Decisional Regeneration

Since you desired a lengthy reply, I will provide a lengthy answer in my next post.

 

As is sometimes the case, when we have our “hot buttons” pushed we sometime make rash judgments and misunderstand. I was making a comparison to the Roman Catholic Church, and not the early church or any early church father. I do not regard the early church as Roman Catholic, as the Roman Catholics would have us believe. So, my statement is true. The Roman Catholics church teaches a synergism. In Cannon 9 we read: “"If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."
Obviously Rome is teaching a mutual cooperation between man and God “in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification” How does this compare to the Remonstrant’s teaching and modern Arminainism? Arminianism teaches a power of co-operation, a working with grace, to make conversion effectual. Also included, is a power to resist grace, making it ineffectual turning upon the will of man. As we hear in modern pulpits, if man accepts, or chooses Christ, then he is saved (grace is effectual) but if he resists, then grace is made ineffectual because man’s will has rejected it.
What this does is relegate God’s will, power, grace, and calling to the almighty will of the creature. Under this scheme, men are not saved according to the will of God, who merely wishes they would be, but according to man’s ability to apprehend and cooperate with the movements of the Spirit. The operation of God under this scheme behaves more like a persuasion than a resurrection.
True it may be that since the days of Jacob Arminus and the Remonstrance “Arminianism” has shed itself of much of their ideas and teaching. Old Arminianism, if we can call it that, is nothing more than old pelagian heresy in new clothing. There is most likely a difference between Arminius’s Arminianism and that of modern evangelicals today. Of this Arminianism, J.I. Packer writes, “Arminianism it is essentially God's unconditional decision to provide means of grace, decisions about individuals' destiny being secondary, conditional, and consequent upon foresight of how they will use those means of grace.”
Is there then a difference with what we can call “Evangelical Arminianism”
Packer wrote, “A more discerning approach, however, is that exemplified by William Ames, one of the periti of Dort, who wrote: "The view of the Remonstrants, as it is taken by the mass of their supporters, is not strictly a heresy [that is, a major lapse from the gospel], but a dangerous error tending toward heresy. As maintained by some of them, however, it is the Pelagian heresy: because they deny that the effective operation of inward grace is necessary for conversion."42 Ames' words alert us to the fact that Arminianisms vary, so that blanket judgments are not in order: each version of post-Reformation semi-Pelagianism must be judged on its own merits. Ames is right. The facts surveyed in this article show clearly the need for discrimination. Thus, it is surely proper to be less hard on Wesleyanism than on any form of Dutch Arminianism, just because (to the loss of clarity and consistency, yet to the furtherance of the gospel) Wesley's teaching included so much Reformation truth about the nature of faith, the witness of the Spirit, and effectual calling. Wesley's Arminianism, we might say, contained a good deal of its own antidote! Its evangelical and religious motivation, also, puts it in a different class from the Remonstrant position.”
I was impressed by Packer’s view on the tension between the two views and those on either side. I also was impressed by his sound and sober judgment in the matter regard the motivations of both. Allow me one more quote,
“Arminians appear as men concerned to do justice to four biblical realities: the love of God, the glory of Christ, the moral responsibility of man, and the call to Christian holiness. The reason why they affirm universal redemption, universal sufficient grace, man's ability to respond to God, man's independence in responding, and the conditional character of election, is that they think these assertions necessary as means to their avowed end. Calvinists believe that the Arminian method of safeguarding these four realities actually imperils them, and can argue strongly to this effect; but they can only expect to be listened to if they are showing equal concern for these realities themselves. And if their Calvinism appears hard, cold, and academic, lacking love for God and man, lacking passion for evangelism, lacking both the tender conscience and the burning heart, they must not wonder if their arguments fail to carry conviction.”

This said, I expect that most evangelical arminians on this board have the concerns spoken of by Packer. Let both the Calvinist and the Arminian regard each other having the same concern and we should see these debates generate more light than heat.

 

Perhaps I misunderstand the base meaning of synergism, but in reading the canons of Rome and the ideas of Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism, they both appear very synergistic to me.

That is also the Calvinist view.

We agree.

