1956. Calvinism and Confusion. The Southern Presbyterian Journal, XV (24) 2–3.
An evangelist, several members of a city mission board, and various people in various places have
said to me that faith in Christ must precede regeneration. The evangelist in his sermon told the audience that first they must put their faith in Christ, then they must repent, and then they must be born again.
But this is so confusing. And if the people who hear this type of preaching are not confused, it must be because they do not think about what they hear.
The Bible teaches that man is dead in sin. Before he can do anything spiritual he must be raised from the dead, or, to use another figure of speech, he must be born again. A dead man cannot do anything. Now, since faith is a spiritual activity, pleasing to God, a man must be spiritually alive before he can show the evidences of a spiritual life. That is to say, a sinner must be regenerated and given a new heart before he can believe in Christ. The carnal mind is enmity against God. This Calvinistic message is not confusing. It makes sense and can be understood. But to put the matter in still clearer terms, consider the confusion into which the evangelist throws the doctrine of justification.
Faith is the sole means of justification. This theme was a major part of the Reformation doctrine. Justification by faith was the message that swept away Romish superstition, idolatry and dependence on works. But if faith precedes regeneration, it would be possible for a man to be justified, to be clothed upon with the righteousness of Christ, and therefore to be saved, without being born again. Yet the Scripture very definitely says, Ye must be born again. But of what use would regeneration be, if one is already justified, accepted as guiltless before the throne of God, pronounced righteous - all without being born again? This just does not make sense. It is confusion.
And it is a shame when evangelistic sermons are full of confusion. The message of redemption should be made clear and plain. That is why evangelistic sermons should be strongly Calvinistic.
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteI know you value truth above tribe. Often it’s difficult to see through the other guy’s lens. But consider a couple things here. First, consider the assumed figurative meaning of what it is to be “dead in… [trespasses/sins/transgressions].” The Calvinist assumption is that dead men cannot do anything. But look at the actual texts and see if they are not focusing on the sinner standing under the death sentence of God’s judgment—and further, dead in the sense of existing outside of the life-giving communion with God. This is the sense of meaning that I get from the Bible’s use of the term “dead.”
You are correct to say that regeneration and rebirth are the same. Not all Calvinists are as clear on that. But spiritual union with Christ is the whole of salvation. If regeneration is required, then faith becomes a moot point. You balk at the prospect of being justified but not regenerated; but what of being regenerated/born again/united to Christ/(your life hidden in Christ)/dead to sin but alive in Christ and yet not justified?
I agree with the Reformed that faith must originate with God and be gifted to us; but is God really limited to causing this faith only through an indwelling and regeneration or can the omnipotent God cause this faith from outside the sinner (reserving rebirth and indwelling and all that entails the blessings of salvation as a manifestation of God’s promise to those who first believe)? Calvinists are committed to the logic of this supposed limitation and necessity of regeneration in order to believe; but the objective examiner will see this for what it is: a pre-commitment based on uncertain reasoning (the confidence of adherents not withstanding). Calvinism is a system of well-fitting, inter supporting and interlocking pieces. But this alone does not prove it to be an accurate understanding in all its parts. It simply testifies to the genius of the man who developed it. There are aspects of truth in Scripture that are not able to be as neatly organized this side of glory as we would like them to be. And if we assume that we have the ability to do so, we might end up with a perfectly logical and symmetrical error—and find assurance of our accuracy derived from Scripture but in the logic of our system as applied to Scripture.
Just some things to think about.
Correct: “…we might end up with a perfectly logical and symmetrical error—and find assurance of our accuracy derived NOT from Scripture but in the logic of our system as applied to Scripture.”
DeleteHi Ken. Point of clarification: this is an article by Gordon Clark, not by me. I'm just publishing articles of his that are not available online. I do not always agree with Clark - in this article, for example, I would not disconnect regeneration from justification as is implied in his second to last paragraph.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the clarification!
ReplyDelete