Regeneration
Maybe one of the reasons that modern Southern Baptists are so willing to jettison (at least practically) our historical conviction of a regenerate church membership is because we have grown soft on the whole idea of regeneration. One of the realities that we must face is that we can no longer assume that people in our churches understand what we mean by "salvation." That is even more of a concern when we start talking about the constituent elements of biblical salvation (like justification, sanctification or regeneration).
For that reason, I call your attention to an article I wrote some time ago on this subject.
When Jimmy Carter became President of the United States in 1976 I remember my Political Science professor at Texas A&M University talking about the confusion which his colleagues from the North were experiencing. Several of them called him on the phone to get help in understanding what the phrase, "born again," meant.
From the outset of his campaign Carter made it very clear that he was not ashamed to be known as a "born-again Christian." At that time this was a new thought to a lot of people in our land because they had not weighed or considered Christianity in terms of the idea of a new birth. Reporters and political analysts wanted to know what the language meant and what Mr. Carter was actually saying. (read more)
For that reason, I call your attention to an article I wrote some time ago on this subject.
Regeneration
When Jimmy Carter became President of the United States in 1976 I remember my Political Science professor at Texas A&M University talking about the confusion which his colleagues from the North were experiencing. Several of them called him on the phone to get help in understanding what the phrase, "born again," meant.
From the outset of his campaign Carter made it very clear that he was not ashamed to be known as a "born-again Christian." At that time this was a new thought to a lot of people in our land because they had not weighed or considered Christianity in terms of the idea of a new birth. Reporters and political analysts wanted to know what the language meant and what Mr. Carter was actually saying. (read more)
posted by Tom at 6/22/2006 05:21:00 PM
135 Comments:
Tom,
It seems as though that we've moved beyond theological ignorance to theological antagonism. It is viewed as one of those mysterious "non-essentials" - even damaging to individual faith. A couple of posts ago, I mentioned imputation ONCE. I received "constructive criticsm" that I was being too deep. Sad, very sad.
Surely this comes as no shock to those who read Tom's words, but it's not merely the lack of knowledge of "regeneration," but also the lack of regeneration (among so many of SBC church rolls) that leads to sluggish progress of our mission to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ in and through our local SBC churches.
Right on, Thomas! Oops! Dr. Tom!
Few, if any, scriptural doctrines are more MISunderstood than the new or spiritual birth.
May the many readers of your blog enter into this vital discussion with vim, vigor and vitality.
Unless all are away on vacation without their laptops, this should be one of the most informative pages you have ever posted.
I predict it will.
Great post, especially in a day when many people think that salvation is praying a prayer, walking an aisle, and filling out a card. Though we say we believe it is more than that, our actions often speak to the contrary.
I say that because we give so much attention to those who have the most people raise a hand, come forward, and fill out the card...whether or not those so-called "converts" show any further signs of salvation.
Tom,
I have been reading your posts for sometime and I am very grateful for your site. God willing, I hope to meet you next year in San Antonio.
As to the subject of regeneration, it is such a needed message today. As an evangelist I am struck by the number of people who are more concerned for recording numbers than true conversions. I have been struggling for several years over this issue and the health of churches today. I can almost hear the words of Jesus, "You travel over land and sea to make one proselyte, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as fit for hell as you are," (Mt. 23:15). How many people have been given false security and false hope because they raised their hand during a revival, or they repeated a prayer with the preacher. My soul shudders at the thought of what we are Southern Baptists have done and so many are continuing to do in the name of evangelism.
All,
Brothers, I must be living in complete oblivion. I must visit churches all over the NE & SE with my eyes completely closed. For the fact is, I've never once heard a Pastor--even in the most aggressive Church Growth setting--to so much as hint that "raising hands" "filling out this card" "repeating this prayer" ever saved anybody there. Just call me plain flat dumb, I guess.
Indeed, I attend--when I am in town--a very "pro" growth Church in West Georgia. No doubt in my mind, both this Pastor and the Church would be taken to the barn out back and beaten like a dog if he ever commented on this blog or you knew who he or his church was. I say that to say, T_____ represents every sterotype that this calvinistic community could imagine about him and all church growthers. Yet, as candidly and honestly as I can assess both him and the church, it really is rather hard to become a member there. There are several steps to membership including an intensive class ALL must go thru to join. Heck, I've got two seminary degrees and twenty plus years as a Senior Pastor and he won't even let me slide the blasted thing!
I say that to simply say this: there exist far too many sterotypes being employed to tar some good, godly, disciplined and growing SBC Churches. All growing churches are definitively not created equally. Gentlemen & Fellow Believers: it simply is not as bad out there as so many of you continue to suggest.
With that and grace to you, I am...
Peter
Dear Peter,
No one will say directly that just by signing a card or raising the hand you are saved. However, that's the clear implication they leave behind.
Last year we hosted a great group of from Alabama to do mission work up here in PA. They went door to door and I happily went with them. I loved them and got quite a shot in the arm from their zeal. But I saw the way they presented the gospel and their impatience to "close the deal". When their mission trip was over and they left, they left me a list of people they claimed were "saved." They didn't just say, "these prayed with us to receive Christ" or whatever. They emphatically pronounced these people "Saved". Now it was left up to me and a few faithful people with us to follow up these people confidently described as "saved". One young man on their list told me point-blank, "I'm not interested in that stuff". Not one of them so much as visited our church.
It's worse out there than we think. Not only are church rolls inflated with people who never were really Christians, some of those who actually attend are "wolves in sheeps clothing."
Have you all seen the pamphalet "Revival and the Unregenerate Church Member" by Jim Elliff?
Below is from his site (Christian Communicators Worldwide):
Revival and the Unregenerate Church Member
By Jim Elliff
The message for revival today is regeneration with discernible fruits. 18 pp.
"In our desperation to explain the difference between vibrant believers, and the rest of the persons on the rolls of our churches, we have developed a view of revival which our forebears did not have. We have shifted our aim in revival to bolstering the spirituality of the "carnal Christian" instead of challenging such people with their lost state. We have tended to see revival as an extended "deeper-life conference" bringing persons in the church to a happy and useful state; but our forebears said revival is principally the recovery and subsequent reigning of the gospel in all its converting power. To them revival preaching was not so much asking how Christians can be victorious in their lives, as it was asking, 'How can you live like this and call yourself a Christian at all?'"
From Revival and the Unregenerate Church Member
Brother Peter,
It would be a happy day for your words to be completely true: "it simply is not as bad out there as so many of you continue to suggest" and I suspect you are more right than wrong. And I would not think you are "plain flat dumb" either.
But in the town where I live, I hear regularly from my TV that if the viewer will pray the prayer suggested by the TV preacher - "from their heart to God's heart" - then God will save them and they will be born again. I have been in many a service where the call for every eye to be closed and every head bowed is made, and then the process is begun. If you want to give your heart to Christ, then..."look up at me" or "lift up your hand" or "stand to your feet" and then finally "come to the front" (altar, bench, etc.).
I have heard evangelists employ a variety of sentiments to coax people from their seats, and I have even heard one evangelist succeed in getting people to pray the prayer in their seats and then proceed to call those same people forward with the express intent of having them pray the prayer again with one of the crusade workers. The invitation was such a mass of confusion and emotional manipulation, I'm certain the gospel got lost in the fog. The association of any or all of these physical movements, or even the saying of a formulaic prayer, with the twin graces of repentance and faith, seriously detracts from the one essential thing - looking to, seeing, understanding and trusting Christ and Him crucified.