This sounds like God’s power, desire, and act of His grace to save a man whom He does all these things for and to, hinges upon man’s choice. This I reject. And is contrary to Scripture.

It is the view of historic Arminianism, which is more in-line with Roman Catholic belief. What you are describing is Evagelical Arminianism, which is more in-line with Calvinistic belief.

I think I have now cleared myself of your admonition.

What is missing here is the origin of faith. We teach, as under as much conviction as you, that salvation is by grace through faith. However, we oppose that faith springs from man, but is a gift by God’s grace. This even John Wesley came to recognize and affirm. It is worth quoting Packer on this matter,
“It was Wesley's Aldersgate Street experience that determined his view of faith. There, as his heart was "strangely warmed" through the reading of Luther on Romans, he entered into what his Moravian friends had told him that real faith was: namely, assurance of pardon and acceptance through the cross. "I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was given me, that he had taken away my sins, even mine. . . Habitually (though not in perfect verbal consistency) Wesley taught that this assurance is an integral element in the faith that God gives-the faith, that is, that saves.36 Repentance was to him faith's precondition, sorrow for sin and reform of manners. Sometimes, indeed, as in his 1744 Conference Minutes, he would describe repentance as "a low state of faith," or as the faith of a servant in contrast with that of a son (compare Gal. 4:1-7; Rom. 8:15f.); his basic thought, however, was that, whereas repentance is a state of seeking God, faith is the state of finding him, or rather of being found by him. A person seeking God can do no more than wait on God, showing the sincerity of his quest by the earnestness of his prayers and the tenderness of his conscience, till the light of assurance dawns in his heart. Such teaching is similar to the Puritan doctrine of "preparatory works," and led to similar practice in counseling troubled souls: it is a far cry from Dutch Arminianism.
As for Wesley's view of justification itself, it was as far as Wesley knew a return to the Reformers. He spoke of Christ's atoning death in penal and substitutionary terms, and insisted that it was on the grounds of that death, and that alone, that we are forgiven and accepted by God. With perfect sincerity he declared himself in 1765 to have believed about justification for 27 years "just as Mr. Calvin does."37”

 

Did it occur to me that Evangelical Arminains oppose Roman Catholic soteriology? What gave you the impression I didn’t if this be an honest question and not meant to give embarrassment? And I don’t think I have regarded modern evangelicals as following anyone but the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Apostle tells us both that before we (believers) were in Christ, we were dead in our trespasses and sins. We were not wounded, but dead. I can understanding this metaphorically as well as describing the condition of the soul. We are dead to God as much as a dead person buried in the grave is dead to the living. If this is not the meaning, then the allegory is meaningless.

When I look back on my own Evangelical Arminian days, I too believed men were dead in sins and trespasses. I was just inconsistent in my belief from there.

The Son came home of His volition, but we ought not set at naught the doctrine of God in salvation. His son was dead, as in Adam, in whom all died. Separated from God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But he is alive again, Christ entered the boy and made him come alive effecting a change of heart so that the boy would both do and will according to His good pleasure.
He was lost, in Adam, and found, in Christ. The son here “came to himself” not of a libertarian free-will, which you well deny, but because the Spirit of God came to work on his sinful heart and brought him to Himself.
What I deny is that God’s purpose would be frustrated by the will of man.

Now this is very unjust to accuse me to removing Scripture to make it teach what I wish when that is not the case. Where have I laid such a calumny against you? We are saved by grace through faith, and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God. This is found in verse 8.
I was quoting from verse 5 and removed nothing. It reads, “Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)” And just before that verse it reads, “But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,”
And why are you amazed that we believe that this salvation is not contingent on the will of man? For, “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that shewth mercy.” Romans 9:16
Why are you amazed when we teach, “God raised us up from being dead in sins, saved us by His grace, because of His great mercy and love wherewith He loved us?” He did not save us apart from faith in Jesus Christ, but through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God.

This makes no allowance for heresy to come into the church, which obviously did, and such gross heresy as those who denied the deity of Christ, the resurrection from the dead, the atonement, that Jesus came in the flesh, et. This reasoning of your that its not true because we don’t all agree upon it is faulty logic.



