Category: Issues

various issues within fundamentalism specifically or evangelicalism as a whole

Regeneration, Reception, and Faith

~ fundyreformed ~ 47 Comments

Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike agree that unregenerate man is dead in his sins. He is lost and blind–even captive. In short, he needs help! And Christ provides the help. So far, so good, yet a fork in the road lies just ahead. One group (Calvinists) insists such a man needs regeneration before he can receive the word and believe. The other group sees the desperate sinner as hopeless apart from the gospel. Yet with the gospel’s proclamation, this dead man can receive the truth of the gospel and believe. Arguments over the interpretation of the death metaphor aside, a few Scriptural passages seem to plainly contradict the second view.

Both sides affirm that sinful man needs regeneration. Rom. 8:8 states, “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” Both sides also agree that faith and regeneration are intimately connected. Either faith immediately results in regeneration, or regeneration is seen as producing faith (and most would say this happens almost immediately after regeneration).

Now, I ask, how can non-Calvinists affirm that unregenerate men cannot please God, and also affirm that unregenerate men can become regenerated by believing in God–thereby pleasing Him (Heb. 11:6)? Can they just decide to believe and please God? Remember, they are in the flesh when they are unsaved. Not being in the flesh would indicate that they had been born again–regenerated. So just prior to their exercising faith (which pleases God), they are actually still “in the flesh”, and thus they cannot please God!

A solution is offered by some. Since God regenerates us with the Word of Truth (James 1:18), and since “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17), then with the preached word the sinful, unregenerate man is enabled to accept or reject the gospel message. The Spirit imparts life through the Word (John 6:63), so the argument goes, and thus the dead sinner becomes able to receive the gospel and believe.

Taking a step back, that last sentence sounds an awful lot like the Calvinist view which argues that the Spirit regenerates us, using the Word of Truth, before we are enabled to believe. And there is much in the non-Calvinist view which might attract people to its position. It offers a harmonization of passages which seem to imply unsaved man can respond to God’s message with those that teach he cannot. God is seen as extremely nice–giving all a supposedly equal chance. It saves face for mankind by proving that he is not a mere puppet.

Yet this view–that men are enabled to receive the gospel and believe through the preaching of the gospel and the interaction of the Spiritual Word upon their hearts–flies in the face of several key passages. 1 Cor. 2:14 seems very decisive: “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” So this verse says that when the Word of God and the preaching of the gospel message interact with the unregenerate, these lost people do not accept the gospel because they think it foolish and further, they cannot understand it, since it is spiritually discerned! Far from enabling them, the preached word is trampled under foot like pearls given to swine. Paul explains this further in 2 Cor. 4:3-6: “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” Here the lost are said to be blind to the message of the Gospel. Further, there appears to be no in-between-stage half way from sight and blindness. There is no period where the lost is enabled to believe, considers the message of the Gospel for a while, and later makes his verdict. Rather, they cannot see or even understand the message as an unregenerated person–but in a moment God shines in their hearts giving them the light of the Gospel of the glory of God in Christ. (Keep in mind that God’s word is describing what actually happens inside a person–we cannot use our experience to correct the word. It may appear to us that some are in an in-between-stage, yet Scripture interprets that experience differently.)

Now, I have encountered several people who claim to reject Calvinism yet affirm that repentance and faith are gifts of God. They claim God gives them to those who begin to respond to the Gospel, having been enabled by the life-giving words of the Spirit. I have yet to understand how this idea can fit in with verses like 2 Tim. 2:24-26: “And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.” Here repentance is God’s gift to those who are captured by the devil. Notice, that God “may perhaps grant”. Now how exactly is repentance a gift? If all who hear the Gospel are enabled to repent and receive/believe, then the gift of repentance is not merely the opportunity to repent. And if before you have the gift you are captured by the devil and possess no repentance, it seems to me that when you receive the gift of repentance, you are set free and enabled to repent for the first time. One moment you have no repentance, the next moment you have it–as a gift of God!

More could be said, for sure! But this is to say that regeneration, reception, and belief happen in this specific sequential order. Regeneration happens internally resulting in a heart that receives the word and then believes in Christ. All of this is a gift of grace from a merciful and loving God to a totally undeserving criminal of a sinner.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Redemptive Historical Interpretation Compared to the Dispensational Hermeneutic

~ fundyreformed ~ 2 Comments

I came across an excellent article on Triablogue by Evan May entitled “The Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic vs. The Foreign-Eschatological Hermeneutic” (HT: Doxoblogy). The article does a good job explaining redemptive historical hermeneutics to a dispensational commentor. I will quote a few points he makes here, and then refer you to read the article–it will help you understand reformed hermeneutics and will be well worth your time (it is not that long of a read, actually).

