Post by Eli Brayley on Apr 27, 2009 10:19:40 GMT -7
This is an email response of Reggie Kelly to a friend concerning regeneration and free will. It is an excellent response, and very thought-provoking. Reggie's words are in blue.
-------------------
Reggie,
Just wanting to ask a couple more questions about these issues. Throughout my long car drive I was really contemplating them and they are so dear to me. I don’t even know why.
I think I can guess. It is the truth of eternal salvation. A salvation that is only temporarily secure isn't much of a salvation, since the ground of assurance can be no better than my own feeble estimation of how well I'm doing at the moment and how sure I am things will remain that way. It ultimately goes back to how sure I am that I'll keep up my end of the covenant (by the works of the law shall shall no flesh be justified). In such case, my hope is built on something less than Jesus' blood and righteousness. On this ground, assurance can be no better than the predictability of future behavior based on a persumption of self knowledge. "I know I'll 'make it' cause I know me. I know what I'll do! Come what may, I'll hang in there!" Sounds like Peter's boast in his own resolve, "though all men ..., yet will I never ..." We'd never say it, but the doctrine that divides assurance between Christ and the weakness of flesh says it for us. As in Peter's boast, such assurance is based on how well I know myself rather than on God's relational foreknowledge of His elect, and His promise to keep His own based on an everlasting covenant. Anyway, about regeneration, faith and man's role: Does regeneration precede faith? Or do they happen more or less simultaneously? Grudem. By the way, I love that book, Grudem says regeneration precedes faith, though it may seem as though they practically happen at the same time.
Repentance and faith are properties of regeneration. They go together with no distinction in time, but there is an important theological distinction in the order of cause and effect. This important distinction is only possible if we observe a difference between 'belief' in terms of mere mental assent and true saving faith, since obviously 'belief' in the truth of the gospel precedes regeneration. However, such 'belief' is not always saving faith. So the doctrine that regeneration precedes faith depends on this important theological distinction. Because not all 'belief' is of the same kind. “The devils believe and tremble.” As much as there is a difference between “the faith of God’s elect” and the faith of devils, there is also a difference between a faith that is born of God and the frail and momentary kind of ‘belief’ that quickly sprouts only to perish in the time of trial, "because it had no root" (Lk 8:13). Whereas the faith that is 'born of God' endures. It survives any test. It must, because it is born of God. It is bound by infallible rule: "Whatsoever is born of God overcomes the world” (1Jn 5:4). Such faith and those who have it are infallibly kept (Mk 13:22; Jn 6:39). This kind of faith overcomes the world. It has in it a divine resilience that is not finally overthrown in the day of testing, because it is not from hence. On the other hand, Jesus said, “every plant which my Father has not planted will be rooted up.”
Also in my conversations with my friend he said that it seems "everything goes back to grace and it is as though you worship grace and not God." That's a new one. Not in an offensive manner, though I guess you could say the statement itself is. But my question is why do they emphasize free will so much? Simple. It puts man back in control and absolves God from the charge of unfairness by choosing only some. It would seem the Bible is clear that man is not seeking God and rather in bondage to sin, sin nature and even Satan. They would admit that no one would come to the Lord except the Spirit draw them, but they must insist that the Spirit draws everyone equally, else God would be discriminatory and unfair. Sounds great, but it's not what the scripture clearly SAYS. It is not based on a 'ruthless exegesis' of scripture, but upon the very objections that Paul anticipates but refuses to appease on human terms. The objections then and now are based on what is presumed to be 'known' of the character of divine justice. It is unthinkable that God would choose some for life while leaving others to act freely in their own self chosen bondage. How, if He leaves them in their bondage, can He judge them for something that is no longer in their power? Ah, yes! But why is not in their power? Is He now under obligation? Such presumption of divine obligation can be traced to ignorance of what can only be conceived by revelation, namely, the biblical concept of corporate solidarity and our universal participation in Adam's guilt. Want of this concept is responsible for a great deal of the mystery that attaches to our poor grasp of the nature of divine justice in election. In the absence of such a view of corporate guilt, we naturally suppose that if God has the power to quicken the dead, He is surely unjust or unloving if He does not quicken all the dead. Since God is perfectly just, such 'non election' of the greater part of mankind is unthinkable. Why, if God's initiative in regeneration is unconditional, would He choose to do for only some what seems in His power to do for all? Why would He so limit His goodness and love? They believe God's character binds Him to will the same good equally for all, provided, of course, they cooperate with His will. Here the Calvinist objects that this such human claim on God's character calls into question the very ground of the glory of grace in God's righteous freedom to "have mercy on whom He will have mercy." Wheres the Arminian view is not far from suggesting that