I have edited out the name of my interlocutors since these discussions were posted on a private discussion group.

From: Michael Sudduth <msudduth@ix.netcom.com>

Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 13:47:20 -0400

Subject: When Theology Meets Metaphysics

Brethren:

V----, K----, and T---- (and others) have been discussing the "order" of faith (in disposition and exercise) and regeneration. I have watched this discussion with some amusement. I was hoping that my Oxonian buddy Mr. W---- would comment, but I guess either Oxford life or married life is generating metaphysical limitations on the range of his theological and philosophical discourse.

Brethren, my eyes tend to light up when I see words like "time" and "cause" in theological discussions, as it is a persistent reminder how much theological discussion requires philosophy. :)

K----, in Aristotelian fashion, has reminded us of another matter, no doubt equally important. (Aristotle said that we should not demand more precision in discussing a subject matter than the subject matter allows).

[K-----said]

The answer is quite complex, and involves many terms - terms which even the bible uses in many ways. We have the terms faith, regeneration, salvation, new birth, belief, repent, life, etc. These terms are used in many ways, with different shades of meaning, and are interactive with each other too.

[Sudduth] This seems quite true. But K-----, you overlooked a term that is at least if not more important to this entire discussion - *cause.* You rely heavily on this word in your posts.

The question is: what sense can be made of saying that <x causes y> but <x is not temporally prior to y>? This is especially acute for a couple of reasons. First, the conjunction of these two claims seems to be the emerging consensus on the list. Secondly, every analogy that has been used in this discussion to illuminate how the two claims above can both be true (e.g., tree producing fruit, our responding to something God does, consequences,) makes use of a notion of causality that *does* imply a temporal order of events. I find this disturbing, as "examples" are supposed to support a position, not undermine it.

K----- rightly addressed the ambiguity in the words like "prior" and "precedes" in locutions such as "regeneration precedes (or is prior to) faith." (In fact, K----- also addressed an ambiguity in the use of the word faith, faith as disposition versus faith as exercised).

[K----- says]

The whole discussion started when I tried to clarify what is involved in that "preceding."

Regeneration preceding faith is not one of time.

Regeneration preceding faith is not one of logic.

Regeneration preceding faith *is* one of cause.

[Sudduth] -------, here you explain the *priority* of regeneration in terms of cause, where this explanation excludes temporal or logical relations. (V---, has been advocating a "logical" view of priority). Here's my question, what does *cause* mean? By implication, given what you say, it does not involve logical or temporal relations. But causality is usually spelled out in a way that certainly includes either logical or temporal relations (or both). For this reason your repeated recommendation that we think of "priority* in terms of cause not logical or temporal relations is odd. It certainly stands in need of substantial clarification. I ask myself: what could K---- possibility mean by causality? At this point, a bit of a mystery emerges.

Of course you do try to give the mystery some rational massage by intended clarifications of your position. Although your view becomes less mysterious, it becomes more implausible, if not impossible.

[K-----wrote]

As far as timing is concerned, at the moment we are regenerated, we exercise faith - there is no time lapse. During regeneration, God grants the gift of faith, and we immediately respond by belief (exercising that same faith God gives us, for it is now our faith.). . . .

I am not saying that regeneration is us believing, but we believe because we were regenerated - as an immediate response to regeneration (at the same instant).

[Sudduth] K-----, I don't mean to offend you. But brother, this borders on unintelligibility given your assumptions that regeneration is neither temporally nor logically prior to (the exercise of) faith. Probably, the paragraphs probably make no sense unless a temporal order is assumed.

Take the following clause of the last sentence: ". . .we believe because we were regenerated - as an immediate response to regeneration (at the same instant)." If I believe *because* I *was* regenerated, how can my believing be a *response* that is *at the same instant* as regeneration? No way. I dare say that, at best, this is a logical impossibility. :)

If there is any plausibility at all in what a you say here, you need to drop the past tense "was" in the sentence, otherwise I think what you say cannot possibility be true. Then you need to either remove the word "response" or provide an example, just one, of "a response" that is simultaneous with the thing responded to. "Response" is I think necessarily a temporal concept. Note also, "during" regeneration God does X and we "immediately respond" by doing Y. An immediate response can be temporally posterior to what is responded to. It's just "immediate" - another temporal concept. How can this be squared with "at the moment we are regenerated we exercise faith"? What we need is an example of <X causes Y>, where X and Y are simultaneous and not mere logical relations (since you deny the latter).

But then, what sense can be given to causality? Personally I can make no sense if it.

[K------writes]

He grants faith at the *same* moment in time as regeneration, and regeneration does not cause the gift of faith, but it at least is along side of regeneration, and is part and parcel of regeneration in the sense that one does not exist without the other. . .But the granting of faith is the cause of exercised faith. It seems to me that you are still looking at this with a sense of timing and cause, rather than cause alone.

