thoughts and ruminations while in exile (1 Pet. 2:11)

I'm responding to a blog posted by Tom Stolarick entitled, "Dr. Roger Chambers on Conversion." In that blog, Tom quotes Dr. Chambers as saying the following:

Conversion is the active response of a responsible sinner to the objective propositional Spirit spoken Word which produces a moral change by the normal cognitive process and which also results in the imputation of judicial righteousness to man by God in His own mind.

Denominational (Augustinian Calvinistic) View:Conversion is the passive reception by a disabled sinner who cannot therefore comprehend the word of a mystical application by the Holy Spirit of the otherwise impotent word wherein faith is directly infused by God producing a miraculous change apart from the normal cognitive process resulting in an intrinsic change in man as God infuses righteousness into him.

My Response:Abbreviations: WCF= Westminster Confession of Faith; WLC= Westminster Larger Catechism; WSC= Westminster Shorter Catechsim; LBC= 1689 London Baptist Confession; HC= Heidelberg Catechism; BC= Belgic Confession; CD= Canons of Dordt

I have no problem with Dr. Chambers, or anyone else disagreeing with Reformed (Calvinistic) theology. However, I thought I should respond since, as one who is Reformed in his theology, I believe Dr. Chambers is misunderstanding what the Reformed churches teach. As I've said before, if anyone wants to know what the Reformed churches believe, it's always best to go to the sources, i.e. the ecclesiastically sanctioned confessions. While there is no section in the confessions on conversion per se, I think the confessions outline an overall theology of conversion that can be discovered in the documents. It's not that I don't want to quote the Bible, but I figure the confessions are the place to start since Dr. Chambers claims to be presenting the Reformed view. Now, he is right that in conversion we confess that human beings are "passive" (WCF 10.2). We do not believe that human beings take can take the first step, and then God will do the rest. We believe that justification (God declaring the sinner righteous) is accomplished monergistically (God does the work alone). This is in contrast to sanctification, which is synergistic. However, in their fallen state, we confess that sinners are "not able by [their] own strength to convert [themselves], or to prepare [themselves] thereunto (LBC 9.3). God must first move on their hearts. By the way, according to Arminian theologian Roger Olson, this is what Arminians believe as well. Of course, they believe sinners can resist God, but they do not believe humans can take the first step, which is semi-pelagianism (See his book Arminian Theology).

What's confusing to me, however, is that he says the "sinner cannot comprehend the word of a mystical application by the Holy Spirit . . ." To be completely honest, I'm not sure I understand what he means here. But if he is suggesting that in regeneration a sinner cannot comprehend what is being said by the preacher, this is simply false. I have heard Doc Smith say this sort of thing before. He seems to think that if humans are totally depraved, the one preaching can be speaking in a different language, and if God decides to grant regeneration, then so be it. As I've said before, total depravity does not mean fallen sinners cannot identify prepositions. Rather, the Reformed churches confess, "Therefore all men are conceived in sin, and are by nature children of wrath, incapable of saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, are in bondage thereunto; and without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, they are neither able nor willing to return to God, to reform the depravity of their nature, or to dispose themselves to reformation" (CD, 3rd and 4th head, art. 3). We do NOT believe, as many people think we do, that man is utterly depraved. The next article, for example, states, "There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, or natural things, and of the difference between good and evil, and shows some regard for virtue and for good outward behavior . . ." Calvin believed the same thing as well (See his Institutes 1. 3. 1). Reformed theologians, at least in the past, believed in natural law. See David VanDrunen's book, A Biblical Case for Natural Law.

Nowhere do we confess that sinners are regenerated "apart from the normal cognitive process [.]" We believe that God the Holy Spirit works THROUGH the Word, and grants repentance and faith (Acts 18:11; 2 Tim. 2:25; Phil. 1:29). Heidelberg Catechism Q. 21 asks, What is true faith? Answer: True faith is a sure knowledge whereby I accept as true all that God has revealed to us in His Word. At the same time it is a firm confidence that not only to others, but also to me, God has granted forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness, and salvation, out of mere grace, ONLY FOR THE SAKE OF CHRIST'S MERITS. This faith the Holy Spirit WORKS IN MY HEART by the gospel." The catechism sites a litany of verses as proof.While we believe that God is sovereign, we believe he uses MEANS to accomplish his purposes in salvation (LBC 3.6). As it relates to conversion, we believe the Spirit and the Word work together; they can never be separated (WCF 10.1; WLC Q/A 72; also see Calvin's Institutes [1. 9. 1-3]).

By far the most outlandish thing Dr. Chambers says is that the Calvinistic view of conversion teaches that "faith is directly infused by God [.]" Perhaps I'm perplexed by the word "infused." We don't define faith as something "infused" by God. As the Heidelberg Catechism says above, we define faith as a "sure knowledge" and a "firm confidence." In conversion we teach that "God's Spirit . . . convinces us of our sin and misery, [enlightens] our minds in the knowledge of Christ, [renews] our wills, and . . . persuad[s] and enables us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered in the gospel" (WSC Q/A 31). Furthermore, we define faith as "receiving" and "resting" upon Christ alone (WSC Q/A 86). Therefore, we don't believe faith is a human work. We respond, by God's grace, with empty hands. And faith is the instrument by which we receive the benefits which Christ has procured for us. Also confusing is when he says that the Calvinistic view teaches that this "[results] in an intrinsic change in man as God infuses righteousness into him." This idea is completely foreign to Reformed theology.

With all due respect to Dr. Chambers, even Roman Catholics know that Reformed Protestants do not believe God infuses righteousness into persons. In fact, it's Roman Catholicism which teaches that God infuses righteousness into people. This was one of the biggest debates in the Protestant Reformation! We believe God IMPUTES righteousness to the believing sinner in the act of justification (WSC Q/A 33; WLC Q/A 70-73; HC 60-61; BC art. 23). Now, I may be misunderstanding Dr. Chambers; I grant that. I find it hard to believe that someone who knew church history as well as he did could get this wrong. This is one of the fundamental differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants. However, as theologians, words are our tools; therefore, it's important that we choose our words carefully. I think his words are ambiguous at best, and can lead to confusion.

I think what we can learn from this is that we need to read the people with whom we disagree directly, not what others say about them. Many people do not understand what Reformed theology teaches. If someone wants to know, they should read the theologians; and not just Calvin by the way. I hope this helps.

SDG