Read the Baptist Press article about the conference here: http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=39992

A free e-book containing the 2013 John 3:16 Conference presentations is scheduled to be released at SBC Today on May 30, 2013.

For audio CDs of the 2013 John 3:16 Conference, click the banner below/right.

Who is Guilty of Adam’s Sin?

Adam Harwood, Ph.D.

            I was in preschool when Dr. Vines and other SBC pastors led the Conservative Resurgence. By God’s grace and through their efforts, my generation–and subsequent generations–have grown up in Southern Baptist churches with this firm commitment: The Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God. On behalf of those generations who are beneficiaries of God’s grace to His churches through your efforts, I thank God for you.

And I’m grateful for the invitation to address this doctrinal question: Who is guilty of Adam’s sin? In this presentation, I plan to do five things:

1.  Identify Two Christian Views on the Guilt of Adam’s Sin
2.  Examine Key Portions of Romans 5:12-21
3.  Present Biblical, Theological, Historical Support for One of the Two Views
4.  Answer a Theological Objection
5.  Consider the Implications for the SBC

Two Christian Views on the Guilt of Adam’s Sin

            Christians agree that all people have a sinful nature. But Christians hold two different views regarding the guilt of Adam’s sin.

The first view is called inherited sinful nature. This view distinguishes between a sinful nature (which every person bears from the first moment of life) and guilt (which occurs as soon as people become morally accountable and commit their first sin). To the question “Who is guilty of Adam’s sin?” this view answers: Only Adam is guilty of Adam’s sin. The reason? According to the Bible, God judges people for their own sin.

            Does that wrongly allow the possibility of sinless people? No. As Article 3 of the BFM states: All people “inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and under condemnation.”

According to the BFM, we don’t inherit Adam’s guilt. Rather, every person is born into a fallen environment. And we have an inescapable inclination toward sin. From the first moment of life, we are soaked in sin. As David cried, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5 NIV). According to Rom 5:12-21, sin entered the world through Adam’s sin, followed by death and condemnation. But only Adam is guilty of Adam’s sin. God judges individuals who have attained the knowledge of good and evil (Deut 1:39; Isa 7:15-16) for their own sinful thoughts, attitudes, and actions.

Other names for this view include inherited inclination and original death.^[1] Again, we’re not guilty of Adam’s sin. Rather, we begin life with “a nature and an environment inclined toward sin” (BFM). In the inherited sinful nature view, we become transgressors who are guilty and under condemnation for our own sin upon attaining moral capability and knowingly committing a sin.

The second view is called inherited guilt. Who is guilty of Adam’s sin? This view answers: Adam and his descendants. (Jesus, of course, is exempted.) Every person is guilty of Adam’s sin. The reason? God judges people for their own sin and for the guilt of Adam’s sin. Notice that both views say God judges people for their own sin. The second view includes the guilt of Adam’s sin.

Augustine taught this in the 5th Century. It’s sometimes called natural headship. In his later writings, Augustine said all people are guilty of Adam’s sin because they were present with him in the Garden physically, or seminally. In the 16th Century, John Calvin called Adam our representative head who acted on our behalf in the Garden. This is called federal headship. Covenant Theologians call this view imputed guilt. They point to a covenant of works between Adam and God, which Adam transgressed for humanity when he sinned. Wayne Grudem explains: “As our representative, Adam sinned, and God counted us guilty as well as Adam.”^[2] In addition to a sinful nature, all people inherit from Adam the guilt of his sin. And, as I’ll demonstrate in the final section of this presentation, inherited guilt is the published position of one of our Seminaries.

The inherited sinful nature view says all people inherit from Adam sin and mortality; the inherited guilt view affirms those but includes Adam’s guilt. Both are Christian positions. Nevertheless, I’ll argue that the inherited sinful nature view finds stronger support biblically, theologically, and–for Southern Baptists–historically.

Some will nuance or qualify their position. Even so, I can’t imagine another category. When the question is: Who is guilty of Adam’s sin? The answers are either: only Adam or Everyone.

So, there are two possible Christian views and both appeal to the Bible. Next, we’ll consider what is perhaps the most important biblical text regarding Adam’s sin.

Romans 5:12-21

The Context

            Before reading the text, a proper hermeneutical method requires us to consider its context. What were Paul’s earlier points in this watershed letter?

After greeting the saints in Rome, Paul announces his thesis. Rom 1:16-17, the righteousness of God comes by faith in Jesus Christ. In 1:18-3:20, Paul argues that God justly judges all sinners. Creation and conscience declare the existence of the creator and law-giver. But Jew and Gentile have defied God by worshipping created things. Both Jew and Gentile have God’s law, whether it’s inscribed on stone or inscribed on their hearts. Because both Jew and Gentile have known of God’s existence and God’s law yet defied Him by their actions, they are all under sin (3:9). Works of the law won’t bring justification. Instead, the law brings the knowledge of sin (3:20).

Romans 3:21 begins a presentation of the Good News. The Old Testament law and prophets testify: Righteousness comes apart from the law through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. God is God of both Jews and Gentiles (3:29). In chapter 4, God justifies people, both Jew and Gentile, like He justified Abraham: by faith. Those who believe in Jesus, who died for our sins and was raised for our justification, will be counted as righteous before God (4:24-25).

In 5:1-2, we’ve been justified by faith and have peace with God through Christ. And we access this grace through Christ by faith. Those given the Holy Spirit can hope in their suffering because of God’s work in them (vv. 3-5). Christ died for the weak and ungodly, people who were “still sinners” (vv. 6-8). In verse 1, we were justified by faith; in verse 9, we’re justified by His blood. In verses 9-11, we’ll be saved from wrath and reconciled to God through Jesus.

Or, as N. T. Wright outlines it:

The problem of sin and death (1:18-3:20)

The solution of justification and life (3:21-5:11)^[3]

Now, the Text (I’m reading from the ESV)

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.^[4]

What Resulted from Adam’s sin?

            Exegeting every word of Rom 5:12-21 would exceed our available time. And there is agreement on most of the text. So I’ll focus on the interpretive differences.

According to the text, Adam’s disobedience in the Garden ushered into the world: hamartia, thanatos, and katakrima, or sin, death, and condemnation.

Verse 12: “Therefore, just as sin (hamartia) came into the world through one man, and death (thanantos) through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—.”

Sin Entered the World

Notice in verse 12 that something came into the world. Something not present in the beginning later came into the world. What does the text say? Sin. Sin came into God’s world. It was an intruder in God’s good creation. Did a sinful nature or sinful actions enter the world? The text says sin entered the world through Adam’s one “trespass” (v. 18) or “disobedience” (v. 19). One commentator calls sin “the personified malevolent force…hostile to God and alienating human beings from him.”^[5] How did sin come into the world? Verse 12 says “through one man.” When he fell (Genesis 3), Adam became the portal for this intruder called sin.

Death Spread to All Men

Returning to verse 12: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—.” Death entered the world through sin. It wasn’t a creation of God but a result of Adam’s sin. Death “reigned” through Adam (v. 17). But the Good News is that before establishing His world, God planned for the entrance of sin, death, and condemnation. God provided the atoning sacrifice for our sin through the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. On the next point, Christians differ.

