In this chapter we will continue our review of the works of Abraham Kuyper whose views on regeneration reflect the views of the founders of the Hardshell denomination. However, the views of Kuyper and of the first Hardshells differ in one respect. All of these Hyper Calvinists affirmed that regeneration preceded faith and conversion, and that the former was immediate while the latter was mediate, but only the Hardshells of today affirm that conversion rarely comes to those who have been regenerated, and deny that conversion is necessary for being born again and for being eternally saved. The older Hyper Calvinists and Hardshells taught that conversion would necessarily and certainly follow regeneration. The typical Hardshell church originally affirmed that "all the elect will be regenerated, converted, and sanctified." Thus, today's Hardshells are not "primitive" nor "original" in their views.
Also in this chapter we will look at other historical figures in the debate over the "ordo salutis" and give further testimony that shows that the "regeneration before faith" error was a later development among Calvinists and those of the Reformed faith and not the original view.
Kuyper wrote:
"For since quickening is an unaided act of God in us, independent of the Word, and frequently separated from the second stage, conversion, by an interval of many days, there is nothing to prevent God from performing His work even in the babe, and the apparent conflict dissolves into beautiful harmony."
The idea that "quickening" is "independent of the Word" is not the teaching of scripture nor of the oldest Calvinist and Reformed statements of belief. David said - "thy word hath quickened me." (Psa. 119: 50) On this verse Dr. Gill, in his Commentary, affirms that it teaches that the word of God is God's means for bringing dead sinners to life. His view reflects the primitive Calvinist and Reformed view. Kuyper affirms that the gospel cannot be a means in giving life, but again, this is not the view of the primitive Calvinists. It is certainly not the view of scripture, as the verse cited above proves. Many other verses teach the same thing. For instance, in talking about the gospel, Paul says that it is a "savour of life unto life." (II Cor. 2: 16) He also calls it the "spirit that gives life." (III Cor. 3: 6)
But, Kuyper is in disagreement with the great Calvinist Jonathan Edwards, who wrote:
"Therefore the apostle compares the work of God, in forming Christians to true virtue and holiness, not only to a new creation, but a resurrection, or raising from the dead, ver. 1, "You hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins." And again, ver. 5, "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ." In speaking of Christians being quickened with Christ, the apostle has reference to what he had said before, in the latter part of the foregoing chapter, of God's manifesting the exceeding greatness of his power towards Christian converts in their conversion, agreeable to the operation of his mighty power, when he raised Christ from the dead." (pg. 432 of "The Works of Jonathan Edwards," from the section on "Original Sin," See here)
Edwards saw "quickening" as being the same as "regeneration" and saw "regeneration" as being the same as "conversion." Kuyper is not teaching the view of Edwards, a true representative of the teachings of Calvin and the first Reformers.
Further, notice how Kuyper not only advocates a mere logical order but also for a chronological order, putting a large space of time between the first and second stage of "regeneration," or between "regeneration" and "conversion." He says there may be an "interval of many days" between the time of "regeneration" and the time of "conversion." He further advocates the Hardshell view by affirming that conversion is not necessary for being saved, at least for infants. He argues that since infants may be regenerated without conversion, a point he did not prove, then ergo, conversion is not essential to regeneration.
Further, Kuyper, like the Hardshells, thought that divorcing conversion from regeneration solved "apparent conflict." But, what is an "apparent conflict" to Kuyper was not so with his forefathers, with the primitive Calvinists and Reformers. Kuyper saw a problem with the views of his forefathers and sought to solve it. He wanted to apply a more "exhaustive," "exact," and "scientific" scheme, one that he thought was more refined and accurate than that of his forefathers. But, in this he failed, and ended up actually opposing the traditional orthodox view. Kuyper thinks that his new paradigm of regeneration "dissolves into beautiful harmony" all "apparent conflict." But, the prior views of Kuyper's forefathers was already in "beautiful harmony." Ironically, what Kuyper created was contradiction and confusion, the very thing he thought he was removing.
Kuyper wrote:
"Touching the question concerning "faith," we are fully prepared to apply the same distinction to this matter. You have only to discriminate between the organ or the faculty of faith, the Power to exercise faith, and the working of faith. The first of these three, viz., the faculty of faith, is implanted in the first stage of regeneration—i.e., in quickening; the power of faith is imparted in the second stage of regeneration—i.e., in conversion; and the working of faith is wrought in the third stage—i.e., in sanctification. Hence if faith is wrought only by the hearing of the Word, the preaching of the Word does not create the faculty of faith."
