OT: The Reformed View of the Ordo Salutis

Page 1 of 3 (53 items) 1 2 3 Next >
This post has 52 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 320
John Bowling | Forum Activity | Posted: Tue, Dec 29 2009 7:10 PM

 

Note: I'm not posting this here to debate the merits of the Reformed view. If anyone is interested in that please start a different thread. I'm only interested in clarifying the facts of what the Reformed view is in response to another poster.

Blair Laird:
You are very correct we are a bit off subject. My post may be beneficial to a reader so I will respond.

Concerning "saved in order to believe" is imprecise"

Unless a person from the reformed perspective wishes to a say a person is not saved by regeneration, then they must conclude you are saved in order to believe. Since according to them regeneration precedes faith.

The problem is “salvation” itself can be an ambiguous term. Notice that the term “Ordo Salutis” implies that the term “salvation” refers to all the individual aspects (in the Reformed view: effectual call, regeneration, repentance/faith, justification, def. sanctification, adoption, prg. sanct., and glorification). Thus, as John Murray says, “when we think of the application of redemption we must not think of it as one simple and indivisible act. It comprises a series of acts and processes” (Redemption Accomplished and Applied 79-80).

So “saved in order to believe” is an imprecise (incorrect) statement because it confuses a part (regeneration, which I assume is what you mean to stand in for “saved”) with the whole (salvation or redemption). It might make sense to say that God regenerated a person in order that they may believe, but regeneration is *not* coterminous with salvation. Furthermore, the statement is incorrect because it confuses the means with the goal. The goal is not believing, it is salvation and belief (or faith) is an instrument towards that end.

Blair Laird:
Regeneration is progressive.. Sanctification is the technical term for it

It seems to me that you think each of the parts of the ordo salutis is synonymous with the other parts. How is that possible? I don’t see how it is, at least not in the reformed view. Is effectual calling the same as adoption? No, to say otherwise is just a category mistake. Again, I think I’m in agreement with the common Reformed view. So John Murray, “These are all distinct, and not one of these can be defined in terms of the other. Each has its own distinct meaning, function, and purpose in the action and grace of God” (ibid 80). Regeneration, in the Reformed view, is *not* progressive. So John Murray: “Regeneration is the *inception* of being made holy and sanctification is the continuance.” (asterisks added; ibid). Sanctification itself can be broken down into definitive and progressive aspects (cf. Reymond’s NSTCF ch. 19). The Westminster Confession of Faith, probably the most popular Reformed confession, (in XIII.1) and the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (X.1-2; XIII.1) also distinguish or separate sanctification and regeneration.

Blair Laird:
Calvin in his commentaries spoke about regeneration being subsequent to faith and also he spoke about progressive regeneration in ICR. What is really interesting is Augustine held to a progressive justification.

Calvin does speak of being “regenerated by faith” (Comm. on Gen. 17:4, Isa. 44:5 and elsewhere), but, while I’m no Calvin scholar, it seems that he often used “regeneration” in a less technical sense (or loosely) than what more contemporary Reformed theologians do when speaking of the order of salvation. For instance, he sometimes uses it to refer to what persons like Murray would call glorification (the final state with the resurrection) and he sometimes used it to refer to sanctification (III.III.21; III.XI.1). However, he also uses it to refer to “the commencement of the spiritual life” (ICR II.III.6) and “our first power to act aright” (III.XIV.5). I think he would agree that this latter sense precedes or is the source of faith; for he says, “the [effectual call] brings with it the spirit of regeneration” (III.XXIV.8) and clearly the call of God precedes faith. Furthermore, in his commentary he address the issue of which precedes which directly and says “I reply, that both statements perfectly agree; because by faith we receive the incorruptible seed, (1 Peter 1:23,) by which we are born again to a new and divine life. And yet faith itself is a work of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in none but the children of God. So then, in various respects, faith is a part of our regeneration, and an entrance into the kingdom of God, that he may reckon us among his children. The illumination of our minds by the Holy Spirit belongs to our renewal, and thus faith flows from regeneration as from its source” (comment on 1:13).

