I recently had a conversation with someone investigating Calvinism. They were hung up on the Calvinist understanding of total depravity, man's total inability to respond to the gospel. They seemed to hear the Calvinist saying that an unregenerate person cannot hear the gospel until he is regenerated, but he cannot become regenerate until he hears the gospel. I responded as follows:
Think about it this way. The unregenerate person is spiritually dead in their sin and so they cannot respond to the gospel with the faith that is necessary for salvation. Sure they can hear the gospel. They can understand the concepts intellectually, BUT they cannot BELIEVE it in the sense of saving faith until they are made spiritually alive. Therefore I say, as a Calvinist, that regeneration is logically prior to faith.
At this point one might accuse me of saying that a person needs to be saved in order to be saved. Try it this way: Salvation is a broad term under which many doctrines fit. This is how Wayne Grudem presents the order of salvation in his Systematic Theology:
1. Election (God’s choice of people to be saved)
2. The Gospel Call (proclaiming the message of the gospel)
3. Regeneration (being born again)
4. Conversion (faith and repentance)
5. Justification (right legal standing)
6. Adoption (membership in God’s family)
7. Sanctification (right conduct of life)
8. Perseverance (remaining a Christian)
9. Death (going to be with the Lord)
10. Glorification (receiving a resurrection body)
So all of the above doctrines are included in what it means to be saved. I believe the confusion here results from the fact that while 2-6 (and the initial act of sanctification) logically occur in this order, in time and experience they occur simultaneously. One hears the preaching of the gospel. At the same time God extends to the elect His irresistible saving grace (of course not necessarily or often the first time they hear the good news). There is the general call of the gospel that all who come under its preaching receive and there is the effectual call that is a work of God that only the elect receive. The effectual call of God guarantees the elect will come to faith in Him. This results in their regeneration. Regeneration is solely the work of God by which they are quickened, or born again. When they have been regenerated they now have the spiritual life necessary to exercise saving faith. They are no longer to spiritually impotent dead man. When they repent and believe, then God imputes to them the righteousness of Christ and they are justified. Having been brought into a right relationship with God He adopts them as His children. He sets them apart for a holy life (the initial act of sanctification).
This is my understanding, and it seems to be a pretty standard Calvinist understanding of what Scripture teaches. There is another slightly different Calvinist view that may better appeal to some, but I don’t think it is as accurate. Millard Erickson, in Christian Theology, concludes that regeneration must follow faith and repentance. As a Calvinist this causes a tension he must now resolve, for it seems to deny total depravity. My position and the standard Calvinist position is that as totally depraved we have a total inability to respond to God or do anything to merit His favor. Erickson also wants to hold to this so he must explain how a spiritually dead person can respond to the gospel in faith. He says we must “distinguish between God’s special and effectual calling on the one hand, and regeneration on the other. Although no one is capable of responding to the general call of the gospel, in the case of the elect God works intensively through a special calling so that they do respond in repentance and faith.”
I am not persuaded at this point, for anything less than regeneration leaves the dead man dead. Spiritually dead men do not believe the gospel. Remember that this is a logical order, not a chronological order. These things happen simultaneously. I think that realization resolves the tension.
It seems that recognition of a distinction of the general call heard in the preaching of the Gospel and the effectual call of the Spirit that accompanies it when a person is saved would help someone in their pursuit of understanding the Calvinist position. Now this view does not deny that the Spirit can influence an unregenerate person. The Spirit convicts the world of sin. The Spirit certainly moves people and influences them, but is not in them the way He indwells believers. So yes, regeneration precedes faith and repentance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
So when the Philipian Jailer asked, "What must I do to be saved", obviously he was willing to believe even before they responded with the answer, "Belive in the Lord Jesus...". So was he already regenerated before he asked the question, or did he only believe academicaly untill after the answer, and so was regenerated after? It would seem that the total depravity doctrine would say that he would be unable to ask such a question if he was not yet regenerated...
Even the rich young ruler, who went away unconverted, began by asking how he could be saved. So the asking of such a question neither supposes faith nor regeneration.
It is not the asking of questions concerning conversion that is beyond the ability of the unregenerate, it is the believing, the doing of anything that would merit favor with God, with which they lack any ability.
