May 11, 2011

Dr. Rick Flanders: Isn’t Repentance a Decision?

Dr. Rick Flanders
As a segment of the Christian fundamentalist movement veers farther and farther away from the movement’s historical roots, more and more often they are complaining about the “revivalism” and “decisionism” they see in fundamentalist ministries and churches. While gravitating to the theology and ministry-style of those they call “conservative evangelicals,” they are offended by revivalistic fundamentalists whose work, they say, is marred by what they call “decisionism.” Despite the fact that these traits have characterized most of the fundamentalists that there ever were, these spokesmen insinuate that they represent a perversion of fundamentalism. An official statement issued by the Central Baptist Seminary on “Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism” says that one “version of Fundamentalism that we repudiate is revivalistic and decisionistic.” The statement then stereotypes this kind of fundamentalist as rejecting expository preaching “in favor of manipulative exhortation,” as basing spirituality “upon crisis decisions rather than steady, incremental growth,” as embracing worship that “is shallow or non-existent,” as espousing a leadership philosophy that is “highly authoritarian,” and as holding a theology that “is vitriolic it its opposition to Calvinism” (although the seminary denies being Calvinistic). The statement admits that “this version of Fundamentalism has always been a significant aspect of the movement,” but the seminary, it says, regards it “as a threat to biblical Christianity.” These are strong words to use against what has been characteristic of most of the people in one’s own religious movement. And it raises some important questions for all fundamentalists.

Can you practice “revivalism” and “decisionism” and still be a good fundamentalist? Is revivalism a bad thing? What is decisionism anyway, and how is it unscriptural and harmful? The truth is that there has always been a legitimate revivalism which has been a good quality in the fundamentalists, and that “decisionism” is just a bad word for a good thing!

At its core, fundamentalism is the concept that Christianity is to be defined by certain fundamental doctrines. Christianity, the fundamentalist asserts, is not just a spirit, or a way of life, or appreciation for the life and words of Jesus. Christianity is defined by its Gospel, which involves and includes several essential teachings. The Gospel of Christ (according to First Corinthians 15:1-4) affirms the authority of the scriptures, the deity of Christ, His atoning sacrifice for our sins, His bodily resurrection from the dead, and salvation by faith in Him alone. These are the fundamental (essential) Gospel truths. The fundamentalist will say that churchmen who deny any of the fundamentals (as religious liberals, by definition, do) are not Christians, because something that is fundamental to a thing is essential to it. And without all of the fundamentals that thing is not what it is said to be. Without all of its fundamentals (such as pitching, hitting, running, catching, bases, etc.), baseball is not baseball. It may be some kind of game, but the fundamentals of baseball make it baseball. The fundamentalists recognize that without all of its fundamental doctrines, Christianity would not be real Christianity. This makes the fundamentalist a separatist. He is an evangelical (which means he believes in the doctrines of the Gospel) but he is the kind who insists that the fundamentals are fundamental to the Gospel. Some of the “new” evangelicals will allow that a liberal, who denies some of the fundamental doctrines, can be considered a Christian. They are evangelicals, but not fundamentalists.
The fundamentalists are taking the scriptural approach to dealing with false prophets in the church (Titus 3:10, Jude 3-4).
Fundamentalism is not revivalism, but the historic fact is that most of those who made up the original fundamentalist movement of a hundred years ago believed in revivalism. They were influenced profoundly by the revivals and revivalists of the nineteenth century. Revivalism is the concept that there is something Christian people can do to promote spiritual revival among them. Revival by definition is a work of God, but revivalists understand that He has promised to revive Christians who humble themselves and seek His face (James 4:1-10). They believe that repentance and prayer carry the promise of revival. This is revivalism, and most of the early fundamentalists believed in it. And revivalism includes what critics call “decisionism.”

Most of what has been written critically of the issue called “decisionism” amounts to arguments against the use of the “public invitation” after preaching. Some say that it is wrong to put too much emphasis on the importance of making a decision for Christ or for God’s side of an issue. Harsher critics will claim that decisionism is a form of sacramentalism, the idea that you must do some physical act to gain the forgiveness of sins. Minimizing the importance of making a decision for salvation fits well with the way Calvinists explain the salvation of a sinner, as a choice and an act of God and not of the sinner. Regeneration happens, they insist, based on no decision of the sinner, but rather as a sovereign act of God Who has decided to save that particular sinner.

