Among those who have advocated the idea that spiritual birth is exactly like physical birth, and have divided it into stages, have nevertheless not forsaken the idea that birth, in all its stages, is a "passive" work. Thus, those Hardshells today, like Barber, who make conversion to be equated with birth, or deliverance from the womb, nevertheless deny that conversion is a passive work.
In denying the three stage model of spiritual birth I am unable to find previous writings where this Kuyperian and Hardshell model was refuted and so I will be doing this without previous help. I will be relying upon scripture alone to refute it.
Needless to say, most theologians have not made a distinction between "regeneration" and being "born again." Even the later Hardshells of the mid to late 19th century did not distinguish between them, but equated them.
Kenneth Wuest, Greek exegete, said this about the word "regeneration."
"The word paliggenisia is made up of the Greek word palin and genesis. Palin is an adverb meaning "back, again, back again." Genesis is a noun used in the N.T., in the sense of "origin, race, birth." It is rendered "birth" in Mt. 1: 18. It means "race, lineage." It is translated "generation" in Mt. 1: 1. It comes from the verb ginomai which means "to become, to begin to be." Used of persons it means "to become, to be born." In John 8: 58 we have, "before Abraham came into existence (i.e., was born), I am." "Was" is the A.V., translation of ginomai here, the verb which means "to come into existence." In Rom. 1: 3, the words referring to our Lord "which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh," could read, "who with reference to the flesh (His humanity), was born of the seed of David." Another clear case of the usage of ginomai in the sense of "to be born" is in Gal. 4: 4 where the Greek reads "having become out of a woman as a source." The participle is aorist, the classification ingressive. The participle for ginomai refers here therefore to entrance into a new state. It was His humanity into which our Lord entered. This entrance into human existence had its source in a woman, the preposition being ek (out of) and the case being ablative, thus, ablative of source. This entrace into human existence was effected by the virgin birth. Thus, while ginomai means fundamentally "to become, to begin to be," it is used at times in the sense of "to begin to be by being born." The word paliggenisia therefore means "to be born again."
In John 3: 3, reference is made by our Lord to regeneration, but there both the adverb and the verb are different. The verb is gennao, which in its active voice means "to beget," and in the passive voice, "to be born." (Wuest's Word Studies - Studies in the Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament)
Regeneration therefore simply means to be reborn. It is therefore an error to say that regeneration is not the new birth, as Kuyper, Best, Pink, and the Hardshells affirm. Best argued that the being "born again" in I Peter 1: 23 was not regeneration, and yet these words mean the same thing.
Further, in John 3: 3 the birth is not the implanting done by the male seed for Nicodemus said - "how can a man enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born." The word "born" therefore focused on the idea of emerging from the womb into existence. The word for "born" (gennao) in the words of Christ is from the same Greek word used by Peter in I Peter 1: 23.
Jesus said that this birth is "of the Spirit" and Peter says that it is "of incorruptible seed," or "of God" as John also said (John 1: 13), but Peter also said that it was "by the word of God."
Vines’ Expository Dictionary of Old and New testament Words, under the heading REGENERATION, we read the following:
"Palingenesia “new birth” (palin – “again”; genesis – “birth”) is used of “spiritual regeneration” [Titus 3:5] involving the communication of A NEW LIFE, the two operating powers to produce which are “The Word of Truth” [James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23] and “The Holy Spirit” [John 3:5-6]…The NEW BIRTH and REGENERATION do not represent successive stages in spiritual experience, they refer to the same event but view it in different aspects. The NEW BIRTH stresses the communication of spiritual life in contrast to the antecedent spiritual death; [see Ephesians 2:1] REGENERATION stresses the inception of a new state of things in contrast with the old’ [see 2 Corinthians 5:17]."
The Greek word "gennaō" is used, in scripture, of men who fathered children and also of women giving birth to children, most often in the latter sense.
"Among them that are born (gennētos from gennao) of women..." (Matt. 11: 11)
"...that holy thing which shall be born (gennao) of thee." (Luke 1: 35)
"A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world." (John 16: 21)
"...devour her child as soon as it was born..." (Rev. 12: 4)
These verses show that gennao focuses on birth from the womb of women. However, we also read that "Abraham begat (gennao) Isaac" (Acts 7: 8) and "...him that begat." (I John 5: 1)
Now let us examine the chief passage used by the advocates of the multi-stage view of spiritual birth to support their thesis.
