August 25, 2006Discussion with Mr. Ross: Update and conclusion

Over the past couple of days, I have continued my correspondence with Mr. Bob Ross regarding my claim that Spurgeon held the priority of regeneration to faith. I am posting this correspondence here (with his permission) because I think it will help further clarify the issue under discussion.

Yesterday, Mr. Ross replied to my last post, in which I noted my mistake in attributing a position to Mr. Ross that he does not take. He thanked me for the correction, and then sent this email.

Dear Brother Riley:

In re-reading your writing, It seems that in your comments you have tried to identify Spurgeon's comments on "means" in regeneration exclusively in the category of his repudiation of "baptismal regeneration," -- as if this accounts for his remarks rather than their having a broader application.

I disagree with this point of view. He also repudiated the hyper-Calvinism of his day on the issue of "means" and the relation of faith in the new birth.

It is not appropriate to isolate CHS' comments on "regeneration" from the totality of his views on "means" and faith in the new birth, as if a statement here-and-there on "regeneration" is sufficient to express his view.

For example , to be objective one must "reconcile" (if that is the right word) such remarks on "regeneration" with other comments on "means" and faith [see quotations below], -- unless one is willing to say, as some do, that Spurgeon "contradicted himself."

It appears to me that you most likely were already predisposed to the "pre-faith regeneration" theory -- such as held by James White -- before giving Spurgeon extensive study, and even now you seemingly have only "browsed" in his online sermons in the effort to isolate some comments which you deem as favorable to your point of view.

My personal impression is that you have simply attempted to justify your own views rather than really digging deeply into Spurgeon so as to properly understand Spurgeon's view.

C. H. Spurgeon said:

This new birth, this regeneration, is a great puzzle to many poor sinners. One asks, “How can I make myself a new creature in Christ?” Of course, you can do nothing of the kind. This is a miracle; it is as much a work of God to make us children of light as it was to make light at the first.

Only God can work this miracle; but mark you this, there never was a soul yet that truly believed in Christ, but at the same time [simultaneous--BLR] it underwent the change called the new birth or regeneration.

Christians have often been asked about which is first, faith or regeneration, belief in Christ or being born again.

I will tell you when you will answer me this question, -- When a wheel moves, which spoke moves first?

“Oh, they all start together! “ say you.

So these other things all start together, whether it be the hub of the wheel, which is regeneration, or the spokes of the wheel, which are faith, and repentance, and hope, and love, and so on; when the wheel moves, it all moves at once.

If thou believest in Jesus Christ and him crucified, in the moment that thou believest, this great change of nature is effected in thee; for faith has in itself a singularly transforming power. It is a fact in everyday experience that, when a man comes to believe in his master, he becomes at once a better servant. A person whom I disliked, because I suspected him, becomes at once pleasing to me as soon as I trust him. So, faith towards God in itself produces a total change of mind in the man who has it.

But, beside that, there goes WITH FAITH a divine energy which changes the heart of man.

(Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 41, page 235, Despised Light Withdrawn).
_____

The act of TRUSTING Jesus Christ is the act which brings a soul into a state of Grace and is the mark and evidence of our being bought with the blood of the Lord Jesus. . . . See, then, the FOLLY of persons talking about being regenerated who have no faith! It cannot be! It is IMPOSSIBLE! . . . WITHOUT FAITH THERE CAN BE NO REGENERATION.

(Open Heart for A Great Saviour, C. H. SPURGEON, Sermon #669, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 12, 1866)

Such statements about the "simultaneousness" of Spirit-created faith and the new birth are to be found throughout Spurgeon's sermons.

And may I say, I have nothing to controvert as the efficient "cause" of faith and the new birth. I hold with Spurgeon that every "grain of faith" is of God.

The Holy Spirit is both the originator and the cause of faith and the new birth. The issue has to do with the means used in the creation of faith in relation to the new birth: Is one born again before, apart from, and without the simultaneous creation of faith by the Word and Spirit? I hold with Spurgeon that they "go together."

-- Bob L. Ross

I responded last night with this message:

Mr. Ross,

I have appreciated the charitable tone that has characterized this discussion. While I do not doubt that a substantial gulf remains between our positions, I think that debating these issues while avoiding inflammatory accusations will not only help us understand each other's actual positions more clearly, but will also benefit others interested in this subject.

