Dr. Curt Daniel, pastor of Faith Bible Church in Springfield, IL. is known for his book The History and Theology of Calvinism. This book is massive, unattractive and presently purely for geeks who want to read historical theological research. Daniel’s material was recently referenced in the blog world in order to clarify charges of hyper-Calvinism that were made at the John 3:16 Conference.
Which brings us to Blob Loss and his side-kick Chattering Charles. Okay, I will stop there rather than continue in the spirit in which Bob Ross calls the Founders Ministry “Flounders.” Mr. Ross calls those Calvinists who hold that regeneration precedes faith hardshells, hypo and hybrid-Calvinists. This doctrine of monergism seems to be one of the main reasons Ross goes after the Founders Ministry among others. One of Ross’ complaints is as follows.
From time-to-time, we have a “new arrival” to The Calvinist Flyswatter who is not familiar with what I prefer to call “Hybrid” Calvinism.
In a nutshell, I am referring to the teaching that “regeneration precedes faith,” or “born again before faith.” (Source)
In another post Ross addresses the charges of whether or not James White is a hyper-Calvinist. He touts the label “hybrid-Calvinist” while not charging Dr. White with the “hyper” label.
While there are allegedly no hypers to be found, there are Hybrids (“regeneration precedes faith”) aplenty — plenty of those who teach that the “elect” get born again before they ever believe in Jesus Christ. These “elect” are said to receive “life” before they receive the Son Who in Scripture is said to be our Life…so if Hybrid Calvinism is less than, or below, original Calvinism, then James, as a Hybrid Calvinist, might appropriately also be called a “Hypo Calvinist.”
Either term — Hybrid or Hypo — would seem to fit James just as snug as those hats he sometimes wears. (Source)
Is Ross correct? Is this doctrine not a true Calvinist doctrine? If correct, are these labels applicable to baptists? Let’s look at what Daniel, himself a baptist, tells us.
A. What then is the Calvinist “ordo salutis”? There is no one Reformed order of salvation. The theologians have differed slightly among themselves, and there is even some variation among the official confessions. The appended chart illustrates some of the more popular orders.
Daniel, Curt. The History and Theology of Calvinism. Springfield: Good Books, 2003, pp. 401.
The chart referenced is on page 402. This is where Daniel provides the positions of Calvinists Shedd, Dabney, Vos, Hoeksema, Kuyper and Gill. For all of these men Daniel lists their theological position as regeneration before faith. Lutheranism is also listed as having regeneration before faith. Arminianism is the only one listed as having faith prior to regeneration. While Roman Catholicism is listed, it has a language of its own. Daniel then explains his own position.
B. For my part, I follow the ordo salutis of Louis Berkhof and John Murray, which is that of the Westminster Confession and most Calvinists. [Emphasis mine] In brief, it is as follows:
(1) Special Calling
(2) Regeneration
(3) Union to Christ
(4) Faith
(5) Repentance
(6) Justification
(7) Adoptionibid.
This is Dr. Daniel’s personal position in which he tells us is also the position of most Calvinists. My understanding is that Dr. Daniel is not a high Calvinist, but a more moderate Calvinist. Yet he still believes the regeneration precedes faith. Does this make Daniel a hardshell, hypo or hybrid-Calvinist? I certainly don’t think so from reading the above. I do think it’s time for Ross to stop using these labels on men who hold the same position as Daniel. Maybe it’s time for Ross to apply these labels to himself.
For more documentation on Ross’ errors in this area Sam Hughey of ReformedReader.org replied to this situation in 2006. Hughey’s article on regeneration before faith is still available.
For what it’s worth…
Mark
tagged as Bob L Ross, Curt Daniel, hyper-calvinism in calvinism,theology
About the author
Mark is a Christian, husband and father. He is a businessman by day working to support his family while attending seminary in the off hours as he prepares for vocational ministry.
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
I, for one, am beginning to tire of having to defend classic Calvinism from those who wish to distort and attempt to divide the brethren.
Monergistic regeneration is a hall-mark of Calvinism, and if there are those who wish to append derogatory labels to those who hold this view, then they are the ones who will have to answer to God for their divisive tactics.
“Lutheranism is also listed as having regeneration before faith.”
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Say it ain’t true!
One of the things about ordos in the Reformed camp is that they truly are diverse. Still, if we group aspects of them we normally find that they agree fundamentally.
Like this:
(2) Regeneration
(3) Union to Christ
(4) Faith
Some of us might list it as this:
1)Regeneration
—–a. Union with Christ
——–a.1) Faith
And what we mean is quite different from:
1)Regeneration-> Union-> Faith
What I mean by it is:
1)Regeneration (Union/Faith)
And I discriminate between:
External/Effectual Calling and the regenerative action both in logical and temporal order recognizing the priority of the Spirit’s work over the result of it.
