These are some tough days for those of us who are on the internet and claim to be Calvinists and/or Reformed. First, Michael Spencer published his essay Why I'm Not Like You, wherein he sought to distance himself from some expressions of what has come to be known as "ugly calvinism." And then he had his "iMonk and Calvinism Q&A" where he esplainified himself some more. Basically, he still holds to alot of Calvinistic beliefs but he feels like this is a movement which has been co-opted by some unsavory types.
And of course, Michael's writings have spurred a good deal of discussion at the Boars Head Tavern and one of the wags who patronize the tavern has created a cool graphic that says "This weblog has not been approved by the League of Truly Reformed Bloggers" which links to an FAQ dealing with the Tavern's feelings about calvinists and "truly reformed" types.
I have corresponded with Michael online and off from time to time and I think I know him well enough to know that he wasn't taking a potshot at the League of Reformed Bloggers, which I moderate. I also know that Michael isn't the only one posting things at the tavern, but since "League of Truly Reformed Bloggers," sounds so much like "League of Reformed Bloggers," I shot Michael a quick e-mail to confirm that no offense was intended. He confirmed this immediately and even apologized for any confusion, though none was necessary. And they have added another FAQ to their FAQ's specifically pointing out that they aren't making fun of me or anyone else in the League of Reformed Bloggers, which is good news because I am very sensitive and get my feelings hurt easily. Michael and the folks at the tavern aren't attacking calvinism and calvinists per se, rather this "ugly" form of calvinism I have mentioned.
Now, Phil Johnson of Grace Community Church has jumped into the blogosphere and the debate about calvinism. Phil's entry into the blogosphere has been greeted with a level of excitement not seen since Elvis appeared on the Ed Sullivan show. Phil didn't open with Blue Suede Shoes or You Ain't Nuthin But a Hound Dog, rather he opened with an essay called "Quick and Dirty Calvinism," wherein he talks about the move away from Calvinism by folks like John Armstrong, Andrew Sandlin, Rob Schlapfer, and of course the iMonk himself.
Phil has a good deal of disagreement with the aforementioned folks, but he understands and is sympathetic to some of their complaints. Phil says:
I have to say with all candor that I can somewhat understand the feelings expressed by some of Calvinism's recent critics. Sniff around some of the Calvinist forums on the Internet and it won't be long before you begin to think something is rotten in Geneva.
But I hasten to add that I don't think the problem really lies in Geneva, or in historic Calvinism, or in any of the classic Reformed creeds. I especially don't think the stench arises from any problem with Calvinism per se. In my judgment, the problem is a fairly recent down n' dirty version of callow Calvinism that has flourished chiefly on the Internet and has been made possible only by the new media.
Internet Calvinism and historic Calvinism sometimes have little in common.
I
pretty much agree with everything that Phil says here but I will
quibble with the last sentence. I think internet calvinism and
historical calvinism have lots in common. There has always been a tug
of war in calvinistic circles between the hypers and those who are more
moderate, for lack of a better term. You can get a small sample of
this by reading Ian Murray's book Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism.
Spurgeon got it from all sides. The hypers thought he was an Arminian
because of his emphasis on evangelism and the Arminians thought he was
a hyper because of his emphasis on God's sovereignty. Things on the
internet aren't much different - it's the same kind of stuff, but it's
more visible and more intense because the internet gives more people a
place to voice their opinions.
Phil goes on to list some of the more egregious things he has seen in "internet calvinism" - fanaticism, non-evangelism, polemicism, and anti-intellectualism. Then Phil goes on to say:
The upsurge of Calvinism on the Internet in the 1990s seems to have spawned a large and unprecedented movement of jejune Calvinists who wear arrogance as if it were the team uniform. That kind of hotshot, shoot-from-the-hip Calvinism is ugly. I don't blame anyone for being appalled by it. I'm worried about those who think it's a good thing.
Obviously those criticisms are mostly generalizations, and they don't necessarily apply to every Calvinist on the Internet. But (and here's the hard part) I'm willing to admit that there have been times when every one of those criticisms could be legitimately applied to something I wrote or posted to a public forum somewhere. I'll especially confess to my shame that I'm too much of a polemicist and not enough of an evangelist.
Historic Calvinism is not supposed to be that way. Yes, Calvinism is virile; it's relentless when it comes to truth; and it's not always easy to swallow. But it is full of truths that should humble us and fill us with compassion rather than swagger and conceit. The best Calvinism has always been fervently evangelistic, large-hearted, benevolent, merciful, and forgiving. After all, that's what the doctrines of grace are supposed to be all about.