I have had to deal with the aftermath of this methodology, when grade-schoolers and teenagers are petrified they have not prayed the prayer sincerely enough, or long enough, or frequently enough. The next evangelist who comes along and exposes their sin easily reduces them to doubt and uncertainty - again - and implicitly begins to engender distrust in the actual power of the gospel to really, completely save them. This is a grievous misunderstanding of what (and who) actually saves, and how that salvation is effected - not to mention the nature of sanctification.
I have known (and tried to counsel) people who, in spite of evidence to the contrary, are unyielding in their insistence that one of the above mentioned methodologies was the instrumental means of their salvation (though they would never articulate it as such). I know many people who think that inviting non-Christians to change their geographical location in a building is the way that they will be saved. I am not being melodramatic here - I am speaking the truth. I have experienced the furor of people upset that an altar call was not given, even though the gospel was preached and people were exhorted to come to Christ.
I have known many people who will claim a position as a sheep under the Shepherd's care, but who will steadfastly refuse to hear the Shepherd's voice. The ground of their assurance most often cited by such people is their response to some form or combination of the above mentioned methodologies.
Now I do not believe that everyone who has walked an aisle, or raised a hand or whatever, is illegitimate - far be it from me to pretend to have such knowledge. But anyone who was, is and ever will be saved - whether during an invitation or something else - is saved by the foolishness of the message preached, plain and simple. A prayer never saved anyone - faith in Christ, faith in the message of the cross - that saves. If faith in a prayer becomes the focus, or faith in faith, then all confidence in the gospel crumbles.
So I hope and pray that my experiences and observations are the exception and not the rule...but the report is sometimes not all that encouraging.
Grace and peace...
John,
Thank you for very reflective insight. I do not at all defend the terminology that these jealous witnesses used. I myself have "slipped" and presented someone to the Church Body, happily pronouning them "saved" whether resulting from that particular morning's message or the prior week's personal gospel presentation in their home.
Of course, I did not "know" they were such but assumed that, upon the same basis I myself believed myself to be justified, they gave witness in a similar fashion. Thus I must confess myself guilty as charged here--possibly employing incorrect terminology.
However, there may be some Biblical precedent for using this. Luke does not at all refrain from pronouncing the 3000+ "saved" (though admittedly,he only records they were"added to them") at Pentecost. Consequently, they were immediately baptized; and that before ample evidences were forthcoming that they in fact were geniunely converted. Understand: I am not making a Biblical case here. Just thinking as I type :D
But here is the point I feel is being missed here: this constant charge that SBC churches are calling on people to "raise their hands", "pray this prayer" "sign your name" is at the very least, overstated and at worst, slanderous. In my present ministry, I visit dozens of churches regularly--even cross-denominationally-and I can state unambigously the problem is not as it is presented by so many commenters on this blog.
Sometimes I get the impression that it is just simply very easy to rally troups and state a perceived problem in phantom terms that carry weight--i.e."All the growth-oriented, pragmatism, practicing Churches bloated with the unregenerate"--but demand no empirical evidence. And, if empirical evidence is offered, it is in the form of anecdotalism. Thus, my brother John, I am simply willing to disagree with the analysis I find here, and leave it at that.
By the way, Dr. Steve Lemke, Provost at NOBTS, wrote an interesting anaylsis of the future of SBC agreeing in spirit--if not in content--with what you may be saying here. Dr. Ascol, I believe, did a 3-part rejoinder to him on this blog. Interestingly, Dr. Lemke turned his sights toward a study of 233 Founders-friendly churches, weighing them in the balances of Church health (at least his view of church health) and found them wanting. Has someone responded to his analysis of Founders-friendly churches? If you know of one, please leave me a link. I'd really like to follow up.
I hope you have a great evening and gracious night's sleep. With that, I am...
Peter
...and I should add, that my complaint is not against methods as such. Don't we all want to know that we have made the way of salvation plain and not obscure? Don't we all want men to see the terror and beauty of this Man who hung cursed upon a tree?
I still remember, at the ripe old age of 23, the first time that I understood, that I knew and felt in my soul, that this man Jesus was looking at me from high up on that cross, that He was knowingly hanging there for me, instead of me...maaan, how good was that? The object of my trust was clear - and I hadn't even prayed a "sinner's" prayer yet.
But I can tell you who I was looking at, and what the gospel was, and how, if I was ever to have any hope of heaven, it was in this man who died and rose again - for me.
I had no altar call, no "head bowed, eyes closed" command, no walking of the aisle. The world around sort of faded, and it was just me before this suffering and now living Lord.
That is, for sure, our desire for all who hear the gospel, and I don't want anyone to mistake the inestimable riches of the gospel for some misplaced confidence in their own abilities, no matter how pious or popular they are held by the majority.
[stepping down off soapbox now...]
I agree this is a needed subject to pursue . We have a great Salvation. The problem we face is in not being precise in our definitions. While at NOBTS I developed a little doodle where I described salvation as the big umbrella with several elements. For instance, we are told that we are chosen to salvation 2 Thes 2:13. We are told that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. 1 Tim 1:15. But he saved us by the washing of regeneration Titus 3:5. So election is unto salvation, redemption saves, and regeneration saves, not just one of them. Further , godly sorrow works repentance unto salvation 1 Cor 7 :10. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Acts16:31. Being justified by his blood we shall be saved from wrath through him Rom. 5:9 We were chosen to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit 2 Thes 2:13 we are kept through the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. But where most folks get messed up is when they say believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be born again or regenerated. Or repent and you will be born again both of which are unbiblical statements. Believe and you will be saved. Repent unto salvation but not unto the new birth. I have noticed on some of the entries on the web there is a tendency to equate salvation only with the new birth. But salvation is not just the work of the Holy Spirit. It includes the work of the Father in election and the Son in redemption and is evidenced by the works of grace in granting repentance, faith, justification , sanctification and glorification. If I could ever figure out how this net works, I could send anyone a copy of my doodles. It includes definitions from the Baptist catechisms along with the supporting scriptures. That is, if anyone might be interested.
Cap Pooser
Dear Peter,
Hi. You've struck on an important point: how to show objectively the true state of the church. One such way would be the percentage of members on a roll to the attendees. Jim Elliff gets at this in his excellent pamphalet, "Revival and the Unregenerate Church Member."
It should be self-evident that every truly regenerate Christian would be in attendance at a faithful church (where one is available). While I'm not willing to judge any professing person as "not saved" (except in some extreme circumstances), if someone is consistently not in attendance at a faithful church, he or she can be assumed to at least be living as if he/she was not saved. In addition, every church would most likely have consistent visitors, people who for various reasons attend but have not (yet) become members. So if every regenerate Christian is faithful in attendance and every church has some visitors and others on the periphery, then attendees should consistently out-number members. Remember, all the members (being regenerate) will be in faithful attendance and there will be a few non-members in attendance. Therefore, a church that has more members than attendees can be said to have a serious problem. A number of the people it is proclaiming to the world are "saved" (which is what we do when we confer membership), are not meeting one of the basic expectations of a Christian: the regular worship of God. When one takes into account the non-member attendees, the problem is worse. And yet, I've read from a number of sources that in the vast majority of Baptist churches today, names on a membership list far out numbers attendees. Often there are two or three times as many "resident members" than there are those in attendance. This is one objective barometer of the health of our churches and it is, so I'm led to believe, very disturbing.
