John 3:3,5 and Hyper Calvinism

The following is from chapter 81 of my book on The Hardshell Baptists which I printed in my Baptist Gadfly blog (which preceded this blog). I felt it good to post it here. Any discussion on it from my Hardshell brothers is welcome.

The chapter was published in Sept. 2008. There are a couple of good comments from others in the comment box.

Besides John 1: 12, 13, and I John 5: 1, John 3: 3,5 is also used by the Hardshells and other Hyperists in order to attempt to prove that one is born again prior to faith and repentance.

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3: 3 KJV)

"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (vs. 5)

The argument of the Hardshells, and others who promote the view that puts the new birth prior to faith, from the above words of Christ, affirms that these words teach that the new birth must occur before one believes, or repents, or savingly hears, or receives Christ, or experiences conversion.

But, this verse does not teach such an unscriptural notion.

First, the context shows how Christ interpreted the birth of the Spirit to be synonymous with coming to trust in Christ and in his atoning death.

Secondly, the "seeing" and "entering" the kingdom is not to be equated with believing or receiving Christ, nor with repenting, but with coming to experience the life of a child of God, in his Christian life now, but superlatively so in the world to come.

"See" does not mean to "believe," but to "experience," probably, to fully experience. Certainly no one can experience the spiritual life, either here and now, or in the world to come, unless he is first born of the Spirit through the word. Besides, is there no "seeing" or "entering" experienced IN the very act of being born?

Let us substitute some other words for "see" and "enter" and discover if it be scriptural or not.

"Except a man be born again he cannot experience God in salvation."
"Except a man be born again he cannot go to heaven."
"Except a man be born again he cannot be spiritually alive."
"Except a man be born again he cannot have Ezekiel's new heart."
"Except a man be born again he cannot please God."
"Except a man be born again he cannot have fellowship with God."
"Except a man be born again he cannot be translated into the kingdom."
"Except a man be born again he cannot be transformed."

Now, for the term "born again," in all the above examples, substitute the words "have faith" and see if it as scriptural.

Certainly "seeing" and "entering" the kingdom is Jewish. From the Old Testament, the believing Jew looked forward to the coming of an eternal kingdom where he would enjoy, in a glorified human body and spirit, the fullness of "life." It is therefore chiefly "eschatological." Peter referred to this eschatological "seeing" (experiencing) and "entering" the "eternal kingdom" of Christ, when he wrote:

"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 KJV)

The context clearly shows that Peter is addressing those who have been born again and who, in some limited way, have experienced the kingdom of the Messiah. Yet, this present enjoyment of the kingdom is limited, being only a foretaste or earnest deposit, while the fullest enjoyment will not be till after the return of Christ and the establishment of his kingdom.

D.A. Carson wrote (emphasis mine):

“To a Jew with the background and convictions of Nicodemus, “to see the kingdom of God” was to participate in the kingdom at the end of the age, to experience eternal, resurrection life. The same equivalence is found in the Synoptics (cf. Mk. 9:43, 45 ‘to enter life’, parallel to 9:47 ‘to enter the kingdom of God/); it is particularly strong in the Fourth Gospel, where ‘kingdom’ language crops up only here (3:3, 5) and at Jesus’ trial (18:36) while ‘life’ language predominates. One of the most startling features of the kingdom announced in the Synoptics is that it is not exclusively future. The kingdom, God’s saving and transforming reign, has in certain respects already been inaugurated in the person works and message of Jesus.” (D.A. Carson, The Gospel According To John, P. 188)

So, it is a very weak argument, or none at all, to say that the words of Christ teach that one must be born again in order that he may later believe, repent, or be converted. Such a view, as I have said, eliminates faith, repentance, and a change of heart and mind from the very experience of the new birth.

Why can't the Hyperist see that part of the "deadness" of the alien depraved sinner is his "unbelief" and his "impenitence"? If they saw correctly that "spiritual death" involves unbelief and impenitence of heart, then they could see how coming to spiritual "life" involves coming out of dead faith, and dead thinking, and dead repentance, and dead works.

These same folks will affirm that the "new heart" must be first given before that heart can exercise faith and repentance. But, such a view divorces faith and repentance from being essential elements of the "new heart." If the "new heart" and "new life" do not include faith and repentance, then the "heart" is still unbelieving and impenitent, and so, how could it be said to be a "new" heart?

Jesus shows that he has primary allusion to an "eschatological" realization of "seeing" and "entering" the kingdom (to that which will not be experienced till the kingdom of Christ is established upon earth), when he says "whoever believes on him will have eternal life." (vs. 15, 16)

Surely this latter statement of Christ is eschatological, for the most part, is it not? Do those who argue erroneously on the words "seeing" and "entering," as the Hardshells and "Reformed" crowd, also see these words ('believe to eternal life') as not referring to "regeneration"? If they did, would they not have faith before regeneration?

So, the context shows that the "seeing" and "entering" into "eternal life," and into the "kingdom of God," are what is to be realized at the return of Christ. But, even if we allow it to refer to what takes place at the moment one is born again, or comes to faith, it still does not uphold the view that says the birth is completed without the creation of faith.

Besides, if the new life that is created by the new birth does not include faith, then how was the word a means in the birth? And, in our earlier chapters in this book, we looked at those passages that teach regeneration by the means of the word of God and faith in it, and overthrew the Hardshell objections to them. But, if faith is after the new birth, then the word of God cannot be a means in the giving of the life itself.

In the next chapter I will be continue looking at verses in the gospel of John that supposedly teach that one is born again before and apart from faith, as the Hardshells teach.