Regeneration = Cause Alone?

Jason Brown, Hardshell apologist, believes that Archilbald Alexander was wrong to include the effect in defining "regeneration."  He disagrees with this great Calvinist spokesman who affirmed that regeneration, in scripture, was defined by both cause and effect.  Alexander was intelligent enough to know how silly it is to define "regeneration" by its cause alone.  It is silly and a moment's reflection on it will demonstrate it to any intelligent and unbiased mind, as I shall presently show. 

Jason wrote:

"Obviously this view of regeneration is dependent on it being true that the Holy Scriptures always include cause and effect. If there are Scriptures that distinguish cause and effect in the context of being "born again" or "regenerated", one cannot object to interpreting this word as a reference to the Divine cause."

Jason creates a "straw man," once again, when he insinuates that I do not "distinguish" between cause and effect.  Certainly cause and effect are different!  That is not the issue in dispute!  The issue is whether "regeneration" is strictly defined by the cause to the exclusion of the effect.  Both scripture and reason show that "regeneration" is chiefly, if not solely, defined by the effect, or by what is actually experienced.  It is silly to say that the act of God is regeneration, for this would be equivalent to saying that regeneration precedes regeneration. 

The views of Alexander are the same as Jonathan Edwards, who wrote:

Jonathan Edwards wrote:

"If we compare one Scripture with another, it will be sufficiently manifest, that by regeneration, or being begotten, or born again, the same change in the state of the mind is signified with that which the Scripture speaks of as effected in true repentance and conversion. I put repentance and conversion together, because the Scripture puts them together, Acts iii. 19, and because they plainh signify much the same thing."

"This inward change, called regeneration and circumcision of the heart, which is wrought in repentance and conversion, is the same with that spiritual resurrection so often spoken of, and represented as a dying unto sin, and living, unto righteousness."  (THE WORKS of PRESIDENT EDWARDS," pg. 213, Chapter II)

Edwards defines "regeneration" by the effect, by the actual "change" of heart.  Again, it is just pure nonsense to say that a man is changed (act of God, or cause alone) before he is actually changed.  But, that is the foolish consequence of defining regeneration by cause alone.

Let us notice these words of Ezekiel that clearly are talking about the experience or regeneration.

"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh."  (Eze. 36: 26)

Is regeneration not defined as the actual experience of having the heart changed?  Yes, God's act precedes the change, but God's act of "giving" is not regeneration, but the effect of God's act is what is defined as being regeneration. 

Paul wrote:

"And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."  (I Cor. 6: 11)

Here is another verse that clearly speaks of the regeneration experience.  True, washing, sanctification, and justification are effects of God's action, but who would be so silly to say that regeneration is not the actual effect of the divine act?

Let us think of another way to express the same idea.  Let us focus on verbal or vocal "communication."  Is this not the result of an act of the mind, the result of a choice?  But, who would define "communication" as being the act or choice of the brain?  Is not communication the actual event of speaking words?

Brown wrote:

"Even if Garrett is correct in his depiction of the contrast of Calvinist theologians of the Old and New Divinity, it hardly follows that the evolution of the terms "regeneration" and "conversion" was illegitimate."

There is no "if" about the question, however.  I have cited numerous writers, such as Shedd and Berkhof, who testified that the older Calvinists and Puritans did not teach the "New Divinity" view!  Shedd said that Turretin was the first to make a distinction between regeneration and conversion.  If Brown has evidence that such a view pre-dated Turretin, and that there were older Calvinists who made such a distinction, then let him produce it!

Brown speaks of "the evolution" in the definition of the terms regeneration and conversion and simply says that their novelty does not prove that they are "illegitimate."  Is this not an admission that his views are indeed not "primitive"?  Does he not say that he is more clear and correct than the first Calvinists and Reformers?  I agree that the scriptures are the final authority for judgment, and I offered my historical argumentation not as the final proof for veracity, but simply to show that they were not the original position of the great Calvinist Reformers.  But, having won the point on proving the novelty of the views of Brown and the Hardshells and Hyper Calvinists, I am perfectly willing to show that such novel views are against scripture.  I believe that the old Baptists and Calvinists knew the scriptures better on this subject than does Brown and his Hardshell brethren.

Brown wrote:

"No less a scholar that Dr. John Gill was aware of the differences among Calvinists on the definition of the term "regeneration", as he writes (Book 6, Chapter 11 of A Body of Doctrinal Divinity):

"Regeneration may be considered either more largely, and then it includes with it effectual calling, conversion, and sanctification: or more strictly, and then it designs the first principle of grace infused into the soul; which makes it a fit object of the effectual calling, a proper subject of conversion, and is the source and spring of that holiness which is gradually carried on in sanctification, and perfected in heaven."

