My grandfather died several years ago as a self-identified atheist. Despite years of "apologetics" and "evangelism" and prayer and all, he went to his grave kicking against the goads.
I remember sitting down with him once and asking him about it. We could always have good conversations. We could disagree without being hostile and, besides, he generally understood that I was asking questions for information, not for argument. So I asked him why he didn't believe there was a God.
"To me," he said, "it's like you telling me that my little dog here is white when I can plainly see she's brown." (I know. It's tough to take a grown man serious when he's holding an aging chihuahua on his lap.) "You tell me there's a God and I just can't see it."
"What would it take?" I asked him.
"That's easy," he replied and then offered the same argument I think I've heard from every atheist, agnostic, and skeptic who offered an answer. "If He would just appear in front of me, that's all it would take."
My response, of course, didn't help, but I had to make it anyway. "Yeah," I said with a smile, "He tried that before. It didn't work out too well then, either."
A lot of Christians believe that if we can accumulate sufficient evidence and provide the most coherent arguments and offer the best line of reasoning, we should be able to make more converts. Now, I'm one who believes that we are commanded to be "prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" (and always "with gentleness and respect") (1 Peter 3:15), and we are "to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). Don't understand me to say that evidence, apologetics, and reason are out. But it wasn't me who said, "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead" (Luke 16:31). It was the One who first demonstrated it by raising Lazarus from the dead only to have His detractors seek to kill him and Lazarus (John 11:53; 12:10). It was the One that demonstrated it the best by dying Himself and rising again. "If He would just appear in front of me, that's all it would take." One might think that's the case, but history says otherwise.
The atheist likes to tell you that he doesn't believe due to lack of evidence. The Bible tells a different story. The lack of belief is due to the inability to understand (1 Cor 2:14), the blindness (2 Cor 4:4), the suppression of truth (Rom 1:18), the hostility toward God (Rom 8:4). The problem is not being a member of His flock (John 10:26)[1]. There is a remedy for that. More evidence clearly isn't it since Christ did exactly what my grandfather demanded and continued to have His enemies hate Him. The remedy is in God's hands. Our job is just to be useful tools in His work. That's a good thing.
________
[1] Note that Jesus placed it in that order. He did not say, "You are not a part of my flock because you do not believe." He said, "You do not believe because you are not part of my flock." Let's not get that turned around.
18 comments:
Stan, in the footnote about John 10:26, you write:
"Note that Jesus placed it in that order. He did not say, 'You are not a part of my flock because you do not believe.' He said, 'You do not believe because you are not part of my flock.' Let's not get that turned around."
But we don't see that same order in John 3:16. There, we aren't taught that those who have eternal life believe in Jesus, we're taught that those who believe have eternal life.
I believe the Bible is quite clear that God's call precedes everything else -- that we could only believe in response to God's revelation to us, not prior to it. And I believe the Bible is quite clear that spiritual fruit (i.e., good works) are the result of salvation and not its cause.
Our response of faith and our regeneration both occur after God's call and prior to our bearing fruit, but I remain unconvinced that the Bible clearly and unambiguously teaches that regeneration precedes faith.
John 10 arguably points in that direction, but John 3 arguably points in the other direction.
Heads up - your blog post made it to the Internet Infidels message board and has its own thread at this location: http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=325924
You could join as a member and participate in the discussion, otherwise they're free to continue to slice-and-dice this post without any defense.
Thanks, Gary. Interesting that the skeptic has decided my view is "Christian blogger says skepticism is really hostility toward God." The Bible says that Natural Man is hostile toward God, but if I were to list the reasons that I think skeptics are skeptical, hostility toward God would not be at the top.
However, they're free to disagree and "slice and dice" all they want. I wasn't writing to atheists. I was writing to Christians who are relying more on "apologetics" and "evangelism" than on God who can change the heart. I wrote to tell Christians "The remedy is in God's hands. Our job is just to be useful tools in His work."
Just curious, Bubba, what is the purpose of regeneration then? If we are in fact dead in our sins and trespasses, and the dead cannot respond to the living, how can we not need to be reborn before we can respond? What is your response to those verses that do say regeneration first?
