|
Posts: 146
Joined: August 2021
|
|
|
|
Forums31
Topics8,348
Posts56,543
Members992
| |
Most Online2,383
Jan 12th, 2026
|
|
|
#7266
Wed Nov 05, 2003 1:40 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,892 Likes: 48
Needs to get a Life
|
OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,892 Likes: 48 |
I was recently reading a fellow Calvinist’s (Dan) arguments against an Arminian on the subject of salvation at the follow URL: http://pub54.ezboard.com/fdiscussingreformationfrm1 on page 5 of the “I was raised a Baptist. Does that count?” thread. In the thread he used Peter Master’s book “Physician of the Souls”, as his main source. However, the more I read the thread, if I understand it correctly; it doesn’t seem like the Calvinist position at all. But it says it is the position that the WCF, the 1689 BCoF, and of the English Puritans (at least) and Historical Baptists take on the subject. Apparently the book also says the “all at once” view is the recent interloper, having been popularized almost single-handedly (and extraordinarily successfully) by the normally excellent John Murray 50 years ago in “Redemption, Accomplished and Applied”. “Physicians of Souls” carries a critique of Murray’s view. Peter Masters book “Physicians of Souls” has the stages of conversion as followed: 1. Conception (initial regeneration) 2. Awakening and Conviction (paired events) 3. Repentance and Faith (paired events 4. Justification and (conscious) new birth (paired events) 5. Assurance Peter Master’s book “Physician of Souls” is a book that a few Calvinist friends have recommended to me in the past, but now I am not all that certain that I want to read it. Any thoughts on this? Tom
|
|
|
|
Tom
#7267
Mon Nov 10, 2003 12:50 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,025 Likes: 274
Head Honcho
|
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,025 Likes: 274 |
Tom, I have no time nor desire to visit yet another discussion where you have gotten yourself involved!  And, I don't have Peter Master's book you mentioned, so I can't reference that either so as to make comment on what he allegedly wrote. But what I can tell you about the use of the word "regeneration" is that it is true that the older Reformers did sometimes give regeneration a broader meaning than what we do today. At times they saw regeneration as including conversion, while we restrict it to that "making alive" of the soul that must precede conversion. If one understands the intention of the author, then I see no problem nor contradiction. Personally, I believe the Scripture's definition of regeneration to be that which is commonly recognized and used today; i.e., in a narrow sense of the Spirit's bringing forth the new birth. As for Murray being credited for being the one who is responsible for using regeneration in the narrow sense, I seriously doubt the verity of that statement. Many theologians and preachers long before Murray used regeneration in the narrower sense. Methinks someone has their history a bit skewed. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rolleyes.gif" alt="rolleyes" title="rolleyes[/img] In His Grace,
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif) simul iustus et peccator![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,892 Likes: 48
Needs to get a Life
|
|
OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,892 Likes: 48 |
Pilgrim
I thought I would mention that thread because I thought maybe it would give a better sense of the context than I can give here. I am not necessarily asking you to get involved in that particular conversation.
I had not heard of this other position before; perhaps it is because I have learned a lot of what I know from this forum.
One thing I found a little odd about that particular thread, is nobody else of Reformed persuasion waded into give their view.
Can you give an example of theologians before Murray that took regeneration in the narrow sense?
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,025 Likes: 274
Head Honcho
|
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,025 Likes: 274 |
In reply to:
Can you give an example of theologians before Murray that took regeneration in the narrow sense?
A.A. Hodge, Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, Robert Dabney, Jonathan Edwards, John Owen, Charles Spurgeon, etc., etc., 
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,892 Likes: 48
Needs to get a Life
|
|
OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,892 Likes: 48 |
Pilgrim
Thanks for these names, if you know of any articles on this subject by any of these people, please point me in that dirrection.
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,892 Likes: 48
Needs to get a Life
|
|
OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,892 Likes: 48 |
Pilgrim
Just a minor point, I think you misread (or perhaps I am misunderstand you?) something from my post when you said: "As for Murray being credited for being the one who is responsible for using regeneration in the narrow sense, I seriously doubt the verity of that statement."