"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." (James 1: 18)
The first thing to notice is the use of the personal masculine pronoun "he." This is important because those who advocate that this begetting is not regeneration, not the first stage of seed implantation, but rather refers to the final stage of birth, cannot reconcile this with the fact that James speaks of God in the masculine gender. The fact that "he" begat shows that the implantation of seed is not excluded from the begetting. On this A. T. Robertson, Greek scholar, said: "First aorist active indicative of apokuew (verse 15), only here of the father (4 Macc. 15:17), not of the mother."
The Greek word for apokyeō (beget) means "to bring forth from the womb," to "give birth to," to produce. But, this does not exclude the whole work of birth, as J. P. Boyce stated, for the masculine aspect is present. It is true that God not only sires but that he also acts as mother and midwife in bringing to full birth. This being true, James is not excluding any part of the birth process and thus being begotten "by the word of truth" is true with regard to the seed implantation as well as the birth from the womb. The purpose of those who attempt to restrict the begetting of this verse to only the final stage is to eliminate the use of the "word of truth," but if the entire birth is referred to, this becomes a failed attempt.
Scholars agree that the use of apokyeō, used by James in this chapter and no where else in the New Testament, does so in order to contrast spiritual birth with the metaphorical birth of spiritual death of verse 15. Let us notice that verse with the pertinent birthing words highlighted with their Greek word sources.
"Then when lust hath conceived (syllambanō - to conceive, to become pregnant), it bringeth forth (tiktō - produce or generate, as of a woman giving birth) sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth (apokyeō - give birth to) death." (James 1: 15)
Notice that "death" is not produced until lust has conceived, and brought forth. Death results not from the first stage of the birth process, but from the final stage. "Sin when it is finished brings forth death." Since death is not produced till the birth process of sin is "finished," so then life is not produced till the birth process of the Spirit is finished. The comparison is between "when the birth process of sin is completed death is produced" and "when the birth process of the Spirit is completed life is produced." But, this is what is denied by the Kuyperian Hyper Calvinists in their argumentation on this verse. They believe that life is produced before the birth process is completed.
Do the new testament writers distinguish and separate being born of the Father versus being born of the mother, spiritually speaking? That is the chief question. Did they think that a gap in time existed between being born of God the Father and being born from the womb of mother church? Is physical birth exactly like spiritual birth? We know that in physical birth that both a mother and father are required. Do Hardshells believe this? Who do they believe is the mother? Is the church not viewed as the mother in scripture? It is also true that God sometimes pictures himself as both father and mother in the birth of his children.
In physical birth there are indeed stages. First, there is the implantation of the seed, then the germination of the seed when the seed (sperm) comes in contact with the egg and fertilizes it. Second, there is a nine month period of growth and gestation in the womb. Third, there is the birth from the womb.
The first Hardshells believed that the final birth stage corresponded to conversion via the preaching of the gospel and faith. They also held to the view that all those who had the seed implanted would come to the birth, and that there would be no "still born." They believed that the child was passive in all the stages of the birth process. Later Hardshells generally rejected this staged model of the new birth, and saw regeneration as the same experience as being born, and in doing so, rejected the idea that spiritual birth was exactly like physical birth.
In physical birth there is a period of nine months between being conceived in the womb and being delivered from the womb. But, if this is true in spiritual birth, then we must affirm that no one is converted at the same time that he is regenerated. Yet, we have many examples in scripture where people were regenerated and born again at the same time, were regenerated and converted at the same time, such as the apostle Paul on the Damascus Road. Paul's experience of being regenerated and born (converted) at the same time shows that spiritual birth is not exactly like physical birth.
Let us notice these words of the prophet and see if God follows the normal birth process of flesh.
"Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children. Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God." (Isa. 66: 7-9)
In normal birth, travail comes first before the the "bringing forth" and before the "delivery." But, God does not follow this procedure in the above words, hence the rhetorical words of surprise - "who has heard of such a thing?" and "who has seen such things?" It is unique. The normal birth process does not take place all at once, but the birth process in the above words takes place all at once. The church is here compared to a pregnant woman that brings forth suddenly and easily.
