Atheistic Assault Continues Against Military Members
Blake Page claims religion is the reason he resigned this past week from being a cadet at the U.S. Military Academy. Five months prior to graduation, Page asserted he felt discriminated against for being “non-religious.” The president of the West Point Secular Student Alliance (an affiliate of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers) and the Director of Military Religious Freedom Foundation Affairs at West Point declared in a vitriolic blog post:
While there are certainly numerous problems with the developmental program at West Point and all service academies, the tipping point of my decision to resign was the realization that countless officers here and throughout the military are guilty of blatantly violating the oaths they swore to defend the Constitution. These men and women are criminals, complicit in light of day defiance of the Uniform Code of Military Justice through unconstitutional proselytism, discrimination against the non-religious and establishing formal policies to reward, encourage and even at times require sectarian religious participation. These transgressions are nearly always committed in the name of fundamentalist evangelical Christianity.
Page asserts the U.S. Military Academy makes prayers mandatory, that cadets participating in religious activities receive preferential treatment and that officers in general display open disrespect for non-religious cadets. He wrote in his resignation letter, “I do not wish to be in any way associated with an institution which willfully disregards the Constitution of the United States of America by enforcing policies which run counter to the same.” School officials confirmed Page’s resignation was accepted and that he is being discharged honorably. Spokesman Francis DeMaro, Jr., however, stated the former cadet’s claim that prayer is mandatory is untrue. He said, “The Academy holds both official and public ceremonies where an invocation and benediction may be conducted, but prayer is voluntary. As officers, cadets will be responsible for soldiers who represent America’s great diversity in faith and ethnic background. The Academy provides cadets the opportunity to foster an understanding regarding the fundamental dignity and worth of all.”
The founder and president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, Mikey Weinstein, called Page’s resignation an act of great courage. He claimed, “We have the Christian Taliban running amok unchecked in the technologically most lethal organization ever recorded in human kind. There’s no problem except that we have a small document called the Constitution that separates state and religion.” Weinstein, however, commended West Point for providing Page with an honorable discharge and not punishing him for his actions. Not everyone views Page’s resignation as an act of courage. Charles Clymer, a former 2013 classmate who was forced to separate from the Academy due to medical reasons, wrote an open letter on the Secular Student Alliance’s Facebook page. Describing himself both as a Christian and an “aggressive, outspoken liberal,” Clymer noted his outspokenness regarding the “injustice of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’, the limited career options of women who serve our country in uniform, and…a very broken system of addressing sexual assault at the Academy and in the Armed Forces in general (among other things).” In his address to Page, he relayed:
I’m angry and disappointed with you over this article, and I say that as someone who very much supports the separation of Church and State. I believe religion belongs in one’s private life, and apart from certain, limited allowances for those who have a faith they practice, government employees should never be given preferential treatment and upon such instances, leaders who allow that to happen should be counseled and/or punished. . . . I never, not even once, witnessed, heard about, or even thought it implied that non-religious cadets face discrimination of any kind at the Academy. I saw widespread homophobia and sexism but never any negative sentiment towards those cadets who identified as Atheist or Agnostic. In fact, the closest thing I ever observed that looked like a pro-Christian bias were the few cadets who believed Islam is evil, and that was a very small fraction of our class. The vast majority of Christian cadets treated non-Christian cadets with respect insofar as their beliefs are concerned. And I should again point out that I spent the better part of two years calling out homophobia and sexism when I saw it, and it wasn’t as though I was “known” for being a Christian in our class. I didn’t exactly spend my free time in Christian-based organizations or attend church services, regularly. I did sing in Gospel Choir for a few semesters but never heard any sort of anti-Atheist remarks during my participation with them. They treated everyone with respect, regardless of faith, gender, or sexuality. My point is that, try as I might, with all my stereotypical, sensitive liberal feelers in tune, I can’t remember ever seeing or hearing about negative experiences of Atheists, Agnostics, or other Non-Christians at the Academy. . . . As a person who prides myself on maintaining honesty in regards to how minorities (of any kind, including spiritual) are treated, I can say with confidence that are you are either blatantly lying or, at the very least, being incredibly misleading with how you represent the Academy’s religious environment.
Clymer noted Page’s poor performance as a cadet, having failed in multiple leadership positions. Page was facing separation from the Academy for medical reasons related to mental health, which likely contributed to his poor performance. He struggled at West Point following his father’s suicide. Diagnosed with clinical depression and anxiety, he was disqualified from being commissioned as an officer. He asked to resign rather than face separation, a proposition accepted by Academy officials. According to Clymer, Page “went behind their backs and claimed the resignation was done to protest Christian Fundamentalists at the Academy, which is a whole lot of bull$h!#.” Page responded by saying he was unconcerned about the perception of others. “That’s really fine. I am not trying to talk about myself. I am trying to talk about church and state.”
It appears, nonetheless, that Page’s actions are actually more about himself than about the separation of church and state. Press reports regarding his resignation have generally failed to note he was facing separation from West Point due to mental health related issues. Weinstein and others will cite this as one of the “countless” instances of “discrimination” against non-theists. The truth of the matter is that this vocal and aggressive minority seeks to overthrow the rights of theists by removing the free exercise of religion in public. They believe essentially that any public demonstration of faith should be deemed illegal – viewing people of faith (particularly evangelical Christians) as “criminals” and extremists (i.e., “Christian Taliban running amok unchecked”). It is time for theists to actively and prolifically defend their rights, rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
* * * * *
SOURCES:
Blake Page, “Why I Don’t Want to be a West Point Graduate”
Charles Clymer, “The Truth about Cadet Blake Page and Why West Point is Not Anti-Atheist”
Michael Hill, The Huffington Post, “Blake Page, West Point Cadet, Quits Military Academy Over Religion”
Billy Hallowell, The Blaze, “Atheist West Point Cadet Quits the Academy, Citing ‘Christian Proselytizing’ & ‘Criminal’ Constitutional Violations”
Moni Basu, CNN, “West Point Cadet Quits Over Religion”
Thanksgiving: A Presidential Proclamation
General Thanksgiving
By the PRESIDENT of the United States Of America
A PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANKSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”
NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed;– for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish Constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;– for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge;– and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also, that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions;– to enable us all, whether in publick or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us); and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.
(signed) G. Washington
Source: The Massachusetts Centinel, October 14, 1789
Geaux Liberty!
Christian students from Louisiana State University, who are ardent football fans, paint their upper bodies during games. Known as “The Painted Posse,” the group was formed in 2003 and has become a fixture at LSU home games, appearing on national television broadcasts, ESPN and in Sports Illustrated. Members of The Posse had their picture taken at the LSU – South Carolina game. Officials sent out the photo of the students in a Geaux-Mail newsletter to the student body, but removed the crosses painted on The Posse’s bodies with digital technology. The students were dismayed when they viewed the photo, which appeared to be otherwise unedited. Cameron Cooke, one of the students, told CampusReform.org, “I was a bit surprised, because our pictures get used so frequently, and the cross had never been edited before. The cross painting is important to me because it represents who I am as a Christ follower.” Herb Vincent, an LSU spokesman noted that the school altered the image to prevent other students from being offended. “We don’t want to imply we are making any religious or political statements, so we air-brushed it out, Only one of the students, who didn’t appreciate it, actually contacted us about it. So next time, we’ll just choose a different photo.” LSU plans to steer clear of any photos with religious overtones when it sends out athletic promotional materials.
In a land where freedom of religious expression and freedom of speech are touted as rights, political correctness has found a way around the Constitution. Whenever people of faith express their views, they are simply ignored by those who “wish to remain neutral.” Such neutrality negates expression, implicitly conveying the idea that there is absolutely no room to discuss “private matters” (e.g., religion, politics, ethics) in a “public forum.” The more society at large embraces such an outlook, the greater individual liberties erode. It is important for people to politely, intelligently and firmly exercise their freedoms, or else those liberties will soon be gone.
Theology on Thursday
The bonds built with some friends are so strong that they are as thick as blood, and those friends are just like family. For my family, we count the Helms’ – Doug & Selah, Andrew, Caleb, Beth, and Peter, as friends and family. The truth is, because of our relationship in Christ and because of belonging to Rock Creek Baptist Church for several years, they are family. Doug is one of my two best friends in the world, and he also served as my family’s pastor for several years. Last year, my heart sank when I spoke with him on the phone and he told me about the car wreck in which his youngest son, Peter, was involved. Pete’s body and brain were injured during the crash, and he is facing a long road to an uncertain recovery. The family has faced this circumstance with a strong faith and great love, though it has been a very difficult and draining situation. On Tuesday (May 17, 2011), Tim Laitinen’s article, Solo Zone: Flexibility in Crisis, appeared on Crosswalk. It details how the Helms’ eldest son, Andrew, left his doctoral studies at Notre Dame behind in order to help take care of Peter. After you read this article, which makes up today’s edition of Theology on Thursday, I ask that you pray for Peter and the rest of the Helms family.
* * * * *
Imagine getting that phone call: a loved one has been involved in a horrible traffic accident in another state. Can you freeze-frame your life at that moment, putting everything else on hold to jump on a plane to be at your loved one’s hospital bedside? Of course, many people can’t. But Andrew Helms could. A single doctoral student at Indiana’s University of Notre Dame, Helms rushed to consult with his advisors, and then scrambled to the airport for a flight home to Texas. Granted, working on a doctorate doesn’t require the same type of on-site commitment and responsibility as being professionally employed. But neither can graduate studies be easily maintained when you’re fraught with the relentless urgency of having a loved one undergo multiple surgeries. In different hospitals. By various specialists. With progress measured in excruciatingly indistinct increments. All of which awaited Andrew and his family as his brother’s long road to recovery began that summer day last year.
Brother, Can You Spare the Time?
At 18 years old, Peter is Andrew’s youngest brother, with two other siblings in the middle.Being the oldest has always given Andrew a tendency to play the role of protector for his brothers and sister, despite what he describes as “a healthy mixture of camaraderie and rivalry” between them. “They are specially placed in my life for me to practice the discipline of brotherly love,” Andrew unabashedly reasons.“It’s easier to see how much they need my love when they are in trouble.”
For the first few hours after that initial, crisis phone call, nobody really knew if Peter would survive. His small car had been hit broadside by a full-sized pickup truck at full speed, and heroic witnesses to the crash assumed the worst until paramedics arrived and managed to find a pulse. They rushed Peter by helicopter to a Fort Worth trauma center, suffering from severe paralysis, puncture wounds to his face, broken facial bones, and bleeding in his brain. Surgeons were able to drill a hole in Peter’s skull to relieve some of the pressure on his brain, and they believed his spinal cord had been spared serious injury. And the Lord spared his life. But little else.
Today, after ten months and several surgeries, Peter remains in a minimally conscious state, unable to communicate or voluntarily move his body except for slight twitches and eye movements. Although the progress that has taken place has been a blessing, that progresss has been disappointingly slow in coming. Yet family members have rallied around, joined by congregants from their church and friends in their community around Fort Worth to support the family in ways we never realize we need until such a crisis.
Most days, everyone’s time is spent maintaining a steady regimen of physical therapy so Peter’s limbs retain a range of motion and flexibility. Doctors remain hopeful about his prognosis, but he’s yet to reach the point where he’s eligible for intensive rehabilitation. So the family soldiers on with Peter at home, where his hospital bed has commandeered their former living room, and everyone’s routine now centers around his care.
Lessons of Faith and Purpose
The emotional, physical, and even spiritual toll on Peter’s family and friends has been immense, but at the same time, profoundly faith-building. As a doctoral philosophy student, Andrew has developed a keen awareness of how his own relationship with Christ has flourished during what could be a season of despondency. “During the hardest moments, in the midst of deep grief and fear for Peter and all the things that he seems to have lost, God has sustained and comforted me with this thought: All those things… are gifts from Christ. Everything beautiful and praiseworthy in Peter is a direct reflection of Christ’s beauty and praiseworthiness. Therefore, nothing is really lost; instead, we’re being directed to look up from the broken image, back to the Person who formed it to resemble himself, and who really possesses those good things by right.”
Of all the truths God may be revealing about himself by allowing Peter’s present condition, Andrew sees a particular relevance for all saints who suffer. “In the present difficult circumstances, Peter has been given the great gift of reflecting and identifying with Christ in his humiliation and suffering. If that’s the case, then, because of his unity with Christ, Peter will be exalted and restored someday. So, this injury is actually a gift straight from the hand of a gracious God who plans for Peter to be holy… rather than a gifted artist or an intellectual genius.”
Andrew also can’t escape less complex reminders about the purposes of community in faith. “God’s been helping me see that for us Christians, human relationships are the training ground for, and entry into, close communion with himself. The presence of other people in our lives calls for us to develop deep habits of sacrifice and self-giving. We have to learn humility by sacrificing our desires to the good of others, as bearers of the image of God.”
This Present Present of Singlehood
Which, in a way, helps to explain why Andrew’s singleness has been an odd sort of blessing. His professors at Notre Dame graciously offered him a leave of absence for a year to help with his brother’s recovery. So Andrew simply stayed in Texas after flying down the day of Peter’s accident, relieved to be able to support his family without competing responsibilities.
“Given Peter’s accident, I am grateful for my current state of singleness,” Andrew acknowledges. “Being unmarried has made it much easier than it would have been for me to give my time and effort towards his care and rehabilitation… I had this freedom to change my location and devote my time to helping my brother for a year. I don’t know what I would have done in other circumstances.”
“As a Christian who is unmarried, I am trying to use the free time that I have—that would have been used up caring for a wife and a family—in service to Christ and his church. This year, that means serving my brother in his time of need.” Granted, a one-year hiatus during his pursuit of a doctorate won’t be catastrophic to Andrew’s career. It’s even been educational in itself. “It has changed me as a person: made me more grateful, more confident, more loving, less afraid of what people think of me,” he reflects. “During the hardest moments, in the midst of deep grief and fear for Peter and all the things that he seems to have lost, God has sustained and comforted me.”
As his hiatus from Notre Dame starts winding down, and as his brother’s condition continues to stabilize, Andrew has begun looking towards the future once more. And although singlehood has been a unique advantage so far, he’s willing to, shall we say, broaden his relationship horizons. “I hope that God’s plan for me involves marriage in the near future,” he admits. “At the same time, I am not waiting on marriage to make me happy or give me purpose in life. I already have those things in Christ.”
* * * * *
Battle for the Military’s Soul
A recent article by James Dao in the New York Times reported that groups of atheists and secular humanists are “pushing for the appointment of one of their own to the [military] chaplaincy.” Dao notes, “Joining the chaplain corps is part of a broader campaign by atheists to win official acceptance in the military. Such recognition would make it easier for them to raise money and meet on military bases. It would help ensure that chaplains, religious or atheist, would distribute their literature, advertise their events and advocate for them with commanders.”
Jason Torpy, a former Army captain and president of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, believes atheistic chaplains would be able to perform all the functions religious chaplains do, including counseling troops and helping them follow their faith traditions. He stated, “Humanism fills the same role for atheists that Christianity does for Christians and Judaism does for Jews. It answers questions of ultimate concern; it directs our values.” Torpy has requested to meet with every military branch’s chiefs of chaplains to discuss his proposal.
At Fort Bragg, NC, a group called Military Atheists and Secular Humanists (MASH), has asked the military to appoint an atheist lay leader at the post. MASH chapters at Fort Campbell, KY, and MacDill Air Force Base, FL, are planning on doing the same. They desire to have access to chapel sanctuaries and meeting rooms, and for lay leaders to lead “services” in lieu of chaplains. Atheist leaders acknowledge the contradiction of seeking the chaplaincy or receiving recognition from the chaplain corps, but they believe the imprimatur of the chaplaincy will alleviate the fears atheists have of being ostracized for their worldviews. They claim Christian beliefs pervade military culture, and create subtle pressures on non-Christians to convert. As an example, they point to the Army’s Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program, which was created to help soldiers deal with stress and prevent suicide. The program assesses emotional, social, family, and spiritual well-being. Atheists erroneously claim the program is “rife with religious code words that suggest a deity or afterlife.” The Army rightly contends the program helps determine whether a soldier has “a strong set of beliefs, principles or values” that can sustain one through adversity, and that it does not gauge one’s religion.
Atheists also objected to an event held at Fort Bragg last autumn – “Rock the Fort.” Sponsored in part by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, the event was overseen by the post chaplains with the approval of the post commander, Colonel Stephen Sicinski. Money and manpower were provided for the event, and was held on the parade grounds. Attendance at the event was voluntary, and the commander noted that the event was intended to boost morale and “bolster the faith.” In response, Sergeant Justin Griffith has recruited a star lineup of atheistic musicians and speakers, including Richard Dawkins, to headline “Rock Beyond Belief,” and requested the commander to provide similar resources for it. Colonel Sicinski has refused, saying the event will not draw enough people to justify the use of the parade grounds. He added that it would not be right to use money from religious tithes which came from chapel attendees, which helped finance Rock the Fort. Griffith has appealed.
Griffith is also considering becoming an atheist chaplain. He would first have to earn a college degree, then a graduate degree in theology, be ordained, spend two years in pastoral ministry, and be commissioned. He would also need to receive an ecclesiastical endorsement from a “qualified religious organization,” a role the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers hopes to fulfill.
Paul Vicalvi, executive director of the National Association of Evangelicals Chaplain Commission – the largest representative body of chaplains in the U.S. Armed Forces and Veterans Administration – is “puzzled” by the atheists’ request. Interviewed by Katherine T. Phan of The Christian Post, the retired Army chaplain with over 30 years of service, failed to see the logic behind it. He remarked, “Traditionally chaplains are seen as a person [sic] of a higher power faith. It would redefine the chaplaincy if a non-faith person becomes a chaplain.” Vicalvi noted troops with atheistic beliefs or values who seek care already have psychologists and counselors in the military, most with a secular humanist background. He also emphasized that chaplains are also required to provide emotional and spiritual care to all military personnel, including non-believers, pointing out, “Evangelical chaplains are taught to respect the faith or the lack of faith of anyone in the military. It’s not that we’re against people who don’t have faith or think they are lesser persons. We are there and we respect everyone. That is our fundamental teaching.” During his service as an Army chaplain, Vicalvi counseled fellow soldiers from a variety of backgrounds, including Wiccans. He rejected the characterization made by atheists that chaplains “push Christianity down people’s throats,” adding that if Christian-themed events are organized, they are not funded with appropriated monies, and attendance is always voluntary.
In Vicalvi’s opinion, “Humanism is a religion. It’s a basis of motivation, ethics, day-to-day decision making,” however, “It’s not a power beyond themselves, or higher power, but they do have a god and it’s man. Humanists would claim that they have the power within themselves to be whatever they want to be.” Ultimately, he views the atheists’ demands for chaplains as less about the needs of the troops, and more about a vocal minority of new atheists desiring to spread its anti-Christian movement from the public square into the military.
Book Review: ‘If God Is Good’
Not long ago WaterBrook Multnomah Books sent me a copy of If God Is Good: Faith in the Middle of Suffering and Evil for review. It is the first volume I’ve ever read from best-selling author Randy Alcorn, but after reading this book, Lord willing it will not be the last. The founder and director of Eternal Perspective Ministries presents an exceptionally well-written work addressing the nature of God’s absolute goodness, knowledge, and power in light of the existence of evil and suffering.
Alcorn launches the work by discussing the problems posed by evil and suffering in general, and then moves forward by providing a biblical explanation of their origins. He deals straightforwardly with the depraved fallen nature of human beings, and points masterfully to Jesus Christ as humanity’s only hope in a world filled with evil and suffering. The entire work, which is saturated with Scripture, is characterized by dealing boldly with the issues at hand and directing people constantly to Christ. This is one of the reasons I appreciate this book so much. As Alcorn continues, he poses problems for non-theists and tackles the arguments proposed by agnostics and atheists. He confronts the objections raised by the likes of Bart Ehrman, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins fearlessly. I believe this section will prove quite helpful to those who have been challenged particularly by the emotionally charged arguments of this trio.
Alcorn contends ably not only against non-theistic objections related to these issues, but also with unbiblical solutions proposed within the Church to answer these inquiries. He addresses the distortions of the “prosperity gospel,” the myth that Christians never suffer, and the “Christian” attempt to limit divine attributes to explain the issues at hand. Unlike many authors who contend against such unbiblical teachings, Alcorn never comes across as condescending. Rather, he counteracts these teachings in a manner found throughout the book – providing a foundational biblical theology with a sense of strong, compassionate pastoral care. He demonstrates how theology is interwoven; delving into important related areas such as the characteristics of God, free will, the existence of heaven and hell, and the nature of justification, sanctification, and glorification. Alcorn doesn’t flinch as he argues that God not only permits evil and suffering, but utilizes them for the good of human beings and for His own glory. The material presented isn’t ivory-tower theology presented merely for the sake of argument, but pastoral theology interlaced with real-life accounts of people who have been upheld by God’s grace during times of tremendous difficulty. Among the accounts, Alcorn includes the grave personal struggles he has faced.
The 492 pages of text may be intimidating to some, but they shouldn’t fear because this book is written in an easy-to-understand style with a general audience in mind. Anyone who picks up this volume will benefit from one of the very best works ever written on the subject. Randy Alcorn has masterfully written a piece which not only provides substantial support for believing in the existence of God, but also encourages Christians to persevere in the faith knowing that God is involved actively in the lives of His children – even as they suffer. I benefited greatly from reading If God Is Good, and trust you will as well. I give it my very highest recommendation.
* * * * *
Please consider scoring this review at Blogging for Books.
Alistair McGrath, Former Atheist
Alistair McGrath, a Christian theologian and apologist, holds both the DPhil in molecular biophysics and a Doctor of Divinity from Oxford. Noted for works in historical, systematic, and scientific theology, he is also a former atheist. Until recently, he served as Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford, but is now occupies the chair of Theology, Religion and Culture at King’s College London. While he believes in evolution (a position with which I disagree), he promotes “scientific theology” and opposes “anti-religionism.” He has been critical of Richard Dawkins, noting the apologist of atheism is “embarrassingly ignorant of Christian theology.” His work, The Dawkins Delusion?, is a response to Dawkins’ The God Delusion, and the two debated publicly on the topic, “Does religious belief damage the health of a society, or is it necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society?” Dr. McGrath was interviewed by Dawkins regarding his work, Dawkins’ God, and about faith in general for the documentary, The Root of All Evil?, though the interview was cut from final product. Nonetheless, the unedited footage is available online. In this interview on ‘The Hour’, Dr. McGrath discusses his opposition to “grumpy atheists,” and the need for civil discussion regarding different worldviews.
A Presidential Proclamation of Thanksgiving
General Thanksgiving
By the PRESIDENT of the United States Of America
A PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANKSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”
NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed;– for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish Constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;– for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge;– and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also, that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions;– to enable us all, whether in publick or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us); and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.
(signed) G. Washington
Source: The Massachusetts Centinel, October 14, 1789
Religious Censorship in Great Britain
UNITED KINGDOM – Dale McAlpine, a 42-year-old English Baptist, was charged with causing “harassment, alarm or distress” after a homosexual police community support officer (PCSO) overheard him reciting a number of “sins” referred to in the Bible, including blasphemy, drunkenness, fornication, and homosexuality. McAlpine, who has preached on the streets of Workington, Cumbria, for years, said he told a passer-by he believed homosexuality went against the Word of God. Police officers arrested him for using homophobic language – considered abusive or insulting – contrary to the Public Order Act, and confined him in jail for seven hours on April 20th. McAlpine stated, “I felt deeply shocked and humiliated that I had been arrested in my own town and treated like a common criminal in front of people I know. My freedom was taken away on the hearsay of someone who disliked what I said, and I was charged under a law that doesn’t apply.” McAlpine pleaded not guilty at a preliminary hearing and is now waiting for a trial date.
Many have expressed alarm that the Public Order Act, introduced in 1986 to curb the violence often related to riots and soccer matches, is now being used to curb religion and free speech. Sam Webster, a solicitor-advocate for the Christian Institute, declared it is not a crime to express the belief that homosexual conduct is sinful. He remarked, “The police have a duty to maintain public order, but they also have a duty to defend the lawful free speech of citizens. Case law has ruled that the orthodox Christian belief that homosexual conduct is sinful is a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society.”
Administration’s Stance on Religious Freedom Softens
The 11th annual report by the bipartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom declared Barack Obama is softening his administration’s stance on religious freedom despite the fact that religious persecution is on the rise. His recent call for nations to respect “freedom of worship” rather than “religious freedom” permits regimes to claim they are not oppressing particular religions if those religions exist in a form acceptable to the state. According to Leonard Leo, chairman of the commission, the signal being sent to the international community is that as long as a regime will “prop up a few churches or houses of worship (of minority faiths), there isn’t going to be a problem.” Steven Groves, an analyst at the Heritage Foundation, stated the change in phrase raises a question regarding the administration’s commitment to confront regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere, particularly in Iraq and Iran where minority Christian and Muslim sects have been oppressed and attacked. “The term religious freedom carries with it a certain understanding in the international community that is a much broader right than the freedom of worship,” said Groves. The report also criticized the Obama administration for failing to nominate an ambassador at-large for religious freedom. The ambassador-at-large post, which falls under the State Department, is a requirement of a 1998 law that mandates religious freedom as an aim of U.S. diplomacy.
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom was established to monitor religious freedom and to issue an annual report on U.S. efforts in that area. Commission members are appointed by Congress and the White House. They recommend which nations should be named “countries of particular concern” (CPCs) for severe violations of religious freedom, and suggest appropriate penalties for such violations. Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, and North Korea are among the nations already named as CPCs by the State Department. The CPC label requires the administration to consider sanctions against the designated nations. The annual report also heavily criticizes U.S.-supported nations, such as Iraq and Pakistan, for failing to protect members of minority faith groups from discrimination and violence.
Theology on Thursday
Recently I’ve been leading a group through the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Prior to beginning Romans 10, which deals with the responsibility of human beings and the proclamation of the gospel, I took a session to review the major doctrines examined in chapters 1-9. To the best of my ability, I have hammered home the importance of the doctrine of justification in regard to the whole epistle. It is my hope that each person involved with the group will also be involved with evangelism, and it is imperative for them to have a strong grasp on justification. With this in mind, I included excerpts from a recent broadcast of The White Horse Inn during this review session. The broadcast, entitled, “The Heart of Christianity”, included “person on the street” interviews with individuals attending a recent National Religious Broadcasters conference. The NRB website states the group is “the preeminent association of Christian communicators working to keep the doors of electronic media open for the spread of the Gospel, which promotes standards of excellence, integrity, and accountability.” (emphasis added) The question asked of the “person on the street” was, “What does the Apostle Paul mean by the doctrine of justification?” A majority of those responding could provide no definitive answer to this vital question.
Historical and systematic theologian Alistair McGrath (D.Phil., Oxford) wrote over a decade ago about the doctrine of justification and the future of Christianity. He makes it plain in his Studies in Doctrine that the Church cannot survive apart from sola fide as he declares:
How will Christianity survive in the future? In the past, the Christian church in Europe and North Amerrica alike has relied too much on a favorable cultural milieu for its survival, knowing that its existence was safe-guarded by social patterns of behavior. While this state of affairs continued, the doctrine of justification by faith was neglected, because it was seen as lacking relevance and urgency. But this state of affairs may not continue. How will the Christian faith and the Christian church survive if social factors favoring church membership are reversed?
It is here that the doctrine of justification by faith assumes its specific and peculiar importance. The doctrine underlies all evangelism, the proclamation of Christ to the world. As we have seen, the doctrine affirms that the same experience that stamped its powerful impression upon the New Testament is available today, here and now. It affirms that individuals may here and now be caught up in the Christian experience of the risen Christ. It exults in the sheer attractiveness of Christianity, motivating individuals to want to become Christians. In a day and age when belief must be won, rather than assumed, the doctrine of justification fulfills a crucial role. It is the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae, the “article by which the church stands or falls.” The Christian church takes its stand against a disbelieving world on the basis of the firm and constant belief that God acted in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to achieve something that will remain of permanent significance to human beings, so long as they walk the face of this planet knowing they must die. We are exposed for what we really are—sinners—and are offered the possibility of transformation as a free gift of God. The life of the Christian church—its doctrine, worship, and proclamation—is based on the knowledge that God has established a new relationship between himself and sinful humanity through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that this relationship constitutes the only basis for authentic human existence on the face of this earth.
The great themes of authenticity, of forgiveness, of eternal life, of meaningfulness, of purpose—all these are affirmed and expounded by the doctrine of justification by faith. This is the spiritual heritage that has been passed down from one generation of believers to another, like the torch of liberty, and we must pass it on to those who follow. For the gospel of the gracious justification of sinful humanity by a living and loving God is the pearl of great price of which we are the temporary stewards, and we must safeguard, defend, and use this vital doctrine on their behalf. A generation is waiting to be born, to discover the graciousness of the living God, and to respond to it—and we, like the runners in a relay race, must be poised and ready to hand over to them what has been entrusted to us for a time—the doctrine of justification by faith.
(emphasis original)
The Church in North America is in a state of crisis, some might even say it has become “bewitched” like the Galatians in St. Paul’s day. Morality and ethics are expounded from evangelical pulpits week after week, but the message of forgiveness through Christ Jesus is often ignored. Principles for successful living are often spoken of without any mention of the gospel. Congregations are drying up spiritually and numerically. The Church must regain its vision and focus on Christ and Him crucified.
Stirring the Fly’s Nest
It still doesn’t appear Bob Ross has read my actual posts, but that hasn’t kept him from posting about me once again. He writes in a post entitled, “Spurgeon vs. Galyon, etc.”:
“Some Hybrid Calvinists dislike the term ‘decision’ in the matter of salvation, and some talk about a so-called ‘decisional regeneration’ idea in an effort to discredit the use of the word ‘decision.’ So be it. They can choose their own poison. But to try to drag Spurgeon into their leaky tent is preposterous… In the case of James Galyon, it is indeed ‘2 Worlds Collide’ — namely, Galyon’s Hybrid Calvinist World colliding with C. H. Spurgeon’s world. Spurgeon preached the Gospel to ‘dead sinners,’ called upon the dead sinners to repent and believe, and thereby he made converts to Christ. The Pedo-infected Hybrids (on the whole) rely on ‘infant regeneration,’ which is supposedly an ‘inheritance’ in consequence of the infants being born to believers. That is why there are no ‘evangelists’ among the Hybrid Calvinists. Their chief business is to seek proselytes to Hybrid Calvinism from among believers who were previously converted by ‘non-Calvinists.’”
Note Ross’ slamming generalizations. Calvinists with whom he disagrees cannot possibly claim Spurgeon, we are “Pedo-infected Hybrids” relying on “infant regeneration” and there are “no ‘evangelists’” among us because our “chief business is to seek proselytes.” Nothing from what I’ve stated publicly, just accusations. No concern about the 27 military members with whom I shared the gospel yesterday (isn’t that evangelism?), just accusations.
Again, had Ross bothered to read my material, he would have noted I did not employ a disdain for “decisions”, but rather displayed a concern for the sloppy theology and easy believism dominating much contemporary evangelism. I have a great concern for those who profess faith in Jesus Christ, yet give no evidence of the new birth in their lives. This concern, shared by the likes of James E. Adams, Mark Dever, Paige Patterson, was also shared by Charles H. Spurgeon. In the sermon just posted this past week on ‘Faith and Regeneration’, the famed pastor remarks:
It is to be feared that some zealous brethren have preached the doctrine of justification by faith not only so boldly and so plainly, but also so baldly and so out of all connection with other truth, that they have led men into presumptuous confidences, and have appeared to lend their countenance to a species of Antinomianism very much to be dreaded. From a dead, fruitless, inoperative faith we may earnestly pray, “Good Lord, deliver us,” yet may we be unconsciously, fostering it. Moreover to stand up and cry, “Believe, believe, believe,” without explaining what is to be believed, to lay the whole stress of salvation upon faith without explaining what salvation is, and showing that it means deliverance from the power as well as from the guilt of sin, may seem to a fervent revivalist to be the proper thing for the occasion, but those who have watched the result of such teaching have had grave cause to question whether as much hurt may not be done by it as good. . . . We have known many who, by hearing continually the most precious doctrine that belief in Jesus Christ is saving, have forgotten other truths, and have concluded that they were saved when they were not, have fancied they believed when as yet they were total strangers to the experience which always attends true faith. They have imagined faith to be the same thing as a presumptuous confidence of safety in Christ, not grounded upon the divine word when rightly understood, nor proved by any facts in their own souls. Whenever self-examination has been proposed to them they have avoided it as an assault upon their assurance, and when they have been urged to try themselves by gospel tests, they have defended their false peace by the notion that to raise a question about their certain salvation would be unbelief. Thus, I fear, the conceit of supposed faith in Christ has placed them in an almost hopeless position, since the warnings and admonitions of the gospel have been set aside by their fatal persuasion that it is needless to attend to them, and only necessary to cling tenaciously to the belief that all has been done long ago for us by Christ Jesus, and that godly fear and careful walking are superfluities, if not actually an offence against the gospel. (emphasis added)
Later, Ross contends, “There is simply no room in Spurgeon for the Pedobaptist/Hardshell doctrine of ‘regeneration precedes faith’ — advocated by the likes Turretin, Shedd, Berkhof, Spoul, Packer, and Packer’s disciple, James Galyon, which alleges that ‘regeneration’ is a separate and distinct preceding act distinguished from effectual calling simultaneously by the Word and Spirit.” My posts show that I (unlike some notable Southern Baptists) agree with Spurgeon regarding the gracious work of the Holy Spirit in bringing individuals to faith. Spurgeon declares:
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.” (emphasis added)
Ross may need to explain, in light of his derogatory comments, what Spurgeon meant exactly when he spoke of the woman with the issue of blood:
That poor woman who came behind our Saviour in the press offers us another figure of what faith is. She said, ‘If I may but touch the hem of his garment I shall be made whole.’ Taking no medicines, making no profession, and performing no ceremonies, she simply touched the ravelling of the Saviour’s robe, and she was healed at once. O soul, if thou canst get into contact with Christ by simply trusting him, though that trust be ever so feeble, thou hast the faith of God’s elect; thou hast the faith which is in every case the token of the new birth. (emphasis added)
There is also the matter of Spurgeon’s second point in the sermon. The heading reads: “II. We must now pass on to show that WHEREVER IT EXISTS IT IS THE PROOF OF REGENERATION.” (capitalization original) Spurgeon noted, “There never was a grain of such faith as this in the world, except in a regenerate soul, and there never will be while the world standeth. It is so according to the text, and if we had no other testimony this one passage would be quite enough to prove it.” (emphasis added) Lest Ross or someone else be tempted to say I’m taking Spurgeon out of context, I ask, what exactly does Spurgeon mean with this declaration?:
Have you never noticed that the greatest mysteries in the world reveal themselves by the simplest indications. The simplicity and apparent easiness of faith is no reason why I should not regard its existence as an infallible indication of the new birth within. How know we that the new-born child lives except by its cry? … yet was there never a child’s cry in the world but what it indicated the mysteries of breathing, heart-beating, blood-flowing, and all the other wonders which come with life itself. . . . To believe in Jesus is a better indicator of regeneration than anything else, and in no case did it ever mislead. Faith in the living God and his Son Jesus Christ is always the result of the new birth, and can never exist except in the regenerate. Whoever has faith is a saved man. (emphasis added)
Crying (faith) indicates life (regeneration). Crying does not come until after a baby has exited the womb. Is the birth process complete until the baby takes that first breath (conversion)? No. It is all bound up together. Unfortunately, it seems many aren’t concerned with actual statements, interacting with real convictions, or carrying on dialogue surrounding honest differences. They are concerned with being “right,” with defending their dogma, and pushing those with whom they disagree out of the way. I encourage all believers, including myself, to carefully consider these words from the concluding section of Spurgeon’s sermon:
Now what flows out of this [regeneration]? Love is the legitimate issue! We must love if we are begotten of God all those who are also born of God. It would be an insult to you if I were to prove that a brother should love his brother. Doth not nature herself teach us that? Those, then, who are born of God ought to love all those of the same household. And who are they? Why, all those who have believed that Jesus is the Christ, and are resting their hopes where we rest ours, namely, on Christ the Anointed One of God. We are to love all such. We are to do this because we are of the family. We believe, and therefore we have been begotten of God. Let us act as those who are of the divine family; let us count it our privilege we are received into the household, and rejoice to perform the lovely obligations of our high position. We look around us and see many others who have believed in Jesus Christ; let us love them because they are of the same kindred. “But they are some of them unsound in doctrine, they make gross mistakes as to the Master’s ordinances.” We are not to love their faults, neither ought we to expect them to love ours, we are nevertheless to love their persons, for “whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God,” and therefore he is one of the family, and as we love the Father who begat we are to love all those who are begotten of him.
Theology on Thursday
Today’s edition of Theology on Thursday continues with a recent theme found on 2 Worlds Collide, that of regeneration. Charles H. Spurgeon’s sermon, “Faith and Regeneration” (No. 979 – Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit) is featured today. Spurgeon delivered this sermon to his congregation on March 5, 1871. The biblical text for this sermon is 1 John 5:1 – “”Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and everyone that loveth him that begot loveth him also that is begotten of him.”
FOR THE PREACHER of the gospel to make full proof of his ministry will be a task requiring much divine teaching. Besides much care in the manner and spirit, he will need guidance as to his matter. One point of difficulty will be to preach the whole truth in fair proportion, never exaggerating one doctrine, never enforcing one point, at the expense of another, never keeping back any part, nor yet allowing it undue prominence. For practical result will much depend upon an equal balance, and a right dividing of the word. In one case this matter assumes immense importance because it affects vital truths, and may lead to very serious results unless rightly attended to; I refer to the elementary facts involved in the work of Christ for us, and the operations of the Holy Spirit in us. Justification by faith is a matter about which there must be no obscurity much less equivocation; and at the same time we must distinctly and determinately insist upon it that regeneration is necessary to every soul that shall enter heaven. “Ye must be born again” is as much a truth as that clear gospel statement, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”
It is to be feared that some zealous brethren have preached the doctrine of justification by faith not only so boldly and so plainly, but also so baldly and so out of all connection with other truth, that they have led men into presumptuous confidences, and have appeared to lend their countenance to a species of Antinomianism very much to be dreaded. From a dead, fruitless, inoperative faith we may earnestly pray, “Good Lord, deliver us,” yet may we be unconsciously, fostering it. Moreover to stand up and cry, “Believe, believe, believe,” without explaining what is to be believed, to lay the whole stress of salvation upon faith without explaining what salvation is, and showing that it means deliverance from the power as well as from the guilt of sin, may seem to a fervent revivalist to be the proper thing for the occasion, but those who have watched the result of such teaching have had grave cause to question whether as much hurt may not be done by it as good. On the other hand, it is our sincere conviction that there is equal danger in the other extreme. We are most certain that a man must be made a new creature in Christ Jesus, or he is not saved; but some have seen so clearly the importance of this truth that they are for ever and always dwelling upon the great change of conversion, and its fruits, and its consequences, and they hardly appear to remember the glad tidings that whosoever believeth on Christ Jesus hath everlasting life. Such teachers are apt to set up so high a standard of experience, and to be so exacting as to the marks and signs of a true born child of God, that they greatly discourage sincere seekers, and fall into a species of legality from which we may again say, “Good Lord, deliver us.” Never let us fail most plainly to testify to the undoubted truth that true faith in Jesus Christ saves the soul, for if we do not we shall hold in legal bondage many who ought long ago to have enjoyed peace, and to have entered into the liberty of the children of God.
It may not be easy to keep these two things in there proper position, but we must aim at it if we would be wise builders. John did so in his teaching. If you turn to the third chapter of his gospel it is very significant that while he records at length our Saviour’s exposition of the new birth to Nicodemus, yet in that very same chapter he gives us what is perhaps the plainest piece of gospel in all the Scriptures: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” So, too, in the chapter before us he insists upon a man’s being born of God; he brings that up again and again, but evermore does he ascribe wondrous efficacy to faith; he mentions faith as the index of our being born again, faith as overcoming the world, faith as possessing the inward witness, faith as having eternal life—indeed, he seems as if he could not heap honour enough upon believing, while at the same time he insists upon the grave importance of the inward experience connected with the new birth.
Now, if such difficulty occurs to the preacher, we need not wonder that it also arises with the hearer, and causes him questioning. We have known many who, by hearing continually the most precious doctrine that belief in Jesus Christ is saving, have forgotten other truths, and have concluded that they were saved when they were not, have fancied they believed when as yet they were total strangers to the experience which always attends true faith. They have imagined faith to be the same thing as a presumptuous confidence of safety in Christ, not grounded upon the divine word when rightly understood, nor proved by any facts in their own souls. Whenever self-examination has been proposed to them they have avoided it as an assault upon their assurance, and when they have been urged to try themselves by gospel tests, they have defended their false peace by the notion that to raise a question about their certain salvation would be unbelief. Thus, I fear, the conceit of supposed faith in Christ has placed them in an almost hopeless position, since the warnings and admonitions of the gospel have been set aside by their fatal persuasion that it is needless to attend to them, and only necessary to cling tenaciously to the belief that all has been done long ago for us by Christ Jesus, and that godly fear and careful walking are superfluities, if not actually an offence against the gospel. On the other hand, we have known others who have received the doctrine of justification by faith as a part of their creed, and yet have not accepted it as a practical fact that the believer is saved. They so much feel that they must be renewed in the spirit of their minds, that they are always looking within themselves for evidences, and are the subjects of perpetual doubts. Their natural and frequent song is—
“Tis a point I long to know, Oft it causes anxious thought;
Do I love the Lord, or no? Am I his, or am I not?”
These are a class of people to be much more pitied than condemned. Though I would be the very last to spread unbelief, I would be the very first to inculcate holy anxiety. It is one thing for a person to be careful to know that he is really in Christ, and quite another thing for him to doubt the promises of Christ, supposing that they are really made to him. There is a tendency in some hearts to look too much within, and spend more time studying their outward evidences and their inward feelings, than in learning the fullness, freeness, and all sufficiency of the grace of God in Christ Jesus. They too much obscure the grand evangelical truth that the believer’s acceptance with God is not in himself, but in Christ Jesus, that we are cleansed through the blood of Jesus, that we are clothed in the righteousness of Jesus, and are, in a word, “accepted in the Beloved.” I earnestly long that these two doctrines may be well balanced in your souls. Only the Holy Spirit can teach you this. This is a narrow path which the eagle’s eye has not seen, and the lions whelp has not trodden. He whom the Holy Ghost shall instruct will not give way to presumption and despise the Spirit’s work within, neither will he forget that salvation is of the Lord Jesus Christ, “who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” The text appears to me to blend these two truths in a very delightful harmony, and we will will try to speak of them, God helping us.
“He that believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” We shall consider this morning, first of all, the believing which is here intended; and then, secondly, how it is a sure proof of regeneration; and then, thirdly, dwelling for awhile upon the closing part of the verse we shall show how it becomes an argument for Christian love: “Every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.”
I. WHAT IS THE BELIEVING INTENDED IN THE TEXT? We are persuaded, first of all, that the believing here intended is that which our Lord and his apostles exhorted men to exercise, and to which the promise of salvation is always appended in the word of God; as for instance that faith which Peter inculcated when he said to Cornelius, “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive the remission of sins;” and which our Lord commanded when he came into Galilee, saying to men, “Repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mark i. 15). Certain persons have been obliged to admit that the apostles commanded, and exhorted, and besought men to believe, but they tell us the kind of believing which the apostles bade men exercise was not saving faith. Now, God forbid we should ever in our zeal to defend a favorite position, be driven to an assertion so monstrous. Can we imagine for a moment apostles with burning zeal and ardor, inspired by the Spirit of God within them, going about the world exhorting men to exercise a faith which after all would not save them? To what purpose did they run on so fruitless an errand, so tantalizing to human need, so barren of results? When our Lord bade his disciples go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, and added, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,” the faith which was to be preached was evidently none other than a saving faith, and it is frivolous to say otherwise. I must confess that I felt shocked the other day to read in a certain sermon the remark that the words of Paul to the jailor “were spoken in a conversation held at midnight under peculiar circumstances, and the evangelist who wrote them was not present at the interview.” Why, had it been at high noon, and had the whole world been present, the apostle could have given no fitter answer to the question, “What must I do to be saved?” than the one he did give, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” It is, I repeat, a mere frivolity or worse, to say that the faith enjoined by the apostles was a mere human faith which does not save, and that there is no certainty that such faith saves the soul. That cause must be desperate that calls for such a defence.
Furthermore, the faith here intended is the duty of all men. Read the text again: “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” It can never be less than man’s duty to believe the truth; that Jesus is the Christ is the truth, and it is the duty of every man to believe it. I understand her by “believing,” confidence in Christ, and it is surely the duty of men to confide in that which is worthy of confidence, and that Jesus Christ is worthy of the confidence of all men is certain, it is therefore the duty of men to confide in him.
Inasmuch as the gospel command, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved,” is addressed by divine authority to every creature, it is the duty of every man so to do. What saith John: “This is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ,” and our Lord himself assures us, “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.” I know there are some who will deny this, and deny it upon the ground that man has not the spiritual ability to believe in Jesus, to which I reply that it is altogether an error to imagine that the measure of the sinners moral ability is the measure of his duty. There are many things which men ought to do which they have now lost the moral and spiritual, though not the physical, power to do. A man ought to be chaste, but if he has been so long immoral that he cannot restrain his passions, he is not thereby free from the obligation. It is the duty of a debtor to pay his debts, but if he has been such a spendthrift that he has brought himself into hopeless poverty, he is not exonerated from his debts thereby. Every man ought to believe that which is true, but if his mind has become so depraved that he loves a lie and will not receive the truth, is he thereby excused? If the law of God is to be lowered according to the moral condition of sinners, you would have a law graduated upon a sliding- scale to suit the degrees of human sinfulness; in fact, the worst man would be under the least law, and become consequently the least guilty. God’s requirements would be a variable quantity, and, in truth, we should be under no rule at all. 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.
Hitherto we have only been clearing the way. Let us advance. The faith intended in the text evidently rests upon a person—upon Jesus. “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” It is not belief about a doctrine, nor an opinion, nor a formula, but belief concerning a person. Translate the words, “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ,” and they stand thus: “Whosoever believeth that the Saviour is the Anointed is born of God.” By which is assuredly not meant, whosoever professes to believe that he is so, for many do that whose lives prove that they are not regenerate; but, whosoever believes it to be the fact, as truly and in very deed to receive Jesus as God has set him forth and anointed him, is a regenerate man. What is meant by “Jesus is the Christ,” or, Jesus is the Anointed? First, that he is the Prophet; secondly, that he is the Priest; thirdly, that he is the King of the church, for in all these three senses he is the Anointed. Now, I may ask myself this question: Do I this day believe that Jesus is the great Prophet anointed of God to reveal to me the way of salvation? Do I accept him as my teacher and admit that he has the words of eternal life? If I so believe, I shall obey his gospel and possess eternal life. Do I accept him to be henceforth the revealer of God to my soul, the messenger of the covenant, the anointed prophet of the Most High? But he is also a priest. Now, a priest is ordained among men to offer sacrifices; do I firmly believe that Jesus was ordained to offer his one sacrifice for the sins of mankind, by the offering of which sacrifice once for all he has finished the atonement and made complete expiation? Do I accept his atonement as an atonement for me, and receive his death as an expiation upon which I rest my hope for forgiveness of all my transgressions? Do I in fact believe Jesus to be the one sole, only propitiating Priest, and accept him to act as priest for me? If so, then I have in part believed that Jesus is the Anointed. But he is also King, and if I desire to know whether I possess the right faith, I further must ask myself, “Is Jesus, who is now exalted in heaven, who once bled on the cross, is he King to me? Is his law my law? Do I desire to submit myself entirely to his government? Do I hate what he hates, and love what he loves? Do I live to praise him? Do I, as a loyal subject, desire to see his kingdom come and his will be done on earth as it is in heaven?” My dear friend, if thou canst heartily and earnestly say, “I accept Jesus Christ of Nazareth to be Prophet, Priest, and King to me, because God has anointed him to exercise those three offices; and in each of these three characters I unfeignedly trust him,” then, dear friend, you have the faith of God’s elect, for it is written, “He that believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.”
Now we go a little further. True faith is reliance. Look at any Greek lexicon you like, and you will find that the word pisteuein does not merely mean to believe, but to trust, to confide in, to commit to, entrust with, and so forth; and the marrow of the meaning of faith is confidence in, reliance upon. Let me ask, then, every professor her who professes to have faith, is your faith the faith of reliance? You give credit to certain statements, do you also place trust in the one who glorious person who alone can redeem? Have you confidence as well as credence? A creed will not save you, but reliance upon the Anointed Saviour is the way of salvation. Remember, I beseech you, that if you could be taught an orthodoxy unadulterated with error, and could learn a creed written by the pen of the Eternal God himself, yet a mere notional faith, such as men exercise when they believe in the existence of men in the moon, or nebulae in space, could not save your soul. Of this we are sure, because we see around us many who have such a faith, and yet evidently are not the children of God.
Moreover, true faith is not a flattering presumption, by which a man says, “I believe I am saved, for I have such delightful feelings, I have had a marvelous dream, I have felt very wonderful sensations;” for all such confidence may be nothing but mere assumption. Presumption, instead of being faith, is the reverse of faith; instead of being the substance of things hoped for, it is a mere mirage. Faith, is as correct as reason, and if her arguments are considered, she is as secure in her conclusions as though she drew them by mathematical rules. Beware, I pray you, of a faith which has no basis but your own fancy.
Faith, again, is not the assurance that Jesus died for me. I sometimes feel myself a little at variance with that verse—
“Just as I am—without one plea But that thy blood was shed for me.”
It is eminently suitable for a child of God, but I am not sure as to its being the precise way for putting the matter for a sinner. I do not believe in Jesus because I am persuaded that his blood was shed for me, but rather I discover that his blood was shed especially for me from the fact that I have been led to believe in him. I fear me there are thousands of people who believe that Jesus died for them, who are not born of God, but rather are hardened in their sin by their groundless hopes of mercy. There is no particular efficacy in a man’s assuming that Christ has died for me; for it is a mere truism, if it true as some teach, that Jesus died for everybody. On such a theory every believer in a universal atonement would necessarily be born of God, which is very far from being the case. When the Holy Ghost leads us to rely upon the Lord Jesus, then the truth that God gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him might be saved, is opened up to our souls, and we see that for us who are believers, Jesus died with the special intent that we should be saved. For the Holy Spirit to assure us that Jesus shed his blood for us in particular is one thing, but merely to conclude that Jesus for us on the notion that he died for everybody is as far as the east is from the west, from being real faith in Jesus Christ.
Neither is it faith for me to be confident that I am saved, for it may be the case that I am not saved, and it can never be faith to believe a lie. Many have concluded rashly that they were saved when they were still in the gall of bitterness. That was not the exhibition of confidence in Christ but the exhibition of a base presumption destructive to the last degree. To come back to where we started from, faith, in a word, is reliance upon Jesus Christ. Whether the Redeemer died in special and particular for me or not, is not the question to be raised in the first place; I find that he came into the world to save sinners, under that general character I come to him, I find that whosoever trusteth him shall be saved, I therefore trust him, and having done so, I learn from his word that I am the object of his special love, and that I am born of God.
In my first coming to Jesus I can have no knowledge of any personal and special interest in the blood of Jesus; but since it is written, “God hath set him forth to be a propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world,” I come and trust myself to that propitiation; sink or swim I cast myself on the Saviour. Great Son of God, thou hast lived and died, thou hast bled and suffered, and made atonement for sin for all such as trust thee, and I trust thee, I lean upon thee, I cast myself upon thee. Now, whoever has such faith as this is born of God, he has true faith which is proof positive of the new birth. Judge ye, therefore, whether ye have this faith or no.
Let me tarry just one minute longer over this. The true faith is set forth in Scripture by figures, and one or two of these we will mention. It was an eminent type of faith when the Hebrews father in Egypt slew the lamb and caught the warm blood in the basin, then took a bunch of hyssop and dipped it in the blood and marked the two posts of his door, and then struck a red mark across the lintel. That smearing of the door represented faith. The deliverance was wrought by the blood; and the blood availed through the householder’s own personally striking it upon his door. Faith does that; it takes of the things of Christ, makes them its own, sprinkles the soul, as it were, with the precious blood, accepts the way of mercy by which the Lord passes over us and exempts his people from destruction. Faith was shown to the Jews in another way. When a beast was offered in sacrifice for sin, the priest and sometimes the representatives of the tribes or the individual laid their hands upon the victim in token that they desired their sins to be transferred to it, that it might suffer for them as a type of the great substitute. Faith lays her hands on Jesus, desiring to receive the benefit of his substitutionary death.
A still more remarkable representation of faith was that of the healing look of the serpent-bitten Israelites. On the great standard in the midst of the camp Moses lifted up a serpent of brass; high overhead above all the tents this serpent gleamed in the sun, and whoever of all the dying host would but look to it was made to live. looking was a very simple act, but it indicated that the person was obedient to God’s command. He looked as he was bidden, and the virtue of healing came from the brazen serpent through a look. Such is faith. It is the simplest thing in the world, but it indicates a great deal more than is seen upon its surface:
“There is life for a look at the Crucified One.”
To believe in Jesus is but to glance the eye of faith to him, to trust him with thy soul.
That poor woman who came behind our Saviour in the press offers us another figure of what faith is. She said, “If I may but touch the hem of his garment I shall be made whole.” Taking no medicines, making no profession, and performing no ceremonies, she simply touched the ravelling of the Saviour’s robe, and she was healed at once. O soul, if thou canst get into contact with Christ by simply trusting him, though that trust be ever so feeble, thou hast the faith of God’s elect; thou hast the faith which is in every case the token of the new birth.
