Let's return to our study of the application of salvation, this time moving from the subject of calling to the doctrine of regeneration. So we're going to build our circle up slowly. Here's another way of talking about God saving us in time and space. You want to have these notes in your packet. This time, say by grace, pages 68 to 92. I might say I'm really thankful for this book. It's a wonderful book. Tony Hukuma went to be with the Lord before he can actually put the Polish on it and his wife and daughter is that right? Ruth and David. I guess that's right. Yes. Yes. Wife and son edited it for him. I'm thankful for their help. I have some criticism in the beginning this time. He begins with a doctrine of depravity. Now I think it's important to bring that in at some point, but I criticize him for systematizing too early. Understand? He ought to go and study the passages that talk about regeneration and then draw his doctrine out of that. And then systemat theology is necessary. Correlated with what the Bible says about our the effects of sin on our lives. So the fact that he does this, I don't criticize, but when he does it, I do criticize. His definition of regeneration is given on page 101 and it reads like this. Regeneration is a radical change from spiritual death to spiritual life brought about in us by the Holy Spirit, a change in which we are completely passive. This change involves an inner renewal of our nature. There's a fruit of God's sovereign grace and takes place in union with Christ. All of these aspects of the application of salvation take place in union with Christ and all of them are the work of the Holy Spirit or at least most of them. He describes on 102 to 104 the nature of regeneration and he says it is instantaneous, supernatural or radical. One of you asked a question earlier that always comes up when I teach these doctrines. If you ask me, does God deal with people many times over a period of time to bring them to himself? I say of course, yes. Do any of these doctrines speak of that process? I have to say no. They all speak of the moment when we are saved. What would I call the other sometimes long and drawn out dealings of God with people? His providence? I don't know. I don't know the special doctrine to use for that as in something else to put in the circle that's like that. Understand? These all seem to be instantaneous is what brought this to my mind. It's not a gradual process like progressive sanctification. You say progressive sanctification is progressive. Yes, but that is what happens after we are initially saved until we're with the Lord. So that's not the same thing that we're talking about. Some kind of preparatory working of the Spirit. Yes, sir. I don't deny that God works in different ways in people and in some people he takes years and years and years to bring them to himself. I don't deny that. I'm just saying I don't know that the Bible calls that anything special. I don't have a doctrine or a name for that. I affirm that. I would attribute it all to God's grace, the whole business. But that is not regeneration. Regeneration is the crown of that. The Bible seems to be concerned about when God actually brings us to Himself. My word for the former is His providence. His providential working in our lives. So don't misunderstand me. I affirm it and I would even like, if it were the case, to say, oh, that's the doctrine of what you'll call it and put it up here on the table on the overhead. I just don't have one. And maybe it's there and I'm just missing it. But I would like to know, it's an instantaneous change page 102. It's a supernatural change. It is not brought about by moral persuasion as the Armenians held at Dort. It is a supernatural act. Thirdly, it's a radical change involving the implanting, the gifting of new spiritual life. And it affects the whole person. And we're not conscious of it. We're conscious of its results. Because whereas before we were dead toward God, now we are alive toward God. A corollary concept is that of irresistible grace 104 and 105. I say it this way and this is where Larry straightened me out. He was very kind. Irresistible grace doesn't mean what it sometimes sounds like that we come kicking and screaming into the kingdom of God. And although a few people do, most of us don't. When God works, we come most, we most willingly embrace Christ as he is offered in the gospel. That just makes so much sense. We can't understand how foolish we were before. So irresistible grace ordinarily doesn't mean that God converts us against our willing in the sense that we say, no, I don't want to be saved. Please anything but that Lord. We say, yes, I want to be saved. Thank you, Lord. I don't understand why I didn't want to be saved before. Furthermore, it does not deny the fact that sinners resist God's grace every day of their lives. And sometimes people hear the gospel and hear the gospel and hear the gospel and they reject it, reject it. So we're not denying that irresistible grace doesn't mean that people don't resist. And in fact, the people of God can resist up until a point. Irresistible grace means God is like the Royal Canadian Mounties of old. He always gets his man. He always gets his woman. Unsaid people can resist until death. But none of the people of God can successfully resist unto death because God graciously brings them to Himself. Invincible grace, unconquerable grace are hukamas synonyms and they're pretty good ones in that this conjures up this notion of people coming kicking and screaming. Regeneration and baptism 108 and 109. We need to study what the Bible says about Christian baptism and there's a lot to it but to summarize my own convictions on the matter. Baptism or regeneration is a serious error. That is to hold whether it be infant or believer baptismal regeneration. It is to hold that the act of baptism saves. That one must be baptized in order to be saved. I agree with hukama that this is a serious mistake. 