Is Your Theological House In Order?

"In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came unto him, and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order: for thou shalt die, and not live." (Isa. 38: 1 kjv)

In my recent series on the afterlife I dealt much with interpreting what Paul means by believers building their doctrinal or theological house upon Christ (and the facts about him) as a foundation. (See here)

I think that elderly Christians who are at the end of life as Hezekiah should not only get their secular and family affairs "in order" but should get their doctrinal house in order too. The text I discussed was I Corinthians 3: 9-15 and we saw how Paul said that each Christian will be judged by what kind of theological house he or she has built. 

If we discover that something is amiss in our house of beliefs, in our own private systematic theology, we should seek to change it (repentance) before we are judged by the Lord. If we built with the wrong materials or built with faulty workmanship, we should stop and remove the bad material in our buildings before we are finished building, and redo our work the right way. We will be rewarded for doing so and lose reward for not doing so. I have had to alter my beliefs through the years and have a better building now, I believe, than ever before. I am also open to be corrected by any good spiritual building inspector. 

Union With Christ By Faith (ii)

In Paul's writings "in Christ" is a term denoting union between Christ and the believer. But, those who believe that one is born again before he believes in Jesus Christ believe that one is "in Christ" apart from faith. They often will speak of faith union, but then turn around and put union before faith. 

When we believe the gospel, we believe "eis" ("unto," or "into" but "on" in KJV) Christ. In the New Testament the phrase "eis auton" (into him) is used frequently. Notice these texts:

"And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and is believing on him (eis-into him), may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:40) 

 

"Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that you may be believing on him (eis-into him) whom He hath sent." (John 6:29) 

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that is believing on (eis, into) Me is having everlasting life. I am that bread of life." (John 6:47-48) 

The Greek word "eis" has various shades of meaning yet its base meaning carries the idea of motion towards, of movement out of or from one thing into or to another thing. I have written extensively on this before, on the words "Believe (eis) Christ." (See here, here, and here)

How do we enter into Christ? Answer: By believing in Christ. Therefore, believing is a means or condition for entering into Christ and having vital union with him.

"In the flesh" vs. "in the Spirit"

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." (Rom. 8: 1-2) 

"So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." (vs 8-10) 

 

There is no doubt that regeneration is alluded to in this passage. It is connected with becoming "in the Spirit," and that is defined as having "the Spirit of God dwell in you." To be "in the Spirit" is to "have" or possess "the Spirit of Christ." How does one who is in the flesh become no longer such? To become "in the Spirit"? If it is not by faith, then we must conclude that unbelievers may have the Spirit and be in the Spirit. But, Paul always taught that both Christ and the Spirit were received by faith. It is when Christ enters into the believer that the believer's own "spirit" is quickened ("is life"). Wrote Paul to the Galatian believers: 

 

"This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (3: 2) 

If we receive the Spirit by faith (that comes by hearing the word - Rom. 10: 14-17), and it is the receiving of the Spirit that constitutes one as being "in Christ" and "in the Spirit," then regeneration is by faith. Paul also says in the same chapter - "that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." (Gal. 3: 14) Those who say that regeneration precedes faith must say that the Spirit is received "before" faith, and not "by" faith. Of course, "received the Spirit" and "received Christ" speak of being regenerated, converted, or born again.

Further, the context of Romans chapter eight shows that believing is the way and means for exiting the flesh and entering Christ and the Spirit. He says in chapter six:

"But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness."  (Vs. 17-18)

"Made free from sin" speaks of justification, but "became slaves of righteousness" speaks of regeneration or rebirth. That being so, we can say 1) that both justification and regeneration follow believing (obeying) from the heart the gospel of Christ (form of doctrine), and 2) that justification logically precedes regeneration. The moment that they were made free from sin is the moment they became "in Christ," and "in the Spirit," and were reborn.

Paul talks about being "in the flesh" and "in Christ" (or "in the Spirit") in his epistle to the Ephesians. He writes:

"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." (Eph. 2: 11-13 kjv)

There is no doubt in my mind that the time alluded to by the words "at that time" and "now" are allusions to  points in time, the former (at that time) to a time in the life of the Ephesian believers when they went from being "in the flesh" to being "in the Spirit," and "now" references the time after having received Christ. And, of course, to be "in the Spirit" is also to be "in Christ." This point in time, this demarcation point, is the time when the Ephesians believed the gospel of Christ, and when they "received" Christ and were converted. Until a man believes in Christ and is converted he is in the flesh, but once he receives Christ, he is received by Christ, and they two become one.

United To Christ

To be united to Christ is also to be united with the Father and Spirit. 

"What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit." (I Cor. 6: 16-17 nkjv)

This is a good text on our subject of union (or oneness) with Christ. There is a reference to the marriage union in the text. It is the same "joining" that Paul spoke of in his letter to the Romans, where he says -

“ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ; that ye should be joined to (married KJV) another, even to him who was raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit unto God.” (Rom. 7: 4)

In a marital union, it requires both parties to agree to the covenant that will formally constitute union, which will be followed by communion (or union of bodies in sexual relations). Union of heart precedes formal union and physical union in the paradigm. The assent to be married is equivalent to that act of placing faith and trust in Christ, and in "cleaving" to him as a husband does his wife, or "joining" oneself to him. So we read such verses as these in the old testament:

"...the son of the foreigner Who has joined himself to the LORD" (Isa. 56: 3 nkjv)

"And many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto thee." (Zech. 2: 11 nkjv)

"But ye that did cleave unto the LORD your God are alive every one of you this day." (Deut. 4: 4; see also 10: 20, etc.)

"For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear." (Jer. 13: 11 kjv)

Jesus spoke of how a husband cleaves to his wife and how she and he become one. (Matt. 19: 5)

So, how is one joined to Christ? Answer: By an act of the will in choosing Christ and cleaving to him.

Christ In You Through Faith

“...that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith...” (Eph. 3: 17)

The overwhelming majority of commentators rightly see this verse as supporting our premise number two that says "union with Christ is by faith." Those who say one is regenerated before faith are affirming that Christ enters the sinner before faith. 