II. We must now pass on to show that WHEREVER IT EXISTS IT IS THE PROOF OF REGENERATION. There never was a grain of such faith as this in the world, except in a regenerate soul, and there never will be while the world standeth. It is so according to the text, and if we had no other testimony this one passage would be quite enough to prove it. “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” “Ah!” I hear thee say, poor soul, “the new birth is a great mystery; I do not understand it; I am afraid I am not a partaker in it.” You are born again if you believe that Jesus is the Christ, if you are relying upon a crucified Saviour you are assuredly begotten again unto a lively hope. Mystery or no mystery, the new birth is yours if you are a believer. Have you never noticed that the greatest mysteries in the world reveal themselves by the simplest indications. The simplicity and apparent easiness of faith is no reason why I should not regard its existence as an infallible indication of the new birth within. How know we that the new-born child lives except by its cry? Yet a child’s cry—what a simple sound it is! how readily could it be imitated! a clever workman could with pipes and strings easily deceive us; yet was there never a child’s cry in the world but what it indicated the mysteries of breathing, heart-beating, blood-flowing, and all the other wonders which come with life itself. Do you see yonder person just drawn out of the river? Does she live? Yes, life is there. Why? Because the lungs still heave. But does it not seem an easy thing to make lungs heave? A pair of billows blown into them, might not that produce the motion? Ah, yes, the thing is easily imitated after a sort; but no lungs heave except where life is. Take another illustration. Go into a telegraph office at any time, and you will see certain needles moving right and left with unceasing click. Electricity is a great mystery, and you cannot see or feel it; but the operator tells you that the electric current is moving along the wire. How does he know? “I know it by the needle.” How is that? I could move your needles easily. “Yes; but do not you see the needle has made two motions to the right, one to the left, and two to the right again? I am reading a message.” “But,” say you, “I can see nothing in it; I could imitate the clicking and moving very easily.” Yet he who is taught the art sees before him in those needles, not only electric action, but a deeper mystery still; he perceives that a mind is directing an invisible force, and speaking by means of it. Not to all, but to the initiated is it given to see the mystery hidden within the simplicity. The believer sees in the faith, which is simple as the movements of the needle, an indication that God is operating on the human mind, and the spiritual man discerns that there is an inner secret intimated thereby, which the carnal eye cannot decipher. To believe in Jesus is a better indicator of regeneration than anything else, and in no case did it ever mislead. Faith in the living God and his Son Jesus Christ is always the result of the new birth, and can never exist except in the regenerate. Whoever has faith is a saved man.
I beg you to follow me a little in this argument. A certain divine has lately said, “A man’s act of believing is not the same as his being saved: it is only in the direction of being saved.” This is tantamount to a denial that every believer in Christ is at once saved; and the inference is that a man may not conclude that he is saved because he believes in Jesus. Now, observe how opposed this is to Scripture. It is certain from the Word of God that the man who believes in Jesus is not condemned. Read John iii. 18, and many other passages. “He that believeth on Him is not condemned.” Now is not every unregenerate man condemned? Is not a man who is not condemned a saved man? When you are sure on divine authority that the believer is not condemned, how in the name of everything that is rational can you deny that the believer is saved? If he is not condemned, what has he to fear? Will he not rightly conclude that being justified by faith, he has peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ?
Note, secondly, that faith in the fourth verse of the chapter before us is said to “overcome the world.” “This is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith.” What, then, does faith overcome the world in persons who are not saved? How can this be possible when the apostle saith that that which overcomes the world is born of God? Read the fourth verse: “Whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world:” but faith overcomes the world. therefore the man who has faith is regenerate; and what means that but that he is saved, and that his faith is the instrument by which he achieves victories.
Further, faith accepts the witness of God, and more, he that hath faith has the witness in himself to the truth of God. Read the tenth verse of the chapter: “He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself.” It is not said, “He that does this or feels that,” but “He that believeth hath the witness in himself,” his heart bears witness to the truth of God. Has any unsaved man an experimental witness within? Will you tell me that a man’s inner experience bears witness to God’s gospel and yet the man is in a lost state, or only hopeful of being saved ultimately? No, sir, it is impossible. He that believeth has that change wrought in him which enables by his own consciousness to confirm the witness of God, and such a man must be in a state of salvation. It is not possible to say of him that he is an unsaved man.
Again, note in this chapter, at the thirteenth verse, that wherever there is faith there is eternal life; so run the words, “these things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life.” Our Lord himself, and his apostles, in several places have declared, “He that believeth on him hath everlasting life.” Do not tell me that a sinner who believes in Jesus is to make an advance before he can say he is saved, that a man who trusts Christ is only on his way to salvation, and must wait until he has used the ordinances, and has grown in grace, before he may know that he is saved. No, the moment that the sinner’s trust in placed on the finished work of Jesus he is saved. Heaven and earth may pass away, but that man shall never perish. If only one second ago I trusted the Saviour I am safe; just as safe as the man who has believed in Jesus fifty years, and who has all the while walked uprightly. I do not say that the new born convert is as happy, nor as useful, nor as holy, nor as ripe for heaven, but I do say that the words, “he that believeth on him hath everlasting life,” is a truth with general bearings, and relates as much to the babe in faith as does to the man who has attained to fullness of stature in Jesus Christ.
As if this chapter were written on purpose to meet the gross error that faith does not bring immediate salvation, it extols faith again and again, yea, and I may add, our Lord himself crowns faith, because faith never wears the crown, but brings all the glory to the dear Redeemer.
Now, let me say a word or two in reply to certain questions. But must not a man repent as well as believe? Reply: No man ever believed but what he repented at the same time. Faith and repentance go together. they must. If I trust Christ to save me from sin, I am at the same time repenting of sin, and my mind is changed in relation to sin, and everything else that has to do with its state. All the fruits meet for repentance are contained in faith itself. You will never find that a man who trusts Christ remains an enemy of God, or a lover of sin. The fact that he accepts the atonement provided is proof positive that he loathes sin, and that his mind is thoroughly changed in reference to God. Moreover, as to all the graces which are produced in the Christian afterwards, are they not all to be found in embryo in faith? “Only believe, and you shall be save,” is the cry which many sneer at, and others misunderstand; but do you know what “only believe” means? Do you know what a world of meaning lies in that word? Read that famous chapter to the Hebrews, and see what faith has done and is still able to do, and you will see that it is no trifle. Wherever there is faith in a man let it but develop itself and there will be a purging of himself from sin, a separating himself from the world, a conflict with evil, and a warring for the glory of Christ, which nothing else could produce. Faith is in itself one of the noblest of graces; it is the compendium of all virtues; and as sometimes there will lie within one single ear enough seed to make a whole garden fertile, so, within that one word “faith,” there lies enough of virtue to make earth blessed; enough of grace, if the Spirit make it to grow, to turn the fallen into the perfect. Faith is not the easy and light thing men think. Far are we from ascribing salvation to the profession of a mere creed, we loathe the idea; neither do we ascribe salvation to a fond persuasion, but we do ascribe salvation to Jesus Christ, and the obtaining of it to that simple, child like confidence which lovingly casts itself into the arms of him who gave both his hands to the nail and suffered to the death for the sins of his people. He who believes, then, is saved—rest assured of that. “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.”
III. Now what flows out of this? Love is the legitimate issue! We must love if we are begotten of God all those who are also born of God. It would be an insult to you if I were to prove that a brother should love his brother. Doth not nature herself teach us that? Those, then, who are born of God ought to love all those of the same household. And who are they? Why, all those who have believed that Jesus is the Christ, and are resting their hopes where we rest ours, namely, on Christ the Anointed One of God. We are to love all such. We are to do this because we are of the family. We believe, and therefore we have been begotten of God. Let us act as those who are of the divine family; let us count it our privilege we are received into the household, and rejoice to perform the lovely obligations of our high position. We look around us and see many others who have believed in Jesus Christ; let us love them because they are of the same kindred. “But they are some of them unsound in doctrine, they make gross mistakes as to the Master’s ordinances.” We are not to love their faults, neither ought we to expect them to love ours, we are nevertheless to love their persons, for “whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God,” and therefore he is one of the family, and as we love the Father who begat we are to love all those who are begotten of him. First, I love God, and therefore I desire to promote God’s truth and to keep God’s gospel free from taint. But then I am to love all those whom God has begotten, despite the infirmities and errors I see in them, being also myself compassed about with infirmities. Life is the reason for love, the common life which is indicated by the common faith in the dear Redeemer is to bind us to each other. I must confess, though I would pay every deference to every brother’s conscientious judgment, I do not know how I could bring my soul as a child of God to refuse any man communion at my Master’s table, who believed that Jesus is the Christ. I have proof in his doing do, if he be sincere (and I can only judge of that by his life), that he is born of God; and has not every child a right to come to the Father’s table? I know in the olden times, parent used to make their children go without meals as a punishment, but everybody tell us now this is cruel and unwise, for it injures the child’s constitution to deprive it of necessary food. There are rods in the Lord’s house, and there is no need to keep disobedient children away from supper. Let them come to the Lord’s table, and eat and drink with the Lord Jesus and with all his saints, in the hope that when their constitution bestows stronger they will throw out the disease which now they labor under, and come to be obedient to the whole gospel, which saith, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”
Let me beg the members of this church to exhibit mutual love to one another. Are there many feeble among you? Comfort them. Are there any who want instruction? Bring your knowledge to their help. Are there any in distress? Assist them. Are they backsliding? Restore them. “Little children, love one another,” is the rule of Christ’s family, may we observe it. May the love of God which has been she abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us, reveal itself by our love to all the saints. And, remember, other sheep he has which are not yet of this fold; them also he must bring in. Let us love those who are yet to be brought in, and lovingly go forth at once to seek them; in whatever other form of service God has given us, let us with loving eyes look after our prodigal brothers, and who knows, we may bring into the family this very day some for whom there will be joy in the presence of the angels of God, because the lost one has been found. God bless and comfort you, for Jesus Christ’s sake.
Amen.
You Must Be Born Again
Freedom of the Spirit
I recall sitting in Greek class in seminary, translating John 3. Translating v. 8 was fascinating because of the grammatical construction, leading me to believe the Lord Jesus was using a fabulous play on words as He discussed the new birth with Nicodemus.
τὸ [the] πνεῦμα [spirit/wind] ὅπου [where] θέλει [he/it wills] πνεῖ [is blowing/moving], καὶ [and] τὴν [the] φωνὴν [sound/voice] αὐ [of] τοῦ [him/it] ἀκούεις [you hear], ἀλλ’ [but] οὐκ [not] οἶδας [you have perceived] πόθεν [where/which place] ἔρχεται [he/it is going/coming] καὶ [and] ποῦ [where] ὑπάγει: [he/it is going/leading] οὕτως [thus] ἐστὶν [it is] πᾶς [all/every] ὁ [one] γεγεννημένος [having been born again/regenerated] ἐκ [out] τοῦ [of the] πνεύματος. [spirit]
No human being controls the wind. Likewise, no one controls the Holy Spirit. Like the wind, He blows where He wills. Just as you can discern the wind by feeling the current in the air or observing the trees sway, you can discern the movement of the Spirit by the effects He produces. Those who are born again (regenerated) have been acted upon, not as a matter of their wills, but as a matter of God’s will. Many individuals, nonetheless, insist God must wait upon them to decide whether or not they will be born again. Though they had nothing whatsoever to do with their physical births, they contend their spiritual births result ultimately from the action of their wills.
