Since we have featured two posts about Calvinism already this week, why not a third? I've always liked the symmetrics of three-point sermons anyway.
What follows is an excerpt from one of my Shepherds' Conference seminars in 2007. You can download the entire message for free HERE. In that seminar I argued that everyone who truly believes the gospel has already embraced the core principles of Calvinist truth. Even the most ardent Arminian, if he is truly evangelical, is a Calvinist when it really counts. Here's an excerpt:
y trek from Arminianism to Calvinism took more than ten years. Every time one of my arguments against Calvinist doctrines would fall, I would be forced to embrace some doctrine that I had heretofore been desperately trying to argue against.But I never had any sense of defeat. It was more like I was resolving nagging conflicts in my own mind. Because I kept discovering that the truths at the heart of Calvinism truly are the doctrines of grace—principles that I had always affirmed: God is sovereign, Christ died for me, God loved me before I loved Him, He sought me and drew me and initiated my reconciliation while I was still His enemy. Those are all biblical truths, and I believed them even when I was a gung-ho Arminian.
So embracing Calvinism was natural—and inevitable—because all I was doing was ridding my mind of wrong ideas and faulty assumptions about human free will and other notions like that, which are not even taught in the Bible—so that I could wholeheartedly affirm what I really believed anyway: That God is God, and He does all His good pleasure, and no one can make Him do otherwise, and He is in control and in charge no matter how much noise evildoers try to make.
And not only is He in charge, He is working all things out for my good and His glory.
That's Calvinism. And if you believe those things, you have affirmed the heart of Calvinist doctrine, even if you call yourself an Arminian. Those are the basic truths of Calvinism, and if you already believe those things, you are functioning with Calvinist presuppositions.
There's more. If you are an authentic Christian, you know in your heart of hearts that you weren't born again because you were morally superior to your unbelieving neighbors. You were worthy of God's wrath just like them (Ephesians 2:1-3). According to Ephesians 2:4-6, it was God who quickened you and showed you a special mercy—and that is why you are a believer. You already know that in your heart. You don't really believe you summoned faith and came to Christ in your own power and by your own unaided free will. You don't actually believe you are morally superior to unbelievers. You therefore must see, somewhere in your soul, that God has given you special grace that He has not shown everyone.You also believe God is absolutely sovereign over all things. I know you do, because you lean on the promise of Romans 8:28. And that promise would mean nothing if God were not in control of every detail of everything that happens. If He is not in control of all things, how could He work all things together for good?
Furthermore, you pray for the lost, which means in your heart, you believe God is sovereign over their salvation. If you didn't really believe He was sovereign in saving sinners, you'd quit praying for the lost and start doing everything you could to buttonhole people into the kingdom by hook or by crook, instead. But you know that would be folly.
And you pray about other things, too, don't you? You pray that God will change this person's heart, or alter the circumstances of that problem. That's pure Calvinism. When we go to God in prayer, we're expressing faith in His sovereignty over the circumstances of our lives.
You believe God operates sovereignly in the administration of all His providence. You say things like, "If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that" (James 4:15)—because you believe that God works all things after the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:11), and nothing happens apart from his will.
Nothing is more biblical than these doctrines that are commonly labeled Calvinism. In a way, it is a shame they have been given an extrabiblical name. Because these truths are the very essence of what Scripture teaches.
234 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 234 of 234bp,
Acts 11:18 says "repentance unto life" every other Calvinist on this blog knows exactly what that means. They assume somehow it can't really mean what it plainly says.
I would probably be the same way if I were given a verse that seemed to contradict my position.
Besides they have a right to remain silent. I don't believe one should build a major doctrine on one verse.
bp,
Gal. 3:26 says we children of God BY faith.
Since we become a child of God when we are born of God and Paul states that it is by faith, then the only explanation is faith preceded the new birth (regeneration).
Look at it this way Don:
It says we are all sons of God through faith (not that we “become born again” through faith).
Would you also agree that we are all children of God through repentance?
Would you also agree that we are all children of God through regeneration (God causing us to be born again)?
Would you agree that all 3 of these are requirements to becoming children of God?
If yes, then the statement that “we are all sons of God through faith” is just stating a fact. It is not giving the sequence of events.
bp,
I'm off to church, but I'll answer you when I return tonight.
I'll also give the next text showing Faith precedes Regeneration.
Thanks
Don,
I don't really want to go on to another verse till you realize what you're doing with these two.
You're trying to make Acts 11:18 say, "repentance unto being born again by God which will bring life" and you're trying to make Gal 3:26 say, "We are born again by God and then become sons of God through faith". They don't say that at all.
Btw, you said:
Acts 11:18 says "repentance unto life" every other Calvinist on this blog knows exactly what that means.
I can't believe that every calvinist on here would say that this verse means "repentance unto regeneration". That can't be true.
bp,
OK we'll get these verses settled before we go on to other texts.
You said I'm trying to make Act 11:18 say "repentance unto being born again of God which will bring life."
No not quite right. What I'm say is "repentance unto born again of God which IS life."
