here and it does not assist you.
That being said, can you point me to one imperative verb in the "born again" passage of John 3? I can't find one single imperative verb related to the act of being born again. Not so fast. I'm uninterested in answering your questions until you actually answer the only one I've repeatedly asked you.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2014.11.20 at 09:42 AM
Lydia,
God doesn't owe you or Nicodemus or anyone else one single thing. Therefore, it is man who has sinned and transgressed God. He would be just and righteous to damn the whole world to hell. Period. So, it would be good to stop describing the God of the Bible in the terms that you use - "cruel" and "purposely baring people" from eternal life. The fact remains, God doesn't owe one person the RIGHT to become the children of God. We must rid ourselves of this entitlement language.
Next question: Did God choose the entire world population and elect them to eternal life?
Not one time in the Bible do we see that. We see God choosing an undeserving people for His eternal glory. Praise be to God - not to the will of man.
Previous question: Can you point out one imperative verb in the context of John 3 and the discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus?
Posted by: Dan | 2014.11.20 at 10:27 AM
Peter,
The order of salvation aside, Paul isn't teaching that in this text. However, we can glean an order from the study of Scripture, although we don't see a specific place where a NT author intended to teach us a systematic overview of the order (in much the same way we don't see a systematic study of the Trinity in the Scriptures).
The point is clear - the gift of repentance is dispensed by God.
The point is also clear - it is impossible to repent without the knowledge of the truth (ie power of God unto salvation - Rom. 1:16). Therefore, we can be sure that your idea of repentance preceding the knowledge of truth is backwards.
Once again - it doesn't matter what I want nor does it matter what you want Peter. It matters what the Bible clearly says. Your hermeneutical side steps are the very reason why so many students, young people, and older pastors in the SBC are leaving behind the "free will" theology (not to mention that it clearly violates John 1:12-13 and a list of other texts). Clear and precise interpretation is what we need - just let the text speak and don't get embarrassed about what it does teach.
Have you located any imperative verbs in Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus? Could it have been that Jesus was teaching Nicodemus the gospel in order to bring him to faith in Christ? In much the same way, preachers preach good news and trust the Word to bring people to faith. Jesus was the Word who became flesh and taught the verbal Word. But, once again, we see nothing in Jesus' words that would indicate that He was commanding Nicodemus to go and will himself into the faith by somehow being born again by his human will. That's why He used the analogy of the wind Peter.
Posted by: Dan | 2014.11.20 at 10:43 AM
Dan,
The order of salvation aside, Paul isn't teaching that in this text. However, we can glean an order from the study of Scripture, although we don't see a specific place where a NT author intended to teach us a systematic overview of the order (in much the same way we don't see a systematic study of the Trinity in the Scriptures). Again, you ignore my responses only to log yet more unsubstantiated assertions. First, you claim Paul is not teaching "that" in this text. By "that" I assume the "order" of regeneration and repentance. Well, that's your view now since you obviously see what a pile of confusion you stacked when you insisted above, that the phrase "leading to a knowledge of the truth" is often synonymous with being born again. If it is true, then slice as you will, you've got repentance preceding regeneration since it's obviously absurd to conclude repentance leads to something (i.e. being born again) when what is being "lead to" is necessarily prior to it. Second, yes Calvinists "glean" an "order of salvation" by theologically presupposing upon many texts of Scripture their a priori conclusions. The exegetical fact remains, the "order of salvation" is so plainly stated in innumerable passages in the NT, I find it shocking you'd speak of salvation as if it's merely gleaned out of a "systematic overview" even oddly placing it in the very same category as the Trinity. Sweet Georgia peaches! Are you kidding me? How many texts in John's gospel alone speak clearly of the "order" of salvation and you talk about gleaning. In John 3, Jesus specifically says, whoever believes will be saved. The overwhelming majority of Scripture is straight-forward and clearly understood by the masses. But you come along and make being saved into some type of esotoeric "gleaning." Too often Calvinists prey upon ignorance. Rather than teaching others, they attempt to intimidate them by proposing some sort of hidden knowledge they have obtained through special "gleaning" or understanding. Though Scripture doesn't explicitly say it, trust the Calvinist that what it really means...