It is an outstanding post, and I especially appreciate his acknowledgement that he himself has been guilty of some of the things he has criticized. I'll add my name to the list of guilty parties in that regard. But I want to suggest that the folks Phil is talking about and what Michael and his tavern-mates are talking about aren't really representative of "internet calvinism" as a whole.
Please forgive me if I sound a little defensive in this regard, but since I moderate the League of Reformed Bloggers I feel like I've gotten a pretty good overview of "internet calvinism" and have been in the thick of many discussions of reformed and calvinistic issues. I understand that the "League of Reformed Bloggers" only encompasses a very small smidgeon of bloggers who call themselves reformed and we certainly aren't any kind of governing body for the movement.
But, all in all, I think that, if you were to take a regular stroll through the League of Reformed Bloggers aggregator, you would find that few, if any, members of this fit the description of "ugly calvinism." We now have 205 members of the League of Reformed Bloggers so while this isn't everyone, it's a pretty good number of "internet calvinists." I'm not saying that the LORB folks are the true and pure and best internet calvinists, I'm just saying that there's a pretty fair number there to which you can look to get a broader view of "internet calvinism."
In one of Michael's posts at the tavern he talks about some of the good guys in the calvinist/reformed circles and I would argue that most, if not all, of the folks in the LORB would fit into the "good guys (and girls - we've got some awesome calvinistic women!) category.
I think that what Michael and Phil are reacting to can be explained by James Davison Hunter in his book Culture Wars. Hunter explains that, on any given issue, you've got about 10% on either side of the issue that are certifiable wackos (ok, wacko is my word, not his), or I should say extremists. That leaves 80%, i.e. the overwhelming majority, who are somewhere in the middle. But, in the media you never hear from the 80%, it's usually the 10% on either side you hear from because they make for good TV.
Similarly, one angry, caustic person can make a bigger splash than 20 temperate people. And unfortunately, we are going to see that one angry, caustic person as representative of the 20 temperate people.
Neither I, nor the co-moderators of the LORB (Tim Challies and Adrian Warnock) try to police what goes on in the LORB, but at the outset we tried to position it as a restrained and temperate voice
in the blogosphere. We encourage both deep conviction and a civil
tone. If I may be so bold as to recommend one of my own writings, I
would suggest my post titled "Some Thoughts on Godly Disputation, or 'How to Have a Christlike Argument.'"
In suggesting that, I would also suggest that, for the most part, most
of those who identify themselves as calvinists or reformed exemplify
this Christlike spirit, even when they argue.
So, my point in this long and boring harangue has been to simply
call people like Phil and Michael and anyone else who to broaden their
horizons and see that there are a whole lot moreto internet calvinism
than what you are talking about. I realize that both of Phil and
Michael have issued the appropriate disclaimers to the effect that they
understand that not everyone is like these bad guys. But when you say
that "not everyone is like this," it still comes across as "but most
folks are like this and the good guys are in the minority." And by the
way, if Michael or Phil reads this, please don't take this as any kind
of chastizement, I know we are on the same page on this. But my
contention is that when it comes to internet calvinists, the good guys
are in the overwhelming majority - you just don't hear from them as
much.
And I want to close with one more thought as a kind of disclaimer. I have developed a great affection for the members of the League of Reformed Bloggers and have profited greatly from interacting with them. So, I am writing this post kind of like a coach who is defending his own team. But I want to be sure to point out that, in general, I am far less determined to defend calvinism and reformed theology than I am to defend Christ. Except in posts like this where reformed theology or calvinism is the issue, I try not to shove calvinism and reformed theology down people's throats - I want to shove Christ down your throat, not Calvin. I hope that regular readers of the blog sense this, and if not, I'm happy to receive correction.
Good post David. I would just say that anyone reading Phillip Johnson's version of the iMonk's issues with Calvinism will be totally led astray. I have NEVER EVER ANYWHERE said I was leaving Calvinism for Postmodernism. That's a complete fiction.
Again, good post.
Posted by: iMonk | June 04, 2005 at 01:14 PM
David,
I appreciate your focus back unto Christ. I have not spent as much time looking into what category of Christianity I fit into as much as who Christ wants me to be. Perhaps it is my lack of theological education, or understanding of why the debate is so important; but I often feel that we focus too much on correcting ourselves in the details while forgetting our purpose.
“But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” (Acts 1:8 NIV)
While the dialogue has been a good tool for me to personally test and explore my own beliefs, I wonder if the effect is universal.