Because All Sinned

Notice that the text says neither “in whom all sinned” (Augustine’s view of inherited guilt) nor “because all sinned in Adam” (Calvin’s and Covenant Theology’s view of inherited guilt). The text simply says: “death spread to all men because all sinned.” The phrase eph h? pantes hemart?n is rendered “because all sinned” in these Bible translations: ESV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NET, and others. Did Paul mean that we are guilty of Adam’s sin? The United Bible Societies’ A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans comments on Rom 5:12:

Paul indicates that Adam sinned, and as a result of his sin death came into the human race. However, it is important to realize that Paul does not make men guilty of Adam’s sin or indicate that all men die because of the sin of Adam. Paul says rather that death spread to the whole human race, because all men sinned.^[6]

It’s widely agreed that Augustine misread Rom 5:12. He either relied on Old Latin and Vulgate translations^[7] or was influenced by other western theologians. In either case, Augustine’s misreading of Rom 5:12 shaped the Christian tradition. Roman Catholic scholar Joseph Fitzmyer explains that the doctrine of original sin (the view that all people inherit both the sin and guilt of Adam) is not an explicit teaching of Paul. Rather, the doctrine was developed from Augustine’s later writings and solidified through the 16th Council of Carthage, the 2nd Council of Orange, and the Tridentine Council. But, Fitzmyer explains, Paul did not teach the doctrine of original sin.^[8]

The Covenant Theology view is affirmed by theologians such as John Murray, Wayne Grudem, and Michael Horton. In 1959, Murray published The Imputation of Adam’s Sin, a biblical-historical examination of Rom 5:12–21. Murray argues that death came to all people because all sinned in Adam. In this way, God counts all people guilty because of Adam’s sin. But there are three critical weaknesses in this Covenant interpretation. First, the Bible never states “all sinned in Adam.” Covenant Theologians insist on a view not required by the text. Second, against Murray: physical death is not always a sign of one’s guilt; physical death can occur prior to personal transgression of the law; consider David’s infant son, who died as a result of David’s sin. Third, the Covenant interpretation depends on two theological constructs not explicitly stated in the Bible: the covenant of redemption (which depends upon the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election and a pact among the persons of the Trinity) and the covenant of works (between God and Adam).^[9] A summary of this third point is simple: these covenants are not in the Bible.

Jack MacGorman taught for half a century at Southwestern Seminary and is now Distinguished Professor Emeritus of New Testament. MacGorman makes this point about the covenant of works: “It has influenced greatly the churches of the Reformed tradition. However, there is not one shred of evidence in the Bible that God ever entered into such a covenant with Adam. The theory was born in Europe, not Eden.”^[10]

In Romans 5, Paul parallels Adam and Christ. What is Paul’s point?

Covenant Theologians say there are two heads of humanity. Adam imputes guilt to all people; Christ imputes righteousness to the elect. But Romans 5 does not say Adam’s guilt and condemnation are imputed to all people. Rather, we see in verse 12 that sin enters the world, death enters through sin, and death spreads because all sinned. In this way: “…one trespass led to condemnation for all men…” (v. 18) and “…the many were made sinners…” (v. 19). In other words, verses 18 and 19 should be read in light of verse 12.

Paul’s point in Rom 1:18-3:20 is that all people are individually accountable to God and condemned when they deny the existence of God and transgress His law. People become condemned because of their actions.

The inherited guilt view presses the Adam-Christ parallel too far then rejects the implications of the view. If guilt and condemnation are imputed to all people through Adam, then justification and life are imputed to all people through Christ (v. 19). But all Southern Baptists deny that Paul teaches Universalism (the view that everyone is saved). There are other orthodox interpretations of the passage. Millard Erickson, for example, affirms “conditional imputation.”^[11] Just as we must ratify the work of Christ in our life by personally repenting of sin and believing in Christ, so we must personally ratify the work of Adam in our life by knowingly committing a sinful act. In this way, neither Universalism nor imputed guilt are necessary conclusions for Rom 5:12-21.

We don’t want to build a theological system on a single text. Also, we want to avoid eisegesis (reading our theological pre-commitments into the text). So, we’ll broaden the investigation by examining the inherited sinful nature view through the lenses of biblical theology, systematic theology, and historical theology.

Adam Harwood, PhD
Assistant Professor of Christian Studies
Truett-McConnell College
Cleveland, Georgia

Read the Baptist Press article about the conference here: http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=39992

A free e-book containing the 2013 John 3:16 Conference presentations is scheduled to be released at SBC Today on May 30, 2013.

Passages in the Bible which Indicate Faith Logically Precedes Regeneration[1]

L. S. Chafer noted there are about 115 passages that condition salvation on believing alone, and about 35 that condition it simply on faith.[2] Consider the following out of many that could be presented:[3]

“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved . . . .” (Acts 16:30-31)

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. With the heart one believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses, resulting in salvation. (Romans 10:9-10)

For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. (Rom 10:13)

So then faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the message about Christ. (Romans 10:17)

In Him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation — in Him when you believed —- were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit. (Ephesians 1:13).[4]

Problematic Issues

1. If we say regeneration precedes faith, then what about the issue of understanding the gospel? Are we regenerated and given faith without understanding the gospel? How can we believe without knowing what we believe in? God saves (regenerates) those who believe. He does not cause them to believe after already having been regenerated.

2. If we say regeneration precedes faith, then what is the role of the Word of God in regeneration? The preparatory work on God’s part necessary for anyone to be saved is found in God’s call through the preaching of the gospel which involves either 1) some concept of enabling grace, or 2) the notion of a sufficient calling. If regeneration precedes faith, then what of Romans 10:17 – “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.”

3. The Calvinist suggests that regeneration precedes faith because a sinner cannot have faith apart from regeneration. This suggests that the Spirit’s conviction, revelation of truth about Christ, and the Word itself, is not powerful enough to enable a faith response. What about the Spirit convicting the world of sin and judgment? Whenever the Word of God is preached, the Spirit is at work.

4.  If faith is not a work (meritorious) after regeneration, why is it a work before regeneration? It is still man’s faith either way. Faith is never a work in Scripture. “This is the work of God that you believe . . . .” John 6:29. John 12:36 states that “while you have the light, believe in the light, in order that you may become sons of light.” Notice here one becomes a son of light after one believes.

5. According to Calvinists, the external call of the gospel can be rejected but it cannot be accepted by the non-elect and the effectual call cannot be rejected but it must be accepted by the elect. But this is nowhere stated in Scripture. It would be better to speak about the preaching of the gospel as a “sufficient” call. God’s sufficient call brings people to a place where they can make a choice. When they believe, God’s sufficient call becomes God’s effectual call. “The efficacious call is the consummation of salvation for all who believe rather than the initiation in order for some to believe.”[5]

6. There is a difference in saying that faith is forced upon a person against his will and that regeneration is forced on a person either apart from or against his will. Calvinism denies the former but it appears must affirm the latter. The elect are regenerated by God in contradiction to their fallen nature and apart from their will. Once regenerated, the person has no more option not to believe than he had not to be regenerated. He had no choice in being regenerated and after regeneration has no choice not to exercise faith.

Spurgeon said that Arminianism marries Christ to a bride he did not choose.[6] I say Calvinism marries Christ in a shotgun wedding to a bride who did not have the choice to turn down his proposal. As Ken Keathley rightly noted: “God’s call may not be irresistible, but it is unavoidable (Acts 17:30-31).”[7]

Historical Considerations

            Prior to the Reformation, it seems no one in church history advocated regeneration preceding faith, including Augustine,[8] the Council of Orange,[9] and Aquinas.[10] Most 16^th century reformers did not affirm the concept of regeneration preceding faith, including Luther,[11] Calvin,[12] and Beza.[13] In the 17^th century, Canon III-12 of the Synod of Dort appears to support the concept of regeneration causing faith.[14] But even many Calvinists in the 18^th and 19^th centuries rejected this notion, such as Jonathan Edwards,[15] and Spurgeon.[16] J. I. Packer noted “many seventeenth century Reformed theologians equated regeneration with effectual calling and conversion with regeneration. . . ; later Reformed theology has defined regeneration more narrowly, as the implanting of the ‘seed’ from which faith and repentance spring (1 John 3:9) in the course of effectual calling.”[17]

