By Grace God Is The Monergistic Causal Agent

22Therefore say to the house of Israel, "Thus says the Lord GOD: "I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name's sake, which you have profaned among the nations wherever you went. 23And I will sanctify My great name, which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst; and the nations shall know that I am the LORD," says the Lord GOD, "when I am hallowed in you before their eyes. 24For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. 25Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. 28Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God. 29I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. I will call for the grain and multiply it, and bring no famine upon you. 30And I will multiply the fruit of your trees and the increase of your fields, so that you need never again bear the reproach of famine among the nations. 31Then you will remember your evil ways and your deeds that were not good; and you will loathe yourselves in your own sight, for your iniquities and your abominations. 32Not for your sake do I do this," says the Lord GOD, "let it be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel!"

33"Thus says the Lord GOD: "On the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will also enable you to dwell in the cities, and the ruins shall be rebuilt. 34The desolate land shall be tilled instead of lying desolate in the sight of all who pass by. 35So they will say, "This land that was desolate has become like the garden of Eden; and the wasted, desolate, and ruined cities are now fortified and inhabited.' 36Then the nations which are left all around you shall know that I, the LORD, have rebuilt the ruined places and planted what was desolate. I, the LORD, have spoken it, and I will do it."

37"Thus says the Lord GOD: "I will also let the house of Israel inquire of Me to do this for them: I will increase their men like a flock. 38Like a flock offered as holy sacrifices, like the flock at Jerusalem on its feast days, so shall the ruined cities be filled with flocks of men. Then they shall know that I am the LORD."'"

In the above passages from Ezekiel 36, a unique thing occurs. Something that the Lord says is not done for anything that man has done. verse 32 The sequencing is familiar:

Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

What must happen to a man first so that he believes into Christ is the Dividing Line.

As John Hendryx explains:

God does indeed give a prevenient grace to man: According to Scripture, all people are born dead in sin (Eph 2:1). This simply means that, as a result of the Fall, people are born without the Holy Spirit and therefore, (left to themselves) are hostile to Christ and unable to understand to spiritual things (1 Cor 1:21). It does not mean they can do (or think) nothing in their state of common grace, but it means they can do nothing spiritual or redemptive ... that they will always think God's word is foolish (1 Cor 2:14) until the Holy Spirit, who comes from the outside, works grace in their hearts.

Now, what may come as a surprise to many is that even the most hardened Arminian believes this. Semi-pelagians do not believe this, of course, but Classic Arminians along with Calvinists believe, with the Scripture, in the necessity of some kind of prevenient grace prior to belief. And it is important that we make this distinction so we do not misrepresent anyone's views. So to the question: can any person come to faith in Christ apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, both the Arminian and the Calvinist would definitively answer "no".

As is demonstrated in the Ezekiel passage it is not something with which man must in the beginning cooperate. Quite the opposite. Man in his state of rebellion will not. To be able to will to love God and keep the first commandment, God does a miracle, removing the heart of stone and putting in its place a heart of flesh, verse 26. That is not owing to man, not for his sake, verse 32, not that there is anything worthy in man, for he is no different than all the nations around with hearts of stone. Israel profaned the name of the Lord and caused the nations to do likewise. It is not because of some effort on their part, either, that they are caused to obey. For the following verse tells us from where the power which enables them is derived and how it is that power exerts its influence in causing the keeping of the ordinances of God such as the commandment of repentance unto salvation or any other righteous work required for entrance into the kingdom.

The kind of grace that God gives is not the faulty grace of the Arminian which may or may not fulfill the commands of God. It is bound to the very Spirit of God, verse 27. Just as men of old spoke as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit, so also the righteous appeal of repentance and the cry for mercy is a gift carried out in vessels of flesh by the Holy Spirit's efficacious power. He causes and He carries His own to do what he commands.

Not only that, but the sanctification is accomplished by Him and Him alone. It is called circumcision of the flesh, or mortification of the flesh, by the Spirit. See Galatians also where Paul is concerned, not with just definitve sanctification but progressive sanctification which he parallels as being of the same type concluding that if one is saved but submits to rules and ordinances for sanctification and perseverance in salvation, the death of Christ avails nothing. A little leaven leavens the whole lump and eventually the doctrine of salvation by grace is abandoned and the Jewish religion of works takes its place. That is what Paul accused Peter of, introducing accursed heresy which usurps the Gospel's rightful place, replacing it with a gospel of bondage again to the law. It is a gospel, which is no gospel, of a god who is no god able to save.

Ezekiel tells us that all that comes before in prevenience is all that will ever be given, and all that is given is all that is necessary, and that it is complete in reference to the glory of God (verses 33-37) which otherwise would be blasphemed if it should fail to fulfill the thing it was sent to do. Jesus summed this glorification up in John 17. And as Hendryx explains, all those that the Father has given to the Son will be given a new nature in regeneration, and it does not fail, of all that the Father has given no one is ever lost.

Hendryx sums up:

To use some biblical imagery, we cast the seed of the gospel indiscriminately because the Holy Spirit alone can “germinate” the word unto life in Christ. The fallow ground of our hearts must first be plowed up by God, for the soil of our heart is not good by nature, but only by grace. The seed will not find good soil until God makes it so. For Ezekiel the prophet says:

“I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.” (Ezekiel 36:25-27)

Notice that in order for obedience to take place the Lord must first cleanse our hearts, put a new spirit in us and remove our hardened uncircumcised heart. No one believes and obeys while their heart is still stone. Our blind eyes must be opened, our deaf ears unstopped, and our corrupt nature supernaturally changed by the Holy Spirit, before we can begin to have any good thoughts about Christ. The Bible likens the new birth, or regeneration, to the first creation (2 Cor. 5:17). God let light shine into what was darkness. And God breathed life into lifeless man and then man, because of the new principle of life now within him, breathed and walked. Likewise regeneration can be likened to God's first breath in man, and faith, to Adam's first breath. The former is monergistic and the later, while it springs from the principle of grace that now exists within, is participatory. Both the creation and the maintaining are all of grace, but only God's breathing life into us (ex nihilo) is monergistic (that is, it is the work of God alone). When God brings forth something out of nothing, it is monergistic, but when we breathe (or have faith) as a result of God's act, we are now participating, so by definition this is not monergistic, but all springs forth from God's initial monergistic act of giving life from nothing.

"Regeneration is the fountain; sanctification is the river." - J. Sidlow Baxter

This is what I call passive/active sanctification, because as Jesus, Ezekial, Paul explain, except that we abide in Him we can do nothing. Nothing. By definition it is not monergistic if what we are saying is that man acts at all. The import of Hendryx, just as it was with the Council of Orange, and as it has been recognized in the orthodox faith since the patriarchs, is that man is carried along. All that flows from the fountain of monergism is what carries out the work and therefore the glorification of God. It is by grace alone and not the prevenient grace of the Arminian, or of any other form of common grace like that of the Pelagian or semi-pelagian. It is a prevenient grace that is preventive, that will not allow failure to save and that eternally. The grace of Christ, that is the Christian grace, is complete in all that is required of righteousness in man that fits him for salvation. And this all bought by the blood of Christ. His reward given to him by the Father is that we are made to partake in the adoption as sons. It is his righteousness, his deeds, his righteous confession and love of the Father freely given to us grace. It is his drawing, his spinkling of us, his cleansing us. He does it all, even making us active by it.