Posted by: Forrest | June 04, 2005 at 02:39 PM
Is there some reason why we should talk about "ugly calvinists" as opposed to "ugly Christians?" I mean, I can find idiots of various theology on and off the internet. Is there a reason to single out Calvinists?
Posted by: Macht | June 04, 2005 at 02:54 PM
Although I'm a member of the LORB, I'm really somewhat of an outsider (there's an "*" next to my name - a theology on steroids violation or something).
I've been interacting with Calvinists for more than 30 years - face-to-face, bulletin boards (remember those?), and now via blogs - and must say that my impression has changed over the years. In the past, most Calvinists I dealt with (including a sad confrontation with S. Lewis Johnson) left me with the impression that they were more interested in winning an argument than in teaching me something or exchanging ideas. I wound up steering clear of them for awhile.
In the blogdom, however, I have been happily surprised by the grace, warmth, and acceptance I've felt from the overwhelming majority of Calvinists with whom I've interacted. It's like everybody's on Prozac or something! I mean that in a good sense: there's not a hint of anger or condescension and the tone is gracious and irenic.
I'm sure there are "ugly" Calvinists out there but, as Macht pointed out, no single group has exclusive rights to idiots.
BTW, I will say that discussing "ugly Calvinists" is appropriate for an in-house forum: unless I'm wrong, that's what this is. Nobody else really has the right to call Calvinists ugly (although some might whisper it under their breath!).
Posted by: Mike | June 04, 2005 at 03:25 PM
Though I consider myself somewhat computer savy, and though I have been using the internet for years now, I have only recently discovered the world of internet blogging. (It is as if the veil has fallen from my eyes.)
The reason I am reading, and the reason that I am posting this comment, is because what I am reading is interesting. I have spent alot of time on the iMonk's website, and I have spent alot of time here as well. I have even posted an occasional, uninspiring comments. But mostly, I lurk in the shadows of places like the Boar's Head Tavern and watch apprehensively from the corner. I am definitely listening to the conversation, even if I am not adding much to it.
And while I listen I pray for tact and understanding. My mantra is "wise as a serpent, harmless as a dove." I have to say it to myself through gritted teeth sometimes when I overhear some of the comments made.
Truthfully and unashamedly, I struggle with theology every single day. I hold to the Doctrines of Grace, and I consider myself reformed. But, I am a Baptist, so I am not sure I'm even really anything more than semi-Reformed. Some would say I am a "leaky dispensationalist." So basically, that makes me a bad Baptist, Presbyterian, and everything else. This is even more pitiful because I am a pastor.
What a theological mess I seem to be to some. Some people assert their theology (Calvinism or otherwise) in such a positive, forceful, seemingly arrogant way that I am jealous. I believe in truth, and I do not think that it is arrogant to state truth emphatically. Maybe they are right and I am wrong. So, I hope that the strong will continue to deal with the weaker brother with patience so that I may catch on to the whole truth. I am not an idiot; I am just unconvinced on some things.
I write this commentary with much embarassment. One, because people will read it. Secondly, because it seems so personal that maybe you will misunderstand why I wrote it.
The reason I wrote this is because I am a convinced five point Calvinist who is dispensational and refuses to baptize infants. I believe in a literal milennial reign but believe it may be a post-trib rapture. I think Rick Warren's stuff is so basic it's hardly fit for a mature Christian, and I find the most popular Christian writings today fluffy. I get my tail kicked by the scholars and the pop culture Christian. Some reformers find me inconsistent and non-reformers find me unmissionary. One tends to think I am ignorant and the other thinks I'm a jerk.
Anyway, maybe you are like me, a reformedish guy skulking in the shadows and not saying much. Hopefully, all who read this will find this somewhat amusing to know that there is someone out there who may be more confused than most and who can be whipped by all. Personally, I hope it turns out that I have been given some sort of Gandalf-ish wisdom in the day of judgment and that I managed to encourage some people in Christ along the way.
P.S. If I ever feel tempted to join the conversation at this length again, I promise to get my own place or to pay rent.
Posted by: Brad Williams | June 04, 2005 at 03:39 PM
Thanks for the comments everyone and especially to Michael. I figured you would understand where I was coming from and I appreciate you stopping by to say so. Now, about your postmodern tendencies . . . ;-) - Joke, just kidding.
Macht - good point. I should have said something about that so thanks for saying it for me. Maybe it's because I hang out around a lot of calvinists that I hear the criticism of calvinists more often. It just seems that the volume has been turned up a lot lately against calvinists.