Finally, I would note here that Calvin is not the only representative of Reformed theology. As Muller notes, it is a mistake to approach current Reformed theology “as if Calvin were the only source of post-Reformation Reformed theology and as if the theology of the mid-seventeenth century ought for some reason to be measured against and judged by the theology of the mid-sixteenth century. Because the orthodox systems do not mirror Calvin’s 1559 Institutes, they are labeled “distortions” of the Reformation. The genuine historical and theological issue, of course, is one of development and change within a broad tradition, of continuity and discontinuity with the thought, not only of Calvin, but also of Zwingli, Bucer, Bullinger, Musculus, and Vermigli” (PRRD v. I 45–46).

Blair Laird:
On that note I think the scriptures are clear.. We believe and are saved the logical order is faith then regeneration unless one holds that you are not saved by the regeneration  (Titus 3:5 says otherwise)

 I fail to see how Titus 3:5 says anything relevant to faith preceding regeneration. You’ll have to spell that out.

Blair Laird:
One more question, I noticed you say sola fide. Looking at the reformed perspective, how can a calvinist hold to sole fide if they have the logical order of salvation

(regeneration then faith )? That always puzzled me, unless they say that regeneration and being justified can be separated.

They say they are logically distinguished, but not necessarily chronologically or temporal separable and certainly not coterminous. Regeneration pertains to newness of life. Justification is simply God’s legal imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner. Sola fide is the instrument of that justification. To see where Calvin logically distinguishes them in the same way see my comment below.

Blair Laird:
The problem with that understanding is all the Church fathers including Calvin seen being justified and being regenerated as two sides of the same coin.

First of all, I’m not even sure what you mean by “two sides of the same coin”. I can think of senses in which Calvin (and Murray and myself) would agree that they are “two sides of the same coin” (if, for example, the “coin” is salvation in all of its parts). But I can also think of senses where Calvin (and Murray and myself) would disagree that they are “two sides of the same coin” (if, for example, you mean they are interchangeable or coterminous). For example, Calvin would clearly disagree with this later sense, for he says “Now after God has stretched forth his hand to his elect, it is still necessary that they should confess their own want and nakedness, as to justification; for though they have been regenerated by the Spirit of God, yet in many things they are deficient...” (Commentary on Habakkuk, 2:4; cf. Comm. on John, 3:36).

Secondly, I doubt "all the Church fathers" held to one view here.

Blair Laird:
One is the inward act of being saved and the other is the outward act of being declared righteous.

Again, you’re using the term “salvation” too ambiguously. In general, there is nothing wrong with using “salvation” loosely, but we need to be more precise when discussing more technical issues like the ordo salutis. Regeneration and salvation are not coterminous. 

 

perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com

Posts 1537
Blair Laird | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 29 2009 9:44 PM

John Bowling:
So “saved in order to believe” is an imprecise (incorrect) statement because it confuses a part (regeneration, which I assume is what you mean to stand in for “saved”) with the whole (salvation or redemption).

"he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,"

The word is clear we are saved when we are regenerated, from that point on until glorification we are sanctified. The argument of confusing the part with the whole is concerning. As I clearly posted I am speaking of Justification and the reformed perspective on that subject. So just like greek and hebrew the context defines my words. So when I say salvation, and I am speaking of Justification that is what I am speaking of. Back on track... If one believes this regeneration precedes faith then one according to -(titus 3:5)- believes, as I stated we are "saved" or as titus says "he saves us" so that we can believe. Scripture says otherwise

Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”  And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”  And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.
Ac 16:30-32

By simply letting these two speak for themselves we see that we believe to be saved and we are saved by regeneration

Thus the order

1. Grace

2. Faith

3. Regeneration, Justification and Adoption

The rest 99% of evangelicals are in agreement with (sanctification, glorification)

 

John Bowling:
It seems to me that you think each of the parts of the ordo salutis is synonymous with the other parts.

This assumption is incorrect

John Bowling:
while I’m no Calvin scholar, it seems that he often used “regeneration” in a less technical sense (or loosely) than what more contemporary Reformed theologians do when speaking of the order of salvation.