Not all detractors of decisionism are Calvinists, however. Much of the current complaining about the public invitation centers on how it is done. Evangelists are accused of using psychological methods to manipulate people to come forward at the prescribed time. But the emphasis of the criticism is still on the wrong in calling for decisions. Influential voices are making it sound as if the altar calls of revivalists over the years have been not only misused but also essentially wrong.

Yet it is clearly scriptural to call sinners to repentance, isn’t it? And repentance is a decision, isn’t it?
Both the Old Testament Hebrew word for repentance and the New Testament Greek word give the idea of changing the mind. To repent in the Biblical sense is to change one’s mind, which, of course is a decision! It is a decision which can make a big difference.

“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.”
(Mark 1:15)

“They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
(Luke 5:32)

“Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.”
(Luke 13:3)

“Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth.”
(Luke 15:7)

From the words of Jesus Himself we learn that repentance is a decision that can turn an unbeliever into a believer, heal the sinner of his spiritual sickness, rescue a person from perishing, and cause rejoicing in Heaven!

Revivalists in the Bible (and there were many of them) would often call publicly for a decision of repentance from sin, and often with some outward indication that individuals had repented. After destroying the golden calf, Moses called the congregation of Israel to repentance, who had all been involved in worshipping the idol, using these famous words: “Who is on the LORD’s side? let him come unto me” (Exodus 32:26). This was certainly a public invitation for men to indicate their immediate repentance with an outward act. Elijah on Mount Carmel said to the Israelites, “How long halt ye between two opinions?,” calling for them to make an immediate decision to forsake Baal and follow the Lord only (First Kings 18:21). After experiencing proof that Jehovah is the one true God, the people made their decision and “fell on their faces: and they said, The LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God” (First Kings 18:39). Simon Peter called on crowds in Jerusalem to repent and believe in Jesus (Acts 2:38-41 and also Acts 3:19). On one of those occasions, the Bible records that, in response to Peter’s call to repentance, five thousand Jewish men “believed” (Acts 4:4). Repentance and saving faith are not two distinct steps to eternal life. They are two facets of one step. Sinners change their minds (repentance) and decide to believe on Christ for salvation from sin (faith). Saving faith is a decision! In Acts 3 and 4, they decided (the repentance enjoined in 3:19) to believe (the faith that saved them in 4:4). They must have made their decision public, since others knew how many of them had made it! Perhaps they were baptized like the many at Pentecost (in chapter 2) who repented. The first practitioner of baptism (John) administered the rite as “the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4). The word translated “for” in the phrase “for the remission of sins” means “unto” and has the idea of “referring to.” Mark 1:5 says that by being baptized in the Jordan by John the Baptist, they were “confessing their sins.” Their baptism was a public confession that they had repented of their sins! Originally, this is just what baptism was: a public response to a preacher’s call to repentance, indicating that an individual was repenting. Public responses to calls to repent were not rare in Bible days. Do you think that in response to our Lord’s tender invitation at the end of His hell-fire sermon in Matthew 11 (“Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest”—verse 28) some, perhaps many, actually and physically came to Him? It is certainly likely that they did. What about His many calls to discipleship, with the words, “Follow me”? Did men, like Matthew (in Matthew 9:9), actually get up and follow him in response to this call? It looks as if many moved in response to the invitation, “Come,” in His parable of the great supper in Luke 14:16-24, according to the response of Jesus to those who responded (recorded in verses 25 to the end of the chapter). Decisions made a difference in the lives of people in the Bible, and the decision of repentance was often the proper response to preaching. And it was not uncommon for an outward indication to be made of the inward decision to repent.

Critics of fundamentalist revivalism say incorrectly that the public invitation was invented by Finney. Both Baptist and Methodist preachers were giving altar calls for some time before Finney’s famous “anxious seat” in Rochester, New York. The concept of calling for immediate repentance after a Gospel sermon dates from the apostles! There certainly is nothing wrong with it. Any reasonable and spiritual Christian would object to the use of manipulative methods in the giving of an invitation, but the idea of giving a public invitation is not unbiblical. There are certainly ways to do it in a straightforward and honest manner. Not all preachers who end a service by extending an invitation are charlatans and crooks!