One of the theological issues that is driving the regeneration precedes faith issue is the position of many Paedobaptists who deny the necessity of the use of the means of the Word or preaching in regeneration. The operative word here is “necessity.” These men don’t deny the use of means, but they do deny its necessity. One sees this expressed in the writings of W. G. T. Shedd and Berkhof, and more recently in the writings of Sproul. Shedd, Berkhof and Sproul attempt to justify their view of the regeneration of infant children of believing parents to whom the covenant blessings have been given. Obviously, if infants are in some sense regenerated, this must take place apart from the instrumentality of the Word of God and preaching.[18]

Many Reformed Baptists bought into this error as is evidenced by the anti-evangelism and anti-missionary stance of the “Primitive” or “Hardshell” Baptists of the 19^th and 20^th centuries. What is of interest here is that the Reformed Confession of Dort appears to deny the possibility of regeneration apart from the use of the means of the Word of God through preaching, but Westminster affirms that children of elect parents can be saved without hearing the gospel and that “other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word” can be regenerated.[19] But even so, Westminster does not describe any work of the Holy Spirit prior to faith as “regeneration.” Even more interesting is the fact that the Baptist Second London Confession of 1689 (Article X) does not affirm regeneration preceding faith and expressly insists that the new birth is effected by the instrumental cause of the Word of God coupled with the Spirit of God as the efficient cause.[20]

The great puritan Stephen Charnock wrote prodigiously on the subject of the use of the Word of God as an instrument of regeneration.[21] Charnock did not advocate regeneration preceding faith, and strongly affirmed “that the gospel is the instrument whereby God brings the soul forth in new birth.”

Daniel Fiske may have summed it up the best when he wrote:

In regenerating men, God in some respects acts directly and immediately on the soul, and in some respects He acts in connection with and by means of the truth. He does not regenerate them by the truth alone, and he does not regenerate them without the truth. His mediate and His immediate influences cannot be distinguished by consciousness, nor can their respective spheres be accurately determined by reason.[22]

The historical record indicates that even early Southern Baptist Calvinist theologians were not in agreement on the issue of regeneration preceding faith. For example, observe the difference between James P. Boyce and John L. Dagg on the subject. Boyce stated:

Regeneration precedes faith. Logically the enabling act of God must, in a creature, precede the act of the creature thus enabled. But this logical antecedence involves actual antecedence, or the best conceptions of our mind deceive us and are not reliable.  For this logical antecedence exists only because the mind observes plainly a perceived dependence of the existence of the one on the other. But such dependence demands, if not causal, at least antecedent existence. Here it is only antecedent. . . . There is not only antecedence, but in some cases an appreciable interval. This must be true of all infants. There is no reason why it should not be true of some heathen.”[23]

John L. Dagg stated:

Faith is necessary to the Christian character; and must therefore precede regeneration, when this is understood in its widest sense. Even in the restricted sense, in which it denotes the beginning of the spiritual life, faith, in the sense in which James [2:17] uses the term, may precede.[24]

Boyce affirms both a logical and a temporal antecedence of regeneration before faith. Dagg asserts at the very least a logical antecedence of faith before regeneration, and probably a temporal antecedence as well.

Conclusion

Three conclusions are in order:

1) There is no Biblical text that connects faith and regeneration in a grammatical structure that prescribes an order that supports regeneration preceding faith. Nor is there any statement in Scripture which precludes faith preceding regeneration.

2) There are biblical texts connecting faith and regeneration that support faith preceding regeneration.

3) There are texts that would seem to preclude the possibility of regeneration preceding faith.

There is no scripture anywhere that directly says regeneration precedes faith. That is a theological deduction made by some Calvinists that is driven more by their system than it is by Scripture. The Scripture says things like “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved,” as Paul said to the Philippian jailor in Acts 16.

Many Reformed theologians have attempted to place regeneration before faith in an effort to safeguard the notion that totally depraved sinners cannot come to God by faith apart from divine initiative. As Demarest rightly noted, the power that brings sinners to salvation “inheres in the Spirit’s effectual call rather than in the new birth itself. . . . Logically speaking, the called according to God’s purposes convert, and so are regenerated. Not only is this position biblical, but we avoid the difficulty of positing, logically at least, that regeneration precedes personal belief in the Gospel, repentance from sin, and wholehearted trust in Christ.”[25]

Methodist theologian Thomas Oden gets the final word: “God’s love and grace are the originating causes of salvation. The atoning death of Christ is the meritorious cause. The Spirit of God is the efficient cause. The Word of God is the instrumental cause.  Faith is the conditional cause. The glory of God is the final cause.”[26] Regeneration does not precede faith.

Soli Deo Gloria!

David L. Allen
Dean, School of Theology and Professor of Preaching
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Fort Worth, Texas

Read the Baptist Press article about the conference here: http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=39992

A free e-book containing the 2013 John 3:16 Conference presentations is scheduled to be released at SBC Today on May 30, 2013.

Key Scripture Passages on the Relationship Between Regeneration and Faith

            Exegesis must always precede systematic theology . . . logically and temporally! Can the notion of regeneration prior to faith be demonstrated exegetically?

John 1:12-13

In John 1:12-13, the use of the aorist tense verb translated “were born” indicates a past event, and often the inference is drawn that the act of the new birth precedes the act of believing. However, nothing in the grammar or syntax mandates such an interpretation. The verb is passive in voice, indicating that the act of being “born of God” was initiated by God and the one being “born” is the recipient of God’s act. However, one should not conclude that this excludes any participation by man. Nothing in the Greek of the text permits us to draw that inference. Finally, nothing is said that would indicate that being born of God was an act of man’s self-determination or man’s independent free will. None of us believes that “man’s self-determination” has anything to do with our salvation. None of us believes in any free will that is “independent” of God’s sovereignty. Free will does not vitiate God’s sovereignty nor does it eliminate the absolute necessity of God’s grace acting first on man before man can respond to God in faith. Why were the people in John 1:11 not given the right to be adopted? Was it because they weren’t regenerated? No, it was because they had not received Christ. Verse 12 gives the conditions for adoption: receiving Christ and believing on his name.^[1]

As even many Calvinist commentators point out with respect to John 1:12-13, there is nothing in this passage that speaks to a Calvinist ordo salutis.^[2] It is not exegetically possible to find “regeneration before faith” in John 1:12-13, temporally or logically.^[3]

John 3:1-16

Appeal is often made to this passage to argue the case for regeneration preceding faith. All Christians agree that regeneration is a sovereign work of the Holy Spirit as verses 5-8 indicate. This sovereign work is required for salvation to occur, as verse 3 indicates. Every person is dependent upon God for salvation. Salvation is truly a divine work of grace, from beginning to end. Without regeneration, there is no salvation.

Nicodemus was confused by this and queried Jesus for further information. Jesus proceeded to speak to him about faith. Faith is required for salvation. No one is saved apart from faith. John 3:16-18 state the only way to escape final judgment is to believe in Christ. Without faith, there is no salvation.

Notice that the phrase “see life” in verse 3 is equivalent to “enter the kingdom” in v. 5. This sense of “see” is evident also in John 3:36 and 8:51. The point is one must be born again to participate in the life of the kingdom, not that the new birth must precede faith. Salvation requires a response of people known as faith and a work of God known as regeneration. In John 3, Jesus did not treat these as part of an order of salvation, but as descriptive of a single event in a person’s life.^[4]

Regeneration and conversion (which includes faith and repentance) are two different ways to speak of what is required for salvation. One emphasizes divine action; the other emphasizes human action. This passage does not indicate that regeneration is prior to faith, temporally or logically.

1 John 5:1^[5]

1 John 5:1 states: “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God….” “Whoever believes” is a present tense participle. “Born” is a perfect tense verb. Some Calvinists suggest the perfect tense indicates completed past action with continuing results and draw the conclusion that faith is the result of being born again. The argument is that the verb “born” is in the perfect tense denoting an action that precedes the faith in the participle “whoever believes.”