Zack Guess, present day Hardshell pastor, in an Internet article, titled "Irresistible Grace," also taught the same idea regarding "faith." He gave two definitions of "faith," one legitimate, and one not. Guess said that "faith" is "the ability to believe." Guess's article can be read here. Kuyper says that "faith" is defined in scripture to mean "the Power to exercise faith," to what he calls "the organ or the faculty of faith." But, neither Kuyper nor Guess can give any proof for such a definition of "faith." No biblical Hebrew or Greek scholar ever defines the word "faith" in such a manner. A study of all the places in scripture where the word "faith" (noun) and the word "believe" (verb) are used reveals that they never refer to an "ability to believe." All this is simply a vain attempt to make unbelievers into believers.
Paul says that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10: 17) Does "faith" here mean the "power to believe"? The "power to believe comes by hearing the word of God"? Does the word "repent" also mean the "power to repent"? Does the word "convert" mean the "power to convert"? Etc.? Not only do Kuyper and the Hardshells give a totally unwarranted and new definition to the word "regeneration," but also to the word "faith." They have to do this in order to give plausibility to their theological invention.
Kuyper wrote:
"Look only at what our fathers confessed at Dort: "He who works in man both to will and to do produces both the will to believe and the act of believing also" (Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine, article 14).
Or to express it still more strongly: when the Word is preached, I know it; and when I hear it and believe it, I know whence this working of faith comes. But the implanting of the faith-faculty is an entirely different thing; for of this the Lord Jesus says: "Thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh; and whither it goeth"; and as the wind, so is also the regeneration of man." (See these citations of Kuyper here)
After citing the words of Kuyper's Reformed forefathers, Kuyper tries to twist them into saying what he thinks they should say. He does this when he says that he will "express it still more strongly." But, the attempt to "express" the words of the Reformers was a subversion of them. The idea of "faith-faculty" is foreign to the old Calvinistic and Reformed writers. They all said that God must "work in" a sinner to bring him "to will" and "to do," and they did not see this as "regeneration," or "faith," for this would be to define those terms by reference strictly to the cause alone without any consideration of the effects. We could say that God "works in you to rise from spiritual death," but who would say that the cause alone is the quickening? That would be all the same as saying "God quickens you to quicken you."
Louis Berkhof (1873–1957), Presbyterian theologian, in his Systematic Theology, wrote:
"The exact form of the question ought to be carefully noted. The question is not, whether God works regeneration by means of a creative word. It is generally admitted that He does. Neither is it, whether He employs the word of truth, the word of preaching in the new birth, as distinquished from the divine begetting of the new man, that is, in securing the first holy exercises of the new life. The real question is, whether God, in implanting or generating the new life, employs the word of Scripture of the word of preeaching as an instrument or means. The discussion of this matter often suffered in the past from the lack of proper discrimination."
Berkhof makes the same distinctions that were made by Hopkins and Kuyper. He also holds to a multi stage regeneration. Berkhof distinquishes and separates "the new birth" from "the divine begetting." It is the opinion of Berkhof that "this matter often suffered in the past from the lack of proper discrimination."
Berkhof is expressing the same historical observation made by others regarding the fact that Calvin and the first Reformed and Calvinist authors and confessions did not make conversion distinct and separate from conversion, or have regeneration to precede faith. Berkhof believes that the fathers of the Reformed faith "suffered from the lack of proper discrimination." But, Berkhof is not correct about his forefathers. They had "PROPER discrimination," unlike the later dissecting and hair-splitting of some of their Hyperistic children. The forefathers would not make separate and distinct what the scriptures made the same.
Berkhof then cites from William Greenough Thayer Shedd (1820 – 1894), leading Calvinist author and theologian, in Shedd's "CONSIDERATIONS THAT FAVOR A NEGATIVE ANSWER" to the question.
Dr. Shedd says:
"The influence of the Holy Spirit is distinguishable from that of the truth; from that of man upon man; and from that of any instrument or means whatever. His energy acts directly upon the human soul itself. It is the influence of spirit upon spirit; of one of the trinitarian persons upon a human person."
There is no disagreement that the "influence of the Holy Spirit is distinguishable from that of the truth." That is why the old confessions were correct in attributing regeneration to both the "word" and "Spirit." Further, there is no disagreement that regeneration is immediate in the sense expressed by Shedd when he says that divine "energy acts directly upon the human soul itself" or "of spirit upon spirit." This is not denied by those who affirm mediate regeneration, for they believe as Jesus taught, that "spirit" is "born" of "spirit," which requires spirit immediately touching spirit. The primitive Calvinists affirmed that it was both mediate and immediate.
The citation of Berkhof from Shedd continued:
"Neither the truth, nor a fellow-man, can thus operate directly upon the essence of the soul itself. The following considerations favor this view."
Here Shedd gets off track and states an untruth. The truth "can," and actually does, "operate directly upon the soul" when the truth is the instrument in the hand of the eternal Spirit. Shedd is arguing that immediate regeneration excludes any mediation. But, this is a fact not proven, and is in fact false.
The first "consideration" that Shedd gives as proof to "favor this view" says:
"a. Regeneration is a creative act, by which the spiritually dead sinner is restored to life. But the truth of the gospel can only work in a moral and persuasive way. Such an instrument has no effect on the dead. To assert its use would seem to imply a denial of the spiritual death of man; which, of course, is not intended by those who take this position."
Shedd's comments reveal one of the perceived logical problems that has led some into Hyper Calvinism. It is the problem of the old Pelagian idea that a "command implies ability." Those fathers in the Augustinian, Calvinist, and Reformed tradition, however, rejected that error. Commands in scripture do not imply ability. But, some Calvinists, accepting the Pelagian premise, attempt to "solve" the problem by denying that God "commands" any unregenerate person to repent, believe, and to be saved. Only those who have been given "ability" in "regeneration" can repent, believe, and be saved.
Shedd denies that gospel truth can have any effect upon the spiritually dead. But, in this the scriptures are against him. Jesus preached the gospel to the spiritually dead and told them what they needed to do to be saved. The invitations and commands of the gospel, pertaining to salvation, are extended to all men. This fact should not have led the Hyper Calvinists to think that universal gospel commands imply universal natural ability.
Berkhof gives Shedd's second "consideration" in his apology:
"b. Regeneration takes place in the sphere of the sub-conscious, that is, outside of the sphere of conscious attention, while the truth addresses itself to the consciousness of man. It can exercise its persuasive influence only when man's attention is fixed on it."
Were the new testament writers present to manifest their reaction to such misinterpretation of their writings on "regeneration," they would surely manifest both wonder and disgust. Who could read their writings for the first time, without preconception and bias, and think that they taught that regeneration was an unconscious Christian experience? When the new testament writers spoke to Christians, in their pastoral letters, and referred to their saving experience, they clearly always referred to their conversion upon hearing and believing the gospel, to a well known conscious experience. To think that the authors of these epistles spoke about an experience of which the Christians addressed were not aware, is absurd.
Speaking about the power of gospel truth and revelation, Shedd said - "It can exercise its persuasive influence only when man's attention is fixed on it." That is true, but the fault lies in the Hyper Calvinist attempt to make "regeneration" to be restricted to the work of the Spirit in getting the mental attention of sinners. Biblical regeneration is much more than the work of simply getting the attention of sinners! This reminds us of the record of Luke concerning the conversion of Lydia through the gospel preaching of Paul. Luke says of the account -
"And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul." (Acts 16: 14)
Many who teach that regeneration is complete prior to conversion will cite these words in order to prove it. In order to do this, however, they have to equate "regeneration" with the "opening of the heart" of Lydia. But, this cannot be confidently done. Luke explains what the opening of Lydia's heart was intended for when he says that such an operation was done so that she might "attend to" the gospel.
In preaching upon the conversion of Lydia, Charles Spurgeon said:
"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 the Truth of God enters 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."
"There shall be the plowed field, but there shall be no cry, "Where is the sower?" for when the plow has done its work, here comes the sower and begins to scatter the seed. Paul speaks the Word as surely as God opens the heart." (From Spurgeon's sermon "Lessons From Lydia's Conversion")
Spurgeon taught that the opening of the heart of Lydia was a pre-regeneration experience, what was preparatory to it. He believed that Lydia's regeneration occurred at the same time as her conversion, when she "attended to," that is, when she believed the gospel. Spurgeon, like all the old Calvinist and Puritan writers, taught that conviction of sin preceded and prepared the way for regeneration. They saw that God must first plough the heart through conviction of sin, by the proclamation of law and gospel, before he plant the seed that generates life in the soil.
Spurgeon also said:
"Regeneration is a great mystery, it is out of your reach. "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is everyone that is born of the Spirit." What can you and I do in this matter? It is far beyond our line. We can tell out the truth of God; but to apply that truth to the heart and conscience is quite another thing. I have preached Jesus Christ with my whole heart, and yet I know that I have never produced a saving effect upon a single unregenerate man unless the Spirit of God has opened the heart and placed the living seed of truth within it." (Sermon - "Farm Labourers," see here)
Notice that Spurgeon defines "opening" of the heart as a preparation so that "the living seed of truth" may be placed in the heart. The "life" was in the "seed."