Brad - thanks for commenting. As far as I am concerned if you have comments like that to make, you can make them on this blog anytime you want and don't have to apologize. You bring up a good point, a la Spurgeon. Spurgeon got shot at from the hypers and Arminians. I know folks in my presbyterian circles who would deny you the right to call yourself "reformed" because you don't baptize babies, and well, we just won't talk about your "leaky dispensationalism." The problem is that no one "owns" the Reformed tradition, although many think they do. I think most people are like you in that they don't have their theology tied up in a neat little package with all i's dotted and t's crossed. So, those who think they have it all tied up can't abide those who don't. It'll be nice when we get to the point that we understand that grace is not only something we get from God but is something we are allowed to show to each other.
Posted by: David Wayne | June 04, 2005 at 04:30 PM
I was so much commenting on your post as I was commenting on what your post was inspired by. Why wouldn't the Internet Monk make a post entitled "Why I'm not like you" and address it to Christians in general. Perhaps he has, I don't know. Is there a reason for the singling out of Calvinists?
Posted by: Macht | June 04, 2005 at 04:50 PM
Thanks "Coach" :-), good post. Always appreciate your point of view on these sorts of wild and hairy issues.
Posted by: Joe L. | June 04, 2005 at 07:15 PM
Is liberal Calvinism "ugly"? Or just an oxymoron? As a minister in the Presbyterian Church USA where we don't just have women bloggers, we ordain them, I have often thought about applying for application to the LORB, given that in my ordination vows I have affirmed the tenets of several of the required confessions. But I often get the same kind of static from the LORB that it now seems to be getting from folks that differ from them. So my question, David, is what are the real boundaries of the tent?
I think that this is important because the split between our denominations (the PCUSA and the PCA) thirty years ago has meant that very little conversation occurs between the two groups, despite our shared heritage. I can see how talking together in this kind of mostly informal setting could ease the strain of that split and perhaps one day flower into some kind of shared ministry of some sort or other. Which is why I come to your blog and other LORB-member blogs.
I don't mind the disagreement with LORB members, for appropriate disagreement is at the heart of any healthy relationship. But is the LORB built on what is shared to the exclusion of the areas of disagreement, as your post suggests or are there deeper, unstated but no less real boundaries for this group?
Posted by: Public Theologian | June 04, 2005 at 07:40 PM
"Internet Calvinism and historic Calvinism sometimes have little in common."
Notice the crucial word sometimes. Of course I wasn't criticizing ALL internet Calvinists, because I _are_ one.
My point, if clumsy, was merely that the new media breeds both shallowness and bumptiousness, and we need to be on guard against both.
Posted by: Phillip R. Johnson | June 05, 2005 at 12:16 AM
To Phillip R. Johnson,
I guess I don't quite see that the "new media breeds both shallowness and bumptiousness", while I do agree we need to be on guard against these. Shallowness and buptiousness are not caused by method of delivery, it comes from within the speaker. I think instead the new media exposes shollow thinking and the lack of true rigor in the art of discussion. So in a sense, like a medical test that brings to light a disease, we should welcome the new media's ability to show what has been festering for quite a while.
Terry
Posted by: Terry | June 05, 2005 at 08:58 AM
Mike - thanks for the kudos for the calvinists!
Macht - I don't want to presume to speak for Michael, but my take is that he is singling out calvinists because in the past he has identified himself as one - as he has moved away from some traditional calvinistic positions on some things he has taken a lot of heat from other calvinists.
Tim - I don't see theological liberalism as being consistent with the reformed tradition, but then again you and I both know that "liberal" is a very broad word. I myself have been called a liberal by other reformed types who are far more conservative than I. I once stated publicly that Arminians and dispensationalists are our brothers in Christ and someone who heard me questioned not only my calvinism, but my Christian faith. But, theological liberalism, as I understand it, is a move away from the reformed tradition, particularly in reference to sola scriptura.
However, the example you used, of the ordination of women, I don't see as a make or break issue for being reformed. I myself and most of the folks I run around with would say that women should not be ordained as elders, but Roger Nicole, a prof at RTS in Orlando, who's an inerrantist and whose calvinistic credentials have never been in question, believes they can. I wouldn't question his reformed credentials for that.
I am not sure if you are talking about theological liberalism or political/social liberalism. The two/three of them are not necessarily the same.
As to interaction like this fostering conversation betweeen us PCA and PCUSA types I agree it is helpful and I am all for it.