1. If salvation requires nothing from man, then man need not believe for salvation.

Wrong. This is a fundamental misunderstanding that while God creates the end, He does not also create the means to that end. God ordains both the means and the end.

If regeneration occurs before, or simultaneously, then the work is monergistic not synergistic. You reasoning seems highly contradictory to me.

 

I am amazed at how men seem to detest the supremecy and glory of God. Why do you think Christ died for HIs people?

 

Shorter replies

Allen,

I have still a little left on your reply to me to respond to which I will later this afternoon. Can we work on dealing with shorter points and shorter points? It will be easier for me to reply to and I think easier for others to follow along.

 

I answered this above in regard to metaphores.

I dealt with order of things in another post out of 1 John which speaks directly about this subject. Whereas, in the Scriptures you are quoting, it is being inferred into them. Because the Gospel says, "Believe and be saved" does not mean believing must precede regeneration, or the new birth. It is the command of the Gospel that every one repent and believe on Christ. What we both are affirming, I think, is that man in his natural state cannot do this. It takes the operation of God. Because man is dead in his sins, which certainly doesn't mean the man is physically dead, but in a spiritual sense concerning his communion with God, I see the natural metaphor fully applicable to the spiritual reality. Men are dead in their sins, that is to God, like naturally dead men are dead to the living. Otherwise the metaphor is meaningless.

But know, we have been born again by the will of God, are dead to sin but alive to God. And this is true in my life. But this never means, nor was it the teaching of the Aposlte, that regenerate men do not sin.

I don't think any of us here are denying the inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture. I am certainly not.

The term "world" appears in the Gospel of John (KJV) 59 times, in 1 John 17 times, in 2 John 1 time, in 3 John 0 times, and in Revelation 7 times.

In direct account of the death of Christ, we find the following in the Gospel of John:

John 1:29 "The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."

John 3:16-17
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

John 4:42
And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

John 6:33
For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

John 6:51
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

John 12:47
And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

John 17:9
I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. (one cannot separate Christ's atonement from his intercession)

Next post will continue this one.

 

1 John

Here is 1 John

1 John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:14
And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

2 John and 3 John have no refeence to Christ's death and the term, "world"

Revelation does not have a direct reference either, although it does to the blood of Christ.

"And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;" rev 5:9

 

So now that I have done you the favor of looking at all of the Apostle John's works and the use of the term "world" as it relates Christ's death and for whom, I will comment.

We are agreed that man does nothing to add to God's salvation of him nor does man man first come to God and God responds. We agree there is a general call, or that it is universal, that all men, each and every one, should have the Gospel preached to them.

What I hear in your reply here is that "world" means world, meaning you, me, everyone. How could it possibly mean any other thing?

Well, that's the nature of words. Let me give an illustration. The Hebrew term for day is "yom" and can mean a period of time, long or short, a 24-hour period, the first half of the day, a section of time out of a period of time, or 1000 years.

If I say, "I am going to take one day at a time." What, by context, would be my meaning? You would think i am saying that I am going to worry about 1 24-hour period at a time. If I said, "Back in the day, I was a wild man." (which is true) You would naturally assume I am referring a period of time in my past.

The point is that the word is "neutral" and its scope must be determined by context, not by the word alone.

The word "kosmos' which is translated "world" falls into this category as well. It is not used uniformally throughout the New Testament. Being that it is used in a number of ways, we need to show its scope by context, if possible, or use other Scriptures that shed light on the scope, in our case, of Christ's redemption.

A.W. Pink outlined 7 different uses of the word kosmos in Scripture. They are as follows:

In learning what the scope of the use of the world may be for a particular passage Pink wisely suggests,

Now lest I be called a Pinkite, I am not in agreement with Pink on everything. While I believe Pink's reasoning is sound in applying the term "world" in John 3:16 to the world of believers, I am more inclinded at this point to believe what is meant here is not Jews only, but also Gentiles. I have several reasons, biblically, for thinking this, but I think this answers the reply that since John 3:16 and other passages use the term "world" (kosmos) it MUST mean you, mean, and everyone. This is simply not the case.

RB