The Gospel - The Means of Grace V

Begotten By The Gospel

"For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." (I Cor. 4: 15)

"I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds." (Philemon 1: 10)

When Paul says that he had "begotten" the first Corinthian converts and the slave Onesimus, he certainly does not mean that God was not the one who had begotten them; no more than he meant that he was the Savior when he said, later in the Corinthian epistle - "I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." What he is affirming is that God used him as an instrument. Paul was not the efficient or primary cause of the saving and begetting work, but the instrumental cause. On this verse the great "Old Baptist," Dr. John Gill, wrote:

"for in Christ Jesus have I begotten you through the Gospel; which is to be understood of regeneration, a being born again, and from above; of being quickened when dead in trespasses and sins; of having Christ formed in the soul; of being made a partaker of the divine nature, and a new creature; which the apostle ascribes to himself, not as the efficient cause thereof, for regeneration is not of men but of God; not of the will of the flesh, of a man's own free will and power, nor of the will of any other man, or minister; but of the sovereign will, grace, and mercy of God, Father, Son, and Spirit. The Father of Christ beget us again according to his abundant mercy; and the Son quickens whom he will; and we are born again of water and of the Spirit, of the grace of the Spirit; hence the washing of regeneration, and renewing work are ascribed to him: but the apostle speaks this of himself, only as the instrument or means, which God made use of in doing this work upon the hearts of his people; and which the other phrases show: for he is said to do it "in Christ"; he preached Christ unto them, and salvation by him, and the necessity of faith in him; he directed them to him to believe in him, and was the means of bringing of them to the faith of Christ; and it was the power and grace of Christ accompanying his ministry, which made it an effectual means of their regeneration and conversion: and which were brought about "through the Gospel"; not through the preaching of the law; for though by that is the knowledge of sin, and convictions may be wrought by such means; yet these leave nothing but a sense of wrath and damnation; nor is the law any other than a killing letter: no regeneration, no quickening grace, no faith nor holiness come this way, but through the preaching of the Gospel; in and through which, as a vehicle, the Spirit of God conveys himself into the heart, as a spirit of regeneration and faith; and God of his own will and rich mercy, by the word of truth, by the Gospel of grace and truth, which came by Christ, so called in distinction from the law which came by Moses, begets us again as his new creatures; which shows the usefulness of the Gospel ministry, and in what account Gospel ministers are to be had, who are spiritual fathers, or the instruments of the conversion of men."

Now, who are the real "Old Baptists," the Hardshells who disagree with Gill or the ones who agree with him?

Obviously Paul is not talking about water baptism in talking about this begetting, for he baptized but few of the Corinthians (chapter one), and he says that "Christ sent me not to baptize," but on the other hand, he was sent to be a means in the hand of God in begetting and saving sinners who are dead in trespasses and in sins. (See also Acts 26: 18)

If one looks at all the new testament references to this "begetting" he will see that it uniformly speaks about the same experience, about being "born again" per Jesus in John 3: 1-8. Peter, Paul, James, and John talk about this heavenly birth specifically. John refers to being born or begotten of God more than any other writer. The experience of being "born of God" is referenced frequently by John in his first epistle.

The Hardshells, however, affirm that I Corinthians 4: 15 is a singular exception to the normal usage of the word, for they say that the "begetting" of this verse is not talking about being "born again." They say that this "begetting" is not regeneration, but an optional "conversion" or "time salvation" experience that sometimes occurs only after one has been regenerated or born of God. But why, in this one passage, do Hardshells give a strikingly different significance and connotation to the word "begotten"? Why do they go against the universal meaning and usage of the word in this one instance? Is there anything in the context that would give reasons for interpreting it in an abnormal or unusual way?