Posted by: David Wayne | June 05, 2005 at 09:14 PM
Phil - thanks for clarifying that. I was just hoping to call attention to the large number of internet calvinists who are really pretty good folks.
Posted by: David Wayne | June 05, 2005 at 09:17 PM
David--
Thank you for the thoughtful and charitable response.
I am curois as to whay you do not think that being reformed and being liberal, in the classical sense of theterm, compatible. Isn't the rejection of the monarchy by the Puritans and the assertion that God could speak through the hearts of men and women as they read the scripture without the guidance of church authorities the very essnce of the liberal position, as over against the conservatives who insisted on the divine right of kings and the necessity of the bishops as the arbiters of biblical truth? Aren't we all liberals then?
Posted by: Public Theologian | June 06, 2005 at 08:44 PM
Public Theologian,
I think I have to agree with you that a true liberal means civility in spirit, open mindedness, true respect for all points of view and critical thinking. Unfortunately that is not what I usually mean by theological liberal. What I think of as a theological liberal is someone who doubts the Bible as authoritative completely, may doubt the existance of sin as the real problem with man and that Christ actually paid the price from my sin. I realize there is a spectrum of beleifs within the so called liberal camp, some very close to the conservative and visa versa. But I think what we are talking about is a floating definition of liberal. Often liberal merely means left wing in politics. Both the right wing and left wing politicians can be caustic, lacking in manners and truly closed minded, With my original definition, a left wing politician may or may not be a liberal. But if you defined liberal as a left wing politician, of course they are a liberal under that definition. Likewise, a liberal theologian may or may not posess the qualities that my first definition held. Let's hope they all do posess those qualities but that has not been my experince at all times.
Terry
Posted by: Terry | June 06, 2005 at 09:32 PM
[Concerning the Calvinist explanation of Monergism at the bottom of this email]
I agree with the Calvinist explanations of Monergism presented here, as long as the reader includes, in his mind as he reads the article below, the centuries long belief, by non-Calvinists, in 'No-Means'. What is meant by 'no-means' is that Monergism is no monergism at all - if there are not people who are saved eternally without the possibility that the monergistic faith and repentance, spoken of here.... can happen secretly as well as openly.... and that there will be thousands, even millions in heaven, from all eons, who were placed in Christ before the foundation of the world, and who never, in this life, were known openly to organized religion and it's adherents! I refer to John's vision, in Revelation 5:9, of people redeemed out of every kindred, and tongue [language], and people, and nation..... many of whom, of necessity, lived between the periods of Adams fall and the penning of God's revealed will.... and even after, to include millions of aborted babies and idiots down through the centuries, along with many millions of God's elect who have lived in remote regions of the world with no opportunity to hear 'audibly' the message that was preached by the angel, spoken of in Revelation 14:6, who "flew in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people," It is a very deceptive and cunning error of Satan to explain Monergism without the qualification I mention here! tlk
[many more proofs from the scriptures, for this view, are available]
Also see: >>> http://www.sovgrace.net/OnlyMediator.pdf <<< "anti-means"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Work of the Trinity in Monergism
The Shepherd Knows His Sheep by Name
by John Hendryx
Monergism: The view that the Holy Spirit is the only agent who effects regeneration of Christians. It is on contrast with synergism, the view that there is a cooperation between the divine and the human in the regeneration process. (Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms)
God the Father made a pretemporal covenant with the Eternal Son (Psalm 110; John 6:38, 17:2; Eph 1:3, 4; Heb. 6:16-17; Heb 10:5) to redeem His people by effectually calling and supernaturally drawing them to Him (John 6:37, 44, 63-56; 15:16, Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:4). Christ himself was chosen to be our Savior before the creation of the world (1 Pet. 1:20; Ephesians 1:4) and accomplishes this for His people in last times by taking on their flesh, fulfilling the demands of the law for them in His life, death and physical resurrection. The Holy Spirit applies the life-giving work of the Son to the same by raising them from spiritual death, opening their blind eyes, unplugging their deaf ears, disarming their natural hostility and granting them new spiritual affections unto faith through the means of the preaching of the gospel (Ezek 36:26; Rom 10:17; 12:3; 1 Cor. 12:3; 2 Cor 4:13; Eph 6:23; Phil 1:29; 1 Thess 2:13; Heb 12:2). He then counts the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto those united to Him through faith.