Mopheos
And, as I did John, I thank you as well, Mopheos (I feel like I'm Neo, right now :). I very much appreciate your careful insights.
Nor would I dispute your characterization of so many so-called evangelists who get away with manipulative horrors. But my comments were directed toward the music I hear coming from the choir loft here. It rarely is about evangelists per se--and surely we all agree about so much cheap slop from the TV.
Rather, mopheos, the choir here sings laments about the local churches, the local pastors,etc of 43,000+. And, what I gain so many times is a sheer blanket indictment that I just don't see. I meet pastors of small churches, medium churches, large churches--both rural and city--and I find not perfect men but good men who love the Lord, love to preach, love to witness. These are who I see in my mind when I hear the richly judgmental melodies of this blog.
For I look at so many good men out there and realize just how much I lack in gifts, in passion, in perservance. Most of the SBC pastors with whom I am acquainted are honorable men--not perfect--but honorable and love Jesus and quite frankly, do the best they can given their circumstances. No doubt we have some monkeys. Which Evangelical Church doesn't? Indeed, I may just be one of them in some people's eyes (This's true: an elderly woman in my church said to me as I visited her in the Nursing Home: "If your're a preacher, I'm a monkey)!!
At least, that's my take on it, morpheos. With that, I trust our Lord to give you peaceful rest tonite. I am...
Peter
Peterfrank:
You have rightly pointed out that we need to be careful to avoid impugning men's motives when we talk about the realities of modern church life. I have no doubt that most SBC pastors love the Lord and are sincere men. But the fruit of modern evangelism that typifies SBC life cannot be denied. As has been pointed out, simply look at the statistics. Lemke's "analysis" was terribly flawed. Did you read not only my responses but my further analysis of some of the flagship SBC churches--using their reported ACP statistics? Furthermore, one NAMB (HMB) "expert in follow-up" declared that, in his experience, only 1 in 10 of those baptized in respected churches showed any signs of spiritual life a year later. That is slightly better than Page Patterson's observation that 3 out of 4 of the "conversions" counted by his "non-Calvinist" friends do not result in genuine disciples of our Lord.
I could go on, but this should suffice as an example of the kind of evidence that we are considering here when we lament the all-too-typically shallow evangelism that is practiced in our day. If this is not the case, as you suggest based on your experience, why is the fruit of most modern evangelism so rotten? Why are our churches overwhelmingly filled with unregenerate members? This is not an issue of a few false converts here and there--the inevitable Judas' among us. Most of our church rolls are dominated by unregenerate people. I think we get by with that because most of them simply go back into the world and don't bother churches much on a week by week basis. But let an important business meeting get scheduled and the bushes get beaten for all the inactive members to show up, and you get a little clearer picture of the actual state of the church.
I appreciate your optimism. But I am too much of a realist to share your positive assessment of modern SBC church life and evangelism.
Dr. Ascol,
Good morning. Please, my Brother. Tell me your secret. Indeed share your secret with all commenters here, for I am more than persuasded they too will immensely benefit. How is it remotely possible for a fallen, yet redeemed human being to write so clearly at 6:30am as you have done? You make me sin the horrid sin of envy, I assure you :D
Dr. Ascol, I am glad my optimism bled through. You got my point exactly right. And, of course, I would have been surprised had you not disagreed. I do want to assure you, however, that while I remain more optimistic about the larger pastoral/church family in the SBC than this present community, I do not at all feel I lack realism about it as you seem to imply in your closing words: "I appreciate your optimism. But I am too much of a realist to share your positive assessment of modern SBC church life and evangelism."
Remember, I admitted our share of monkeys. I even conceded I have at times been a monkey, acted like a monkey, ooo-oood,eee-eeed like a monkey, and etc. But I also trust I've learned from my monkiness. I will not concede I am--in the depths of my being--a monkey or that I consistently act like one, despite an occasional crave for a banana.
Enough of that. Here is my point, Dr. Ascol: at this juncture, evidently unlike the Founders faith community, I remain unprepared to pronounce the majority of SBs as unregenerate. And if you, Dr. Patterson and the experts are, well...O.K. You have my permission. (smile)
For me, how it is that anyone could literally know that 8-12 million SBs (the 8-12 is based on your "overwhelmingly filled") stands incredible. It fits nicely in the there-is-no-gold-in-Alaska type of scenario. How could it possibly be proved? And, for a calvinist community such as Founders who rightly and unapolegetically stand upon the Bible as sufficient, I am wondering what revelatory data suggests that the SBC is predominately unregenerate?
As a byline, I am curious why numbers seem to keep popping up in the discussion. For example, Dr. Ascol, you assume--even in a conservative scenario--that 8.5 million SBs are unregenerate by asking "Why are our churches overwhelmingly filled with unregenerate members? I guess you mean why are 1 of 2 in every SBC church a lost- hell-bound-under God's righteous wrath-pathetic God-hating-devil-worshipping -heathen?
I am unprepared to make that indictment, Dr. Ascol. And, if that is being overly optimistic, as with being a monkey at times, I plead guilty as charged.
Consequently, this ever-lasting focus on numbers possesses more lives than the proverbial cat. However, while I more than understand why those opposite the aisle from the Founders community keep bringing them up, what's extremely interesting to me is why Founders base so much of their criticism toward the SBC on numbers as well. It is as if one says "We are against numbers. Numbers are not important. But we need to fix the glitch so we can have better numbers because numbers are, after all, important." And this analysis is based on supposedly faulty numbers. Go figure.
That's precisely why just "fixing the numbers" is anything but a real solution . To me, it seems more like straining at a knat and swallowing a camel.
I must be off. Got a meeting to attend. May your day be filled with grace, Dr. Ascol. With that, I am...
Peter
This is a great and thoughtful discussion and I am thankful for that.
When I first came to this church, we had over 500 'members' of which, after a thorough search, we could only find about 200 who had been in the building - even for a special business meeting :) - anytime in the previous 5 years. So we began the difficult and controversial task of removing people who obviously were not a part anymore, if indeed they ever had been.
So I am in real agreement that there is a real problem of an unregenerate membership.
I have had in a previous church evangelists who come through use the 'raise your hands, come forward' approach. On the 2nd night of one crusade, I watched as his wife counted how many people came forward and then write it down in a notebook.
I am leading to a question, that may need to referred to another post...
How then would you suggest we deal with people who need to be saved? Do we lead them to say a prayer?
This is a real issue because I am afraid that the prayer/raise/come forward is simply innoculating people with the serum of salvation so that they never really get the real thing.
I heard a story about Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. One day an attendee at his church came up to him and told him he wanted to become a Christian. Supposed "the doctor" responded, "Good. Keep coming to church." And that was it.
Mark Dever has commented that someone once criticized his sermon for failing to "close the deal" at the end, because he doesn't have an altar call. He responded, "That's a deal I can't close."
I just saw a church ad seeking a pastor. He has to be able to "connect people to Jesus." The theological term for what they want is not "pastor" but "priest"!