There is nothing in the context of I Cor. 4: 15 or Philemon 1: 10 to cause one to interpret the "begetting" differently from all the other times it is referenced by the new testament writers. When a bible interpreter gives an unusually different meaning to a common word or phrase in the bible, he needs to have weighty and clear reasons for doing so. Do the Hardshells have such reasons? Or, rather, are they guilty of several sins in their rejection of the testimony, and in their attempts to change its teaching and meaning? Are they guilty of "twisting the scriptures"? (II Peter 3: 16)

There are no contextual reasons for affirming that the "begetting" work of Paul was not the divine begetting talked about throughout the new testament. The burden of proof is on the Hardshell extremists to give the proof and warrant for interpreting the begetting of these verses in an unusual way and for making them deal with a far different experience.

They are not able to give contextual reasons for interpreting the Pauline "begetting" as they do. So, why do they affirm that the "begetting" of those passages is different and unique? They say that it contradicts their proposition (premise) which says "God does not use means, human means, in regenerating sinners." Their premise, they believe, is what is inspired and what needs to remain unchanged. So, it is the scripture text that needs to be changed. So, they first make a simple denial, saying "we do not believe what it says, so it must be saying something other than what it plainly says." Thus we cannot accept the idea that this Pauline "begetting" is the same as in all the other passages, so we have to make it denote some other experience.

I wrote on this passage in one chapter in my book, "The Hardshell Baptist Cult," which you can read http://hardshellism.blogspot.com/2008/10/chpt-25-i-cor-4-15.html

Hardshells ignore biblical hermeneutics by such an interpretation. And, there are consequences for this twisted interpretation, which denies that this "begetting" is the same begetting mentioned throughout the new testament, or is regeneration, and affirms that it is talking about a "conversion" experience that often occurs much later, if at all, and that this "conversion" is the work of the sinner in cooperation with God, by the person's free will and God given ability.

Consequences

1) God is not the begetter (only Paul is the begetter)
2) The begetting is not an instance of effectual calling or irresistible grace
3) The one being begotten is not passive
4) The begetting is a free will choice of a person
5) A person can lose what he gets from this begetting
6) The begetting is not credited to God alone (The work is not 100% God's work but a cooperative work between God and Paul and the sinner)

It is ironic that the Hardshells, who emphasize logic and reason in their interpreting of the bible and in learning bible science, should not be able to see the logical consequences of their interpretations and man-made premises.

When Hardshells debate with the Arminians, they affirm that being "begotten" is a passive work, one that is not conditioned on the free choice and ability of the sinner. But, when they debate the means question, "begetting" does not denote that the one begotten is passive! It is not unconditional, but conditional! Is not all the work of God alone! So, what does that do to all their arguments against the Arminians relative to the concept of being "born"? Does it not invalidate them? Does it not show that they are guided by their own whims? That "born" means regeneration when I say it means it and means not regeneration when I say?

Some Hardshell apologists say that it is blasphemy to affirm that the "begetting" of I Cor. 4: 15 and Philemon 1: 10 is the same experience that Jesus talked about in John 3: 1-8.

Hardshell Zack Guess wrote:

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in some sense he is the father of these Corinthians and they were his children. The instrument by which they were born was the gospel. Many people interpret this to mean that Paul was the father of the Corinthians in the sense that he had caused them to be born again when he preached the gospel to them. But that this is exactly not what the text is teaching can be shown by the following considerations.

In the first place, it would have been blasphemy for the Corinthians to refer to Paul as a father in the sense that He was the means of bringing eternal life to them. No man can receive this honor because God alone is to receive the credit and glory for the salvation of His people."

John Gill a blasphemer? The signers of the old Baptist confessions were blasphemers? James and Peter to be judged as blasphemers for affirming that men were born again by the word of God preached by them?

Zack's argument forces him to deny that God gets all the honor and glory in his "conversion" to Christ! God alone or Paul (gospel preachers) alone? Are these the only two possibilities? The Hardshells argue that "begotten of God" excludes preachers, and therefore "begotten of Paul" excludes God. Zack argues that God only gets all the honor and glory when he alone is the one involved in the work of salvation and does not get all the honor and glory when he works through human agents and means! By his own admission then, God does not get all the honor and glory for his conversion to Christ and the gospel!

Zack says it is forbidden in scripture to call any man "father" in the sense of obtaining spiritual life, but says it is okay to call a man "father" in the sense of having been "converted" by a man.