More to follow...
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2014.11.20 at 01:59 PM
The point is clear - the gift of repentance is dispensed by God. The point is also clear - it is impossible to repent without the knowledge of the truth (ie power of God unto salvation - Rom. 1:16). No, what is clear is you are asserting repentance as a gift is dispensed by God but without saying that repentance is given only to the elect. Nor will you get by with suggesting "knowledge of the truth" is now equal to the "power of God unto salvation" rather than what you earlier stated--"knowledge of the truth" is equal to being born again. Please, Dan. Stop. You're really not up to this. Let other Calvinists take up the argument. You're embarassing yourself and Calvinism. But for argument's sake, if "knowledge of the truth" is equal to the "power of God unto salvation," one must ask what under the blue sky does that mean? In Romans 1:16, Paul very clearly says the power of God unto salvation is the gospel which, if anyone--Jews or Gentiles--believes, will be believing unto salvation to them. But you have it, repentance leads to the power of God unto salvation--the gospel. Please explain the oddness of repenting leading to the gospel.
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2014.11.20 at 02:15 PM
Therefore, we can be sure that your idea of repentance preceding the knowledge of truth is backwards. Once again - it doesn't matter what I want nor does it matter what you want Peter. It matters what the Bible clearly says. Excuse me? My idea of what? We've not been discussing what I actually believe. Instead we've been exploring your assertions about the biblical text! I merely took your explanations and showed you how they become absurd. In this case, how repentance precedes being born again since it leads to being born again (i.e. the knowledge of the truth) according to your own words, Dan. And, please stop with the patronizing language about it not being what I want or you want but what the Bible says. I fully realize this. Apparently you can't get it that what you're saying the Bible says just doesn't square with the language of the Bible. It only square with your Calvinistic presuppositions you're imposing upon the text.
Your hermeneutical side steps are the very reason why so many students, young people, and older pastors in the SBC are leaving behind the "free will" theology (not to mention that it clearly violates John 1:12-13 and a list of other texts). I'm laughing out loud as I type this. My sidesteps? Please. I'm afraid you are the one who claimed Paul's phrase that "leading to a knowledge of the truth" is often synonymous with being born again. But when quieried about it, simply moves on without the least attention once again to the actual phrase. You are the one who admitted you did a "poor job" explaining but it was more than a poor job; it was a false claim, for no where in the NT does the phrase "leading to a knowledge of the truth" synonymous with being born again much less often found in the NT. And, you are the one who suggests regeneration necessarily precedes faith but ignores the question as to whether Jesus told Nicodemus he had to be born again before he could believe. So, as for the hermeneutical side stepping award, I think you already got that one clinched for sure. Nor do I think you have the slightest indication what you're talking about when you cite the "very reason" students, young people, and older pastors are allegedly leaving behind the supposed "free will" theology in the SBC. That's just more unsubstantied assertion. No proof. Just a value judgement.
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2014.11.20 at 03:35 PM
Therefore, we can be sure that your idea of repentance preceding the knowledge of truth is backwards. Once again - it doesn't matter what I want nor does it matter what you want Peter. It matters what the Bible clearly says. Excuse me? My idea of what? We've not been discussing what I actually believe. Instead we've been exploring your assertions about the biblical text! I merely took your explanations and showed you how they become absurd. In this case, how repentance precedes being born again since it leads to being born again (i.e. the knowledge of the truth) according to your own words, Dan. And, please stop with the patronizing language about it not being what I want or you want but what the Bible says. I fully realize this. Apparently you can't get it that what you're saying the Bible says just doesn't square with the language of the Bible. It only square with your Calvinistic presuppositions you're imposing upon the text.
Your hermeneutical side steps are the very reason why so many students, young people, and older pastors in the SBC are leaving behind the "free will" theology (not to mention that it clearly violates John 1:12-13 and a list of other texts). I'm laughing out loud as I type this. My sidesteps? Please. I'm afraid you are the one who claimed Paul's phrase that "leading to a knowledge of the truth" is often synonymous with being born again. But when quieried about it, simply moves on without the least attention once again to the actual phrase. You are the one who admitted you did a "poor job" explaining but it was more than a poor job; it was a false claim, for no where in the NT does the phrase "leading to a knowledge of the truth" synonymous with being born again much less often found in the NT. And, you are the one who suggests regeneration necessarily precedes faith but ignores the question as to whether Jesus told Nicodemus he had to be born again before he could believe. So, as for the hermeneutical side stepping award, I think you already got that one clinched for sure. Nor do I think you have the slightest indication what you're talking about when you cite the "very reason" students, young people, and older pastors are allegedly leaving behind the supposed "free will" theology in the SBC. That's just more unsubstantied assertion. No proof. Just a value judgement.
Clear and precise interpretation is what we need - just let the text speak and don't get embarrassed about what it does teach. No argument here. The problem is, the text just doesn't support your assertions thus far.
Have you located any imperative verbs in Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus? Could it have been that Jesus was teaching Nicodemus the gospel in order to bring him to faith in Christ? As for the first question, I've already told you: I'm really uninterested in that question until you actually answer the question in the post. I'll be glad to answer the question when you display your answer to that question (although see below). As for your second question, what are you thinking, Dan? That I hold a person can be saved apart from the gospel? Of course Jesus was teaching Nicodemus the gospel in order to bring him to faith. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God we hear the Inspired Apostle proclaim. But teaching the gospel to bring a person to faith in the Person of the gospel is pertinent in what way exactly to whether regeneration precedes faith and repentance?
In much the same way, preachers preach good news and trust the Word to bring people to faith. Jesus was the Word who became flesh and taught the verbal Word. But, once again, we see nothing in Jesus' words that would indicate that He was commanding Nicodemus to go and will himself into the faith by somehow being born again by his human will. That's why He used the analogy of the wind Peter. I'm not believing what I'm reading. The first two assertions here have absolutely no relevance to the discussion. Who here disputes either the gospel's power. I'm the one who quoted Rm 1:16, remember? On the other hand, the way you frame the issue is just odd--"preachers preach good news and trust the Word to bring people to faith." My guess is you mean by "preachers preach good news and trust the Word to bring people to faith" "the Word to bring" is a cryptic way of suggesting a person who is brought to faith by the Word is a person who is born again. Is this what you mean, Dan? If not, then explain your assertion please.
Finally, you suggest there's nothing in Jesus' words to indicate that He was commanding Nicodemus to go and will himself into the faith by somehow being born again by his human will. Correct. Jesus says nothing of the human will nor offers a command to anyone to will himself or herself to do anything. So what? Jesus says absolutely nothing in the passage about repentance either. What He did do was tell Nicodemus what was necessary in order to obtain life--believe (v.16)--and the consequences of not believing--condemnation. Insterestingly, while you "gleaned" no "ordo salutis" in 2 Tim. 2:25--especially after you saw it worked against your Calvinistic scheme by placing repentance before regeneration--you somehow "glean" an order of salvation in John 3. What's even more insteresting is, 2 Tim 2 is a church epistle while John 3 is an historical narrative. Thus, while you reject an "ordo salutis" in an apostolic epistle, you necessarily "glean" one from an historical narrative. Could this be an example of more of the "hermeneutical side stepping" you mentioned above? It surely seems to qualify to me.
Now, I'm done, Dan. This exchange is gone on long enough--in fact far longer than it should have. And I apologize to my readers for it.
Here's my closing advice to you: don't assume people are stupid and/or dishonest just because they fail to see what you think you see in the Bible. Too often many Calvinists have justifiably earned the label that they are arrogant, smug, and think others are "explaining away" the Scriptures (you know, like you accused me of) because they do not buy the standard Calvinistic template.
