In this chapter we will begin an analysis of the "three stage" view of "regeneration" believed by the founding fathers of Hardshellism and of Abraham Kuyper and compare it with both scripture and the writings of the first Calvinists and Reformers. In earlier chapters we cited from the writings of several founding fathers of the Hardshell denomination to prove this fact. For instance, Hardshell founding father, Elder Samuel Trott, wrote (emphasis mine - SG):
"Thus in the new birth there is a striking correspondence to the natural birth; to each there is a seed implanted, and then a quickening by which life is manifested. And when the natural child is brought to the birth, the sorrows of the woman in travail, the fetus being broke loose from that by which alone it had been hitherto nourished, strongly represents the agonies and the killing by the law belonging to the second birth."
Though the first Hardshells made "regeneration" ('quickening') to be a separate experience from the later experience of "birth," yet they did not, like today's Hardshells, deny that all the regenerated would be born again.
Jimmy Barber, present day Hardshell elder, wrote (see here):
"Often James 1:18 is set forth to show gospel regeneration. On the surface, this verse appears to teach gospel regeneration. A study in the Greek language will show otherwise. However, James 1:18 proposes no problem if it did teach that the spoken or written Word was used by God in the new birth. Why? Because in giving life, it is the Son of God that speaks the word. But in revealing the life, it is the preacher speaking the word. Nevertheless, this passage teaches how life is revealed or brought to light."
Barber repeats the view of Elder Gilbert Beebe, one of the chief leaders of the new Hardshell denomination, when he speaks of the "direct voice speaking" of Christ in "giving life," a view that was examined in early chapters. Barber believes that the Lord personally speaks to sinners, on the sub-conscious level, when they are "regenerated," or when the divine seed is "implanted." But, he does not believe that the Lord personally speaks to sinners, on the sub-conscious level, when thay are converted. In "regeneration" the Lord speaks directly, apart from preachers, but in "conversion" the Lord speaks indirectly, through his commissioned evangelists.
"Let us study the word "begot," in this verse. This word is "apokueo" in the Greek language, and it comes from the word "kuo" or "kueo" which means to be pregnant. Therefore, "apo-kueo" means "to bring forth as from the womb, or to give birth to." This word is used only twice in the Scriptures--here and in verse fifteen where it is translated "bringeth forth." James is not speaking about the initial quickening or giving of life, but how the life is manifested or brought to light. Thus, the giving of life to a child of God in the Spiritual realm is like conception in the natural realm."
"When God quickens a person, or gives him Spiritual life, he is alive like the babe in the womb of its mother. When someone preaches the Word of truth to that individual, it is parallel to the doctor bringing a child into the world. Therefore, from the time an individual is quickened or born from above, until the gospel is preached to him, he is existing by the umbilical cord of God's grace. It is possible for a person to be quickened for a time and not know anything about it, as a person is conceived and living for some time before he has a conscience awareness of his existence."
There are a number of errors in these words of Barber. The first error is his dividing up the new birth into stages. The second is his contention that being "born" of God is not necessary for salvation. The third error is his contention that "it is possible for a person to be quickened for a time and not know anything about it." One wonders if Adam, upon being created, knew that he had been created? One wonders, if Lazarus, upon being raised from the dead, knew it? Again, I repeat, that it is absurd to think that the personal salvation experience that the apostles referred to in their letters to the early Christians was something of which the Christians did not understand as being their conversion to Christ.
Barber wrote:
"Our conclusion is that James was not speaking about giving spiritual life to anyone; he was speaking about life being brought to light as Paul said in Timothy (II Timothy 1:9-10). The context of the first chapter of James (as well as the entire book) bears out that he wrote to encourage professing believers to exhibit fruits of a child of God. James did not write to instruct how one becomes spiritually alive." Another writer wrote:
"It was the will of the Father of lights to give birth (apekuêsen) to us. Apokueô occurs in the New Testament only here and in verse 15. This signals that James is contrasting God’s deliberate birthing of the community to sin’s birthing of death. The feminine image of God giving birth is present in the Old Testament: God asks if he had “conceived” (hrh) or had “given birth to” (yld) Israel (Num 11:12), while in Deut 32:18 Yhwh is directly referred to as “the God who gave birth to [Israel].” (See here)
Barber again makes some huge errors in these words. He makes the experience of being "begotten" of God to be unnecessary for being eternally saved! But, we will save our full rebuttal of his argumentation till after we have given other sources for this multi-stage view of regeneration.