It is scriptural to say that making a decision (repenting) is often an appropriate response to the presentation of the truth. It is taught in the Bible that repentance can be not only appropriate but also life-changing. Sinners must repent to be saved (Luke 13:3). Believers must repent sometimes in order to avoid suffering divine judgment (Acts 8:22). Churches must repent in order to be revived and restored to the place of favor with Christ (Revelation 2:5; 3:19). And repentance is a decision.

It is true that there have always been fundamentalists who are offended by the invitation, but it is also true that they have never been the majority. Revivalism with its emphasis on making decisions has always been part of ministry for most fundamentalists, and to combat it by implying that it is an illegitimate perversion of fundamentalism is to distort the facts. The kind of fundamentalism that some are now in the process of creating by merging it with the right wing of neo-evangelicalism and extracting from it any remnant of soul-saving zeal is not the kind of fundamentalism that has held up the torch of revival over the years. It is an indication of the nature of the trends among certain younger pastors that they are rallying around a banner that is openly anti-revival and critical of earnest evangelism. Wise men will keep their noses in the Bible and not be misled or distracted by those who say that revivalistic fundamentalists have always been wrong. They have been right, and their focus on fulfilling the great commission here and around the world is vital for the fundamentalist movement of the future.


Dr. Rick Flanders, Evangelist
Revival Ministries

Related Reading:
Can an Unregenerate Person Believe the Gospel?

The Danger of Teaching that Regeneration Precedes Faith

What is Biblical Repentance?

How Does the Lordship Salvation Advocate Define Repentance?

31 comments:

  1. Thank you for this article! Be it Dr. Bauder or anyone else, we have for too long now heard these men take an aberrant, fringe element of fundamentalism and seek to broard brush mainstream fundamentalism with it.
    Sadly, like the political liberal, they will not tackle the issue squarely and state their beliefs clearly. Instead, they try to deflect the truth and go after fringe non-issues.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Repentance is not a decision, it is change of mind which we as people cannot do. How can darkness decide to be light. The change of mind is a work of grace, a work of God. There is not free will, only God's will. Paul's conversion is an example. His will was to imprison Christians. The persecution of Christians was the will of God. And in the midst of this persecution God decided to give grace to Paul. And a change of mind followed the grace of God. Daniel

    ReplyDelete
  3. For those who may not recognize what JTL is communicating above:

    That is the extra-biblical teaching, very common among Calvinists, that insists that regeneration precedes faith in Christ. This means regeneration, i.e., being born again occurs prior to and apart from faith in Christ. Calvinism’s ‘T’ “Total Inability” from TULIP is where this teaching originates.

    Following are answers to this extra-biblical teaching.

    The Danger of Teaching Regeneration Precedes Faith

    Can an Unregenerate Person Believe the Gospel?

    Also note, “And a change of mind followed the grace of God,” which puts Ephesians 2:8 exactly backwards. A classic example of trying to force the Bible into conformity with Calvinistic presuppositions. Please see,

    The Danger of Teaching Faith is the Gift of God


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  4. To JTL,
    If this repentance is a work of God totally apart from man, first, this makes man a robot. Second, one must ask the question then, who does the sinning after that man has been saved? If he has been turned by God from darkness to light, then who is doing the turning from light to darkness when that man sins, him or God? If you say the man then this destroys your "total inability" theory. If you say God, you are twisting the Scriptures making God ultimately the author of sin, which is blasphemous. Or do you then think that once God has done a saving work in that man that he then is sinlessly perfect, incapable of sin? Again, that would be a perversion of Scripture.
    If man is without any will in these matters, then we must ask, why all the calls in Scriptures for men to make choices? Dr. Flanders has noted several of those passages in which men are called upon to make a choice. If we cannot make a choice, then it is absurd to ask us to do so.
    You really should reexamine your beliefs and rid yourself of the man-made baggage and rely solely on the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lou, you put me in quite a bucket there. I do not follow Calvin, for he did not die for me. My understanding is not that regeneration precedes faith, but faith comes at the time of God making choice. Faith comes at the time of regeneration, when God reveals Himself to a person. Faith is not of ourselves, it is the gift of God. Again I appeal to the conversion of Paul for right understanding.