Exegesis precedes theology.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2014.11.20 at 04:14 PM
I think Dan's biggest problem is one which most Calvinists who post here have is that he really has no understanding what those who reject Calvinism actually believe. He THINKS he knows so he spends a lot of time playing with straw, chasing rabbits, and pointing to squirrels.
Posted by: Mary | 2014.11.20 at 04:32 PM
Peter,
I would respectively ask for you to take your own advice regarding assumptions and speaking down to those who happen upon your site (which is a rather interesting providence to say the least).
Regarding your idea that repentance precedes regeneration - please tell me that people don't really and truly believe that! How can a spiritually dead man have an appetite for Jesus when all he has previously desired is the food of depravity? Until God changes a person's will - they will continue to will what they were born into - sin.
So, to answer your question, yes - only the elect will be given the gift of repentance and faith according to the NT - Eph 2 and 2 Tim 2. To suggest otherwise is inconsistent with the NT and just plain logic. If A then B = If a person is dead then they cannot believe the gospel (nor would they desire to believe the gospel no matter how many times you lead them in "I surrender all").
God acts and man responds to God. It's that simple Peter. Don't try to over complicate things. It really is that simple. Man can't but God can. Man will refuse until God opens his eyes and changes his will and desire. And only then does man change direction and repent.
Back to Ezekiel 36 - a new heart must be inserted. This is connected to Ephesians 1 and 2.
Posted by: Dan | 2014.11.20 at 04:40 PM
Dan, your persistence would be creditable in other situations but here it serves only to demonstrate you foolishness and immaturity. The constant badgering for Peter to come up with a verbal imperative in John 3 is never going to produce anything, if for no other reason than that there isn't one. There, I've said it! Happy? But what benefit is there in this for you? None. It provides no support for your mistaken idea that regeneration precedes faith.
The level of argument you use to substantiate your points is lamentable. I quote "Jesus had a purpose with Nicodemus in His statements (He was teaching Him the gospel in person which is the power of God unto salvation), and He had a broad purpose to teach us as we would one day read it in His Word. Nicodemus came to faith in Christ, and many others have by reading John 3 as well."
Well we can all sleep happy in our beds tonight Dan having been enlightened!
Here's another of your bold assertions "The order of salvation aside, Paul isn't teaching that in this text. However, we can glean an order from the study of Scripture, although we don't see a specific place where a NT author intended to teach us a systematic overview of the order (in much the same way we don't see a systematic study of the Trinity in the Scriptures).
The point is clear - the gift of repentance is dispensed by God."
It may be clear to you Dan, but you are in a minority of 1.
But it gets worse. Not only can you not show correct exegesis of your own thoughts, you constantly put words into other people's mouths. Things which they aren't saying. For example
"But, once again, we see nothing in Jesus' words that would indicate that He was commanding Nicodemus to go and will himself into the faith by somehow being born again by his human will. That's why He used the analogy of the wind ..."
Now at this point I'm not quite sure if you're being deliberately provocative or just plain thick, but either way does you no credit. Nobody has said that a person can "will himself into the faith" and certainly not on this site and remain unchallenged. But I'm doubtful if you can even claim as you seem to be doing that verse John 1:13 supports the idea of either order or that a person can only be saved if God wills it to be so. You quote ”Thus far, I don't see anyone pointing out that before we arrive in the 3rd chapter of John's gospel, we must first deal with John 1:11-13. If we must elevate the will of the flesh above the will of God in the order of salvation, we must first deny John 1:13”
There is an order of salvation which is clearly shown in scripture which is conviction of sin, repentance, faith and belief which lead to salvation and the gift of the holy spirit. There is no hint of this order in verse 13. Needless to say, I'm not going to argue that any one person is born against the will of God since it is God's will that all should be saved. We can take that as a given. But if we look at what verse 13 says and doesn't say ….
John 1:13 who are born …...