I want to concede what is likely obvious to anyone familiar with your ministry: you have read more of Spurgeon's writings and sermons than I have. The material that I presented was, as I explained in my original post, drawn from a series of Google searches of Spurgeon's sermons. I certainly cannot claim to have read the entirety of each sermon in which Spurgeon comments on this issue; however, I can claim with a clear conscience that I have read each of the sections that I cite in its proper context, and that I have not cherry-picked individual clauses that support my position only if understood in violation of their intended meaning.

Furthermore, the fact that I highlighted a couple of quotations that, at least on the surface, seem to argue against my conclusion should suggest that my goal was not to stack the deck in favor of my own position, although you are right in your claim that I personally favored the regeneration-before-faith position before I began this study of Spurgeon. The goal of my research was not to prove that regeneration does indeed precede faith, nor was it to force Spurgeon into a particular theological paradigm; rather, it was to determine what Spurgeon thought and taught on this issue. While I certainly have my biases (and you do as well), I believe that I could have done a similar exercise with the writings of John Wesley and concluded that he endorsed the opposite position. That is to say, I believe that I could handle Wesley's material honestly, even if he disagrees with me. Similarly, I believe that I have handled Spurgeon honestly, my own theological predispositions notwithstanding.

I also think that you are right to suggest that Spurgeon's advocacy of the necessity of means for regeneration is not exclusively directed against the Anglican teaching of baptismal regeneration, so that his teachings have broader application to various forms of hyper-Calvinism, particularly those which, in their utter rejection of human responsibility in salvation, allow for the possibility of regeneration that is entirely and completely independent of saving faith.

Having outlined some of the areas in which I think we are in agreement, I must now turn to the discussion of our disagreements. I believe that the conclusion of your most recent email to me highlights the primary point at which we differ. For clarity's sake, I will include here the section to which I refer:

Such statements about the "simultaneousness" of Spirit-created faith and the new birth are to be found throughout Spurgeon's sermons.

And may I say, I have nothing to controvert as the efficient "cause" of faith and the new birth. I hold with Spurgeon that every "grain of faith" is of God.

The Holy Spirit is both the originator and the cause of faith and the new birth. The issue has to do with the means used in the creation of faith in relation to the new birth: Is one born again before, apart from, and without the simultaneous creation of faith by the Word and Spirit? I hold with Spurgeon that they "go together."

I personally agree with you that regeneration and faith are chronologically simultaneous, and I would agree that this is a feature of Spurgeon's theology as well. Furthermore, your insistence that God, and specifically that the Holy Spirit, is the effective cause of both faith and regeneration is also uncontroversial in this discussion.

We agree that regeneration and faith are simultaneous and that both are given by God. Our chief difference in interpreting Spurgeon is over whether we can make a further claim that Spurgeon taught that regeneration is the effective cause of saving faith; I say that he did, and you deny the same. By asserting that regeneration is the effective cause of saving faith, neither Spurgeon nor I deny the chronological simultaneity of regeneration and faith; what we affirm is that regeneration is the logical precedent to saving faith, whereas the opposite assertion (that saving faith is the logical precedent to regeneration) is not the case. In other words, regeneration plays a causal role in the granting of faith that faith does not play in the granting of regeneration. The key to this position is to think purely in terms of logical causation, rather than in terms of temporal relationships.

Allow me to highlight three quotations from Spurgeon that I think conclusively demonstrate my argument.

When a man turns his eye to Jesus, and simply trusts him—for we adhere to that as being the vital matter—there is accompanying that act—nay, I must correct myself, there is as the cause of that act—a miraculous, supernatural power which in an instant changes a man, as completely as if it flung him back into nothingness and brought him forth into new life. If this be so, then believing in Christ is something very marvellous. Now, if you will turn to the third chapter of John's gospel, and also to his Epistles, you will see that faith is always linked with regeneration, or the new birth, which new birth is the work of the Spirit of God.

from "Messrs. Moody and Sankey Defended; or, A Vindication of the Doctrine of Justification by Faith"
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/1239.htm
_____

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.

from "Faith and Regeneration"
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0979.htm
_____

I beseech you believe that there is no new birth where there is not a confidence in Christ, and that the regeneration which does not lead to repentance and faith, which is not, indeed, immediately attended therewith, is no regeneration whatever. Buy the truth in this matter.

from "Buying the Truth"
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/3449.htm

In the first quotation, Spurgeon actually corrects himself (which was certainly planned) to make a stronger statement that the impartation of new life is the cause of saving faith. The second quotation needs no further explanation. The third is also especially clear; Spurgeon did not consider the chronological simultaneity of regeneration and faith a good reason to refrain from speaking of regeneration as leading to faith. This notion of regeneration "leading to" faith is exactly what I mean when I speak of regeneration as the effective cause of faith. It is my contention that Spurgeon would not make the opposite claim (that faith leads to regeneration); in other words, there is a special causal connection between regeneration and faith that, while they occur simultaneously in time, makes it legitimate to speak of the logical precedence of regeneration.