The “tension” I see is between verses such as Rom: 8:7 “nor can It do so”, and verses such as mentioned above with the Philippian Jailor. The Romans passage seems to be saying that regeneration must take place before someone can submit to God, I could read that as meaning “can not please God until one is converted”. The Philipian Jailer may not have been displaying faith, or belief, yet I would suggest he was definitely showing a “willingness”, asking how to be converted. My suggestion of how to relive this tension of does regeneration precede faith or vise versa would be to suggest that what the Jailor brings to the table is his willingness, and what God brings to the table is His regeneration by grace. Therefore at this convergence, the process of salvation unfolds, as a point of coming together rather than timing. I can appreciate Ericksons’ view, as well as Calvins’ view in attempting to say what comes first, “the chicken or the egg”, yet for me I can understand it more clearly as a convergence of God meeting the sinner at the table, and saving him by the washing of regeneration.
You say that you can understand it more clearly as a convergence, but what we need to ask is what does the text say.
It is not a convergence of our willingness and God's grace as you describe, because it is by God's grace that we are willing. It is true that we must be willing to believe in order to be saved, God never converts anyone against their will. But God is the one who makes us willing. It is part of His work in saving us.
So what does the text say? I believe that the Scriptures teach that regeneration precedes faith. It is logically necessary.
“V. Salvation from eternal punishment in hell to eternal life with God in heaven comes to repentant sinners by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.”
I say this for the sake of getting at the truth, and a clear understanding of Gods’ Word. I do not want you to feel that I’m pushing for a debate that is less than the Christian family would consider friendly. So for the sake of the truth, please allow me to play the devils’ advocate.
V. Says, “comes to repentant sinners”. This leads me to understand that a sinner can be repentant, and to be repentant, one must believe that he needs to be repentant. 4. Conversion (faith and repentance), 3. Regeneration (being born again). If conversion (faith and repentance), follows regeneration, then repentance is after regeneration. Yet above in V, there are sinners (pre-regenerate) repenting, i.e. “repentant sinners”. This also implies that the sinners are exercising saving faith.
So, V leads me to believe that a sinner can: 1. be repentant, 2. believe, and 3. exercise saving faith. However, you do have, “by grace alone” in there as well. As I have stated in other places, I agree with V just the way it is because it implies that through the power of the written gospel, the power of God, by His Holy Spirit, He extends to repentant sinners a measure of common, and or prevenient grace, which enables the hopeless sinner(totally depraved) to receive forgiveness, cleansing, and regeneration, as he repents(convergence). But what does the scripture say? Romans 10:9-10, 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. Vers 9 says confession and belief leads to salvation, 10 says we are justified through our belief, and through our deliberate action of verbal confession of that belief we are saved,(again, belief and confession precede salvation) yet obviously all enabled(empowered) by His grace, not of ourselves. This all points to a “marriage” if you will, of the sinner and the savior, at a point of convergence.
My point in all of this is that “V”, leads me to an understanding of the salvation process that resembles my line of thought. It is seems to be contrary to your line of thought. From my understanding of your theology, V should say, “Salvation from eternal punishment in hell to eternal life with God in heaven comes to sinners by grace alone, by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit alone, resulting in the ability of the sinner to be repentant, believe, and exercise saving faith, in Christ alone.”
You seem to be understanding "salvation" in Article V of my statement of faith as "regeneration." That is incorrect. The way Aticle V is written is completly congruent with the way you suggest I should word it to be consistent. Your version for my theological position just gives more detail.
That Statement of Faith was written to be a broad as I could for a church setting. I need a church to agree with at least that much for me to be a part of it. If was to write a more personal Statement of Faith it would include much more: elder led church polity, baptism for believers by immerssion, Calvinism, etc.
Article V is vague enough for a Calvinist or an Arminian to agree with. It comunicates the necessity of faith in Jesus for salvation, and that was its purpose.
Remember that "salvation" is a broad term that includes regeneration, conversion, even glorification. So we are saved and we will be saved. It has several nuances. "Regeneration" should not be substituted for "salvation" in Article V. Does this make sense?
Post a Comment