It doesn't say "who is responsible", it says "made popular".
The book "Physician of the Souls" seems to recognize that some taught the narrow sence, but until Murray it was the popular position.
Just so you know, I am inclined to lean towards the narrow view myself, because it fits with the soteriology I have learned from studying.
But I have to admit that there is a part of me that isn't completely confident in that knowledge.
But I am wondering if this is one of the issues that I should be spending a lot of time on?
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,025 Likes: 274
Head Honcho
|
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,025 Likes: 274 |
In reply to:
It doesn't say "who is responsible", it says "made popular".
Okay...... so Murray is being credited with being responsible for making that definition popular!  So, what's the difference? Regardless of that minor point, the inference is fallacious as there were myriad men who believed and taught the "narrow" definition of regeneration long before John Murray ever was born. One would be hard pressed to find a theologian or preacher of the 19th century using regeneration in the broader sense.
But now you have my curiosity awakened as to WHY is Peter Masters making such a big deal out of the definition of regeneration??? I would sincerely hope that he too hasn't been bitten by the "hyper-covenantal" bug and it is being expressed in this way; i.e., making regeneration a "process" which one may fall from, etc.?? Can you provide any details as to the real reason he is wanting people to return to a definition once used but gradually was abandoned for a more biblically accurate one; distinguishing regeneration and conversion?
In His Grace,
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 285
Addict
|
|
Addict
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 285 |
In reply to:
the inference is fallacious as there were myriad men who believed and taught the "narrow" definition of regeneration long before John Murray ever was born.
AMEN to that. Here is a quote from Charles Hodge(1797-1878) for Tom.
By a consent almost universal the word regeneration is now used to designate, not the whole work of sanctification, nor the first stages of that work comprehended in conversion, much less justification or any mere external change of state, but the instantaneous change from spiritual death to spiritual life. Regeneration, therefore, is a spiritual resurrection; the beginning of a new life. Sometimes the word expresses the act of God. God regenerates. Sometimes it designates the subjective effect of his act. The sinner is regenerated. He becomes a new creature. He is born again. And this is his regeneration. These two applications of the word are so allied as not to produce confusion. The nature of regeneration is not explained in the Bible further than the account therein given of its author, God, in the exercise of the exceeding greatness of his power; its subject, the whole soul; and its effects, spiritual life, and all consequent holy acts and states. Its metaphysical nature is left a mystery. It is not the province of either philosophy or theology to solve that mystery. It is, however, the duty of the theologian to examine the various theories concerning the nature of this saving change, and to reject all such as are inconsistent with the Word of God.
(Systematic Theology,
http://www.dabar.org/Theology/Hodge/HodgeVIII/P3_C15.htm#s1)
in Christ, Carlos
"Let all that mind...the peace and comfort of their own souls, wholly apply themselves to the study of Jesus Christ, and him crucified"(Flavel)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,892 Likes: 48
Needs to get a Life
|
|
OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,892 Likes: 48 |
Pilgrim That is a good question to which I don't have the answer to, however if you are curious enough you may find the answer to that in the thread I mentioned in my initial post. http://pub54.ezboard.com/fdiscussingreformationfrm1Dan is the person that brought up Peter Masters. Again, I am not trying to drag you into anything; I am just trying to get to the truth of the matter. If you do go to that URL, you will see that Peter Masters uses some of the same Reformed people you mention to show the elongated view. I am wondering if this particular issue is worth the amount of time it is taking me to find out the truth. Tom
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 285
Addict
|
|
Addict
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 285 |
In reply to:
I am wondering if this particular issue is worth the amount of time it is taking me to find out the truth.
I would suggest reading the comments by Hodge that I posted to you, and also go to the Link. It's a great discussion on 'Regeneration'. I believe there you will find a great presentation on the "truth", and He makes a case for the importance of it.
There are two other articles here:
Regeneration & Conversion
Regeneration_AW_pink
in Christ,
Carlos
"Let all that mind...the peace and comfort of their own souls, wholly apply themselves to the study of Jesus Christ, and him crucified"(Flavel)
|
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
567
guests, and
52
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
|
