Prevenient Grace (2)

In this chapter we will begin with a line from that famous Christian hymn "Amazing Grace" which says: 

"Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, and grace my fears relieved; how precious did that grace appear the hour I first believed!"

Grace was at work in a sinner before he believed in Christ and was saved. Divine grace teaches the heart to fear before grace relieves those fears in conversion. Grace reveals to a sinner his lost condition and need for salvation before grace causes him to find salvation in Christ and gives him relief and assurance of salvation, and grace first shows him that he is spiritually and morally sick before he sees and accepts the healing of Christ the physician. 

In the past chapter we saw where several Calvinists of the past believed in prevenient grace, such as Augustine, John Owen, Charles Hodge, Archibald Alexander, and Charles Spurgeon. In this chapter we will begin with giving further writings by Owen on this subject from "Pneumatologia" -- "Of the Holy Spirit" as cited here under the heading "Works of the Holy Spirit Preparatory to Regeneration"). Owens wrote (emphasis mine):

"First, in reference to the work of regeneration itself, positively considered, we may observe that ordinarily there are certain previous and preparatory works, or workings in and upon the souls of men, that are antecedent and dispositive to regeneration. Yet regeneration does not consist in them, nor can it be educed out of them."

I don't know why so many Calvinists fail to believe that there are "preparatory works" of God 'in and upon the souls of men that are antecedent and dispositive to regeneration." It is possibly due to their having defined "regeneration" as the first work, and therefore must exclude there being any preparatory work of God. This is also why they began to give a very narrow and restrictive definition to regeneration which excludes faith and repentance, excludes conversion to Christ. 

In Spurgeon's Sermon "Farm Labourers" he said:

"There is a withering wrought by the Spirit which is the preparation for the sowing and implanting by which salvation is wrought."

You can read more excerpts from this sermon and on preparatory works of God in a sinner before he is saved and regenerated in this post of mine (here).

In "Regeneration" by Abraham Kuyper (see here) we find where he acknowledges that it was later Calvinists who began to restrict regeneration to the initial act of God that produces spiritual life. He wrote:

"Before we examine the work of the Holy Spirit in this important matter, we must first define the use of words. The word "regeneration" is used in a limited sense, and in a more extended sense.

It is used in the limited sense when it denotes exclusively God's act of quickening, which is the first divine act whereby God translates us from death into life, from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of His dear Son. In this sense regeneration is the starting-point. God comes to one born in iniquity and dead in trespasses and sins, and plants the principle of a new spiritual life in his soul. Hence he is born again.

But this is not the interpretation of the Confession of Faith, for article 24 reads: "We believe that this true faith, being wrought in man by the hearing of the Word of God and the operation of the Holy Ghost, doth regenerate and make him a new man, causing him to live a new life, and freeing him from the bondage of sin." Here the word "regeneration," used in its wider sense, denotes the entire change by grace effected in our persons, ending in our dying to sin in death and our being born for heaven. While formerly this was the usual sense of the word, we are accustomed now to the limited sense, which we therefore adopt in this discussion.

Respecting the difference between the two--formerly the work of grace was generally represented as the soul consciously observed it; while now the work itself is described apart from the consciousness."

(You can read more about Kuyper in my posting here). In that same post you can read these words:

W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, pages 492-494, attributes the distinction between "regeneration" and "conversion" to Turretin, and Shedd adopted this approach. He says:

"The divines of the seventeenth century [Puritans] very generally do not distinguish between regeneration and conversion, but employ the two as synonyms. Owen does this continually: On the Spirit, III. v. And Charnocke likewise: Attributes, Practical Atheism. The Westminster [Confession] does not use the term regeneration. In stead of it, it employs the term vocation, or effectual calling. This comprises the entire work of the Holy Spirit in the application of redemption. . . ." Shedd then alleges: "But this wide use of the term regeneration led to confusion of ideas and views. As there are two distinct words in the language, regeneration and conversion, there are also two distinct notions denoted by them. Consequently, there arose gradually a stricter use of the term regeneration, and its discrimination from conversion. Turrettin (XV. iv. 13) defines two kinds of conversion, as the term was employed in his day. . . . After thus defining, Turrettin remarks that the first kind of conversion is better denominated 'regeneration,' because it has reference to the new birth by which man is renewed in the image of his Maker; and the second kind of conversion is better denominated 'conversion,' because it includes the operation and agency of man himself. . . ."

Then Shedd says: "We shall adopt this distinction [by Turretin] between regeneration and conversion. . . . Regeneration is a cause; conversion is an effect."

J. I. Packer also contends that the theory arose in "later Reformed theology:" Packer says:

"Many seventeenth century Reformed theologians equated regeneration with effectual calling and conversion with regeneration . . . LATER REFORMED THEOLOGY has defined regeneration more narrowly, as the implanting of the 'seed' from which faith and repentance spring (I John 3:9) in the course of effectual calling."

Louis Berkhof:

Berkhof likewise acknowledged that the theory had post-Creedal development:

"It is true that some Reformed authors have occasionally used the term 'regeneration' as including even sanctification, but that was in the days when the ORDO SALUTIS was not as fully developed as it is today" (Systematic Theology, page 468).

Owen wrote:

"So the body of Adam was formed before the rational soul was breathed into it; and Ezekiel's bones came together with a noise and shaking before the breath of life entered into them. Eze 37.7-10"

In the previous chapter we saw where Spurgeon used both these examples to illustrate prevenient grace and how he spoke of what Owen had written on the subject.

Owen wrote further:

"First, There are some things required of us by way of duty in order for our regeneration, which are so much in the power of our own natural abilities, that nothing but corrupt prejudices and stubbornness in sinning, keep or hinder men from performing them. We may reduce these to two headings: 

1. An outward attendance to the dispensation of the word of God, with those other external means of grace which accompany it, or are appointed in this. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God," Rom 10.17; that is, it is hearing the word of God which is the ordinary means of ingenerating faith in the souls of men. 

2. A diligent intension of mind, using the means of grace, in order to understand and receive the things that are revealed and declared as the mind and will of God. For this end, God has given men their reasons and understandings: so that they may use and exercise them about their duty towards him, according to the revelation of his mind and will. To this purpose, God calls upon them to remember that they are men, and to turn to him. And there is nothing in this that is not in the liberty and power of the rational faculties of our souls, assisted by those common aids which God affords to all men in general."

These means are examples of "prevenient grace" and of the preparations God works prior to regeneration. But, those Calvinists who put regeneration before faith are led to deny that God uses means in producing the new birth. This is because they believe that power to believe must be given in regeneration before a sinner can receive or believe the gospel. So we read that Shedd wrote:

"Seventh, regeneration is not effected by the use of means, in the strict signification of the term means. The Holy Spirit employs means in conviction, in conversion, and in sanctification, but not in regeneration." 

"The appointed means of grace are the word, the sacraments, and prayer. None of these means are used in the instant of regeneration; first, because regeneration is instantaneous and there is not time to use them; second, because regeneration is a direct operation of the Holy Spirit upon the human spirit. It is the action of Spirit upon spirit, of a divine person upon a human person, whereby spiritual life is imparted. Nothing, therefore, of the nature of means or instruments can come between the Holy Spirit and the soul that is to be made alive. God did not employ an instrument or means when he infused physical life into the body of Adam." 

"In like manner, the word and truth of God, the most important of all the means of grace, is not a means of regeneration, as distinct from conviction, conversion, and sanctification. This is evident when it is remembered that it is the office of a means or instrument to excite or stimulate an already existing principle of life. Physical food is a means of physical growth; but it supposes physical vitality. If the body is dead, bread cannot be a means or instrument. Intellectual truth is a means of intellectual growth; but it supposes intellectual vitality. If the mind be idiotic, secular knowledge cannot be a means or instrument. Spiritual truth is a means of spiritual growth, in case there be spiritual vitality. But if the mind be dead to righteousness, spiritual truth cannot be a means or instrument. Truth certainly cannot be a means unless it is apprehended. But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God, neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:14)." ("Various Uses of the Term Regeneration"; See here) 

You can also see more of these citations from Shedd in this post of mine (here).

Owen wrote further:

"These things are required of us for our regeneration; and it is in the power of our own wills to comply with them. 

In the most diligent use of outward means, men are not able to attain regeneration, or a complete conversion to God, by themselves — not without an especial, effectual, internal work of the Holy Spirit of grace on their whole soul. The substance of what is principally proposed in the ensuing discourses to confirm this, need not be asserted here."

When Owen speaks of it being "in the power of our own wills to comply with" the means, he means that there is no lack of physical or metaphysical ability, no lack of faculties to comply, but he does not deny that an unregenerate sinner lacks moral or spiritual ability.