Our passive/active obedience is well expressed in the Hebrew term in Ezekiel for cause. Like the word receive in 1 Cor 4 it is active but can also be passive, and it can at the same time be both. The one thing that it cannot be is neutral. Like the term in Ezekiel for God santifying Himself in his people, all three are the case. Just as when it is said that his works have been finished from the beginning of the world yet he never stops working. But what always comes first is the activity of God so we also have the Promised One who is in us not by the power resident in us, that is we cannot ascend into heaven to bring Christ down, but by the power resident in Him. We are also in Him by the same power. Likewise we walk by the Spirit, passive/active. But we are at first passive while He takes the active role of causing us to walk according to His commands such that we put to death the deeds of the flesh. Though like Isaiah says he also causes us to walk not according to his statutes for a season, he is always faithful to save his people from utter destruction. His discipline moves us to diligence so we work out our salvation with fear and trembling because it is He who is a work in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure. We do not do as we want. Therefore Paul tells us that Christ is our salvation, both our justification and sanctification, in whom alone is the promise, to whom alone belongs the promise, who is alone the promise. He leaves nothing to the chance of our choosing.

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

Thank God that from these stones he is able to raise up children.

ENJOY!

Birth: Natural and From Above

I recently read the book Understanding Four Views On Baptism. In it I encountered a really good point concerning the Lord's teaching on the New Birth by Lutheran theologian Robert Kolb. Though we Reformed Baptists would disagree with Kolb on how he understands Baptism in relation to Regeneration, what Kolb has written below lines up very well with how we understand the monergistic nature of the New Birth.

"Coming under God's rule means forsaking a sinful way of life and being brought under God's fatherly, beneficent Lordship. Christ spoke of this gift as the loss of our identity as sinners and the gift of the new identity imparted in Christ as a 'new birth' or 'birth from above.' (Both translations of the Greek word anothen in John 3:3 are possible, and both are theologically apt.) When Nicodemus asked Jesus how a person can experience the kingdom of God, the Lord has a number of possible ways to describe how people come under God's rule. Given the Roman economy in Palestine at the time, he might have said, "It is like a business contract that is offered, which you must sign." He did not. He might have said, "It is like wooing a lover and seeking her to gain her consent to marry." He did not. Entering the Kingdom of God is not a matter of two coming to an agreement. Coming under God's rule is not a matter of human desire or human willing. Those who receive Christ and believe in him have been given power to become the children of God (John 1:12-13), Therefore, Jesus compared coming to experience God's reign in his people's lives as birth (John 3:1-15).

Although babies cry and wiggle as they come from the womb, there is nothing more passive -more a gift- in life than being born. We neither asked our parents for the gift of life nor were asked by them if they could conceive and bear us. Mothers give birth, and children receive. God gives new birth and this new identity is received by faith. This new identity involves trusting and loving the heavenly Parent who imparts new life. But he has made the first move, and he makes it independent of every condition on the human side of the relationship. The response of trust or faith results from, is not a cause of, God's re-creative act."

Lectures on Monergistic Regeneration

The Reformation Theology blog has posted two free lectures on Monergistic Regeneration by Dr. Art Azurdia III.

I've almost jumped up and ran around the room shouting like Billy Sunday several times during the first lecture!

Soli Deo Gloria!


Photo: Billy Sunday showing out... Can't remember where I found it.

More with Kangaroodort

Ben, of Arminian Perspectives, has responded to my earlier post (Revisiting John 5:40.) This is my response to his response. It can't help but get confusing, doing things in this manner, so I apologize at the outset. Here is the code you need in order to follow along: KD is Ben, whose blogger nick is Kangaroodort. He is responding to my earlier post. What I wrote in that post will be prefaced by GR, for Gordan Runyan, or Gregarious Reformer, or Greasy Redneck. My current response to Ben will be in blue.

Also, I apologize ahead of time for the length of this. I did edit a lot of stuff out, I promise. Not for nefarious reasons, but for length. This is still huge. Sorry. You don't have to read it. I won't be hurt.

========

KD: I did not say that John 5:40 was the death knell of Calvinism. I do believe that it is one of many passages which destroy the Reformed view of the ordo salutis.

> Okay, you didn’t use the words “death knell.” That’s my own analysis of what you’ve proposed. You think John 5:40 should “destroy the Reformed view.” Death knell, destroy, tomayto, tomahto.

GR: Here is the verse in the NKJV: “But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.” (This is Jesus speaking to the Jews who sought to kill Him.)Ben says this proves Calvinism is wrong. He is fairly certain that the “life” mentioned there must necessarily include Regeneration. He thinks that if I would simply read the text, I’d see that as an inescapable conclusion.Spiritually dead people have to come to Jesus (i.e. believe in Him) in order to be regenerated. Ben sees that as straightforward, if only we Calvinists would read what the Bible says there.

KD: There is a lot to deal with here. Gordan has been fair enough in representing my view that the “life” spoken of in John 5:40 must at least [if not primarily] include regeneration. … Before looking at these passages (5:24-26 and 29), something must be said concerning his comment that, “[life] may be synonymous with ‘salvation,’ which is not uncommon in John’s writings”. I agree completely. This is probably the biggest difference in our views. Arminians do not see regeneration as a means to an end (the ability to put faith in Christ), but as the ends itself. Regeneration is the beginning of the new life (which is the eternal life that is found in Christ alone). It is, therefore, the beginning of “salvation”, which Gordan admits is synonymous with “eternal life”. For Calvinists, the purpose of regeneration is to enable (more properly, “cause”) faith in the individual which leads to salvation (i.e. eternal life). The Calvinist, then, sees things like this: life--> faith--> life [eternal life, salvation]. The Arminian sees things like this: faith--> life [eternal life, salvation, which begins at regeneration].

> You make a good point here, Ben, and one that will be necessary to remember later: Our definitions of what regeneration is and does are different, and that simple fact is behind of lot of the current disagreement. So, when you submit that a passage has implications for regeneration, since you conceive of the thing differently than I do, I don’t necessarily see how what you’ve suggested has to flow from the text.

KD: The text in question says, “But you are unwilling to come to Me that you may have life.” Gordan believes that there must be another “life” hidden in between the “unwilling” and “come”. The “unwilling” necessitates a need for “life” so that one can “come” to have “life”. For him we should understand Jesus to really mean: “Because you do not have life, you are unwilling to come to Me that you may have life”. I am arguing that Jesus has given us enough information without needing to insert a separate sort of “life” in between the “unwilling” and “come”. I think that Jesus is quite plainly telling the Jews that they must come to Him in order to have “life” (which begins at regeneration).

An important question, then, resolves around whether or not the “life” spoken of in 5:40 has any reference to regeneration (the new birth where life begins). I believe that it must, and found evidence for this in the same passages Gordan now refers us to (John 5:24-26, and 29):“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.” (verse 24)Look at that last phrase, “but has passed out of death into life”. Doesn’t that sound like the language of regeneration to you? A transition from death to life is a perfect way to describe regeneration, and many Calvinist have described regeneration with that exact same language. Another favorite metaphor for regeneration is “spiritual resurrection” which is just another way of saying that one has passed from [spiritual] death to [spiritual] life. This is the imagery that Jesus now turns to in describing the life spoken of in this context:

> I do in fact believe that in order to pass “out of death into life” you must be regenerated. However, I note that you rightly call resurrection a “favorite metaphor” for regeneration. It is indeed a favorite, but it is not the only. Regeneration is also pictured by other metaphors. I’d contend these include effectual calling, teaching, washing, and even (contrarily) death as in Romans 6 and 7.

This is a big part of why I think you miss the boat on this whole issue, Ben. You have to mandate that if spiritual resurrection is spoken of in John 5, it must include regeneration, since that is a common, even “favorite” way of describing regeneration in other places. But the whole work of salvation in a man’s life is also referred to in resurrection terms throughout the Bible, including the disparate elements of repentance, faith, justification, new life, unity with Christ, etc. I’m saying your whole argument here rests on a wooden use of biblical metaphors, where, if resurrection means one thing in one place, it has be speaking of the same thing in the other place. It must include regeneration here since it includes it somewhere else.