The contention surrounding this doctrine usually surrounds the affirmation of monergism – the view that the Holy Spirit is the sole, exclusive agent affecting regeneration (often prior to regeneration). This view is typically held by those within the Reformed camp. Non-Calvinists typically maintain regeneration is conditioned upon saving faith, and consequently the new birth is subsequent to rather than antecedent to, saving faith. This view is often termed “decisional regeneration” by the Reformed, Lutherans, and Anglicans. Some believe this is a derisive term, so perhaps the view that regeneration rests ultimately upon an individual decision to meet the condition of faith is better termed “conditional regeneration”.
Freedom of the Will
The fact of the matter is that the current debate over regeneration, which is inextricably linked to one’s view of free will, is nothing new. As defined in the early Church by the premiere Latin theologian, Augustine, free will (liberum arbitrium) is the personal and active employment of volition and action. He maintained individuals are not passive in the exercise of their wills, and fully responsible for all their decisions and actions. The problem, as Augustine understood the Holy Scripture to teach, is that human beings are fallen creatures. When Adam violated his Creator’s command, he plunged himself and his posterity into the depths of depravity. Human beings no longer enjoy the liberty (libertas) which Adam enjoyed prior to his insolence. Human nature is now fallen, enslaved in sin. Every inclination turns away from God and towards finding satisfaction in material things. People are not trapped passively against their wills. Rather, they continue contentedly in sin by their own free wills. The will is free in its wickedness because it takes pleasure in evil, but it is not at liberty to do good because it has not been liberated by God from its sinfulness. An individual is unable to perform anything truly righteous unless he or she is made a new creation in Christ Jesus.
The Doctor of Grace contends that while an individual is responsible for personal rejection of Christ, it is only by God’s grace that a sinner will come to Christ through faith. Fallen people have neither the desire nor the ability to lift themselves up to God. God must reach down and give what is necessary for salvation. Augustine asserts that, “it is by a secret, wonderful, and ineffable power operating within” that God “works in men’s hearts” and both reveals Himself and changes the inclination of the will. Faith, from beginning to end, is a work of God’s antecedent grace (gratia antecedens). Faith is a gift imparted to individuals divinely. It is neither to be attributed to human free will nor to any anterior merits. It is all of grace. One of the biblical texts to which the Church Father points in his argument regarding this doctrine is John 3:8.
Augustine’s view of grace was opposed vehemently by Pelagius, a British monk, and several of his associates. The Pelagian conception of grace casts itself upon the natural endowments given to humanity at the time of creation. Grace is conceived primarily as revelation and the ability to respond to it. Revelation is essentially law—that of Moses, written on stone, and that of the conscience, written on the heart. Individuals come to know about salvation through this revelation. Christ brings the “final revelation” through His life, teachings, and commands. These are also “law.” The Holy Spirit works to “illumine” individuals by showing them the will of God. This illumination is not a supernatural work. It is the “grace” of having the existence of the law, or revelation, given by God and Christ. Salvation is merited when the will is exercised to obey the law. The cornerstone of Pelagianism is, therefore, unconditional free will. Julian of Eclanum, the greatest defender of Pelagianism, alleges free will places human beings in a position of absolute autonomy – emancipated entirely from God’s control (a deo emancipatus homo est). According to Julian, an individual has “his whole salvation in his power.” Pelagianism and its adherents have been condemned by more church councils than any other heresy in Church history, including the Council of Ephesus (AD 431). Those affirming the Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican creeds and confessions are modern theological heirs of Augustine. Many within the contemporary evangelical camp, influenced greatly by the theology of Charles G. Finney, are the modern theological heirs of Pelagius.
In the wake of the Pelagian Controversy, John Cassian, Vincent of Lérins, and Faustus of Riez became the leading spokesmen of the “semi-Pelagian” party. Though they rejected Pelagianism, they refused to accept the doctrines of predestination and free will as expounded by Augustine. Semi-Pelagianism views Adam’s disobedience as the introduction of sin into the world and maintains that since the Fall human beings have had a weakened free will (infirmitas liberi arbitrii). Although infirm, the will has not been rendered impotent.
Grace is the foundation of salvation in that it brings the possibility of salvation to all, but it is the individual, not God, who commences the process. Grace remains external, never interfering with the will. Therefore, good resolve, good thoughts, and faith are, therefore, attributable ultimately to the power of one’s own will and initiative. Those within Eastern Ortodoxy and much of contemporary evangelicalism fall within this belief system.
Another view, distinct from the positions already discussed, is that of Arminianism. Named for Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch pastor and theologian, Arminianism was a Protestant revolt against Augustinianism. In 1610, a year after Arminius died, two of his pupils – Simon Episcopius and John Uytenbogaert – drafted articles defining and defending their views. Episcopius’ Remonstrance detailed Arminianism in five points. The third point declares:
“That man does not posses saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is necessary that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, and will, and all his faculties, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, ‘Without me you can do nothing.’”
What is often called “Arminianism” in contemporary evangelicalism is far removed from historic Arminianism. Contemporary Arminianism is generally nothing more than semi-Pelagianism at best, and Pelagianism at worst. Historic Arminianism, on the other hand, bears resemblance to Reformed soteriology on several levels. Distinct from both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, which view depravity as partial or non-existent, it could be termed “semi-Augustinianism” because it deems depravity as absolute. Human beings, in their “natural state,” are spiritually dead, under divine condemnation, ignorant of their condition, and unable to change themselves. God must take the initiative if individuals are to be convicted of their sin, repent, and exercise faith, because they have no resources within themselves. God takes this initiative by providing prevenient grace to all humanity. Prevenient grace disarms depravity to the extent individuals are enabled to receive further grace through divinely appointed means. These means include the proclamation of the gospel and participation in the sacred ordinances. These means are capable of awakening people to their spiritual state, enabling repentance and creating faith. Therefore, during an evangelistic exhortation God is at work, drawing sinners to Himself and convincing people of the truth of the gospel. Faith is created at such moments by God, but it is up to individuals to cooperate with Him so they may be transformed through the new birth.
United Methodist doctrine, for example, maintains the following in regard to free will:
The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and works, to faith, and calling upon God; wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us [i.e., prevenient grace], that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.
John Wesley described this position when he stated, “Any man may believe if he will, though not when he will. If he seeks faith in the appointed ways, sooner or later the power of the Lord will be present whereby…man believes.” This is how Wesley understood his Aldersgate experience, where he felt his heart “strangely warmed.” Wesley did not view faith so much as an action he committed as much as he understood it as a divine action taking place within him, creating personal trust in Christ. Though Wesley debated fiercely with George Whitefield over the doctrines of predestination and election, they agreed wholeheartedly upon the doctrines of original sin, the necessity of the new birth and its divine initiation, and justification by grace alone through faith alone on account of Jesus Christ alone. If one monitors the preaching and public statements of many pastors and denominational statesmen within contemporary evangelicalism, it is evident a great deal of understanding regarding the new birth is not even Augustinian (Calvinistic) or semi-Augustinian (Arminian), but semi-Pelagian or Pelagian.
Mystery of the New Birth
The problem with many Augustinians (Calvinists) who stress monergism (i.e., regeneration preceding faith) is that they tend to over-emphasize chronology. This sounds, in many respects, cold and technical. I don’t believe this is the desire intended, but it is often the consequence in many respects. “John was just sitting there at the moment God determined to regenerate him, and – BAM – he was born again and believed.” Wesley speaking of his heart being “strangely warmed” as he heard Luther expound Romans is much to be preferred, in my opinion.
The Holy Spirit is indeed sovereign in His work of regeneration, but He always employs His Word in the process of regeneration and conversion. It was as St. Paul proclaimed the gospel to Lydia that “the Lord opened her heart to pay attention” (Acts 16:14). The same God who proclaimed at the beginning, “Let there be light!” brought light to Lydia’s heart “to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” (2 Corinthians 4:6) The power was neither within her nor in the messengers, but in God. (2 Cor 4:7) God caused her to be born again through His will, not hers, through the instrument of His Word. This is what He has done with all believers (James 1:18). At that moment she “received the Spirit of adoption as children, by whom we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’” (Romans 8:15)
Did Lydia exercise faith? Most certainly! God did not believe for her, but He did open her heart and granted her faith to believe (Philippians 1:29). No one is saved (justified) apart from believing (Acts 16:31). The new birth does not take place apart from the presence of faith. It involves faith, and faith always comes through hearing the Word of God. (Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:23) If you are a believer, you were born again, not as a result of your will or the will of another human being, but because of the will of God. (John 1:12-13) Saving faith was awakened as a result of the new birth. (1 John 5:1) I believe, without reservation, your belief was due to God’s simultaneous work of quickening. Which comes first, the flame or the light? Is there heat apart from the fire? Light doesn’t exist without the flame, and heat doesn’t exist apart from the heat. They exist simultaneously, but the flaming fire is the cause for the light and heat. Even so, God is the cause of the new birth. Is there a bit of mystery in trying to understand this? Certainly. So rather than trying to explain it beyond what is revealed, may we simply receive what God has declared in Holy Scripture.
Now What?
If you have not experienced the new birth, then you are still estranged from God. You have broken God’s laws and stand condemned. God commands you right now to believe upon Jesus Christ – who is God and became a Man, died upon the cross for rebels, and rose from the dead. Turn away from your sin, selfishness, and self-destructive ways. God invites you at this very moment to receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord and to be reconciled with Him.
If you have experienced the new birth, then God calls you to live out that reality by walking in newness of life. Love God, love your fellow believers, and love those in the world.