Owen wrote further:

"Secondly, There are certain internal spiritual effects worked in and upon the souls of men, of which the word preached is the immediate and instrumental cause; these ordinarily precede the work of regeneration, or our real conversion to God. And they are reducible to three heads: 1. Illumination; 2. Conviction; 3. Reformation."

It was this truth that some later Calvinists rejected, possibly because they did not want to embrace any idea of prevenient grace, thinking that it was Armianism. But, that was a mistake.

Owen wrote further:

 

"Secondly, in order of nature, illumination is previous to a full and real conversion to God, and it is materially preparatory and dispositive to this conversion — for saving grace enters into the soul by light. As it is therefore a gift of God, so it is the duty of all men to labor after participating in it, even though it is abused by many."

I have another post on the question addressed by J.C. Philpot as to whether light, or illumination, precedes the giving of spiritual life. (See here) This question divided many of the old Regular Baptists. The Hardshells believe that one must be given spiritual life before he obtains any light on Gospel truth. In this case, the light of truth is no means in giving life. Philpot believed otherwise, that the word of God and gospel light were means in giving life.

Owen wrote further:

"Conviction of sin is another effect of the preaching of the word antecedent to real conversion to God. 

Various things are included in this, or accompany it; such as — (1.) A disquieting sense of the guilt of sin with respect to the law of God, with his threatenings and future judgment.

All these things [concerning illumination and conviction] may be worked in the minds of men by the dispensation of the word, and yet the work of regeneration is never perfected in them."

Conviction of sin and guilt is not evidence of a prior regeneration but is preparatory to it. If the Holy Spirit convicts a sinner so that he believes that he is lost, condemned, and going to Hell when he is really in a justified and saved state, then the Holy Spirit lies to that sinner.

Owen wrote further:

 

"Thirdly, All the things mentioned as being worked instrumentally by the word, are effects of the power of the Spirit of God. The word itself, under a bare proposal to the minds of men, will not affect them this way.

In many persons, maybe in most, who are thus affected, real conversion to God does ensue. By these preparatory actings, the Holy Spirit makes way for the introduction of the new spiritual life into the soul: so these things belong to a work that is perfect in its kind."

Again, when one rejects the idea that there are preparatory works of God in a sinner prior to his being saved, and rejects prevenient grace, he is led to reject the idea that God uses his word in producing regeneration as did Shedd and the later Calvinist or Reformers.

Owen wrote further:

"Wherever these things fail and come short of what, in their own nature, they have a tendency to, it is not from any weakness and imperfection in themselves, but from the sins of those in whom they are worked. For instance, even common illumination and conviction of sin have, in their own nature, a tendency to sincere conversion. They have this tendency in the same way that the law has a tendency to bring us to Christ. Where this end is not attained, it is always from the interposition of an act of willfulness and stubbornness in those who are enlightened and convicted."

Here Owen rightly says that many who have been convicted of sin and have seen their lost condition were not regenerated and that this was owing to their moral or spiritual inability. Read my three chapters on "Conviction of Sin" in my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" (here, here, here).

Owen wrote further: 

"Now, because this work often makes a great appearance and resemblance of regeneration, or of real conversion to God — so that neither the world nor the church is able to distinguish between them — it is of great concern to all professors of the gospel to diligently inquire whether, in their own souls, they have been made partakers of any other work of the Spirit of God or not. For although this is a good work, and it has a good subservience to regeneration, yet if men attain no more, if they proceed no further, they will perish eternally. And multitudes actually deceive themselves in this, speaking peace to their souls on the effects of this work; by which it is not only insufficient to save them, as it is to all persons at all times, but it also becomes a means of their present security and future destruction."

The Hyper Calvinists who put regeneration before faith and who deny any divine workings in a soul before regeneration do see any such divine workings as being regeneration, but that is putting it too soon in the divine working. 

Owen wrote further: 

"By these things we may learn to distinguish in ourselves between the preparatory work mentioned, and that of real saving conversion to God. And these are some of the heads of those operations of the Holy Spirit on the minds of men, which are often preparatory to a real conversion to God; and sometimes, by a contempt for and rejection of them, there is a great aggravation of the sin and misery of those in whom they were worked."

Is It A Conspiracy by Hyper Calvinists?

Over the years I have cited, as have others, John Calvin's remark from his commentary on First Corinthians where he said "we are born again by faith." I cited this to a man today and I went to Calvin's commentary on First Corinthians 13:13 that are available online and here is what they uniformly give:

"Besides, there is bestowed upon faith a signal commendation, which does not apply to love, when John declares that it is our victory, which overcometh the world. (1 John 5:4.) In fine, it is by faith that we are born against that we become the sons of God — that we obtain eternal life, and that Christ dwells in us. (Ephesians 3:17.) Innumerable other things I pass over; but these few are sufficient to prove what I have in view — that faith is, in many of its effects, superior to love. Hence it is evident, that it is declared here to be superior — not in every respect, but inasmuch as it will be perpetual, and holds at present the first place in the preservation of the Church."

I searched all the sites that have Calvin's commentaries and I could not find where one had "again" instead of "against." Obviously the word "against" is a typo. Since all have the same typo I can only assume that they all copied from the same source. I could not believe this. I know that Calvin originally wrote "born again by faith." So, why has this blunder not been corrected? Is it a conspiracy by the Hyper Calvinists? If any of my readers have Calvin's commentaries, please check and see what you have.

Further, in Calvin's original there is a comma after "again" and reads "in fine, it is by faith that we are born again, that we become the sons of God."

In Calvin's commentary on I John 5: 1 he says "for since God regenerates us by faith." In his commentary on John 1: 13 he wrote: "It may be thought that the Evangelist reverses the natural order by making regeneration to precede faith, whereas, on the contrary, it is an effect of faith, and therefore ought to be placed later."

In Calvin's famous "Institutes of the Christian religion," chapter three is titled "Regeneration by Faith." In that chapter he equates regeneration with repentance, saying: 

"In one word, then, by repentance I understand regeneration, the only aim of which is to form in us anew the image of God, which was sullied, and all but effaced by the transgression of Adam."

He says: "Repentance follows faith, and is produced by it." 

In that chapter he also wrote:

"Although we have already in some measure shown how faith possesses Christ, and gives us the enjoyment of his benefits, the subject would still be obscure were we not to add an exposition of the effects resulting from it."

"Now, since Christ confers upon us, and we obtain by faith, both free reconciliation and newness of life, reason and order require that I should here begin to treat of both...That repentance not only always follows faith, but is produced by it, ought to be without controversy (see Calvin in Joann. 1:13)...Those who think that repentance precedes faith instead of flowing from, or being produced by it, as the fruit by the tree, have never understood its nature, and are moved to adopt that view on very insufficient grounds."

The man to whom I cited Calvin's words said that all believers in the doctrines of grace (i.e. Calvinists) believe that regeneration is before faith. I told him that was not true. He then responded by saying "they occur at the same time." Anyone can see the contradiction. He first says one is before the other and then says they are at the same time. I then gave him the Calvin citation and also stated that Spurgeon also taught that one was born again by faith. He wanted to challenge that too. After I gave the citations to prove that not all Calvinists believe that regeneration precedes faith he said he did not want to debate the question in the comment section. So, I said, "fine, but you should at least admit that you were wrong to say all Calvinists believe that regeneration precedes faith." He did not. I invited him to come and debate the question here in this blog. I also made some comments that disappeared but he says he did not delete them. I did have Internet issues yesterday, so that could be the cause. But, I remain suspicious.

Want The Spirit? Ask For It

"If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!” (Luke 11: 13 nkjv)

“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened." (Matt. 7: 7-8 nkjv)

These texts are difficult ones for those Calvinists who believe that one is saved, born again, regenerated, before he believes and repents, and apart from calling upon the Lord to save him or asking the Lord to do so. However, the Bible teaches that a person is first led by the Spirit to see his need for salvation and the Spirit's work, and is then brought to ask the Father for it. This truth is stated in the well known Christian hymn "O Happy Day!" and in the words "O happy day, that fixed my choice on Thee, my Savior and my God!" The apostle Paul spoke of how the Galatian believers "received the Spirit by the hearing of faith." (Gal. 3: 2) 

Further, people choose to believe, even when they are compelled by the power of truth and Spirit of God. (Luke 14: 23) That is, their wills are involved in believing and repenting. Believe and repent are verbs in the active voice, not in the passive voice. We see this truth in these words of Lord God himself:

"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the Lord, "Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool. If you are willing and obedient, You shall eat the good of the land; But if you refuse and rebel, You shall be devoured by the sword"; For the mouth of the Lord has spoken." (Isa. 1: 18-20 nkjv)

These words were addressed to spiritually lost and dead sinners, described by God in this fashion: "Hear the word of the Lord, You rulers of Sodom; Give ear to the law of our God, You people of Gomorrah." (vs. 10) To be described as being the people of Sodom and Gomorrah is to be declared to be degenerate. He tells them that they need to be washed of their sins, saying "wash yourselves, make yourselves clean." (vs. 16) Then he leaves the choice up to these degenerate souls. He says "if you are willing and obedient" you shall "eat the good of the land," and also have their sins washed white as snow. But he also says "if you refuse and rebel" you will "be devoured by the sword" of God's judgment.