I will note at the end of this post as well, that you are quite inconsistent in the application of this hermeneutic, giving your side a pass while demanding this sort of strict usage from Calvinists. But later.

Another point about this text. While it does speak of a resurrection, what it does not do is explain any kind of causation. I mean, you apparently read it to say that hearing and believing causes this new life. He who believes will be regenerated, or something similar. But this idea is really not there. All the text does is state a fact about the condition of the one who believes: that is, he is released from judgment and is spiritually raised from the dead. Who has eternal life? The one who believes in Jesus. There is a vital correlation described there: you can’t have one without the other, but the text itself doesn’t speak to whether one of those connected ideas caused the others.

“Truly, truly, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the Son of God, and those who hear shall live.”Here Christ speaks of a spiritual resurrection for those who hear the voice of the Son of God. The previous verse [24] reminds us that hearing unto life includes believing, “…and believes Him who sent Me”. So what have these passages taught us? They have taught us that Jesus is describing the need for these spiritually dead Jews to experience a transition from death to life: a spiritual resurrection! Well what about verses 28-29? Don’t they have reference to the final resurrection? Yes they do, but we must let the context determine Christ’s purpose in looking forward to the resurrection event.Jesus anticipates that the Jews will object that He has the power to grant new life. Jesus tells them plainly that He does have this power (verse 21, 24, 26) and that not only can He bring about a spiritual resurrection in those who believe in Him, but He will one day call the dead from their graves as well. However, Jesus is speaking not of a specific resurrection to life of believers in verses 28-29, but the general resurrection of the dead. The point Christ is making is that they should not be surprised at His claims to be able to grant life to those who believe since He will one day raise all of creation from the dead in order to judge them (verses 28-29). If He has been given the authority to do that, then surely He has been given the authority to give spiritual life to those who come to Him in faith.Therefore, I think it is self evident that the context Gordan mentions actually argues against his position while lending further weight to my initial interpretation of the passage in question. Gordan has much more to say on this issue, however, so let’s hear him out:

> I don’t have a huge problem with anything in the preceding paragraphs, except Ben’s conclusion:

“I think it is self evident that the context Gordan mentions actually argues against his position while lending further weight to my initial interpretation of the passage in question.”

“Self evident” normally means that a thing is so obvious it shouldn’t have to be proved. That is certainly how it is employed here. Ben thinks it’s obvious that this text argues against my position, but hasn’t bothered to show how. What in my position is contradicted here, and how? It’s evident to Ben’s self but not to mine. I can agree with nearly all of what he’s written and not feel undermined by it.

Of course, that doesn’t mean I’m right and he’s wrong. It just means that Ben’s view is not really self evident. It still has to be proved.

GR: Who will come to Jesus to be regenerated? How does a spiritually dead person decide to get resurrected? Ben believes in the doctrine of Total Depravity. I think he’d say, no spiritually dead person would choose to believe. But as an Arminian, Ben believes in Prevenient Grace. According to this doctrine, before any sinner may savingly believe in Christ, God must first grant a gift of grace that allows that sinner to overcome his totally depraved nature and make that decision from something like neutral ground.In short, Arminian Ben sees the same dilemma the Calvinist does, in that no carnal man will or can receive the things of the Spirit (specifically, the Gospel of Christ.) Where the Calvinist solves this dilemma with the doctrine of Regeneration, the Arminian solves it with resistible Prevenient Grace. The two doctrines accomplish the same thing: they allow the sinner to obey the demands of the Gospel.Now, here’s the catch for Ben. If John 5:40’s “life” must include Calvinistic regeneration (since that is the starting point of life in Christ) then why does Prevenient Grace get a pass? Doesn’t the Arminian process of receiving eternal life in Christ begin with Prevenient Grace? If so, then it is just as rightly included in the “life” of John 5:40 as the Calvinist’s doctrine of Regeneration. That is, they both stand at the beginning of the sinner’s experience of new life in Christ.So, if John 5:40 means that you have to come to Christ to be regenerated, then it must also mean that you have to come to Christ to receive Prevenient Grace.

KD: Gordan is really reaching here. His argument simply does not follow and seems to be based on a gross misunderstanding of how Arminians view prevenient grace. I do not believe that prevenient grace must be included in “life” as he contends. The new life cannot be given until one exercises the God ordained condition of faith. This is the order presented to us by Jesus in John 5:40. The “come” of 5:40 is synonymous with faith, just as the “come” of John 6:44 is synonymous with faith. Jesus is therefore saying that one gains life through faith. Prevenient grace comes before saving faith and therefore cannot be part of the “life” that results from faith. Prevenient grace is described in John 6:44 as a drawing. The Arminian then sees the ordo salutis as: draw [prevenient grace] --> come [in faith] --> life [regeneration, i.e. the beginning of eternal life and salvation]. This order is supported by comparing John 5:40 with John 6:44 [which is what initially provoked this debate].

> Yes, I am really reaching there, on purpose, in order to show the absurdity of your argument. It’s called a reductio ad absurdum, I think. Using your own argument against you ought to illustrate its illegitimacy, which it apparently does. You react pretty strongly against it, as you should.

Here’s my point, remembering what we’ve said above about the fact that you and I see Regeneration differently: Ben, if you go through the last half of the paragraph you’ve written above and substitute Calvinistic regeneration in all the places where you have Prevenient Grace, you will basically have my argument about why your entire contention on this issue is wrong-headed.

Especially this sentence of yours: “Prevenient grace comes before saving faith and therefore cannot be part of the “life” that results from faith.”

Bravo. I completely agree. Thing is, this is what I’ve been contending: Regeneration comes before saving faith and therefore cannot be part of the “life” that results from faith.

Your argument about why PG ought to be exempted is exactly the same as mine for why Regeneration ought to be exempted. Somehow your argument is airtight and logical when you employ it and absurd when I do. Nice.

KD: The fact that one must first come before one can attain life in John 5:40 makes it impossible for us to understand the drawing of John 6:44 as regeneration. It must, therefore, have reference to prevenient grace as Arminians have always contended. Gordan has done nothing to prove otherwise. He has only succeeded in strengthening the Arminian interpretation by drawing (no pun intended) our attention to John 5:21-24, and 26.

> If we were in a courtroom, this would be called Assuming Facts Not In Evidence. Specifically, the thing we’re trying to determine in this whole discussion is whether Ben is right to insist that the “life” of John 5:40 must include regeneration. But in this paragraph, he simply assumes he is right and moves on to use the conclusion to help bolster the argument. Life must mean regeneration, so you have to come to Christ to be regenerated, so that proves Ben’s argument about John 6:44, that it must refer to prevenient grace there and in the rest of John 5, thus supporting the argument that “life” in v.40 includes regeneration. Ingenious! Ben, if I’m ever on trial for my life, I want you as my lawyer.

KD: Prevenient grace does indeed “stand at the beginning of the sinner’s experience of new life in Christ”, but that grace is not the same as regeneration. Prevenient grace enables the sinner to believe unto life. John 5:40 tells us that coming must precede life, and John 6:44 tells us that drawing must precede coming. That is exactly what Arminians believe concerning the ordo salutis and Gordan’s statement that, “…if John 5:40 means that you have to come to Christ to be regenerated, then it must also mean that you have to come to Christ to receive Prevenient grace” is a painfully obvious case of non-sequintur.

> Again, not non-sequitor, but reductio. If you allow me as a Calvinist to define what this Calvinist must believe about Regeneration, then I tell you that everything you think Prevenient Grace must do is done by what is called Regeneration or Effectual Calling in my view, and so it corresponds to the drawing in the very same manner as Prevenient Grace would in your system.