My problem with the zealous group from Alabama that evangelized here was not the door-to-door, survey evangelism but the rushed attempt to "close the deal" at the end. Just share the gospel. Tell them they can pray and attend church. Perhaps pray for them right there. But don't try to be a priest, mediating something you can't, and then give them a hasty assurance.
Peterfrank:
Good questions. Let me take a stab at addressing them. As you well know, having been in Southern Baptist life, numbers are always touted as markers and identifiers of God's blessing. Just read the BP reports from the recent annual meeting. We love to say that we are "16.2 million strong." But, as Ed Young said at the Pastors' Conference, not even the FBI could find half of them. So in one sense, I refer to these oft-cited statistics simply to engage the issues on the grounds that have already been established: "If there are indeed 16.2 million Southern Baptsists, where are they?" I am simply pressing for honesty and integrity in the numbers that are most commonly cited (this applies to individual churches, as well, but I am limiting my comments to the SBC as a whole).
A second *possible* reason that you and I see these things differently may stem from our understanding of what a Christian is, or more specifically, how a Christian will live. I am operating on the basis that if a person is born again he will show signs of that--not in perfection, mind you, but in intention and direction. Matthew 7:21-23, John 10:27, 1 John 1:8, 2:3-5, etc. frame my thinking here. Where there is life, there will be signs of life. Given the ease with which Christians in our country may gather, I cannot help but have serious doubts about one who has made a profession of faith yet who refuses to gather regularly with God's people for corporate worship (I am not refering to the exceptional cases of those who are providentially hindered from doing so). That, in my mind, is a minimum. So when the norm is for the "products" of our evangelism to refuse even to join with brothers and sisters for worship on a regular basis, I cannot help but conclude that something is severely wrong. 1 John 2:19 supplies at least a significant analysis of what is wrong.
Yes, there were false believers in the NT churches. But they were the exceptions, not the rule. Yet, based on my minimalist standard of mere attendance, they seem to be the rule in our churches today. This send alarms off in my mind about what we are doing. If our converts do not tend to reflect the character of the converts we see in the Bible, then are they being converted to the same Jesus that is revealed in the Bible. My fear is that, in many cases, they are not. Thus my cry for reformation and revival.
Tom:
Great question. I just got back a little while ago from meeting with a friend who is, I believe, under conviction. Another brother, who has been witnessing to him for awhile, and I had breakfast with him. Where I spent a great deal of time was pressing on him the urgency of trusting Christ immediately. He seemed to have settled into an attitude of "when I get my act together" and "I know this is going to take a long time." I explained to him that it did not have to take a long time and in fact, he had no guarantee of any more time. I pressed him to come to Christ "right now" in the restaurant. I did it by explaining to him that, although there is still much he needs to learn, if he knows that he is a sinner, under the wrath of God and that Jesus is the only Savior who can rescue him, then he knows enough to be saved. I encouraged him to ask God to be merciful to him, to let the seriousness of his situation lead him to plead with God to save him. I suggested to him what he might say to God while telling him that there are no magic words but that, rather, God is concerned with his heart. I encouraged him to commit himself to Jesus Christ as Lord then and there. He did not visibly or audibly pray and I did not lead him in a prayer (though I have prayed with people in similar situations, asking the Lord to save them, to grant them faith, and then encouraging them to pray out loud when I finished). I think he got some of the sense our urgency because he said, "You mean if I leave here and get in a car accident and die, I will go to hell if I am not saved?" To which Don and I replied very soberly, "Yes."
I want to help people as much as I can in leading them to Christ. I do so knowing that it is not a technique that saves nor is it a formula of words, it is Christ. Spurgeon on occasion gave what we might call "sample prayers" at the end of his sermons, suggesting that this is how a seeker should pray. I have done that as well while avoiding any stereotypical "sinner's prayer" (though I have referred to the prayer in Luke 18:13 by that name, and encouraged people to pray it!).
Again, I think you have asked an important question. In our effort to avoid quick and easy decisions and to engage in evangelism with integrity (which necessarily includes more teaching of the Gospel), we must not lose sight of nor let those to whom we witness lose sight of the urgency of their condition. We must press them to come to Christ immediately because that is inherent in the call of the Gospel.
Dr. Ascol,
I just came back to my motel room after a meeting. I am packing my bags--in my mind, of course--while I write a few words and head quickly out the door in time to spend a wonderful late dinner with my Hunny at home. Thus, I can only write a few lines.
First, the blogging and comments to which I responded where comments about the SBC as a whole, true. Yet, the whole is indeed the 16m + 43,000 churches which, by sheer deduction of your argument, means that 8-12m in general and most of the churches in particular are judged massively unregenerate. I cannot, for myself, Dr. Ascol, make that pronouncement--even tongue in cheek as did Ed Young.
Second, I do not at all disagree with what my understanding of your understanding of living the Christian life means--at least, as a whole. I believe the same frame work as do you as you cite the particular passages of Scripture.
What I do have deep reservations about is, however, precisely how those particular passages are relevant to tracking one's church attendance and deeming those who do not meet the quota one arbitrarily sets up as unregenerate and unredeemed. I, for one who has not the least reservation about exercising Church Discipline, am unwilling to make that judgment.
This entire dialogue is necessary, I am convinced. And, know I am very much open to be corrected if my views are unwarranted--both empirically and/or Biblically. But it must move beyond simplistically crossing t's and dotting i's if it ever becomes productive. That is, since the tenor of the discussion here about Church Discipline centers on counting numbers, that in itself may prohibit serious dialogue on what our Lord would dub the "weightier matters of the Law." Nor can I even imagine the Inspired Apostle to exchange the rightful "handing over to satan" of the dispicable incester at Corinth and proceed to make a chart tracking how many of the Corinthians missed Church last week.
Again, Dr. Ascol, it very interesting to me that, in the end, both the Founders community and those across the aisle from them inevitably appear to anchor down on numbers. While those across the aisle speak of how many attended today, Founders wonder how many times they have attended.
Is this a cause for celebration? Founders and non-Founders are kissing cousins after all! :D In the end, a focus like this is bound to be rightly doomed by our Sovereign. For it ultimately deduces to sheer, cold spiritual mechanicalism which, as surely we both agree, was our Lord's worst nightmare.
I am headed back from a hot, Coastal Mississippi sun to a hot, non-coastal Georgia sun. I can't wait. Have a Spirit-anointed day. With that, I am...
Peter
I think there is a little communication problem going on here. Tom says, "Our churches are filled with unregenerate people." Peter says, "I visit a lot of churches and the people I meet there are regenerate."
What Tom really means is, "The people on our church membership rolls that never show up are unregenerate and, therefore, DON'T fill the church." And Peter would probably agree with that statement.
I few posts ago I lamented Dr. Patterson's statement "I see no evidence in the Bible for irresistable grace." Granted, I am overzealous and often tempted toward sin in indicting Dr. Patterson's motives. I will not repeat that sin again here.
However, both the Baptist Faith and Message and the Abstract of Principles affirm regeneration to preceed justification (by faith), sanctification, and glorification. The ordering of the words is vitally important and mirrors Paul's words in Romans 8:30.