Spurgeon said:
"There is a withering wrought by the Spirit which is the preparation for the sowing and implanting by which salvation is wrought."
Again, this "withering" is equivalent to what is called the evangelical "conviction of sin." It is viewed as a "preparation," a kind of "prevenient grace," a work of God prior to regeneration. Spurgeon also correctly sees "salvation" being "wrought" is effected by the means of the seed being sown, or by the gospel being preached.
Spurgeon wrote:
"Even he did not know that in order to the comforting of God's people, there must first be experienced a preliminary visitation. Many preachers of God's gospel have forgotten that the law is the schoolmaster to bring men to Christ. They have sown on the unbroken fallow ground and forgotten that the plough must break the clods. We have seen too much of trying to sew without the sharp needle of the Spirit's convincing power. Preachers have labored to make Christ precious to those who think themselves rich and increased in goods: and it has been labor in vain. It is our duty to preach Jesus Christ even to self-righteous sinners, but it is certain that Jesus Christ will never be accepted by them while they hold themselves in high esteem. Only the sick will welcome the physician. It is the work of the Spirit of God to convince men of sin, and until they are convinced of sin, they will never be led to seek the righteousness which is of God by Jesus Christ. I am persuaded, that wherever there is a real work of grace in any soul, it begins with a pulling down: the Holy Ghost does not build on the old foundation. Wood, hay, and stubble will not do for him to build upon. He will come as the fire, and cause a conflagration of all proud nature's Babels. He will break our bow and cut our spear in sunder, and burn our chariot in the fire. When every sandy foundation is gone, then, but not till then, behold he will lay in our souls the great foundation stone, chosen of God, and precious. The awakened sinner, when he asks that God would have mercy upon him, is much astonished to find that, instead of enjoying a speedy peace, his soul is bowed down within him under a sense of divine wrath."
Spurgeon refers to the "awakened sinner." All the oldest great Calvinists referred to these characters. Who are they? Does "awakened" mean regenerated and quickened? The Hyperist views of Hopkins, Kuyper, and the Hardshells, would answer yes, but the primitive Calvinists would have said no. With them the "awakened" sinner was the sinner who became suddenly concerned about his relationship with God, about his lost condition, and who had therefore become attentive to those who spoke of God and of the way of salvation. But, they never viewed this "awakening" to be equivalent to "regeneration" but saw it as a "common operation of the Spirit," an example of the effects of "common" or "prevenient" grace, what is preparatory to regeneration.
"Quickening" is connected with giving life, with "enlivening." The Lord quickens the whole soul and spirit, including all his faculties. The soul is quickened first, however, in its attentiveness to the divine revelation, as in the case of the Lord opening the heart of Lydia so that she might be attentive to the preaching of the evangelists. The "deadness" of inattentiveness is first quickened in the hearts of many who hear the gospel. But, this first kind of "quickening" is not "regeneration," or the kind experienced by hearts that are identified as being "good soil," but the kind experienced by shallow and thorny soil hearts. The shallow ground hearer's attention was drawn to the gospel, so much so that he "received it with joy." In fact, it can easily be said that all four of the kinds of hearts (soils) had some level of "attention" given to the preaching of the gospel.
Spurgeon wrote:
"The convincing work of the Spirit, wherever it comes, is unexpected...Everywhere before the salvation there comes the humbling of the creature, the overthrow of human hope...The old must go before the new can come. Even thus the Lord takes away the first, that he may establish the second."
Again, it is the view of Spurgeon, as with the primitive Calvinists, that conviction of sin, a being evangelically humbled, was a preparation for salvation, not an evidence of salvation.
Spurgeon said:
"The Spirit of God it is that withers the flesh. It is not the devil that killed my self-righteousness. I might be afraid if it were: nor was it myself that humbled myself by a voluntary and needless self-degradation, but it was the Spirit of God. Better to be broken in pieces by the Spirit of God, than to be made whole by the flesh! What doth the Lord say? "I kill." But what next? "I make alive." He never makes any alive but those he kills. Blessed be the Holy Ghost when he kills me, when he drives the sword through the very bowels of my own merits and myself-confidence, for then he will make me alive. "I wound, and I heal." He never heals those whom he has not wounded. Then blessed be the hand that wounds; let it go on wounding; let it cut and tear; let it lay bare to me myself at my very worst, that I may be driven to self-despair, and may fall back upon the free mercy of God, and receive it as a poor, guilty, lost, helpless, undone sinner, who casts himself into the arms of sovereign grace, knowing that God must give all, and Christ must be all, and the Spirit must work all, and man must be as clay in the potter's hands, that the Lord may do with him as seemeth him good. Rejoice, dear brother, how ever low you are brought, for if the Spirit humbles you he means no evil, but he intends infinite good to your soul."
