Regeneration - Mediate or Immediate?

Regeneration is both Mediate and Immediate, just like the whole of salvation is both conditional and unconditional. To argue that regeneration cannot be both mediate and immediate is invalid, for regeneration is in fact both.

In future series for my ongoing work on "The Hardshell Baptist Cult," I will be writing on "Regeneration, Immediate or Immediate?" and on "Salvation, Conditional or Unconditional?"

This will be an introduction for the planned series.

In discussing this topic, we must first define "mediate" and "immediate."

The term "mediate," as respects the debate over the nature and causes of "regeneration," denotes what is done by an agency or instrument, by some means, what is done indirectly, and through second causes.

The term "immediate," on the other hand, denotes what is done without an instrument or means, what is done directly, by the First Cause alone.  "Immediately" is not used here in the sense of "instantly." 

Next, the term "regeneration" needs to be defined.  This is a little more difficult to define due to 1) its limited use in scripture, and 2) the use of the term by theologians and among Christians generally. 

Do we equate the experience of being "quickened" with being "regenerated"?  Do we equate being "born of God" with being "regenerated"?  Do we equate being "converted" with being "regenerated"?

What other terms do we equate with being "regenerated"?  Such as created, resurrected, saved, taught, washed, forgiven, drawn, called, liberated, sanctified, etc.?  The answers to these questions are important because the term "regeneration," though only used twice in scripture, is referred to by other terms.  The scriptures use many terms to speak about being "regenerated."

Some Christians, like the old Regular Baptists, and the founders of the "Primitive Baptists," believed that regeneration was not the same as being born again.  Alexander Campbell, who at one time was identified with the Regular Baptists, believed that they were distinct.  Both Campbell and the old Regulars and Hardshells saw regeneration as first occurring and then conversion (birth) coming next.  The difference, however, was that Campbell would later identify "conversion" and rebirth with being baptized.  The old Regulars and Hardshells, however, saw conversion and rebirth as being accomplished before baptism, at the time when the person turned to the Lord in repentance and faith.

Further, many old Baptists, like Andrew Fuller, believed that the first moment in the work of regeneration was immediate, but that complete regeneration was mediate.  They taught that biblical regeneration was both mediate and immediate. 

When God begins his work of regeneration, he completes it.  (Phil. 1: 6)  So, though God's first act is to operate immediately, it does not logically necessitate that the following acts, in completing regeneration, are likewise immediate.  The question is this - "is one ever said to be regenerated, or born of God, in scripture, who was not changed in his belief about God and salvation?"  And - "does biblical regeneration exclude faith, repentance, or enlightenment?"

Those who promote a very narrow view of what it means to be regenerated or born again will say that regeneration only gives an "ability" to believe, an "ability" to repent, an "ability" to "know" and be "converted."  But, if faith is necessary for pleasing God, then is not this "ability" to be equated with "faith"? 

Those who object to mediate regeneration do so based upon their logic and reason, upon philosophy, and not because they have any scripture to support their rejection of means.  Hardshells think that mediate regeneration would bring absurd "logical" consequences, such as a denial that the Spirit of God comes in "direct contact" with the human spirit.  But, this is false.  A surgeon, when he operates, will often directly touch his patient and also use instruments.  The surgery would be both mediate and immediate.  God "operates" upon the heart in regeneration.  Why do Hardshells think that this work cannot be done by instruments of God's own making?  Why do they think that the use of such instruments would detract from the glory of his surgical work?