On these words of God from Isaiah, Dr. Gill wrote:
"The church may pray, and her ministers preach, and both be said to travail in birth, but it is the Lord that brings to it; regeneration is not the work of man, but of God; it is he that beget, again, quickens, renews, and sanctifies; it is he that begins the work of grace in regeneration, in real and thorough convictions of sin; which are right when men are convinced of the impurity of their nature, the exceeding sinfulness of sin, have a godly sorrow for it, and forsake it: the work is begun when souls feel the burden of sin; the inward struggling, of grace and corruption; a want of spiritual food, and hunger after it; desires after spiritual things, and a glowing love and affection for them; and when light is infused, faith, fear, and love produced, and every other grace implanted; and he that has begun the good work will perform it...As in the natural birth it is he that gives strength to conceive, forms the embryo in the womb, ripens it for the birth, and takes the child out of its mother's womb; so he does all that answers hereunto in the spiritual birth...God will not shut the womb of conversion until they are all brought to faith in Christ, and repentance towards God."
Gill comments further upon these words of the text - "for as soon as Zion travailed she brought forth her children," saying:
"...this is to be understood of the pains which Gospel ministers take in preaching the word, which is the means of regeneration, and they the instruments of it; and so are called fathers, who through the Gospel beget souls to Christ; and of their anxious concern for the conversion of sinners, and the formation of Christ in them, which is called a travailing in birth; see (1 Peter 1:23) (James 3:18) (1 Corinthians 4:15) (Galatians 4:19) (Romans 8:22 Romans 8:23) and it may also design the earnest prayers of the church and its members, striving and wrestling with God, being importunate with him, that the word preached might be useful for the good of souls..."
In these words Gill equates being regenerated with being begotten and with being converted.
Jesus also spoke of the birth process in these words:
"A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world." (John 16: 21)
Surely to be "born into the world" means to have existence in the world. Birth brings a person into being in the ordered world. So, likewise does spiritual birth bring one into being in the ordered world of grace and of the kingdom of God. When does one enter the spiritual world? Is it not after being delivered from the womb, when the birth process is finished?
What are the consequences to the belief that there is a gap in time between regeneration (see implantation and germination) and birth? What are the consequences for making spiritual birth to be, in every way, exactly like physical birth?
The most absurd and unscriptural consequence is that it redefines the nature of regeneration. First, it affirms that a person is "regenerate" who is not "born," and this in spite of the fact that regenerate means the same thing as reborn. It creates a difference where there is no difference.
Second, it affirms that a man is "regenerate" who is yet unsanctified and unjustified, for sanctification and justification, in scripture, are said to be "by faith." (See Acts 26: 18 & Rom. 5: 1)
Third, it affirms that a man is regenerate, has a changed heart and new nature, but who is yet an unbeliever and impenitent in heart, and who still is condemned and has the wrath of God abiding upon him. (See John 3: 18, 36)
Fourth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who has not yet taken possession of the Holy Spirit, for the Spirit is "received" (active voice) through faith via the gospel. (Gal. 3: 2; Rom. 8: 15)
Fifth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who has not been forgiven of sins, for forgiveness comes by faith. (See Acts 26: 18)
Sixth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet in darkness (in the womb) and has not come into the light, whereas the scriptures define the regeneration experience as involving enlightenment. (See II Cor. 4: 6)
Seventh, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet unwashed and unclean, for cleansing is "by the word." (See Eph. 5: 26)
Eighth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet unconverted, for conversion is by faith. (See Acts 3: 19)
Ninth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is not yet saved, for men are saved by faith. (See Eph. 2: 8)
Tenth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who has not yet "received (active voice - by faith) the atonement." (See Rom. 5: 11)
Eleventh, it affirms that regeneration precedes justification whereas the scriptures are clear that justification is logically first. (See Col. 2: 13)
Twelfth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet under the power and dominion of Satan. (See Acts 26: 18)
Thirteenth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet not a child and heir of God. (the Greek word "teknon" - becoming children involves birth - tek - See Rom. 8: 17)
Fourteenth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet not liberated, for being yet in the womb the infant is still confined. (See Rom. 6: 18)
Fifteen, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is not yet united to Christ, which is by faith. (See I Cor. 6: 19)
Sixteen, it affirms that a man is regenerate who has not yet had his person and garments washed in the blood of the Lamb. (See Rev. 7: 14 - active voice in Greek)
Seventeenth, it affirms that a man is regenerate whose sins have not been propitiated. (See Rom. 3: 25 where propitiation is "through faith")
Needless to say, there are other absurd consequences, but these should be sufficient to show the untenable theory of those who divorce regeneration from birth, and from faith and conversion.
No comments:
Post a Comment