Due to the fall, the natural condition of human beings is that of total depravity which means that apart from a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit applying the work of Christ, no person would naturally submit to the humbling terms of the gospel. The will, affections, mind and body are enslaved to sin until Christ sets us free (Ps 51:5; Matt. 15:19; Rom 7:14-15; Eph 4:17-19; John 8:36; Rom. 6:22). The result of depravity is that the natural man is impotent to respond in faith to God (Rom 8:7, 8; 1 Cor 2:14). Only the work of the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the Redeemer as revealed in Scripture (John 20:31; Rom 10:17) infallibly results in His people's response of faith (Eph 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). The grace of God restores fallen human affections by softening the heart and illumining the mind so that all distorted views of God are corrected (Eph 2:4-6; 4:17-24; Phil 2:12-13). In other words, it is grace itself that makes us humble and willing to respond in faith - Our certain response is, therefore, grounded in the initiative and regenerating work of God, not in any natural capacity.
Since He knows His sheep by name, God's love for his sheep is both intensive and particular, not a general love. When He sees that His lamb is lost He goes off in search of it until He finds it. He then scoops it up in his arms, puts it on His shoulders and carries it home. He does not merely go out and stand at a distance calling to any old stray sheep, hoping in vain that it wants to come home with Him. No, God calls us by name (since His sheep know his voice) and He mercifully does what is best for us. To those who do not follow Him Jesus said, "you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." (John 10:26, 27) In other words, He saves His loved ones, not with an ineffectual, passive love but with an active love which accomplishes that which he set out to do and actually gets the job done.
Monergistic regeneration is a redemptive blessing purchased by Christ for those the Father has given Him (1 Pet 1:3, John 6:37, 39). This grace works independently of any human cooperation and conveys that power into the fallen soul whereby the person who is to be saved is effectually enabled to respond to the gospel call (Acts 2:39, 1 Cor 1:2, 9, 24, Rom 8:30 John 1:13, Acts 13:48). It is that supernatural power of God alone whereby we are granted the spiritual ability and desire to comply with the conditions of the covenant of grace; that is, to apprehend the Redeemer by a living faith, to come up to the terms of salvation, to repent of idols and to love God and the Mediator supremely. The Holy Spirit, in quickening the fallen soul, mercifully illumines the mind and renews the heart, giving God's elect the capacity and inclination to exercise faith in Jesus Christ (John 6:44, 1 John 5:1). This instantaneous and intensely personal work of God is the means by which the Spirit brings us into living union with Him.
The Westminster Confession, also points out that faith is both a requirement of the covenant and something that God enables man to fulfill by granting him new spiritual capacities and affections:
Under the terms of the covenant of grace, God "freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe."
- Westminster Confession of Faith CHAP. VII. - Of God's Covenant with Man III (emphasis mine)
The great Puritan Divine Richard Sibbes once said, "God knoweth we have nothing of ourselves, therefore in the covenant of grace he requireth no more than he giveth, and giveth what he requireth, and accepteth what he giveth."
In other words, what God requires of us (faith, repentance, to love Him supremely) he grants to us in Christ (2 Timothy 2:25; Eph 2:5,8). This means that while there are many precious promises declared to us in the gospel (Rom 10:4), yet the Lord understands that the outward letter, even though vigorously preached, does not itself spiritually enable sinners to receive Jesus for righteousness and salvation. A command and a promise is established in the gospel that whoever receives Jesus will be accepted and justified. Yet none of us, due to our natural love for darkness, are inclined to receive the Christ of the gospel (John 3:19). Therefore, in His great mercy to those He loves, Jesus sends His Holy Spirit to quicken us (John 6:63; John 1:13, 3:6) to a living faith that apprehends Christ and His benefits. The dead in sin are granted new life (John 5:25) by the Spirit who works in us all that is required to be made partakers of his righteousness that we might be reconciled to God. As the Spirit illumines and regenerates the soul, Christ's perfect faith and obedience are reckoned to us by God's grace, and on account of Him are we accepted as righteous before Him. What we sinners were incapable of due to pride and evil inclinations, Christ purchased for us as the Spirit unites us to His life, death and resurrection. This was so the righteousness of the law might be met in us. This purchased grace which includes our regeneration, justification and sanctification is all that power and righteousness which Christ has procured for us and of which He makes us partakers.