Notice the place where Christ specially dwells. It is in the heart, which includes your mind. So the picture at the top of this posting illustrates.

I like how Kenneth Wuest, Greek scholar, translates the words as "that the Christ might finally settle down and feel completely at home in your hearts through your faith." 

I think too the words "that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith" carry the idea of "that Christ may continue to dwell in your hearts by faith," for the Ephesians were already saved and thus already had received Christ. Or, Paul not taking anything for granted (for there are hypocrites and deluded ones) in essence says "that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith if he isn't already." 

Receiving Christ

"He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1: 11-13 nkjv)

"As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him." (Col. 2: 6)

"I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me." (John 5: 43)

We have already spoken of how "receiving the Spirit" is by the "hearing of faith." Here is a similar text, but it speaks of receiving Christ. Of course, all who receive Christ receive the Spirit and vise versa. So, if Christ must be received in order to possess or to have him, to be one with him, then regeneration is by faith. Those who say Christ is in a person before that person has received him is simply like a dog chasing his tail.

Christ condemned some who refused to receive him as Lord and Christ, as Savior and Teacher. This shows that both receiving Christ and rejecting Christ are acts of the will. 

Of course, as a Calvinist, I believe that God is the one who works in a person to make him willing. (Psalm 110: 3: Phil. 2: 12-13)

"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: 

if any man hear my voice, and open the door, 

I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." 

(Rev. 3: 20)

Union With Christ By Faith

I do believe that there are several aspects of union with Christ. There is surely a representative union. This is the kind of union we see between Adam and his descendants. It is also the same kind of union we see between the second Adam (Christ Jesus) and his family (his brethren, i.e. believers). Thus, in Romans chapter five and I Corinthians chapter fifteen we have "in Adam" and "in Christ."

As a result of being in Adam, all in union with him die. As a result of being in Christ, all in union with him live. Likewise, as a result of union with Adam, all his connection not only suffer death, but are condemned or under guilt. In the same manner, as a result of union with Christ, all his connection not only are revived, but are justified. To become one with Adam requires a human birth. To become one with Christ the second Adam requires a new birth of the Spirit.

I believe that the bible teaches that experimental union with Christ, vital union, a union that is actual, is a union where both Christ and the sinner willingly unite with each other, as in a marriage. The union of a sinner with Christ is an act of will, an act of the will of Christ and an act of faith and trust by the sinner.

Not only do the words "in Christ" denote union (as nearly all adept bible teachers acknowledge) but so also do the words "into Christ" and "with Christ." In all these short prepositional phrases we see how salvation is determined by one's relationship to Christ. In the new testament, Christ is "in" the believer and the believer is "in" Christ, and these words determine salvation. In other words, to be saved, one must be "in Christ" and Christ must be both "in" and "with" the believing sinner. To be lost is to be outside of Christ, and to not have Christ with you. 

My Premises & Conclusion

1) Vital and experimental union (in addition to representative or virtual union) is a primary necessity and prerequisite for regeneration and for every aspect of salvation.

2) Union with Christ is by believing in Christ (act of receiving him) or by faith

3) Ergo. Union with Christ by faith precedes regeneration and every aspect or stage of salvation.

The Hyper Calvinists who say that regeneration precedes faith must deny premise number two, and affirm that union with Christ is before and apart from faith (as the Hardshells and Reformed brethren teach), for they will accept the validity of premise number one. They would say that one is joined to Christ before faith is produced, so union is not by faith. But, what saith the scriptures? What says our Baptist and Calvinist forefathers who were not Hypers? 

Bible Metaphors For Union

Several figures are used in scripture to illustrate this vital union. These are listed by Dr. A.H. Strong in his Systematic Theology. But let us first observe what he says prior to giving those metaphors and figures. In "Union With Christ - The Application of Christ’s Redemption in its Actual Beginning," Augustus Hopkins Strong says the following in his famous Systematic Theology on Union With Christ (See here):

"The majority of printed systems of doctrine, however, contain no chapter or section on Union with Christ, and the majority of Christians much more frequently think of Christ as a Savior outside of them, than as a Savior who dwells within." 

That is so true with regard to many theologians. It was not true with Calvin himself, however, as we will show (as I have before). In most lists of theologians, especially of those who are Hyper Calvinistic in their beliefs or inclinations, on the order of things in the ordo salutis, you won't even see "union with Christ" as one in the list. Yet, it ought to have the preeminence. Both representative union and vital union precede every aspect of experimental salvation. So I have "faith, vital union with Christ, justification, regeneration, sanctification, glorification." 

Here is what Strong gives us on the subject:

1. Scripture Representations of this Union. 

A. Figurative teaching. It is illustrated: 

(a) From the union of a building and its foundation.

(b) From the union between husband and wife.

(c) From the union between the vine and its branches.

(d) From the union between the members and the head of the body.

(e) From the union of the race with the source of its life in Adam.

B. Direct statements. 

(a) The believer is said to be in Christ. in fact, this phrase “in Christ,” always meaning “in union with Christ,” is the very key to Paul’s epistles, and to the whole New Testament. The fact that the believer is in Christ is symbolized in baptism: we are “baptised into Christ” (Gal. 3:27).

(b) Christ is said to be in the believer.

(d) The believer has life by partaking of Christ, as Christ has life by partaking of the Father.

(e) All believers are one in Christ.

(f) The believer is made partaker of the divine nature.

(g) The believer is made one spirit with the Lord.

The rest of this posting and this series will look at the bible verses that speak of these things and show how they speak of that union which is effected through the instrumentality of evangelical faith.

John Calvin, in support of this said: "...we are grafted into his body and made one with him by belief of the gospel..." (As cited in this article here)

That will be what I will be showing is proven by scripture. Later Calvinists have departed from the truth when they put vital union with Christ prior to, and apart from, faith in Christ. This truth was foundational for Calvin and for the Calvinists in his day and shortly thereafter. It was not till later that Hyper Calvinism showed up and find some Calvinists beginning to put "regeneration" before faith, and had it occurring apart from the means of the word of the gospel, and to put regeneration before justification. 