GR: 2. Another problem with saying that Regeneration has to be included in any thought of eternal life, is this: why stop there? I mean, why not go back farther? You have to be alive in the flesh before you can be alive in the Spirit, right? So why not include fleshly life in the “life” of John 5:40? You can’t enter into eternal life by faith while you’re physically dead any more than you can believe without being regenerated. So, surely physical life stands just as vitally at the starting point of life in Christ as Regeneration does. Why include one and not the other, aside from the fact that it seems to help your argument?

KD: And I thought Gordan was reaching with his last comments. This argument barely deserves an answer. All we need to do is look at the context to understand what kind of life Jesus is referring to in John 5:40.

>Well, right, and it especially helps to read into that context Arminian concepts like decisional regeneration. (Seeing as how they are not there explicitly…) Again, I’d agree with the charge of “reaching.” Guilty!

But I’d contend I’m only reaching in the same manner that you have been the entire time. In this way: If the new life in Christ begins necessarily with Regeneration, then Regeneration must be included in “Life.” But I’m saying that’s an arbitrary place to stop. Calvinists would contend that other forms of life are logically necessary in order for us to experience eternal life. Other things like election and the physical ability to hear the Good News are just as vital, right? So Salvation in its fullness, the “life” we want in Christ, where does that really begin?

KD: We have done that above, and I am confident that any unbiased reading of the text would reveal that Jesus is speaking of a transition from spiritual death to spiritual life: a spiritual resurrection [i.e. regeneration].

>Again, I am happy to agree that spiritual resurrection and new life is in view. But I think you’re hung up on metaphors and analogies and mixing some. Yes, Regeneration is sometimes referred to as a raising from death. But it’s also referred to as a calling, a washing, a circumcision, the opening of the heart, being secretly taught by God, having the Law written on our hearts, having our stony heart replaced, etc. To demand that the “life” of 5:40 must be speaking of the quickening of regeneration is like demanding that the washing of Baptism must be the same thing as the washing of regeneration. (Since Paul spoke once of the washing of regeneration, then every time he speaks of Baptism, Regeneration must be included…) So, you’re inconsistent with your own methodology if you don’t wind up advocating Baptismal Regeneration. Hey, it’s all in there in the concept of spiritual washing. Any fair reading of the context would show how self evident that is….

And again, I must point out the lack of any straightforward causation in any of your “contextual data.” Even if we grant that the resurrection spoken of includes regeneration, there isn’t a hint of explaining what caused that: the verses you’ve called as witnesses on this count merely show correlation, which is a different thing. The believing one is also the regenerated one. The believing one is the one who is resurrected.

To the verse itself, I know you see causation there, but even if I were to grant the whole rest of your argument (that “life” includes regeneration) the text still doesn’t say that belief causes this. It says that the Jews refused to come. They refused to have anything to do with the eternal life that Jesus was offering, regardless of what the process was for that, or what steps are involved in the human heart. Jesus is simply saying that they have refused to come to Him. The blame for their spiritual deadness lies completely with them.

And why? Well Calvinists would say, because they’re unregenerate and they hate the light because their deeds are evil. So, without any reference to what the actual process may be, if they have to come to Jesus to get eternal life, they’re not going to do it.

GR: Or why not go all the way back to God’s foreordination before the foundation of the world? Calvinists would say Regeneration only happens because Predestination has already happened long ago, so why not extend the line back to the real, genuine beginning of life in Christ? So then, Jesus would be saying, “You refuse to come to Me, that you may be predestined.”

KD: Is Gordan really contending that “real” and “genuine” regeneration in Christ begins at some eternal decree? Wouldn’t that make the elect eternally regenerated? Is this really where Gordan is willing to take us in order to preserve his doctrine? Look at this statement again and let the absurd implications sink in:Surely Gordan misspoke and didn’t think very carefully about what he was saying since I am quite confident that he doesn’t believe the elect have been regenerated from eternity. I think that it is only fair that we give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

> Thanks for giving me the “benefit of the doubt” whilst you rant and rave about how absurd and careless I am, btw. Of course, I did not argue for eternal regeneration or anything of the kind. I merely pointed out that election and salvation are logically, absolutely connected, as a way of showing that it would be wrong to disconnect them. That is much different from saying they are the same thing.

KD: While Gordan’s statement is plainly and painfully ridiculous, he is actually on to something very important when he says, “life in Christ”. It is undisputable that spiritual life resides only in the person of Jesus Christ (John. 1:4; 5:26; 6:35; 11:25; 14:6; 1 John. 1:2; 5:11; Col. 3:3, 4). It is just as certain that we come to be in union with Christ through faith (Eph. 1:13; 3:17). The born again believer is truly a “new creature”, but only “in Christ” (2 Cor. 5:17). Gordan’s belief that regeneration precedes faith puts him into the absurd theological position of explaining how someone can be given new life outside of union with the only source of life- Jesus Christ.

>Ah, yes, you must be speaking of the “absurd theological position” of affirming that we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. Anything that God does for us in the process of saving us is “in Christ.” We are regenerated by the Spirit of Christ, so that can hardly be outside of Him.

KD: He must also affirm that a holy God can give life to sinners before the blood of Christ has been applied, since he believes that regeneration precedes justification.

> Ummm. ..can you say Old Testament saint? God gave them life before there was any blood to apply. Now, I’d contend He gave them life because He knew perfectly well what He was going to do, and who He would apply that blood to. But your objection is based on the issue of time and space, who does what before which. If God can give spiritual life to the patriarchs thousands of years before the Blood was shed, this is in no way “life apart from Christ.” David claimed to have been made to trust while still a suckling infant, and John the Baptist was regenerated in the womb. So arguing against the idea that the new birth might begin seconds before the sinner mouths the words “I do” seems like making a mountain out of a molehill. These are all examples of God knowing from eternity those who are His. The fact that He does not make us privy to that information prior to their confession of faith shouldn’t freak us out.

KD: His theology forces him to accept the unbiblical view that one can be born again before being forgiven (which is part of what it means to be justified).

>No, it simply means I believe regeneration and justification are different things. As to the issue of “before,”…. again, I think you’re temporally hung up. I happen to think the two things occur as part of one event, time-wise. I don’t at all envision a bunch of regenerate people walking around who still reject the Gospel.

KD: I appreciate the fact that Gordan and I may never see eye to eye on this subject, but I hope that he will at least admit that his initial charge that my understanding of John 5:40 was not based on sound exegesis was without foundation.

>Ben, let’s clear this up. It ought to be easy. I have been accused (albeit humorously) of thinking I was reading your mind in my initial post on this topic. That was totally unfounded on your part, Ben. But I’ll give you props for it: It garnered a chorus of guffaws from your amen corner at your blog. Regardless, what I said was, it looked to me as if you may have employed a certain bad methodology. There is a difference there. Here’s what it looks like vs. Here’s what Ben did.

I am happy to see that what it looked like to me was not the reality.

I agree that we won’t agree about this. I will admit that I charged you with a methodology that you did not, in fact, use. I think you have done your best to exegete the text.

But I can’t agree that your exegesis has been “sound,” no. I’m sure you feel the same way toward me, and worse, as you have stated as much in other words.

Let me summarize my objections to your take on this, by way of closing this:

1. Yes, some of the verses prior to John 5:40 speak of a spiritual resurrection, or raising to new life.

2. Yes, sometimes Regeneration is spoken of as a resurrection. This is, however, not a metaphor that is exclusively used this way. Regeneration is also called other things. But also, the fullness of salvation, including grace, faith, repentance and justification is referred to in such terms (e.g. Ephesians 2, Romans 6, and, I’d contend, the rest of John 5.) Similarity of metaphor is no warrant for conflating all these things. Jesus and the devil are both called lions: this doesn’t make them identical, nor demand that when the Scripture speaks of a lion it must necessarily have both beings in view.

