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.