1. The Pendulum swings both ways. The Covenantal hermeneutic interprets the Old Testament in light of the New testament. The Dispensational hermeneutic interprets the New in light of the Old. Both camps must defend their hermeneutical methods. We don’t simply assume a Dispensational hermeneutic until we find something better….

3. Much of the Covenantal hermeneutic isn’t so much “the way NT authors used the OT,” but simply being fair to a text in its own context. Dispensationalists habitually rip OT prophecies from their redemptive-historical context and force them into a foreign eschatological context. It’s almost as if Dispensationalists believe that the prophets couldn’t find a topic to speak about: one moment they’re talking about restoration from the exile; the next moment they’re talking about folks disappearing out of their clothes on an airplane….

5. But, it must be noted that the Covenantal hermeneutic is not some knee-jerk, arbitrary dogma of “spiritualize any Old Testament prophecy whatsoever.” Rather, we deal with texts on their own merit. We want to be fair to what the text itself states, and we exegete them on a case-by-case basis (and for this reason, I am glad that Bobby posed a text rather than simply speaking generically)…. [Read the whole article.]

Music and Munchies: Romans 14's Instructions on Food Applied to Music

~ fundyreformed ~ 2 Comments

Recently, I came across an interesting blog by Brian McRrorie entitled Bowing Down. He is an assistant pastor of a fundamentalist church who nevertheless sees several glaring problems with the fundamentalist movement as a whole. What caught my attention was his position on unity and separation expounded on in the comment thread of an article where he defended his pre-trib/pre-mill position on eschatology. I found myself in agreement with much of what he said–you can read the discussion here.

Music&popcornAnyways, he posted an excerpt from an article which compares the food and drink addressed in Romans 14 with music. The views expressed in that article (entitled “What is Christian in Music?”) are similar to my own. And Dr. Terry B. Erwell (of Towson University), the author, expresses his insights in a very clear and helpful manner. For the purpose of this post, I will quote briefly from that article, and then recommend that you go over and read the whole article here. (Don’t worry, it is not a long read). I am sure you will find it to be helpful as you think through this issue.

…The experience of Christian eating is that done to the glory of God; likewise the experience of Christian music making is also marked by a dedication to the Lord. Paul writes in Romans 14:6 that food choices are a matter of individual taste. In music individuals prefer different instruments and varied styles of music often not of necessity but rather of preference. This also holds true for corporate bodies such as churches. Just as regional or national cuisines develop in different parts of the world, musical traditions have and should develop in churches throughout the earth. A variety of musical styles should be encouraged in the church. Our brief survey of music in historic and contemporary churches indicates that Christians have served the Lord with great musical ingenuity throughout the centuries. We must realize, however, that our preferred musical traditions may not suit others. Paul cautions us against despising the eating habits of others, so too we should seek to avoid judging the listening habits of others in matters simply of taste. That food which tastes good to us may not satisfy another. That song which draws us closer to God may leave another’s heart unstirred. Paul cites the example of a vegetarian who out of conscience cannot eat meat and the Jew who cannot eat anything that is unclean according to their dietary code (Romans 14:2). Above we have already seen in the first letter to the Corinthians that food sacrificed to idols may also violate a person’s conscience (I Cor. 8:4-13.) Bringing the analogy to music, there are people who for the sake of their consciences should not partake of certain music. This may be due to cultural upbringing or the association of a musical style or instrumentation with demeaning and sinful practices. Just as an alcoholic may not return to the bottle, certain people cannot return to the music associated with a demoralized period in their lives. These matters of conscience are distinguished from matters of taste since a person transgressing their conscience experiences spiritual harm. No where does Paul encourage a person to violate their conscience, rather they should follow its guidance. Paul admonishes the Christian who is free from restrictions of taste and conscience to be sensitive nevertheless to the needs of others when choosing food or drink….

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Is It a Sin to Be Wrong? Reflections on Separation

~ fundyreformed ~ 11 Comments

Recently, I came across a thought-provoking article by Aaron Blumer entitled “The Neglected Posture of Conscience” posted over at Sharper Iron. It stressed that for some matters, a militant attitude is necessary as we “contend for the faith”, but others require a much softer stance. They are matters of conscience, wheras the former are matters of clear-cut doctrinal error. While his article did not delve into how to determine which category a given issue falls under, it did call for us all to consider the possibility that a given issue may be merely a matter of conscience. In such matters, we must be fully persuaded before God, and need not feel compelled to give up our standard, simply because we understand that other valid positions may exist. Yet we must not adopt the stance of “contending for the faith” when we know we are merely dealing with an issue not clearly addressed in Scripture. He goes on to give some advice in using this “posture of conscience”, and I encourage one and all to check his article out!