This is an unwarranted and erroneous interpretation. Consider two examples. John 3:18 states: “He who believes is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already. . . . ” “He who believes” is a present participle. “Not condemned” is a perfect tense verb. Yet here it is clear that the “believing” precedes “not being condemned.” Consider 1 John 5:10 – “he who does not believe God has made Him a liar. . . .” “He who does not believe” translates a present participle. “Has made” translates a perfect tense verb. Here again, the perfect tense verb, “making God a liar,” is a result of the present participle, “not believing,” not its cause.

Many Calvinists argue that the use of “born” in the perfect tense produces a range of results expressed by present participles, and faith is one of them. However, exegesis always trumps systematic theology. Likewise, context and sentence structure trumps theology. Let’s compare John 3:18 with 1 John 5:1 to see if the use of “born” in the perfect tense produces the result of faith. Notice the order of events in John 3:18 is A then B. In 1 John 5:1 the order is B then A. Both make use of the perfect tense. The same grammatical structure that places being born of God before faith can also be used to describe justification as occurring after faith. See Rom 5:1. The grammar of the verses does not address an ordo salutis. The use of the perfect tense in Greek provides no support for the notion of regeneration preceding faith.^[6] To suggest otherwise is to fail to distinguish between tense and aspect in Greek verbs and verbals.

Furthermore, with respect to 1 John 5:1, contextually the simple initial act of believing is not under consideration by John. John is talking about the ongoing life of faith as a believer. The new birth precedes the ongoing life of faith obviously. But that is something altogether different from saying the new birth precedes the initial act of faith. John’s use of “born” nowhere precludes the possibility of faith preceding regeneration. One may argue for regeneration preceding faith, but one cannot argue against faith preceding regeneration. The most that can be said from the Greek present participle and perfect tense verb combination is that the actions are contemporaneous.

The broader context of John’s writings indicate he would not teach that regeneration precedes faith and elsewhere teach that faith is a condition for life as he does in John 20:31. This precludes the possibility of regeneration preceding faith.

Ephesians 2:1-10

Part of what is driving the “regeneration precedes faith” issue is a flawed anthropology drawn partly from Ephesians 2. With respect to Eph 2:1-10, when Paul speaks of the unregenerate as being “dead in sins” there is no question that “dead” is being used metaphorically. In Scripture, “death” is often used metaphorically to express alienation from God and “life” is used to express union with God via salvation.[7] This death is “on account of” or “with respect to” our sins (notice the nouns are in the dative and there is no preposition in the Greek text). Many Calvinists suggest that this passage either 1) overtly teaches human inability (usually moral inability) in the sense of “one cannot because they will not,” affirming the Edwardsian distinction between natural and moral inability of sinners to respond to the gospel; or 2) implies human inability to respond to the gospel.[8] There are other biblical figures of speech used to connote depravity which do not indicate or imply total inability. Calvinists assume their definition of spiritual death is correct and then superimpose it on the word “dead” in Ephesians 2. Notice the separation motif in Eph 2:12, 13, 19, 4:18. Col 2:12-13 indicates even though unbelievers are spiritually dead, they can still exercise faith in God. Spiritual death means separation from God, not a total destruction of all ability to hear and respond to God.[9]

Consider Romans 6:1-11. The phrase “died to sin” occurs three times (vv. 2, 10, 11). Twice it refers to the condition of believers (2, 11), but in verse 10 the phrase refers to Jesus. Paul personifies sin as a tyrant, a dictator, who attempts to rule over believers. This phrase is Pauline shorthand for “died to sin’s authority.” The two usual interpretations given to Rom 6:6 specifically and the entire passage generally follow an errant trajectory that leads to the debate between the eradicationists (who argue that our sin nature is eradicated at conversion) and the counteractionists (who argue that our sin nature must be counteracted with the divine nature indwelling believers). In the context of Rom 6, to be “dead to sin” does not have anything to do with one’s sin nature. Both the eradicationists and the counteractionists are wrong. What has been changed at conversion that causes believers to be “dead to sin” is not their sin nature, but their relationship to sin. Sin no longer has authority over the Christian. Because of what Christ has done on the cross and our union with Him, we are now dead to sin’s authority. But our “deadness” does not preclude our ability to choose to sin as believers, as Rom 6:12-14 makes perfectly clear.

Now the point is this: the metaphorical concept of “dead” in Romans 6 simply cannot be understood to mean total inability. To counter that the context of Romans 6 is about the life of the believer while the context of Eph 2:1 is the state of the unbeliever changes nothing. The point still remains: the metaphorical use of “dead” in Scripture simply does not inculcate all the nuances that a literal use of “dead” conveys.

Part of what it means to be “dead” is to be unbelieving. How can one have a new heart (regeneration) apart from faith? To be “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph 2:1) need not be understood that the unsaved are so depraved that they have no capacity to understand and/or respond to God. After all, Eph 2:8-9 does state that their salvation is “through faith.” One might argue, as many Calvinists do, that the faith in Eph 2:8-9 is given by God prior to or concomitant with salvation understood as conversion, but here also this exegetical approach runs into problems. It faces a grammatical problem because “faith” is a feminine noun in Greek and “this” is neuter. This makes it next to impossible that “faith” is the antecedent of “this.” It also faces a syntactical problem because three compliments follow the “this”: 1) not of yourselves, 2) God’s gift, and 3) not of works. As some have pointed out, to connect faith with the first two in some sense is perhaps possible, but not with the third. Otherwise, one winds up with redundancy and tautology (the gift which God gave is a gift) since faith and works are already contrasted. Better, as most exegetes take Eph 2:8-9, is to construe “this” with the entire preceding clause or sentence (2:1-7).

Some Calvinists argue that regeneration logically precedes faith and that faith is a part of conversion, but not a part of the initial act of regeneration. In this approach, faith is a part of the effects of regeneration, not the condition for regeneration. However, the Scripture is replete with passages making faith the condition for regeneration, not the result or effect of regeneration. The will to believe in Christ is the free decision of a sinner, but it is a decision that cannot be made without the prior tandem work of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.

According to the Bible, the unsaved who are spiritually dead have the ability to:

Act in accordance with conscience (Gen. 3:7)

Hear God (Gen. 3:10-13)

Respond to God (Gen. 3:10-13)[10]

Repent of sins (Luke 15:18-19)[11]

Seek God (John 3)

Fear God (Acts 10:2)

Pray to God (Acts 10:2)[12]

Had prayers and alms recognized by God (Acts 10:4, 31)

Know the truth about God (Rom. 1:18-20)

Perceive God’s invisible attributes (Rom. 1:18-20)

But some Calvinists point out that in Ephesians 2, faith does not occur until verse 8, but the first work of God to make us alive is verse 5. Hence regeneration precedes faith. Not so fast!! There are two problems with this. First, does the faith of v. 8 follow v. 5? Does faith follow our seating in heavenly places in v. 6? Does faith follow our future glorification in v.7? Of course it does not. Second, the context for the perfect tense of v. 5 suggests a broader definition which includes regeneration. If regeneration is a part of salvation and if faith logically precedes salvation, it also logically precedes regeneration.

