The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Regeneration Conversation Revisited

A while back I brought up the issue of a pastor who claims to be a 5 Point Calvinist, yet disagrees with the traditional understanding of Regeneration that says that regeneration precedes faith. Although he believes that something (illumination or call?)must happen before someone will come to faith, he disagrees that it is regeneration. I think we can all agree that he is wrong about this.
However, in discussing this matter with someone in my Church; I was asked the following.



The reason I am bringing this particular subject up again, is because that pastor will be preaching from our pulpit about a month from now and I am a little concerned about it. But, I don't know how concerned I should be.

Tom

Methinks the person who you quoted has no or little understanding what regeneration is and the necessity of it, which most often is the result of either a lack of knowledge and/or understanding of the doctrine of 'Total Depravity', or a simple rejection of it.

The most simple way I can think of to respond to that person's quote is by pointing out that if regeneration, i.e., a sovereign, secret, salvific work of the Holy Spirit who 'resurrects' a sinner's spiritually dead soul bringing about a radical change in disposition, does not precede ANYTHING of a spiritual nature in a person, then salvation is synergistic. For, IF a person is desirous and able to have faith in a God and Christ whom he/she naturally hates and repent of all sin and one's own sinfulness without this radical transformation of the soul, then de facto, ANYTHING spiritual must be something native to the person rather than the fruit of the Spirit's regeneration of their soul. And thus, salvation is not ALL of grace, but a cooperative effort shared between God and the unregenerate, God-hating, Christ-hating, righteousness-hating sinner.

It's the very core of a person that needs to be changed before any movement toward God is possible. Faith is not just some affirmation of objective truths. Nor is it just some 'strange feeling' that moves a person to 'ask Jesus into their heart', ad nauseam. True spiritual, Holy Spirit-wrought faith is a repenting faith that effects the mind, emotions and will.

Dead men don't think. Dead men don't feel. Dead men don't do anything. And for certain, no dead man is capable of believing upon Christ with a true, living faith.

Hopefully, you get the point?

Pilgrim

I have said this before, but I will say it again.
That particular pastor, talks as though what happens before faith occurs in much the same way you or I would talk about "regeneration".
In other words he seems to agree with Reformed thinking on this issue. However, he doesn't believe it is called "regeneration". I believe he would call it "the call".

As to the person you said has little understanding of "Total Depravity". I dare say that this person has a lot more understanding than me on this issue. In fact he agrees with both you and me about Total Depravity and Regeneration.
He just questions whether or not it is wise to stop this pastor from speaking from our pulpit. Seeing what the pastor describes as "the call", is basically our understanding of regeneration.
Hence why he asked.

I must admit that what you said about the quote above, makes me scratch my head as to what in that quote would lead you to that conclusion.
Tom

We can agree that they are gifts, but then we're back to that old "a gift must be accepted in order to be effective" argument again, which implies that even a dead man can and must "accept" life or it can't be given; which implies further that the dead man is sovereign instead of dead and completely at the mercy of his Creator and Judge. I find almost every time people object to the doctrine of predestination or regeneration in advance of faith and conversion, that it is actually the doctrine of Total Depravity that they object to.

The unregenerate soul must be acted upon before it is made able to act at all.

The reason that Total Depravity is in question is that the doctrine teaches us that unregenerate sinners are spiritually DEAD (that is what "Total Depravity" is). The new nature must be imposed first before anything else (in the elect human's experience) can happen at all.

I know when I was saved. It was before the founding of the worlds.

I didn't learn of it until the Holy Spirit applied the Father's election to me. He didn't get my permission first, nor did I invite Him to intrude into my life. I thought I was doing just fine as I was (read: I had no idea how badly I had already ruined my life) and didn't need to change anything but a few circumstances.

I became aware of what God had done for me when I heard the gospel. But the Spirit's call was effectual because it was offered to a regenerated heart that was capable of hearing it ("he who has ears to hear," as the Apostle John might have said).

-Robin

1. Yes, you have said that before that this 'pastor' agrees with all the doctrines of Reformed soteriology... he disagrees with the biblical, historic, confessional doctrine of regeneration. Perhaps it is YOU who isn't getting it? People can affirm the truthfulness of a particular doctrine(s), but in reality they contradict them when it comes to application. Case and point: don't the majority of contemporary professing Christians adamantly confess that salvation is by GRACE ALONE? But the overwhelming majority of them are semi-Pelagian. The alleged 'gospel' they teach/preach is diametrically opposed to the doctrine of sovereign free grace, aka: Sola Fide.

2. From the quote my little rant was certainly consistent with it. What practical implications are possible (probable) from one holding that faith and repentance PRECEDE regeneration? I thought I explained that but evidently not well enough.

a. IF regeneration follows repentance and/or faith, then de facto, those 'gifts' are summarily under the control of the 'recipient', to do with them as he/she wills. In short, the bestowal of these alleged 'gifts' is not efficacious but rather simply the supply of that which the 'free-will' of the recipient must use so that they are effective.

b. Now I say again... Regeneration by definition is the RADICAL transformation, resurrection of a totally spiritual DEAD soul. The intentions and thoughts of the unregenerate person's heart (soul) is evil continually. The unregenerate person is totally incapable (Total Inability) to even conjure up a glimmer of desire toward God, never mind repent of his sins/sinfulness which necessitates conviction by the Spirit, and reach out in a selfless faith to Christ for the remission of sins and reconciliation with God. Repentance and Faith are more accurately the FRUIT of regeneration vs. 'gifts'. And, once again, DEAD persons do not, cannot repent nor believe in the biblical sense of those terms. Thus, to deny this biblical and Reformed 'ordo salutis' by changing the order or relegating that order to the peripheral pile is to deny that salvation is ALL of God, the terminus of God's eternal decree to save PARTICULAR persons unto His own glory by specific means foreordained in that decree.