I despise the question - "do you choose God or does he choose you?" It is not an either/or case. Those who God has chosen to salvation are made by God's work to choose him. Receiving Christ is the result of choosing to do so. Wrote the apostle John: "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God." (John 1: 12) Again, we say that the word "receive" is in the active voice in the Greek and the word often means to "take" what is offered. Salvation is a gift of God but it must be voluntarily received. Further, this willingness to receive the gift is the result of God working in a person "to will" or choose to do so. (Phil. 2: 12-13)

Jesus spoke of people rejecting him when they rejected his good news proclaimers. (Luke 10: 16) Peter spoke of believers as "Coming to Him as to a living stone" but who was "rejected indeed by men" and being “the stone which the builders rejected.” (I Peter 2: 4, 7 nkjv) Choosing Christ and his gift of salvation is the opposite of "rejecting" him. People accept or reject Christ by choice. Jesus also said:

"He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him— the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day." (John 12: 48 nkjv)

Again, the opposite of rejecting and not receiving Christ is accepting, taking, or choosing Christ. I hate it when the Hyper Calvinists ridicule the idea of "accepting" Christ as your Lord and Savior. They must be out of their minds to do so. The above texts tell us that Christ must be chosen and accepted and received in order to be saved. If you want the Holy Spirit, or the Father, or Christ the Son, then ask him in penitent faith to come to you and save you, and to come into your heart. So Jesus said:

"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me." (Rev. 3: 20 nkjv)

To open the door of your heart to the Lord is a choice, an act of your will. This does not mean that you can then boast that you earned salvation by simply choosing to receive the gift of salvation and the Lord's presence, for it is God who works in you to will and because the hand of faith that receives God's gifts is itself a gift of God. All that is involved in bringing a lost sinner to make the choice to ask, seek, and knock is the result of God "working in" that person (Heb. 13: 21) and is due to God's "workmanship." (Eph. 2: 10)

Joshua, the servant of the Lord, when dealing with stubborn and obstinate sinners, said:

"And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” (Joshua 24: 15 nkjv)

When I was with the Hardshells I used to hear their Hyper Calvinistic twist on this text. They would say 1) the choice was not between serving the true God and false gods, but between which false god to serve, and 2) the choice was made by those who were already God's people (Israelites). In reply I say that Joshua is saying -- "since you have chosen not to serve Yahweh, then choose which god you will serve." Also when he says "as for me" he means "as for my choice, I choose that my house and I will serve the Lord." It is clear that the people who are called upon to make a choice have already made a choice not to serve Yahweh and this is evident by the words "if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord." 

Some of my Calvinist brothers might say -- "Paul says 'it is not of him who wills'". However, that is true of election, which is what the "it" refers to. Being actually saved involves choosing to receive Christ.

Prevenient Grace (1)

Is all grace given to men irresistible, or never given in vain? If grace is irresistible in regeneration, as Calvinists teach, does this mean that grace before or after initial regeneration or rebirth is likewise irresistible? How does a belief in "common grace" relate to "irresistible grace"? How does "prevenient grace" relate to what may be called "preparatory" grace or "preparationism" as in Puritan theology? What about conviction of sin? Does it precede or follow the grace of the birth of the Spirit? If it precedes, is it then an example of prevenient grace? Is conviction of sin a gracious work of God that always brings salvation? What about the experience of sinners being "awakened"? Is it regeneration or a preparation for it? Are there means that God uses to bring about the new birth? If yes, are those means examples of prevenient grace? Is there any gracious work that God does in the hearts and minds of sinners prior to their salvation, or is regeneration the first work? 

Is it true, as many claim, that a belief in prevenient grace is peculiar to Armianism? Or, are there Calvinists who believe in prevenient grace? Does the grace of faith precede regeneration? If so, is the giving of faith not an example of prevenient grace? Does divine giving of light precede giving life, or does illumination or enlightenment, or the giving of saving knowledge, precede salvation? If yes, is this illumination an example of prevenient grace? These are some of the questions we will address in this series, and is a subject I have been wanting to write for some time but have been busy with other topical series.

I will begin this series with a citation from the great theologian John Owen, a Calvinist. Owens wrote (emphasis mine). 

"First, in reference to the work of regeneration itself, positively considered, we may observe that ordinarily there are certain previous and preparatory works, or workings in and upon the souls of men, that are antecedent and dispositive to regeneration. Yet regeneration does not consist in them, nor can it be educed out of them."  (From Pneumatologia; "Works of the Holy Spirit Prepatory to Regeneration" as cited here)

This citation answers one of our questions. It shows that a belief in prevenient grace, what Owen calls "preparatory works," is not unique to John Wesley nor to Arminians. As we will see in this series, Owen is not alone, for there are other Calvinists who believe in some version of prevenient grace.

First, we need to define "prevenient grace." The word "prevenient" needs clarification first. It means what comes before, coming from Latin. Just as the word "convenient" means a "coming together," so prevenient means a coming before. It is similar, in the KJV or 1611 English, to the word "prevent," which in today's English means to keep something from happening, but in old English it meant to precede. So we read such texts as this: "I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried: I hoped in thy word." (Psa. 119: 47) The Psalmist is not saying, of course, that he kept the dawning of the morning from occurring, but that he got up before the dawn to cry to the Lord in prayer. We also read in the new testament where Jesus is said to have "prevented" the coming of Peter into the house, which means he went in before Peter. (Matt. 17: 25)

The great Calvinist theologian Charles Hodge in his Systematic Theology, volume II, Chapter 14, under "Vocation," and under "common grace," wrote (emphasis mine):

"Hence it is that the greatest of all gifts secured by the work of Christ, that without which salvation had been impossible, the Holy Ghost, in the influence which He exerts on the minds of men, has in all ages and in all parts of the Church been designated as divine grace. A work of grace is the work of the Holy Spirit; the means of grace, are the means by which, or in connection with which, the influence of the Spirit is conveyed or exercised. By common grace, therefore, is meant that influence of the Spirit, which in a greater or less measure, is granted to all who hear the truth. By sufficient grace is meant such kind and degree of the Spirit’s influence, as is sufficient to lead men to repentance, faith, and a holy life. By efficacious grace is meant such an influence of the Spirit as is certainly effectual in producing regeneration and conversion. By preventing grace is intended that operation of the Spirit on the mind which precedes and excites its efforts to return to God. By the gratia gratum faciens is meant the influence of the Spirit which renews or renders gracious. Cooperating grace is that influence of the Spirit which aids the people of God in all the exercises of the divine life. By habitual grace is meant the Holy Spirit as dwelling in believers; or, that permanent, immanent state of mind due to his abiding presence and power. Such is the established theological and Christian usage of this word. By grace, therefore, in this connection is meant the influence of the Spirit of God on the minds of men."

This again shows that some Calvinists do not reject either common grace or prevenient grace. He also rightly equates the work or influence of the Spirit with grace. He also connects any means that God uses to effect salvation as graces. He defines "prevenient grace" with "that operation of the Spirit on the mind which precedes and excites its efforts to return to God." He also says that such views of grace are "the established theological and Christian usage of" the word "grace." I agree with Owen and Hodge on this question. I get irritated when I hear people say, especially bible teachers who should know better, that Calvinists 1) believe that regeneration or rebirth precedes faith, and 2) deny prevenient grace and call such Arminianism. Neither is true. I have numerous articles in this blog that show that many great Calvinists, like John Calvin himself, believed that men were born again by faith and in prevenient grace.

Hodge wrote further:

"The Influences of the Spirit granted to all Man. That there is a divine influence of the Spirit granted to all men, is plain both from Scripture and from experience."

There are many bible texts which teach this truth and we will examine some of them in this series. Hodge gives several examples. In one example of them he wrote:

"The martyr Stephen (Acts vii. 51) tells the Jews, “As your fathers did...ye do always resist the ‘Holy Ghost,” as the prophet Isaiah lxiii. 10, said of the men of his generation, that they vexed God’s Holy Spirit. The Spirit, therefore, is represented as striving with the wicked, and with all men. They are charged with resisting, grieving, vexing, and quenching his operations."