You are correct he did use the word more loosely then contemporary theologians. But there are clear scriptures about regeneration as we are using it that we can look at. For example his commentary on John 3

"To SEE the kingdom of God is of the same meaning as to enter into the kingdom of God, as we shall immediately perceive from the context. But they are mistaken who suppose that the kingdom of God means Heaven; for it rather means the spiritual life, which is begun by faith in this world, and gradually increases every day according to the continued progress of faith. So the meaning is, that no man can be truly united to the Church, so as to be reckoned among the children of God, until he has been previously renewed. This expression shows briefly what is the beginning of Christianity, and at the same time teaches us, that we are born exiles and utterly alienated from the kingdom of God, and that there is a perpetual state of variance between God and us, until he makes us altogether different by our being born again;" -John Calvin

John Bowling:
They say they are logically distinguished, but not necessarily chronologically or temporal separable and certainly not coterminous

So how can a person say God regenerates then we believe then we are justified ? If they are not separable how can a person from the reformed faith do so? It really comes down to how can we be saved ? Do we wait around for God to regenerate us so we can believe ? Hope that God gives us the gift of faith ? Or do we simply believe and be saved (like Paul said) ? I understand those from the reformed circle does not evangelize regeneration (tell people they have to wait for God to regenerate them). That is the theology in practice.

John Bowling:
I can think of senses in which Calvin (and Murray and myself) would agree that they are “two sides of the same coin” (if, for example, the “coin” is salvation in all of its parts).

If the coin is salvation and salvation is by faith then logically regeneration being a part of salvation is by faith also. Which is my point...

John Bowling:
I can think of senses in which Calvin (and Murray and myself) would agree that they are “two sides of the same coin” (if, for example, the “coin” is salvation in all of its parts).

To prove the first point—viz. that God justifies not only by pardoning but by regenerating, he asks, whether he leaves those whom he justifies as they were by nature, making no change upon their vices? The answer is very easy: as Christ cannot be divided into parts, so the two things, justification and sanctification, which we perceive to be united together in him, are inseparable. Whomsoever, therefore, God receives into his favor, he presents with the Spirit of adoption, whose agency forms them anew into his image.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997). III, xi, 6.

( By sanctification calvin is speaking of regeneration)
John Bowling:
Again, you’re using the term “salvation” too ambiguously.

The context tells you what I mean by regeneration. Just like in bible study context defines the word, so to in the context of what I am saying salvation is defined.
God Bless
Posts 31970
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 29 2009 9:51 PM

Read The Mystery of Christ: Life in Death by John Behr for another (unreformed) perspective in which to put your debate. I would so like to see him in Logos format.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 1537
Blair Laird | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 29 2009 9:58 PM

MJ. Smith:
The Mystery of Christ: Life in Death by John Behr

I am not familiar with him, I will have to look him up.

Posts 5573
Forum MVP
Rich DeRuiter | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 29 2009 10:39 PM

John Bowling:
Note: I'm not posting this here to debate the merits of the Reformed view.

Theological discussion/debate is discouraged on these forums. Pointing each other to Logos resources to help someone answer a question, or come to an understanding is fine.

If you want this kind of debate, could you please take it to another forum, to an email exchange, or some other communication method.

NOTE: I'm not a moderator, just a user helping other users. I'm not telling you what to do, I'm making a couple of suggestions.

BTW, a standard presentation of a Reformed understanding of the Ordo Salutis is found in L. Berkhof's Systematic Theology. AFAIK, this is only available in the L. Berkhof Collection, but that's still on pre-pub.

 Help links: WIKI;  Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)

Posts 4508
Robert Pavich | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 3:11 AM

This is truely weird.

I had NEVER heard anyone debate this particular topic before and JUST YESTERDAY I got into a discussion with a man who held to the view stated in the first paragraph...

what a coincidence.

Robert Pavich

For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__

Posts 198
Bryan Brodess | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 5:20 AM

Blair Laird:

John Bowling:
So “saved in order to believe” is an imprecise (incorrect) statement because it confuses a part (regeneration, which I assume is what you mean to stand in for “saved”) with the whole (salvation or redemption).