if God does anything especially gracious for one, He becomes obligated to the same for all others. Such a view of God's 'character' would require the election of all, which is universalism. But since it is plain that the greater part of humanity fail of the straight gate of regeneration, the Arminian position is predisposed to regard election as conditional based on human response. In essence, God has elected all who choose to be elected. God would surely save all if He could, but only few LET Him through their submission and obedience. Once again, sounds great, but what does the scripture SAY? The Calvinist is just as clear concerning the requirement of submission and obedience. It is not a question of requirement but the source of its fulfillment. I like to say that where there is a division of the labor, there is necessarily a division of the glory. Christ said His works were not His own, and the believer must say the same. Though we labor more abundantly, there must be the 'yet not I' of grace. "Who makes you to differ?" That is the question that will determine whether one is a Calvinist or an Arminian. The Arminian view automatically wins in any philosophical debate at the public level. It is much more amenable to reason. After all, man is made in the image of God, and some things are rightly dismissed as unworthy of God, so Calvinism is naturally dismissed. You may be sure that if it were not for some really strong statements of scripture to the contrary, Calvinism would not exist. If you are finally constrained by the evidence of scripture to take the position associated with the Reformed or Calvinist tradition, you may reasonably expect the pain of distrust and rejection, most certainly deserved if the Arminian position is true, but a true bearing of the shame of the cross if it is not. It is exquisitely painful to bear the enormous 'guilt by association' that attaches to anyone identified as a dreaded 'Calvinist'. But if the sovereign grace position is true, then it is in keeping with the offense of the cross. Because, like the cross, it puts human glory in the dust of death and shuts all men up to the free prerogative of God to "quicken whom He will" (Jn 5:21; Ro 9:18) on the basis of an eternal decision made independently and before the possibility of any moral condition (Ro 9:11).
I think the whole attack and vehemence on a sovereign grace view is whether or not man is totally depraved. The great question for the various theological positions is "how dead is dead?" Then the question is what makes one to differ, man or God? They would say both, since human cooperation permits God to do more in one than another. Reminds me of that humorous country western song that is so popular right now, "Me and God".
-------------------
Reggie,
Just wanting to ask a couple more questions about these issues. Throughout my long car drive I was really contemplating them and they are so dear to me. I don’t even know why.
I think I can guess. It is the truth of eternal salvation. A salvation that is only temporarily secure isn't much of a salvation, since the ground of assurance can be no better than my own feeble estimation of how well I'm doing at the moment and how sure I am things will remain that way. It ultimately goes back to how sure I am that I'll keep up my end of the covenant (by the works of the law shall shall no flesh be justified). In such case, my hope is built on something less than Jesus' blood and righteousness. On this ground, assurance can be no better than the predictability of future behavior based on a persumption of self knowledge. "I know I'll 'make it' cause I know me. I know what I'll do! Come what may, I'll hang in there!" Sounds like Peter's boast in his own resolve, "though all men ..., yet will I never ..." We'd never say it, but the doctrine that divides assurance between Christ and the weakness of flesh says it for us. As in Peter's boast, such assurance is based on how well I know myself rather than on God's relational foreknowledge of His elect, and His promise to keep His own based on an everlasting covenant. Anyway, about regeneration, faith and man's role: Does regeneration precede faith? Or do they happen more or less simultaneously? Grudem. By the way, I love that book, Grudem says regeneration precedes faith, though it may seem as though they practically happen at the same time.
Repentance and faith are properties of regeneration. They go together with no distinction in time, but there is an important theological distinction in the order of cause and effect. This important distinction is only possible if we observe a difference between 'belief' in terms of mere mental assent and true saving faith, since obviously 'belief' in the truth of the gospel precedes regeneration. However, such 'belief' is not always saving faith. So the doctrine that regeneration precedes faith depends on this important theological distinction. Because not all 'belief' is of the same kind. “The devils believe and tremble.” As much as there is a difference between “the faith of God’s elect” and the faith of devils, there is also a difference between a faith that is born of God and the frail and momentary kind of ‘belief’ that quickly sprouts only to perish in the time of trial, "because it had no root" (Lk 8:13). Whereas the faith that is 'born of God' endures. It survives any test. It must, because it is born of God. It is bound by infallible rule: "Whatsoever is born of God overcomes the world” (1Jn 5:4). Such faith and those who have it are infallibly kept (Mk 13:22; Jn 6:39). This kind of faith overcomes the world. It has in it a divine resilience that is not finally overthrown in the day of testing, because it is not from hence. On the other hand, Jesus said, “every plant which my Father has not planted will be rooted up.”