This principle (wonderfully explained in Tom's post) is the doctrine of irresistable grace. (Call it effectual calling if you wish. The choice of words by our Calvinist forebears is only important for those who wish to wrangle with terms and not deal with the substance of the doctrine and the Scripture).
The power of God to save sinners is in the power of the gospel itself. Therefore, accurately communicating the gospel truth (content) is paramount less it's power be lost and the hearers respond to an inaccurate gospel message. An inaccurate message leads in many cases to an innacurate response. Those who are truly saved through this inaccurate message are only saved by God's grace inspite of the errors in the message. However, the lamentable results are that many professions of faith are simply man made professions and not God wrought "new birth". The consequence being that they are lured into a false sense of security and much more difficult to reach with the gospel truth in the future.
My point is this - At what time does "making a decision" become a works based salvation experience? The answer is when the "decision" is acted upon as the means of obtaining salvation apart from the work of God's grace in granting the decision. It's a fine line but one that must be carefully considered. This is the point of failure with many modern gospel invitations, the focus is on the "decision" and not on the power of God to save in spite of the sinners deep state of depravity. Couple this with the absence of preaching the fear of God and we have a recipe for disaster. (Much like Charles Finney concocted in his days)
Irresistable Grace is the power of God to save hopelessly depraved sinners! His grace and power in salvation is manifest by the work of regeneration whereby God moves in a special and particular way so that the sinner being dead in trespasses and sins, ignorant of the true state of his peril, ignorant of the Holy and Just wrath of God, and blinded to the beauty and sufficiency of Christ is "made to see" the truth about God, his state of sin, and the sufficiency of Christ. In seeing, He comes most willingly in repentance and faith.
This is regeneration, it is the doctrine of irresistable grace.
Shall we consider Jesus' words? John 3:3 "Truly I say to you, unless a man is born again (regeneration), he cannot see the kingdom of God."
This "seeing the kingdom of God" is not his future state in glory but rather it is the kingdom of God's as it is NOW! God's sovereign rule over His creation, man's sinful rebellion and treason against his maker, and Christ's atonement for and on behalf of sinners who repent and call upon Him for salvation.
Apart from being born again, man is completly blind and dead to this reality.
CR
Just as was predicted in my previous post REGENERATION aka the new or spiritual birth is one of the most MISunderstood doctrines of the Bible.
Please, dear Lord, let the dialogue continue!
And remind us hourly, dear Heavenly Father, as the brothers offer their comments that your Scriptures are the basis of all we Christians believe.
I would make one comment to Peterfrank's statements -
1) We all believe that most all pastors are sincere, love the Lord, and try to do the right thing. However, their lack of understanding the doctrines of salvation (ie: the doctrines of grace) lead them into areas that are not practically or theologically consistent with the Bible.
2) None of us are judging the state of another's soul but rather are stating that a saved person will bear the fruit of a saved person. Directly violated the clear commands of scripture to associate with fellow believers is a serious issue that leads to many sins: not growing in Christ, not fellowshiping, not giving, not witnessing, not supporting missions, etc.
Granted, we are stating that many who hold membership in SBC churches do not bear any basic fruit of salvation, not here or there but for years and years, decades and decades!
3) We are not suggesting that pastors and churches should count their numbers weekly and discipline those who miss church here and there but rather that the pastors and churches should count their sheep. Even Jesus counted sheep! (Remember the 99 and 1)
4) We are calling on pastors and churches to manage their church roles and membership by "knowing" their people and their apparent spiritual state. Even the Bible says that church leaders in authority will give an account of the souls entrusted to their care. (Heb 13)
5) We are absolutely suggesting that churches who are unwilling to investigate their church membership role and make a judgment based upon scripture and sound reason as to whether some name inserted 5, 10, or 20 years ago but has been lost and missing since then should remain there and be tabulated in their "membership".
6) Finally, we insist that if pastors and churches did this much needed work of responsibly shepherding their flock, our SBC churches would shave millions of names off our roles.
Forgive me for using the term "our", "us", and "we". I don't intend to speak for Tom or all founders.
CR
Man, I hope Volfan007 is monitoring this discussion. Peter, I commend you for the manner in which you engage. You provoke w/o antogonizing. You lead, or quickly follow with what seems from here to be heartfelt humility. Something I frequently am missing.
I think why many "founders folk" get on our ear about numbers, is because we see them inflating our pride. Strike one. Then we see frequently being wrong (not because we say one should be in church 26 Sundays a year, and they came 23, but because as Ed Young said (not really tongue in cheek) we don't know where a huge number of our members are or what there spiritual state is. Not are they just not attending as much as we would like, but they simply have no real desire to attend but on Christmas, Easter,or Mother's Day (or the business meeting that seeks to change the way things have always been done). You are fortunate indeed to have not seen much of this.
My answer would not be to arbitrarily cleanse the roll, but for the church to find these folks-preferably a visit from a church leader- and ascertain their reason for non-attendance and find out about their spiritual health. Those that cannot be contacted or refuse contact should be removed. Those that are members elsewhere, ditto. Those that are attending elsewhere should be asked to join that body or return depending on their story. The reason for our false pride is really a shallow evangelism and discipleship.
Much of this does come from not understanding regeneration as Paul explains it, as Jesus explains it. Even a great man of our convention who taught me about the need to practice CD and clean up reporting, doesn't seem to get it. He told a friend of mine that even though he (the friend)had been converted and remarried after a divorce, the Great Man couldn't reccommend him for a pastorate because he had been divorced. Conversion was good enough to wipe Saul's murders and persecution clean, but not enough for a modern pastors past divorce.
Not sure I reall engaged you, and I am sure you will not see this for a day or two. Hope you have a safe trip home, and a great time with you "hunny."
Greg B
Peter,
You responded to Dr. Ascol with these words, "I guess you mean why are 1 of 2 in every SBC church a lost- hell-bound-under God's righteous wrath-pathetic God-hating-devil-worshipping -heathen?"
"pathetic God-hating-devil-worshipping"?
I am a member of a church that has about 400 people on its church roll. Until about four years ago it was 1100 (we only have seating for 450). You are thinking problem solved right? Not so fast. Of the now 400 members on the roll, we have about 100-150 who will attend our Sunday morning worship service, plus about 50 children in what is called kidz zone. Our Wednesday evening Bible study and prayer meeting is only attended by about 15-25.
Where is everyone at? Worshipping the devil and hating God? No! They our worshipping the self.
The praise and worship of our great God and Savior, the study of His holy word, and the joining together in prayer, just does not attract the majority of our modern day Southern Baptists.
25 people of 400 for Wednesday? = (6.25%)
God help us! Brothers please pray for us!
Doug, you maybe onto something.
Greg
Also, Peterfrank -
We (there I go again) insist that the primary reason that the SBC is in this condition (ie: bloated roles and unregenerate members) is because of incorrect preaching, doctrine, and practical application within our churches beginning approximately 85 years ago.
The systemic root of the problem has been our rejection of the doctrines of grace by the majority of our denominational leaders since around the 1920's.
Hence, this thread on "regeneration" which is Biblically true but controversial and rejected by many within the SBC today. (See Page Patterson's comments on Irresistable Grace in the recent discussion on election.)
CR
Fred,
Unfortunately, most churches I am used to, even those that seem to be growing and using the great programs may have lesser symptoms, but the same disease.
