back to front

Two confusions spotted recurringly recently:

1) the idea that faith leads to regeneration (when in fact it’s regeneration that leads to faith)

2) the idea that believers are sanctified through doing their good works (when in fact good works are the outcome of sanctification).

6 thoughts on “back to front

  1. The “backwards” way of thinking is the one that comes naturally to us sinful humans. The latter view (which you have in parentheses) is, of course, the biblical view. As someone once said: we are all born Arminians but die Calvinists.


  2. Looked over your academic blog and your interest in linguistics after coming to this post:

    Fun questions: ( how often does one see a Calvinist linguist?)

    do you see that phenomenon of back to front as:

    1. a sustained attack of Satan while he constantly says “oops. sorry. I did it again. I don’t know what happened.”
    2. an accident of misunderstanding by otherwise intelligent, free willed individuals? What “satanic” attack?
    3. an on-going result of the confounding of human language ( not human beings ) at babel by a then pre-Incarnate Christ/Word of God
    4. other

    Given your education in linguistics, ( I have no formal eduction in linguistics), is there anything being taught these days in your circles that might emphasize that human language was confounded ( at all ) and that to be multi-lingual without asking God for that gift in Jesus Christ is perhaps an attempt to reverse engineer that confounding?

    If so is it ever successful?

    Why ( or how ) do you think God keeps human language separated into distinct groups? I.E. Why hasn’t the world merged back into one language given wars, political domination by one group over another, etc? How/why does He keep them confounded?

    Is there anything in your studies that might give you the impression that the constant changing of language, the new terms coming in and the old going out, etc, has anything at all to with the flight of human language as a living creature from the Word of God and an attempt to camouflage itself as if it were not a living creature ( like its saying “I’m not here. You don’t see me. Leave me alone.”). I.E. As God sends his Word to those names being saved, He is adapting His Word to human speech-sounds on the fly but is not human speech and human speech is reacting to the presence of God as Word by moving away via changing a vowel here or an whole expression there? Perhaps you’ve seen something like that but it was camouflaged in other terms, the way evolutionists would call a clear depiction of a dinosaur in ancient art, ( and thus proof that they did not “die out millions of years ago” ) “anthropomorphic head on water pot” ?

    Sorry for all the questions, but most of what I see in academics is dealing with how things are on a experiential level within an ideology of human free will ( without ever mentioning that) and without wondering how they got that way AND an attempt to explain why they are the way they are in terms that only an idealized free willed person would understand, as if there had been no confounding at all AND as if a speech with the characteristics of human speech ( can’t create anything just by speaking it, compared to God who creates by act of speech of Himself ) were the only speech in total reality AND ( given the outlook of free will on all reality that those in that ideology have ) as if human language were not a living creature but an abstract of mere sounds-as-symbols and as such part of the supposed evidence that the will is free ( there happens to be a ‘tool’ lying around waiting to be used by a will, once language has been defined to be at least less powerful than the human will..)

    I’m a new creature in Jesus Christ and Calvinist myself. Just curious, as you can see. Would love some answers if you have the time.

    Good post.

    Zep 3: 8,9 Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the LORD, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy.
    For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.


    In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen


  3. Hi,

    interesting questions.

    On the ‘back to front’ stuff, I’d go with what Richard said above – Satan sometimes gets blamed for a lot of things which can be explained fairly satisfactorily just by the sinfulness of the fallen heart.

    It’s not that everyone who holds wrong doctrines (or is confused about true doctrine) is deliberately rejecting the truth, and I’d especially emphasise that in relation to the two points in the original post – where many dear Christians would give what i think is the Wrong Answer, especially to the first one. But ultimately adhering to error instead of truth has to be traced back to the moral problem that we aren’t as perceptive to or receptive of the truth revealed in the Word as we should be.

    (See also the ‘Against Heresies’ blog, eg here.)

    On all the linguistics stuff, lots of things to think about – I’m going to move to a new post to give more space for a reply. Your thoughts would be welcome, but I should add that I’m going to be away from the computer after tomorrow morning for a few days.


  4. Pingback: response to a comment « ninetysix and ten

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s