    Brian, no it does not make man a robot, it makes him a slave of sin. A person is either a slave of sin or a slave of righteousness. This entire issue is the continuation of the Calvin/Arminius debate. Two false doctrines debating one another. Calvin or Arminius did not die for me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dr. Bauder, in his 2005 address /Preaching Worth Listening To/ (easily available on the internet), states "What I am suggesting is that every good, expository sermon asks for a decision. Indeed, the element of confrontation and decision is exactly what distinguishes a sermon from a mere lecture."

    The problem with what he calls "decisionalism" is the methods employed in bringing people to make decisions.

    And the notion that a couple of popular aspects of fundamentalism (which only goes back 150 years or so at most) is normative for historical christianity is manifestly problematic.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Lou, my understanding is that faith comes at the moment of regeneration. At the moment when God grants grace to a person according to His will. Grace allows for acceptance of the one true gospel in its entirety. The one true gospel is the Mashiach, Yeshua of Nazareth, died for our sins according to the Old Testament, He was buried and He rose again the third day according to the Tanach. (Luke 24, 1 Cor 15:1-6) It is this gospel that is accepted by the grace of God. A person is brought from darkness to light. This is something that only God can do. When the one true gospel is accepted (it is by grace and the will of God) there is faith. Not just any faith, but the faith of Yeshua, the faith of God - Daniel

    ReplyDelete
  8. JTL,
    No, this is not a Calvin/Arminius debate. This is a Calvin/Bible debate (I am by no means an Arminian, for I readily acknowledge BOTH the sovereignty of God AND the freewill of man working in the hearts of men). It would be appreciated if you would answer the rest of my questions posed to you. You stated that “a person is either a slave of sin or a slave of righteousness.” Are you then advocating a sinless perfection state for a redeemed person as I posed to you in my previous post? I suggest you read Romans chapters 6, 7, and 8.
    I bring to your attention, I Thess. 1:9, “how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God.” Paul is speaking of the conversion of the Thessalonian believers, is he not? Please note the parsing of the verb, “turned,” it is aorist, ACTIVE, indicative. If man is totally incapable of a choice, then we seriously wonder why this verb is in the active instead of the passive voice. To refresh briefly our Greek, in Dana and Mantey’s, “A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament,” they state on p. 155 and 161, “The active voice describes the subject as producing the action or representing the state expressed by the verbal idea.”, and “The passive voice is that use of the verb which denotes the subject as receiving the action.” (emphasis in the original) With that said, who then did the turning of these Thessalonian believers? As we understand the construction of this sentence, these Thessalonians did the turning to God and from idols. This is completely contradictory to your idea of total inability of man. If God alone is the one doing the work, then it would stand to reason that in ALL places where conversions are mentioned that the passive voice would be used to help us all understand that man is not active in this. But this is just not the case. Again, you who believe in the total inability of man must answer then these Biblical conundrums of the active voice verbs instead of the passive voice.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Brian, you accept both the sovereignity of God and free will. Free will is Arminianism. No, what I say has nothing to do with the false doctrine of entire sanctification. With your reasoning essential doctrines come down to grammar. I know the grammar but I do not judge all things by grammar, but by the one true gospel. You mentioned the word "turned". It is only God by grace and His will that can turn a man in darkness, worshipping idols made of wood, worshipping gods that are no gods, to serve the living and true God. God turned the Thessolonians to God, just like God turned Paul to God. Paul's conversion is an example. (1 Tim 1:16)

    ReplyDelete
  10. To All:

    Blogger had some kind of meltdown overnight and lost all comments submitted in the last day or so. They claimed that these would be restored, but nothing yet. If I can retrieve them I will resubmit them here for you.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  11. Journal T. Living (JTL) Posted:

    Repentance is not a decision, it is change of mind which we as people cannot do. How can darkness decide to be light. The change of mind is a work of grace, a work of God. There is not free will, only God's will. Paul's conversion is an example. His will was to imprison Christians. The persecution of Christians was the will of God. And in the midst of this persecution God decided to give grace to Paul. And a change of mind followed the grace of God. Daniel

    JTL

    ReplyDelete
  12. From Brian to JTL:

    To JTL,
    If this repentance is a work of God totally apart from man, first, this makes man a robot. Second, one must ask the question then, who does the sinning after that man has been saved? If he has been turned by God from darkness to light, then who is doing the turning from light to darkness when that man sins, him or God? If you say the man then this destroys your "total inability" theory. If you say God, you are twisting the Scriptures making God ultimately the author of sin, which is blasphemous. Or do you then think that once God has done a saving work in that man that he then is sinlessly perfect, incapable of sin? Again, that would be a perversion of Scripture.
    If man is without any will in these matters, then we must ask, why all the calls in Scriptures for men to make choices? Dr. Flanders has noted several of those passages in which men are called upon to make a choice. If we cannot make a choice, then it is absurd to ask us to do so.
    You really should reexamine your beliefs and rid yourself of the man-made baggage and rely solely on the Bible.

