The Upper Register Blog

Sorry for not posting for so long. I had technical difficulties with WordPress last month.

Anyway, I found a good quote by Charles Hodge on baptismal regeneration I thought I’d pass along:

The doctrine of baptismal regeneration is not only repudiated by all the Reformed Confessions, but, what perhaps, will to many minds be more convincing, it is impossible to reconcile the doctrine with their theology. Every one knows that the Reformed Churches adopted the theological system of Augustin. They all taught that none are born of the Spirit but those who are finally saved. If a man is called (regenerated,) he is justified; and if justified, he is glorified. There is no such thing, according to their doctrine, as falling from grace. If the Reformed therefore believed that all who are baptized are vitally united to Christ, and regenerated by the Holy Ghost, then they held that all the baptized are saved. They assuredly did not hold the latter, and therefore it is no less certain that they did not hold the former. It is impossible for a man to be a Calvinist, and believe the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

From his essay, “The Church Membership of Infants,” The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 30.2 (April 1858): 382-83.

I stumbled across a blog called Arminian Today that caught my attention. The author, Roy Ingle, is an irenic, evangelical Arminian who defends the historic Arminianism of Arminius, not the more radical versions common today. He claims that Arminianism is often misunderstood and misrepresented by today’s Calvinists — especially some of its vociferous polemicists on the Internet — and complains that while he has read Calvin, few Calvinists have read Arminius (I’ll admit I haven’t). 

I’m a totally convinced five point Calvinist, but I appreciate this brother’s approach, his spirit, and his emphasis on human depravity and the necessity of God’s gracious initiative. He makes an important distinction between Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism (e.g., Finney). He affirms the Wesleyan doctrine of prevenient grace, doesn’t make an idol out of free will, affirms God’s providential government of the world, and is critical of Open Theism. I could be friends with an Arminian like this.

Again, I fundamentally disagree with Ingle with respect to all five petals of the Reformed TULIP, but I appreciate his willingness to stand up against the radicals on his own side, just as we Calvinists should stand up against the radicals on our side, e.g., those who believe that Arminians cannot be saved as Arminians.

On a side-note, one of the books that helped me when I was making the transition from the Dispensational “eternal security” Arminianism of my upbringing to Reformed theology was John Girardeau’s classic Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism Compared. I highly recommend it to all who struggle with these issues. Girardeau is a good example of a Calvinist interacting fairly with the best Arminian literature of his day. He recognizes that there is such as a thing as “evangelical Arminianism,” that is, a form of Arminianism that affirms the necessity of prevenient grace, thus making it “evangelical.” I found this volume to be a very powerful exegetical and theological argument against this, the best form of Arminianism. In addition, Girardeau does a great job of bringing the doctrine of justification into play — an issue that too often gets neglected in this debate.

Anyway, check out Roy Ingle’s site. 

Guy Davies at Exiled Preacher has an excellent post, Ten things on limited atonement. I remember reading John Owen’s The Death of Death - I think it was sometime in 1988 or 1989, when I was still in The Assembly. It is one of the books God used to convince me of the scripturalness of the Calvinistic understanding of the Gospel. By the fall of 1989, I left the church in which I had been raised. It was a frightening time for me. I felt terribly alone, cast out to sea in a strange world. During this time of fear and loneliness, the third point of Calvinism was a great comfort to me. I remember meditating on the words of this great hymn by Toplady:

From whence this fear and unbelief?
Hath not the Father put to grief
His spotless Son for me?
And will the righteous Judge of men,
Condemn me for that debt of sin,
Which, Lord, was charged on Thee?

Complete atonement Thou hast made,
And to the utmost farthing paid
Whate’er Thy people owed:
Nor can His wrath on me take place,
If sheltered in Thy righteousness,
And sprinkled with Thy blood.

If Thou hast my discharge procured,
And freely in my room endured
The whole of wrath divine:
Payment God cannot twice demand,
First at my wounded Surety’s hand,
And then again at mine.

Turn then, My soul, unto thy rest;
The merits of thy great High Priest
Have bought thy liberty:
Trust in His effective blood,
Nor fear thy banishment from God,
Since Jesus died for thee.

HT: Bill Carlisle

To some, the doctrine of limited atonement is scary because it seems to limit God’s love. To me it is a source of great assurance because I know that the atonement is effective. The death and resurrection of Christ does not make my salvation possible. It effects it. The atonement actually takes away my sin and grants me a right and title to eternal life. So precious is this truth to me that at one point I had memorized WCF VIII:8:

To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same; making intercession for them, and revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mysteries of salvation; effectually persuading them by his Spirit to believe and obey, and governing their hearts by his Word and Spirit; overcoming all their enemies by his almighty power and wisdom, in such manner, and ways, as are most consonant to his wonderful and unsearchable dispensation.