One can see the absurdity of Shedd’s attempt to defend regeneration preceding faith in the trenchant comments of Roy Aldrich:

For example, Shedd says: ‘The Calvinist maintains that faith is wholly from God, being one of the effects of regeneration.’ This results in a strange plan of salvation. Because the sinner cannot believe, he is instructed to perform the following duties: 1. Read and hear the divine Word. 2. Give serious application of the mind to the truth. 3. Pray for the gift of the Holy Spirit for conviction and regeneration. Thus an unscriptural doctrine of total depravity leads to an unscriptural and inconsistent plan of salvation. Doubtless the sinner is ‘dead in trespasses and sins’ (Eph. 2:1b). If this means that regeneration must precede faith, then it must also mean that regeneration must precede all three of the pious duties Shedd outlines for the lost. A doctrine of total depravity that excludes the possibility of faith must also exclude the possibilities of ‘hearing the word,’ ‘giving serious application to divine truth,’ and ‘praying for the Holy Spirit for conviction and regeneration.’ The extreme Calvinist deals with a lively spiritual corpse after all. If the corpse has enough vitality to read the Word, and heed the message, and pray for conviction, perhaps it can also believe.[13]

Calvinists sometimes miss what John Calvin himself said about this text: “[Paul] does not mean that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God, or, that we obtain it by the gift of God.”[14] The Greek scholar A.T. Robertson pointed out that in the Greek,

“Grace” is God’s part, “faith” ours.  And that (kai touto) [is] neuter [in gender], not feminine (taute), and so refers not to pistis [pisteos—“faith,” feminine] or to charis [charity—“grace,” feminine also], but to the act of being saved by grace [sesosmenoi] conditioned on faith on our part.[15]

Man cannot exercise saving faith on his own apart from enabling grace. But the very nature of faith itself means one can do otherwise than believe. It is not true that man’s free will unassisted by enabling grace is sufficient to believe. To accuse non-Calvinists of this is a straw man. The question is whether God sovereignly chose to create humanity with the ability to exercise faith and whether God restores that ability by enabling grace for all apart from selective regeneration.[16]

Philosophically, a “principal” cause is an efficient cause which produces an effect by virtue of its own power. An “instrumental” cause is an efficient cause which produces an effect by virtue of the power of another cause.[17] When it comes to salvation in Eph 2:8-9, the Scripture indicates that grace is the principal cause and faith is the instrumental cause of salvation. One might illustrate this from the following syllogism:

1. “Through faith” is the instrumental cause of “made alive.”

2. Instrumental cause necessarily precedes its effect.

3. Therefore, faith precedes regeneration.

The only place an effect can precede its cause is in Star Trek.

Calvinists smuggle the notion of inability to believe into the meaning of “dead” in Eph 2:1-3. They then interpret faith as a direct gift of God given only to the elect. Faith is indeed a gift of God but not in the sense that God only gave the gift to some. Faith is a gift because it affords man the capacity to believe, the possibility to believe, the content of belief, the persuasion of truth, and the enabling to believe.[18] The theological contention “faith is a gift of God” is not coextensive with the grammatical contention “faith” is the antecedent of “this” in Eph 2:8-9. The latter would prove the former, but the theological point does not depend only on the grammatical line of evidence. Any understanding of the grammar and syntax admits the possibility that faith is a gift; at issue is whether the grammar here proves or even addresses it.[19]

Wallace, in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, provides a summary of the views on the connection between grace and faith in Eph 2:8-9:

1. Grace as antecedent

2. Faith as antecedent

3. Adverbial rendering without an antecedent – “and at that; and especially”

4. Grace by faith Salvation as conceptual antecedent[20]

Paul’s repetition of “by grace you are saved” makes the antecedent clear. It is a summary of his main thought in 2:1-7. He reintroduces this clause at the beginning of v. 8 by means of the Greek conjunction gar, translated “for.”

In conclusion with respect to Eph 2:1-10, one enters into regeneration through the doorway of faith – not the reverse. The issue boils down to what one believes “faith” is and how it is exercised by the human subject. If the human will is not somehow actively involved from beginning to end in the activity of faith, then man is a mere inactive object when he is regenerated. This is what some Calvinists in fact affirm. Furthermore, faith is non-meritorious. Salvation by faith does not stand in contradiction to salvation by grace. The Calvinist seems to be saying: “if by faith (not given directly by God), then by works and not by grace.” The Scriptures teach: “by faith, not by works, but by grace.” As Rom 4:16 states: “It is of faith that it might be according to grace.” Faith is the condition for receiving salvation, not the ground for it. The atonement of Christ on the cross is the ground for salvation. Therefore the exercise of faith on the part of the sinner does not logically entail either 1) faith is a work, or 2) faith is meritorious.

If a man were regenerated before faith, at the point of regeneration he would be a regenerated unbeliever. If a man believes and is not regenerated he would be a believing unregenerate. When viewed chronologically, it is difficult to find a nanosecond of a difference between faith and regeneration. Regeneration as an act of God on the human soul occurs in the nano-second one believes. The notion of “regeneration before faith,” temporally and/or logically, is a flawed concept, as some Calvinists have themselves argued.[21] At the very least, faith is logically antecedent to regeneration.
David L. Allen
Dean, School of Theology and Professor of Preaching
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Fort Worth, Texas

Read the Baptist Press article about the conference here: http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=39992

A free e-book containing the 2013 John 3:16 Conference presentations is scheduled to be released at SBC Today on May 30, 2013.

Does Regeneration Precede Faith?

David L. Allen, Ph.D.

Introduction

            Most Calvinists believe that regeneration precedes faith. Consider the following statements:

“A man is not saved because he believes in Christ; he believes in Christ because he is saved.”[1]

“A man is not regenerated because he has first believed in Christ, but he believes in Christ because he has been regenerated.”[2]

“We do not believe in order to be born again; we are born again that we may believe.”[3]

“Faith is the evidence of the new birth, not the cause of it.”[4]

“. . . regeneration is the necessary precondition and efficient cause of faith in Jesus Christ.”[5]

“the revived [regenerated] heart repents and trusts Christ in saving faith as the only source of justification.”[6]

Some Calvinists believe that regeneration can occur in infancy and remain inactive until faith years later.[7] Other Calvinists reject the notion that regeneration precedes faith.[8]

Why do most Calvinists believe regeneration precedes faith? There are two reasons. First, most Calvinists define total depravity to mean total inability in the sense that a person cannot exercise faith unless regenerated. Second, appeal is made to key Scripture passages such as John 1:12-13; 3:1-16; Eph. 2:1-10; and 1 John 5:1. We shall consider these reasons in a moment.

The phrase “regeneration precedes faith” is fraught with ambiguity. What does one mean by “regeneration”? What does one mean by “faith”? What does one mean by “precede” (logically or temporally)? Are we talking about mediate regeneration (by means of the Word of God) or immediate regeneration (no use of means, but the Holy Spirit acts directly and immediately on the person to effect regeneration)? Part of the confusion over this issue is a failure to carefully define terms and draw careful distinctions.

Key Distinctions Concerning Regeneration and Faith

Most Calvinists say there are three things that must be distinguished when it comes to the issue of regeneration preceding faith. The first distinction is between temporal and logical order. A majority of Calvinists argue that temporally, regeneration and conversion are simultaneous events. But they often see a necessary logical order. For example, Sproul says:

“. . . when Reformed theology says regeneration precedes faith, it is speaking in terms of logical priority, not temporal priority. We cannot exercise saving faith until we have been regenerated, so we say faith is dependent on regeneration, not regeneration on faith.”[9]

John MacArthur states: “From the standpoint of reason, regeneration logically must initiate faith and repentance. But the saving transaction is a single, instantaneous event.”[10] I agree with the later part of this statement, but why must the former be the case? Notice MacArthur’s use of the terms “reason” and “logically.”

Concerning the phrase “when we were dead” in Eph 2:5, Sproul remarks: “Dead men do not cooperate with grace. Unless regeneration takes place first, there is no possibility of faith.”[11] But this only adds to the confusion. How can an effect be logically prior to its cause? How can an effect be temporally simultaneous with its cause? It would appear Sproul’s use of the word “first” indicates temporal priority. What sense does it make to say that something is “logically” prior but not “temporally” prior? Sproul is assuming his definition of what it means to be “dead.” Wayne Grudem stated: “Yet there are several passages that tell us that this secret, hidden work of God in our spirits does in fact come before we respond to God in saving faith (though often it may be only seconds before we respond).”^[12] If regeneration occurs “seconds before we respond in saving faith,” then there is both a logical and a temporal precedence for regeneration. Notice the contradiction between what MacArthur says and what Grudem says about the temporal aspects: things cannot be “instantaneous” and yet be separated even by “only seconds.”

A second distinction made by most Calvinists is between regeneration and conversion. Some suggest conversion follows regeneration. Salvation is by faith, but not regeneration, according to some Calvinists. Others argue that regeneration and conversion occur simultaneously, but causally regeneration is “prior” to conversion. For the Calvinist, one can only respond in repentance and faith after God has given new life. But again, it makes no sense to speak of a logical priority if one can only speak of faith as occurring after God gives new life.

For example, Hoekema states: “When Nicodemus and the jailer believed the gospel message, they came to realize that God had given them new life in regeneration. They became aware of their regeneration through its results.”[13] But at this point one must ask how this is not both temporal as well as causal? Hoekema attempts to explain the problem by using an illustration of a water faucet. The turning of the faucet handle immediately releases the flow of water. The two events are simultaneous but the turning of the handle was causally prior to the flow of water. But imagine for a moment that we have a see-through glass faucet. Can the water get past that internal mechanism which releases the water without the knob being turned? If the water cannot run first or simultaneously, then there is an actual chronology to the event and not just a logical order. As we will see below, salvation and regeneration appear to be inseparable in Scripture.

Millard Erickson pointed out how Calvinist John Murray, who strongly affirms regeneration precedes faith, appears to entangle himself in contradiction when he stated: “The faith of which we are now speaking is not the belief that we have been saved, but trust in Christ in order that we may be saved.”[14] If “trust in Christ” is necessary “in order that” one may be saved, how can it not be a logical necessity, if not also a temporal necessity? Salvation by faith cannot be reduced to mean only “justification by faith” because biblically salvation by faith entails more than justification.

Moderate Calvinist Bruce Demarest feels this pinch when he said:

Faith does not appear to be an effect of regeneration. Clear biblical texts suggest that the act of faith logically precedes regeneration. John 1:12-13 – receiving Christ in faith results in the new birth. John 7:37-39 – faith precedes the gift of the Spirit in regenerating power. 1 John 5:1. The notion that God regenerates prior to the sinner’s response of penitent faith (chronologically or logically) appears to be biblically unwarranted.[15]

A third distinction made by most Calvinists is that of initial regeneration and final or complete regeneration. In early Reformed theology, regeneration was viewed in a wider sense than it is often viewed by Calvinists today. Calvin himself used the term “regeneration” to describe one’s total renewal, including conversion. Thus for Calvin, there is no distinction between regeneration and conversion. Later Reformed theologians began to distinguish between regeneration in a narrower sense and a broader sense. When they do this, there is usually no Scriptural evidence cited for this distinction. Where is the Scriptural justification for this distinction?[16]

Those who affirm such a distinction expand the definition of regeneration to include any work of God in the sinner’s life before he believes the gospel. In initial regeneration, humans are totally passive. This would be “initial” regeneration.[17] Complete regeneration is said to occur at conversion where the first evidences of the implanted new life appears. But where is the Scriptural evidence for this distinction? This is an assertion Calvinists make based on theological deduction rather than Scripture.

Most Calvinists seem to argue that regeneration in the narrow, initial sense is brought about by the immediate act of the Holy Spirit, but regeneration in the broad sense is brought about mediately by the Word of God. By the “immediate” act of the Holy Spirit is meant the notion that God acts monergistically to bring about the new birth and hence man’s faith cannot enter into the picture at this point.

It might be helpful to note the differing interpretations of the relationship between regeneration and effectual calling among Calvinists themselves. Here there are three distinct views. Some, such as Berkhof, distinguish the two and place calling after regeneration.[18] Others, such as John Murray, distinguish the two and place calling before regeneration.[19] Still others, like Hoekema, combine the two as one.[20] This illustrates once again the fact that Calvinism as a system is not monolithic and the fact that the Scripture cannot be sifted and shaken to yield a clear ordo salutis.

Demarest demarcates two broad approaches to the subject of regeneration among the Reformed. He speaks of “Presumptive and Promissory Regeneration” as advocated by those in Covenant Reformed theology and “Regeneration a Work of God in Response to Faith” as advocated by those he calls “Reformed Evangelicals.” In the system of Covenant Reformed theology, infants of believing parents are baptized not to become regenerated but because in some important sense they already posses the seeds of faith and regeneration. Baptism is a sign of the promise the covenantal grace God is working in the elect, including infants. Virtually all reformed covenant theologians affirm the logical priority of regeneration preceding faith.[21]

There is more diversity on the issue among Reformed Evangelicals. Some view regeneration as logically prior to conversion while others place conversion as logically prior to regeneration. For example, A. H. Strong understood regeneration and conversion to be chronologically simultaneous, but logically, regeneration precedes conversion.[22] Millard Erickson views faith as preceding regeneration. According to him, temporally, conversion and regeneration occur simultaneously. Logically, faith is the condition of regeneration.[23] This is also Demarest’s view:

In order to safeguard the truth that holistically depraved sinners come to Christ only by the divine initiative, many Reformed theologians place regeneration before conversion in the ordo salutis. The preceding Scripture texts indicate that effectual calling is conceptually distinct from regeneration. The power that brings sinners to Christ inheres in the Spirits effectual call rather than in the new birth itself. That is, the Spirit’s effectual call is a movement preliminary to regeneration; it stops short of effecting in believers a radical re-creation, whereby the latter participate in the divine nature. Logically speaking, the called according to God’s purpose convert, and so are regenerated. Not only is this position biblical, but we avoid the difficulty of positing, logically at least, that regeneration precedes personal belief in the Gospel, repentance from sin, and wholehearted trust in Christ.”[24]

From a Southern Baptist perspective, it is interesting to note that the Baptist Faith and Message treats regeneration neither as prior to or subsequent from conversion. Rather, it treats regeneration and conversion as concomitant realities of the beginning of salvation. Separating the broad biblical concept of salvation into the four categories of regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification, article IV treats regeneration and conversion as part of one event. Regeneration is “a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.” What is the antecedent of “which”? Most likely it is “conviction of sin,” the nearest phrase. Regeneration does not precede conversion and vice versa.

The Scripture itself does not set forth a clear ordo salutis (“order of salvation”) with respect to all of the terms that are used to describe salvation. Thus, speculating an ordo salutis is always problematic and should be avoided. The first generation of reformers refused to speculate in this area and even warned about such speculation. Later generations of the Reformed showed a willingness to seek, in the name of systematic theology, to pull back the curtain on that which God has not chosen to reveal in Scripture. As Malcolm Yarnell once said to me, “If one deigns to speak of a logical order from eternity apart from divine revelation, then one speaks with both ignorance and arrogance.”

David L. Allen
Dean, School of Theology and Professor of Preaching
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Fort Worth, Texas

---

                  [1]Lorainne Boettner, Predestination (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1936), 101.

                  [2]Arthur W. Pink, The Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 55.

                  [3]R. C. Sproul, Chosen By God (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 1986), 73.

                  [4]John Piper, Desiring God (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2003), 63.

                  [5]Robert Reymond, New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 708.

                  [6]ESV Study Bible, 2531.

                  [7]See, for example, J. P. Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology (Louisville, KY: Charles Dearing, 1882), 381; and with reference to Abraham Kuyper, see E. Smilde, Een Euew van Strijd over Verbond en Doop (Kampen: Kok, 1946), 105-06.

                  [8]See, for example, Bruce Demarest, The Cross and Salvation (Wheaton, IL: Crossway); 264-65; and Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2^nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 944-59.

            [9]R. C. Sproul, What is Reformed Theology: Understanding the Basics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 195.

                  [10]John MacArthur, The Gospel According to the Apostles (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1993), 255.

                  [11]R. C. Sproul, The Mystery of the Holy Spirit (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 1994), 105.