3. Your argument rests completely on the insistence that Calvinists must be very rigid in the application of the resurrection metaphor. And yet, this insistence only goes one way. Your view doesn’t have to do this. You’d get upset, I’m guessing, if I pointed out that you think the text teaches that dead men are upbraided for not doing what is necessary to be resurrected. You’d get indignant if I pointed out that you’ve got dead men coming to Jesus to receive life. The way most Arminians avoid this is by asserting that spiritual death does not make one as unable to act as natural death does, and so the metaphor is not very strictly applied. The dead can still act, in your view. You’d say (I’m guessing) they only can act because God gives them a means for acting through Prevenient Grace. But then, the metaphor doesn’t really hold, does it? Once dead men can act, by whatever miraculous means, they can’t really be called dead anymore.

So, Calvinism is destroyed by a strict and wooden application of a particular metaphor, but Arminianism keeps right on trucking by playing fast-and-loose with the very same metaphor of death/resurrection.

3. John 5:40 remains simply a statement of the Jews’ culpability. They are to blame for not coming to Jesus, and thus, their state of spiritual death is their own fault.

Revisiting John 5:40

Recently, I was in a discussion with a friend (who claims to hate me, in a good-natured way, of course) who proposed that John 5:40 is the death knell of Calvinistic soteriology. I mentioned this claim in an earlier post.

[For the record, I do not hate Ben (Kangaroodort) although I do have a big, big problem with his anti-biblical soteriology, and I in fact pity him for his choice of NFL teams.]

Here is the verse, in the NKJV: “But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.” (This is Jesus speaking to the Jews who sought to kill Him.)

Ben says this proves Calvinism is wrong. He is fairly certain that the “life” mentioned there must necessarily include Regeneration. He thinks that if I would simply read the text, I’d see that as an inescapable conclusion.

Spiritually dead people have to come to Jesus (i.e. believe in Him) in order to be regenerated. Ben sees that as straightforward, if only we Calvinists would read what the Bible says there.

But after pondering this for some time, both during and since our discussion at his blog, I am left where my objection began. That is, what is the textual evidence for the notion that the “life” of John 5:40 includes Regeneration? (And right here is where we may need a whole ‘nother discussion on what constitutes evidence…)

There are other options for what “life” might mean. It may be synonymous with “salvation,” which I think is not uncommon in John’s writings. Or, it may have to do specifically with “eternal life,” the glorified life post-resurrection.

In fact, I’d propose that this latter idea is suggested strongly by the context of the rest of John chapter 5. (See especially verses 24-26, and 29.) In fact, in the verse right before the one in question (v.39), it is “eternal life” that is expressly mentioned as that which the Jews have missed in their rejection of the Scriptures’ teachings about Jesus.

This does no harm to Calvinism. Every Calvinist would say that a person has to believe in Jesus in order to have eternal life.

But Ben’s contention is that regeneration must be included in that concept because it is the starting point of eternal life. Can’t have the everlasting life in heaven without first being regenerated, after all. So, then, you have to come to Jesus to be regenerated, since it is the beginning point of that eternal life.

A couple of problems with that:

1. It still doesn’t answer the question, Who will come to Jesus to be regenerated? How does a spiritually dead person decide to get resurrected? Ben believes in the doctrine of Total Depravity. I think he’d say, no spiritually dead person would choose to believe. But as an Arminian, Ben believes in Prevenient Grace. According to this doctrine, before any sinner may savingly believe in Christ, God must first grant a gift of grace that allows that sinner to overcome his totally depraved nature and make that decision from something like neutral ground.

In short, Arminian Ben sees the same dilemma the Calvinist does, in that no carnal man will or can receive the things of the Spirit (specifically, the Gospel of Christ.) Where the Calvinist solves this dilemma with the doctrine of Regeneration, the Arminian solves it with resistible Prevenient Grace. The two different doctrines accomplish the same thing: they allow the sinner to obey the demands of the Gospel.

Now, here’s the catch for Ben. If John 5:40’s “life” must include Calvinistic regeneration (since that is the starting point of life in Christ) then why does Prevenient Grace get a pass? Doesn’t the Arminian process of receiving eternal life in Christ begin with Prevenient Grace? If so, then it is just as rightly included in the “life” of John 5:40 as the Calvinist’s doctrine of Regeneration. That is, they both stand at the beginning of the sinner’s experience of new life in Christ.

So, if John 5:40 means that you have to come to Christ to be regenerated, then it must also mean that you have to come to Christ to receive Prevenient Grace.

2. Another problem with saying that Regeneration has to be included in any thought of eternal life, is this: why stop there? I mean, why not go back farther?

You have to be alive in the flesh before you can be made alive in the Spirit, right? So why not include fleshly life in the “life” of John 5:40? You can’t enter into eternal life by faith while you’re physically dead any more than you can believe without being regenerated. So, surely physical life stands just as vitally at the starting point of life in Christ as Regeneration does. Why include one and not the other, aside from the fact that it seems to help your argument?

Or why not go all the way back to God’s foreordination before the foundation of the world? Calvinists would say Regeneration only happens because Predestination has already happened long ago, so why not extend the line back to the real, genuine beginning of life in Christ? So then, Jesus would be saying, “You refuse to come to Me, that you may be predestined.”

So this is what I see as the conclusion of the matter, though I am certain others will disagree with me. As a Calvinist, nothing that John 5:40 says conflicts at all with what I believe is Biblical soteriology. I believe you must come to Jesus to have life. And, ta-da! I remain a five-pointer.

The only way this verse is a challenge to Calvinism is if you force two things into the text: First, you must force it to include Regeneration when it speaks of eternal life. The problem is that there is no good reason to force it that way, and no reason to stop there and not include earlier necessities like Predestination. It can be read in a perfectly harmonious, straightforward manner without that. Second, I think you must conflate Regeneration and Justification. If the two are separate things, this supposed hurdle for Calvinism proves to only be about ankle-high.

Objections to Reformed Theology #1

I have decided to do a series, albeit rather sporatically due to time constraints with work, on objections to reformed theology. In order to help with this, I ask that our Arminian brothers comment below posing an objection in question form, that way my posts can be geared toward answering a specific question. I would greatly appreciate that.

This post is going to provide an answer to the question, "Why would God command us to do something (ex. choose him, repent, obey him, etc.) if humanity is unable to do so?

I have not heard this question raised by any commenter of this blog, but I have heard it raised by other people, and have read it in several books.

Let me first begin with two things. God does command humanity to do certain things, and in other places the Scripture says that man's heart is wicked and is dead to sin and cannot even understand the things of God in order to do them. Sp how do we reconcile such passages? Here are some possible answers?

1. God doesn't really mean for us to actually choose, because he knows we can't. God actually chooses for us.

This is probably a really wacky form of hyper calvinism and is absolutely absurd. The language of Scripture is clear that God commands us to choose him. He will not decide for us. To say God has chosen us is different than saying God repents and decides for us. That's so crazy I can'y begin to address that.

2. God thinks that people will choose him, but he really isn't that sure. God is taking a risk with people. This is the position of Open Theism, but it is heretical. God knows are hearts and knows that they are wicked continuously, and he knows that we have all turned aside, every one to his own way, and he isn't wondering what is going to happen, he knows what would happen left to ourselves.

