The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum On SBC report on Calvinism

Has anyone read the recent report? If so, any thoughts? From what I am hearing which is fairly sparse, those Calvinists in the SBC are pleased with the report. Those Calvinists outside the SBC mostly see the report as being weak as it tries to placate the opposing views.

Just a question, does the belief that faith precedes regeneration puts someone in the Arminian camp?

1. A link to the report, if available online, would be most helpful.

2. ANSWER: Yes... believing that faith precedes regeneration puts one outside of biblical truth on this matter and thus makes justification the combination of grace + works; faith being the work of an unregenerate sinner. This view was unanimously condemned in 1619 at the Synod of Dordt.

Canons of Dordt
Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine
Article 11

But when God accomplishes His good pleasure in the elect or works in them true conversion, He not only causes the gospel to be externally preached to them and powerfully illuminates their mind by His Holy Spirit, that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God; but by the efficacy of the same regenerating Spirit, pervades the inmost recesses of the man; He opens the closed, and softens the hardened heart, and circumcises that which was uncircumcised, infuses new qualities into the will, which though heretofore dead, He quickens; from being evil, disobedient, and refractory, He renders it good, obedient, and pliable; actuates and strengthens it, that like a good tree, it may bring forth the fruits of good actions.

Article 12

And this is the regeneration so highly celebrated in Scripture and denominated a new creation: a resurrection from the dead, a making alive, which God works in us without our aid. But this is in no wise effected merely by the external preaching of the gospel, by moral suasion, or such a mode of operation, that after God has performed His part, it still remains in the power of man to be regenerated or not, to be converted or to continue unconverted; but it is evidently a supernatural work, most powerful, and at the same time most delightful, astonishing, mysterious, and ineffable; not inferior in efficacy to creation or the resurrection from the dead, as the Scripture inspired by the author of this work declares; so that all in whose heart God works in this marvelous manner are certainly, infallibly, and effectually regenerated, and do actually believe. Whereupon the will thus renewed is not only actuated and influenced by God, but in consequence of this influence, becomes itself active. Wherefore also, man is himself rightly said to believe and repent, by virtue of that grace received.

Here is link to the report

http://theaquilareport.com/calvinis...-to-stand-together-for-great-commission/

I would agree that the belief that faith precedes regeneration is un-biblical. However I don't necessarily believe it puts them in the Arminian camp.
I now have met quite a few people who believe that way, however what we would call regeneration they would call something else.
They use the same language we use, except for the word "regeneration", mainly because their understanding of the word is different.
Tom

Well, that begs the following questions:

1. What is their understanding (definition) of regeneration?
2. What is the spiritual state of the naturally born sinner?
3. IF the answer to #2 is that the naturally born sinner is "Totally Depraved", i.e., the person is spiritually DEAD, then what occurs previous to the sinner exercising faith which makes it possible for the sinner to believe?

Pilgrim

1. Not sure
2. Totally Depraved
3. As I remember an answer I asked to that question. It went something to the effect of. (not exact quote) "Yes God must do something to a person before a spiritually dead person can believe, but that something is not regeneration."
The person went on to say that this is actually the only place where he disagrees with the Reformed understanding of regeneration. He rightly pointed out how Reformed Christians generally exegete John 3, but as he examines the text, he sees no justification for that interpretation.
I wish we had more time to discuss what made him believe that, but unfortunately that was all he said.

Tom

Is that something God must do 100% of the doing? I always thought this question was the best indicator if a person is Reformed or Arminian. I'm not sure if there is any middle to be found by scooting around the question. What is this person saying, that God does some work, then we so some before the work of the Holy Spirit?

EXACTLY, John!!

Wesleyan Arminianism asserts this exact same thing... i.e., since man is "totally depraved" it is essential that God do something to him in order to allow him to exercise his will, aka: "make a decision for Jesus". A positive "decision" results in regeneration. That something, Wesley insisted was "Prevenient Grace". One of my illustrations of this view is that of a man locked in a cell with no means of escape. The jailor comes along and unlocks the cell door and then walks away. The prisoner has a "decision" to make, i.e., he must will to leave the cell by getting up and opening the now unlocked door and consequently, he is then free. This is classic SYNERGISM.