Notice that Gill does not argue against a strict definition of regeneration, which excludes conversion, but, rather, incorporates it as he exegetes 1 John 3:9 a little later:

"It is also signified by "seed" (1 John 3:9). "Whosoever is born of God—his seed remaineth in him"; which is the principle of grace infused in regeneration; and as seed contains in it virtually, all that after proceeds from it, the blade, stalk, ear, and full corn in the ear; so the first principle of grace implanted in the heart, seminally contains all the grace which afterwards appears, and all the fruits, effects, acts, and exercises of it."

The idea that Garrett and Bob Ross have espoused that Calvinists began to distinguish regeneration from conversion for paedo-Baptist ulterior motives does not explain why John Gill allowed for the legitimacy of defining regeneration "strictly" as the creative act of God in forming the new man within the reprobate. Gill was certainly a Baptist."

Brown ought to give up and wave the white flag on the views of Gill for I have shown that Gill taught that regeneration was accomplished by means and that he, like Edwards, did not make regeneration to be distinct and separate from conversion.  I cited Gill where Gill said that one cannot be more regenerated than another, and could not be regenerated more tomorrow than he is today.  But, if Gill believed the scriptures to teach stages in regeneration, then he could not say such.  Gill, when he referred to two kinds of regeneration was not referring to their use in scripture but to their use by theologians of the 18th century.  On the passage Brown cited Gill, however, Gill wrote the following in his commentary:

"Whosoever is born of God…In a figurative and spiritual sense; who are regenerated, or born from above; who are quickened by the grace of God, and have Christ formed in them; who are made partakers of the divine nature, and new creatures in Christ; which spiritual birth is not owing to men, to the power and will of men, but to the grace of God; and is sometimes ascribed to the Father, who of his own will and abundant mercy begets souls again to a lively hope, and saves them by the washing of regeneration;

for his seed remaineth in him; not the word of God, or the Gospel, though that is a seed which is sown by the ministers of it, and blessed by God, and by which he regenerates his people; and which having a place in their hearts, becomes the ingrafted word, and there abides, nor can it be rooted out; where it powerfully teaches to avoid sin, is an antidote against it, and a preservative from it: nor the Holy Spirit of God, though he is the author of the new birth, and the principle of all grace..."

Notice that Gill does not say that the "regeneration" that is accomplished by the Gospel is a limited kind, the strict kind invented by the hair-splitting theologians, which he would do if he wanted to avoid being misunderstood. 

Brown wrote:

"The Biblical emphasis of the necessary condition for "seeing" the Kingdom of God and exercising faith (John 3:3), is the scriptural depiction of the natural man being dead in trespasses and in sins - in need of something far more decisive and radical than prevenient grace would allow. Notice that John 3:3 markedly makes intellectual "sight" - the sight Nicodemus claims to have in his declaration that he knows Jesus is a teacher sent from God - quite beside the point of spiritual rebirth. Nicodemus' claims - as if they qualified for true spiritual knowledge - are struck down by Christ."

Brown uses these words of Christ in order to prove the Hardshell "ordo salutis" that says that one is "born again" before faith (seeing).  So does R.C. Sproul and James White.  But, this is a very weak argument.  Clearly Jesus equates "seeing" the kingdom of God with "entering" the kingdom for he says "except a man be born again he cannot enter the kingdom."  "Cannot see" is equated with "cannot enter."  So, what is meant by "entering the kingdom"?  Surely it means "entering into the eternal kingdom, the same thing Peter speaks about when he writes:

"For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."  (II Peter 1: 11)
This is yet future and denotes entrance into the eternal state in heaven, when the saints are glorified. 

Further, by "seeing" the kingdom is meant the actual experience or enjoyment of the kingdom.  Being born again is what is necessary for being eternally saved.  Let us notice these passages where the same word, in English and Greek, are used and see how they bear out this interpretation.
"Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption."  (Acts 13: 35)

Surely to "see" corruption means to experience corruption.

"After I have been there, I must also see Rome."  (Acts 19: 21)

Surely to "see" Rome means the same thing as "entering" Rome so as to experience Rome.

"By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death..."  (Heb. 11: 5)

Surely to "see" death means to experience death.

"Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory."  (I Peter 1: 8)

Surely the ones to whom Peter wrote are born again, and if so, then they will "see" both Christ the king and his kingdom.  But, is this a present experience?  When will the born again ones "see" the king and the kingdom?  Is it not when he returns and he is then seen and experienced?

"But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face."  (III John 1: 14)

Notice that John conjoins "seeing" a person with being "face to face" with that person.  When will we see Christ and the kingdom then?  Is it not when we see him face to face?

Thus, Jesus is simply teaching that the new birth is necessary in order to entering the eternal kingdom and seeing Christ face to face.

Thus, Brown has been refuted once again.  It is my hope that he will one day "give up" and acknowledge the error of Hardshellism.