In an article by Lee Gatiss titled "The Inexhaustible Fountain of All Good Things: Union with Christ in Calvin on Ephesians" (Ibid) he says the following about Calvin on union with Christ (emphasis mine): 

"Whilst election is not, of course, an unimportant theme in Calvin’s work, the subject of this article—union with Christ—is a much more pervasive one. It is undoubtedly the key idea in his teaching on the way we receive the grace of Christ. While refuting Osiander, one of his German Lutheran opponents, Calvin says, “that joining together of Head and members, that indwelling of Christ in our heart—in short, that mystical union—are accorded by us the highest degree of importance.”"

I agree one hundred percent. I have written on all this before. (As an example see The Logical Difficulty II)

In another article titled "Union with Christ and Reformed Orthodoxy: Calvin vs. the Calvinists?", John V. Fesko wrote (See here emphasis mine):

"Charles Partee suggested that union with Christ, not predestination, was Calvin’s “central affirmation. Partee presses this point in his later book on Calvin’s theology with a twofold claim. First, though many Reformed theologians contributed to the complex development of the tradition, Partee believes “we can still affirm John Calvin as the greatest systematic thinker among them.” Second, in line with his earlier claim, Partee claims that union with Christ is Calvin’s central teaching. Partee argues that Reformed Orthodoxy departed from Calvin’s teaching: “To put the point briefly and sharply, Calvin is not a Calvinist because union with Christ is at the heart of his theology—and not theirs.”

I also fully agree with this informed statement, although I think Calvin represents the primitive Calvinists (or Augustinians) and not the later Calvinists who promoted the regenerated before faith view, and others who became Hyper Calvinists. Said the same author:

"We append a few statements with regard to this union and its consequences, from noted names in theology and the church. Luther: “By faith thou art so glued to Christ that of thee and him there becomes as it were one person, so that with confidence thou canst say: ‘I am Christ,—that is, Christ’s righteousness, victory, etc., are mine; and Christ in turn can say: ‘I am that sinner,—that is, his sine, his death, etc., are mine, because he clings to me and I to him, for we have been joined through faith into one flesh and bone.’ ”

Next we have these words from Jonathan Edwards also given: 

“Faith is the soul’s active uniting with Christ. God sees fit that, in order to a union’s being established between two intelligent active beings, there should be the mutual act of both, that each should receive the other, as entirely joining themselves to one another.” 

Next we have these words from Andrew Fuller: 

“I have no doubt that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness presupposes a union with him; since there is no perceivable fitness in bestowing benefits on one for another’s sake, where there is no union or relation between.”

Others have affirmed the same truth of the foundational nature of the right understanding of this subject. John Murray said "Union with Christ is the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation." (As cited here) 

John Owen said: 

 

"[Union with Christ] is the cause of all other graces that we are made partakers of; they are all communicated unto us by virtue of our union with Christ. Hence is our adoption, our justification, our sanctification, our fruitfulness, our perseverance, our resurrection, our glory." (Ibid)

Albert Barnes, in commenting upon I Cor. 6: 17, wrote: "But he that is joined to the Lord - The true Christian, united by faith to the Lord Jesus; see John 15:1 ff."

A.H. Strong in his Systematic Theology wrote (See here): "...we are justified by reason of our oneness with the justified Christ, so we are condemned by reason of our oneness with the condemned Adam." And, "God regenerates the soul by uniting it to Jesus Christ." And, "...faith, indeed, is the act of the soul by which, under the operation of God, Christ is received. This new exercise of the soul’s powers we call Conversion (Repentance and Faith). It is the obverse or human side of Regeneration."

In the next posting we will look at the texts which show that union with Christ is by faith and is what must occur before regeneration or rebirth can occur.

Against The Majority Interpretation

Over the years I have had those of a contrary opinion from mine, on various bible texts and subjects, make the argument that my view was a minority view. My reaction to such a statement is to say, first, "so what?" I then ask the question "are you saying that the majority is always right?" Most of the time they will say no. Well, then, why even make the argument? In logic this is called "ad populum," being a fallacy that occurs from using an “argumentum ad populum” (Latin for “argument to the people”). It is an argument that says something is true and right by an appeal to what most people think, like, or believe, instead of justifying our position with evidence.

I believe in several texts and subjects against the majority view. I believe the truth may be in the minority and I can give examples of it from both the bible and from the history of Hebrew and Christian tradition. If it were true, then I would be a Catholic and not a Protestant. 

In my numerous writings on many subjects, and texts connected with them, I have taken a minority view on several subjects. Let me list a few of the major ones and make some comments about each one.

1) Adoption (huiothesia in five texts, all by apostle Paul)

2) Weak vs. Strong Brothers (Romans and Corinthians)

3) The Two Witnesses of the Apocalypse

4) How Christ is the Chief Cornerstone

5) What is meant by the day star arising in the heart before the day of the Lord

I could list more, but these are five areas where the majority of interpreters got it wrong and only the few got it right.

On item number one, most see "adoption" (huiothesia) as God making someone else's child his child by a legal process, but I do not. My series (which would form a book) shows that this is not what the Greek word means, and is not what Paul meant.

On item number two, the overwhelming majority think the weak brother is a born again Christian who is a novice in the faith and the strong brother is one who is well versed in scripture and is strong in mind and conscience. However, I am sure that the weak brother is no Christian at all, but was a friendly Pagan. I have a lengthy series proving my thesis.

On item number three, I believe that the two witnesses are Elijah and the apostle John. Very few hold the view that the apostle John is one of them, but I think the weight is far greater for him than Moses, Enoch, or other. I have also written proving this, although I never finished the series to add further proofs.

On item number four, I show that by "chief cornerstone" is not a reference to one of four corners in a foundation, but to a building that has five corners, such as we see in the pyramid of Giza, the fifth corner being the one at the top. J.A. Seiss held this view, and so have some others, but it is the minority view.

On item number five, Peter's statement that the day star would arise in the hearts of believers "before the day dawn" (II Peter 1: 19) is interpreted to be some experience by believers after conversion but I see it as what will happen in the hearts of the last generation of believers who will be alive when Christ returns.