Wrote Zack:

"In the second place, this interpretation of the passage betrays an ignorance of how "father," "children," and "begotten" were commonly used in the day in which Paul was writing. Let us study together for a moment and see how these terms were then used. Such study will throw great light on this passage.

J. H. Thayer, in his Greek-English Lexicon of New Testament Words, p. 113 says, "In a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life." Commenting on the same word in the same passage, John Gill, in his Commentary On The New Testament quotes the Jerusalem Talmud as follows: "If one teaches the son of his neighbor the Law, the Scripture reckons this the same as if he had begotten him."

Arndt and Gingrich, in their Greek-English Lexicon, p. 154 say of the same word, "Figuratively of the influence exerted by one person on another...of a teacher on pupils." H. Cremer, in his Biblical-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek, p. 146, says of this word, "Peculiar is the use made by Paul in some passages of the word to denote an influence exerted on some one, moulding his life, as in Galatians 4:24; 1 Corinthians 4:15; Philemon 10." If we put all this together and sum it up, it becomes immediately apparent that Paul was not even hinting to these Corinthians that he had preached the gospel to them and that they had thereby been born again.

Paul is rather saying this, "By my use of the gospel I have brought you over to my way of life: I have taught you the Scriptures; I have exerted an influence on you as a teacher on his pupils; I have helped to mold your life." This, and only this, is what Paul had done to those Corinthians by preaching the gospel to them. And he had this influence only on those who had previously been born again by the direct and immediate operation of the Holy Spirit and who were thus receptive to his gospel. This can easily be seen by a study of Acts 18:1-17 which records the founding of the church at Corinth. That the word begotten" bears this meaning will not be disputed by an honest and open-minded student.

In line with this, Kittel, in his Theological Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. I, pp. 665-667, in an article entitled "Begetting as Image of the relationship of Master and Disciple" says, "The use of the terms father and son with reference to the master and disciple may be seen already in 2 Kings 2:12. At the time of Jesus it was customary for the rabbi to call his pupil and the ordinary member of the community 'my son.'"

http://www.mountzionpbc.org/Index/index14.htm

Yes, of course, by way of accommodation, a teacher may be viewed as a kind of father. If being "begotten" signifies teaching, then why do Hardshells divorce teaching from the "begetting" of John 3: 1-8 and in nearly all other places in the new testament? They will deny that "begetting" signifies teaching in every passage dealing with new testament "begetting" but not in I Cor. 4: 15? Why does the begetting of I Cor. 4: 15 denote teaching but not in any other places where spiritual begetting is talked about?

Also, consider how Paul demonstrates that he is not using the terms "my little children," or "I have begotten you," to denote the teacher student relationship. "Though you have ten thousand teachers," says Paul, you have not ten thousand "fathers," but one, "for I have begotten you." Clearly Paul is not using "father," or begetter, in the sense of teacher. Paul says your "teachers" are not your "fathers." Thus, the Hardshell explanation is against the text.

What does Paul mean when he says that he had begotten the Corinthians "in Christ"? Does he not mean the same thing that Peter meant when he explained how he had miraculously healed a man? Peter said:

"If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole." (Acts 4: 9, 10)

All the credit was given to Jesus for the miracle and yet Jesus did the miracle through Peter! The use of Peter in doing the miracle did not take away from the honor and glory of Christ. "In Christ" means that the success of Paul's preaching was due to the power, providence, and grace of Christ. So Paul testified elsewhere saying, "I have planted...but God gave the increase." (I Cor. 3: 6)

Hardshells believe it is okay to refer to their bible teachers and to those who converted them as "fathers" and spiritual "begetters," but does doing so take away from the honor and glory of Christ in the matter?

We can turn the Hardshell argumentation on the verses speaking about Paul "begetting" sinners on themselves. If "begetting" involves teaching in I Cor. 4: 15 why can it not involve teaching in all the other places in the new testament? And if it involves teaching, why do you describe the regeneration experience as being non-cognitive and on the sub-conscious level?