When classic Calvinists speak of regeneration before faith it is informed by something. I want to suggest that it is informed by a philosophical perspective known as Aristotelianism (a la Aristotle), mediated through Thomas Aquinas’ assimilation of Aristotle; all of this came to be known as ‘conceptual’ scholasticism. Anyway the impact that this makes is that ‘regeneration’ becomes a ‘quality’ or a ‘thing’ or a ‘substance’ that elect people are given. Then they are able to cooperate with God (‘freely’) by using this ‘grace’ to appropriate salvation by ‘faith’. So in this account then, the regeneration that proceeds faith for this elect person is actually a ‘thing’ (it is a created grace) instead of a ‘person’ (who ‘is’ uncreated grace). The real problem with this view is that it makes salvation a predicate (or dependent) upon ‘man’s determination’/’man’s cooperation’; instead of vice versa. Salvation is not a ‘predicate’ of man (this is a ‘man-centered’ view of salvation), instead man’s life is predicated upon God’s life in Christ, or salvation.

This is a fundamental problem that classic Calvinism and Arminianism are afflicted with, and one that Evangelical Calvinism seeks to provide some healing from (for those who have been so afflicted).

On a pastoral note, I wonder why pastors, in general, would consciously teach their flock theological notions that ultimately de-personalize salvation; thus having deleterious impact on the daily spirituality of those they are seeking to edify? I think, of course, the answer to this question is that said pastors are themselves under the delusion that what they are teaching is Gospel-Bible truth. That is, that what they are teaching about salvation, like the kind signified by the TULIP (or FACTS for the Arminians), is in fact coordinate with what Scripture teaches. They, in general, do not have the time or the resources (although some do) to make a critical distinction between what they are teaching, and the metaphysics that is informing what they are teaching from Scripture (in fact many of these pastors are unaware of even the terminology of metaphysics). Most of these kinds of pastors follow what I like to call the Textus Receptus (the “Received Text”) version of theology and biblical interpretation. Meaning that they believe that the theological tradition (what they perceive as ‘conservative’ or ‘traditional’) they think through is both tried and true, and Gospel faithful. Yet, it is this approach that I am claiming is uncritical, and ultimately damaging to those who are exposed to it. I could say more, but I have said enough for this post anyway. Below is a video I came across of Phil Johnson (of Pyromaniac fame) interviewing his pastor, John MacArthur. In the first moments (at right around 27:45) of the video, John MacArthur verbalizes the typical approach of many Evangelical (Calvinist, not Evangelical Calvinist 😉 ) pastors in America that I just noted.

I realize this post has multiple points being made; a little fragmented. But what I want to take note of is that my opening Dogmatic point (on the “order of salvation”) has real life, what some might call pastoral implications. What I am trying to highlight is that what some consider to be abstract dogmatic or theoretical contemplations has real life concrete ‘lay’ consequences. I am not necessarily trying to pick on MacArthur in this post, but I do think he is somewhat of a poster-boy for the kind of thing I am getting at in this post.