108 and 109. At times the scripture ascribes to baptism that which baptism signifies. So first Peter 3 says baptism now saves you. Book of Acts at least two times says be baptized for the forgiveness of sins or be baptized in a wash away your sins. This is a ascribing to baptism what baptism represents. The two are so closely associated. The one could stand for the other. It does not have to mean. I think it does not mean that baptism actually brings that about but the sign and the thing signified are so closely joined. That's part of the notion of a sacrament which is not really the subject of this course but of the last one. Spirit church and last things under means of grace that the one could stand for the other. In some of those contexts there are qualifications. First Peter 3 says not the washing of the body with water but the confession of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Baptism is a complicated subject and many things need to be said that we don't have time to say but in the context of regeneration I agree with hukama that to hold that baptism is necessary for salvation or that it actually saves is a serious error. Preaching and regeneration 109 111 he says similar things that he said to a factual calling. Regeneration usually occurs page 109 in the middle. Second full paragraph under regeneration in the preacher. Regeneration usually occurs during the preaching teaching or reading of the Bible. 111 first full paragraph. Second sentence we must trust that God will give the hearer the ability to repent and believe. Couple sentences down so the preacher must trust that God will enable the hearers of the gospel to respond in faith. So again we work with an under God and look for him to do what we cannot do and what the sinner cannot do. That is in this case to give life to someone who is spiritually dead. There's a controversy concerning regeneration and that is the relation between regeneration and faith. Here again as in other controversies good people disagree. The controversy has to do with flicking on of the light switch and the light's coming on. Can we talk about a logical priority of either regeneration or faith to the other? Some say yes we can. Faith is logically prior in terms of cause and effect. Faith is the flipping of the switch. Regeneration is the light's coming on. A good man know it Erickson who calls himself a moderate Calvinist to say hope time out. How is he a moderate Calvinist if he does this? Well he thinks he can show more interrelations of these doctrines than I think we can show. I can show he can show anybody can show. And he holds that calling is logically prior to faith. So he has an order of salvation that goes like this. The effectual calling is the cause of faith. It's all instantaneous. It's all at one time. But God effectually calls the person believes. The person believes that's the cause of regeneration. I think this is wrong because the Bible does not correlate the best of my knowledge. Calling and regeneration so that one is the cause of the other. I thought I have three tiers in my order of salvation. The first tier is sanctification, initial sanctification. Calling and regeneration I cannot show cause and effect relations between those three. Three different pictures that seem to say God flips the switch on. So obviously I disagree with him. I'm just the opposite of this. Regeneration is logically prior. I agree with St. Anthony over against St. Miller if you will. I greatly respect Miller to Erickson. So is he fair in calling himself a moderate Calvinist? Yes. He's a four point Calvinist. He does hold that God makes the first move even in applying grace to people. He calls it calling. He is somewhat inconsistent however in this matter. But we want to hear him out and see what his arguments are. He's got two of them as to scriptural passages in which he says faith is the cause of regeneration. One more time. Neither Huckama nor Erickson are saying that these things are separated by time. Neither one is saying Erickson is not saying you believe today and you are regenerated next month or next week. Not saying that it's instantaneous. And Huckama is not saying that people are born again today and they believe sometime in the future. They are both saying it is simultaneous. These are two things. They are simultaneous. It's the whole turning on the faucet and so forth. It's which is the cause of the other. By the way, a third position in fairness would be. Neither one is the cause of the other. You see allotions are splitting hairs. We can't do these kind of things. Now remember before you start applauding, remember I'm prepared to say that sometimes. I can't show logical priority of faith and of sorry adoption and justification. They both follow faith in terms of cause and effect. I can't show cause and effect relation between calling initial sanctification regeneration. So that's one of my answers. That's in my toolbox. But I try to only use it when the Bible when it's fitting with what the Bible says. I think there is some cause and effect here. But let's first of all give Erickson his say 932, 933, special calling is logically prior to conversion. That's shorthand for faith and repentance and leads to it. So special calling, he calls it special calling, uses the word special calling is the cause of repentance and faith. We are not talking about temporal succession. Conversion and new birth occur simultaneously. Rather the question is whether one is converted because of God's work of regeneration within or whether God regenerates the individual because of his or her repentance and belief. The Calvinist viewpoint he says from a logical standpoint makes good sense. Nonetheless, the biblical evidence favors the position that conversion is prior to regeneration. He's using the word conversion for faith. In fact, faith and repentance. So we're talking about the same thing using little different tags. Various appeals to respond to the gospel imply that conversion results in regeneration. Among them is Paul's reply to the Philippian jailer. Very important words are given in parentheses. We are here assuming that regeneration is part of the process of being saved in the parentheses. I'll come back to that in a moment. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved you and your household. He is right that here is a command to believe. But wait a minute. Does this passage talk about regeneration? Do we just assume that any of these doctrines that we have questions about are part of the process of being saved? Let me play the devil's advocate here and work like this. I'm going to assume that calling is part of the process of being saved. If you can assume one thing, why can't I assume another? Okay? Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you'll be called. Know what Ericsson and I both would reject that. Understand? No. Calling is the cause of believing we both hold. Why is he just assume regeneration is what it means when it says saved here? I'm sorry. It's not what it means. You tell me what it probably means. Give me another word for salvation. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you'll be justified. Yet that makes a lot of sense. Justification is by means of faith. The Bible teaches it. Romans 4, Romans 3, Romans 1, all over Romans and other places. Galatians, it's loaded with it. He assumes his conclusion. It's a mistake of a good man. He just made an honest mistake. He's got to go to a passage that talks about regeneration. Then have to use the word, but the concept being saved merely the words being saved doesn't cut the mustard. You could stick any one of the apple, any aspect of the application of salvation and improve what you want. He's not being dishonest. He just made a mistake. Understand? That it would either be faith results in justification or faith results in adoption. They're both taught biblically. Galatians 3, around verse 26, by faith, you are the sons of God by faith in Jesus Christ. Adoption, like justification, is by means of faith. I love the doctrine of adoption. It is neglected. It is wonderful. It will warm your heart. And in a day of just fractured families all over the place. It's probably not a person in this room who doesn't have some relative that's divorced. It is, I've got an hour of family. My wife's stuck in mine. Three different divorces. Not our own. Thank the Lord. But anyway, more than three, I could keep counting. Four, five, stop counting. Anyway, here's another one he uses. Peter makes a similar statement in his Pentecost sermon. Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This appears to be the pattern through out the New Testament. Okay, he's got repent and that I'll accept that as kind of the equivalent of faith. Okay, conversion means turning from sin and turning to God. Sometimes the Bible gives the whole deal. Sometimes the Bible talks about repentance and faith altogether. Usually it talks about one or the other and assumes the other one. Understand? Sometimes the Bible says you believe to be saved. Sometimes it says you repent to be saved. Sometimes it says you repent and believe to be saved. Well, if conversion is turning from sin to God, then you could have either one of the parts or the whole thing. Get me. So it's not wrong to use repentance as roughly synonymous with faith. It's fine. But repent for the forgiveness of sins is the forgiveness of sins regeneration? No. Forgiveness of sins is what great word of salvation? Justification. Yes, Romans 4 teaches the non-imputation of sin is equivalent to the positive imputation of righteousness. David speaks of the same blessedness Paul says when he speaks as says in Psalm 32, truly happy is the man to whom the Lord does not count sin. The non-imputation of sin as Calvin taught is equivalent to the positive imputation of righteousness. It's two sides of the same coin. So it's repentance, yields justification, and that's biblical. No problem. Maybe he wants to get regeneration when it says and you'll receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. That's closer anyway. Well, Hukama objects. He says regeneration is the cause of faith. It's regeneration. That's the flipping of the switch and faith is the illumination of the room. He uses Acts 16 and verse 14. I'll do this and then we'll quit.
In Acts 16, we read of God's grace in the life of Lydia. One of those listening, we sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. One of those listening was a woman named Lydia and so forth, a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message. Hukama appeals to this text to show that regeneration is the cause of faith. He's right about the faith responding to Paul's message sounds like faith. That works. What would you call it? Where would you put heart opening? Is that regeneration? Maybe so. I think it might be calling. I think it might be calling. I would say that Hukama here should be more precise as well. Go to a place that talks about giving you new life, new creation, being born again. Next time we'll do that with another awe-inspiring authority here, but not for now. Now it is time to say happy trails to you till we meet again as Roy and Dale used to do many years ago.