3. Our heart's are neutral and our decision can go either way. Wrong. Scripture is clear that our hearts are wicked and evil continuously. (Genesis 6:5), and that the heart is deceptive and desperately sick (Jeremiah 17:9), so the heart is not neutral...there is no question as to how humanity will respond to God's command to choose him.

4. God wants people to choose him, but he really doesn't have any control in what they choose or not. This would be the closest to the classical Arminian position, even though they would word this statement more piously, like "God has sovereignly chose to not excercise control over the free choices of man", but that's just mere speculation, and the same argument Clarck Pinnock and Gregory Boyd uses.

I posit a different answer that is rooted in God's character.

God is infinitely holy. Because of God's extreme and infinite hatred of sin, he cannot command or require anything less of full obedience from humanity, despite their ability. God cannot simply reduce his requirements based on man's ability, for God would be sinning against himself in doing so. God's standards are rooted in his character. He commands his creatures to not have idols, but everyday we worship something other than God. He commands us to not bear false witness, but that happens every day. God's character can require no less than full obedience, and complete rejection of sin, despite man's inability to do so. So what happens?

God does not repent or believe for us...we have to do that. But how do we do that if our condition is so desperately wicked? God changes us. This change is not mere prevenient grace, for that is not really a change at all, it is simply neutralizing man's will, but that concept is nowhere found in Scripture. Rather this change is basically a divine heart transplant.

In Ezekiel 18:30-31, God commands Israel to repent and to make for themselves a new heart, because their sin is a stumbling block to them. Here we have God's requirment...repentance and the solution to the problem is a new heart...The problem is...Israel simply cannot make a new heart for themselves, but that is what God's holiness requires...so what happens?

The answer is in Ezekiel 36:26-28. Read it. God says that he will give Israel a new heart. He will remove their heart of stone...the one of wickedness...and give them a new heart...he will put His Spirit within them and that will cause them to obey the statutes of the Lord.

Is this not exactly what happens with us today? God changes our obstinate hearts to a heart that hates our sin and desires Christ (Regeneration), and then we respond in repentance and faith and the Lord gives us His Spirit to dwell in us, and because of the indwelling Holy Spirit we are able to obey the Lord, and be in covenant relationship with him (v.28 "You will be my people and I will be your God").

In summary, God's character requires no less than our belief in Christ and full obedience to his ways. God also knows that are condition is so serious that we could never do that if left to ourselves. Therefore, God changes our hearts from an obstinate heart to a heart for Christ, and enables us to choose and believe in him and obey him.

Friends, if you are a believer, thank God for giving you a new heart. Thank God for giving you His Spirit so you can obey him. Also, if you know someone who is lost, understand that God must change their heart if they are going to come to Christ. Pray for God to do just that while you are busy in sharing the gospel with those lost people. We must share the gospel and pray, both are needed in the salvation of the lost. Be Blessed!

Kangaroo D'Oh!

I lifted this from the meta of a post over at Triablogue. Our sometime commenter/fomenter of dischord, Kangeroodort, a/k/a Ben left it there. I don't know that they'll answer it (although I may already be wrong about that) because it is off-topic, so I thought I'd interact with it a bit. The blue font below is all Ben's stuff.

I asked the following comment which has so far been ignored directly, but answered indirectly by saint and sinner:

In the meantime, I have a quick question for you regarding John 6:44. Do you believe that one can "come" prior to regeneration? If not, then I suspect you see the drawing of John 6:44 as a reference to irresistible regeneration.

Is that the case? Would you object to an interpretive translation along these lines:"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me first regenerates them [gives them life]"?

S&S later said [concerning the contention that John 6:44 had reference to resistible prevenient grac]:This is a basic exegetical error in interpreting John 6. The problem with this interpretation is that Jesus is quoting the Prophet Isaiah. The quote comes from Is. 54:13, which is in the midst of a passage on the renewed creation and covenant. Like other passages in the prophets (Jeremiah 31:33-34 and Ezekiel 36:26-27), it is thus speaking about regeneration, not a preaching of the gospel which we must then decide upon. Thus, those who are "taught of God" are the regenerate.

So it would seem that the drawing of John 6:44 refers to regeneration in the Calvinist scheme. To say it refers to something less is to concede prevenient grace, which the Calvinist will not do. So it is quite resonable to understand Jn. 6:44, in Calvinism, as saying:No one can come to be unless the Father who sent Me regenerates them [i.e. first gives them life].

I assume that S&S would also equate "come" with "believe" as most Calvinists do. So we could further define the passage as:No one can believe in Me unless the Father who sent Me regenerates them [i.e. first gives them life].

We could then simplify the teaching by saying, "no one can come unless the Father first gives them life."

Therefore, the giving of life, according to Calvinism, must precede coming or believing.I dare say that no Calvinist would object at this point.

What then did Jesus mean when He said in John 5:40:"...you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life."

Here Jesus plainly says that "coming" precedes the giving of life. This flatly contradicts the Calvinists interpretation of John 6:44 and renders such an interpretation impossible.

In view of John 5:40, the drawing of John 6:44 can have no reference to regeneration.

God Bless,Ben

First, let me give Ben some props here for having a grasp on the Calvinist interpretation he seeks to argue with. I would state things a little differently than he has above, but not all that much. So, yes, it is the standard Calvinist intepretation of John 6:44, that it teaches that regeneration precedes faith.

See what a nice Calvinist I am, Ben. I gave you some props. In fact, I'll go ahead and give you some more. You have proven to me that you are a thoughtful Christian man who is zealous in the pursuit of truth.

But, sadly, those last props come in spite of what you've written in this comment, and not because of it. After reading what you've written, I stubbornly refuse to believe that this is really how you go about studying the Scripture. I choose to believe better of you, in spite of the current lack of evidence. (I'm a hopeless fideist...)

1. It looks like what you've done here is this: recognized that the Calvinistic take on John 6 is all about who comes to Jesus and why, and you've seen it has something to do with the new life of regeneration. Then, you took some of those key words, specifically "come" and "life" and you've looked with your concordance for other places where the two terms occur in close proximity. Having found a place like that (John 5:40,) you've compared the way that place speaks of life and coming to Jesus and the way John 6 speaks of life and coming to Jesus. And, lo and behold, we see that you prefer the way that John 5 puts it, and have thus determined that the view you don't like, from John 6, must be wrong.

2. Let me illustrate why this is a truly horrible way to study the Bible. Let's say, as a Calvinist, I don't like the insistence that John 3:16 shows that God loves every individual in the world. And so, I hunt around in my Bible for other places that speak of the world, until I come to 1 John 2:15, where it says, "If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him."

"Eureka!" I shout. "Now I've got all those synergists dead to rights! They'll never overcome this challenge from Scriptural fact, for I have proven that love for the world is really the opposite of God's attitude!"

Does it not immediately occur to you why that would be really dumb?

I'm sure it does, Ben, but for our readers let me spell it out: To do that would be to ignore simple considerations of context. Any synergist would be totally correct to then come and rebuke me for being too stupid to see immediately that the passages are not talking about the same things. And that's true, even though John 3:16 and 1 John 2:15 use the same key words, like "God" and "love."

A very simple, surface reading would show me, if I had bothered enough to check, that different things are in view. Again, that's true even though the same author uses the same key words: He's still talking about different things. The only reason I would possibly fail to see that is if I was so ideologically blinded that I was willing to deal fast-and-loose with the Word of God so long as I got to prove my point with it. And shame on me.

3. Apprapos 1 and 2, you try to make your point here by citing a place where the same author uses the same key words, and you've simply assumed that the two different discussions are talking about the same thing.