And also once again, I ask you to find out from this 'pastor' IF regeneration is NOT that which has been understood, preached, taught and recorded in the Confessions by all the Reformed churches, i.e., the secret, sovereign, salvific work of the Holy Spirit whereby a sinner's God-hating, Christ-hating, holiness-hating soul is radically transformed, given spiritual life from which flows a love for God, Christ and all that is holy along with a deep conviction of sin and an efficacious desire for Christ and His atoning work, then exactly what is it... ??? I have communicated with many individuals who mostly were semi-Pelagian, although there have been a couple of professing Reformed 'pastors' (both Baptists) who likewise held that regeneration follows repentance and faith, and made regeneration to be sanctification, e.g., Jh 10:10. But in the case of the two 'pastors' who affirmed that regeneration follows repentance and faith, neither was able to provide any details as to what the "call" was which made it possible for any spiritually depraved/dead sinner to experience conviction of sin, repentance and exercise evangelical/saving faith in Christ. It seemed they were espousing some kind of Wesleyan "prevenient grace" with a Reformed 'twist' to it, yet denying the essence of it effected a radical transformation of the soul.

Robin
The issue of accepting the gift is not even in question to either the person who I quoted, or the pastor in question.
The person who made the quote like you and I agrees with both you and I concerning Total Depravity and how regeneration must occur before faith occurs.
This is not the main issue. The issue is he isn't sure we should make a big deal about this, because the pastor has described what must happen before faith can occur and it is almost exactly what Reformed Christians call regeneration.

Perhaps I am missing something in all this, but I can't understand what it is seeing all parties in question agree in principle.
The pastor in question as I said many times now, believes we should not call it regeneration. We should call it "the call".

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that this 'pastor' agrees that the definition of the theological term "regeneration" is IDENTICAL to what he prefers to refer to as "the call". Which term, 'regeneration' or 'the call' best connotes what actually takes place prior to the conversion of a spiritually dead sinner.

Regeneration: the making alive of that which was beforehand dead.

Call: to get in touch with someone; communicate verbally, to name something, etc.

In historic confessional Calvinism, "calling" is part of the doctrine of Irresistible Grace which occurs, albeit instantly, AFTER the new birth, aka: regeneration. Why? Because DEAD people cannot hear anything. Without prior vivification, all the calling in the world will fall on deaf/dead ears. "Calling" is that inner calling whereby the once dead but now alive sinner, is made capable of hearing, understanding and desiring to heed the voice of God in the Gospel and consequently, due to the new spiritual nature, irresistibly and infallibly responds to that message of salvation in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Christ.

It seems to me that since these theological terms have been part and parcel of biblical theology for nearly 2000 years, the onus is upon this pastor to show why the term regeneration is inadequate and/or without biblical precedence and that "the call" is more accurate and/or biblical.

The reason I said the REAL issue is total depravity (or total inability) is that from any point of view OTHER than "regeneration precedes conversion" is that the inward CALL cannot be heard, nor answered by a DEAD man.

-R

Tom's getting it in stereo!

Pilgrim

One of the issues I have with this pastor calling this "the call", rather than the biblical definition "regeneration", you identified quite well.
His definition of what he calls "the call" is what we call "regeneration". Quite frankly this troubles me because it flies in the face of what I believe is the biblical definition of the word and I don't like changing definitions. Not to mention, it seems to be a definition that is not held in any other circles I am aware of. This to me is a red flag.

Yet, although I dislike this aspect. In actuality, all but his definitions in practical terms are consistent with Reformed thought.

Tom

Tom, I am a little confused by what you wrote. You admit that there are differences in this man's definition and the traditional Reformed definitions are and then you say that "his definitions in practical terms are consistent with Reformed thought." So, I have to ask which is it? Is he redefining terms or is he using the traditional Reformed definition? And, if he is redefining certain terms, I think the question must be asked "WHY?" Why does he redefine these terms?

Redefining terms - without saying that's what they're doing - is exactly what the FVers and others do to justify their false teachings. In my Charismatic days we re-defined faith, without saying so, and turned it into something like "the Force," which can be used by anyone for good or evil. TOTALLY different from the scriptural definition of God-given humility and trust in Another to do for us what we cannot do on our own.

I don't care if they call what you describe "new" Calvinism or "orthodox," is is not orthodox, nor is it Calvinism. We should have zero tolerance for the hidden re-defining of vital theological terms.

-R

He is redefining the terms, because his understanding of the words "regeneration" and "the call" are different than ours.

I find this very troubling and if I had my way, he would not be preaching from our pulpit.
But I don't have that kind of power.

Tom

So, let me try and get this straight.

He is redefining the terms by simply exchanging their definitions? Thus, "call" is actually the theological/confessional definition of "regeneration"... correct? And he defines "regeneration" as something else... see below.

Now, IF the situation is that simple, i.e., a one-for-one exact exchanging of definitions, I am still unsure what "regeneration" actually is according to his understanding??

So, when he says that "the call" is necessarily prior to repentance and faith; aka: conversion, he is actually describing "regeneration" but using "call" as his preferred term, correct?

And "regeneration" is in his understanding is historically called "?????????", the definition of which I am wanting to know.

Sorry for the redundancy, but it is intentional in the hopes of being understood.

Pilgrim
I think what you said is correct; but that is based on memory of my conversation a few years back.
This is of course my understanding of what he said to me. Personally speaking I had hoped never to bring that pastor up again. However now that he will be preaching at our Church, I felt a need to revisit the issue.
I am not really sure the best way to go from here; but it will involve prayer.