"he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,"

The word is clear we are saved when we are regenerated, from that point on until glorification we are sanctified. The argument of confusing the part with the whole is concerning. As I clearly posted I am speaking of Justification and the reformed perspective on that subject. So just like greek and hebrew the context defines my words. So when I say salvation, and I am speaking of Justification that is what I am speaking of. Back on track... If one believes this regeneration precedes faith then one according to -(titus 3:5)- believes, as I stated we are "saved" or as titus says "he saves us" so that we can believe. Scripture says otherwise

Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”  And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”  And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.
Ac 16:30-32

By simply letting these two speak for themselves we see that we believe to be saved and we are saved by regeneration

Thus the order

1. Grace

2. Faith

3. Regeneration, Justification and Adoption

The rest 99% of evangelicals are in agreement with (sanctification, glorification)

Amen. I wish more people took a closer look at titus 3:5, It shows perfectly the salvation proces spoken of by Christ in john 3.

In john 3, Nicodemous was confused when Christ said he must be "born again" (regenerated), Jesus said, one must be born of water and spirit.. Later showing how Jesus was the son sent from God so that all who believe will recieve eternal life.

Titus 3 is perfect to show what Christ meant.

"he saved us, (God has saved us from the eternal penalty of sin) not because of works done by us in righteousness, Not because of righteous acts we have done, which would include sacraments),, but according to his own mercy, Mercy comes from love, God shows mercy because of Grave because he loved us, And because Christ redeemed us in his blood by taking the penalty for all sin in our place. by the washing of regeneration Here is the water spoken of in john 3. The holy spirit completely cleanses the filth of sin in our souls, and because of this, we can be regenerated.. Our souls, which were dead, were given life. and renewal of the Holy Spirit," Here is the new birth. the spirit part of John 3, Since we are washed by the water of the spirit.. we are now born of the spirit, because we are justified (declared innocent) of all sin.. and are restored to right standing with God.

 

As far as the calvan issue. I can only think that since calvins version of total depravity deems the only way we can come to God is for god to chose us, thus allow us to have faith in his son.. you could interpret regeneration preceding faith.. for unles christ regenerated you, you would never believe.. does this make sense??

Posts 4508
Robert Pavich | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 5:25 AM

Bryan Brodess:
does this make sense??

Bryan,

it makes sense to me.

thanks for the x ref to titus...that'll give me more things to study today....I'm off for a week!!

Robert Pavich

For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__

Posts 1537
Blair Laird | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 5:38 AM

Bryan Brodess:
As far as the calvan issue. I can only think that since calvins version of total depravity deems the only way we can come to God is for god to chose us, thus allow us to have faith in his son.. you could interpret regeneration preceding faith.. for unles christ regenerated you, you would never believe.. does this make sense??

Calvin taught that man still had a spark left in him after the fall. That spark is what makes man want to search for truth. He did teach that man must be enlightened by God, but he made it clear in his commentary on John 1:12-13 that this enlightenment is not regeneration although some may call it as such. Calvin was not concerned with regeneration preceding faith. He believed faith was a gift only given to the elect, that is how he worked total depravity. Today modern Calvinist dont really focus on faith as a gift. (not much scriptural proof) They place the regeneration before faith to make the doctrines of grace work. 

Check---   Institutes of Christian Religion he lays out what he believes concerning the doctrine of total depravity.

Posts 198
Bryan Brodess | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 5:52 AM

Robert Pavich:

Bryan Brodess:
does this make sense??

Bryan,

it makes sense to me.

thanks for the x ref to titus...that'll give me more things to study today....I'm off for a week!!

Hope you enjoy your week. Let me know how your study goes Big Smile

 

Posts 198
Bryan Brodess | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 6:00 AM

Blair Laird:

Bryan Brodess:
As far as the calvan issue. I can only think that since calvins version of total depravity deems the only way we can come to God is for god to chose us, thus allow us to have faith in his son.. you could interpret regeneration preceding faith.. for unles christ regenerated you, you would never believe.. does this make sense??

Calvin taught that man still had a spark left in him after the fall. That spark is what makes man want to search for truth. He did teach that man must be enlightened by God, but he made it clear in his commentary on John 1:12-13 that this enlightenment is not regeneration although some may call it as such. Calvin was not concerned with regeneration preceding faith. He believed faith was a gift only given to the elect, that is how he worked total depravity. Today modern Calvinist dont really focus on faith as a gift. (not much scriptural proof) They place the regeneration before faith to make the doctrines of grace work. 