Of course, I say, in closing, that when a person takes a minority view, he should be cautious about going against the consensus and should not do so without assurance that it is right to do so.

Regeneration - Devil in the Definition

Hyper Calvinists who say "regeneration precedes faith" oftentimes, in explaining that proposition, will equate it with an act of God that produces faith and repentance, or evangelical conversion. What others call a pre-regeneration act of God, or "prevenient" grace and action, Hypers call "regeneration." This is their error. They have defined "regeneration" as 

1) the first act that God does to bring about regeneration, by the cause alone, and  

2) excluding any acts done by the one regenerated (or the effects)

By this definition, there are no preliminary acts of God prior to regeneration. However, it is an extreme view. Many of those who so define it believe that there are things that God providentially does in the life of a sinner prior to and for the purpose of his regeneration. Some also allow for some kind of "prevenient grace" (grace that precedes) and "common grace" operating upon the sinner prior to his regeneration. I wrote about this in this posting (here) and I cite from it.

Another error of those who separate regeneration from conversion, faith, and repentance, is to define "regeneration" simply as respects the "cause," whereas biblical "regeneration" includes both causes and effects, and primarily focuses upon the effect.  On this point the great head of Princeton Seminary, Archibald Alexander, wrote:

"Evangelical repentance, conversion and regeneration, are substantially the same. They all signify a thorough change of views, affections, purposes and conduct; and this change is every where declared to be essential to salvation."

This is in keeping with the view of Edwards.

Alexander wrote:

"Curious inquiries respecting the way in which the word is instrumental in the production of this change are not for edification. Sometimes regeneration is considered distinctly from the acts and exercises of the mind which proceed from it, but in the Holy Scriptures the cause and effect are included; and we shall therefore treat the subject in this practical and popular form. The instrumentality of the word can never derogate from the efficient agency of the Spirit in this work. The Spirit operates by and through the word. The word derives all its power and penetrating energy from the Spirit. Without the omnipotence of God the word would be as inefficient as clay and spittle, to restore sight to the blind."

Alexander pinpoints the error of those Hyper Calvinists who restrict the definition of regeneration to include only the "cause."  He correctly states that the scriptures include what is effected in the definition.  A man cannot then be said to have been "regenerated" who lacked the "effects," or constituent elements of regeneration.  In other words, a man cannot be said to have been "saved" who lacks the "things which accompany salvation."  Thus, to say a man is regenerated before he believes and repents is to define regeneration strictly by the cause to the exclusion of the effect.

Alexander also wrote:

"Ezekiel was commanded to prophesy over the dry bones in the valley of vision. Thus ministers are now sent to call upon those who are dead in trespasses and sins, to awake and arise from the dead, but none will obey their voice, unless a divine power accompanies their words...That the word of God is indeed the instrument or means of producing this change is evident from many plain testimonies of Scripture..."  See Here

Those Hyper Calvinists who limit their definition of the word "regeneration" to the cause of the change, to the exclusion of the effect, or actual change, greatly err.  Alexander is correct to affirm that scripture defines the experience of regeneration in such a way as to include the effect, or to what is actually effected by the cause of regeneration. 

The bible no where defines regeneration as excluding evangelical conversion (repentance and faith) but rather sees conversion as the first instance of regeneration, or regeneration begun, as the birth of the Spirit. 

We have a blog filled with citations from Calvinists of the past who said, for instance, that the bible does not restrict the definition of regeneration as do the Hypers so as to exclude faith and repentance. I challenge the Hypers to show us the texts where it is clear that regeneration (or its equivalent terms) is shown to be some kind of giving of ability prior to possessing faith and repentance, that is, apart from conversion. I predict that every text brought forward to try to show that regeneration does not include conversion will be shown by the context to speak of conversion. 

New life does not begin until Christ, who is "the Life," is received by faith. 

The authors of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith say that it is an error to believe that sinners must have ability to believe before they believe. They agreed with John Owen (as previously cited by me here) who wrote:

First, The work of conversion itself, and in especial the act of believing, or faith itself, is expressly said to be of God, to be wrought in us by him, to be given unto us from him. The Scripture says not that God gives us ability or power to believe only,—namely, such a power as we may make use of if we will, or do otherwise; but faith, repentance, and conversion themselves are said to be the work and effect of God. Indeed, there is nothing mentioned in the Scriptures concerning the communicating of power, remote or next unto the mind of man, to enable him to believe antecedently unto actual believing. A “remote power,” if it may be so called, in the capacities of the faculties of the soul, the reason of the mind, and liberty of the will, we have given an account concerning; but for that which some call a “next power,” or an ability to believe in order of nature antecedent unto believing itself, wrought in us by the grace of God, the Scripture is silent. 

Those words destroy the idea that "regeneration" is a giving of power to believe, repent, or be converted. It also destroys the idea that regeneration is defined by what God does alone.

WERE YOU EVER INVITED?

 Recently, I have engaged in discussions with a "Reformed Baptist" and a Presbyterian. The two are so much alike, one can hardly tell the difference, save for the mode of baptism. Both affirm that regeneration precedes faith, and neither believe it is the duty of a church to "invite" sinners to pray a "sinner's prayer" or beseeched to come forward at the end of the service for what some call the "altar call". They say that is an Arminian practice, which produces no real converts. They detest what they call "decisional regeneration". I have a few questions for those  Reformed Calvinists. 

1. Where have most of your church members come from? How can you be against a practice, that was used in the conversion of the vast majority of your members? Did you ever "decide" to trust Christ, or did you just wake up one morning trusting Him?

2. Why do you repeat falsehoods, saying Spurgeon never employed such practices?

3. How many have actually been converted to Christ under your ministry?

So I decided to dig a little to see if I could answer these questions. First, The Reformed churches have always been the smallest in number of all other churches. Even at their height, the Presbyterians never were more than 2% of the U.S. population, while the Methodists were three times that number, and the Baptists (of all kinds) were 6 times that number. If it weren't for the Methodists, Baptists, and later the Pentecostal style churches, the Reformed churches would be all but extinct. I hate to put it this way, but the Reformed churches must proselytize in order to fill their ranks, because they do not reproduce! They rarely have conversions, so they expend all their efforts in "evangelizing" the "Arminians". 