Life starts with the new birth and lasts for eternity. I used the term new birth but could have said regeneration.
Calvinists most often use the term regeneration when they are speaking
of the new birth, born again, made alive or quicken. Which is fine because they all speak of the same thing.
I'll wait your reply before try and settle Gal. 3:26.
I trust this helps.
bp,
OK we'll get these verses settled before we go on to other texts.
You said I'm trying to make Act 11:18 say "repentance unto being born again of God which will bring life."
No not quite right. What I'm say is "repentance unto born again of God which IS life."
Life starts with the new birth and lasts for eternity. I used the term new birth but could have said regeneration.
Calvinists most often use the term regeneration when they are speaking
of the new birth, born again, made alive or quicken. Which is fine because they all speak of the same thing.
I'll wait your reply before try and settle Gal. 3:26.
I trust this helps.
So you don't see any difference between "having life" and the "act of being born again" by God? You think they are the same thing? I'm stuck on this, Don, because the text doesn't say "repentance unto being born again". Life is something we have, through repentance, faith and the new birth. Being born again (being regenerated) is something God does to us to bring us life. The way you blur the two is quite confusing to me.
bp,
Lets try it this way.
A person does not have life until they are born again.
Would you agree with that.
yup
bp,
The text says "repentance unto life."
Wouldn't that mean repentance happened before being born again, because life began once one was born again.
(oops, error on the last post)
No. Because as I said, to have life, one needs to repent, believe (the gospel) and be born again by God.
You are totally eliminating the fact that God "causes" one to be born again, which would also lead to this new life (my esv version says, "repentance that leads to life").
I'm going to assume that deep down you believe that a person (in this order) repents...believes the gospel...and is instantly regenerated by God...and thereby has new life.
But if a person is regenerated by God...and instantly repents and believes the gospel, and thereby has new life, this is not inconsistant with Acts 11:18, because it says that repentance leads to life, not to "being born again".
Whew! Off to bed!
I hope that wasn’t too confusing, Don. At least your last post showed that you do indeed recognize that life begins (is the result of) being born again, and not the “same as” being born again as you said before. But I don’t know if you realize yet that whether it is…
Regeneration/repentance/faith = new life
or
Repentance/faith/regeneration = new life
…they both would qualify as being “repentance unto life”. It’s just that Acts 11:18 doesn’t give the order. I know I’m being repetitive, but I hope you’ll see it and then you can apply the same principle to Gal 3:26.
bp,
You said,
"No. Because as I said, to have life, one needs to repent, believe (the gospel) and be born again by God."
This is exactly what I believe. I'm not seeing a difference since we believe the same thing.
Thanks
I said all three of those things need to happen, I didn't say I believe it happens in that order :)
bp,
What order do you thing they happen.
I like this argument because it is basically the same thing a presuppositional apologist would use with an Atheist.
The innate obedience to laws show a law-maker, the innate call to justice shows that there is a standard and thus a standard-maker, the call to creativity shows there is aesthetics and (dare I say) a standard for what is art and what is not.
And so like what Phil said, we see that "even the most ardent Arminian, if he is truly evangelical, is a Calvinist when it really counts".
true story.
Hasn't this been obvious from the beginning?
regeneration/repentance/faith = new life
Logan,
I hope you'll continue to watch. In a couple hours I'll post my third text showing faith precedes regeneration.
I trust you'll offer comment from the Calvinist side.
bp,
If regeneration is life, how can "regeneration/repentance/faith = new life."
Oh this is so comical that it's sad.
This thread is what happens when Dan has a grandchild, Frank flies to Amsterdam, and Phil has electrical issues preventing him from computer stuff -- all in the same weekend.
All legitimate reasons to be away, for sure. But guys, please come back soon.
Don, your quotes:
"because life began once one was born again."
"If regeneration is life.."
Which is it?
I believe it's the first. Life "begins" once we are born again. So while regeneration "brings" life, it brings it by way of awakening us to our sin and need for Christ, which instantaneously leads us to repentance and faith. There's no gap in there. All 3 happen instantly to bring life.
I'd suggest that you take a closer look at how you keep going back and forth with "regeneration brings life" and "regeneration is life.
Mike,
You're as capable as Phil, Frank and Dan, share your thoughts. Do you think I'm way off base?
BP,
I've actually done a whole 10-part series on the doctrine of regeneration at my blog. The relevant post for the discussion you're having is here.
There, I make the point that Scripture is clear that regeneration (that is, the act whereby God quickens the dead soul to behold the beauty of Jesus with eyes to see) logically precedes faith.
I say, "logically precedes" because there really is no temporal distinction. This where synergists -- e.g., a semi-Pelagian like Don Johnson -- can't handle the distinction. When Calvinists say that regeneration precedes faith, we don't mean that people can be walking around regenerated but not believing in Christ. Temporally, there's no distinction between the moment of regeneration and the moment of believe.
What we mean when we say that regeneration precedes faith is that faith is logically dependent on regeneration. For example, for human beings, the definition of being alive is breathing. You're not alive unless you're breathing, and you don't breathe unless you're alive. These are temporally simultaneous events. However, logically, you don't breathe and then become alive. You are given life and then you start breathing. Breathing is dependent on the fact that you have life.