[Sudduth] K-----, although I see the merit in distinguishing between the disposition of faith and the exercise of faith, the rest of what you say here makes no sense to me. First, your view that regeneration is not the cause of the disposition of faith strikes me as likely *not* the Reformed view. More importantly, the fundamental problem is this. How can you maintain that the granting of faith is the *cause* of the exercise of faith if the former is not temporally prior to the latter. Since you seem to deny logical order, I can make no sense at all in what "cause" even means. Perhaps you can help me and V--- and others by defining the word "cause" and perhaps providing a few examples in which a cause is not temporally prior to its effects and also not logically related. I can think of a thousand or so examples to the contrary. Until this is done no one can be at fault for associating cause with time. I should think that your view is the one that

runs contrary to common sense and the ordinary use(s) of the English language.

And this leads me to the obvious point, a question to everyone: What's the problem with regeneration being temporally prior to faith (in either its exercise or disposition)?

Calvinistic Baptists seem to go into theological convulsions when this is even suggested. Perhaps there is a fear that our infant sprinkling friends will use the temporal priority of regeneration to faith to argue for the salvation of those who die in infancy or that it would entail that people can live their lives as regenerated and yet unconverted and end up in heaven. Well, all good and fine, but this needs argument.

Until such time as someone deduces an obviously false proposition from the temporal priority of regeneration to faith or provides some positive and plausible non-temporal notion of causality, we should take the *meaning* of causality in <regeneration causes faith> to be the same as the meaning causality involved in statements like <a tree produces fruit>, <John built a desk>, <The newborn baby began to cry>. These all entail that causes are temporally prior to their effects. If events A and B are, strictly speaking, simultaneous, then neither can be the cause of the other. There is certainly a very strong presumption in favor of this way of looking at things given the normal use of causal words.

The prima facie correct view of things seems to me to be that, at least in the created order, when event A causes event B, A is temporally prior to B. Regeneration and faith are events in the created order. Hence, prima facie their relation should be construed as temporal. Please note that this doesn't imply anything about the interval between A and B, but it does retain the common sense view of causality that nearly everyone seems to be assuming in the examples that *have been* provided.

The only remote sense that can be made out of A causing B, but A and B are simultaneous, is some kind of logical theory of causality (or resurrecting Aristotle's notion of formal cause). But alas, no one on the list has attempted to spell that out. V---- says that we should understand the priority of regeneration to faith to be a logical priority, but he apparently also wants it to be causal. Those like V---- who want to argue that faith and regeneration are temporally simultaneous but regeneration is causal and logically prior to faith (in either its exercise or disposition) must do two things: (i) provide a sense of logical order which allows ordered events to be temporally simultaneous and (ii) show how this sense of logical order is logically consistent with the ordered events having causal relations to each other.

K------ of course denies any such theory as a fallback position when he says.

[K------said]

V---- mentioned that there is a logical connection, but I would think we should not look at this from a logical view, but a causal view.

[Sudduth] What does "causality" even mean then? I am totally baffled by what you say K----. Completely. I find the view [!] you are expressing wholly unintelligible. Since I'm a philosopher, this is particularly disturbing to me, as making sense out of nonsense is what I do for a living. :)

Those like K---- who want to say that regeneration is "causally" prior to faith, but regeneration is neither temporally nor logically prior to faith must show how events can be causally related independent of logical and temporal relations. I suggest that in relation to V----, K----- has the greater problem here, as one of the ways (and maybe the only way) of arguing for (ii) above is on the basis of a logical theory of causality, roughly in which logical order provides causal explanation. Although I can make some sense out of V----'s position, I can make no sense at all of K----'s position: on the one hand regeneration is the cause of faith but on the other it is neither logically nor temporally prior to faith. What kind of cause is that?

K-------, you were trying to unpack the sense of "regeneration precedes faith (in its exercise)". It is there that you say the "preceding" is not temporal or logical. It is causal you say. Unfortunately, you have done nothing to address the real issue. What is causality? By implication you only say what causality is *not.* It is not a logical relation and it is not a temporal relation. So what is it?

Finally, I admit that Scripture doesn't tell us what "cause" means, but no one on this list has either, though V---- suggests a logical theory of some sort. How then can any of the positions be maintained, especially since the natural way to think of the meaning of <A causes B> is such that it entails A's being temporally prior to B. This is hardly speculation. Some might call it. . .common sense, which is always to be preferred to uncommon nonsense.

K---- asks: "If we have trouble believing earthly things, how much more difficult heavenly things?" Ummm. Quite. But there is a difference between mystery and unintelligibility. Mysteries can be believed. What is unintelligible cannot be believed, and what is either logically impossible

or contingently false should not.

Michael

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Visit the Reformed Epistemology Discussion Group website and archives at

group by sending e-mail to reformed-epistemology-subscribe@egroups.com