Second, it is an absolute falsity that Spurgeon did not employ the "altar call" or "invitation". Let's also not forget, that Spurgeon was converted in the Methodist church! Let's look at the methods Spurgeon used.

"C. H. Spurgeon earnestly exhorted those who had accepted Christ as their Saviour to come forward amongst his people and avow their attachment to His person and name. Words of kindly encouragement and of loving persuasiveness, were addressed to the timid and retiring ones, who feared to avow themselves to be the Lord's lest they should fall back into sin and dishonor His name. This was followed by an appeal to those who had confessed the name of Jesus — an appeal of so stirring and searching a nature, that many must have felt constrained to say, 'Lord what wilt thou have me to do?' Prayer for more earnest living, abiding, practical godliness, followed this address." —

The address to the "timid ones" would be those who needed to be "persuaded" to trust in Jesus. They had not yet "avowed themselves". They would be the ones saying "I must get my act together and stop sinning before I come to Christ"

The Sword and The Trowel Magazine, 1865, page. 70 .

‘Before you leave this place breathe an earnest prayer to God, saying, ‘God be merciful to me a sinner. Lord, I need to be saved. Save me. I call upon Thy name….Lord, I am guilty, I deserve Thy wrath. Lord, I cannot save myself. Lord, I would have a new heart and a right spirit, but what can I do? Lord, I can do nothing, come and work in me to do of Thy good pleasure.Thou alone hast power, I know To save a wretch like me; To whom, or whither should I go If I should run from Thee? But I now do from my very soul call upon Thy name. Trembling, yet believing, I cast myself wholly upon Thee, O Lord. I trust the blood and righteousness of Thy dear Son…. Lord, save me tonight, for Jesus’ sake.’ (C.H. SPURGEON)

If this is not a "sinner's prayer" then I dont know what else it can be called!! An "invitation" or "altar call" does not mean that you must "walk the aisle" or "come to the front". Spurgeon said "BEFORE YOU LEAVE, and then he proceeded to lead a sinners prayer.

He did seem to be against "enquiry rooms" where people would come AFTER the service. He seemed to think if a person wanted to come to Christ, that they should do so immediately during the service, whether by coming forward or praying where they stood. Ironic that he was against "enquiry rooms" yet todays Calvinists who rail against "altar calls" many times employ the enquiry room.

Spurgeon said " ‘Some say "I should like to go into the enquiry-room." I dare say you would, but we are not willing to pander to popular superstition. We fear that in those rooms men are warmed into a fictitious confidence. Very few of the supposed converts of enquiry-rooms turn out well. Go to your God at once, even where you now are. Cast yourself on Christ, at once, ere you stir an inch!’

He CLEARLY wanted a "decision" "ere you stir an inch" which would be IN THE WORSHIP SERVICE" because these words were said IN a worship service.

 

And lastly, when is the last time someone laid claim to Christ under your preaching? Everytime I turn around, I hear the story of how these Reformed folk came to Christ. It is usually a situation like the one told by Pastor Murray Gossett of First Presbyterian Church, Amarillo Texas. The following is what he said in an article from Decision Magazine. (see here https://decisionmagazine.com/franklin-graham-to-preach-the-gospel-in-8-cities-along-americas-main-street/)

"Pastor Murray Gossett still has two promotional signs in his office from the last time his church participated in a Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA) event. They read: “Texas Panhandle Festival 2000 with Franklin Graham.”

The father of five, who has been the pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Amarillo, Texas, for the past 31 years, cherishes the signs as poignant reminders of when his sons professed their faith in Christ. “All three of my boys, at different times, went forward during the multi-night Franklin Graham Festival,” Gossett recalls fondly. “All three continue to walk with Christ, and they’re doing good things.”

As Gossett prayerfully anticipates the Route 66 God Loves You Tour in Amarillo on Sept. 26, he realizes that a lot has changed since Franklin last preached in the region 21 years ago, and the need for mass evangelism is urgent."

 

WOW! So THREE of his sons "went forward" during an invitation, given by a Baptist. I appreciate the fact that this pastor has participated with Graham in evangelization, yet it must be noted that his own children evidently did not respond or were not "invited" to believe Christ in their own church. The fact that all three sons responded to an invitation outside the Presbyterian Church is telling. The Reformed churches have never been filled with regenerate church members. How could they, when you become a member as an infant at "baptism"? And what of the Reformed Baptists who hold them in much higher esteem, than those dreadful Arminians?

I dare to give warning to those Reformed churches, who embrace the error of regeneration before faith, and apart from the preached or demonstrated Word. The warning is this:

Were YOU ever invited to come to Christ? An invitation requires a response. Have you believed HIM or a systematic theology? Have you ever DECIDED to follow Jesus?

Heaven is by invitation only. If you decline the invitation, you will not make Heaven.

The Word Regenerates Prior To Faith In It?

I insist that a person cannot logically and consistently believe that regeneration (or being born again) precedes faith (and repentance) and believe that hearing the word of God is a means unto regeneration. In other words, like Booth said, the word cannot be a means apart from hearing and believing the word. Thus, to say one is begotten by the gospel can only mean begotten by believing the gospel. It would be absurd to think that the gospel regenerated a person prior to him believing it. 