If the Holy Spirit was active in urging and influencing those who rejected him, was this activity an act of grace? Was it not resisted? Was this influence of the Spirit upon the unregenerate not an example of prevenient grace?

J. L. Packer, well known theologian, wrote:

"The Reformers reaffirmed the substance of Augustine's doctrine of prevenient grace, and Reformed theology still maintains it. Calvin used the term "regeneration" to cover man's whole subjective renewal, including conversion and sanctification. Many seventeenth century Reformed theologians equated regeneration with effectual calling and conversion with regeneration (hence the systematic mistranslation of epistrepho, "turn," as a passive, "be converted," in the AV); later Reformed theology has defined regeneration more narrowly, as the implanting of the "seed" from which faith and repentance spring (I John 3:9) in the course of effectual calling." (See my previous posting for this citation here)

Both Arminians and Calvinists believe in such grace, although Hyper Calvinists and those who put regeneration before faith and evangelical conversion generally deny it. Notice how Packer admits that Augustine believed in prevenient grace. Packer also wrote (See here):

"Regeneration is the work of what Augustine called “prevenient” grace, the grace that precedes our outgoings of heart toward God." 

But, this is where Packer and Hyper Calvinists get it wrong. Regeneration or being born of God is not to be equated with the workings of God that leads to it. Packer is implying that Augustine believed that there was no preceding grace or preceding work of the Spirit in a person prior to his rebirth. In this statement he makes Augustine to contradict himself. Why would he do this? Especially since he has already admitted that Augustine believed in prevenient grace? And admitted that "Reformed theology still maintains it"? 

In "Prevenient Grace," a sermon by the famous Charles Haddon Spurgeon in 1865, we find that this great Calvinist likewise believed in prevenient grace. He said (emphasis mine):

"I selected this text, not so much for its own sake, as to give me an opportunity for saying a little this evening upon a doctrine not often touched upon, namely, that of PREVENIENT GRACE, or the grace which comas before regeneration and conversion. I think we sometimes overlook it. We do not attach enough importance to the grace of God in its dealings with men before he actually brings them to himself." 

I agree with this observation of Spurgeon. Many Calvinists reject it outright because they think it is an Arminian tenet, and they do so without investigating the matter.

Spurgeon said further:

"Now, when I look at the life of a man, even before conversion, I think I can discover something of God’s moulding and fashioning in him even before regenerating grace comes into his heart. Let me give you an illustration of my course of thought. When God created man—we are told in the book of Genesis—he made him “out of the dust of the earth.” Mark him beneath his Maker’s hand, the framework of a man, the tabernacle for an immortal soul; a man made of clay, fully made, I suppose, and perfect in all respects excepting one, and that soon followed: for after God had formed him out of the dust, then he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. Now it strikes me that during the early part of the history of the people whom God means to save, though they have not received into their hearts any spiritual life, nor experienced any of the work of regeneration, yet their life before conversion is really a working of them in the clay."

Those Calvinists, or Hyper Calvinists, who put regeneration or rebirth before faith and repentance, or before evangelical conversion, do not believe that there is any pre-regeneration gracious acts of the Spirit but have made "regeneration" to be "the first act of God" upon a sinner in effecting regeneration, and thus deny that there is any such pre-regeneration acts of grace. I wrote about this in this post (here). I showed that these Calvinists define regeneration as solely what God does to the exclusion of what God effects in so doing. In that post I wrote the following and cited the words of the great Calvinist theologian Archibald Alexander, from his work titled "A Practical View of Regeneration" (Published in The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, volume 8, 1836), in which I gave these introductory words and then gave what Alexander wrote (See here):

"Another error of those who separate regeneration from conversion, faith, and repentance, is to define "regeneration" simply as respects the "cause," whereas biblical "regeneration" includes both causes and effects, and primarily focuses upon the effect.  On this point the great head of Princeton Seminary, Archibald Alexander wrote:

"Evangelical repentance, conversion and regeneration, are substantially the same. They all signify a thorough change of views, affections, purposes and conduct; and this change is every where declared to be essential to salvation."

"Curious inquiries respecting the way in which the word is instrumental in the production of this change are not for edification. Sometimes regeneration is considered distinctly from the acts and exercises of the mind which proceed from it, but in the Holy Scriptures the cause and effect are included; and we shall therefore treat the subject in this practical and popular form. The instrumentality of the word can never derogate from the efficient agency of the Spirit in this work. The Spirit operates by and through the word. The word derives all its power and penetrating energy from the Spirit. Without the omnipotence of God the word would be as inefficient as clay and spittle, to restore sight to the blind."

I then made these comments on these words of Alexander:

"Alexander pinpoints the error of those Hyper Calvinists who restrict the definition of regeneration to include only the "cause." He correctly states that the scriptures include what is effected in the definition. A man cannot then be said to have been "regenerated" who lacked the "effects," or constituent elements of regeneration. In other words, a man cannot be said to have been "saved" who lacks the "things which accompany salvation." Thus, to say a man is regenerated before he believes and repents is to define regeneration strictly by the cause to the exclusion of the effect."

Alexander also wrote:

"Ezekiel was commanded to prophesy over the dry bones in the valley of vision. Thus ministers are now sent to call upon those who are dead in trespasses and sins, to awake and arise from the dead, but none will obey their voice, unless a divine power accompanies their words...That the word of God is indeed the instrument or means of producing this change is evident from many plain testimonies of Scripture..."

I then made these observations on what Alexander said:

"Those Hyper Calvinists who limit their definition of the word "regeneration" to the cause of the change, to the exclusion of the effect, or actual change, greatly err. Alexander is correct to affirm that scripture defines the experience of regeneration in such a way as to include the effect, or to what is actually effected by the cause of regeneration."

As we will see, Spurgeon also spoke of the story of Ezekiel and the dry bones to illustrate how there are things that happen to a sinner before his being brought to life. This story was one of the means for me rejecting Hardshellism and Hyper Calvinism and the idea that God does not use the preaching of the gospel as a means in raising dead sinners to spiritual life. God used Ezekiel's prophesying to the dead bones to resurrect them.

Spurgeon said further:

"You would, perhaps, say that all I have talked about as yet has been providence rather than grace. Very likely, but I think that providence and grace are very near akin; at any rate if providence is the wheel, grace is the hand which turns and guides it. But I am now about to speak of GRACE PRECEDING CALLING IN ANOTHER SENSE." 

Calvinists almost universally agree that the elect will be kept from dying until they have been effectually called and often use Jude 1: 1 to prove it, where Jude says "preserved in Jesus Christ and called." Would that preservation not be an act of grace?

Spurgeon said further:

"It strikes me that it is impossible to say, concerning the elect, when the grace of God begins to deal with them. You can tell when the quickening grace comes, but not when the grace itself comes."

There is certainly grace given to sinners before he saves them.

Spurgeon said further:

"I should say that there is what I cannot call by any other name than formative grace, exercised upon the vessels of mercy at their very birth. It seems to me to be no small mercy that some of us were born of such parents as we were, and that we were born where we were. Some of us began right, and were surrounded by many advantages. We were cradled upon the lap of piety, and dandled upon the knee of holiness." 

These are providential means that prepare the way for a sinner's regeneration.

Spurgeon said further:

"This formative grace many of you, I have no doubt, can trace in the examples and influences which have followed you from the cradle through life. Why, what a blessing to have had such a Sunday-school teacher as some of you had! Other children went to schools, but they had not such a teacher, or such a class as yours. What a privilege to have had such a minister as some of you had, though perhaps he has fallen asleep now!...Furthermore, while there was this formative grace, there seems to me to have gone with it very much of preventive grace." 

Again, all means that God may use in his providence to prepare a sinner for his salvation may be called examples of prevenient grace.

Spurgeon said further:

"Beloved, I have thanked God a thousand times in my life, that before my conversion, when I had ill desires I had no opportunities; and on the other hand, that when I had opportunities I had no desires; for when desires and opportunities come together like the flint and steel, they make the spark that kindles the fire, but neither the one nor the other, though they may both be dangerous, can bring about any very great amount of evil so long as they are kept apart. Let us, then, look back, and if this has been our experience bless the preventing grace of God." 

I too have thanked God a thousand times also for things he did in my life prior to my being born of the Spirit, things which kept me from going over the abyss, from my heart being hardened by divine judgment, even from suicide. 

Spurgeon said further:

"Again, there is another form of grace I must mention, namely, restraining grace. Here, you see, I am making a distinction. There are many who did go into sin; they were not wholly prevented from it, but they could go as far into it as they wanted to do...Oh! how often God has thrown a man on a sick bed to make him well!" 