I do not believe that these are isolated statements in Spurgeon's sermons. In the long list of quotations linked from my blog, Spurgeon repeatedly refers to saving faith as a result or evidence of regeneration. For instance,

Regeneration is the implanting of a new nature, and one of the earliest signs of that is, a faith in Christ, and a repentance of sin, and a consequent conversion from that which is evil to that which is good.

from "Apostolic Exhortation"
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0804.htm

He does not, to my knowledge, make the opposite claim (that regeneration is an evidence or a sign of faith).

Furthermore, while Spurgeon does typically insist that regeneration is a work of God that occurs through the means of the Word of God, he does allow for at least one exception to the usual use of means, and that is the salvation of infants. Spurgeon speaks of the regeneration of infants as occurring "even before the intellect can work." What is interesting, however, is that Spurgeon insists that the salvation of adults is essentially like that of infants. This is not to suggest that Spurgeon denies means; I have never denied the connection of regeneration to the means of the Word, either in reference to Spurgeon's position or my own. However, Spurgeon seems comfortable using the salvation of infants, which certainly occurs apart from means (in any normal meaning of that expression), as a paradigm by which to understand the salvation of adults. While I am not quite sure what to make of this statement, it does have particular relevance to our discussion and thus ought to be considered.

No doubt, in some mysterious manner the Spirit of God regenerates the infant soul, and it enters into glory made meet to be a partaker of the inheritance of the saints in light. That this is possible is proved from Scripture instances. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's would. We read of Jeremiah also, that the same had occurred to him; and of Samuel we find that while yet a babe the Lord called him. We believe, therefore, that even before the intellect can work, God, who worketh not by the will of man, nor by blood, but by the mysterious agency of his Holy Spirit, creates the infant soul a new creature in Christ Jesus, and then it enters into the "rest which remaineth for the people of God." By election, by redemption, by regeneration, the child enters into glory, by the selfsame door by which every believer in Christ Jesus hopes to enter, and in no other way. If we could not suppose that children could be saved in the same way as adults, if it would be necessary to suppose that God's justice must be infringe, or that his plan of salvation must be altered to suit their cases, then we should be in doubt; but we can see that with the same appliances, by the same plan, on precisely the same grounds, and through the same agencies, the infant soul can behold the Savior a face in glory everlasting, and therefore we are at ease upon the matter.

from "Infant Salvation"
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0411.htm

I do hope that our conversation will continue. I believe that my comments here do justice to the quotations from Spurgeon that you have supplied. I am sincerely interested to read your interpretation of those sermons that I have cited.

Finally, I would like to request your permission to continue to publish this correspondence on my blog. I am enjoying this interaction, and I wish to keep the (very few) readers of my blog apprised as to the progress of our discussion.

Michael Riley

This morning, I received this reply from Mr. Ross:

Dear Brother Riley:

If you still think Spurgeon taught "born again before faith" after what has already been supplied to you, and if you agree with the views on regeneration advocated by James White, I do not see that a good purpose can be served by further correspondence. I would hate to continue to offer up quotations from Spurgeon only to have them discarded in some manner.

I have learned that our minds can be very stubborn, especially if a mind has already been predisposed to a certain point of view. In such cases, it seems that the mind is able to find a way to "see" what it "wants to see."

For example, in public debates, I have referred Church of Christ preachers to scores of passages which teach salvation by faith, but they will still have the ingenuity of mind to gravitate to a few passages which they understand to teach the necessity of baptism. In fact, some of them even quote Spurgeon where he often quoted Mark 16:16, as if Spurgeon supported their view. Such has amazed me. I have also known cases where Spurgeon is quoted as supporting every major eschatological view -- pre, post, and amill -- by advocates of the particular view which they are promoting.

I respectfully decline to participate on your blog. The only blog to which I have contributed is The Calvinist Flyswatter, and I not inclined to do otherwise.

As for quoting me, anything I write in any form is "quotable" so long as it is properly quoted, interpreted, or represented.

Your error, for example, in your initial article, was occasioned by your failure to properly quote from me. I hope you have learned from this instance not to put words into another's mouth.