I will pray for you all.
Greg
Peter:
I hope you don't read this until after your late dinner with your wife, but while I have a few minutes I wanted to respond to you. Doug may be right about us talking past one another, although I would concede Dr. Patterson's point that even a huge percentage of those who attend on Sunday morning in our Southern Baptist churches may not be (he says that he assumes that they definitely are not) born again.
However, to be even more charitable than that and simply to make the point in what seems to me to be much starker relief, I have focused in this discussion on the non-attenders. By that I do not mean to focus on "how many times they attend" but on the fact that they *never* attend. This hardly seems to rise to the level of an "arbitrary quota." Am I understanding you correctly to say that you are unwilling judge as unregenerate that person who made a profession of faith and then never attends church or participates in any meaningful way with fellow church members? How would you apply 1 John 2:3-5 to them?
All of this is considerably different than your portrayal that we Founders types are focusing on numbers in ways similar to those whom we criticize for basing judgments of success on mere numbers. We are hardly kissing cousins!
All I am trying to do is suggest that the Word of God indicates that saved people will act like it. If someone consistently lives like an unconverted person and refuses to follow Christ in even the most basic and simple ways, then that person should not be welcomed as a member in good standing of a Bible believing church--especially a church with Baptist convictions. Yet, our church rolls are filled with such people.
As far as church membership goes I do believe that we must be precise. You write: "Nor can I even imagine the Inspired Apostle to exchange the rightful "handing over to satan" of the dispicable incester at Corinth and proceed to make a chart tracking how many of the Corinthians missed Church last week." Can you imagine him having a list of church members who belong to the Corinthian church? Do you think such a list existed? I am convinced it did for at least two reasons. First, such lists within churches were kept (1 Timothy 5:9) and there has to be a definite, definable, knowable number in order to determine a "majority" (2 Corinthians 2:6). Furthermore, Hebrews 13:17 teaches that pastors will one day give an account for those under their charge.
All of this leads me to believe that you and I are not thinking along the same lines about these things. It is more than of passing interest that on this issue, I am in agreement with folks who would radically disagree with me on the doctrines of grace. Whenever you get Ergun Caner, Ed Young, Paige Patterson Danny Aiken and Tom Ascol agreeing on something, it is worth noting and taking a closer look. As I have said before, this is not a Calvinism issue. It is a Christian issue.
I have had another thought for Peterfrank's comments regarding healthy churches.
Peter states that he travels to many, many churches and has experienced wonderful services and met wonderful Christians, and wonderful pastorst and so forth.
However, I do not think that Peter, as a visitor, is privy to the true state of biblical health of the church he is visiting. Many or most churches have good services, good music, sincere prayers, perhapst quality preaching, etc. However, the picture of the church on Sunday morning does not portray whether that church is spiritually and biblically healthy.
Again, the contention is the "membership roles". How many total members does the church have? Based on this, what is the overall health of the church?
Attendance, fellowship, worship, Bible study, giving, growing, evangeizing, missions, etc.
A truly healthy church will not have a large disparity between their average morning worship and their church roles. A truly healthy church will have a doctrinal confession/conviction that is biblical and grounds their theology and affects their practical ministry.
Additionally, the evidence of spiritual growth will be noteworthy at all levels of ministry.
Since Peter has the time, I would suggest he form a survey to share with pastors that he meets. In the survey, he should ascertain some questions that will give insight as to the churches true spiritual health. 9 marks (Mark Dever) might be a good place to get ideas for what constitutes a healthy church.
CR
Let's clear the air and cut the chase by agreeing that.....
.....while all humans are creatures of God only the regenerate (aka those who have experienced God's new or spiritual birth) are the children of God.....
.....And all the children of God, having His divine nature, love all God loves and hate all God hates.
NOW we (you and I) either agree or disagree, and our answer indicates whether or not we have been born again and truly belong to the twice born family of God.
Psalm 97:10
I John (all five chapters)
Peter asked for objective criteria to measure the health of the church. I think the disparity between the numbers on the rolls and those actually in faithful attendance to the worship of God is just such an objective criteria.
However, that doesn't mean that everyone in regular attendance at church is regenerate. I am intimidately aware of one (non SBC) Baptist church which had about 90 people on the rolls and about 30 in attendance on Sunday morning. (A couple of people on the rolls lived 1,000 miles away!) Even several of the church's trustees did not regularly attend worship on Sunday morning. Only about 5 attended the Wednesday night prayer meeting. When there were controversial business meetings, suddenly there'd be about 30 people showed up on Wednesday nights. And the pastor pointed out the obvious: if you can come to church on Wednesday evening for a business meeting, you can come for prayer. Next Wednesday it was back to the usual 5. The pastor sought to follow the church's constitution and remove names from the rolls as the members were absent for at least six months. Eventually, when even the part-time associate pastor (who grew up in that church), got irritated for being told he needed to start coming to church (and work!) on time and bring his family, he quit in a huff and instigated his father, the chairman of the trustees to lead the ouster of the pastor (who had in his first calendar year in that church given more money into the church's treasury that he got out of it). The chairman of the trustees slandered the pastor to instigate people against the pastor, even to the extent of lying under oath (in a court case that resulted). Now, besides the four families that left (as the church was starting to grow and accept new members), are any of them regenerate? I mean those who actually come on Sunday mornings? Are any of those that drove out the pastor really saved? That's the real world.
Wow, you guys are good. I'm finding it hard to keep up - but I am grateful for the discussion.
John, I think anyone who has been in the ministry very long could relate a simular story. I served five churches as pastor - three of the five had either asked the previous pastor to leave or forced him out. One pastor left because he saw what was coming. The first church I served had been without a shepherd for three years,they were desperate so I got the call. :-D
Our's was a ministry of rebuilding and restoring which God blessed in so many ways. We saw many church members come to salvation - some after believing they were saved for years. We led one church to return to the fellowship their founders had split from (thirty years before)seeking forgiveness - and finding great release. To see God move in such ways is an awesome experience.
There were, however difficulties and trials as well. We left one church with people making physical threats against our seven year old son in school. Standing against the enemy comes at a high price - and that's what you do when you confront an unregenerate church membership. Not all in our churches are lost (praise God), but not all are saved either.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hi revival now,
So how do you get an unregenerate church member to see that he or she may not be saved?
I've found that probably the most offensive thing that you can tell a questionable church member is what Paul told the Corinthians near the end of 2 Corinthians: "Test yourselves to see whether you are in the faith. Don't you know that Christ is within you, unless you fail the test." Imagine, Paul spent a lot of time with Corinth. This was probably his fourth letter to them. And near the end of it he suggests, 'You know, you guys might not be saved at all!' Of course, he does not judge their salvation. That's why I don't believe in doing that. But he tells them they need to examine themselves. He actually encourages them not to be so self-confident. No easy, hastily given assurance. That kind of question will make some of our wolves-in-sheeps'-clothing turn rabid fast.
www.covenantdubois.com
Brethren,
One of the problems of our own making (in connection with this regenerate church member problem) is that we (pastors, teachers, evangelists, denominational leaders) have told church people for decades that good Christians "attend church" regularly, and to give weight to such an assertion, Hebrews 10:25 is dutifully trotted out as proof that we better be "attending church" each Sunday (or every time the doors are opened). Never mind that Hebrews isn't even remotely interested in how often people "attend church" - with teaching like that, it's no wonder our people don't understand the Bible any better than they do.