                  ^[12]Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 702.

                  [13]Anthony Hoekema, Saved By Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 111.

                  [14]John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 136. See M. Erickson, Christian Theology, 945.

                  [15]Bruce Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, 264-65.

                  [16]Grudem informs us that there are “several” passages that indicate regeneration precedes saving faith, but only lists John 3:5 (a passage we will address below). He then proceeds to list other passages to support the notion that “our inability to come to Christ on our own, without an initial work of God within us. . . ,” is not possible, a point all non-Calvinists agree with. But these verses he cites don’t teach that regeneration precedes faith. That is Grudem’s deduction. See Grudem, Systematic Theology, 702.

                  [17]See L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939), 465-69; and Hoekema, Saved by Grace, 93-94.

                  [18]Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 470-72.

                  [19]John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, 104; 119-20.

                  [20]Hoekema, Saved by Grace, 106.

                  [21]Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, 285-87; 289-91.

                  [22]A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1889), 793.

                  [23]Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 944-47.

                  [24]Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, 227.

Southwestern Seminary president, Dr. Paige Patterson, made two points in a blog post a few months ago on Election* that could yield spectacular results.

His post, and specifically points 7 and 8, I think could end the Calvinist/Traditionalist bickering, could lead to implementing another move like Jonathan Edwards’ Humble Attempt in a worthwhile prayer effort, and could result in the Third Great Awakening.

In Patterson’s Eight Theses on Election, points 7 and 8 light the way.

Point 7 involves humility while point 8 evokes this question: “Why is the doctrine of Election in the Bible?”

Clearly, Dr. Patterson felt the impact of his studies of 2,000 years of theological reflection on the mysteries of God’s electing providence. His remarks on the inadequacy of explanations should provoke smiles — even laughter. Patterson states:

“A. For 2000 years people have been discussing this and it may be the only reason for building cafeterias and coffee houses on seminary campuses. No one has come up with an explanation to satisfy anybody else.

1. My explanation doesn’t satisfy you.
2. Yours for dead sure doesn’t satisfy me.”

Patterson follows this levity with the gut-wrenching question:

“B. Under such conditions, is it not better to say, ‘God, in your greatness you have done, thought, and acted in ways too transcendent for me to embrace?’”

That is why Patterson states in point 7
“… the failure to crack the mysteries of God’s electing providence should instill humility rather than hubris in the interpreter.”

A Calvinist could not say it any better. Both approaches need to be circumspect with reference to the views of each other. Patterson’s view plainly demands caution of all parties concerned.

We need to line up both groups on the same side in a show of collegiality, camaraderie and commitment to working through the differences. Patterson might well have opened the way for us to do so with his question: “Why is the doctrine of Election in the Bible?”

It is in his elucidation of that question that Patterson has transcended the differences between Calvinists and Traditionalists. Point 8.A is a teaser, but point 8.B gets to the nitty-gritty.

Look at B.
A Calvinist could not put the four things about this doctrine any better. Note the first thing: “1. As long as the doctrine of election is in the Bible, salvation is God’s act from beginning to end?”

Patterson lists six points in the negative, cites Romans 8.29-30, then notes: “You do not read anything about man in this text.”

Patterson makes three other points about Election that are germane, relevant, and meaningful. Turning to his thesis concerning election being bound up with foreknowledge, one encounters a tension here, an unresolved issue.

Even so, point 8 turns Calvinists and Traditionalists into the same path, on the same side, tackling the differences together. This accords with earlier Baptist allowances for differences, like the Separates and Regulars union from 1787-1800.

Patterson has said enough to not only encourage continued cooperation but even to spur it on. After all, if one feels free to hold his beliefs, and free to let others hold their beliefs, and free to change either way, then we have unity and amity.

Returning to the link between foreknowledge and election, Patterson notes: “3. Even though we don’t understand it, we must not deny it.”

In fact, “the mysteries of God’s electing providence” lies at the heart of the solution. Calvinists are ready to admit that there is no reason for God to accept them, no good, nothing, nada. Traditionalists likewise sing, “Why should He love me so?”

Even a Traditionalist can buy that because he knows from the Bible and experience that every human’s nature and practice is sinful. Patterson therefore notes that God’s “ways are too transcendent for me to embrace.”

It is this retention of “the mysteries of God’s electing providence” and the “ways too transcendent for me to embrace” that hold the secret of enablement and empowerment for Traditionalists and Calvinists to work together in a spirit of brotherly love.

There is, likewise, Patterson’s point 8: “If we are unable to resolve the apparent paradox of biblical instruction, its heavenly wisdom proving too transcendent for fallen intellects, then perhaps we should advance to a new question. Maybe instead of asking how it all works, we ought to ask instead, “Why is the doctrine of election in the Bible?”

The point here is that Patterson’s careful, insightful, and thoughtful writing on Election offers a way to allay tensions and to move Southern Baptists on to better things by allying the parties on the same side of reverence, worship, service, and awe.

There is every reason to begin a continuing prayer effort that spans our theological differences and seeks the spread of the Gospel throughout the whole earth (every soul won to Christ, and that for a thousand generations). Like Spurgeon, the groups could pray for the conversion of the whole earth. And like Wesley and Whitefield, we could look on one another as bound to be so close to throne of God that we on the outer fringes won’t be able to see the ones so near to God.

The last time Baptists did such thing, it led to the Second Great Awakening and to the launching of the Great Century of Missions or what we know as the modern missionary movement.

* http://sbctoday.com/2012/10/23/tuesday-post/

A former atheist, Dr. James Willingham was converted to Christ in 1957. He gave his life to God in the Gospel ministry in 1958 and has pastored churches in Missouri and North Carolina. Rev. James has lived a life dedicated to the Lord and his church.

I was born a dreamer. I will die a dreamer. My two sons are dreamers, and I hope my coming grandson will be one, too.

I tend to think of dreaming as a gift from God. My wife and those who work for me thinks it’s a curse. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth. It’s a challenge to live and work with a dreamer, and I understand that. Every day, I see new horizons, and I see them with clarity and passion.

I’ll never live long enough for all my dreams to come true. People who aren’t dreamers find it hard to understand that when dreamers are talking, we’re usually dreaming out loud. And as I’ve grown older, I’ve learned a dreamer has to be careful where he dreams.

Lately, I’ve been dreaming about coffee. I don’t like to drink it, but I spend lots of time thinking about it. I love the smell of coffee, too.

By the time you read this article, I’ll be back in Panama to take care of some important tasks. First, I’m going back to the jungle to find the tree that will become the cross I carry up Mount Kilimanjaro. I want the cross to come from the jungles of Panama as an encouragement to the new believers there.

I’ve been in touch with the Embera tribe in the jungles of Panama, but our communication hasn’t gone well. I sent word to ask them to look for a tree that would fit the dimensions of a cross. Two weeks later I got a message back (I’m not making this up): “Could you send us a picture of a tree so we can know what one looks like?”

They live in the jungle. They’re surrounded by trees. You can’t swing a monkey by the tail without hitting a tree. So I’m going to go in person to show them what a tree looks like, and while I’m there, I’m going to shoot the messenger.

But another purpose of my trip has to do with coffee. Many of the people I minister to live in the coffee- growing regions of the world. Panama is one of them. A dreamer friend of mine named Greg Sweatt started buying coffee beans from these second- and third-world countries, exporting them back to his home town, roasting, packaging and selling them. He’s seen God do some amazing things. The bean growers hire women—usually those who have lost their husbands to death or divorce and have children still at home—and pay them above-average wages.

In each country, the local coffee bean companies give part of their profit to supporting missionaries. Last year, one company alone paid a full year’s salary for 47 missionaries.

Here in the U.S., my friend Greg has used profits from the coffee beans to start a church and to begin many community outreaches in his area. Not only do I think that smells like the apostle Paul, but I would bet it’s a sweet aroma to Jesus, too.