Not of blood : ref sacrifices in OT
Nor of the will of the flesh : ref is to sexual intercourse
Nor of the will of man: ref specifically a person's decision
But of God: it is God who gives new birth through the holy spirit
The word 'will' is mentioned only specifically in regard to natural birth and what a person may want for their life. Both instances are firmly rejected as being the means of new birth. But when it comes to God, there is no requirement specifically to mention the word 'will', because it is implied for all people everywhere. Hence it just states that God is responsible for the new birth. How God does this is a mystery just like the wind. We can't see it but we can feel and experience it when it moves.
I appreciate this may be a different explanation from the one people are used to and I'm happy for anybody to come back to me on this one.
Either way, we are still left with the order of salvation which is basically faith and belief leads to salvation and there is not one shred of evidence in this passage to indicate God acts to regenerate a person before they can believe.
As for your injunction to be “clear and precise interpretation is what we need - just let the text speak and don't get embarrassed about what it does teach” … I'm quite sure you don't know what the word embarrassment means, otherwise you wouldn't write the way you do :)
Posted by: Andrew Barker | 2014.11.20 at 05:34 PM
Regarding your idea that repentance precedes regeneration - please tell me that people don't really and truly believe that! How can a spiritually dead man have an appetite for Jesus when all he has previously desired is the food of depravity? First, the opening statement is just more of your nobody-can-be-that-stupid-as-to-not-believe in-Calvinism rhetoric. Second, as you apparently think you "happened" upon a site hosting a nest of biblical-theological baboons, you bring to the table again a point which is hardly new to us here--what the Apostle means when he speaks of being dead in trepasses and sins (Eph 2:1ff, et al). Of course, right on queue, you rehearse the Calvinistic mantra made popular amongst young Calvinists by RC Sproul and others that dead means dead. I've been at this since 2006. Do you realize, Dan, the number of guys who've sung this Calvinistic chorus to me? Know now about all I can muster is a yawn. When you guys start doing exegesis for yourself rather than parrotting what Calvinists say, perhaps I'll garner enough strength to engage you. Until then, you may believe what your Calvinistic presuppositions require you to believe.
So, to answer your question, yes - only the elect will be given the gift of repentance and faith according to the NT - Eph 2 and 2 Tim 2. To suggest otherwise is inconsistent with the NT and just plain logic. Thank you. And thank you also for displaying precisely what you wouldn't reveal until some one dragged it out of you. But consider: neither Eph 2 nor 2 Tim 2 so much as hints "only the elect will be given the gift of repentance and faith," you nonetheless read it into both texts anyway without the slightest blush. For my part, this is the ugly side of Calvinism, a theological interpretation standing with both exegetical feet planted firmly in mid-air.
If A then B = If a person is dead then they cannot believe the gospel (nor would they desire to believe the gospel no matter how many times you lead them in "I surrender all"). ...And only then does man change direction and repent. Like I said, Dan, you may believe anything you wish. I leave your confident but naive approach to the question between you, God, and perhaps others here who may desire to engage you.
Back to Ezekiel 36 - a new heart must be inserted. This is connected to Ephesians 1 and 2. More assertions without evidence, argument without proof. I suggest you take a long hiatus from your favorite Calvinist authors and study the Scripture itself.
I really am done now. Have a good evening and a gracious Thanksgiving season.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2014.11.20 at 07:12 PM
Dan, Trotting out the Calvinist mantra that 'God owes us nothing' is a deflection tactic. And it is getting old, too. Where has anyone made a case God owes us?
How about His "promises"? Your view of God is totally different from mine.
Posted by: Lydia | 2014.11.20 at 10:06 PM
Lydia,
What's interesting is, for all the rhetoric many Calvinists write about God not "owing" salvation to anyone, there seems to exist a genuine sense in Calvinism that God actually does owe the elect salvation since Jesus paid the exact sin payment for the elect and the elect only, an elect decided in a covenant between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in eternity past. Thus, if Jesus' death was the exact exchange sacrifice for the elect, it seems to follow, God is obligated to save the elect.