Or for another example, regeneration is often spoken about as being given eyes to see, and spiritual death is spoken about as blindness. So let's take that metaphor. Being granted the ability to see means that when you open your eyes you perceive light. Those two events (being granted sight and perceiving light) are temporally simultaneous. However, perceiving light logically depends on being given the gift of sight. You don't perceive light and then get the gift of sight. You must first be given the gift of sight so that you can perceive light.
So, I think the reason why this issue gets hairy for folks is because they refuse to acknowledge (or just don't know about) the distinction between a logical order and a temporal order.
So, no, I don't think you're off base. I think your only mistake is engaging Don Johnson as long as you have. He's long since proven that he's not interested in dialoguing or really understanding, but only in airing his own mind (Prov 18:2).
It has been long. But for some, the road to understanding these things rightly has been a long journey, and I'm hoping and praying that God will show him his error. I don't think he's beyond that.
Mike,
Thanks for the compliment.
Since you chose not to dialogue on the first texts the third will be coming in about 20 minutes. I'm trying to condense it as much as possible from the book for this blog.
I'll even give you a heads up. Its Titus 3:5
Dear Don:
In my view you are wasting your time with brethren like Mike M.
I am saddened by the way they have treated you. Not all Calvinists are this way.
By the way, many Calvinists reject the born again before faith error, as did Charles Spurgeon. See what Spurgeon said about the matter
here
As you can see, these reformed hyper Calvinists believe that a man is born again before he is alive. They see regeneration as the cause without the effect.
Blessings,
Stephen
"This thread is what happens when Dan has a grandchild, Frank flies to Amsterdam, and Phil has electrical issues preventing him from computer stuff -- all in the same weekend."
You know, I was just thinking the same thing. By the time I saw this post it was already over 160 comments, and with this topic I don't usually jump in at that point since it's usually already spiraled out of control. But I had a client cancel today and free up an hour so I thought to myself, "Self, you have some time, why not browse that comment thread and see what happens."
Oh my.
I'm not sure what the high point has been. I'm thinking it's when Don Johnson called you a synergist (4/24 at 9:42 AM). I just don't even know where to start with that. Here's a guy who claims he wrote a book on the subject (because God told him to, no doubt!), who postures as the teacher who will set us all straight, yet doesn't even know the vocabulary of the debate. Yikes.
Don Johnson,
I must say I'm disappointed. I was hoping for a good show, but this display has just been aggravating.
Typically when the dissenting brethren argue this point, they clearly have some idea what they're talking about. At the very least they're familiar with the terms. Your constant conflating of "regeneration" and "life" reveals nothing but your ignorance. The main reason those 'problem texts' aren't addressed by those Calvinist books is that they're not even remotely a problem to someone who's familiar with the issue. Unless you intentionally change the meaning of the words in attempted obfuscation, those verses show nothing every Calvinist wouldn't gladly embrace.
By the way, I find the irony of your approach to be quite ironic. You spent how many comments brushing aside Riccardi's explanation because it was supposedly out of context (a ridiculous charge, of course), but then your entire approach has been to (eventually) quote several-word phrases without context. Pot, meet kettle.
But I digress. I don't think you realize how dangerous your situation is. You have exalted yourself as a teacher, claiming to be the one to set us straight on this issue. You have even claimed divine authority for this mission of yours. Yet your comments have revealed a deep ignorance of the topic and a persistently sloppy handling of scripture. Given the stricter standards to which teachers are held by the only authority which matters, you really need to make sure you know what you're talking about before you continue.
Stephen,
Thanks
I was prepared for it and knew it would be coming.
It just proves the old adage "If you can't attack the message attack the messenger."
It would be easier to attack the message if it was in any way coherent.
Friends,
FAITH precedes REGENERATION
3. Titus 3:5
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost."
My first question would be what is washed?
I would be very interested in the Calvinist's answer to that question.
But instead of waiting I'll give you mine.
The washing of regeneration I believe must be the washing away of our sins. I say that because I don't find anything else in scripture that it could possibly be. Note the following:
Rev. 1:5
"...and washed us from our sins in his own blood."
Acts 3:19
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out."
Acts 10:43
"...whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins."
Acts 22:16
"...and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
Romans 3:25
"... a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins."
Assuming I am correct on the washing of our sins; my second question would be, do sins get washed away before or after one repents and believes? The above verses should help answer that question if you have any doubt.
I trust you all said one repents and believes before washing.
Now my third question; if repentance and faith occur before our sins are washed, does that not prove they must also precede regeneration since regeneration is the washing of the sins?
I'm sorry that I didn't notice this thread was still going on, and that it had been virtually commandeered by someone who is both unlearned and argumentative.
I'm going to close comments here now.
My advice to anyone who happens upon this thread and is confused by it: ignore the final 150 comments or so.
That's probably a pretty good rule of thumb most of the time anyway.
Post a Comment