    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  13. For those who may not recognize what JTL is communicating above:

    That is the extra-biblical teaching, very common among Calvinists, that insists that regeneration precedes faith in Christ. This means regeneration, i.e., being born again occurs prior to and apart from faith in Christ. Calvinism’s ‘T’ “Total Inability” from TULIP is where this teaching originates.

    Following are answers to this extra-biblical teaching.

    The Danger of Teaching Regeneration Precedes Faith

    Can an Unregenerate Person Believe the Gospel?

    Also note, “And a change of mind followed the grace of God,” which puts Ephesians 2:8 exactly backwards. A classic example of trying to force the Bible into conformity with Calvinistic presuppositions. Please see,

    The Danger of Teaching Faith is the Gift of God


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  14. From JTL-

    Lou, you put me in quite a bucket there. I do not follow Calvin, for he did not die for me. My understanding is not that regeneration precedes faith, but faith comes at the time of God making choice. Faith comes at the time of regeneration, when God reveals Himself to a person. Faith is not of ourselves, it is the gift of God. Again I appeal to the conversion of Paul for right understanding.

    Brian, no it does not make man a robot, it makes him a slave of sin. A person is either a slave of sin or a slave of righteousness. This entire issue is the continuation of the Calvin/Arminius debate. Two false doctrines debating one another. Calvin or Arminius did not die for me.


    JTL

    ReplyDelete
  15. From Dave-d4v34x

    Dr. Bauder, in his 2005 address /Preaching Worth Listening To/ (easily available on the internet), states "What I am suggesting is that every good, expository sermon asks for a decision. Indeed, the element of confrontation and decision is exactly what distinguishes a sermon from a mere lecture."

    The problem with what he calls "decisionalism" is the methods employed in bringing people to make decisions.

    And the notion that a couple of popular aspects of fundamentalism (which only goes back 150 years or so at most) is normative for historical christianity is manifestly problematic.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  16. JTL:

    Do you believe regeneration precedes faith?


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  17. From JTL-

    Lou, my understanding is that faith comes at the moment of regeneration. At the moment when God grants grace to a person according to His will. Grace allows for acceptance of the one true gospel in its entirety. The one true gospel is the Mashiach, Yeshua of Nazareth, died for our sins according to the Old Testament, He was buried and He rose again the third day according to the Tanach. (Luke 24, 1 Cor 15:1-6) It is this gospel that is accepted by the grace of God. A person is brought from darkness to light. This is something that only God can do. When the one true gospel is accepted (it is by grace and the will of God) there is faith. Not just any faith, but the faith of Yeshua, the faith of God - Daniel

    ReplyDelete
  18. From Brian to JTL-

    JTL,
    No, this is not a Calvin/Arminius debate. This is a Calvin/Bible debate (I am by no means an Arminian, for I readily acknowledge BOTH the sovereignty of God AND the freewill of man working in the hearts of men). It would be appreciated if you would answer the rest of my questions posed to you. You stated that “a person is either a slave of sin or a slave of righteousness.” Are you then advocating a sinless perfection state for a redeemed person as I posed to you in my previous post? I suggest you read Romans chapters 6, 7, and 8.
    I bring to your attention, I Thess. 1:9, “how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God.” Paul is speaking of the conversion of the Thessalonian believers, is he not? Please note the parsing of the verb, “turned,” it is aorist, ACTIVE, indicative. If man is totally incapable of a choice, then we seriously wonder why this verb is in the active instead of the passive voice. To refresh briefly our Greek, in Dana and Mantey’s, “A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament,” they state on p. 155 and 161, “The active voice describes the subject as producing the action or representing the state expressed by the verbal idea.”, and “The passive voice is that use of the verb which denotes the subject as receiving the action.” (emphasis in the original) With that said, who then did the turning of these Thessalonian believers? As we understand the construction of this sentence, these Thessalonians did the turning to God and from idols. This is completely contradictory to your idea of total inability of man. If God alone is the one doing the work, then it would stand to reason that in ALL places where conversions are mentioned that the passive voice would be used to help us all understand that man is not active in this. But this is just not the case. Again, you who believe in the total inability of man must answer then these Biblical conundrums of the active voice verbs instead of the passive voice.