Check---   Institutes of Christian Religion he lays out what he believes concerning the doctrine of total depravity.

Interesting. Although I have never heard of regeneration before faith. Makes no sense whatsoever..

as for faith being a gift. I look at the biblical definition. It is the substance of thing hoped for, the evidence of things which we can not see. (Hebrews) it comes from hearing,, which comes by the word of God. and as Paul tells us in Titus, our hope is Eternal life, Which God, Who can not lie, Promised before time began..

 

The way I look at it is I can not see God, but I believe in him. He tells me that because of my sin, I am justly condemned to an eternity apart from him. He tells me that Christ was his son, who he sent to earth to die for me, And that even though I can see any of this, including his ressurection, that because Christ was raised, If I just trust him, and accept his sons death, He promises to give me eternal life and restor me to live with him forever, even though again I can see none of this.. this is true faith.. A trust in somethign I can not see, but has a Hope I am looking for.

This is what our faith has been since adam.. and why and how abraham was found justified before the law. His faith was in the promised redeemer, The gift is Christ. sent to earth to die for our sins, and be ressurected for us.. This is why Jesus said in jon 6 our faith is not a work, it is the work of God. Gods gift to us is his son,, and this is the gift of faith..make sense??

 

Posts 1130
Keith Larson | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 6:34 AM

John Bowling:
Note: I'm not posting this here to debate the merits of the Reformed view. If anyone is interested in that please start a different thread. I'm only interested in clarifying the facts of what the Reformed view is in response to another poster.

John,

I will not directly answer your question because this type of discussion is not what this Forum is designed for. It is sufficient for me to say the Blair has distorted the Reformed view. May I recommend a good recent read that explains the Reformed view of regeneration is Piper's "Finally Alive" http://www.logos.com/ebooks/details/FINALIVE.

Posts 4508
Robert Pavich | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 6:40 AM

P. Keith Larson:
May I recommend a good recent read that explains the Reformed view of regeneration is Piper's "Finally Alive" http://www.logos.com/ebooks/details/FINALIVE.

Which I got for free through the Logos blog... Big Smile

Robert Pavich

For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__

Posts 198
Bryan Brodess | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 8:06 AM

Robert Pavich:

P. Keith Larson:
May I recommend a good recent read that explains the Reformed view of regeneration is Piper's "Finally Alive" http://www.logos.com/ebooks/details/FINALIVE.

Which I got for free through the Logos blog... Big Smile

Must be nice!!..lol.. From the preview it seems like he is coming at it from the Peter/Jude point of view and speaking against licentiousness.. sounds like a nice read.. Will have to put it on my want list..lol

 

Posts 320
John Bowling | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 8:50 AM

Brian, [Edit: I mean Blair... I must be fusing Bryan and Blair into one person...]

I said that I was only interested in the factual question of what the Reformed view is, not the merits of it. That's why I quoted what John Murray and Robert Reymond say and what the Westminster Confession and 1689 Baptist Confession teach. Of course, we could add a lot more Reformed persons to that. 

I've already addressed your claims on Calvin, your only response is to quote more Calvin... But that's not going to change what he said about the issue in his commentary on John 1:13. We agree that Calvin uses his language loosely. We agree that at times he uses regeneration as something flowing from faith. But, as I pointed out, he also speaks of faith as flowing from regeneration. As Berkhof says, "Calvin was the first to group the various parts of the order of salvation in a systematic way, but even his representation, says Kuyper, is rather subjective, since it formally stresses the human activity rather than the divine. Later Reformed theologians corrected this defect" (ST 417). That's not a problem for Calvinists or Reformed persons because, again as I pointed out via Muller, it is a mistake to think that the Reformed or "Calvinist" perspective is somehow limited to Calvin.

Having said that, I think I've established my point and I'm satisfied to leave it here. Maybe we can debate the merits of the reformed view at a later time via email.

perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com

Posts 338
Ralph Mauch | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 9:13 AM

Robert Pavich:

P. Keith Larson:
May I recommend a good recent read that explains the Reformed view of regeneration is Piper's "Finally Alive" http://www.logos.com/ebooks/details/FINALIVE.