Spurgeon did not consider conviction of sin as a "first stage" of regeneration, but rather as a preparation for regeneration, and this was the view of the primitive and first promoters of Reformed theology.
Spurgeon said:
"And what is the result of it? Why, then there comes, according to the text, a new life into us, as the result of the indwelling of the living word, and our being born again by it. A new life it is; it is not the old nature putting out its better parts; not the old Adam refining and purifying itself, and rising to something better. No; have we not said aforetime that the flesh withers and the flower thereof fades? It is an entirely new life. Ye are as much new creatures at your regeneration, as if you had never existed, and had been for the first time created." See here.
This is very clear. Spurgeon taught that the withering work of the Spirit, his humbling and convicting work, is not an evidence of "new life," but a preparation to it. When the convicted souls possess "the living word" of the gospel, then they are "born again," receive "new life," and are made "new creatures at your regeneration."
Spurgeon also wrote:
"If thou believest in Jesus Christ and him crucified, in the moment that thou believest, this great change of nature is effected in thee; for faith has in itself a singularly transforming power. . .So, faith towards God in itself produces a total change of mind in the man who has it. But, beside that, there goes with faith a divine energy which changes the heart of man." (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 41, page 235, Despised Light Withdrawn).
Clearly Spurgeon believed that regeneration was both mediate and immediate, just like the primitive Calvinists. He did not believe in the "word alone" view, nor did he believe in the "Spirit alone" view of regeneration.
Berkhof cites further these words of Shedd:
"The Bible distinguishes the influence of the Holy Spirit from that of the Word of God, and declares that such an influence is necessary for the proper reception of the truth, John 6: 64, 65; Acts 16: 14; I Cor. 2: 12-15; Eph. 1: 17-20."
That the"Bible distinguishes the influence of the Holy Spirit from that of the Word of God," There is no doubt that this is so, but how this prove that regeneration is strictly immediate and different from conversion? Such a truth proposition uproots the "word alone" view, but it certainly does not prove the truth of the "Spirit alone" view.
Still citing Shedd:
"In James 1: 18 we read: 'Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.' This passages does not prove that the new generation is mediated by the Word of God, for the term here used is apokuesen, which does not refer to begetting, but to giving birth. They who believe in immediate regeneration do not deny that the new birth, in which the new life first becomes manifest, is secured by the Word."
Here Shedd affirms the views of Hopkins, Kuyper, and the old Hardshell and Regular Baptists, as well as later Baptists such as A. W. Pink, who made the divine "birth" and "begetting" to be a completely different experience to that which Paul called "regeneration" in Titus 3: 5. But, there is absolutely no warrant for this separation and distinction. Is it a paradigm imposed upon scripture. On this point I shall enlarge upon later in this series.
Can one go to heaven who was "regenerated" but not "born again"? Does that person who is supposedly "regenerated," but not "born again," have an "evil heart of unbelief" and penitent heart? When does one become a believer? When he is "regenerated" or when he is "born again"? Does the Bible teach that there are characters who are "regenerated unbelievers"? Since the "wrath of God abides on" the unbeliever in Jesus (John 3: 36), and one does not believe in Jesus in that period of time between "regeneration" and "birth," does that not affirm the absurd idea that one can be "regenerated" but who is yet under God's wrath? Regenerated but not justified and forgiven?
Berkhof further cites Shedd:
"Peter exhorts believers to love one another fervently in view of the fact that they have been 'begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the Word of God, which liveth and abideth.' I Peter 1: 23. It is not correct to say, as some have done, that 'the Word' in this verse is the creative word, or the second person in the Trinity, for Peter himself informs us that he has in mind the word that was preached unto the readers, vs. 25. But it is perfectly in order to point out that gennao (the word here used) does not always refer to the masculine begetting, but may also denote the feminine giving birth to children." (pg. 475)
Once again Shedd attempts to make the experience of being "begotten again" as something that occurs later, logically and chronologically, than "regeneration." But, the distinction that Shedd argues for is read into the language of Peter, as it was with that of James. But, upon this point there will be enlargement in upcoming chapters in this series.
No comments:
Post a Comment