4. But is the assumption of 3 above warranted? The discussion in John 6 is about why some come to Jesus in faith and are saved, and some do not. The matter at hand in John 5 is the sin of the Jewish leaders, who had refused to listen to any of the witnesses that God sent to them. Though they both have in common the presence of sinful unbelief, they really are two different conversations. In John 6, Jesus is explaining to His disciples the "why" of faith, and in John 5, Jesus is rebuking the Jews for the fact of their unbelief.

In addition, I would grant that the "coming" of both passages is a metaphor for faith in Christ. But it is truly a stretch to assume that the "life" the Jews were actively refusing in John 5 is the new spiritual life of regeneration. Can you not see in the passage itself that there are different sorts of "life?" I mean, the Jews were certainly "alive" in one sense, and yet had refused another sort of life. How you conclude that they were refusing regeneration specifically, and neither the spirit-life of faith in Christ (as in Romans 8) nor eternal life with Him in heaven is beyond me. Regeneration is certainly not the focus in John 5: faith in Christ is.

5. And many such things you (synergists, generally) do. Use a passage that isn't about why some believe and some don't in order to argue with the grammatical-historical exegesis of a passage that plainly is. Another example of this sort of argumentation is the resort to John 12 to blunt the force of John 6. (Hey, they both mention a drawing of men to Christ: It has to be the same...except that it's obviously different. But still, the one in John 12 is more likeable, so let's go with that one.)

A Swine is a Swine

What the true proverb says has happened to them: "The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire." (2Peter 2:22 ESV)

Why does a "backslider" go back into sin? Why do some who profess to know Jesus later deny that God even exists? Why after washing a hog does it run right back to the mud?

I once raised a pig to show in the County Fair and I can tell you this:

You can clean off a pig and keep it clean for a time, but leave it to it's own desires it will be right back in the mud in no time. As long as a pig remains a pig, it will do what pigs do!

The same is true with sinners...

Thankfully, when God truly saves us, He makes us new creatures!

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2 Cor 5:17 KJV)

Soli Deo Gloria!


(Found the video Here)

Baptizing Little Believers?

I'm interested in some feedback from other Mafia members, and all other Reformed Baptists on this one.

I want to talk about baptizing children upon their profession of faith in Jesus Christ.

As a Calvinistic Baptist myself, I'll lay my cards on the table right at the outset on this one: I say just baptize them. I know that's a controversial position to hold. I know, for instance, that it's rumored that Spurgeon did not baptize his own twin sons until they were 19, even though neither one of them had ever confessed anything other than faith in Christ. (And whatever that guy did has to be right...right?)

I know the concern from the other position is over protecting the regenerate church membership. It's about doing what we can to ensure that we're not baptizing the unregenerate. I get that, and I appreciate the concern.

But here are my random thoughts on the matter:

1. It's not the baptism of children that necessarily produces unregenerate church members: it's a faulty and/or false gospel that is centered on emotional response and the free will of fallen man. If we repent of preaching that sort of "gospel" and return to preaching the apostolic content of the Gospel of Christ, then the response that we will get will be far less likely to be emotion-driven in the first place.

2. Scripture only ever gives us one hurdle to clear prior to baptism, and there's some manuscript evidence, apparently, that even this one hurdle may not be original with Luke. In Acts 8, when the eunuch asked why he couldn't be baptized, Philip replied that he could if only he believed. The eunuch said he did, and Philip baptized him. He didn't catechize him first, or make him fill out a seeker's workbook, or wait months for fruit to appear. But again, consistent with #1 above, Philip knew he had preached the genuine Gospel to him.

3. If anyone had a right to be gun-shy about baptizing new converts, it was Philip. He had just previously been involved with the whole sad incident involving Simon Magus and his false conversion/false baptism. But getting burned by Simon didn't cause him to hesitate to pull the trigger once faith in Christ was confessed.

4. We are tempted to demand that children have adult-like faith, but Scripture tells us we adults need to become childlike or we shall in no wise see the kingdom of heaven!

5. By not baptizing children who confess Christ consistent with their ability to understand, and by demanding to see some fruit first, we generally make it more difficult for them to be baptized than we do for adult converts.

6. Again, baptizing kids is not the problem: Manipulating kids into being baptized, with things like Vacation Bible School peer pressure and Fire Engine Baptistries, and with a lobotomized "Gospel" of the spiritual ABC's is the problem. You want to stop baptizing the unregenerate, then start preaching the true gospel and start relying on God to call those whom He will, completely apart from your parlor tricks and machinations to make it happen.

7. We should baptize on confession of faith, which confession is consistent with ability to understand, and is not blatantly contradicted by anything. This is true for both adults and children. Now, each of us sins, and thereby we are all habitual contradictors of our confessed faith; but we shouldn't withhold baptism from professing believers unless there is some obvious, glaring defect. Like, "I believe Jesus is the Son of God. I also believe Mohammed is the Son of God." Or, like the guy who confesses on Sunday morning to believe but the whole town's heard what hell he raised on Saturday night...you might want to wait and see some repentance in a case like that. But those are major, obvious contradictions. If you have a third or fourth grader who has listened to your consistent, expository presentation of the Gospel and subsequently confesses to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead and that forgiveness is through His Name, I'm not sure what the great wisdom is in waiting around for something more.

None of this is in stone for me, as in, I'm looking for interaction on this. I'm truly interested in your thoughts.

A Greek Word You Should Know

sarx
(flesh)

Throughout the Bible, “sarx” is used as a way of describing humanity. We are flesh, as in “flesh and blood.” As beings of flesh (sarx) we are to be distinguished from God, who is spirit (pneuma). However, especially in the writings of Paul, sarx/flesh takes on a new meaning: it becomes a shorthand way of referring to fallen man’s natural rebellion against God, of which we are all guilty.

Here’s a little quiz for you. It’s multiple choice, and only one question. If you get it wrong, no one’s going to fail you or throw rocks at you or anything:

Out of the four following statements, three are paraphrases of Scripture, and one is a line from a stupid song that is sung in a stupid little cartoon movie that kids love. Can you pick out the line that is not Biblical at all?

1. Men cannot follow their natural tendencies and manage to please God.

2. The imagination of your heart is only evil continually.

3. No good thing dwells in me naturally.

4. Your dreams will fly on magical wings, if you follow your heart.

Okay, let’s see how you did. Number 1 is a paraphrase of Romans 8:8, which says, “So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.” Number 2 is an application of God’s own assessment of fallen humanity, from Genesis 6:5: “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” As for Number 3, it comes from this verse, Paul’s confession of his own spiritual state without the indwelling presence of Christ: “I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing...” (Romans 7:18). The answer is #4. That line is from the movie Thumbelina.

I don’t mean to pick on Thumbelina. It’s no more stupid than any other cartoon that’s ever urged the same advice on kids. That advice is very warm and fuzzy sounding, but it is utter foolishness. “Just follow your heart.”

Okay, just to prove I’m not picking on Thumbelina, I’ll give you a quote that is just as stupid from my favorite movie of all time, Braveheart. At the beginning of the show, young William Wallace has a dream in which his dead father says to him, “You’re heart is free. Have the courage to follow it.” Gag me.

We hear this stuff all the time in our culture. And we hear other wonderful sounding stuff that is just as ignorant of the Truth of the Word of God. How many times for this one: “There’s good in everybody,” or this one, “People are basically good.”

Now, if it shocks you that I list those things as stupid, untruthful lies (which I do) then here is my bet: I bet you’ve never put much effort into reading the Bible. Hey, nothing to get offended about. But if you had, none of this would shock you.

The Bible simply does not teach that all people are basically good. It doesn’t: I’m sorry. Wouldn’t it be nice if it did, and we could all put on our rose-colored glasses and think nice thoughts about each other? But we can’t, because the truth is

God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God.

Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
- Psalm 53:2-3

Ever since the fall of Adam and Eve into sin, the human race has been a race of sinful people. Including me. And including you. Again: I’m sorry. I’m not thrilled about being the one to have to tell you this. But that’s the truth.

Hear again God’s own pronouncement about the natural state of mankind, from Genesis 6:5.

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Right there is the reason why Thumbelina and Braveheart are dead wrong. They’d tell you, follow your heart and your dreams will come true. Follow your heart, for it is free! But God tells you that the heart is “only evil continually.” I wonder what you’ll wind up with after a lifetime of following something that is only evil continually?

Okay, okay, someone will say. That verse you’re quoting is from right before the Flood of Noah, when the earth had grown especially wicked and God wiped it out. That was then, this is now.

Well, that was then, and this is now, but the human heart has ever remained the same. The prophet Jeremiah wrote (thousands of years after the Flood) that, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jer 17:9) The implied answer is, only God can know it.

Wow. That’s amazing isn’t it? “Deceitful above all things.” “Only evil continually.” “Desperately wicked.” At least we can’t accuse the Word of God of beating around the bush!

Let me ask you something. If you were going to try and communicate to someone that something was as bad as bad can be, could you use any stronger language than Scripture has used to describe your own heart?

So, you might ask, what does all of this have to do with the Greek word, “sarx?” Just this: Paul uses sarx, or “flesh,” as a shorthand way of referring to everything we’ve just looked at. Especially in Romans, chapters 7 and 8 (a couple of enormously important chapters as touching the central truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ) when Paul uses “flesh,” the stuff in this chapter is what he’s talking about. Flesh means the corrupt, natural human way of doing things, of talking, and of acting, both toward God and one another.

[We need to make an important pit-stop here to clarify something. The Bible does not teach that there is anything inherently evil or sinful about the physical material out of which our bodies our made. Our physical, flesh and blood bodies are not what’s being talked about when the Scripture uses “flesh” this way. In fact, on the day that God gave Adam and Eve physical bodies made of bones and blood and tissues and sinews... “flesh”....He pronounced the work of that day to be “very good.” Some ancient false teachers of the first century plagued the true church severely with their false doctrine, called “Gnosticism.” One of the tenets of Gnosticism is to believe that physical matter is evil, while all things “spiritual” or immaterial are good. To this way of thinking, then, the only way a human could be good was to be liberated from his physical body. Okay, that is not Christianity. Evil does not live in your physical tissues. It lives in your thoughts, your desires, your motivations, your words and deeds, etc.]

We’ve said all of this in order to get to the point of asking a few questions. You don’t need to tell anyone your answers...but God knows.

1) Have you ever figured that you would go to heaven because, “I’m basically a good person.” ?

- If so, you need to ask yourself who is right in their judgment of you. Is it you, or is it God? God has already called you “flesh.”

2) Have you ever figured that you would go to heaven because, “I’m a better person than most other people, even religious people.” ?

- You may in fact be better than most people, even the religious ones. Thing is, both you and they are “flesh.” Both you and they have hearts that are “desperately wicked.” To say you’re a better person than them is like saying you’ve got the best seat on the crowded bus...and the whole bus is headed off the cliff.

3) Have you ever figured that you would go to heaven because, “God knows I’m doing my best.” ?

-> Is “doing your best” anything similar to “trying with all your heart?” And would that be your “deceitful” heart, that is “only evil continually?”

4) Have you ever figured that you would go to heaven if you could do more good deeds than evil deeds?

- > If, as a person of “flesh,” your heart is continually evil, let me ask you, when in that continuous evil do you think you might manage to do enough good to tip the scales?


I think the apostle Paul must have asked himself these same questions, or some similar, and very honestly realized that his answers didn’t hold any water. He realized that he had no reason to put any “confidence in the flesh” for his going to heaven. (Philippians 3:2-7) He realized that as a man of “flesh” he simply couldn’t do enough good things to make himself right with God (Galatians 2:16).

Finally, he realized that what he couldn’t do, as a fleshly man, God did for Him, by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. Jesus lived as a human being the perfect, good, and holy life that none of us can, due to the weakness of our “flesh.” (Romans 8:3)

Friend, this is the truth. If your life up until the point was the service that you were performing for God as an employee, the only thing you’d deserve to be paid is destruction. When you looked at your pay stub, in the box where it says, “Net pay due this period,” instead of a dollar amount, it would simply say, “Death.” As flesh, that’s all you can earn.

But right now, even as you read these words, God is making you an offer. Trade in what you have earned, in exchange for what Jesus alone has earned, eternal life with God in heaven. Christ died to pay for your sins, and rose from the dead to offer you everlasting life in Him.

God has “made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” 2 Corinthians 5:21

Right now, you can make the first step toward real freedom, freedom from the continuously evil desires of your heart and mind. Your sins, the works of your flesh, can be cleansed through the blood of Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of God can come to dwell within you, so that from now on, you will have a new power with which to overcome your sinful nature.

Just stop right now. Right where you are, just bow your head and let God know that’s what you want. There are no “right words” that you need to say. However you express it will work, as long as you do so believing that what you’ve seen here is right and that God can and will make a change in you through Christ. Just let God know.

A Great Heart Transplant

Many people do not know this, but I was born with a serious heart problem. My condition could have easily cost me my life. The scary thing is, I was not made aware that I had such a condition until my junior year of college. Thankfully, by the time I learned of my original heart condition, I had already been healed. The symptoms should have alarmed me, but they didn't. Many people who should have been aware of my condition growing up, never saw it necessary to inform me how terrible my condition was. It was only in a college classroom did I begin to learn of my serious heart condition. My professor began describing certain symptoms of this condition. These symptoms include, but are not limited to the following.

• A love for the darkness (John 3:19)
• Turning away from God as one who is worthless (Romans 3:12)
• Hostility towards God (Romans 8:7)
• Inability to please God (Romans 8:8)
• Inability to understand the things of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:14)

As I began to hear of these things, I was alarmed because that was an exact description of the condition I was born with. However, I was also shocked because since the seventh grade those symptoms had gone away. I wanted to learn more about my original condition, and what caused all these symptoms. I soon discovered that all of these symptoms were the result of one problem.

The Lord saw the wickedness of man was great on earth, and that every
intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. ~Genesis
6:5

All of these symptoms are rooted in a serious heart problem. I also learned something else about the condition of my heart.

For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. ~Matthew 15:19-20a

My heart problem had infected and corrupted every area of my life. My severe condition affected my desires, my relationships, my thoughts, and my actions. In fact, my condition was so bad, it left me in comatose state, as if I were dead, unable to do anything spiritually good.

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked,
following the course of this world, following the prince and power of the air,
the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience. ~Ephesians
2:1-2

You may ask, since my condition was so serious, how was I healed? Well, I must tell you it was nothing I did. No exercise or any change of my life or habits could get rid of my deadly heart condition.

"And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you.
And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of
flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes
and be careful to obey my rules. ~Ezekiel 36:26-27.

In seventh grade, I received a new heart. This new heart was a clean heart that caused me to love God and to obey God. I am so thankful for this great heart transplant, that at the time, I didn't even know I needed.

I wish someone would have informed me of my condition earlier. I was told about every week that I needed to "accept Jesus" because he could make my life better, but nobody ever told me that my original condition was deadly. As I began to do more research on this severe heart condition, I discovered that I was not the only one who is born with it, nor was I the only one who was not aware of it. It turns out, they 100% of all of humanity is born with this severe heart condition, and is unaware of the seriousness of their inherent condition.

Please help get the word out to everyone about their severe heart condition before it is to late. They too can receive the great heart transplant that I also had graciously received!