Which I got for free through the Logos blog

First, how did you survive all this time without getting into this debate? I've been on church boards where the topic either put in or out of that particular congregation. Beside Piper or Berkhof try also Grudem's "Systematic Theology" or Erickson's "Christian Theology". Like any other topic, the more you can come to it without any presuppositions, the more you will be blessed to understand the topic from a Biblical perspective. The Theological Journals are another good source on the topic. 25 years ago I would not have agreed with Piper, today I'm in full agreement with him, but I also see this topic as one of the non-essentials for those who are in Christ, in whom I see a living faith present.

Nuff said before Rich says something Wink, or the thread goes ugly.

Ralph

 

 

Posts 320
John Bowling | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 9:14 AM

Blair Laird:

Bryan Brodess:
As far as the calvan issue. I can only think that since calvins version of total depravity deems the only way we can come to God is for god to chose us, thus allow us to have faith in his son.. you could interpret regeneration preceding faith.. for unles christ regenerated you, you would never believe.. does this make sense??

Calvin taught that man still had a spark left in him after the fall. That spark is what makes man want to search for truth. He did teach that man must be enlightened by God, but he made it clear in his commentary on John 1:12-13 that this enlightenment is not regeneration although some may call it as such. Calvin was not concerned with regeneration preceding faith. He believed faith was a gift only given to the elect, that is how he worked total depravity.

To clarify what Calvin's position was allow me to quote him:

"He [John] intimates that the human soul is indeed irradiated with a beam of divine light, so that it is never left utterly devoid of some small flame, or rather spark, though not such as to enable it to comprehend God. And why so? Because its acuteness is, in reference to the knowledge of God, mere blindness. When the Spirit describes men under the term darkness, he declares them void of all power of spiritual intelligence. For this reason, it is said that believers, in embracing Christ, are “born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,” (John 1:13); in other words, that the flesh has no capacity for such sublime wisdom as to apprehend God, and the things of God, unless illumined by His Spirit" (ICR II.II.19). [Note: this "illumination" which, Calvin admits, must come first if man is to apprehend God, is what contemporary Reformed persons refer to as regeneration]

Blair Laird:
Today modern Calvinist dont really focus on faith as a gift. (not much scriptural proof) They place the regeneration before faith to make the doctrines of grace work.

Could you please quote all these modern Calvinists who "don't really focus on faith as a gift"?? How would you even go about proving such a statement? Again my concern isn't that you disagree, it's your presumption to present Reformed theology.

perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com

Posts 198
Bryan Brodess | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 9:28 AM

John Bowling:

Blair Laird:
Today modern Calvinist dont really focus on faith as a gift. (not much scriptural proof) They place the regeneration before faith to make the doctrines of grace work.

Could you please quote all these modern Calvinists who "don't really focus on faith as a gift"?? How would you even go about proving such a statement? Again my concern isn't that you disagree, it's your presumption to present Reformed theology.

I too am confused here, What do you mean they place regeneration in front to make doctrines of grace work..?

Posts 320
John Bowling | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 9:34 AM

Bryan Brodess:
I too am confused here, What do you mean they place regeneration in front to make doctrines of grace work..?

He means that unless regeneration precedes faith then none of the other doctrines of grace (unconditional election etc.) "work" or will make sense. Like I said, I didn't start this thread to debate that question and I asked that persons wanting to do so start a different thread. 

perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com

Posts 198
Bryan Brodess | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 9:43 AM

John Bowling:

Bryan Brodess:
I too am confused here, What do you mean they place regeneration in front to make doctrines of grace work..?

He means that unless regeneration precedes faith then none of the other doctrines of grace (unconditional election etc.) "work" or will make sense. Like I said, I didn't start this thread to debate that question and I asked that persons wanting to do so start a different thread. 

I see,, where are you getting this from? because saying unconditional election does not work unless regeneration precedes faith makes no sense whatsoever.. I am just trying to understand what they mean.. not trying to argue.. if you want to take this to another thread feel free..

also.. are you speaking of  what many call "modern Calvinism" where people like Millard Erickson, Hodge, Ryrie, walvoord etc come from vs extreme calvanism? just wondering..

 

Page 1 of 3 (53 items) 1 2 3 Next > | RSS