Recall that Abraham Booth wrote:

"Regeneration must precede faith. This, though assumed as a certain fact:, may be justly doubted: for the page of inspiration does not warrant our supposing, that any one is born of God, before he believes in Jesus Christ; or, that regeneration is effected by the Holy Spirit, without the word of grace." ("Glad Tidings to Perishing Sinners," page 122) 

Did not Spurgeon say that Booth represented his views? Spurgeon said of Booth and his book: 

"I have read with some degree of attention a book to which I owe much for this present discourse a book, by Abraham Booth, called Glad Tidings to Perishing Sinners. I have never heard any one cast a suspicion upon Abraham Booth's soundness; on the contrary, he has been generally considered as one of the most orthodox of the divines of the last generation. If you want my views in full, read his book." (The Warrant of Faith, page 539, Sermon #531, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 9, year 1863)

I have written on this statement of Booth previously (See here and here)

Notice also how Booth connected the regenerated before faith view with the view that denies that the word is the instrument of regeneration. I am therefore arguing in the same manner as Booth, Spurgeon, and others, such as Dr. John Stock. Spurgeon also endorsed the writings of John Stock, writing a preface to his work "A Handbook of Revealed Theology" (pictured at the heading of this page). He is even the one who influenced Stock to write the book (see here). So, if there is any question about Spurgeon and the order of faith and regeneration, his endorsement of both Booth and Stock show he believed as they and also as Calvin and Luther. Stock also taught that men were born again by faith. You can read it on the Internet (here) along with Spurgeon's comments on Stock's book in his prefatory recommendation saying:

"...the present Handbook of my respected brother, Mr. Stock. He undertook the labour at my earnest request; he had favoured me with a perusal of the sheets as they appeared, and I am only too happy to prefix my commendation. I have suggested no alteration, although my friend's kindness allowed me that liberty, because I had rather he should be the author and compiler of the entire work, bearing the sole responsibility of its statements. We might have differed about words and phrases, and have wasted time without effecting improvements...I do not endorse every sentence in the book; Nay, in the Part on "the Constitution and Discipline of Christian Churches" I might have desired several alterations; but as a whole the book has my cordial approval, which I have shown in the most practical manner by purchasing five hundred copies for the use of the young men in the Theological Institute at the Tabernacle." (Nov. 1861)

From my entry on the writing of Stock on the ordo salutis as respects faith and regeneration, I cite where Stock said this (please read the whole article if you will - See here):

"In these and in other parallel passages, regeneration is ascribed to the truth which the Holy Spirit leads us to receive. It is in connection with the hearing, reading, or remembering of the Word of God, or of the general truths which it makes known, that the Holy Ghost puts forth His power. It is to induce us to receive this truth that the Divine Spirit is imparted. Hence it is that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." The word is the occasion of the new birth. The Holy Spirit works by the truth. The Word of God is His sword (Ephes. vi. 17). It is the fire with which He burns up our dross, and the hammer with which He breaks our rocky hearts in pieces (Jer. xxiii. 29)."

"The great difficulty in this doctrine, however, yet remains; we mean the question whether regeneration precedes faith in the Saviour, or faith in the Saviour precedes regeneration, or whether the two are simultaneous —Two things are clear.

First—That the reception of Christ by the sinner is ascribed to a divine influence. Hence faith is styled "the gift of God" (Ephes. ii. 8), and "a fruit of the Spirit" (Gal. v. 22); "the heart is opened" to receive Christ (Acts xvi. 14); "flesh and blood do not reveal Jesus to the soul, but our Father who is in heaven" (Matt. xvi. 17 ); "God reveals these things unto babes" (Matt. xi. 25); "They are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. ii. 14). But another truth is as clearly asserted in Holy Scripture, viz. :

Secondly—That until a man has received the Saviour he has no life in him. Thus our Lord testified, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man, ye have no life in you" (John vi. 53). Until a man by faith receives the sacrifice of Christ, he has no life, not even its first elements, in his soul. There are several other passages which are in the same strain. "To as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God" (John i. 12). "Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. iii. 26). "If a man eat of this bread he shall live for ever" (John vi. 51). "He that eateth Me shall live by Me" (John vi. 57). Thus Christ is emphatically our life, while without faith in Him we have no life.

Here, then, is the difficulty; if men receive a divine influence in order to believe in Christ, are they not made alive to God by this influence, and are they not consequently regenerated before receiving Christ into the soul? But if they are regenerated before believing in the Saviour, and if they were to die in this state, they would assuredly go to heaven (for no regenerate soul can be lost), and would thus obtain eternal life without having believed in Christ, which is contrary to one of the first principles of revelation. Our Lord emphatically says that, except we eat His flesh and drink His blood, we have No life in us.

The explanation of this grave difficulty we apprehend to be simply this : The influence by which men are awakened and convinced, and made to see their need of Jesus, is only preliminary to regeneration.—We are not regenerated or made holy until we are reconciled to God by the death of His Son. Then we receive Christ, "who is our life." To those who receive Christ He gives the privilege of becoming instantly the sons of God (John i. 12). We are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus (Gal. iii. 26). Faith purifies the heart (Acts xv. 9), overcomes the world (1 John v. 4), and works by love (Gal. v. 6). "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God" (1 John v. 1). The preparatory influence, though not regeneration, is absolutely necessary to its production.

Besides the evidence above, this blog is filled with citations from Spurgeon where he affirmed that men were born again by faith. So, no one ought to say that Spurgeon believed that regeneration preceded faith.

In the previous post I spoke of how one Reformed Baptist held to the view that the soil being good prior to seed being sown in it in the parable of the sower and seed (or of the four soil types) showed that regeneration occurred before the seed was sown and germinated (to produce faith) and yet he wanted to believe that the sowing of the seed was a means in making the soil good (regeneration). This cannot be shown to be logical. Many such Reformed Baptists and Hyper Calvinists believe like Shedd (see our previous entry on Shedd) that the word of God is not a means in regeneration, but only a means for the regenerate to come to faith and justification or the Hardshell "time salvation." 

Further, some Baptists and Presbyterian Calvinists have held to the view that the birth or regeneration of the elect sinner was not instantaneous but was like physical birth, which is usually about nine months to accomplish. Just as physical birth has three distinct stages, so too they say does spiritual rebirth. There is conception (see planting from the male, or father) in the womb of the female, then growth in the female's womb, and then birth proper, deliverance from the womb. So, by this paradigm, regeneration is restricted to the first stage, when the seed of the word is planted in a heart (but not yet matured or brought to confession). Following this seed planting (regeneration) is a period of time (a gap) corresponding to a regenerated (awakened) sinner subsequently being under conviction and in darkness, without any assurance of salvation or conversion to Christ, only having a sense of need for a savior. Following this time in the womb of darkness and bondage (confinement) comes the birth from the womb corresponding to being saved, converted, and given assurance of calling and election. Many of the first Hardshells in the 19th century held to this view. It was also held to by A.W. Pink and of John Hendryx (propagator of his Monergism web page).