I think I accidentally refreshed the page before posting my comment, but that was probably for the best, as I may have been rambling.
(Stan, if that earlier, longer comment shows up in your queue, feel free to delete it, as I'll touch on the main points here.)
--
David:
As I said, I do believe that regeneration precedes our bearing spiritual fruit, and so I believe that good works is at least one purpose for our regeneration.
Ephesians 2 teaches that we were dead in our sins and trespasses, but I know of no passage that teaches that we were therefore incapable of responding to God in faith.
You say, "the dead cannot respond to the living," but the dead cannot respond to anything OR DO ANYTHING, and yet Ephesians 2 teaches that the dead in sin walk in the way of the world, the flesh, and the devil.
The passage teaches that God made us alive, but it also teaches that we were saved THROUGH faith as a cause of salvation: it didn't say that we were saved FOR faith as a subsequent purpose of our being saved. (Cf. Eph 2:10, which says we were created in Christ FOR good works.)
"What is your response to those verses that do say regeneration first?"
What verses clearly teach that?
If I thought the Bible clearly taught that regeneration is a precondition of faith, I wouldn't be having this conversation.
John 10, for one. Even you admitted that it arguably points in that direction. Titus 3:5-7 "...he saved us,..., by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,...". Mark 10:26-27/Luke 18:26-27 "And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, "Then who can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "With man it is impossible, but not with God...". Romans 5:10 "For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by His life." 1 Corinthians 2:12-16 "...The natural person (ie spiritually dead) does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."
There is no denying that the Bible seems to say both orders (regeneration-faith, faith-regeneration), so what are we to do with this apparent contradiction? I'd say that all those passages that say faith first are from our point of view, and regeneration first are from God's point of view. The fact that we're even having this debate shows that both concepts are present in Scripture.
When I was talking about dead people, the implication was to extrapolate that to the spiritually dead. The dead spirit cannot interact with the live spirit until it is made alive first.
From an external view, regeneration and faith would be essentially simultaneous, meaning the time between being regenerated and expressing faith would be imperceptible. But from a logical order, regeneration has to precede faith since the dead cannot express faith.
Since it does seem to me that the Bible teaches both, insisting that one MUST precede the other may be like arguing Christ's deity in opposition to His humanity: it may be an attempt to eliminate a tension that we ought to maintain.
David, your argument seems to come down to this, "regeneration has to precede faith since the dead cannot express faith."
It does seem clear that unregenerate sinners can and often do place their trust in the promises of fallen, fallible, imperfect, and weak men. How much more can they place their trust in the promises of the good, great, holy and almighty God?
But, more than that, your premise -- that the spiritually dead cannot express faith -- isn't an obvious teaching from any of the passages you cite, not Titus, Romans, I Cornithians or the Gospels. Most of those passages don't even explicitly mention faith, and none of them state either that faith is a consequence of regeneration or that faith is impossible for the unregenerate.
As best as I have ever been able to tell, your position is probably compatible with the Bible but not strictly necessary, and most of your side's appeals to Scripture hinge on assumptions that are brought to Scripture rather than teachings that are taken from it.
I'll continue to stand to be corrected, but no one has ever shown me where the Bible clearly teaches regeneration before faith.
Bubba,
Considering the innate condition of Natural Man, humans are dead in sin (Eph 2:1-2), unable to understand the things of God (1 Cor 2:14), hostile to God (Rom 8:5-8), inclined only to evil (Gen 8:21), not seeking God and doing no good (Rom 3:10-12). Jesus said, "It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing" (John 6:63). (And Martin Luther added, "Nothing is not a little something.") So if humans of their own ability are able to produce the faith necessary to obtain salvation, we would have to conclude that the flesh profits something, that "dead in sin" doesn't mean really dead in any meaningful way, "cannot understand" means actually can, "hostile toward God" is no obstacle in placing one's faith in God, "inclined only to evil" can include an inclination to good, "none who seeks for God" can actually find Him, and "none who does good" wouldn't include the good of placing the faith generated by the flesh of a spiritually dead person.
Then there is the whole "no man can" thing from Christ. He says it a couple of times. In John 6:44 He says, "No man can come to Me unless the Father draws him." That's nice. But later in the same chapter (down around John 6:63ff ... the same passage I mentioned above) we read that people were withdrawing from Christ. Jesus said, "There are some of you who do not believe" (John 6:64). But He doesn't leave that (obvious) statement hanging in the air. He explains why there are some who do not believe. "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father" (John 6:65).
So, if I'm going to take seriously the biblical evaluation of Natural Man and I'm going to accept that there are those who do not believe because the Father hasn't granted them to, then it seems to me that an initial change must occur before faith can occur. So we read that "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). Or, "born again" (regeneration) precedes "see the kingdom of God". We read "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God" (1 John 5:1). Or, the prerequisite to "believes" is "born of God". The one who believes at this point in time has been born of God already.
I would say that Scripture teaches and requires that "born again" precedes faith. On the other hand, I cannot align "faith precedes regeneration" with all those Scriptures I listed.
The assumptions I bring about human nature are based on Scripture, not read into it, look at Stan's response for those passages. Granted, if we take each of the verses by themselves, either view can be held, but apply them all together and a picture forms that Man is incapable of choosing Christ without God first working in us (read regenerate). While I don't think the order of regeneration is a doctrine breaker, it seems to be the most logical and biblical.
Stan:
- In Ephesians 2, Paul's use of the phrase "dead in sin" focuses on behavior -- that the unregenerate "walk" in sin, following the world -- not on the capacity or incapacity of faith. The same passage teaches both that we were saved "for" good works as one of God's purposes of salvation (2:10) and that we were saved "by" faith as the means of salvation.
- I Cor 2 teaches that we cannot understand the things of God, but Romans 1:19-20 teaches that God's power and divine nature are plain to those who are under judgment -- and surely these invisible attributes are "things" of God.
- Romans 3 teaches that none of us do good, but the same chapter repeatedly affirms that we are justified by faith (3:22, 3:25).
It's almost as if the Bible treats faith as something to be contrasted against our works rather than as just another type of work "produced" by the flesh.
John 6 hardly touches the issue about which we're disagreeing: it teaches that God's CALL precedes our salvation, but I've already mentioned that in my very first comment, noting my belief that the Bible is indeed clear on the precedence of God's call.
And we've discussed I John 5 before.
"The verse teaches that regeneration precedes the continual faith of those who are already saved, but not necessarily the initial response of faith which first appropriates salvation. I reiterate that the letter is NOT about how the lost can be saved, but how we Christians can be assured of the fact that we have already been saved."
We're probably just going in circles again.
I can't make heads or tails of the position that "dead in sin" means "behavior". Knowing that God exists (Rom 1:19-20) and understanding the things of God seem disconnected to me (and, it would seem, would be contradictory -- "You can know the things of God, but you can't know the things of God"). I see no connection (and I think that's the point) between Rom 3:10ff and Rom 3:22. (And, by the way, I would conclude that coming to God in faith would be classified as "good", which Paul says no one does.) And you appear to have the view that there is an "initial response of faith" as opposed to "continual faith", the first of which is easily a product of the flesh but the latter a product of regeneration.
As you said, we've discussed this before. Just one of those things we'll have to disagree on, I suppose.
Stan, you write, "I can't make heads or tails of the position that 'dead in sin' means 'behavior'."
I didn't say that it "means" behavior, but Paul's use of the phrase does associate it with our behavior:
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air... - Eph 2:1-2a, emphasis mine
This mention of "walking" and "following" seems to me to be a reference to our behavior and not necessarily any capacity or incapacity to trust the promises of God.
In the same passage, Paul writes how we are saved through faith (2:8), which suggests that faith is a cause of our salvation rather than an effect, in noticeable contrast with works:
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. - Eph 2:10, emphasis mine
(Notice again the metaphor of walking, and again it is attached to works -- good works rather than sins.)
Verse 10 clearly teaches that regeneration precedes our bearing fruit: we're "created in Christ Jesus FOR good works."
If Paul had written that we were created in Christ FOR FAITH, you'd have a convincing case that regeneration precedes faith, too. But he didn't, so you don't.
--
"Knowing that God exists (Rom 1:19-20) and understanding the things of God seem disconnected to me (and, it would seem, would be contradictory -- "You can know the things of God, but you can't know the things of God")."
Romans 1 doesn't teach merely that the unregenerate are aware of God's existence: they are also aware of "his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature." (1:20)
Is your position that the "things of God" excludes His power and nature but MUST include His promise to save? I don't think the Bible clearly draws the line there, and I don't think it's an affront to its authority to draw the line somewhere else.
We must take the claims of Romans 1 as seriously as I Corinthians 2, and if one's interpretation of the latter is contradictory with the plain meaning of the former, maybe he should reevaluate his conclusions.
--
Stan, you seem determined to treat faith as a type of work, writing, "I would conclude that coming to God in faith would be classified as 'good', which Paul says no one does."
You would conclude that, sure, but did Paul write anything EXPLICITLY ABOUT FAITH that would indicate that he shares your position? So far as I know, he didn't, and so you're deducing from what Paul wrote about more vague terms -- the "things of God" that we cannot know, the "good" that we cannot do, and "the flesh" which profits nothing (I have never held that faith is a work of the flesh) -- to downplay what he wrote specifically about faith.
Paul writes clearly, emphatically, and repeatedly, that we are saved THROUGH FAITH and BY FAITH.
Romans 3:22, 3:25, 3:28, 3:30, 4:13, 5:1-2, 9:30-32
Galatians 2:16, 3:8, 3:11, 3:14, 3:22, 3:24, 3:26
Ephesians 2:8, 3:12, 3:17
Philippians 3:9
Colossians 2:12
2 Timothy 3:15
Why are these numerous statements explicitly about faith less important to your conclusions than the inferences you draw from Paul's statement about vague categories that may OR MAY NOT even include faith?
--
Stan, I believe that our regeneration is inseparable from God's gift of the Holy Spirit: in order to give us new life, God must give us His Spirit.
You quoted the key verse that points to this truth: Jesus said, "It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing" (John 6:63).
The Spirit gives life.
Okay, do you believe that regeneration is a result of the provision of the Holy Spirit?
You put our regeneration before our faith; do you also put our receiving the Holy Spirit before our faith?
Interesting. I concurred with you that we are, again, going in circles. I explained my difficulties without trying to convince you. I concluded we'd just have to disagree. And you thought it was important enough to argue about. Indeed, you suggest that I believe Paul's statements about "saved by faith" are "less important" than other Scripture. Interestingly, it is your (apparent) conclusion that I am taking some Scriptures as "more imporant" than others, but you are not while it is my impression that I am attempting to regard all Scripture as God's Word, equal in authority, accuracy, and validity. So, for instance, it appears that you argue that indeed God makes Himself apparent to everyone (Rom 1:19-20) which must mean that 1 Cor 2:14 is not accurate (or, at least, meaningful?). Most interesting, of course, is the hint of the notion that this might clear things up.
Well, it didn't clear the air. I didn't see the light. I do see that we're not necessarily on the same page. We're not understanding or using terms in the same way. "Regeneration" is clearly one of them. "Salvation" appears to be another. And, it appears, "faith" is another. I do not see "born again" and "saved" as absolute equivalents. I do not see "indwelt by the Spirit" and "regeneration" as equivalents. And, to be more clear than I have been, I am talking about logical priority rather than anything actually requiring time. That is, I believe (still believe) that the Bible teaches that logically and necessarily regeneration must precede faith -- that a person must have new spiritual life before they can respond in faith to the Gospel -- but I don't believe that there is a time frame here. I believe it is instantaneous. Regenerated, respond in faith, saved by grace through faith. It would occur in such a way that the person experiencing it would likely never realize it happened that way. I concur that we are saved by faith. (Seriously, you think that I need a refresher course on that fundamental Christian truth?)
You and I agree that we are saved by faith. We simply disagree on the source of that faith. I, for one (and not I alone), cannot figure out how 1) it can be said that God is ultimately Sovereign in our salvation if we are the ones that provide the faith required to accomplish it or 2) how it is possible to not have anything about which to boast when we provided the single key that finally and ultimately saved us. Nor can I correlate all that the Bible says about the condition of Natural Man and "I can accomplish this by my faith." Just the things that hold me up from agreeing with you. But we agree that we're saved by faith. That should be enough.
Stan, you went into some detail to explain what you didn't understand about my position, and you drew a conclusion about my position that I've explicitly repudiated in the past -- namely, that if a sinner's response of faith precedes his generation, that response MUST be "a product of his flesh."
I'm not sure what's so interesting about my writing more to clarify and correct rather than shrugging my shoulders since we both suspect we're going in circles.
To clarify further, I didn't say that you treat some passages of Scripture as less important in an absolute sense, only as "less important to your conclusions" about the logical priority of regeneration.
I think that's a reasonable conclusion to draw when you write about how you cannot "correlate all that the Bible says about the condition of Natural Man and 'I can accomplish this by my faith,' " with not a mention of Paul's writing over and over again how we're saved by faith and through faith.
What the Bible says about Natural Man does not include ANYTHING explicitly about our capacity for faith, but your conclusions about the Natural-Man claims do appear to be more important than the emphatic teaching that we're justified by faith.
You say we agree that we're saved by faith, but you distort my side of where we disagree with this "I can accomplish this by my faith" -- when I would use the word "receive" rather than "accomplish," because I've been clear that FAITH IS NOT A WORK TO ACCOMPLISH.
Again, the Bible distinguishes between faith and works. It doesn't treat faith as a type of work.
But if you believe that regeneration is logically prior to faith, in what sense are we saved by faith? Would it not be more accurate to say that you believe we're saved by regeneration, of which faith is only a result?
Stan, about the Bible's claims regarding the Natural Man, I think we're talking about a few different conclusions:
1) The Natural Man cannot save himself of his own initiative.
2) The Natural Man cannot even respond to the initiative of God.
3) The Natural Man cannot obey God's law through the works of his own flesh.
4) The Natural Man cannot even respond to God's promises through faith.
We both agree on #1 and #3, and you clearly believe #2 and #4 as well.
But while the Bible clearly teaches #1 and #3, I do not think it is necessary to conclude #2 and #4, and I believe the doctrine of justification by faith argues against doing so.
For one thing, the false doctrines of human initiative and salvation by works DO engender pride, but the doctrine of salvation by faith doesn't, even if faith precedes regeneration, because the glory isn't to the quality of our faith -- which is often VERY meager -- but to its OBJECT, God Almighty revealed supremely in Christ Jesus.
Faith isn't a work.
Thanks, Bubba. Can we stop now? Are we talking any less in circles now than we were in that previous time or here?
(Side question. Would you say that we are not saved by being born again? I would suggest that we are "saved by faith" and we are "saved by grace" and we are "saved by being born again" and we are "saved by Christ". I don't actually think you believe that we are saved by faith apart from anything else at all ... right?)
My point was and remains that I can't seem to correlate your view with the rest of the Scriptures that I've mentioned (and more). And clearly the same is true of you. You can't correlate my view with the rest of the Scriptures that you've mentioned. I wasn't suggesting a solution. I was stating the problem.
The one thing I do find ironic and sad in all this is that we're holding this in-house discussion/disagreement under a post about talking with atheists.
Absolutely, Stan, it's not just faith. I think Romans 3:24-25 gives a very good summary, that we're saved by God's grace, through Christ's death, received by faith. Being born again is necessary for seeing God's kingdom, but I don't believe that necessarily means that the second birth is logically prior to our response of faith. (It certainly wasn't logically prior to God's grace or Christ's death.)
And, yeah, all this has been a digression, but your footnotes don't have their own comment thread. :-)
Post a Comment