I read with interest Garrett's recent blog posts - chapters 111-113 in his ongoing work against the "Hardshell", Primitive Baptists: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2012/01/chpt-111-mediate-or-immediate.html
Garrett quoted approvingly from Archibald Alexander:
"Curious inquiries respecting the way in which the word [regeneration - JB] is instrumental in the production of this change are not for edification. Sometimes regeneration is considered distinctly from the acts and exercises of the mind which proceed from it, but in the Holy Scriptures the cause and effect are included; and we shall therefore treat the subject in this practical and popular form. The instrumentality of the word can never derogate from the efficient agency of the Spirit in this work. The Spirit operates by and through the word. The word derives all its power and penetrating energy from the Spirit. Without the omnipotence of God the word would be as inefficient as clay and spittle, to restore sight to the blind."
Obviously this view of regeneration is dependent on it being true that the Holy Scriptures always include cause and effect. If there are Scriptures that distinguish cause and effect in the context of being "born again" or "regenerated", one cannot object to interpreting this word as a reference to the Divine cause. If there is any Scriptural merit to such views that define "regeneration" narrowly to refer to Divine causation, any at all, there is absolutely no logical reason to insist that this term only be used to encompass acts of repentance and faith. Obviously, an appeal to texts that refer to obedience and repentance in terms of conversion or regeneration would not disprove the legitimacy of narrowly defining the term as it is defined in other texts of Scripture.
Garrett writes negatively of the later Calvinistic theologians like Kuyper "hair-splitting" regeneration. John Owen's paradigm of "preparatory regeneration" and regeneration proper, could this not be objected to similarly? Why the logical need to separate out from regeneration gracious acts of God that are all part of the same experience? Yet Garrett does not object to Owens' arbitrary semantics in this. Garrett seems inconsistent. Theologians, at one time or another in systematic works seem guilty of "hair-splitting". What Garrett really objects to is the idea of separating conversion out of regeneration like modern Primitive Baptists do - some to radical extremes. But, as Garrett has stated, no reputed Divine supports the radical extreme of this distinction.
Even if Garrett is correct in his depiction of the contrast of Calvinist theologians of the Old and New Divinity, it hardly follows that the evolution of the terms "regeneration" and "conversion" was illegitimate. No less a scholar that Dr. John Gill was aware of the differences among Calvinists on the definition of the term "regeneration", as he writes (Book 6, Chapter 11 of A Body of Doctrinal Divinity):
"Regeneration may be considered either more largely, and then it includes with it effectual calling, conversion, and sanctification: or more strictly, and then it designs the first principle of grace infused into the soul; which makes it a fit object of the effectual calling, a proper subject of conversion, and is the source and spring of that holiness which is gradually carried on in sanctification, and perfected in heaven."
Notice that Gill does not argue against a strict definition of regeneration, which excludes conversion, but, rather, incorporates it as he exegetes 1 John 3:9 a little later:
"It is also signified by "seed" (1 John 3:9). "Whosoever is born of God—his seed remaineth in him"; which is the principle of grace infused in regeneration; and as seed contains in it virtually, all that after proceeds from it, the blade, stalk, ear, and full corn in the ear; so the first principle of grace implanted in the heart, seminally contains all the grace which afterwards appears, and all the fruits, effects, acts, and exercises of it."
The idea that Garrett and Bob Ross have espoused that Calvinists began to distinguish regeneration from conversion for paedo-Baptist ulterior motives does not explain why John Gill allowed for the legitimacy of defining regeneration "strictly" as the creative act of God in forming the new man within the reprobate. Gill was certainly a Baptist. John Gill, credited with "exterminating Arminianism from every text of scripture", no doubt saw the value of distinguishing the concepts of the terms "regeneration" and "conversion" in the context of the error of Arminian doctrine in regard to it's view of regeneration.
The Biblical emphasis of the necessary condition for "seeing" the Kingdom of God and exercising faith (John 3:3), is the scriptural depiction of the natural man being dead in trespasses and in sins - in need of something far more decisive and radical than prevenient grace would allow. Notice that John 3:3 markedly makes intellectual "sight" - the sight Nicodemus claims to have in his declaration that he knows Jesus is a teacher sent from God - quite beside the point of spiritual rebirth. Nicodemus' claims - as if they qualified for true spiritual knowledge - are struck down by Christ.
Man is either dead from all spiritual things before being quickened by God's spirit alone (1 Cor. 2:14, Rom. 8:7), or he is not completely dead to spiritual things. The latter makes Paul guilty of at least careless, theological imprecision. If an Arminian view of "deadness" is the Biblical view, the Apostle Paul has certainly misled in Ephesians 2:1-10. Paul seems to leave no doubt that those truly quickened are created unto good works in which God has foreordained them. However, the Arminian notion of prevenient grace would not ensure this destiny to the quickened.