In this posting (here) I give several citations from various ones who held to this view. Here is one citation from Pink:

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)."

Many who hold to this view will often say that they believe that "regeneration or new birth is not complete until one has been converted (brought to faith and repentance and confession)." If Reformed Baptists, Hardshells, and other Hyper Calvinists would say that it would be much better than saying "regeneration precedes faith." And, it would be better if they simply said, similarly to Shedd, that regeneration, narrowly defined, is not by means, but it takes faith and repentance, via means, for regeneration to be complete. This seems to be the position also of J.P. Boyce. 

Reformed & Hardshell Baptist Premise Refuted

Reformed Baptists say, out of one side of their mouths, that they believe that the word of God or gospel is the means or instrument of regeneration or rebirth. But, out of the other side of their mouths, they say that one must be regenerated in order to be able to believe the gospel. That is a contradiction and yet, it is very difficult to get them to see it. 

Recently I have been having a private discussion with another Reformed Baptist, who I would call a Hyper Calvinist, because he says that people are regenerated before believing or repenting, and he said that the soil being good in the parable of the sower and the seed (or parable of the soils) was good before the seed was sown, showing that regeneration occurs before believing the word. This is the same argument that the Hardshells have been making for decades now. The Hardshells, at least most of them, will say that the soil can be good and never have the seed planted in it (meaning one can be born again and yet not a believer or Christian). The Reformed Baptists generally argue, however, that there is no gap in time between the time when the soil is made good and seed is planted and germinates. Also, the Reformed Baptists want to insist that the word of God is a means in regeneration. They are blind to the fact that their position forces them to deny that the word is a means. I will just ask this one question --

How was sowing the seed in the soil a means to making it good? 

By saying the soil was good (regenerated) before the seed was sown is to say the seed being sown had nothing to do with making the soil good. 

How blind can one be not to see that? At least the Hardshells are more consistent in their Hyper Calvinism than are Reformed Baptists who want to say the word is a means but regeneration precedes faith. 

Recall that Abraham Booth, the five point Calvinist, and endorsed by Spurgeon, said

"But it is impossible for us to conceive of the mind being enlightened, of the conscience being relieved, of the will being regulated, and of the affections being purified by the word of truth, any further than it is believed. It may therefore be concluded, that regeneration is not, in order of time, prior to faith in Christ, and justification by him." 

Further, although this Reformed Baptist brother wants to say that faith is simultaneous with regeneration, his position on the parable and the good soil will not let him do that. Anyone knows that the soil is good a long time before seed is sown in it. In the parable the soil did not become good the split second before the seed came to rest upon it. Further, what makes it good is tilling, cultivating, fertilizing, etc. 

Further, "good" soil means "productive" soil. But, how is it productive if there is no produce? 

The soil is good by the pre regeneration work of the Spirit, and of the law.

A True Belief, or a Political Tool?

Thomas Sowell is one whose writings I thoroughly enjoy.  If I step away from the Bible, theology, or classic literature (my other passions), and decide to learn more about our culture, he’s one of the first ones I consult.

Yet something he stated in his essay The Left and Crime from his book Dismantling America has once again raised the question within me (as I’m always wrestling with it) as to whether or not today’s intelligentsia really believe the mantras they tout, or is it merely propaganda used to advance an agenda.

He references a speech given by former Oakland, CA Mayor Ron Dellums (2007-2011) in which the reason for the high crime was cited to be because “we have closed our eyes to the injustices and inequities, and now we are reaping the wild winds of that disregard for a whole range of people.”

Sowell then responds:

“It was precisely the rise to power in the 1960s (in the courts as well as in politics) of those who believed that ‘injustices and inequities’ were the causes of crime which marked a de-emphasis on law enforcement and imprisonment – and marked one of the most dramatic increases in crime in our history.”

In typical Sowell fashion, he then cites evidence to show that the murder rate had been going down for decades, but that it “suddenly doubled between 1961 and 1974”.

What arrests my attention, however, is the notion that those in power do in fact BELIEVE these things.

Do they?  That’s what I wanna know.  And if I don’t figure it out, I may end up pulling my hair out to the point of being mistaken for a mad scientist.

Now it’s much easier for me to believe that the originators and respective contemporaries of humanistic ideologies (e.g. Marx, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche) honestly believed what they proposed (but I even question this to some extent), but I have a wall in my mind preventing me from believing that today’s elite believe it.  Is it not rather that they know their ideas are wrong, but are merely using their rhetoric to influence and further an agenda?

We are often told that ideas have consequences, but does that mean that the future generations have to actually believe the idea which originated in 19th century Germany for instance?  Can it not be that the idea is not believed at all, but is a convenient wedge to advance a cause?  The idea itself may not be personally believed, but still can be used politically, and the consequences still ensue.

Systemic racism. The advantages of ‘diversity’. Climate change.  A whole list of talking points fall under this umbrella of things which are either 1) actually and truly believed, or 2) just politics.

I believe the powerful claims of the Apostle in Romans 1 may be of help here.  We read of men whom God gives over to reprobate minds, many of which are currently in our midst, in my opinion. No accurate assessment of the state of our culture can be made without taking into consideration the fact that debased minds are themselves the result of God’s judgment upon a society.  The only question is in what direction does that depraved mind venture?  Is it debased to the extent that it actually believes a lie (2 Thes. 2:11), or does it know it’s wrong, but gives the deceitful appearance of assent in order to further a certain political or societal end?

This is one of the greatest questions I have today as I survey the current state of our world. It would be nice for me to get a satisfactory answer.

After all, I'd like to keep my hair.

Smooth Talking Preachers & Politicians

"That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD: Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us." (Isa. 30: 9-11 kjv)

Believe it or not, many church goers have the sentiment expressed in the above image. They want a preacher to "tell us pretty lies." They want smooth talking preachers (and politicians too). Before addressing what is the meaning of speaking "smooth things," let us notice some other companion texts. 