In the few comments after his post, Dan Miller lists some principles he uses with regard to convictions of conscience. I repeat them verbatim:

  1. Consider as much Scripture and “general revelation” as possible in forming my convictions. Always be open to new light from the Word, and to information about the world we live in.
  2. Hold my conviction firmly – as an order for the Lord Jesus Christ to me. But also be open to His leading through His Word to a new conviction.
  3. Never suppose that my conviction (however “obvious” to me and however dearly held) must also be the Lord Jesus Christ’s order for my brother.
  4. Never judge my brother’s conviction as wrong (however much I worry that he’s ignoring the Word).
  5. Never judge my brother’s conviction as stupid (however crazy his reasoning sounds).
  6. Expect my brother to base his convictions on application of the Word, and thus to admit it when he has convictions which are not Bible-based.
  7. Accept my brother on the basis of the fruit of the Spirit in his life and his voluntary association with Christ through the ordinances of the church (“Receive him because God has received him.”). Conformity with my convictions is not an indicator of spirituality.
  8. Admit it when I can see the reasoning for my brother’s conviction – even when I do not take the conviction for myself.

Now, while numbers 4 and 5 may be a bit strongly worded, these principles are very worthy of following. He gives some Scriptural examples as a basis for these principles as well in his comment here.

Needless to say, this article (and this particular comment) got me thinking! Why is such an approach so rare among fundamentalists these days? (I realize that other groups may be equally over-militant at times, but I have seen this most in fundamentalists.) Why is it that when someone disagrees with them, the default response is a militant rejection and separation from them as if they have disagreed with God’s direct commands?

So, let me ask, “Is it a sin to be wrong?” Let us assume, for instance, that I am wrong about Calvinism. That although there are many passages which seem to support this view, and although many good men counsel us to accept this view, when I reach heaven one day, I discover that I was actually taking the wrong position. Let us assume this. Now, am I sinning in doing so?

I have encountered some who would answer this question with a definite “Yes!” They reason as follows. There is only one correct interpretation of the Bible, and of any given passage. Only one doctrinal position is true. To adopt the wrong position or the wrong interpretation is to reject the truth. We are commanded to hold to sound doctrine, after all. If you reject the correct doctrinal position on any point of doctrine, you are rejecting sound doctrine. This is actually morally wrong. It is evil and wicked sin! [Of course, the correct interpretation of each passage, they assume to be their own position. In reality, their own interpretations are the measure for judging everyone else’s. If they don’t see it in the Bible, then it isn’t there…]

Aaron Blumer in his article mentioned the “human imperfections of reading, reasoning and evaluating”. We must remember we live in a fallen world. We must also realize that not all Biblical truth comes with equal clarity and emphasis. Now, would those who claim being wrong is a sin argue consistently concerning such matters as which day Jesus died on? Now there is only one correct view, right? So if Jesus really died on Friday and not on Thursday, you are rejecting the clear teaching of God’s Word right?

I believe that the fundamentals of the faith are clearly revealed in Scripture, and that the rejection of these are what is primarily referred to in passages about maintaining sound doctrine and separating from those that do not. In areas where there is more ambiguity, and less clarity, where good men differ and reasonable (and Bible-respecting) arguments abound on both sides of the issue–there is room to be wrong, and yet not be sinning.

I welcome your thoughts concerning this. What do you think? Is it a sin to be wrong? Know, that if you reject my position, you are rejecting God and I will thus delete all further comments from you!!! (Just kidding!) Seriously, what do you all think concerning this. I am all ears.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

More Phil Johnson on Fundamentalism

~ fundyreformed ~ 3 Comments

Just wanted to briefly point my readers’ attention to an interesting thread over at Sharper Iron, where Phil Johnson (of Pyromaniacs) continues his criticism of fundamentalism. His main point continues to be that fundamentalists demand separation from anyone outside of their movement. Why? Well, because they are not fundamentalists (inside their movement), of course. Such an all-or-nothing approach is what Phil (with myself and many others) finds so troubling.

I blogged about Phil Johnson’s presentation on fundamentalism at the 2005 Shepherd’s Conference (presented by John MacArthur’s church) here. And I added my own thoughts about his follow up presentation for the 2006 Conference here. The discussion going on right now over at Sharper Iron, is in a sense a continuation of this prolonged interaction between Phil Johnson and the best side of fundamentalism. This whole interaction is very helpful in understanding the shortfalls of fundamentalism’s views of separation (and secondary separation), in my opinion. It is an occasion for discussing the “why’s” of separation, not merely the “how to’s”. And thus, such a discussion is profitable no matter on which side one ultimately ends up. So, go ahead and lend Phil Johnson your ear, once again!

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7