It is not only God that has quickened, according to an Arminian view of regeneration, but man himself. The elect were only quickened because they cooperated with God's prevenient grace. If Paul only means "deadness" in the sense that God's grace had to initialize regeneration, Paul misleads to speak of this process, which entails the good works that follow this process, as being a creation of God all the way through.
Now, all of this is quite relevant. The foremost problem of Garrett is that he does not recognize the confusion inherent in a view of regeneration that does not firmly root the works of man as an effect of the Divine. Whether the works are included in the definition of "regeneration" is immaterial to the real point: that God alone is the efficient cause of regeneration. Any view of regeneration that places the emphasis on man's activity as respecting the efficient cause is in error, and cannot be reconciled to God actually being the efficient cause.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Again on Garrett and Jonathan Edwards
This post is a response to Garrett's post: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/12/edwards-misrepresented.html
Garrett argues to begin that I have created a straw man of his position on Edwards. He claims that he does not argue that Edwards made no distinction between regeneration and conversion. He then reasserts that he argued that the terms refer to the same experience. However, Garrett never develops in what way Edwards distinguished these concepts. After reading the section on Edwards in Garrett's post, the reader is left with the impression that there is no meaningful sense in which the terms are distinct.
Beside this, I can hardly be blamed if I took Garrett to mean that Edwards saw the two terms as completely synonymous, as Garrett stated:
"Edwards represents the older Calvinistic and Puritan view that regeneration was the same as conversion and that such was accomplished by means of the light of gospel truth."
and:
"Though some affirm that Jonathan Edwards taught the hybrid "born again before faith"view, the following citations show otherwise. Edwards did not think that regeneration was different from conversion."
Garrett plainly states here and other places in his original post that Edwards did not think that regeneration was different from conversion. Garrett does not qualify his statements here in any way. He does state in places as well that they referred to the same experience, but, though he claims (now) he does not believe that Edwards saw no distinction, he never stated the ways in which Edwards saw them distinctly.
So, if Garrett admits that Edwards saw the terms distinctly, we should ask him, in what way do you, therefore, understand Edwards to see them distinctly? In what conceptual way do the terms differ as they refer to the same experience? If the terms refer to the same experience according to Edwards, in what way is there a meaningful distinction to be made? Garrett appears to me to be evading the real point. How can two words that refer to exactly the same experience be substantially distinguishable? They're not substantially distinguishable in Edwards - that was Garrett's thesis on Edwards. If Garrett claims they aren't substantially distinct in Edwards, why is he balking at my objection to his position on Edwards, which is that there is a substantial difference?
Garrett quibbles in accusing me of "attacking a straw man" in understanding him to believe that Edwards made "no distinction", as any difference that Garrett would allow certainly would not be such that would imply that regeneration precedes conversion. Obviously this was the distinction I argued for in Edwards. I erected no "straw man", as the force of my point was to argue a distinction in regeneration and conversion according to Edwards that is one that Garrett certainly does not grant. That's the real point.
Now, keeping in mind that even Garrett apparently admits that Edwards did conceive of regeneration being distinct from conversion, we turn to the real substance of his rebuttal.
Garrett stated:
"Brown then attempts to use Hardshell "logic" on the words of Edwards regarding the"passivity" of the mind in regeneration. He deduces his proposition and then ascribes it to Edwards! What is his false conclusion? It is this - "regeneration logically precedes faith." His argument looks like this:
1. The mind is passive in being changed in regeneration
2. The mind cannot be passive in believing
3. Believing (faith) is not part of the passive changing of the mind in regeneration
But, Edwards did not divorce being convicted of the truth from that "change of mind" that resulted from the work of God, as do the Hardshells. Also, Edwards did not exclude the activity of the sinner in his regeneration. The sinner was both passive and active in regeneration. Just like regeneration is a work accomplished both mediately and immediately."
I made no such argument. The point is that Edwards believed regeneration must logically precede faith. Does Garrett not believe, like Bob Ross argued in the post that Garrett linked in his post, that Edwards refers to the passivity of the sinner in terms of the efficient cause of regeneration? Edwards certainly did not believe that after this efficient cause was worked on man, that man would remain passive, but that he would repent and convert to the gospel by which the efficient cause of the Holy Spirit was executed.