When the importance of one's attendance quietly but surely outstrips such things as genuine God-enjoying, time indifferent worship, or genuine (and demonstrable) transformation of heart, we simply encourage nothing more than a subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) mercenary approach to life in the kingdom.
Perhaps it is overstating the case to put it in such terms, but the most frequent question I still get from people asking about our fellowship is...ta daaa, you guessed it; "So how many members do you all have" or "How many people are attending your church?" If I answer that I'm not certain, I get that incredulous "you can't be serious" look.
"Going to church" as a barometer of faithfulness has been deeply ingrained in the minds of many, many Christians today, but the truth is, "going to church" is not New Testament phrasing, nor is it truly descriptive of New Testament practice.
I think Peter (the apostle, that is :-) gives a better, and certainly much more sober, barometer of faithfulness for those who belong to the household of faith: "Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure..." 2 Peter 1:10, which is preceded by nine profound verses that really are descriptive of (and prescriptive for) regenerate church members. If the description of a church member was traced more often along these lines, maybe the unexamined comfort so many feel in the pew today would be replaced with the sentiments of Acts 5:11 & 13: "So great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things...Yet none of the rest dared join them, but the people esteemed them highly." I need more of that fear, and I think our churches do to...
I think there is a little communication problem going on here. Tom says, "Our churches are filled with unregenerate people." Peter says, "I visit a lot of churches and the people I meet there are regenerate."
What Tom really means is, "The people on our church membership rolls that never show up are unregenerate and, therefore, DON'T fill the church." And Peter would probably agree with that statement.
Bingo! Brother Peter, you speak of the people you see, not those you are not seeing. This is your own yardstick. The question here is about those you are NOT seeing, not those you ARE seeing. We agree, those you are seeing are persons to whom we give more charity and have more optimism.
When numbers are mentioned around here, it has been by way of internal critique of the logic of those offering them to us as a measure of their success. This is a standard apologetic maneuver, and that is what those of us who have commented on this issue have offered. The numbers, namely baptisms and increasing memberships are always being touted as markers of "success," but what is not mentioned is the recidivism rate. For example, earlier, Dr. Lemke's thesis was mentioned. I've done statistical analysis in public health in my day, and one of my biggest criticisms of his thesis (which I posted to him here and on a couple of others forums) was the fact that he did not discuss recidivism rates in his comparison. He also made an invalid comparison. He compared the 233 Founders churches with the entire SBC. That's a HUGE no-no. It is more appropriate to compare two cohorts that are as comparable as possible in number, size, etc., controlling for the particular variable(s) for which you are measuring. The SBC as a whole vs. 233 Founders churches is simply an invidious comparison.
One of the problems of our own making (in connection with this regenerate church member problem) is that we (pastors, teachers, evangelists, denominational leaders) have told church people for decades that good Christians "attend church" regularly, and to give weight to such an assertion, Hebrews 10:25 is dutifully trotted out as proof that we better be "attending church" each Sunday (or every time the doors are opened). Never mind that Hebrews isn't even remotely interested in how often people "attend church" - with teaching like that, it's no wonder our people don't understand the Bible any better than they do.
Well, to be blunt, Brother Morpheos, you can expect that the Covenant Theologians in here will descend on this, as CT folks tend toward Sabbatarianism as it is. In short, non-attendance, on this view, is indexed to a violation of the Decalogue, which is, under the very texts which obtain to church discipline we cite, a piece of exculpatory evidence when testing our calling and election.
Cf: http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/
1689bc22.html
I'll get out of the way and on with my vacation now.
This is an informative page and the subject matter is of vital importance!
Informative - it is always the case when the North Carolinian named Gene Bridges enters the dialogue.
And to think he temporarily returned from his PAID
vacation to participate!
I guess Dr. Tom Ascol had to
use his powers of persuasion
to get Gene back into the game (oops! discussion)....
Now regarding who is (and who is not) regenerate or born again, let me kindly encourage the family of God to participate in the open forum.
Don't just sit there - write something based purely upon the Word of God.
Gene,
I thought of this after I posted last night. I hope no one will conclude I am against attendance at worship - and regular attendance at that! I just wanted to point out how the whole idea of attendance, as a thing unto itself, has significantly defined what many consider to be faithfulness as a Christian. Mere attendance does not even begin to describe the intention of heaven, whether you are Sabbatarian or not.
Hi Mopheos and all,
I don't think anyone has been saying that "mere" attendance is a virtue in and of itself. First someone (Peter I think) mentioned an objective criteria for measuring the health of our churches. I believe that the disparity between the large number of "members" on a roll and the relatively small number of members in attendance is just such an objective criteria. But then I noted that even that leads to an overly optimistic appraisal of the health of the church because there can be people in faithful attendance who are not regenerate. Human beings, as the sociologist Mircea Eliade described them, "homo religious" (sp?). People are inherently religious and in a largely "Christian" environment some people will express their religoius impulse by faithfully going to church, even though they've never been born again. (I then related a story about a church in which there may not even be one truly regenerate person left.) If they happen to be a doctor or lawyer or successful business man, they'll soon to be asked to be a deacon (or elder). If they happen to be an young person looking for a job, they coul even go to seminary and become a pastor.
Now, how do we challenge people who attend church but are probably not regenerate to examine themselves to "see if they are in the faith"?
Hi John (and all),
You asked, "So how do you get an unregenerate church member to see that he or she may not be saved?"
To tell you the truth - I don't. It may sould overly simplistic (and I don't mean it that way), but I just focus on preaching the Word. God has always don't the "getting" in the most interesting of ways. One particular fellow had been a member of the church for fifty years - one of the best guys around. Kind and considerate, always faithful in giving, attendance - even sharing with the pastor's family when he butchered a hog or bull (always a blessing!).
After a meeting one night (he was sharing with the church later) God was using something I had said to burden his heart and mind. He began to "examine himself" in the light of scripture and about one a.m. grace fell upon him (I still get tearie when I think on this friend) and he was gloriously saved.
There are other stories I could tell, but most all of these events too place away from the church building and services. They were mostly at home, alone with God and only coming before the church when they knew God has saved them.
I plead with men (and women) to know Christ (2 Cor. 5:11), but the "gettin" is up to the Lord. But I'm sure you knew that :-)
A professor I had one time asked a question to the class, "Which comes first, regeneration or faith and repentance?"
I answered immediately, "Regeneration." He said, "So you are saying that a person is saved apart from faith?"
I replied, "Where does faith come from?"
He paused and did not continue with the question. However, he was intended to stump the class because he knew that whatever answer the class gave, he would come back with a challenge that would probably stump them. It's just good fun and challenging to one's faith and convictions to know what you believe and why.
I later became more convinced of regeneration preceeding faith and repentance when I came to study Titus 3:5-7, especially verse 7 "having been justified by His grace, we have become heirs according to the hope of eternal life."
I later spoke to the same professor again and shared this text. I stated that justification is by grace through faith. In other words, where there is saving faith, there is also saving grace. Where there is saving grace, there is saving faith. It's not either or, it's both.
So, regeneration is the sovereign grace aspect of salvation and saving faith is the outflow of this grace.