Also in my conversations with my friend he said that it seems "everything goes back to grace and it is as though you worship grace and not God." That's a new one. Not in an offensive manner, though I guess you could say the statement itself is. But my question is why do they emphasize free will so much? Simple. It puts man back in control and absolves God from the charge of unfairness by choosing only some. It would seem the Bible is clear that man is not seeking God and rather in bondage to sin, sin nature and even Satan. They would admit that no one would come to the Lord except the Spirit draw them, but they must insist that the Spirit draws everyone equally, else God would be discriminatory and unfair. Sounds great, but it's not what the scripture clearly SAYS. It is not based on a 'ruthless exegesis' of scripture, but upon the very objections that Paul anticipates but refuses to appease on human terms. The objections then and now are based on what is presumed to be 'known' of the character of divine justice. It is unthinkable that God would choose some for life while leaving others to act freely in their own self chosen bondage. How, if He leaves them in their bondage, can He judge them for something that is no longer in their power? Ah, yes! But why is not in their power? Is He now under obligation? Such presumption of divine obligation can be traced to ignorance of what can only be conceived by revelation, namely, the biblical concept of corporate solidarity and our universal participation in Adam's guilt. Want of this concept is responsible for a great deal of the mystery that attaches to our poor grasp of the nature of divine justice in election. In the absence of such a view of corporate guilt, we naturally suppose that if God has the power to quicken the dead, He is surely unjust or unloving if He does not quicken all the dead. Since God is perfectly just, such 'non election' of the greater part of mankind is unthinkable. Why, if God's initiative in regeneration is unconditional, would He choose to do for only some what seems in His power to do for all? Why would He so limit His goodness and love? They believe God's character binds Him to will the same good equally for all, provided, of course, they cooperate with His will. Here the Calvinist objects that this such human claim on God's character calls into question the very ground of the glory of grace in God's righteous freedom to "have mercy on whom He will have mercy." Wheres the Arminian view is not far from suggesting that if God does anything especially gracious for one, He becomes obligated to the same for all others. Such a view of God's 'character' would require the election of all, which is universalism. But since it is plain that the greater part of humanity fail of the straight gate of regeneration, the Arminian position is predisposed to regard election as conditional based on human response. In essence, God has elected all who choose to be elected. God would surely save all if He could, but only few LET Him through their submission and obedience. Once again, sounds great, but what does the scripture SAY? The Calvinist is just as clear concerning the requirement of submission and obedience. It is not a question of requirement but the source of its fulfillment. I like to say that where there is a division of the labor, there is necessarily a division of the glory. Christ said His works were not His own, and the believer must say the same. Though we labor more abundantly, there must be the 'yet not I' of grace. "Who makes you to differ?" That is the question that will determine whether one is a Calvinist or an Arminian. The Arminian view automatically wins in any philosophical debate at the public level. It is much more amenable to reason. After all, man is made in the image of God, and some things are rightly dismissed as unworthy of God, so Calvinism is naturally dismissed. You may be sure that if it were not for some really strong statements of scripture to the contrary, Calvinism would not exist. If you are finally constrained by the evidence of scripture to take the position associated with the Reformed or Calvinist tradition, you may reasonably expect the pain of distrust and rejection, most certainly deserved if the Arminian position is true, but a true bearing of the shame of the cross if it is not. It is exquisitely painful to bear the enormous 'guilt by association' that attaches to anyone identified as a dreaded 'Calvinist'. But if the sovereign grace position is true, then it is in keeping with the offense of the cross. Because, like the cross, it puts human glory in the dust of death and shuts all men up to the free prerogative of God to "quicken whom He will" (Jn 5:21; Ro 9:18) on the basis of an eternal decision made independently and before the possibility of any moral condition (Ro 9:11).
I think the whole attack and vehemence on a sovereign grace view is whether or not man is totally depraved. The great question for the various theological positions is "how dead is dead?" Then the question is what makes one to differ, man or God? They would say both, since human cooperation permits God to do more in one than another. Reminds me of that humorous country western song that is so popular right now, "Me and God".
Praise the Lord! They cooperated by brushing their teeth and God met them the other half of the way. 