W. E. Best, whom the Hardshells often cite to add weight to their views, wrote the following "on the New Birth."
"One of the greatest blunders, on the subject of the new birth, is to make it dependent on man’s faith. Opposers of Biblical regeneration advocate that the new birth must, in some way, be the response of one who hears the gospel. Such verses as James 1:18 and I Peter 1:23 are used to prove their theory; but the exegesis of the two texts demands no such conclusion. James 1:18 does not refer to begetting or conception, but bringing forth or giving birth. Immediate regeneration does not deny that the new birth, in which the new life becomes manifest, is secured by response to the gospel; but distinction must be made between conception and birth. They are not the same, There are two prepositions in I Peter 1:23 that must be distinguished before the verse can be understood. The first is “of [ek—from out of—the source] incorruptible seed.” This is not the instrument, but the source of regeneration. “By [dia—through—the instrument] the word of God” is the second; this shows that God’s word is the instrument of conversion, not regeneration."
Like the Hardshell founding fathers, and like Hopkins and Kuyper, Best makes "regeneration" to be distinct from being "born again" and being "begotten." Like Barber, Best believes that I Peter 1: 23, like James 1: 18, speaks of birth as distinct from regeneration. This, we will show, however, is untenable, for the word in Peter is not the same word in James. While it is possible that the Greek word for "begat" in James may be referring to the female aspect, yet this can hardly be said about the word "gennao" in Peter. But, more on this later.
Best speaks of the prepositions used by Peter, how Peter speaks of being born "of" (ek) God but "by" (dia) the Holy Spirit. Best attempts to argue that "of God" refers to the first stage of the birth process while "by the word of God" refers to the last stage. But, this is untenable. It is the exact same birth that is "of" God and "by" the word of God. There are not two births under consideration, one "of" God and one "by" the gospel.
Best continues:
"Regeneration is the begetting of the new life. The effectual call is the bringing forth of that life by Divine summons into the light of the gospel. If the hearing of the word (call of the gospel) is indispensable to regeneration, then what about babies who die in infancy? As soon as we distinguish quickening from conversion, the light enters. There must first be life before there can be any response to living things." (REGENERATION AND CONVERSION by W. E. Best - See here)
Best does not equate "regeneration" with the "effectual call," and yet all the oldest Calvinistic writings and confessions equate them. Further, the scriptures teach that new life in Christ is the result of God's call. Best also brings up the case of those who die in infancy, a common argument by those who deny means, but this argument has been refuted in earlier chapters in this book. Best also follows the lead of men such as Kuyper in affirming that the separating of regeneration from birth (conversion) causes the light to enter, clearing up supposed confusion and contradiction in the writings of those who do not separate them.
John Hendryx of monergism.com, also advocates the view of Hopkins and the founding fathers of Hardshellism, and wrote:
"I. Regeneration is described as a spiritual new birth.
1. This is affirmed in the following New Testament passages: John 1:12-13; 3:3-8; I Corinthians 4:15; Philemon 10; James 1:18; I Peter 1:3,23; I John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1,4,18.
2. The embryonic stage of regeneration is what is called "quickening", and it is the work of the Holy Spirit alone.
3. The final stage of regeneration is delivery or birth, and it is the work of the Holy Spirit in dependence upon the Word as a means. Consequently, the spiritual knowledge conferred by illumination is the spiritual content or revelation (holy Scripture)." ("Biblical Regeneration and Affectional Theology," see here)
From the same web site there is an article titled "Irresistible Grace" by Brian Schwertly where he taught the same thing. He wrote:
"Some misunderstanding regarding regeneration is understandable given the fact that regeneration has two different senses in the New Testament. Sometimes it refers to the whole conversion process in which the reborn heart comes in contact with the word and is first called into action. Passages such as 1 Peter 1:23 and James 1:18 discuss the regenerate heart as it comes in contact with the Word of God and issues forth into conversion. “This is the effectual calling through the instrumentality of the word of preaching, effectively applied by the Spirit of God. This effectual calling finally secures, through the truth as a means, the first holy exercises of the new disposition that is born to the soul. The new life begins to manifest itself, the implanted life issues in the new birth.”