    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  19. From JTL to Brian-

    Brian, you accept both the sovereignity of God and free will. Free will is Arminianism. No, what I say has nothing to do with the false doctrine of entire sanctification. With your reasoning essential doctrines come down to grammar. I know the grammar but I do not judge all things by grammar, but by the one true gospel. You mentioned the word "turned". It is only God by grace and His will that can turn a man in darkness, worshipping idols made of wood, worshipping gods that are no gods, to serve the living and true God. God turned the Thessolonians to God, just like God turned Paul to God. Paul's conversion is an example. (1 Tim 1:16)

    JTL

    ReplyDelete
  20. JTL:

    Do you believe regeneration precedes faith?


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  21. To JTL,
    Free will is no more Arminianism than the sovereignty of God is Calvinism. These two things (sovereignty of God and the free will of man) are not mutually exclusive. It is not an either/or situation. Both Arminianism and Calvinism are man-made systems, neither of which are an accurate understanding of the Bible.
    You amaze me, without grammar we have no communication, no understanding of what the writer means. Yes, doctrine relies on grammar. Everything God has for us in His Book relies on grammar. Without grammar we would understand nothing in Bible.
    You seem to be saying that your belief system (Calvinism) takes precedent in understanding the Bible. So instead of an exegetical approach (taking out of the passage what God says) to the Scriptures you are approaching it with an eisegetical (reading into the passage what you believe God says) mindset.
    I do pray that you will stop and think about what you are saying. The Bible is God's revelation of Himself to us. All we need for this life and the next are found in its pages and God expects us to read it with the understanding that He (the Holy Spirit, not John Calvin or Jacob Arminius, or anyone else for that matter) will "guide us into all truth."

    ReplyDelete
  22. Brian, I have said both Calvinsim and Arminianism are false doctrines, and then you say I am a Calvinist. I said Calvin did not die for me. You do not read what I write. All things are judged by the one true gospel. This is what Paul writes. And Paul writes that the one true gospel is the Mashiach, Yeshua of Nazareth, died for our sins according to the Old Testament, He was buried and He rose again the third day according to the Old Testament. But the contentious will always be contentious.-Daniel

    ReplyDelete
  23. Daniel:

    Setting aside any concerns over Calvinism/Arminianism- Do you believe regeneration precedes faith?


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  24. I would gladly volunteer to be a robot for God-though I do not think God ever made robots-that would be man who did that. I would love to be a puppet for God-though I do not remember reading that in the bible either.

    Though I have no problem embracing what others accuse of-I just tend to think when those seraphims flew around the throne of God crying out the holiness of God-I do not think they ever think it a bad thing that God created them for only one purpose-to give God glory!

    A part of me envies them, but think there will be a time when they envy us!

    God bless
    David Emme

    ReplyDelete
  25. Lou, in my proceeding comments on 5/13 @ 3:10 PM, I wrote, "my understanding is that faith comes at the moment of regeneration." By the example of the conversion of Paul and my understanding grace and faith come at the same time: when God makes choice. "For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." Believers do not choose themselves, but God chooses them as the election of grace. God chooses a believer in the days of their flesh. A decision by God that was made before the foundations of the world. - Daniel

    ReplyDelete
  26. Daniel:

    All you are doing here is avoid a clear, unvarnished answer to an unambiguous question. Very common among men who take a Calvinistic view of soteriology.

    Representative of the Calvinist camp, the ordo salutis (the order of salvation) might be shown as:

    1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (repentance & faith), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) perseverance, 10) glorification.

    Those who take a different view of the ordo salutis would typically present it this way:

    1) foreknowledge, 2) election, 3) calling, 4) repentance, 5) faith, 6) regeneration, 7) conversion, 8) justification, 9) sanctification, 10) preservation, 11) glorification.

    The big difference in the two examples is in the relative placement of regeneration and repentance/faith.

