The nature of this posts' titular garden is, of course, "full of tulips". And it is that set of doctrines that I am setting out to defend as regards a series of articles posted by Anthony B Badger in the journal of his own Grace Evangelical Society, the beating heart of the Zane Hodges "free grace" perspective. The faith statement of GES can be found here, and the first of Dr. Badgers' articles, which I will be addressing, here,
I will pass over the background to the TULIP acronym and the issues of church history that preface the article series, which it must be said were commendably accurate and concise, and I credit Dr. Badger for allowing Westminster and the Calvin-crowd to define their own terms as regards total depravity (pg. 42 in the article). It is immediately following that definition however, that the wheels begin to come off, and I will be focusing on a few diverse statements of Dr. Badger on the doctrine of depravity, namely his repeated assertion that faith logically (and temporally?) precedes regeneration (a key hermaneutical stance on which much of later argumentation hinges), that consistent with Dr. Norman Geislers' stance in Chosen But Free (on which Dr. Badger heavily leans), mans will, despite the Biblical testimony to sin, is at least "partially" self-determinate, (pg. 54), and the typical GES misapprehension on the nature of saving faith and the presentation of a saving faith divorced from repentance and thus reduced to a form of "assent."
Does the new birth, the regeneration of man and the promised giving of the heart of flesh (a divine action promised in Ezekiel 36:26), logically precede faith, so that the inability of man in self-determination to salvifically believe, as presented in the Westminster Standards, is upheld? Or is faith the means by which man, in his own choice, becomes regenerated? It would have been the context of Ezekiel 36, speaking of the promise to sprinkle Gods people with clean water, that Nicodemus would have had in mind in John 3. While the chapter is most famous for the exposition of faith as the means of eternal life in vs. 16, textually and in the exposition of Jesus, it is the second birth that Jesus mentions first, and this second birth is spiritual. Jesus contrasts the activities of the flesh in strict dichotomy with spiritual actions, (vs. 6), and asserts that the Spirit brings the new birth by its own power, and even without perfect human knowledge of its purposes in doing so (vs. 8). It is only in the context of the absolute necessity of a second birth, accomplished by the will of the Holy Spirit, that Jesus goes on to locate eternal life in belief in himself. Similarly, in John 6, Jesus says that all that the Father gives to Him will come to Him, and that the giving of the Father, and the Fathers will for the Son, is the grounds of those being given being raised on the last day. (vs. 36) No one, least of all Reformed theologians, would deny that the "coming" of John 6 is a coming in faith, a faith that views Christ as our very spiritual sustenance. But what is the grounds of that "coming"? A giving of the Father. Above and beyond that, in direct contradiction of "whosoever will-ism", Jesus directly asserts that no one is able to come to Him unless drawn by the Father, and that all who are drawn come! (vs 44, 65) The Greek construction there for "no one is able", udice dunatai, allows precious little wiggle room, and implies that the initiation of salvation rests solely on God and precedes the action of man.
It would seem in this regrettably brief overview of Jesus' interpretation of the ordo salutis that divine action in making people alive, does in fact, logically precede that faith, but results in it nonetheless.1 I will move on to briefly demonstrate that Paul shares this hermaneutic principle with Christ before addressing "Geisler-isms" on the human will (and one may be able to see my proverbial eschaton from the beginning).
In Romans 8, Paul sets out the same stark contrast between flesh and spirit (not in a dualistic sense, but in the idea of human deadness, which will be important later) that Christ does, but with even stronger language. While Jesus gave us a portrait of human helplessness in the analogy of the new birth (how many babies have a say in their birth?), Paul divides the world into two camps, and asserts that minds set on the flesh are dead (vs 6), and do not obey Gods law because they cannot (vs 7). Perhaps more importantly the activity of the spirit in bringing life is the grounds of the promises of Romans 8:30. In context of the gracious, life giving action of the Spirit, those who are called are said inevitably to be glorified. In this, the "golden chain of redemption", Paul continues to expand on Jesus' assertion that those who are given come, and those who come are raised. But the second birth, the giving of the Father, the life-giving call, precede, textually and logically, the response of the new heart in faith. Similarly, Paul describes, in his first letter to the Corinthians, the fact that "the natural man...is unable to understand the things of God, for they are spiritually discerned" (1 Co. 2:14). Is not Faith in Christ "a thing of God"? Must not the Spirit then, give verse 16's "mind of Christ" (along with Ezekiels "heart of Flesh") prior to the understanding of the things of God? Dr. Badger must account for texts like John 3, John 6, 1 Co. 2, and Romans 8 in order to be exegetically credible on the order of salvation.
As may be apparent, the passages I am addressing are monergistic. There is a lot about the Triune God accomplishing His purposes, about the spiritual death of men, about the sovereign bringing about of the new birth and the glorification of those called. There is very little about the intrinsic capacity of the unregenerate man to believe. I do not adhere to "The Princess Bride" theology. Man is not only mostly dead. Dr. Badger does an admirable job of providing the historical context of various theories regarding mans deadness in Adam, but then it must be said, radically departs from that context in favor of Dr. Geislers "biblical self-determination".
