Southern Seminary Continues To Use Bad Textbook
Despite taking money from Southern Baptist churches via the Cooperative Program, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville continues to teach the "born again before faith" heresy and continues to use a textbook promoting this dangerous theology in many of its theology classes.The textbook is Systematic Theology (Zondervan), by Dr. Wayne Grudem. Previously, Dr. Grudem has been an honored guest of the seminary.
In his textbook, Grudem says,
"...it is natural to understand that regeneration comes before saving faith" (page 702).
"The idea that regeneration comes before saving faith is not always understood by evangelicals today" (page 703).
As to the timing of regeneration, at one point Grudem refers to it by saying "that this secret, hidden work of God in our spirits does in fact come before we respond to God in saving faith (although often it may be only seconds before we respond)" (page 702).
At another point, however, he admits that regeneration may occur "to an infant even before he or she is born. This was true of John the Baptist, for the angel Gabriel, before John was born said, 'He will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb' (Luke 1:15). We might say that John the Baptist was "born again" before he was born!" (page 500).
When will Southern Baptist churches wake up to the heresies taught at Southern Seminary?
(Quotes in this article are from the 1994 edition of Systematic Theology. An updated edition was recently released).
posted by Charles @ 9:30 PM
7 Comments:
GRUDEM
Thanks for this piece of information, Charles. As you probably know, Grudem is a graduate of the Pedobaptist Westminster Theological Seminary, and perhaps imbibed this heres from the Pedos.
It's a shame Baptists have to turn to Pedobaptists for theological textbooks to each Baptist students.
i have a hard time with this, would your view be that regeneration and faith happen at the same time or does faith precede regeneration?
i have told people that it happens at the same time and both sides laugh at me. the calvinist says that cannot be and the arminian says that it cannot be, one has to logically come first, so which "logically" comes first in your opinion?
WHICH IS FIRST?
Tom M said...
i have a hard time with this, would your view be that regeneration and faith happen at the same time or does faith precede regeneration?
Dr. B. H. Carroll, whom we often quote on this, emphasized that repentance and faith are "constituent elements" of the new birth, and it is not complete until both repentance and faith are effected. The effecting of the constituent elements is what constitutes the effecting of the New Birth, according to Dr. Carroll's teaching.
The "efficient power" which effects both repentance and faith is the Holy Spirit as He applies the Word of God.
Therefore, it is "at the same time."
SEMI-PELAGIANISM
Wayne Grudem advocates the typical Hybrid theory that a "dead" sinner is "made alive" and thereby is given "ability" to subsequently believe. This is semi-Pelagianism.
This is the very same theory taught by Shedd, Berkhof, Sproul, Duncan, Frame, James White, the Hardshell Baptists, and all other advocates of Hybrid Calvinism.
This of course is a departure from Creedal Calvinism, which sets forth the view that Effectual Calling which teaches that faith comes by the Word and Spirit to the "dead" sinner -- not to one who is already
"alive" and "able."
Metaphorically, it is like the raising of the dead.
Creedal Calvinism is fitly illustrated in the case of dead Lazarus who was dead when Jesus said, "Lazarus, come forth," and "he that was DEAD came forth" (John 11:43, 44).
This demonstrates how the power of God accompanies the Word of God and raises the dead. Lazarus was not first restored to life, like James White, for instance, teaches, but Lazarus was made alive by the power of God's Word.
The Creedal Calvinist view affirms that the New Birth is by the means of the Word, empowered by the Holy Spirit (John 6:63) in contrast to the "Spirit alone" idea of Hardshells and other semi-Pelagians.
Grudem's view is semi-Pelagianism in that "ability" is supposedly imparted to the sinner, not faith itself by means of the Word and Spirit (1 John 5:4). Therefore, faith is not really the "gift" of God, but it is a subsequent act by the "able" sinner who has already been "born again."
If this idea is correct, then the sinner is already saved and could do without believing, as some Hardshells even teach about the heathen who never hear the Gospel. Faith in Christ adds nothing to the sinner's spiritual state, according to this theory; it only serves to "comfort" him if he happens to hear the Word after his alleged
"regeneration." They don't really have to hear the Gospel, according to the Hardshells who take this theory to its ultimate end.
But "Life is in the Son," and Spirit-created faith by means of the Word puts one into the Son. When faith in the Son is "born" or "begotten" in the sinner, the sinner is thereby "born of God" (1 John 5:4, 1). This is the Creedal view as opposed to the Hybrid Calvinism view.
Wow, thanks for that. I never understood what the purpose of faith was if we are reborn without it. I noticed that you are fans of Gill and Owen, does that mean then that you also believe limited atonement? I have read some people say that Calvin did not believe in limited atonement, but it seems certain that Owen did and I think that Gill did as well.
Am I right to say that your only difference with modern Calvinism is in the birth before faith, but that you ascribe to all of TULIP? I have enjoyed reading your site and will keep learning, thanks.
ATONEMENT
Tom m said...
I noticed that you are fans of Gill and Owen, does that mean then that you also believe limited atonement?
The Atonement is very simple. Read John 3:16. It is at least wide enough to cover all who believe, and the rest, too, if they would believe.
TULIP?
Tom m said...
Am I right to say that your only difference with modern Calvinism is in the birth before faith, but that you ascribe to all of TULIP?
Personally, I have never used the "TULIP" acronym. Even those who do use it do not uniformly agree. I don't think it serves a good purpose.
I prefer the Baptist Confession of Faith. I don't find Spurgeon, Gill, or Owen ever using "TULIP."
As for "agreeing" with what it stands for, that would all depend on how it is defined.
Post a Comment
<< Home