Where you and I disagree is what regeneration is. I believe regeneration to mean born again, spiritually alive, saved forever. You believe regeneration is an enlightenment, an enabling to have faith, and that salvation follows after.
And as I have shown, some Calvinists have taught that an infant can be regenrated for many years, and yet not old enough to place faith in Christ and be saved. This is where we absolutely disagree. This from an associate of R.C. Sproul;
This would be regeneration without the word of God, an infant cannot understand God's word.
Spurgeon did not believe this. He preached faith to the unregenerate. He understood regeneration to be born again, spiritually alive, and saved.
So, you see here, Spurgeon departs from traditional Calvinistic belief. He rightly teaches that he was to preach to the unregenerate, and that the unregenerate must believe to be regenerated. This is not what you believe.
As Spurgeon said, why do you need to preach Christ to someone who is already born again? Why do you need to give medicine to someone already healed? Yet, this is what you believe, you believe a person must already be regenerate before he can even have the ability to believe on Jesus and be healed of his sin.
This is our difference.
And as I have shown, some Calvinists have taught that an infant can be regenrated for many years, and yet not old enough to place faith in Christ and be saved. This is where we absolutely disagree. This from an associate of R.C. Sproul;
When the RSB speaks in the notes of John 3 of "infants being born again," it is speaking of the work of quickening God does in them which inclines their will to Him. In Protestantism, regeneration always precedes faith and if God quickens them, the person will surely come . . .Often, regeneration and our subsequent faith happen apparently simultaneously but logically, regeneration must precede faith. An infant’s faith may not come until years after God has worked by His Holy Spirit to regenerate him or her [emphasis ours]. Two Biblical examples of infants who were born again are seen in Psalm 22:9-10 and Luke 1:15.
This would be regeneration without the word of God, an infant cannot understand God's word.
Spurgeon did not believe this. He preached faith to the unregenerate. He understood regeneration to be born again, spiritually alive, and saved.
"If I am to preach the faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. Am I only to preach faith to those who have it? Absurd, indeed! Is not this waiting till the man is cured and then bringing him the medicine? This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners." [Sermon entitled The Warrant of Faith].
So, you see here, Spurgeon departs from traditional Calvinistic belief. He rightly teaches that he was to preach to the unregenerate, and that the unregenerate must believe to be regenerated. This is not what you believe.
As Spurgeon said, why do you need to preach Christ to someone who is already born again? Why do you need to give medicine to someone already healed? Yet, this is what you believe, you believe a person must already be regenerate before he can even have the ability to believe on Jesus and be healed of his sin.
This is our difference.
Last edited by a moderator: