Sep 14, 2008

Snoeberger Review II

Snoeberger wrote:

"In Reymond’s discussion we find that the Word of God, while issuing as the general call, finds sudden efficacy when the sinner is regenerated, rendering the general call efficacious. If one is brutally technical, he could conclude that the Word is not precisely the instrument of regeneration, but only the sphere in which the Holy Spirit’s regenerating activity uniformly takes place. But it does not seem that this finely tuned theological understanding need to be expressed in equally finetuned grammatical structures in order to be regarded as accurate or true."

http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2002/Snoeberger.pdf

Thus, it seems clear to me, that both Snoeberger and Robert Reymond do not believe that the word of God is a means in bringing about regeneration or the new birth, and are therefore neo-Hardshells or Hyper Calvinists.

These professors do exactly what nearly all modern "Reformed" Calvinists, men like White, Piper, Sproul, do. They say, out of one side of their mouths - "we believe that the word of God or gospel is a means in regeneration or the new birth," and then you will find them saying elsewhere that it is not a means, "strictly," or "technically," speaking! By Snoeberger's own admission, if we can get the "Reformed" crowd to be "brutally technical," we will be able to get them to finally "shell down the corn" and say - "yes, we are Hardshells in that we don't believe regeneration is accomplished through means."

Notice how he mentions "finely tuned theological understanding"! Is this what Gene Bridges was talking about when he accused me of being ignorant of "theological terms," of the "Reformed" "jargon"? Who is the author of this "finely tuned theological understanding"? Was it the Holy Spirit? Paul? Peter? John? No! Snoeberger even concedes this, if I understand his last sentence (highlighted in red), that the scriptures do not show this same "fine tuning"! Man, does this say volumes!

I have called these "wise guys," these "Phd's," who gloat in their intellectual acumen, and who can count the number of angels who dance on the head of a pin, "hair splitting theologians."

All throughout the thesis paper of Snoeberger, he attempts to uphold a false premise, one that he and the Hardshells take to the scriptures, and to which they make the scriptures conform, and one which I wrote about recently under "Hardshell and Reformed Hermeneutics," wherein I defined this false premise as follows:

"Any text that puts "salvation," or any kind of "life," after faith and repentance, or after conversion, or after any act of the dead sinner, is not regeneration or the new birth, but some other kind or phase of salvation."

Why would they create this hermeneutical principle? Is it not because they have insisted, erroneously, that "regeneration" or the "new birth" must always precede faith and repentance? And, because "salvation" is always put AFTER faith and repentance in scripture?

But, I challenge all these Hyper Calvinists to cite one verse of scripture that shows that a man was saved before he believed in Christ or the gospel. Surely they can find at least one case, can they not? Further, I challenge them to tell us how "begotten by the gospel" does not mean "begotten by faith in the gospel."

I also want to ask all these "Reformed" Calvinists, those who are always talking about "monergistic regeneration," and who all recommend the web site of monergism.com, - "do you agree with Hendryx who says the new birth is in stages, and that the first stage (regeneration) is WITHOUT THE MEANS OF THE GOSPEL?"

10 comments:

Charlie J. Ray said...

Spurgeon:

"The command of Christ stands good however bad men may be, and when he commands all men everywhere to repent, they are bound to repent, whether their sinfulness renders it impossible for them to be willing to so or not. In every case it is man's duty to do what God bids him.
At the same time, this faith, wherever it exists, is in every case, without exception, the gift of God and the work of the Holy Spirit. Never yet did a man believe in Jesus with the faith here intended, except the Holy Spirit led him to do so. He has wrought all our works in us, and our faith too. Faith is too celestial a grace to spring up in human nature till it is renewed: faith is in every believer "the gift of God." You will say to me, "Are these two things consistent?" I reply, "Certainly, for they are both true." "How consistent?" say you. "How inconsistent?" say I, and you shall have as much difficulty to prove them inconsistent as I to prove them consistent. Experience makes them consistent, if theory does not. Men are convinced by the Holy Spirit of sin—"of sin," saith Christ, "because they believe not on me;" here is one of the truths; but the selfsame hearts are taught the same Spirit that faith is of the operation of God. (Col. ii. 2) Brethren be willing to see both sides of the shield of truth. Rise above the babyhood which cannot believe two doctrines until it sees the connecting link. Have you not two eyes, man? Must you needs put one of them out in order to see clearly? Is it impossible to you to use a spiritual stereoscope, and look at two views of truth until they melt into one, and that one becomes more real and actual because it is made up of two? Man men refuse to see more than one side of a doctrine, and persistently fight against anything which is not on its very surface consistent with their own idea. In the present case I do not find it difficult to believe faith to be at the same time the duty of man and the gift of God; and if others cannot accept the two truths, I am not responsible for their rejection of them; my duty is performed when I have honestly borne witness to them."

Spurgeon clearly says that it is impossible for sinful men to believe without the prior working of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, i.e. regeneration.

Charlie J. Ray said...

I think you're siding with the Arminians. Unless you are born again you cannot believe. To make faith a condition for regeneration is to say that man has a natural ability to make himself born again by believing. This is not the teaching of Spurgeon.

Stephen Garrett said...

Charlie Ray:

Calvin also believed like I do. Would you call him an Arminian? Jonathan Edwards also agrees with me. Was he Arminian? Was Abraham Booth Arminian? John Gill agreed with me. Was he too Arminian?

Born again = faith in Christ, have you not discovered that yet?

God bless

Stephen

Stephen Garrett said...

Charlie Ray:

You said:

"Spurgeon clearly says that it is impossible for sinful men to believe without the prior working of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, i.e. regeneration."

You err when you add your own explanation to the words of Spurgeon with your "i.e. regeneration." That "prior work" was not "regeneration" in the mind of Spurgeon, and if you had read enough of Spurgeon, you would know this.

The drawing is not regeneration but that which effects regeneration. To so define it would be to make regeneration have nothing to do with the sinner, but only with God.

God bless

Stephen

Stephen Garrett said...

Charlie Ray:

Spurgeon said:

Spurgeon said:

"Where there is no faith, there has been no quickening of the Holy Spirit, for faith is of the very essence of spiritual life."

(Faith Essential to Pleasing God, MTP, Sermon #2100, Vol. 35, 446).

That is my position.

God bless,

Stephen

Charlie J. Ray said...

Faith is produced by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Faith is the instrument whereby we apply the benefits of the cross and are justified. The work of the Holy Spirit is regeneration and the gift of the Holy Spirit is faith. Since dead men are raised from the dead first, it follows that they cannot believe until they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit first. John 1:1-8.

I don't disagree with what you said here. I disagree with you when you said that faith produces regeneration. That is the Arminian view.

Stephen Garrett said...

Dear Charlie Ray:

No, correctly speaking, as I said, the raising to life is the raising to faith and repentance. Why do you want to make faith and repentance distinct from the life?

God bless

Stephen

John said...

Reymond, Snoeberger, Piper, and Sproul as hardshells? Hardly! You'd also have to throw Spurgeon into this category (though for some reason you don't seem to want to do this) for he clearly held to the position advocated by these modern-day Calvinists.

You appear to have accepted several aspects of Arminian theology either wittingly or not. And you seem ready to call anyone who is a Calvinist a "hardshell".

You are confused and mistaken at best.

Stephen Garrett said...

Dear John:

To deny God uses the gospel as a means in regeneration is classic Hardshellism or Hyper Calvinism. For anyone to deny means in the new birth is Hyper in his Calvinism.

Spurgeon did not believe men were born again before faith. I have numerous citations from him in this blog that cite him on this. He taught the same thing as Abraham Booth and John Stock, two men who's works he endorsed. Both these men believed sinners are born again by faith.

If you want me to reference all these citations from Spurgeon and other great five point Calvinists, which show they did not believe that regeneration preceded faith, just let me know and I will provide you the links to the particular blog posts.

It is not part of Arminian theology to put faith before new birth. I could counter and say that you "seem" to have imbibed Hyper Calvinistic definitions.

Blessings,

Stephen

Stephen Garrett said...

Dear John:

Here are some statements by leading Calvinistic Baptist on regeneration NOT preceding faith and conversion.

Abraham Booth said:

"...the page of inspiration does not warrant our supposing, that any one is born of God, before he believe in Jesus Christ."

Spurgeon endorsed these words of Booth.

Spurgeon himself said, in commenting upon John 1: 10-13:

"...believers are “born again” and receive Christ through faith..."

In 1861 Spurgeon endorsed in full the writings of John Stock in Stock's book "A handbook of revealed theology," and in this book Stock clearly avows what Booth had avowed. Stock affirmed that men are born again by faith.

Alexander Carson wrote:

"We are regenerated by faith, and not by the rite of baptism. Baptism is an emblem of this washing and regeneration." (Baptism in its mode and subjects By Alexander Carson - pg. 478-79)

Benjamin Keach wrote:

"The Gospel through the grace of it, when received in truth, raises the dead soul to life."

See my posting here for citation locations.

Blessings,

Stephen