Greg’s work has me dreaming about how I can be a better missionary. I work hard at leading people to the Lord and providing Bible studies for the new believers, but what if I could also provide income that helps support mothers and children? What if I could provide better medical care and raise the level of education by selling something most of you already use on a daily basis? I would say this fits what God says in James 1:27, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”

I’ve always said that one of the greatest gifts you can give your children is release them to dream. By God’s divine creation, children are dreamers. They don’t have to learn to dream, because He has already placed the dreams within them. But as they grow older, the world tends to beat the dreams out. Didn’t we all have dreams of growing up to be firemen, astronauts, doctors or something just as grand?

Just because you didn’t fulfill those early dreams doesn’t mean you should stop dreaming—no matter how old you are. At sixty-one, I’m dreaming of beans and carrying a cross up Mount Kilimanjaro. Maybe I’ll find some coffee beans up there, too.

I don’t know where this coffee dream will take me. That’s the fun part of this journey called life. But I hope I don’t end up liking coffee. I wouldn’t want to swallow my dreams.

I think I’ve got a new slogan for my coffee ministry: Beans, beans, the magical fruit. The more you eat (or drink), the more … lives and countries will be changed.

Perseverance of the Saints: This includes both preservation by God and perseverance by the saints. The Westminster Confession says, with regard to the truly elect, they “can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of Grace.”^[i] J.P. Boyce notes in his Abstract of Systematic Theology, “It is not merely preservation by God, but also perseverance of the believer, in faith and holiness, unto the end.”^[ii] Within Calvinism, God’s preservation of the truly elect is standard, while there is variation in understanding of how eternal security, internal and external assurances, and warning passages of the Scripture relate to knowing one is elect in this life.

This petal is not a simple affirmation of the eternal security of the believer. Since there does seem to be such acceptable variance in defining perseverance of the saints as long as one does not question the security of the truly elect, this point does not seem to be as biblically problematic as the other four petals—a point with which some disagree.

Therefore, if a person believes the Scripture teaches the following, he cannot be a Calvinist: anyone who hears the gospel can accept the gospel by faith and thereby become eternally secure in the safe-keeping of God; those so saved do demonstrate evidence of such. As well as believing the Scripture does not teach the other calvinistically defined petals of the tulip. These truths are embraced in other biblical approaches but not in Calvinism.

Ronnie is senior pastor of Trinity Baptist Church in Norman, Okla., and is the author of  “Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist.”

Irresistible Grace: The Holy Spirit efficaciously applies salvation to those unconditionally elected sinners whom He personally calls to Christ.

Calvinism believes that the general call of the gospel extends to everyone, but the internal efficacious call of the Holy Spirit that is both required and inexorably results in salvation is only extended to the unconditionally elect. The nature of these two calls is that the former can only be rejected and the latter can only be accepted. That is to say, the non-elect can never do anything but reject the preaching of the gospel, and the elect will do the same until they receive the internal efficacious call, which they can only respond to by believing.

Regeneration is monergistic (God alone), and man is totally passive until regeneration is accomplished. After God regenerates an elect individual, then and only then does the relationship become synergistic. Calvinism’s understanding of God’s work of regeneration (sometimes referred to as or included in the concept of the efficacious call) necessarily involves irresistibility in purpose, availability to the unconditionally elect only, and the inevitability of a subsequent free exercise of faith.

Worth noting is that the adjectives “general” and “efficacious” in both order and description are not explicitly taught in Scripture, but rather are understandings of Calvinism. I would suggest that the term “general call” be replaced with the much more biblically congruent term “sufficient call;” additionally, that the efficacious call (if there is such a thing) be understood as consummating (securing) salvation for all who accept the sufficient call rather than initiating salvation for the unconditionally elect.

It is important to understand that while, according to Calvinism, the act of faith that follows regeneration is a free act, the act of regeneration which inescapably leads to this free exercise of faith is forced upon the totally passive and depraved unconditionally elect (monergism and compatibilism). That is to say, the “free act of faith” is more accurately defined as an eternally predetermined free act of choosing, which excludes any idea of having choices (i.e. compatibilism). Thus, eliminating even the remotest possibility for the elect to do other than what he did in fact do and the non-elect the same end. While this is Calvinism’s portrait of the inner workings of the gospel, I do not believe it is the picture of the gospel painted by Scripture.

God’s choice to ration His salvific grace to only the unconditionally elect necessarily means that the lack of faith and resistance to the gospel by the non-elect is as equally and inviolably a predetermined free act as is the predetermined free exercise of faith of the unconditionally elect. Therefore, the offer of salvation to some and the withholding from the incalculable majority were predetermined by God’s good pleasure; thereby, making the gospel the most unfathomably and ghoulishly macabre news for the great majority of God’s humanity.

Therefore, if a person believes the Scripture teaches the following, he cannot be a Calvinist: the gospel is good news for everyone and not merely some who hear the words “whosever” or “who wishes take the water of life without cost;” God has grace enabled all who hear the good news to receive His forgiveness by faith in the gospel. These truths are embraced by other biblical approaches but not in Calvinism.

Ronnie is senior pastor of Trinity Baptist Church in Norman, Okla., and is the author of  “Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist.”

3. Limited Atonement: Christ’s death is of infinite value, but He died salvifically only for the unconditionally elect.

Calvinism understands limited atonement to mean that Christ’s death did not in any eternally meaningful way pay for the sins of the non-elect. Thus, there is not even the remotest possibility of even one of the unconditionally non-elect experiencing salvation in spite of such opportunity being so lucidly and compellingly commanded and presented in the simple call of the gospel for everyone to repent and believe; correspondingly, this point, along with the aforementioned points, gives rise to the need for and creation of the extra-biblical “good faith offer.”

Four-point Calvinists reject this point in order to avoid trying to reconcile the idea that Christ died only for the sins of the elect with what they believe to be the clear, consistent, and undeniable teaching Scripture; which is that Christ’s death paid for the sins of the human race. This frees the four-point Calvinist to make an actual offer of the “good news” to all as is so vividly portrayed in the gospels. As a result, the position of four-point Calvinism is understood to eliminate the need for a good faith offer.

However, if a four-point Calvinist believes in the previous two points as defined by Calvinism, it seems to me that their offer to the non-elect is actually as salvifically hollow as is the offer of the five-point Calvinist. To wit, they may be free to speak more consistently with the gospel’s message of God’s salvific love for all of the lost, but they still offer no real hope to the non-elect. This is particularly true, and I believe unavoidably true, for anyone who embraces unconditional election (even if they call themselves a one-point Calvinist and the one point is unconditional election).

To state it differently, if a person does not fully embrace unconditional election (where unconditional really means unconditional), he should doff the title “Calvinist.” Lastly, limited atonement is organically related to God’s pleasure in limiting His salvific grace, love, mercy, and compassion. Additionally, I do not believe any reference to God providing temporal grace, e.g. rain, temporal life, other earthly blessings, etc., or “God loves the lost differently” allays this reality in the slightest—voluminous attempts notwithstanding.

Therefore, if a person believes the Scripture teaches the following, he cannot be a Calvinist: God really does love His humanity as evidenced by His declarative statements, God gave His Son to die for the sins of the world, the gospel being His power unto salvation for everyone whether they are Jew or gentile, and He sent the church to every nation with this gospel because He truly loves and desires everyone who hears it to repent and be forever forgiven and delivered from their just desert; that Christ passionately desires for everyone whom he commanded “repent and believe in the gospel,” to do what He so commanded them to do; and further believes that all of these scriptural attestations  quite obviously disallow the likelihood that the God who does these things also devised a plan that inviolably precludes the remotest possibility for the vast majority to obey His gospel. These truths are embraced by other biblical approaches but not Calvinism.

Ronnie is senior pastor of Trinity Baptist Church in Norman, Okla., and is the author of  “Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist.”