For the previous thread that has seemingly been regenerated and has eternal life, much of the confusion is avoided by paying attention to the nuances of the terms used as appropriated by the speaker for their context.
For example, Reymond, I think it was, uses the term justification as an all enclusive term that is the whole of salvation. To make the distinction he writes it JUSTIFICATION. When discussing the logical ordo salutis he further differentiates the the actual versus the declaratory.
When I include faith in regeneration, I am similarly using it as Reymond used JUSTIFICATION as an all inclusive term which has in it the realities of new life, knowledge according to the Spirit’s residence, and the ability granted by those influences in “faithing” into Christ. As I tried to explain in that thread, faith is far more expansive than belief. I grant that faith, is given in regeneration, and is made real to us when the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the Word quickens our understanding, convicting us and producing in us repentance and trust in Christ for salvation. Trusting in Christ is often used as the inclusive term faith, when in fact, if faith is reduced to trust only, large portions of Scripture become meaningless. Reymond somewhat presents JUSTIFCATION this way.
I sometimes use SALVATION to encapsulate the ordo and as most do, I would include future salvation, perseverence in “the faith” as an escatological reference as well as a present reality. Some would say that regeneration is the thing that is coincident to the preaching, but I make the distinction that the vessel to receive the word is prepared prior to that event and so state the logical order is also temporal. I don’t think that I am outside the mainstream in general, though my take on the ordo might be a minority in this aspect.
Anyway, it is often not the general lay of the land where in disagreement is found but where the forest begins and ends and just how many trees it takes to make a forest. And, often that is dependent upon what approach one takes to get there.
Oh, by the way. If anyone has about seventy-five hours to spend, Daniel’s audio lectures on the subject of his text is available at Monergism’s Audio Resources. It is time well spent.
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/histtheocalvin.html
It sounds to me like this man is more than a little confused… perhaps he has reached the age when one starts to forget the things they have said only a short time ago (Lord knows I am getting there fast)
It is disheartening to see individuals attempting to create new labels, or redefining the old ones… It’s getting so that I don’t know what kind of a Calvinist I am from one day to the next.
How about this for a suggestion: We all agree that “Words have precise meanings” and if you are going to discuss Theology then you must use only words that are actually in a Theological Dictionary (like Kittel’s) and you must use them according to the accepted definition. Otherwise if you just start making things up we are going to assume it is a case of “Glossolalia”
“If a man lack integrity in his words, then he will lack integrity elsewhere as well.”
Good advise for those who regularly handle the Word of God.
Grace Always,
I am for that Gregg. But, I doubt that you will get many takers. Standardized definitions are a good thing, but it might be best to define the terms within the body of work produced as working terms both descriptive and descrete for that purpose.
I know for me, since I do not do formal writing post-University, I allow myself the widest range of liberty of definition. To my chagrin, that produces more problems. On the blogosphere, the general population does not have “working” definition they are writing with, which can make for tedious, if not down right frustrating communications.
Good idea though.
Bob Ross employs twisted logic to prove his inane points on the so-called “Calvinist Flyswatter.” While he claims to be a Calvinist, and has done much good in re-printing Spurgeon’s works, he appears to be a very angry man who hates Tom Ascol and loves Joel Osteen. Unfortunately, some within the SBC appeal to his posts as “proof” of the “Calvinist problem” within the SBC.
Hi Dr. Galyon,
I agree about Ross’ logic. Funny thing…he claims to be a Calvinist yet calls his blog “Calvinist Flyswatter.” Maybe this is the new blogging form of self-flagellation.
Thanks for stopping by.
Mark
Dear Dr. Galyon:
You said:
“…he appears to be a very angry man who hates Tom Ascol and loves Joel Osteen.”
On what basis can you say these things? Don’t you know this is cruel and slanderous?
Where is your proof for such charges?
Blessings,
Stephen
Mr. Garrett,
You should stick to commenting on Lumpkin’s blog, since he seems more than willing to put up with your shtick. You and Ross are, sadly, birds-of-a-feather as evidenced by your ignorant ramblings at Lumpkin’s and continue repeating of arguments as if they make your case. As I stated there, no matter how many quotes one presents to you (or Bob Ross) you both refuse to accept what is plainly obvious to the rest of those who read those same quotes, the people you claim believed in regeneration by faith believed no such thing. I dare say that even if we had audio and video recordings of these men saying “it is a fact, regeneration precedes faith” you would surely continue to deny it.
I hope God renews your mind so that you will not continue to walk in darkness, attempting to mislead others with your ignorance and error.
Part of the problem is the ambiguity involved in the expression “regeneration before faith.”