 Indeed we see restraining grace at work in the lives of God's elect before he calls them.

Spurgeon said further:

"We shall get still further into the subject when we come to what Dr. John Owen calls the preparatory work of grace. Have you ever noticed that parable about the different sorts of ground, and the sower of the seeds? A sower went forth to sow, and some of the seed fell on stony ground; you can understand that, because all men have stones in their hearts. Some fell on the thorns and thistles; you can comprehend that, because men are so given to worldly care. Another part of the seed fell on the beaten path; you can understand that—men are so occupied with worldliness. But how about the “good ground”? “Good ground”! Is there such a thing as “good ground” by nature? One of the evangelists says that it was “honest and good ground.” Now, is there such a difference between hearts and hearts? Are not all men depraved by nature? Yes, he who doubts human depravity had better begin to study himself. Question: If all hearts are bad how are some hearts good? Reply: They are good comparatively; they are good in a certain sense. It is not meant in the parable that that good ground was so good that it ever would have produced a harvest without the sowing of the seed, but that it had been prepared by providential influences upon it to receive the seed, and in that sense it may be said to have been “good ground.”" 

I have already cited from Owen and will yet cite him further in the next chapter. Hyper Calvinists who deny that the word of God is a means in effecting salvation, be it regeneration or rebirth, will argue that the heart being good and honest in the parable means that it was regenerated, and so they say regeneration precedes the sowing of the seed of the word of God and cannot therefore be a means in making the heart good. However, both Owen and Spurgeon are correct in declaring that this honest and good heart is what preceded salvation. That is clear in the parable, for the result of receiving the seed was salvation, so the heart being good and honest could not denote salvation. (See Luke 8: 12)

Spurgeon said further:

"Now let me show you how God’s grace does come to work on the human heart so as to make it good soil before the living seed is cast into it, so that before quickening grace really visits it the heart may be called a good heart, because it is prepared to receive that grace. I think this takes place thus: first of all, before quickening grace comes, God often gives an attentive ear, and makes a man willing to listen to the Word. Not only does he like to listen to it, but he wants to know the meaning of it; there is a little excitement in his mind to know what the gospel tidings really are. He is not saved as yet, but it is always a hopeful sign when a man is willing to listen to the truth, and is anxious to understand it. This is one thing which prevenient grace does in making the soil good. In Ezekiel’s vision, as you will recollect, before the breath came from the four winds the bones began to stir, and they came together bone to his bone. So, before the Spirit of God comes to a man in effectual calling, God’s grace often comes to make a stir in the man’s mind, so that he is no longer indifferent to the truth, but is anxious to understand what it means." 

I agree completely. God certainly gave an "attentive ear" to Lydia before she heard and believed the gospel preached by Paul. The record is that "the Lord opened her heart so that she attended to the things spoken by Paul." (Acts 16: 14) I wrote on this text in this post (here). I showed that the Hyper Calvinist view that this opening of the heart was regeneration was false. They interpret the text in this way in order to prove their thesis that says 1) regeneration comes before faith and 2) the word of God is no means in effecting regeneration. In that post I also cited what Spurgeon said in his rejection of this view. I cite where Spurgeon said the following in preaching upon this text:

"We do not well if we forget the prevenient providences which work before our conversion, to bring us unto that spot where God was pleased to manifest himself unto us." 

"Observe next, that in Lydia's case there was not only preventing providence, but there was also grace in a certain manner preparing the soul. The woman did not know the Saviour; she did not understand the things which make for her peace, yet she knew many truths which were excellent stepping-stones to a knowledge of Jesus." 

"She worshipped God; worshipped him in sincerity; worshipped him looking for the coming of the Messiah, Israel's consolation; and so her mind was prepared for the reception of the gospel. Doubtless, dear friends, in many of us there was a preparation for Christ before Christ came to us in quickening grace."

"Still, dear friends, we ought to ascribe all this preparatory work to sovereign grace, for grace—free favour does much in which no grace of effectual salvation is perceptible. I mean that before grace renews the heart there is grace preparing us for grace; grace may be setting the mind in activity, clearing us from prejudice, ridding us of a thousand infidel and sceptical thoughts, and so raising a platform from which divine grace conducts us into the region of the new life. Such was the case of Lydia, such is the case of many; providence and grace co-work before the effectual time is come." 

"Note again, for we will only hint at these things rather than dwell upon them, that it was assuredly a work of grace, for we are expressly told, “whose heart the Lord opened.” She did not open her own heart. Her prayers did not do it; Paul did not do it; the Lord himself must open the heart, to receive the things which make for our peace. To operate savingly upon human hearts belongs to God alone." 

"...although the Lord opened the heart, Paul’s words were the instrument of her conversion. The heart may be opened, and willing to receive, but then if truth enter not, what would be the use of an open door? But God always takes care to open the heart at a time when the messenger of mercy shall be going by, that the heart may give him admittance." ("Lessons from Lydia’s Conversion" - here)

Spurgeon said further in his sermon on prevenient grace:

"The next mark of this gracious work is an ingenuousness of heart. Some persons will not hear you, or if they do they are always picking holes and finding fault, they are not honest and good ground. But there are others who say, “I will give the man a fair and an honest hearing; I will read the Bible; I will read it, too, honestly; I will really see whether it be the Word of God or not, I will come to it without any prejudices; or, if I have any prejudices I will throw them aside.” Now, all this is a blessed work of preparatory grace, making the heart ready to receive effectual calling."

I look back upon my own conversion and see how God had prepared me by prevenient grace prior to my actual conversion.

Spurgeon said further:

"Then, when this willingness and ingenuousness are attended with a tender conscience, as they are in some unconverted people, this is another great blessing. Some of you are not converted, but you would not do wrong; you are not saints, but you would not tell a lie for the world. I thank God that there are some of you so excellent in morals, that if you were proposed to us for Church-membership, we could not raise any objection to you on that ground, at any rate. You are as honest as the day is long: as for the things of God, you are outwardly as attentive to them, and as diligent in them, as the most earnest and indefatigable Christians. Now, this is because your conscience is tender. When you do wrong you cannot sleep at night; and you do not feel at all easy in being without a Saviour—I know some of you do not. You have not come to any decision; the grace of God has not really made you feel your thoroughly ruined state; still you are not quite easy...You know you have not believed in Jesus Christ, and the world keeps you back from doing so; but still there is a kind of twitching in your conscience; you do not know what it is, but there is a something got into you that makes you say at times, “O God, let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his;” yes, and you even go farther than this, and ask to live the righteous man’s life too. Now, remember, this will not save you: “Ye must be born again.” But for all this the Church of God should feel deeply grateful, for they have seen in themselves that this is often God’s preparatory work—clearing away the rubbish and rubble, and digging out the foundations, that Jesus Christ might be laid therein, the corner-stone of future hope and of future happiness." 

Years ago when I was working with Bob L. Ross of Pilgrim Publications, and author of several scholarly books, we talked about regeneration in the context of the errors thereupon by Hardshells and Hyper Calvinists and I recall him saying about the "ordo salutis" that they place regeneration "too soon" in their paradigm. What we would call pre-regeneration workings of the Spirit they would call regeneration. This is evident when we discuss what is called "conviction of sin," an experience that occurs prior to conversion. Hardshells say that conviction of sin is evidence of regeneration while Arminians and many Calvinists say it is what precedes regeneration. In my series titled "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" I have some chapters on "Conviction of Sin." (See here, here, here)

Spurgeon said further:

"Another work of grace is the creation of dissatisfaction with their present state. How many men we have known who were consciously “without God and without hope in the world.” The apples of Sodom had turned to ashes and bitterness in their mouth, though at one time all was fair and sweet to their taste. The mirage of life with them has been dispelled, and instead of the green fields, and waving trees, and rippling waters, which their fevered imagination had conjured up in the desert, they can see now nought but the arid sand and wasteness of desolation, which appal their fainting spirits, and promise nothing; no, not even a grave to cover their whited bones, which shall remain a bleached memorial that “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.” Multitudes have been brought to see the deluge of sin which has covered even the high places of the earth, they find no rest for the sole of their foot, but as yet they know not of an ark, nor of a loving hand prepared to pull them in, as did Noah the dove in olden time. Look at the life of St. Augustine, how wearily he wanders hither and thither with a death thirst in his soul, that no fount of philosophy, or scholastic argument, or heretical teaching could ever assuage. He was aware of his unhappy estate, and turned his eye round the circle of the universe looking for peace, not fully conscious of what he wanted, though feeling an aching void the world could never fill. He had not found the centre, fixed and stedfast, around which all else revolved in ceaseless change. Now, all this appetite, this hunger and thirst, I look upon as not of the devil, nor of the human heart alone, it was of God. He strips us of all our earthly joy and peace, that, shivering in the cold blast, we might flee, when drawn by his Spirit, to the “Man who is as a hiding-place from the storm, a covert from the tempest, and the shadow of a great rock in a weary land.”