Posted by: peter | 2014.11.20 at 10:34 PM
Lydia and Peter,
It seems to me that through your anti-Calvinist rhetoric that you have a fundamental problem with the words of God, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy..." - Romans 9:15.
Posted by: Dan | 2014.11.21 at 08:08 AM
Dan,
Though the exchange is obviously over, you apparently couldn't resist shooting your popgun one last time. All you did, however, was to display more Calvinistic presuppositions. Implicit in your parting shot is the presently aggressive Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention against which I've been contending since at least 2006; namely, rejecting Calvinism amounts to rejecting the Word of God.
Sorry but no thanks.
As long as I have a breath in me...as long as our Lord grants me the ability to peck on a keyboard, that type of Calvinism will remain contested.
Have a nice day.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2014.11.21 at 10:07 AM
All,
Just keeping “Dan” honest by logging the facts below. Also, I want ya’ll in the loop about just how some of these Calvinists like “Dan” operate:
Welcome to the world of aggressive internet Calvinism.
With that, I am…
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2014.11.21 at 10:36 AM
Peter: And I thought they were both as bad as each other. Seems I was wrong, but I was also right! Or maybe Dan is just twice as bad as he appears? :-)
Posted by: Andrew Barker | 2014.11.21 at 11:12 AM
It gets comical at times I assure. JD Hall once logged on as “eric” and boldly proclaimed to me-- “I'm afraid JD brought you to your wits end on this one and you've come out on the losing end.” LOL
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2014.11.21 at 11:34 AM
"What's interesting is, for all the rhetoric many Calvinists write about God not "owing" salvation to anyone, there seems to exist a genuine sense in Calvinism that God actually does owe the elect salvation since Jesus paid the exact sin payment for the elect and the elect only, an elect decided in a covenant between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in eternity past. Thus, if Jesus' death was the exact exchange sacrifice for the elect, it seems to follow, God is obligated to save the elect."
Good point. The logical conclusion of Calvinism. Gotta think it through each and every time on every single point.
After all, If God elected Nic, then Nic was randomly chosen (or not) before the foundation of the world so the entire convo with Jesus, God in the Flesh, was a moot exercise. Nic has nothing to do with it, really, in that construct.
Posted by: Lydia | 2014.11.21 at 11:55 AM
Peter, so when JD was accusing you of posting on your own blog as Lydia and Mary he was - what's the psychological term? "projecting"? LOL!
Posted by: Mary | 2014.11.21 at 11:57 AM
"It seems to me that through your anti-Calvinist rhetoric that you have a fundamental problem with the words of God, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy..." - Romans 9:15."
Seriously Dan? Yes, I have a problem with YOUR interpretation of it within the larger context of Romans.
You seem to forget that I don't believe we know the same God. (I know, Gasp)
And while I stand alone on that point (please do not attribute my position with Peter's or anyone else here) I think there will have to come a day when more folks realize this. I believe Jesus Christ is the full representation of God which does not help the Calvinist god one bit. I do not God believe randomly elected (or passed over) people before the foundation of the world, before Adam even sinned for His own Glory. I do not believe He is so insecure that His glory and Sovereignty are His biggest concerns.
His "glory" should be reflected by us-- out into the world.
Posted by: Lydia | 2014.11.21 at 12:02 PM
Dan, what a hoot! Eman? Where did that one come from?
"Peter, so when JD was accusing you of posting on your own blog as Lydia and Mary he was - what's the psychological term? "projecting"? LOL!"
Mary, Projecting and also "gaslighting" which is a manipulation tactic. In this case to get readers to doubt credibility of someone or several people. It is used to create doubt in peoples minds while also working to change the subject.
In the case of JD, I am sure his manipulative declaration that Mary/Lydia are Peter's alter egos only worked in his Reformed downgrade "everyone but us are heretics", bubble.