1) “Before” is problematic because it can refer to something chronologically prior, or it can refer to something causally prior. Consider this question: Is faith “prior” to justification? Sure it is, in the causal sense, but it’s not as if there are truly believing people walking around who are not yet justified. When one is in a condition of believing, they are also, at the same time, justified. I do not think it is biblical to say that there are regenerate people walking around who are not yet believing. When one is regenerate, one is also believing. Nevertheless, when we consider the narrow sense of regeneration as referencing the initial operation of the Spirit working through the word of truth to quicken a sinner, that initial work is causally prior to the sinner’s faith, just as Lydia’s heart was opened “before” she lovingly heeded the words spoken by Paul. There must be an effectual operation of the Spirit upon a sinner’s heart “before” [in the causal sense] they can have an affectionate and evangelical trust in the Saviour. This is what most Calvinists have believed, and I think it is precisely what Dr. Curt Daniel believes.
2) There is also ambiguity involved in the term “regeneration.” Broadly speaking, it can reference the continual washing and renewing by the Spirit by the word or truth in the life of the believer. Does faith preceed [or go "before"] regeneration in this broader sense? Sure it does. It is through our trust in Christ and in his word that the Spirit continually works so that we are renewed in the image of the one who created us. However, some theologians speak of “regeneration” in a narrow sense, as noted above. This narrow sense is supposed to point to the initual quickening work of the Spirit whereby we are instantaneously brought out of a dead state into a living state. It is like the turning on of a light [2 Cor. 4:6]. Once the light is turned on, illumination occurs at once, but the “turning on” is causally prior to the illumination. Anthony Hoekema illustrates the point this way:
If one is asked, “Do you believe regeneration preceeds faith?” A simple yes or no answer may be rash. Rather, we should say, “it depends on what you mean.” We should ask the following:
1) What do you mean by “before”?
2) What do you mean by “regeneration”?
3) Also, are you seeking to make a point about mediate regeneration [by means of the word] or immediate regeneration [no use of means]?
Consider some possible positions:
A) A person may believe that initial regeneration is chronologically prior to faith and apart from means.
B) A person may believe that initial regeneration is chronologically prior to faith but the Spirit uses some means.
C) A person may believe that initial regeneration is causally prior to faith and apart from means.
D) A person may believe that initial regeneration is causally prior to faith and the Spirit uses some means [i.e. the word].
Are Bob Ross, Stephen Garrett and Charles speaking agains position A? Position B? Position C? Position D? Or all of the above? If they think that positions A, B and C are false, then I do not have a problem. I also think they are false. I may, however, have a problem with the way they label people in those positions ["hybrid," or "hyper," etc.]. It depends on what position they’re describing. If they also think that position D is false, then I think they have erred. I would be further disturbed if they labeled those in position D as either “hybrids” or “hypers.” I believe that Dr. Daniel is in position D, and he’s neither a “hybrid-Calvinst,” a “hyper-Calvinist,” or a “hypo-Calvinst.” He is an orthodox evangelical Calvinist with a solid understanding of the history and theology of Calvinism, as his works demonstrate, and will demonstrate [he's in the process of writing for publication].
As Donald Grey Barnhouse used to say, “If you have made a decision of the will that is according to God’s will, it is because God has first jiggled your willer!”
Tony,
It seems that the folks in question will not grant an argument for means.
Even Curt Daniel describes the Calvinist position in the same way that Ross and other argue is not the Calvinist position.
Thanks for laying your points out clearly.
Mark
Stephen:
You quoted me correctly, so please note I stated he “appears” to be angry, etc. That is not slanderous. The basis for my statement comes from observation. I’ve read a multitude of posts and comments over at The Calvinist Flyswatter. He mocks and ridicules Tom Ascol, James White, etc., not in a manner at all befitting scholars or gentlemen, let alone Christians. He does this while defending Joel Osteen as an orthodox minister and Mitt Romney as an evangelical. You’re a regular over there, certainly you’ve read the posts and comments yourself.
Rechecking your post after getting condemned as a heretic by Bob/Charles and getting heavy “post time” over at Peter's site for my four recent posts regarding regeneration. I may have to post #5 and use your material here, bro.
No problem by me, of course. As I read it Ross has been answered briefly in the Daniel's quote above and the link to triablogue shows the historical record. I'm unsure why folks are having such a tough time with decisional regeneration.
Rechecking your post after getting condemned as a heretic by Bob/Charles and getting heavy “post time” over at Peter's site for my four recent posts regarding regeneration. I may have to post #5 and use your material here, bro.
No problem by me, of course. As I read it Ross has been answered briefly in the Daniel's quote above and the link to triablogue shows the historical record. I'm unsure why folks are having such a tough time with decisional regeneration.