This is what occurred to me before I was born of the Spirit. The Lord showed me the vanity of life, of my life, wherein I saw my future life as not worth living, as bringing forth more evils than good, and so death seemed like a good way to prevent it. The Lord also showed me that I was lost and condemned and that if I did kill myself that I would not be any better off, but in a far worse state. When I was thus made to see my lost condition by the working of God's grace, God was not lying to me, as the Hardshells who believe that conviction of sin is evidence of a saved state. If God was telling me that I was lost and yet I was not really lost, then that would make God a liar. I have written on this several times. See this post as an example. (here)

Is God showing kindness an act of grace? Is God being good to all also an example of his grace? 

Every Day I Thank God For Correcting Me

In many of my daily prayers, when I am enumerating the things for which I am thankful to my Lord, I say to the Lord "thank you for delivering me from erring in my interpretation of your word, and for teaching me the right interpretation, i.e. correcting me in my thinking, and from delivering me from the heresies of the Hardshell Baptist cult." I look back on the many years when I was a preacher in that cult (far too many) and I see a number of ways (healthy hindsight) wherein I was twisting and perverting God's word, not being honest with the text. I believe I did it, like most, out of ignorance, and not because I intended to do it, on purpose, as does the Devil and his ministers.

I accepted a few unscriptural theological propositions adopted by Hardshell Hyper Calvinists because they seemed to be true. I then took those false premises TO the biblical text (eisegesis) and twisted it in order to make it conform to the traditional views of that group of Hardshells I was aligned with. I should have, of course, rather retained those propositions that are FROM the scriptures (exegesis). I was during those years a fairly good parrot in uttering the traditional interpretations of the cult. That does not mean that I went overboard in practicing twisting the Bible to suit my premises so that I always went along with the announced traditions of the Hardshells, though there was often pressure to do so. 

I often took a minority view when in that heretical group, especially on eschatology, interpreting prophecy, and on particular texts, such as the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16), or on the question of whether Satan was a fallen angel out of heaven, and of other angels too. My father preached for the Hardshells for about 55 years and he also took a minority view on the two subjects just mentioned, and for which he was persecuted by many, as I also was. 

Back when I was a Hardshell I often found it difficult to find Hardshell propositions taught in the Bible. I would often come across a text that, if interpreted honestly, contradicted those cult propositions. Yet, I either took the traditional view (but not wholeheartedly, but halfheartedly), putting a fuller study on the "back burner" for future study and decision. Contemplating those past days I see where I was often in a fight when studying scripture. I was pulled in one direction in interpretation by Hardshell traditions, interpreting the Bible through Hardshell spectacles, but pulled in another direction by an honest heart and good conscience and by the Spirit of God, to interpret honestly, even if it contradicts the cult. 

Things I am glad that I changed my beliefs about 

(more fundamental doctrines first)

Hardshell Errors I Once Believed or Was Taught

1. Gospel means is not a means in salvation. 

2. God is not the first cause of all things

3. Perseverance in Christ not necessary for salvation

4. Faith in Yahweh or Christ is not necessary for salvation

5. Hyper Calvinism (no offers of salvation via the gospel)

6. Ordo Salutis (regeneration before faith)

7. Depravity involves a physical inability rather than moral

8. Conversion is not necessary for salvation 

9. Amillennialism (that the present age is the millennium)

10. Most prophecies are not to be taken literally

11. God has no love for the non-elect

12. Financially supporting missionaries is wrong

13. Paying ministers a salary is wrong

14. Sunday schools are wrong

15. Seminaries to train ministers are wrong

16. Musical instruments in worship are wrong

17. Several Landmarker beliefs

18. Hardshellism is the historic views of Baptists

19. Time Salvation ideology

20. Preparing notes for sermons is wrong

21. Altar calls are wrong

22. Revival or protracted meetings are wrong

23. Calling upon lost sinners to repent is wrong

24. Christ ordained the practice of ceremonially washing feet

25. Those who remarried unlawfully can never be church members

26. The just and unjust will be resurrected simultaneously

27. The Primitive Baptist church is the kingdom of God

28. The new heavens and earth is a figure of the church age

29. The New Jerusalem is not a literal city

30. There is no such thing as angels falling from heaven

31. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is not literal

32. The foolish virgins are disobedient children of God

33. The KJV is without error and can only be used

34. Women cannot vote in the church

35. Women cannot lead singing or prayer or teach

36. All other churches are part of Mystery Babylon

37. Etc.

Some of these things are not believed by all Hardshell Baptists, but they are by many. Many of them I never accepted. 

Bible subjects I am glad I came to see more clearly

1. Adoption and Rebirth

2. Weak vs Strong Brothers

3. Christ descent into Hades

4. The intermediate state

5. Prophecies of things to come

6. How Christ is the chief corner or capstone

7. Issues in determining canonicity

8. The nature of regeneration

9. The doctrine of perseverance 

10. The doctrine of depravity

11. The fall of the angels

12. The ordo salutis

13. Predestination and free will

14. The problem of evil (theodicy)

15. The Abrahamic covenant

16. The Millennial kingdom

17. The rapture and great tribulation

18. The antichrist

19. Premillennialism

20. The Trinity

21. Antediluvian history

22. The times and seasons of Christ's return

23. The day of the Lord or judgment

24. God's purpose for the ages

25. The bible doctrine on Hell

26. Etc.

 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LV)

In the previous chapter we continued examining what Elder Lemuel Potter wrote about biblical "regeneration" in his work titled "A Treatise on Regeneration and Christian Warfare," which he wrote primarily to combat the errors of the Two Seed Primitive Baptists on that subject. In that examination we noticed that Potter himself embraced unbiblical views on that subject, his views being the same as today's "Primitive Baptists." The focus was on what changes occur to a person who is born again or regenerated and on what are the causes of regeneration. Potter believed that the "no change" or "hollow log" view of regeneration as taught by his Two Seed brethren was unbiblical, and on that point he is correct. However, when he or today's "Primitive Baptists" assert that a person can remain a pagan and impenitent unbeliever after experiencing regeneration, and remain ungodly in his conduct, and remain in darkness about the one true and living God and about his way of salvation through the work of his Messiah, he and they are ironically themselves embracing a Two Seed view of it.

We have already seen where today's "Primitive Baptists" believe that a person may be regenerated and not even know it, regeneration occurring, according to Hardshell apologist R.V. Sarrels, on the subconscious level. Sarrels also taught that regeneration changed the substance or essence of the soul, though it changed not the thinking, beliefs, likes and dislikes, of the one being regenerated, nor involved any divine teaching or revelation of truth. The orthodox view, the traditional Baptist view, rather taught that the change occurring in regeneration, rebirth, conversion, etc., was a moral and spiritual change and not a change in the physics or metaphysics of the soul, mind, heart, or spirit; And, that the salvation to which the elect were chosen before the world began was "through" both a "sanctification of the Spirit" and a "belief of the truth." (II Thess. 2: 13) Hardshell regeneration imparts no saving knowledge and they teach that divine knowledge is unnecessary for being regenerated. 

We also focused on the debate in Potter's day about what part of a person experienced regeneration and whether that part could be a source for doing what was sinful. We showed that this was not the way to look at the subject, for in regeneration the mind, heart, soul, and spirit are all positively affected and made good, though not immutably or perfectly so. The presence of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit within a believer's heart, soul, mind, and spirit, and of the divine nature, and of the word of God, all act as leaven in its ability to permeate those parts of his constitution. Regeneration is a process that begins when the believer receives Christ into his heart, and like renewing, progressive sanctification, and transformation into the image of Christ, is continuous. 

In earlier chapters when reviewing the writings of Elder T.P. Dudley we saw where he, and the Two Seeders he spoke for, ridiculed the idea that "regeneration" was a restoration of what man lost by sin. In the last chapter, however, we showed how the view of Dudley was quite contrary to scripture, which taught that it is what was dead that is made alive in Christ, what was degenerate is what was regenerated, what was destroyed by sin was made new in regeneration. Potter agreed to a large degree with my analysis of the biblical teaching in this regard. Where Potter erred and still held to Two Seed views was in his denial that God uses the means of his word in regeneration or rebirth, or in eternal salvation, and in his thinking that whatever part of a man experiences regeneration becomes incapable of sinning.

In physical regeneration there is a renewal or restoration of a bodily part, or biological system (such as a forest) after injury or as a normal process. Physical regeneration involves remaking something that had been cut off or died. Regeneration means "create again," which is what salamanders do when they lose their tails. Even humans experience regeneration when they produce new skin cells to heal wounds and burns. This is where regeneration is a renewing, or a making new.

