God Loves… Himself

The last three BLOGS we have been looking at a sermon on Regeneration from John 1:12-13 by a man named Asahel Nettleton. He was an evangelist during the 2nd Great Awakening. What should be of great interest to many people today as well as many in his day, is that he also greatly opposed Charles Finney and his new ways of evangelism that he brought into the church. In this sermon on regeneration he is giving us reasons why he was so against the new ways of doing evangelism.

“After all the preparatory means-all the promises and threats of the gospel-all the operations of common grace-and all the exertions of unregenerate sinners, they must be born of God to become his children. There must be a new creation,–a work accomplished by Almighty power-a sovereign-special-supernatural act, like making a world, or raising the dead, as to the power exerted, and without which such an act no one can ever see the kingdom of heaven. Persuasion is not sufficient to make men new creatures. If the Spirit operates on the minds of men only by setting persuasive arguments or motives before them, be the kinds never so diverse or well adapted to this purpose, yet after all, it depends on the will of man whether any shall be regenerated or not. On this scheme the glory of regeneration would belong to ourselves.”

Here is a brutal fact for all who would argue against Calvinism. Man must truly be born again and become a new creation by the work of an Almighty power which is the same power that raised Christ from the dead despite the opposition from the devil. To argue against that is to argue that the new birth will come by persuasive arguments and motives. It is to leave the glory of it all to human beings, either the one presenting the arguments or the one making the choice. There is no way around this argument. The new birth is either by God or by man. If the new birth is really changing the heart of a dead sinner and making it that of a live saint which is the life of God in the soul of man, then this is the work of God and nothing and no one else can do it. No matter how much a human being is persuaded, the human being cannot change his own heart from the spiritual dead and snatch divine life from God and give it to himself. The heart of Arminian evangelism, whether practiced by professing Calvinists or not, relies upon persuading the sinner to make a choice because of the grace already given to him. Surely it is obvious, at least from the last few BLOGS, that an evangelistic method that does that is something that has been obtained in the same spirit as Pelagius. The Gospel does not promise life to those who will raise themselves from the dead, but to those who have given up any hope in themselves and rest in His grace alone.

“Moral persuasion to a better life confers no new real, supernatural strength to the soul, which may enable it thus to live. No new taste-no new spiritual discernment springs from persuasion. If regeneration comes thus, then a man begets himself, he is born of himself, he makes himself to differ from others. On this plan the Spirit of God has no more to do than Paul or Apollos.”

As stated before, Arminian evangelism (based in a belief in free-will) relies on persuasion. If all has been done by grace and now the only thing left is an act of the free-will, then the evangelists must simply be persuasive and convince the sinner that s/he needs to make a choice. If that is correct, then we are left with a new birth as being without any real life of God in the soul and without the strength of God. This persuasion simply convinces the sinner to do what he needs to do in making the choice. As Nettleton noted, that would leave the Spirit of God with no more to do than Paul or Apollos. That would change Scripture from being Paul and Apollos planting and watering and God causing the growth to Paul and Apollos planting and watering and the sinner causing the growth. How disturbing it should be when evangelism leaves all to the persuasive powers of people and not to the grace and power of almighty God.

“Besides, this is not for what we pray; we pray not that motives may be set before us to regenerate ourselves, but that God would change us, create us anew. The ancient churches urged this prayer upon the heretics, who denied a supernatural work in regeneration, and they felt themselves sorely pressed without.”

As we look at what we pray for when we pray for the conversion of sinners or ourselves, we do not pray for someone to persuade us to make a decision. We do not pray that someone would give us better motives. What we must pray for is that God would give the person a new heart, which He alone can do. While many trust in themselves for faith or belief, can anyone trust in himself for a new heart and divine life? While I may be accused of being mean or ungracious and certainly not very winsome, there would be no real reason for an Arminian to pray if the Arminian used consistent principles. If the final decision is based on a choice of a free-will, then God could not do anything to the sinner as that would mean that the will would not be free. Prayer for the sinner, then, would be asking God to do something that is morally repugnant since violating a free-will is thought to be just that. On the other hand, the person that is dead in sins and trespasses can pray for God to give him or her a new heart that s/he can believe in and love Him. If the new birth is a supernatural work, then prayer is to God asking Him to do a supernatural work. If salvation is simply the choice of the free-will, then what can God do and leave the free-will intact? The answer is precisely nothing.

This entry was posted on January 28, 2008 at 8:13 am and is filed under History & Theology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.