In fact, all the benefits of our salvation can be traced back to Christ and His finished work on the cross. Regeneration, one of these redemptive benefits (1 Pet 1:3), is granted to those God has set His affection on before creation (Eph 1:4), that they may appropriate those blessings at His appointed and accepted time. Therefore, it is important to not confuse the concepts of regeneration and justification. Regeneration gives us a new sense that beholds God's beauty and excellency. This inward working of the Holy Spirit gives rise to faith in Christ and appropriates the blessing of justification. These are all spiritual blessings which Christ accomplished for us by fulfilling the covenant from our side in perfectly obeying both the passive and active demands of God's law. He lived the life we should have lived and died the death we deserved. The sinner, once willfully blind to God's loveliness, making it impossible for him to have natural affection for God or to understand Spiritual things (1 Cor 2:14), is now granted the Holy Spirit, who circumcises the heart (Ezekiel 36:26, Colossians 2:11), heals our blindness and illumines the mind to understand the knowledge of Christ in the Scriptures (John 6:45;1 John 5:20). By the Spirit alone can we apprehend God's beauty and unsurpassed excellency which gives rise to new affections for Him infallibly leading to a living faith in Christ. To come to Christ we must understand and desire Him and such holy desires and understanding require a supernatural work of God's grace. Apart from the work of the Holy Spirit we have no spiritual knowledge and thus our pride and deep-rooted affection for sin will hinder us from believing the gospel.
"...if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10). - Council of Orange 529 A.D.
Why is this so vitally important? Simply because it exalts the glory of Jesus Christ and it is biblically sound. The Scripture teaches that everything related to the gospel is designed to glorify Christ and abase man. So it follows that anything that diminishes Christ’s glory is inconsistent with the true gospel. Therefore those who teach that the autonomous faith of natural men is what causes them to differ with others, rather than the grace of God which gives rise to their faith, are unduly exalting the role of man in salvation.
Monergism is the biblical doctrine that regeneration (the new birth) both precedes and elicits faith in Christ in those whom the Holy Spirit has sovereignly determined to save (John 6:63-65; Eph 1:3-5; Acts 16:14b; 1 John 5:10, 20). When preached in the power of the Holy Spirit, the gospel (James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23, 25) has the power to open blind eyes and unstop deaf ears. Paul, when speaking to the elect at the church of the Thessalonians said, "for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction." (1 Thess 1:5) In other words, the word of God does not work "ex opere operato," (automatically) rather, it is the work of the Holy Spirit sovereignly dispensing grace (John 3:8), quickening the heart through the word to bring forth life. So the written word is not the material of the spiritual new birth, but rather its means or medium. "The word is not the begetting principle itself, but only that by which it works: the vehicle of the mysterious germinating power" [ALFORD]. It is because the Spirit of God accompanies it that the word carries in it the germ of life. The life is in God, yet it is communicated to us through the word.
The gospel declares that repentance and faith (commands of God) are themselves God's working in us the desire both to will and to do (2 Tim 2:25, Eph 2:5, 8) and not something that the sinner himself contributes towards the price of His salvation. Repentance and faith can only be exercised by a soul after, and in immediate consequence of, its regeneration by the Holy Spirit (1 John 5:1, 10; Acts 16:14b; Acts 13:48; John 10:24-26; Ezekiel 36:26-27; John 6:37; John 1:13; 1 Cor. 4:7; 1 Cor. 15:10; Jas. 1:17; John 3:27; 1 Pet 1:3). God regenerates, and we, in the exercise of the new gracious ability given, repent. God disarms the opposition of the human heart, subduing the hostility of the carnal mind, and with irresistible power (John 6:37, 63-65), draws His chosen ones to Christ. The gospel confesses "We love him because He first loved us." Whereas before we had no desire for God, but now God's regenerating grace gives us the desire, willingness and delight in His person and commands that infallibly gives rise to faith. Faith and works are both the evidences of the new birth, not the cause of it.
More Biblical Support
Aside from the two places where the word "regeneration" is actually used in the Bible text (Titus 3:5, Matthew 19:26) the same doctrinal notion is elaborated in many places under various terminology such as (1) spiritual resurrection (John 5:21; Romans 6:13; Ephesians 1:19-20; 2:5; Colossians 2:13; I John 3:14) and our (2) re-creation in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15; Ephesians 2:10; 4:24). The apostle John, apart from recording Jesus' famous discourse on the new birth in John 3, further refers to being born of God eleven times. Interestingly, while being born again is necessary for salvation, it is never once spoken of in the imperative mood as if the hearer could independently produce it. Rather, it is always spoken of as a work of God alone. For example John 1:13 (as if to stress this point) says we were "born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. " While John 1:12 teaches that faith is the crucial precondition of justification, but verse 13 teaches that regeneration is a necessary and efficient precondition of faith in Jesus Christ. Verse 13 therefore qualifies verse 12 making clear that regeneration causally and immediately precedes faith.