In chapter nine of the above work, under the title "Is the Resurrection a Birth?", Potter wrote:

"In all that I have ever heard, seen or read, I have never known any person to deny that the resurrection is a birth, until very recently. I have always thought that all people who believed the Bible agreed that to be raised from the dead, was to be born from the dead. I have often argued in the presence of my congregations that the work of the regeneration of the soul, and the raising of the dead, was of precisely the same nature, and that in both cases the dead were made alive. I had never heard any objection to that view, and I thought it was universally accepted, until, in correspondence with a No Souler, some months ago, he emphatically denied that they were works of the same nature, and I was surprised."

Here we see another error of Potter. He is rebutting the Two Seed view that says that the change of the body in the resurrection is not the same as the change of the soul, mind, heart, and spirit, and he rather affirms that the same kind of change occurs in spiritual resurrection as in physical resurrection. In taking this view Potter is seeming to take the view of Sarrels (though Sarrels came later) that there is a change in the physics of the soul (or whatever experiences regeneration) much like there will be a change in the physics of the body when it is resurrected and conformed to the glorified body of Christ.

Though there is indeed similarity between a resurrection out of a spiritual dead state into a spiritual state of life and a physical resurrection out of a state of physical death into an immortal living state, there are also dissimilarities.

Though I can agree with the Two Seeder who says that physical and spiritual resurrection are not of the same nature, I cannot agree with him on why they are not the same. His view of spiritual resurrection or regeneration of the spirit says that an eternal spiritual child of God as spiritual life or seed comes down from heaven and enters into the body of a human being, and this without changing either the spirit child nor the human being. Further, the Two Seeder does not believe that any part of the "Adam man" is risen from death nor that the eternal child is risen. So, his spiritual resurrection (regeneration) is really no resurrection at all for nothing that was dead comes to life.

It is true that the bible seems to speak of the resurrection of Christ from the dead as a begetting. (Rev. 1: 5; Col. 1: 18; etc.) However, those texts could simply mean that he who was God's "first begotten" was put to death and then resurrected. I don't know of any bible verse that equates the physical resurrection of believers with being begotten. The apostle Peter does speak of "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." (I Peter 1: 3 nkjv) Here, however, the word "begotten" is used in a metaphorical sense, in the same way we use it in every day language. We use the words "gave birth to" in order to express causation, to produce. Christ's resurrection and victory over death is what brought about the rebirth of believers.

Metaphorically speaking, being buried in the earth following death can be called returning to the womb. So said Job: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, And naked shall I return there." (Job 1: 21 nkjv) In the creation story God says to the earth "bring forth" or give birth to plant life. The Psalmist David also speaks of his time in the womb of his mother as a time when he was in the earth. He said: "My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth." (Psa. 139: 15 nkjv) Since man's physical constitution was made of the dust of the earth, we may call the earth the mother or womb from which man was brought forth. 

So, it is possible to see resurrection as a kind of birth, but doing so does not mean that resurrection and birth are in every way exactly alike. Therefore I must take issue with Potter saying "in both cases the dead were made alive." How is being born a bringing to life what was dead? If we look at birth in the sense of conception or in the sense of coming forth from the womb, there is no resurrection of the dead. The baby that comes forth from the womb was already alive when in the womb. Further, in conception, when the male sperm fertilizes the female egg there is no dead thing coming to life. It is a basic law of biogenesis that life must come from life. The sperm and the egg were not dead things.

Potter wrote:

"So, why is being raised from the dead called a being "begotten" from the dead? First, it is because being raised to life and being begotten begins a new life. Second, being buried in the ground is like returning to the womb."

That is true and is in agreement with my commentary above. However, he fails to see how physical resurrection at the last day changes the physiology of the body whereas the resurrection of the spirit in conversion does not change the physics or metaphysics of the soul or spirit. Bodily resurrection is a change of substance or essence, but spiritual resurrection from spiritual death is a moral or spiritual change. 

In chapter ten under the title "The Body Dead, the Spirit Life" Potter wrote:

"A writer said very recently, "Now, the Old Baptists, so far as my acquaintance extends, either believe that all or some part of the earthly or Adamic man, is the subject of the new birth. Those, however, who believe that only a part is born again, differ as regards the part. One says it is his mortal soul part; another it is his immortal soul part; another it is his mind part; another it is his heart part; and so on to the end of the chapter; while some hold that the man who is composed of parts, is born again in time, and will be changed in the resurrection."

What a debate! In the preceding chapter we addressed these questions. The entrance into the heart, mind, soul, or spirit of 1) the word of God, and 2) the presence of the Father, Son, and Spirit, and 3) the divine nature, and 4) the divine seed, and 5) the love of God, affects all the above parts of man's non-physical constitution. In the previous chapter we used leaven (or yeast) as a metaphor for how the entrance of the above things into man's internal constitution begins to permeate all parts of that constitution. We could also use the idea of "seed" as a metaphor. We have already taken notice of the words of John who said "whoever is born of God cannot sin for God's seed remains in him." (I John 3: 9) Peter also speaks of this divine seed when he wrote: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible seed, by the word of God..." (I Peter 1: 23) This divine seed begins to grow within the believer and to permeate his soul, mind, heart, and spirit, and to choke out the remnants of moral corruption still resident within him. 

Some bible teachers think that the "incorruptible seed" is the word of God, but this is a mistake. It is true that the word of God is compared to a seed and as such is instrumental in producing children of God, but in the text the seed is distinguished from the word. This is made clear by the prepositions. Believers are born "of" God's seed but "by" the word of God. 

If Potter is correct in saying that whatever part of man is regenerated is incapable of sinning, then what is it that is renewed day by day, that is continuously transformed, that is not yet fully perfected? Recall the words of Paul who said: 

"Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me." (Phil. 3: 12 nkjv)

Here Paul says that he is not yet perfected, but is pressing towards the goal of complete perfection. In the previous chapter I called attention to Paul's words in the first chapter of Philippians where he said that God would continue his work within the believer until it is finished at the day of Christ. Potter's idea is that regeneration, perfection, renewal, transformation, is instantly realized and completed when a sinner is born of God.

Potter also seems to take issue with the idea that at the time of the resurrection and glorification of the bodies of believers that the souls, minds, spirits, or hearts of believer will also be improved or perfected. Yet, the passage cited above in Philippians 1: 6 refers to God's work "in" the believer (meaning in his internal self) and it says that work will be completed "in the day of Jesus Christ," which must refer to the day when Christ returns and resurrects the bodies of the people. The biblical truth is that a believer is in the process of being perfected in his soul, mind, heart, and spirit and when he dies and his spirit and soul enter heaven his spirit and soul will be further perfected, and complete perfection of spirit and soul will occur in the day when the glorified body is joined to the perfected spirit.

Potter wrote:

"So far as his mortal soul, or immortal soul, or his mind, or his heart being born of God, the writer of the above, it seems to us, tries harder to make those who believe in the regeneration of the soul of man, look ridiculous, than to arrive at the truth of the matter. We are always willing to inquire after truth, and feel perfectly willing to investigate a point for all that is in it, but we wish to deal in a sublime manner with a sublime subject. So far as a difference as to what part of the man is born again, allowing us to use the word of No Soulers, we do not know of any material difference among those who believe that the soul lives after the body dies. We have never seen an Old Baptist yet that we know of, that believes that the soul possesses spirituality, or divinity, until after regeneration, but when they say immortal, they simply mean immortality in the sense that it survives the body, and either goes to heaven or hell when the body dies. But those who fall out with this idea do not differ so much on the immortality of the soul, but they deny the existence of the soul as the subject of salvation. They know of no soul, except in the sense that man is soul, while we claim that the Bible makes a distinction of soul and body, and that the soul leaves the body at death. But this writer says, "while some hold that it is the man who is composed of parts, is born again in time, and will be changed in the resurrection." We do not know whether the writer takes this last position or not; but if he does not then we do not know what his position is. Where in all the Bible do we find that anything is changed in the resurrection but the body? Where in the sacred word do we read that the body is born of God in time? Are the parts mentioned above - the soul, heart, mind and body - all born of God in time? Will the soul, mind, heart and body be changed in the resurrection? The writer quoted above seems to think that some Baptists believe that. Another idea in the above quotation is, that they are born of God in time but they are not changed in time."