CR
Peterfrank said -
"Yet, as candidly and honestly as I can assess both him and the church, it really is rather hard to become a member there. There are several steps to membership including an intensive class ALL must go thru to join. Heck, I've got two seminary degrees and twenty plus years as a Senior Pastor and he won't even let me slide the blasted thing!"
I say -
I think that required new member classes are a good thing. I am doing it in my church. Many churches are now doing this today.
I have some thoughts and comments on the subject of new member classes -
1) Rick Warren really got the new member class requirement ball rolling and made it popular.
2) Many calvinist and non-calvinist are now using the new members class to strengthen the criteria for membership. (This is a practical attempt to correct a long standing problem of open altar call membership)
3) The need for this class and the enhanced membership requirements is because of decades and decades of the altar call approach to membership. This has caused the bloated roles and apparent unregenerate membership that we are lamenting on this thread. This class is a method of trying to correct decades of problems.
4) Theologically, however, arminian pastors have sought to correct the problem of unregenerate membership through a process or class without examining the fruit or accuracy of their theology which led to the problem in the first place.
In other words, both the practice of how we recieve new members and the theology of the church need to be overhauled and examined.
A program/class alone will not get the job done totally. It may improve things for a time but eventually the faulty theology will produce faulty fruit again. It's just a matter of time.
CR
True, no one said that mere attendance is a virtue in and of itself, and there are other practices I might have mentioned that have virtually taken on the status of a sacrament which functions ex opere operato in many baptist minds, but I didn't want to be greedy with blog space :+).
But my intent is certainly not to disparage nor mock such things, but just to point out in a few practical terms, how our ecclesiastical culture actually encourages (to varying degrees) the issue we are currently struggling with and discussing.
The elders in our fellowship have worked hard to transform our peoples minds from the idea that we "go to church" (or attend, etc.) to the biblical reality that we "are" the church. The implications for such a shift are profound and far-reaching, particularly in connection to this whole issue of a regenerate church.
The blogs have been excellent and I appreciate the tenor and content of them all. You all are an edifying group. Gracias.
Timotheos
Revival now, I think that's an excellent answer: preach the Word and let God shepherd His church. He will gather His sheep to Himself. But your example was of a "nice" person saved. What of the wolves, the goats, and the dogs? (Peter mentioned monkeys!) When we replace a simplistic "once-saved-always-saved" (based on a prayer after a manipulative altar call) with a Biblical preservation of the saints (based on the imputation of Christ's righteousness), and thereby undermine the false security of some of those interesting critters, they will start to howl.
CR, I think the best text for regeneration preceding faith is 1 John 5:1. The ESV is the only version I know that translates it correctly. It literally says something like, "Everyone who has been regenerate believes." There is a past perfect verb there not reflected in the KJV or NIV, etc.
Mopheos, it's true that most importantly we "are" the church. As even some church signs say: "Such-and-such church meets here." The Puritans understood that, which is why they called their buildings "meeting houses" instead of "churches." I wish the KJV had not departed from the Tyndale and the Geneva Bible and translated "ekklesia" as "church." (King James insisted on that because he wanted it to appear the Bible tacitly approved of his state "church.") It should properly be "assembly." As an exercise, every time you read the word "church" in the Bible, replace it with the word "assembly." That understanding alone might have prevented the rise of dispensationalism. If we see that the "church" is really the "assembly", then we'll understand both that it is not a building we go to, as you so rightly point out, and also that it is absurd to claim we're members of the "assembly" if we never assemble!
www.covenantdubois.com
I feel like a student with my ear to the wall, eavesdropping on a panel of Bible teachers. These posts are "breaking new ground" in my thinking and I do not have anything to contribute (except my appreciation!) One thing I have learned: we need to be especially careful and accurate when describing the fruits of regeneration and how we recognize them.
On that note (essential accuracy), I have something small to contribute. John noted the nuanced grammar employed in 1 John 5:1, which is (perhaps uniquely) reflected in the ESV translation. Here it is:
1 John 5:1
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.
As John (the blogger) pointed out, we are offered 2 "objective" evidences with regard to regeneration:
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God. Therefore, there is no such thing as a person who believes that Jesus is the Christ but has not been born of God. In the words of a well-known SBC leader, "that species does not exist."
Secondly, everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. Therefore, there is no such thing as a person who loves the Father but does not love whoever has been born of him. Such persons exist only in our imaginations.
Evangelical Christians are often accused of reducing the Bible to propositional truth claims, and then further reduce to so-called "wooden" formulas that have no place in reality. However, the first epistle of John is itself expressed in formulas, perhaps more than any other Scripture. The Holy Spirit simplified it in this way - no revisionist historian can claim it is an invention from the Reformation. For some reason I never noticed that before!
In any case, I believe that the Holy Spirit gave us these formulaic “tests” of regeneration so that we would actually use them. They cannot be written off as “nice-to-know” information. I am following this discussion because all the participants seem to agree on that. The difficulty seems to be in determining how we define a “passing score” on these tests.
As Tom pointed out, a “goose egg” on church attendance is not a passing score according to Scripture.
One brother on this string asked about what is to win a soul. Spurgeon in his book, The Soul-winner has a very good answer to this question. He says it is informing the mind as to the gospel, impressing on the person the necessity of immediately closing with Christ. Then he says the person must be born again. He then describes some of the evidences of the new birth. This has been most helpful to me in my ministry
Further , J. C.. Ryles’ tract “Are you Born Again?’ gives six tests of the new birth. Very helpful, On a similar note, I think we have lost the idea of covenant in the churches. To me , that is the basis of considering attendance a vital thing, We say in our standard covenant that we call God to witness that this is how we will live as Christians and members of this church. Then we vow to support THIS church in its worship, disciplines, doctrines and ordinances. Those who fail to even intend to do this are breaking a sacred vow before God and bring the curses of breaking the third commandment on himself. If the church then doesn’t seek to find out why a person is not attending, it is breaking its covenant before God. I am sort of like David Miller . When the Lord gave me new life, you couldn’t keep me away from the people of God. And I hope I never get over it.
Cap Pooser
I certainly hope everyone will forgive my spelling and evident lack of proof-reading. We are in the getting ready for VBS - and my mind isn't always clear. Not that I can spell that well anyway!
John, you write, "what of the wolves, the goats and the dogs (Peter mentioned monkeys!)?" Oh, yes, I've seen a bunch of those critters too! I have even been bit by a few. Still, even when we were foreced to leave one church with people threatening to physically harm our oldest son in school - my wife and I were committed to the faithful preaching of God's Word (my wife's only preaching is to me :-D).
Paul warned us of wolves who would enter in among the flock. That's why a strong shepherd is so important. I have been in a lot of churches over the past seven years - and there are some wonderful things happening. However, there are also things going on (in and out of the pulpit) that are simply sad. I love our pastors and respect them tremendously, but they are placing themselves under a lot of unnecessary pressure with shallow theology and little or no discipline in the fellowship. God never called pastor's to be popular - only faithful.
BTW, I love your wisdom on the issue of the church/ assembly. I have had people proclaim "I am the church" in such a super-spiritual state. My response has generally been, "you alone are NOT the church. The church is the assembly of believers - and you don't come." Talk about people starting to bark! :-O