"The first stage of regeneration can be compared to the implantation of a seed, and the second stage could be compared to the process of giving birth. Regeneration in the strict sense logically precedes or is coterminous with the preaching of the gospel because the gospel cannot have persuasive power over a corpse." (See here)
A. W. Pink, leading 20th century Baptist author, highly touted by the Hardshells, in support of the same view, wrote:
"We shall now confine ourselves to the initial operation of the Spirit within the elect of God. Different writers have employed the term "regeneration" with varying latitude: some restricting it unto a single act, others including the whole process by which one becomes a conscious child of God. This has hindered close accuracy of thought, and has introduced considerable confusion through the confounding of things which, though intimately related, are quite distinct. Not only has confusion of thought resulted from a loose use of terms, but serious divisions among professing saints have issued therefrom. We believe that much, if not all, of this would have been avoided had theologians discriminated more sharply and clearly between the principle of grace (spiritual life) which the Spirit first imparts unto the soul, and His consequent stirrings of that principle into exercise."
Pink argues, like Kuyper and others, that the older Calvinist theologians created confusion by their teaching that biblical regeneration was the same as the new birth, and the same as conversion.
In "Quickening Is the Initial Operation of the Spirit," Pink wrote:
"In earlier years we did not ourselves perceive the distinction which is pointed by John 6:63 and 1 Peter 1:23: the former referring unto the initial act of the Spirit in "quickening" the spiritually-dead soul, the latter having in view the consequent "birth" of the same. While it is freely allowed that the origin of the "new creature" is shrouded in impenetrable mystery, yet of this we may be certain, that life precedes birth. There is a strict analogy between the natural birth and the spiritual: necessarily so, for God is the Author of them both, and He ordained that the former should adumbrate the latter. Birth is neither the cause nor the beginning of life itself: rather is it the manifestation of a life already existent: there had been a Divine "quickening" before the child could issue from the womb. In like manner, the Holy Spirit "quickens" the soul, or imparts spiritual life to it, before its possessor is "brought forth" (as James 1:18 is rightly rendered in the R.V.) and "born again" by the Word of God (1 Pet. 1:23)."
Pink makes the same arguments made by Kuyper and others of the "New Divinity" in affirming that spiritual birth is exactly like physical birth in arguing that regeneration is not birth. I would argue that Pink was correct in his earlier years when he held to the confessional view that did not separate regeneration from birth and conversion.
Pink continued:
"James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23, and parallel passages, refer not to the original communication of spiritual life to the soul, but rather to our being enabled to act from that life and induced to love and obey God by means of the Word of Truth—which presupposes a principle of grace already planted in the heart. In His work of illumination, conviction, conversion, and sanctification, the Spirit uses the Word as the means thereto, but in His initial work of "quickening" He employs no means, operating immediately or directly upon the soul. First there is a "new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:10), and then the "new creature" is stirred into exercise. Faith and all other graces are wrought in us by the Spirit through the instrumentality of the Word, but not so with the principle of life and grace from which these graces proceed."
Pink argues the same thing that Best argued in affirming that the "birth" of James 1: 18 and I Peter 1:23 is not regeneration, is not the way in which a sinner is given spiritual life. Notice also how Pink makes "conviction of sin" to be the result of regeneration, what is accomplished through "means."
Pink, under the heading "Quickening Imparts Life" wrote:
"In His work of "quickening," by which we mean the impartation of spiritual life to the soul, the Spirit acts immediately from within, and not by applying something from without. Quickening is a direct operation of the Spirit without the use of any instrument: the Word is used by Him afterwards to call into exercise the life then communicated. 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 made alive. God did not employ an instrument or means when He infused physical life into the body of Adam. There were only two factors: the dust of the ground and the creative power of God which vivified that dust. The Divine omnipotence and dead matter were brought into direct contact, with nothing interposing. The dust was not a means or instrument by which God originated life. So in regeneration there are only two factors: the human soul destitute of spiritual life, and the Holy Spirit who quickens it."
In these words Pink argues much the same way as do the Hardshells and many of these arguments I have already addressed and rebutted and will enlarge my rebuttal in this chapter and in the next.
Pink wrote:
"No, men are not "quickened" by the Word, they must be quickened in order to receive and understand the Word. "And I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the LORD; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God" (Jer. 24:7): that statement would be quite meaningless if a saving knowledge of or experimental acquaintance with God were obtained through the Word previous to the "new heart" or spiritual life being given, and was the means of our being quickened. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" (Prov. 1:7); the "fear of the Lord" or Divine grace communicated to the heart (spiritual life imparted) alone lays the foundation for spiritual knowledge and activities." ("THE HOLY SPIRIT," Chapter 11 - "The Spirit Quickening")
The idea that men are not "quickened" by the word has been shown to be false throughout our work on "The Hardshell Baptist Cult." For instance, we have looked at the words of David who said that he had been "quickened" by God's word. (Psa. 119: 50)
There have been others who have also divided up the Christian's spiritual birth into stages but who did not make conversion, through repentance and faith, to be the post regeneration "birth."
Alexander Campbell believed that sinners were "regenerated" when they believed the gospel but were not "born" until they were baptized in water.
Irvin Himmel wrote this about the views of Herbert W. Armstrong:
"According to Armstrong and his comrades, no one is born again until the resurrection."
"Armstrongism maintains that true Christians are only "begotten" of God while humans, but "we shall be born of God in the resurrection" ("Why the Resurrection?" by Roderick C. Meredith, Plain Truth, March, 1983, p. 14). Armstrong says God is "reproducing Himself after His own kind" (Why Were You Born? p. 29). When a person is impregnated with the Holy Spirit he is begotten of God. This is conversion (Just What Do You Mean . . . Conversion? p. 8)." ("Armstrong's Doctrine Of The New Birth" by Irvin Himmel - See here)
In beginning a rebuttal of the views of the men cited above, I wish to begin with the words of J. P. Boyce, one of the first great leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention and leader at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
J. P. Boyce wrote:
"The word apekuesen is used in James 1:18, and means to bring forth or bear young, and there evidently means to bring to the condition of sonship."
"However much James 1:18 suggests a different aspect of the work, namely, the bringing forth that which has been begotten, still it so nearly connects that idea with the begetting as to create doubt if the whole work may not be virtually involved."
Boyce is correct to say that James has in mind "the whole work" when he speaks of "bringing forth" in birth.
Boyce continues:
"From the Scriptural teaching we see that the whole work of Regeneration and Conversion is included under the one term regeneration."
"The whole work is thus spoken of, however, because God is operative from the beginning to the end, but this does not prove that he does not operate differently in one part from what he does in the other."
"The Scripture teaching is that God operates immediately upon the heart to produce the required change, by which it is fitted to receive the truth, and mediately through the word in its reception of that truth."
"He operates immediately upon the heart to prepare the way for the truth."
(CHAPTER XXXII - REGENERATION AND CONVERSION - See Notice that Boyce affirms what I affirm. He affirms that regeneration/new birth is both mediate and immediate.
Boyce also wrote:
"At the outset of a discussion of these two subjects we are met by the question, whether they are not one and the same thing. They are unquestionably so intimately associated that it is difficult to separate them and point out the distinctions between them. The Scriptures connect the two under the one idea of the new birth, and teach that not only is regeneration an absolute essential in each conversion, but that in every intelligent responsible soul conversion invariably accompanies regeneration...From the Scriptural teaching we see that the whole work of Regeneration and Conversion is included under the one term regeneration." What does Boyce say is the teaching of scripture, in contrast to that of the hair-splitting theologians? He says that "conversion is included under the one term regeneration."
Boyce also did not define "regeneration" by the cause alone. He wrote:
"It is true that but few of the passages refer to anything save the work of God; yet these few sufficiently teach the use of the word in regeneration to lead us not to reject, as a part of it, that result of God's act which, in connection with the word, leads to the full union of its subject with Christ through repentance and faith."
Boyce says that the scriptures include the "result" or effect in its definition of what it means to be regenerated. He does not see the scriptures as defining it by the cause alone.
In the next chapter we will show that the idea of the new birth having stages, like physical birth, is not scriptural and that defining "regeneration" to the mere "implantation" of "seed" (impregnation) to the exclusion of birth (conception) is false.
No comments:
Post a Comment