The bible teaches that regeneration begins when a person is born of God and this occurs in the core or center of man's being, which is what the word "heart" often means in scripture. The heart of the apple is the core or center of the apple. In the biblical picture of man's inner constitution it is the spirit that is at the core of his being. Of that inner spirit Paul wrote: "For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?" (I Cor. 2" 11 nkjv) What Paul said of the "spirit" of man is also what other scriptures say of the "heart" of man. Paul says that "God has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." (II Cor. 4: 6) People often say "in my innermost being" or "in the core of my soul." They also say "from the bottom of my heart" by which they mean from my innermost being. The Greek word for "heart" is "kardia" and means the physical heart, but also means the center or seat where "self" or "ego" sits. This is where thought originates as Paul said. It is the place where purposes are formed, and includes the place where the will resides, where choices are made, and is the place of emotions. So Jesus said:

"The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks." (Luke 6: 45)

Notice that a heart may produce good as well as evil. It is not correct to say that a believer has two hearts, one that produces good and one that produces evil, but that he has one heart that sometimes produces what is bad and sometimes what is good. Jesus said "blessed are the pure in heart" (Matt. 5: 8). This pureness of heart or spirit is a result of continuous purification throughout the life of the believer. In the previous chapter I cited the words of the apostle John who said that "everyone who has this hope purifies himself even as he is pure." (I John 3: 3) A popular Christian hymn says "purer in heart help me to be."  

When Christ enters into the inner sanctum of the heart or spirit, to the seat where the self or ego sits, he dethrones the ego and rules there. That phenomenon is what begins the regeneration, renewal, and transformation of the whole inner man. So, the question as to what part of man is regenerated is not even the right question. Christ sitting in the center of man's psychical being and ruling from there is what Paul has in mind when he says to believers:

"Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self ('man' kjv) with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator." (Col. 3: 9-10 esv)

The new self is the one that is ruled over by Christ and the old self is the one ruled over by the ego, by the "I," and is what is called being "self-willed," (See Titus 1: 7; II Peter 2: 10) and "self pleasing." A maturing believer is one who seeks more and more for the Lord Jesus to rule over him. Notice also how this renewing, having begun when the believer experiences the washing of regeneration, is a renewing "in knowledge," meaning that a change of beliefs and an increase in the knowledge of God is part and parcel of what it means to be renewed. Today's "Primitive Baptists" believe that there is no knowledge that is necessary to be regenerated, saved, justified, sanctified, or renewed. Such a view is mighty close to the Two Seed "no change" view of regeneration that Potter is opposing.

Seeing "heart" and "spirit" as virtual synonyms representing the core of man's inner being is apparent in several ways. Sometimes we hear someone say of another - "he is rotten to the core." We also speak of "core values" and a "core curriculum" in education dealing with core knowledge. Core values are deeply ingrained principles. When one receives Christ into his innermost being there is a renewal of knowledge and change of core beliefs. It is in the core of man's incorporeal being where the self, or ego, resides. It may be compared to what we call the "driver's seat," or the "pilot's seat" of the cockpit. Christians even sing a hymn called "Jesus Savior Pilot Me." I have seen bumper stickers that read "Jesus is my co-pilot." However, ideally Jesus is the pilot and the believer is the co-pilot.  In unregenerate or unrenewed sinners the self, or ego, or "I" sits in that driver's seat. This truth is seen in this testimony of the apostle Paul:

"I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me." (Gal. 2: 20 nkjv)

In the words "it is no longer I who live" we have the Greek word "ego" for the pronoun "I." This is rare, for in Greek the word "I" is often included in a compound word, being implied. So, for instance, the words "I go" are from the singular Greek word "erchomai." On other occasions, however, the "I" is not part of the compound word and the above text is one example. Another would be where Christ said "I am" or "ego eimi" (John 8: 58; etc.). Paul says that his "I" or ego has been crucified with Christ and that Christ now occupies the place where the "I", self, or ego sat. So Jesus said: “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me." (Matt. 16: 24 nkjv)

In conversion to Christ the self is crucified or dethroned. In the driver's seat of the spirit and soul sat sin, ruling and reigning. Also, though sin and self, and the old nature and old habits take a back seat when a person is converted and Christ enters his spirit, yet sometimes sin and self can take the wheel of the soul and this is perhaps what Paul means when he writes:

"But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me...Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me." (Rom. 7: 17, 20 nkjv)

We see where Potter and the Two Seeders both had difficulty defining "soul," as well as spirit, mind, heart, etc. I like to think of it after the image of the tabernacle. There were three sections to it. There was the outer court, the inner court (called the holy place), and the innermost court (called the most holy place or sanctuary). The apostle Peter referred to his body as a tabernacle. (II Peter 1: 13) The physical body would correspond to the outer court, the soul to the holy place, and the spirit to the most holy place. In the ancient Hebrew tabernacle or temple it was in the most holy place where God's presence was more fully experienced by the priest and where communication with God occurred. It is in man's innermost being, in his heart or spirit, where God dwells and where he communicates with believers, where the Spirit bears witness with the human spirit. (Rom. 8: 16) This view was held by the great theologian Martin Luther.

The soul and spirit are distinct yet connected parts of a human's immaterial being. The soul, from the Greek word psuche (psyche) has to do with personality and psychology, and with man's animal life. The spirit is considered the higher part that connects directly with God or the spiritual realm. In fact the Bible indicates that animals possess a "nephesh" (Hebrew for soul, life, or breathing creature), acknowledging them as living beings with a life force, particularly in Genesis 1:20-24. Anyone who has had pet animals knows that they can experience emotion and process information. Of course, the soul of humans exceeds the souls of animals, for the soul of humans was made in the image and likeness of God. That the soul and spirit are not the same is evident from these verses:

"For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Heb. 4: 12 nkjv)

"Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (I Thess. 5: 23 nkjv)

Though there is a lot of disagreement among bible teachers on what is meant by the dividing of soul and spirit by the living word of God, I will offer my understanding of it. I once held to the dichotomy view of man's immaterial being, seeing soul and spirit as basically synonyms. This was my father's view. However, after years of studying this question I rejected the dichotomy view in favor of the trichotomy view. Just as "joints and marrow" are not the same so "soul and spirit" are not the same. From that same text we learn that soul and spirit are joined together and that they stay joined together until they are separated by the word of God. So, what is meant by separating them? Why is it a good thing for them to be divided by the word of God in conversion? 

The word "discerner" in the above text is the only time it is used in the bible and it means to judge, distinguish, criticize or give critical analysis, and the word of God is a discerner of "the thoughts and intents of the heart." The use of the word "heart" adds another variable to the text, for now we have soul, spirit, and heart. The heart is the core and in this core we have both spirit and soul. In both the soul and spirit thoughts and purposes are conceived. In unregenerate people the spirit is dead to God and is ruled over by the animalistic soul. In regenerated people the spirit is alive to God and rules over the soul, at least it begins to do so, though at times even the regenerated believer allows his animal soul to rule over his spirit. We may say that the soul is man's lower self and the spirit is man's higher self. So, to divide the soul from the spirit denotes the work of freeing the spirit from the tyranny of the soul.

What about the conscience as it relates to the views of Potter and the Two Seeders? We have spoken of the heart, mind, soul, and spirit. What about the conscience? From a review of the biblical texts we see that the conscience denotes that faculty of soul and spirit whereby one is able to discern what is morally right and wrong. This is because it is in the conscience that God has written his law so that a man may feel guilt when doing morally wrong and feel righteous and morally clean when doing right. (Rom. 2: 15) We know that the conscience also needs cleansing. (Heb. 9: 14) Would Potter say that this cleansing occurs in regeneration and then never needs to ever be cleansed again? The text above says that this cleansing removes the believer from "dead works" so that he may serve God. Surely this is a continuous cleansing. Hebrews also speaks of the believer's heart being sprinkled from an evil conscience. (10: 22) This first occurs in conversion but it also continues throughout the life of the believer. 

Potter wrote:

"Paul says, "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed." In this he is arguing the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. The change of the body spoken of is that it will be made spiritual or immortal. It will be made alive from the dead, and fashioned like unto the glorious body of Christ. All such expressions as these refer to the body exclusively. If man is composed of parts, as soul, mind, heart and body, then the body is all that is changed in the resurrection. Where is the other part? We are told that some Old Baptists hold that the man who is composed of parts, is born of God in time, and changed in the resurrection. Are we to understand that to be born of God is not to be changed? Or that in the new birth no part of the man is changed? That is the way we understand the writer."

The new birth does change a man but that change is not necessarily all the change he needs, for as we have before shown, the change occurring when born again is but the beginning of change. So, the Two Seeders erred in denying that there is any change to the begotten child for he believes it was begotten in Christ before the world began and it is born in a person when that child comes down from heaven and enters into him. The only change to this eternal child is a change of location and there is no change to the body, soul, mind, or spirit of the "Adam man."