    Eph. 2:8 is very clear, the lost are saved by faith, and by faith (in who Christ is and what He did to provide salvation) are immediately regenerated, born into the family of God. Try as you might you cannot force that verse into conformity with your presupposition that regeneration before faith.

    You continue to base your thinking on Calvinism’s Total Inability, Unconditional Election, and Irresistible Grace. Those teachings are laced throughout your commentary in this thread. Whether you want to identify with the Calvinism label or not TULIP is your rule of belief.

    If want to participate any further in this thread, I’ll need a “Yes” or “No” from you on this question: In the order of salvation do you believe regeneration precedes faith?


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  27. A couple of thoughts here:

    1. Making a decision is not "decisionism" per se. My complaint against "decisionism" is that by itself doesn't actually do anything.

    I can decide to go to the store but never actually go. If you push people to decide to believe in Jesus, they might agree they need to do that but never actually do it.

    2. Regarding the order of salvation, I absolutely reject the regeneration prior to faith. It is such an open and shut case when looked at biblically rather than philosophically.

    Lou, just a suggestion: it might be simpler to ask which is the cause of the other rather than trying to pin down a chronological timeline. Most who believe in regen first do not say it is a chronological first. I find that to be mindless doubletalk myself, but they still hide behind it. If you get to the cause

    ReplyDelete
  28. Josh:

    Glad you understand the problem with the extra-biblical regeneration before faith.

    You wrote, "Most who believe in regen first do not say it is a chronological first. I find that to be mindless doubletalk myself, but they still hide behind it."

    Another explanation from most who believe regen before faith is that they give regeneration "casual" priority over faith.

    Just some clever word-smithing to legitimize a view that never appears in the Bible.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  29. To JTL,

    Yes, I am reading what you write, which is why I have been posting my comments. Let’s go back to your first posting. You state, “There is not free will, only God’s will. Paul’s conversion is an example. His will was to imprison Christians. The persecution of Christians was the will of God.” If there is no “free will” only “God’s will” then why are you saying “his” (referring to Paul) will? If there is no “free will” (or man’s will, same thing) only God’s will, then you make God the author of sin as I have already posted. Indeed I am reading what you write and find your reasoning through the Scriptures to be very twisted. Again, step back and examine what you are saying with the light of God’s Word. I have given one passage of Scripture and Dr. Flanders has listed many more that speak of man making decisions, of God calling on us to make decisions.
    I agree before salvation we are all “dead in trespasses and sins” and in Christ we have been made alive to walk in newness of life. And just like Paul on the Damascus road, God with His Word confronts us in our sin with the claims of Christ’s sacrificial payment for our sin (Romans 3:23 and 6:23). We by/through faith (which all men have a measure of) believe that Christ died, was buried and rose again (I Cor. 15:3, 4; Romans 10:9), can receive that gracious gift of salvation from God (Eph. 2:8, 9). Paul, as he would tell Herod Agrippa in Acts 26, “was not disobedient to the heavenly vision” having accepted that offer of salvation through Christ. As you read the book of Acts you find two others who were confronted by God through His Word who “decided” otherwise. Felix was confronted in Acts 24 and trembled as he heard of God’s “righteousness, temperance and judgment to come” yet turned away and remained in unbelief. Herod Agrippa too, heard, in Acts 26 and says to Paul, “almost thou persuaded me to be a Christian.” Both men, like Paul were brought face to face with their need of salvation that is in Christ; Paul was saved, Felix and Agrippa remained in their sin. God reminds us in II Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” Going back to “God’s will,” as stated here, His will is that none should perish but should come to repentance. In your above statement there is only God’s will, so you must answer the question, why then are there some who perish in their sin unrepentant when it is God’s will that they should not? If there is only God’s will as you state, then according to you, His will to consign some to Hell and some to Heaven. This is contradictory to Scripture, both here in II Peter 3:9 and John 3:16-18, specifically.
    If I am not understanding you clearly then please clearly state what you mean.

    ReplyDelete
  30. How can dead men choose life? "There are none that understandeth. There are none that seeketh after God" Regeneration does precede repentence. A dead man cannot conjure up anything let alone repentance. He is a corpse. This is pretty fundamental and IS NOT heresy.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Kirk:

    Regen before faith/repentance is an extra-biblical presupposition that is rooted in the error of Calvinism's Total Inability. John 16:7-11 answers how the lost hear and can believe the gospel.

    LM

    ReplyDelete