“Born Again” in the SBC
Recent Discussion Regarding Regeneration
Much has been discussed regarding the doctrine of regeneration in recent years, not to mention recent days, particularly in Baptist life. Bob Ross, for example, has dedicated two blogs – The Calvinist Flyswatter and The Reformed Flyswatter – to his vitriolic opposition of what he calls the “born-again before faith heresy.” Morris Chapman, the President of the Southern Baptist Executive Committee who has long been a voice of reason within denominational life, inexplicably used the occasion of his annual report in June to the convention to touch upon this doctrine. Chapman stated:
“The Southern Baptist Convention is experiencing a resurgence in the belief that divine sovereignty alone is at work in salvation without a faith response on the part of man. Some are given to explain away the ‘whosoever will’ of John 3:16. . . . Man is often tempted to design a theological theory in light of a biblical antinomy in order to clarify what God is trying to say. Man’s system will be inferior to God’s system now and forever. . . . The belief that sovereignty alone is at work in salvation is not what has emboldened our witness and elevated our concern for evangelism and missions through the ages. This is not the doctrine that Southern Baptists have embraced in their desire to reach the world for Christ. If there is any doctrine of grace that drives men to argue and debate more than it drives them to pursue lost souls and persuade ALL MEN to be reconciled to God – then it is no doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (emphasis added)
After being called on the carpet by a number of Baptist bloggers for his erroneous assertion that Reformed Southern Baptists negate the truth of human responsibility and believe no faith response is required in salvation, Chapman issued a “clarification of intent” on his website. The clarification served merely to expand his contention against Reformed Southern Baptists by declaring faith itself is a not a gift from God. More recently, Ross ally and Chapman defender Peter Lumpkins touched upon Calvinism and regeneration in several of his recent blog posts (see Calvinism, Monergism, and Southern Baptists; Calvinists Critique Morris Chapman’s Clarification – Parts I & II; and Calvinists and Their Caricatures). Lumpkins’ main contention, it seems, is against those within the Reformed camp who assert monergism. Monergism is the the theological view that:
“In regeneration, the Holy Spirit unites us to Christ independent of any cooperation from our unregenerated human nature. He quickens us through the outward call cast forth by the preaching of His Word, disarms our innate hostility, removes our blindness, illumines our mind, creates understanding, turns our heart of stone to a heart of flesh — giving rise to a delight in His Word – all that we might, with our renewed affections, willingly and gladly embrace Christ.”
Lumpkins asserts non-Calvinists do not dispute monergism proper (e.g., that the Holy Spirit is the sole, exclusive agent Who affects regeneration). He conteds, however, “the spiritual transformation He exclusively works in and on us by no means takes place apart from conditions. Non-Calvinists usually confess regeneration is conditioned upon saving faith, and consequently the new birth is subsequent to rather than antecedent to, saving faith.” (emphasis original) Lumpkins notes correctly “many Calvinists argue” that “faith, repentance, conversion and rebirth are so intrinsically bound together in Scripture, so far as experience goes, they are virtually indistinguishable.” His main point seems to be that Southern Baptists advocating monergism do not have a Southern Baptist foundation on which to build, but only a Primitive Baptist (e.g., hyper-Calvinist) one. This foundation has been erected, Lumpkins asserts, by C. B. Hassell. Lumpkins warns, “Southern Baptists really need to take a long, sober look where the most visible Calvinists in our convention possibly desire to take us. Primitive Baptist theology could be but a handful of trustees away.”
I see two main issues in regard to the arguments set forth by Ross, Chapman, Lumpkins, and others. First, the question arises whether or not “traditional” Southern Baptists have ever held to the view that regeneration precedes faith. The contention of this trio, and those with similar views, seems to be, at least implicitly, that Calvinistic individuals within the SBC who affirm this view are anthropocentric theologues who do not belong in the denomination. Perhaps the Baptist Faith & Message is broad enough to accommodate them, but their theological roots are not truly Southern Baptist. Such Baptists are Primitives at best, heretics at worst, and certainly followers of a man (i.e., Calvin) rather than followers of Jesus Christ. Second, the question arises as to whether or not “Calvinists” want to “take over” the convention. It is often implied that convention Calvinists, especially those associated with Founders Ministries, desire nothing less than denominational domination. The plan of these Calvinist seems to be “divide and conquer,” and they alone are responsible for any and all division related to their theology.
Regeneration Preceding Faith Considered Historically
As to the first issue, it is not accurate to assert Southern Baptists have never held to regeneration preceding faith. The very first work projected for publication by the Southern Baptist Sunday School Board (now LifeWay) when it was established in 1891, was A Catechism of Bible Teaching by John Broadus. Published in 1892, it contains the following questions in Lesson 8 on Regeneration:
1. What is meant by the word “regeneration”?
A. Regeneration is God’s causing a person to be born again.5. Who produces this great change?
A. The Holy Spirit regenerates. (John 3:5, 6)7. Are people regenerated through Bible teaching?
A. Yes, people are usually regenerated through the Word of God. (1 Pet. 1:23; James 1:18)8. Can we understand how men are born again?
A. No, we can only know regeneration by its effects. (John 3:8)9. Does faith come before the new birth?
A. No, it is the new heart that truly repents and believes. (emphasis added)
Elsewhere, Southern Baptists’ first writing theologian, John L. Dagg, describes regeneration in the following manner:
“In our natural state we are totally depraved. No inclination to holiness exists in the carnal heart; and no holy act can be performed, or service to God rendered, until the heart is changed. This change, it is the office of the Holy Spirit to effect…. It is the taking away the heart of stone, and giving a heart of flesh; giving a new heart; putting the law in the heart; quickening or making alive; a resurrection from the dead; an illumination; a conversion, or turning back to God. So great is the change produced, that the subject is called a new creature. . . . The production of love in the heart by the Holy Spirit, is the regeneration, or the new birth; for ‘he that loveth, is born of God.’” (emphasis added)
In regard to the breadth encompassed by the term ‘regeneration’, Dagg adds, “The term regeneration is sometimes used in a comprehensive sense, as including the whole formation of the Christian character. At other times it is used for the first production of divine love in the heart. In the latter sense, the work is instantaneous.” He speaks of faith preceding regeneration in the “comprehensive sense,” but does not believe it precedes regeneration in the “instantaneous sense.” He notes:
“Faith is necessary to the Christian character; and must therefore precede regeneration, when this is understood in its widest sense. Even in the restricted sense, in which it denotes the beginning of the spiritual life, faith, in the sense in which James uses the term, may precede. But a faith which exists before the beginning of spiritual life, cannot be a living faith. . . . ‘We love him, because he first loved us:’ but these words do not teach, that our love to God originates in the conviction that we are the favorites of his love. The love of God towards us, operates both as an efficient, and as a motive. 1. As an efficient cause. ‘For his great love where with he loved us, when we were dead in sin, hath quickened us together with Christ.’ Here is an operation entirely distinct from that of mere motive. The dead body of Christ in the grave, was quickened by the Spirit; and a like power quickens the dead soul. ‘We believe according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead.’ Here faith itself is ascribed to this divine operation.” (emphasis added)
Another earlier Southern Baptist theologian and the first president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, James P. Boyce, writes in his Abstract of Systematic Theology, “…Regeneration is the work of God, changing the heart of man by his sovereign will, while conversion is the act of man turning towards God with the new inclination thus given to his heart.” According to Boyce, therefore, regeneration precedes “the act of man turning towards God” (i.e., faith). He maintains:
“The Scripture teaching is that God operates immediately upon the heart to produce the required change, by which it is fitted to receive the truth, and mediately through the word in its reception of that truth. . . . The Scripture attributes the birth to the will of God exclusively, thus showing that in some aspect it is not to be regarded as due to the reception of the truth. . . . The relation of regeneration to conversion will, therefore, appear to be one of invariable antecedence. Wherever the appropriate truth is at the time present its relation is almost that of producing cause, for the prepared heart at once receives the truth. Hence, as this is so generally the case, they have been usually regarded as contemporaneous and by some even as identical. But that regeneration is the invariable antecedent is seen from the fact that…2. Regeneration (as in infants) may exist without faith and repentance, but the latter cannot exist without the former. Therefore, regeneration precedes. 3. Logically the enabling act of God must, in a creature, precede the act of the creature thus enabled. But this logical antecedence involves actual antecedence…”
Lest one be tempted to argue that Boyce is speaking of conversion, and not of faith, it must be pointed out this early Southern Baptist contends conversion includes a knowledge of the true God; knowledge of personal sin, guilt and condemnation; sorrow for sin; determination to turn from sin and to seek God; conviction of a personal need of help in doing so; knowledge of Christ as Savior from sin; and personal trust in Christ and His salvation. Namely, conversion consists of repentance and faith. Further evidence Boyce held to regeneration preceding faith comes from his Catechism of Bible Doctrine. In it, he asks, “What is the first work that the Spirit accomplished in those who are saved?”, then answers, “The work of regeneration.” Regeneration, described as “Our being born again,” is said to enlighten “the mind to understand savingly the Word of God.”
The Abstract of Principles, Southern Seminary’s doctrinal confession since its founding on April 30, 1859, places regeneration prior to repentance and faith in its affirmations. This placement is not accidental. Regeneration is described as “a change of heart, wrought by the Holy Spirit, who quickeneth the dead in trespasses and sins enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the Word of God, and renewing their whole nature, so that they love and practice holiness. It is a work of God’s free and special grace alone.” (emphasis added) Faith is defined, in part, as something “wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit.” (emphasis added)
One may not agree with those who assert regeneration precedes faith, but one may not argue that this position is antithetical to Southern Baptist theology, let alone heretical.
Calvinist Takeover
Having been associated with Calvinists in Southern Baptist life for over two decades, I honestly don’t know any (and, yes, I’m on a first-name basis with several of the “big names”) who want the SBC to be ruled by the Reformed. In the first place, the Reformed are primarily concerned with theology, not with politics. The reality is that most Reformed Southern Baptists are sick and tired of political posturing within the convention. The problem, however, is that their concern with theology means a concern for reformation. When they speak of reformation, some Calvinists give the impression they desire for the entire denomination to come under the sway of Reformed doctrine. I don’t believe this is their intention, but it is certainly the perception.
Part of the problem with this persistent perception exists because several Reformed Southern Baptists insist that “Calvinism is the gospel,” and that “Arminians” in the convention are “heretics” teaching “works righteousness.” To put it bluntly, such Reformed folk need to simply shut up. Non-Reformed Southern Baptist brothers and sisters do not believe any such thing. They view faith as belief and trust in Christ Jesus and His work at the cross, not as a work meriting salvation. To put it simply, their belief is analogous to the beggar who reaches out to receive a piece of bread. He has not earned the bread. His work has not produced the bread. He is simply reaching out his hand and receiving the bread as it is given. Is reaching out a work? No. It is the condition of receiving the bread.
While many Calvinists certainly get blamed for asserting such an erroneous view regarding their fellow believers, it is the furthest thing from their minds. As they minister in non-Reformed congregations and denominational settings, they simply desire to be used by God for the advance of His kingdom, partnering with their fellow Christians in our Lord’s service.
In the second place, the vast majority of trustees within SBC life are not of the Reformed variety. Some are, no doubt, but not to the point where people in non-Reformed pews should tremble at the prospect of a “handful of trustee selections” ruling as iron-fisted despots and enforcing Calvinistic dogma upon the denomination. Numerically, such a prospect is simply impossible. We’re outnumbered, and we know it. The thing we fear is not failing to take over the convention, but being expelled from it.
Conclusion
Many Calvinists have already departed SBC life for life and service in other denominational settings. Many others are contemplating the same, yet are somewhat hopeful at the prospect of remaining in order to cooperate with their fellow Southern Baptists for the sake of the gospel. This hope has been fostered greatly by the generosity and courtesy shown them recently by Johnny Hunt during his service as president, and by Danny Akin who has worked to build bridges of trust and cooperation between the non-Reformed and Reformed. It remains to be seen how things will unfold, but, for now, doctrinal differences need not divide us.