Of particular note the apostle John speaks of our spiritual resurrection (John 5:21 & Eph 2:5). The text (John 5:21) shows Jesus Himself clearly exercising sovereignty on whom He will grant the spiritual resurrection: "For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will." Ephesians 2:5 likewise says we were dead in sins until God, who is rich in mercy, "made us alive together with Christ." Paul's word for "made us alive" or "quicken" is the Greek term Paul uses for regeneration with Christ. In both these instances we must conclude that the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit causally precedes and enables man's response of saving faith to God's call.
Another critical text that we should take a closer look at is 1 John 5:1, 10:
"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God...Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony [of God] in himself."
Before anything else I want you to notice the clear sequential cause and effect aspect of regeneration and faith in this passage. Important for us to note is that John speaks of our actions that take place as the result of regeneration several times in this epistle (1 John 2:29, 1 John 3:9, 1 John 4:7, 1 John 5:1, 1 John 5:18). For example in 1 John 3:9 he says, "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God." Here we also find a cause and effect relationship between the cause of new birth and the effect that the Christian does not continue in a life of sin. 1 John 5:18 gives us a similar pattern of speech. Both showing that the cause of regeneration brings about the effect of a life that does not continue sinning. So not only does the tense of 1 John 5:1 show belief being actualized as the result of regeneration but this is also a continuation of a pattern of speech that John uses throughout the epistle. Therefore it is extremely unlikely that the Apostle means anything else by this than faith is the result of our spiritual birth ... that the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit is the cause of the desires that give rise to faith. Verse 10 further demonstrates the reality of this when it says that "whoever believes in the Son of God has this testimony [of God] in himself." Consider whether it is even possible for an unregenerate man, who does not have the testimony of God in himself, to actually understand or believe the gospel. It isn't possible. Instead, a person must first have the testimony of God in him if he is to believe. In other words, we must be taught of God, illumined in mind, given a new understanding... and once we are taught and understand, we will infallibly come to faith in Christ. To further drive the point home notice that 1 John 5:20 gives us the following assurance:
"And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life."
Jesus has given His people understanding so that they might know Him. In other words, true spiritual understanding and the knowledge of God (salvation), which is unique to the saints, are inextricably linked. One gives rise to the other and, therefore, all those given this understanding will infallibly come to know Him. "For God, who said, 'Light shall shine out of darkness,'is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ." (2 Cor 4:6) From these and similar passages it is, therefore, a certainty that this same kind of understanding is never given to the non-elect. Rather, the understanding of spiritual things granted by God alone infallibly brings those who are illumined by it unto a living faith in Christ. A real world demonstration of this is recorded in the book of Acts when Paul is preaching and a woman named Lydia, "... was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul."(Acts 16:14) This should remove all doubt as to the biblical nature of this doctrine.
Conclusion
To summarize, those dead in sin (Eph 2:1,5,8), play no part in their own new birth (Rom 3:11, 12; 8:7) and are just as passive as a new born physical baby in the regenerative act. However, once restored with a new sense and given spiritual understanding through Word and Spirit, the soul's new disposition immediately plays an active roll in conversion (repentance and faith). Thus, man does not cooperate in his regeneration but rather, infallibly responds in faith to the gospel as the Holy Spirit changes our hearts' disposition (John 3:6-8; 19-21). Faith is, therefore, not something produced by our unregenerated human nature. The fallen sinner has no moral ability or inclination to believe prior to the new birth. Instead, the Holy Spirit must open one's ears to the preaching of the gospel if one would desire to hear and believe.
Century Dictionary
Monergism: "In theol., The doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in regeneration - that the human will possesses no inclination to holiness until regenerated, and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration."
The following are some Christians in the history of the Church who defended the biblical doctrine of monergism:
Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, Martin Luther (who considered this doctrine the heart of the Reformation), John Calvin, John Owen, the Puritans of the 17th century, Augustine, George Whitefield, and some contemporary pastors and theologians such as Martyn Lloyd-Jones, John Piper, Wayne Grudem, R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton, J.I. Packer, James Montgomery Boice, and signatories to the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.
Posted by: Terry Krueger | September 11, 2005 at 10:50 AM
David... Thank you for the very wise and Christlike response. The reason I appreciate you and Michael Spencer so much is your honesty. Your both the real deal!
Blessings... Dennis
Posted by: Dennis | February 16, 2006 at 06:58 PM