-- Bob L. Ross, 3 John 2

To be honest, I was a bit disappointed with Mr. Ross's response. I had truly hoped that he would interact with the quotations from Spurgeon that I had provided. As I stated in my email to him, I believe that my position (and the position that I am claiming that Spurgeon held) is completely compatible with Mr. Ross's citations of Spurgeon. Spurgeon did teach that regeneration and faith are chronologically simultaneous, he did teach that both regeneration and faith are gifts of God, and he did teach that regeneration is linked to the means of the Word of God, and thus I will happily concur with any quotation of Spurgeon that supports any of these claims. What Mr. Ross has not done, however, is explain what he believes Spurgeon means when he makes very clear and direct statements that regeneration is the cause of faith. So therefore, at this point, I see no reason to amend my original claim that Spurgeon held that regeneration precedes faith.

Michael Riley | three comments | Link

August 22, 2006Spurgeon on regeneration: interacting with Bob Ross

In my earlier post about Spurgeon's position on the priority of regeneration to faith, I made reference to a site that I believed to be especially blantant in presenting a mistaken view of Spurgeon's position. Bob Ross, who, as I understand it, is rightly honored by those who love Spurgeon for his efforts in publishing the sermons of the Prince of Preachers, took exception to my characterization of him, and wrote me privately to express some of his concerns. His email helped clarify his position for me, and I acknowledged to him that, strictly speaking, I had presented him as advocating a position that he does not endorse. I had said that I would post a clarification, which, due to the extreme busyness that accompanies the beginning of a new semester (especially with the opening of our new residence hall, which deserves its own post), I had neglected to wrte.

For this delay, I truly apologize. Given the need for an apology and clarification on my part, it is inexcusable that I did not post an immediate follow-up.

To set up the context, allow me to post, in its entirety, Mr. Ross's latest email to me:

MY REPLY TO A GENTLEMAN WHO MISREPRESENTED MY UNDERSTANDING OF C. H. SPURGEON'S VIEW [07/30--2006]

More than one person on my email list informed me that a Theology teacher named Michael Riley, associated with a school called "International Bible College" [MPR: it's International Baptist College] in Tempe, Arizona, recently made a blogging attempt to correct me in regard to C. H. Spurgeon's view on the New Birth, but in doing so Brother Riley presented a misrepresentation.

I notice that Michael has a link to James White, so I assume that Michael shares White's heresy that sinners are "born again before faith."

After I informed him of his error, he wrote the following:

In a message dated 7/29/2006 7:41:54 PM Central Daylight Time, Michael Riley writes:

Brother Ross,

In re-reading the post that you wrote about Spurgeon at CFS, I must acknowledge that you are right in that you do not explicitly say that Spurgeon maintained the priority of faith to regeneration. I am, therefore, strictly guilty of putting words in your mouth. For this, I apologize, and I will offer a correction and apology on my blog.

MY REPLY:

Dear Brother Riley:

I thank you for acknowledging the error of your statement and your willingness to make a correction. [As of 08/18/06, I have not seen a correction if it has been posted].

I do not mind if men simply differ with me, but it is rather offensive when they misrepresent what I believe and teach.

I am not particularly interested in debating interpretive opinions about Spurgeon's view, for it has long been a settled item in my own mind. I have been reading Spurgeon's sermons since I obtained them in 1955, and think by now I have a rather good grasp of his doctrine.

You may use the following to explain how I understand Spurgeon:

I understand Spurgeon to teach that "not a grain of faith exists in all the world except that which He has Himself created" (MTP, Vol. 33, page 279); that faith is "born of God," that "the man who has faith is regenerate" (MTP, Vol. 17, page 142); that "it is by the truth as His instrument that the Spirit of God works" (MTP, Vol. 35, page 134); that "the quickening Spirit works by it" (MTP, Vol. 35, page 471); that "there comes a new life into us as a result of the indwelling of the living Word, and our being born again by it" (MTP, Vol. 17, page 383); that "the Holy Spirit makes use of the truth for the quickening of the souls of men" (MTP, Vol. 38, page 117); that the Spirit "is in the Word and with the Word" (Vol. 21, page 41); and that "where there is no faith, there has been no quickening of the Holy Spirit, for faith is the very essence of spiritual life, and so the man who has no faith can not commune with the living God" (Vol. 35, page 446).

"There are philosophical difficulties about this matter of simple faith and salvation by it, and of the Spirit’s work and the necessity for it; but, practically, there is no difficulty at all, for the man who believes in Christ Jesus is born again, and every man who is born again believes in the Lord Jesus Christ. The two things come together, live together, and are perfected together" (MTP, Vol. 40, page 530).