Dr. Geisler's analogy of self-determinism on pg. 54 reads "Self-determinism might be likened to a
person acting on what he perceives to be good or desirable, to obtain
pleasure, or to avoid pain. We can actually decide whether to eat junk
food or a balanced meal apart from any externally compelled duress!". Simply put, Dr. Geisler protests too much. The question is not whether one desires the "bacon" of sin or the "salad" or Christ, but whether or not Jesus and his apostles consistently taught in the Scriptural witness whether our wills are enslaved to our sinful desires, for as Christ taught "everyone who sins is a slave to sin" (John 8:34). The question is not whether we are "free to want" but whether or not our "wanters" are broken by sin. It must be reemphasized that the metaphors of death and birth and slavery continue to recapitulate pictures of human inability, not of self-determined creatures "able to choose otherwise"; and let us not deceive ourselves, the battleground we are on is that of "libertarian" free will.
Geislers position on the distinction between "person and will", also on pg. 54, is question begging. Synergists: find Scriptural evidence that a human person is the first cause of their actions, contrary to Genesis 50, the witness of the book of Acts to the use of mans sin in the Crucifixion, and the wisdom of Solomon that The Lord both "directs the steps" of man (Pr. 16:9) and "turns the heart of kings" (Pr. 21:1), or retract your statement. The entire section of the article on the alleged ability of unregenerate man to believe is bereft of a single Scriptural citation or even footnote, and I submit there is a reason for it; the argument being made lacks a Scriptural witness.
Leaving aside Dr. Geisler's misrepresentation of Gospel efficacy in Calvinism (it is the Reformed position that the proclamation of the Gospel in human mouths is the secondary cause of regeneration and therefore the claim that Reformed theology "renders useless [the] gospel message to the sinner" (pg. 55) is utterly spurious), I briefly want to touch on the GES position on the nature of Faith and depravity. The analogy of the man in the well goes far farther than to assume that regeneration follow faith: it challenges the Reformed (and might I be so bold, Scriptural) definition of regeneration. The man is not waiting for our Fireman's steel cable; the man is dead. The well is filled with water, and probably sharks. But when the man is resurrected, he does not come out of the well with Wilkin's faith that is "a conviction that He is the Guarantor of eternal life"(pg 57), or rather, he does not come out of the well only with the conviction that the Fireman drew him from the well. The man, who is a recipient of resurrection power with the prophesied heart, mind and Spirit of Christ, brings the Fireman into his life, and (since the analogy breaks down as Christ is greater than any human savior), turns "the Fireman" into the model of his character and life.
Robert Wilkin, in his 2005 debate with Dr. James White on the issue of the nature of Faith was pressed into acknowledging that faith in Christ is a mere intellectual assent, comparing faith in Christ's salvation to "faith in the projector" (on which slides for the debate were appearing) being the acknowledgment of the existence of the projector. Dr. Badger, as giving the "free grace" position, must answer for what regeneration actually accomplishes in light of James 2. I submit that this "assent to the drawing of the Fireman" is not only sub-biblical in its anthropology as illustrated above, but sub-biblical in its soteriology. The ESV renders participles in James 2:14 in such a way as to render the verse "can that faith save him?" Which faith? That faith that is without works. What does that faith look like? The belief "that there is one God", which even the demons have! It is vital to harmonize the book of James to avoid imbalance. On the one hand we find Roman Catholicism and similar systems, which make 2:14 join works to faith as intrinsically justifying before God. On the other we have Dr. Wilkin, who denies that a faith without works is dead. Dr. Badger has of course, not echoed Dr. Wilkin verbatim in this article, but it is absolutely vital to question those who share Dr Badgers convictions on faith and depravity to ask: "does saving faith sanctify, or not".
Dr. Badger states that his view of depravity "... may be
seen as a separation from the joys of God’s presence, a non-appreciation
of His virtues, and an inclination to fall short of His character in our actions.
The lost-ness of the human race, however, does not mean that man
acts as badly as he is capable of, that he cannot think logically, that he
cannot hear and understand the propositions of the gospel, or that he is
unable to believe the truth. Man is rightly considered to be dead in sin,
and by nature the child of wrath, but he still retains the image of God in
his being. That image seems to carry with it an ability to believe the gospel"(pg. 60). Again, question-begging. Again, a dearth of Scriptural witness. If we are dead children of wrath, can we believe prior to divine assistance? I believe I have laid out a preliminary case to spark research but also to respond negatively. I must also conclude with the assertion that stating that logic, while marred in the unregenerate person, is not totally effaced (although the gospel itself is "foolishness to the world"), and that all men do not act as badly as they can (which is refuted in every notable Reformed systematics text), are positions I hold. These are frequent canards, which as is regrettably common in anti-Reformed polemic, are joined to true statements about the Reformed standpoint. Man is in fact incapable of understanding without the Spirit, and incapable of belief without the prompting of God. That is why there is a T in my Tulip.
Join me next time in pt. 2 of this response, regarding the infamous doctrine of "unconditional election". As we move forward, I will build on prior information in order to demonstrate that the following points of the TULIP acrostic build on each other both Scripturally and in logical order, making this something of a "cascading argument". Pressing on, I urge readers that as the Father sends the Son and gives him a people, the Son dies on behalf of those given, and the Spirit works on the hearts of men to apply that redemption, consider the question: "does the sovereign God in His Trine will save men, or make men savable?"
In Christ,
~JS.
1. Not for nothing am I only using gospel passages from the gospel of John, as it was the late Dr. Hodge's perspective that the gospel of John is the only one written to Gentiles and because it does not contain the explicit word "repent", supports most out of the four gospels his position on faith and repentance, an assertion I would sharply contest.