However, the point is, that for Edwards, the passivity of man is such that the regenerating act of God has evident logical priority for the response of faith in believers. How can one argue logically that faith can precede this sovereign, creative act? Not unless one is an Arminian could one argue this way - or a closet Arminian. Edwards gives logical priority to the efficient cause of regeneration here. It is a misrepresentation to claim otherwise. Now, perhaps Edwards conceived of regeneration as incomplete until it encompassed repentance and conversion. But, it would still follow that God's creative act precedes faith - no matter the time frame, and it is important to note that Edwards speaks here exclusively of the efficient cause.
Perhaps this is the manner that Edwards saw regeneration distinct from conversion.
Garrett argues to begin that I have created a straw man of his position on Edwards. He claims that he does not argue that Edwards made no distinction between regeneration and conversion. He then reasserts that he argued that the terms refer to the same experience. However, Garrett never develops in what way Edwards distinguished these concepts. After reading the section on Edwards in Garrett's post, the reader is left with the impression that there is no meaningful sense in which the terms are distinct.
Beside this, I can hardly be blamed if I took Garrett to mean that Edwards saw the two terms as completely synonymous, as Garrett stated:
"Edwards represents the older Calvinistic and Puritan view that regeneration was the same as conversion and that such was accomplished by means of the light of gospel truth."
and:
"Though some affirm that Jonathan Edwards taught the hybrid "born again before faith"view, the following citations show otherwise. Edwards did not think that regeneration was different from conversion."
Garrett plainly states here and other places in his original post that Edwards did not think that regeneration was different from conversion. Garrett does not qualify his statements here in any way. He does state in places as well that they referred to the same experience, but, though he claims (now) he does not believe that Edwards saw no distinction, he never stated the ways in which Edwards saw them distinctly.
So, if Garrett admits that Edwards saw the terms distinctly, we should ask him, in what way do you, therefore, understand Edwards to see them distinctly? In what conceptual way do the terms differ as they refer to the same experience? If the terms refer to the same experience according to Edwards, in what way is there a meaningful distinction to be made? Garrett appears to me to be evading the real point. How can two words that refer to exactly the same experience be substantially distinguishable? They're not substantially distinguishable in Edwards - that was Garrett's thesis on Edwards. If Garrett claims they aren't substantially distinct in Edwards, why is he balking at my objection to his position on Edwards, which is that there is a substantial difference?
Garrett quibbles in accusing me of "attacking a straw man" in understanding him to believe that Edwards made "no distinction", as any difference that Garrett would allow certainly would not be such that would imply that regeneration precedes conversion. Obviously this was the distinction I argued for in Edwards. I erected no "straw man", as the force of my point was to argue a distinction in regeneration and conversion according to Edwards that is one that Garrett certainly does not grant. That's the real point.
Now, keeping in mind that even Garrett apparently admits that Edwards did conceive of regeneration being distinct from conversion, we turn to the real substance of his rebuttal.
Garrett stated:
"Brown then attempts to use Hardshell "logic" on the words of Edwards regarding the"passivity" of the mind in regeneration. He deduces his proposition and then ascribes it to Edwards! What is his false conclusion? It is this - "regeneration logically precedes faith." His argument looks like this:
1. The mind is passive in being changed in regeneration
2. The mind cannot be passive in believing
3. Believing (faith) is not part of the passive changing of the mind in regeneration
But, Edwards did not divorce being convicted of the truth from that "change of mind" that resulted from the work of God, as do the Hardshells. Also, Edwards did not exclude the activity of the sinner in his regeneration. The sinner was both passive and active in regeneration. Just like regeneration is a work accomplished both mediately and immediately."
I made no such argument. The point is that Edwards believed regeneration must logically precede faith. Does Garrett not believe, like Bob Ross argued in the post that Garrett linked in his post, that Edwards refers to the passivity of the sinner in terms of the efficient cause of regeneration? Edwards certainly did not believe that after this efficient cause was worked on man, that man would remain passive, but that he would repent and convert to the gospel by which the efficient cause of the Holy Spirit was executed.
However, the point is, that for Edwards, the passivity of man is such that the regenerating act of God has evident logical priority for the response of faith in believers. How can one argue logically that faith can precede this sovereign, creative act? Not unless one is an Arminian could one argue this way - or a closet Arminian. Edwards gives logical priority to the efficient cause of regeneration here. It is a misrepresentation to claim otherwise. Now, perhaps Edwards conceived of regeneration as incomplete until it encompassed repentance and conversion. But, it would still follow that God's creative act precedes faith - no matter the time frame, and it is important to note that Edwards speaks here exclusively of the efficient cause.
Perhaps this is the manner that Edwards saw regeneration distinct from conversion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)