"If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate" (MTP, Vol. 9, page 532).

You further say:

It seems to me (and again, perhaps I am mistaken; I am open to correction) that you insist that anyone who holds the priority of regeneration to faith teaches something akin to the infant baptismal regeneration that Spurgeon (rightly) rejected, even when the person himself denies that he takes such a position.

You are indeed mistaken on this matter, for the "Calvinists" I have been dealing with do not hold to "infant baptismal regeneration."

Men such as Shedd, Berkhof, Sproul, Frame, and other pedobaptists I have mentioned DO NOT teach baptismal regeneration no more than you do. To them, baptism is the "sign" and "seal" of a supposed "regeneration" which is allegedly received in early infancy by children born to believers.

They do, however, hold to "born again before faith," a thing Spurgeon never taught. They do deny that in the act of regeneration itself, no "means" are used by the Spirit, and Spirit-created faith is not a consituent element in the act of regeneration. And this view is shared by James White, the Founders, and others I have mentioned.

They have "life" without faith, "born again before faith," whereas Spurgeon taught the following:

Spurgeon (MTP, Volume 27, pages 661, 662):

THE TRUE LIFE OF A SOUL LIES IN CHRIST JESUS AND COMES TO THAT SOUL THROUGH FAITH IN HIM. . . . The life of Christ is infused into them by the Spirit of the living God, even as the Lord Jesus hath testified. “Verily, verily, I say unto you he that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” . . .

The new life enters the soul in and through believing, and is the same life which we shall exercise for ever at the right hand of God, even as Jesus said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me hath everlasting life.”

I want to enlarge a little upon the fact, that this life comes WITH believing, because I want it to be noticed that it really comes WITH believing, apart from any other necessary circumstances. . . . Do not worry yourself, therefore, about that; if you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and are resting in him, it is well with you. . . . Faith in Jesus begets life, and this life will flourish or decay very much in proportion to our faith. . . . This sacred Book was written on purpose to make you believe; the Spirit is given to lead you to believe; the object of every preaching of the gospel is that you may believe; therefore come and welcome, and at this hour believe on the one saving name, and live thereby. God grant it for his name’s sake. Amen.

Sincerely,

Bob L. Ross, 3 John 2

As I said in my original post, my goal in any theological debate is not primarily to win; it is to be right. Furthermore, it is my sincere desire that I never represent a person's position in a manner that he would not recognize as his own. Rational, Christian debate cannot take place on any other grounds.

The entirety of my misrepresentation of Mr. Ross is this: I asserted that he believes that Spurgeon held to the priority of faith to regeneration, and he does not actually make that claim. I still believe that I am correct in my main point: Mr. Ross denies that Spurgeon held the priority of regeneration to faith. And to this point I have seen no significant refutation of the evidence that I presented that Spurgeon did indeed teach that regeneration theologically precedes and is the immediate cause of faith.

Mr. Ross's discussion of the place of "means" in regeneration, while interesting (and, I think, essentially accurate) misses the point. Spurgeon does insist that regeneration comes through the means of the proclaimed or read Word of God (except, possibily, in the case of infant regeneration, in which Spurgeon does acknowledge the possibility of regeneration apart from the means of Scripture). However, for Spurgeon, the regeneration that comes through the means of the Word is the cause of the believer's being able to exercise faith.

Furthermore, Mr. Ross is simply wrong to lump James White and the Founders' Ministry (neither of whom I have any relationship with nor any compelling desire to defend) with those who would allow a chronological gap between regeneration and faith. Unless I am severely mistaken, these men hold that regeneration and faith are chronologically simultaneous, even if regeneration is the logical or theological cause of faith. For Mr. Ross to insist that anyone who maintains that regeneration gives rise to faith must also believe that regeneration can precede faith by a gap of moments or years is simply and inexcusably mistaken. There is another option, an option that Mr. Ross seems to ignore consistently.

Again, for those who truly wish to investigate this issue, I would refer you specifically to the pdf file of my research on Spurgeon's use of the terms regeneration and faith. To be frank, until someone interacts with these selections from Spurgeon and shows that he means something other than what appears to be a clear endorsement of the theological priority of regeneration, I will not acknowledge that my position is amiss.

Michael Riley | two comments | Link

August 02, 2006Trade deadline

I am planning to write one more post on the Spurgeon issue, clarifying some earlier statements that I made. In the meantime, however, I thought I'd offer you a link to one of the funniest things I've seen in some time. Enjoy!

Michael Riley | three comments | Link