Discussion On I Cor. 4: 15

The following is an e-mail which was part of many that a Hardshell preacher and I exchanged about ten years ago. Back then I asked this preacher if he would discuss things publicly on my blogs or let me make his e-mails public, but he declined. One of the passages we discussed at length was I Cor. 4: 15 and Paul's statement that he had "begotten" the first Christians in Corinth "through the gospel." Here is what I wrote in one e-mail.

Dear ----:

 

Your interpretation makes Paul a "father" because he was an instructor in Christ, but this is not tenable because he does not equate "father" with "instructor."  What is the normal use of "begotten" in scripture?  Is it not a reference to being born again?  Why is I Cor. 4: 15 an exception to the rule?  Is there something in the context that forbids one from believing that the "begetting" is the same begetting mentioned throughout the new testament?  Or, are you just opposed to what Paul said and therefore must give it an abnormal definition? 

 

What did Gill say about this "begetting"?  Did he not say it was regeneration or the divine begetting (being born again)?  Was his view not the view of the true Old Baptists?  If not, who opposed him in it, back in the 18th century?  Did the Philadelphia Association not recommend the commentaries of Dr. Gill to the Baptist ministry?

 

So, Paul was a "father in the ministry" to every Corinthian member?  Does Paul not say he had begotten the Corinthians, all of them, and not just the ministers? 

 

What is there in the context to make one think Paul was not talking about eternal salvation? 

Since then I have looked at many commentators on this passage and all connect it with the new birth that Jesus spoke about in John 3 in talks with Nicodemus. This is seen in the commentary of John Gill. Further, the view of Gill on this passage was the accepted view of the first "primitive" or "old school" or "Hardshell" Baptists. 

It shows very poor exegetical skills for one to make "father" to mean "teacher." The Corinthians had ten thousand teachers but had only one father, and so this fact disproves the Hardshell assertion. Egad. Is that not simple?

Paul was a means in the conversion or new birth of the Corinthians. More properly, it was the gospel that begat, and so the words "through the gospel" are what is to be highlighted. Begotten of Paul, yes, but at the same time begotten by the gospel, or of God.

Elder Gilbert Beebe in one of his earliest writings against this passage and its teaching regarding gospel means decried those of his brethren who argued for how Paul was an "instrumental cause," or means, and that God was the "efficient cause." Some of his brethren argued that this was the historic teaching of their forefathers on this verse and all Beebe could do was ask - "where do we find 'instrumental cause' and 'efficient cause' in the bible?" Such ignorance and blindness!

Wrote Beebe:

2. The second query, if so it may be called, has the form of a reminiscence. Brother S. remembers when Old Baptist preachers talked much about primary and efficient cause, and also of secondary causes, and so do we; but we do not recollect of ever hearing them refer to any scriptural authority for making such distinction; and as we read of no such distinction in the good book, as having been used by the standard writers of the New Testament, we are of the number who “hardly know what such language means.” We know of but one cause adequate to the production of life and salvation, and that cause is both Alpha and Omega, First and Last, Beginning and Ending, the Almighty. If our brother knows of another, or a second, he is welcome to it.

Notice a few things about these words of Beebe. First, he admits that his forefathers did not hesitate to talk about instrumental and efficient causes (along with other kinds of causes, like "second causes"). So, does he not by this admission show that his view is novel and new? 

Second, note that he refers to his PB brothers (Brother S) and "Old Baptist preachers" who spoke of the new birth as being effected by the gospel, by gospel preaching or preachers, and that in the sense of being an instrument. His argument against there being different kinds of causes is just stupidity. 

Here are some other things Beebe said in this article titled "Means" (Sept. 15, 1846 in Signs of the Times" - see here):

"He does not claim that be was the instrument which God had used in begetting them, or that his preaching had been an instrumental cause or means of their regeneration, for that would not have constituted them his children, nor him their father."

That is a good point, but it reminds me of that logical maxim - "whatever proves too much proves little (or nothing)." 

Beebe also wrote:

"Those who can believe that even Paul can or could produce the quickening and regeneration of a soul, must be strangers to the work. We once held a public debate with an Arminian Presbyterian preacher, who contended that Paul actually regenerated all the members of the Corinthian church, but we never expected to have lived long enough to hear the absurd and ridiculous assertion made by a professedly Old School Baptist."

I never knew that Beebe ever held any debates, so his reference to it is interesting. 

No orthodox teacher of the word would ever affirm that evangelists actually do the saving, the birthing, the regenerating, or the re-creating. Only God does this. But to insist that it is impossible for God to use a means is ridiculous. In fact, Beebe even acknowledges this when he says - "In the sense in which they were begotten of God, they were not begotten by Paul." Exactly! 

If one looks at all the places in the new testament where the words begotten, begat, and born are used, he will see that they often refer to a physical birth, or to Christ being the only begotten of the Father, or to spiritual birth, or a being "born again." Further, sometimes "birth" is viewed in two senses, one in which the father "begets" (plants seed or sperma), and the other in which the mother produces or brings into the world the fetus. In all those places where this spiritual begetting is mentioned there is no suggestion that this is what teachers do every time they teach, or denotes a teacher/pupil relationship. Begetting does not mean "producing students" or "educating students," but "producing children."

The burden of proof is on Hardshells to show how the Christian world is all wrong on I Cor. 4: 15 and so far not Beebe nor any other Hardshell has been able to show how the birth of that text is not the new birth.