Posted by: Lydia | 2014.11.21 at 12:13 PM
Dan,James,Eman,Ronnie et al: You are not going to get responses to your questions if you continue to include assumptions which you are unable to justify. For example "Regarding your idea that repentance precedes regeneration - please tell me that people don't really and truly believe that! How can a spiritually dead man have an appetite for Jesus when all he has previously desired is the food of depravity? Until God changes a person's will - they will continue to will what they were born into - sin."
You have still not defined what you mean by 'spiritually dead'. In which case, you cannot expect a meaningful answer to the rest of the question because nobody can be exactly sure what you mean by 'spiritually dead'. Even if they disagree with your definition it would be better because then they can at least take it into consideration when answering. As it is, your terms are undefined so don't expect any answers.
Posted by: Andrew Barker | 2014.11.21 at 05:20 PM
Peter writes "Dan = James Thomas in the present comment thread ... Welcome to the world of aggressive internet Calvinism."
Earlier James Thomas (alias Dan) wrote: "Why are the non-Calvinists avoiding Dan's questions about THE TEXT? Strange if you ask me."
Strange?!! This thing gets weirder by the day James .. I mean Dan ... I mean James. Deception is not a spiritual gift, boys. Good Lord, we're all going to be talking to ourselves before New Calvinism pulls its last trick in SBC ranks.
Posted by: Max | 2014.11.21 at 10:04 PM
Dan,
Again, a bit late but permit me my response to yours (I hope I got the italic tags right).
Alex,
So, according to your response, the way in which John uses "will of the flesh" should not be taken as a text directed at all of humanity - but only a select group of Jewish males? Is that correct?
You appear to be mixing two of my comments. It was not under, "will of the flesh" but, "the will of man" in which I was talking about the use of andros (males) instead of anthropos (humans in general).
But to answer you, no I said nothing about a select group of Jewish males. Nothing I posted contains that, which makes me wonder if some of the implications that you are adding and taking away from what people say is warranted.
I said absolutely nothing about specific Jewish males with respect to andros and anthropos. I did mention Jews but it was with respect to their view but as well the rest of society's view as to why andros was used which is a reference to males with respect to their position of authority in the home and society. Nothing about "specific Jewish males" was intimated or stated.
But let me reiterate. The word andros is used where, "the will of man" is translated in English. That can only apply to males and is used so respect to their social and domestic authority to assign privilege etc. In order for your interpretation and application to function the word anthropos would be necessary.
Anthropos can refer to a limited group but never does andros refer to all humanity or even all of a group (the elect, here, as Calvinist would assert) without gender distinction. The gender distinction use of andros in the Greek is used for a reason, because it is only talking about males and with respect to authority. That is the Greek property of the word universally accepted, it has nothing to do with my opinion regarding what andros means.
Thus, andros does not include females of any kind so your attempted interpretation and application cannot be sustained since we know some females are saved. This cannot be talking, then, about the general exercise of the human will when one believes the gospel. As I said, andros is the key to understanding the expression and its employment which I have already explained and is basic Greek.
John 1:9-13: The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. [10] He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. [11] He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. [12] But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, [13] who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
It seems that by use of "world" and other references, John didn't have just Jewish males in mind when he was writing this text. Just my own limited way of examining the surrounding context to interpret it properly.
Your right he didn't have in mind Jewish males because he used anthropon in verse 9 where it says, “he gives light to everyone”. Now, where the word, "world" is used, that is kosmos, as you know but it is not germane to the issue andros or anthropos and the actually issue we are discussing.
Now, in John 1:9 where "everyone" is referred to, that word is without gender distinction which refers to all people here and if you are a Calvinist, you reduce it to all believing males and females which is precisely why andros is not used here and anthropos is, because andros would mean males only as it does with, “the will of man”.
Posted by: Alex Guggenheim | 2014.11.22 at 03:31 PM
Alex: Thanks for the note on 'bloods' in John 1:13
I had always assumed this referred to the sacrificial blood of animals, but I find that the idea of a 'bloodline' and inheritance is the more likely meaning.
Posted by: Andrew Barker | 2014.11.23 at 05:16 PM