The problem with the view espoused by Tom's nemesis is that Scripture describes man as being SPIRITUALLY DEAD. The whole man; intellect, affections, and will are wholly inclined toward evil. The natural man hates God, Christ, and all that is good and holy. Thus the natural man's will cannot make a "decision" to believe for the heart is desparately wicked. Unless man's nature is radically changed; mind, emotions and will, it is absolutely impossible for a man to believe. The "tree" must first be made good which is exactly what regeneration is... re-generate, to re-animate, aka: spiritual resurrection, to be born again, etc.

The "will" is NOT some independent agency within man. The will is totally subservient to the intellect and affections. As Edwards correctly stated, Man will always do that which is most desirable to him at any given time under whatever circumstances surround him. The will cannot "choose" something contrary to what the intellect knows and/or the affections are inclined toward. Yet, this is what modern semi-Pelagianism asserts. It bifurcates the inextricable union of the intellect, affections and will and makes the will autonomous.

This entire matter was thoroughly deliberated and expounded upon in the 3rd & 4th Heads of Doctrine in the Canons of Dordt, especially in the 4th Head of Doctrine on the issue of "Irresistible Grace".

Good question, I have no doubt that this person believes it is 100% God's doing.

Tom

Pilgrim

I think I can be reasonably sure that most of what you wrote he would agree with.
Talking to him he sounds very Reformed, but he is honest enough to say that he disagrees with the Reformed understanding of regeneration. As I tried to indicate earlier, he seems to believe that what must occur before someone believes is an essential act of God. I don't think he believes it is "Prevenient Grace" either. I get the impression that he believes that this act of God is irresistible to the elect.
Again I have no idea why he believes this act of God isn't "regeneration".
In your travels, have you run into anything similar?
By the way, the talk I had with this pastor was a very pleasant one and his mentioning this particular issue, seemed odd given the rest of the conversation. Kind of baffled me to be honest with you.
Tom

Tom,

1. Again, the question must be asked, "What IS this something that happens that enables a spiritually dead sinner to believe? Ask him to describe in detail what occurs with this something. And how does this something differ from regeneration?"

2. One is invariably curious as to how the overwhelming of saints, even prior to Augustine, and continuing through to the present day have erred on this matter. Every single Reformed confession and catechism holds to an antecedent and necessary regeneration of a sinner prior to faith which brings one to conversion, justification and a life-long sanctification. Is it possible that everyone has missed the mark and he has uncovered the 'truth'?

3. Yes, I have encountered a similar individual, an alleged Reformed Baptist pastor who holds that regeneration follows faith but also insists that the natural man is "totally depraved". He was quite bold in stating that everyone else has been wrong and he is right on this matter.

DEFINITION of terms is most essential when dealing with such 'rogue' individuals.

Likewise, Rome, Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism insist that salvation is all of "God's doing", aka: grace. Remember, "God is in the detail!"

Pilgrim

What I didn't tell you is that I haven't spoken to this pastor in over a year. He was in town visiting some relatives that attend our Church.
He is an American Baptist pastor who pastors in Germany.

So unless he decides to visit again, I may not get the opportunity to ask him anything.
If memory isn't failing me, I think I even tried to e-mail him once concerning this matter, with no reply.

Tom

Pilgrim



Seems almost like we are dealing with the same individual?
Not that the person I talked to boldly stated that everyone else was wrong and he was right.
The nearest thing to that I recall was him saying that the Reformed view where we understand John 3:3 to be describing "regeneration", he doesn't see anything in the text or the context describing the Reformed understanding of regeneration. I didn't get the opportunity to ask him to elaborate on that.
Did the so called Reformed Baptist pastor that you talked about above give any justification as to why he believes he is right and everyone else is wrong?

Tom

Yes, he was very clear why he rejected the view held by the Reformers, Puritans and all the Reformed confessions and catechisms. He said this is what the Bible teaches and everyone else missed it. He had no use for anyone else's view. And typically, such individuals who have little or no regard for the teachings set forth in the confessions and catechisms of the Church and the writings of notable individuals who have gone before (not that either are infallible), most always fall into error and stand alone.