"For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive." (Rom. 16: 18 ESV)

"With much seductive speech she persuades him; with her smooth talk she compels him." (Prov. 7: 21 ESV)

"His speech was smooth as butter, yet war was in his heart; his words were softer than oil, yet they were drawn swords." Psa. 55: 21 ESV)

In today's vernacular and street talk we have expressions that are examples of the kind of "smooth" talking that these texts warn us about, such as "slick talk" and "slippery" language. They are allusions to speakers who are able to talk others into doing things they might not otherwise do. 

They know how to talk like the ancient Sophists and to use every linguistic art to persuade people. They are able to play with the meaning of words, to say as former president Bill Clinton did in a slippery way "it all depends on what the meaning of is, is." 

They know how to speak equivocally (allowing the possibility of several different meanings of a word or phrase, especially with intent to deceive or misguide or what is susceptible of double interpretation). 

They are adept at knowing how to appeal to the emotions and to the psyche or ego (much like those in marketing and sales "pitches"). 

They know how to use flattery, how to propagandize and to pander, how to change the subject, how to use rhetorical and sophistic devices in the art of persuasion, how to weasel and be slippery when confronted by opposers, how to equivocate and alter the shades of meaning in words used, how to hide the truth by artful dodger methods, how to use "plausible deniability." 

Be warned of smooth talkers. Notice this warning of the apostle Paul:

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears." (II Tim. 4: 3 KJV)

Other translations help us understand what it means to have itching ears.

"For the time will come when they will not tolerate sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires." (NASB)

"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." (NIV)

All this makes me think of this passage in Ezekiel:

"And they come unto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before thee as my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they shew much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness. And, lo, thou art unto them as a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument: for they hear thy words, but they do them not." (Eze. 33: 31-32 KJV)

That is not to say that Ezekiel was a ear tickler, or smooth talker, but I am sure that many smooth talking preachers are very good at entertaining the ears. The highest paid and most popular preachers are smooth talkers and sing their sermons to the hearts of the rebellious and can entertain well.

Reformed Baptists Irritate Me

I am having another e-mail discussion with a Reformed Baptist about several things, particularly about the ordo salutis, and whether faith precedes or follows regeneration (rebirth). I had another long debate recently with a Hardshell Baptist (who believes like the Reformed folks) on this question and he did not want it published although I thought many would enjoy reading it. He also chose not to continue the debate. 

The present debate with the Reformed Baptist brought the brother to say that I John 5: 1 in the Greek taught that the birth preceded and was completed before faith. Of course, I have shown, as have others, that the text teaches no such thing! But, is it not insulting of these Reformers to indict the great Calvinists and Reformers of the past? Men who were experts in Greek (as Luther, Calvin, etc.) did not conclude that I John 5: 1 taught that the birth preceded faith! They therefore insult those men when they say "the Greek of that text proves that regeneration precedes faith." Such arrogant presumption! Luther and Calvin did not know Greek? Balderdash!

EVEN SATAN BELIEVES

 When I was a child, the church and my family told me Jesus was the Son of God, and I believed them.

They told me He was sinless and I believed them.

They told me He died for my sins, and I believed them.

They told me He rose from the dead and I believed them.

I just took everyone's word for it, but I had never taken God's word for it. Then one day, I decided to believe God instead of everybody else. It was then that I was saved!

Beliefs about the Afterlife (xxx)

“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man 

The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.” 

(I Cor. 2: 9 nkjv)

In the closing chapters of this series we will focus on what life will be like in eternity for redeemed human beings who become immortal and possessed with eternal life. We will look at what redeemed saints will be doing as they live, what joys and pleasures they will experience, what occupies their time and attention, and whether they have any sighs, bad thoughts, or any lack of peace. We will consider whether pleasures will be for both body and spirit, or spirit alone. We will consider the mental and emotional life of immortals. We will look at the nature of the resurrected and glorified body which will have become immortal and no longer bound by nature's physical laws, for it will be a "spiritual body." 

What will it be like to live forever? What will it be like to live in heaven on earth? What will it be like to live forever without fear of dying and without any spiritual faults or sin? What will we be doing for all eternity? Will we ever get bored? Is sinning and falling from heaven possible? Will we have free will in heaven or the capability to do evil? Will we have super powers? Be supermen? Super human? How will we relate to time and space? Will we be good hedonists? Will we have 'free will'? Will having free will mean that we will be capable of sin and fall again? How will God insure his people from apostasy and transgression in eternity? Can God insure such a thing? Will we remember our former lives on earth? How will we view our mortal lives on earth?

Will the human race continue to be a self propagating species as a race? Who are "the nations" in the new heavens and earth over whom the saints rule? (Rev. 21: 24) Will there be people who are yet mortal? People who do not have glorified and resurrected bodies? If yes, then this will have far reaching effects for how we view life in eternity in the new heavens and earth, not to mention other areas of bible doctrine. 

Thus, we have hundreds of questions about life in eternity as immortal beings, as the children of God, as mature sons and daughters of God. However, the bible does not give exhaustive amounts of information about it, as all confess who have studied this subject. However, there is much indeed that is revealed and it is that which will occupy our attention in these closing chapters of our series on the Afterlife. 

The two texts at the heading of this posting (chapter) speak of life in eternity as being one of bliss, where there is "fullness of joy" and "pleasures forevermore." God has prepared blissful things "for those who love him." Both the word "paradise" and "heaven" cause the mind to think of a place of bliss, ecstasy, serenity, and every other good feeling and thing; A "utopia." Christ spoke about Paradise more than once, both before his death, resurrection, and ascension, and after it. In his post ascension appearance to John the apostle on the isle of Patmos, he had John to write the following:

“He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcomes will I give to eat the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.” (Rev. 2: 7)

While he was on the cross he said to the penitent believing sinner being crucified to his right "Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23: 43)

Another mention of paradise occurs in 2 Corinthians 12:4. Paul writes: “How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.” In verse two he identifies paradise with "the third heaven." This would be "the highest heaven." 

Scholars tell us that the English word "paradise" is from the ancient Greek word paradeiso and the Hebrew pardec and literally means a "park" or "garden." It speaks of a pleasure ground or grove. So Eden was called (Gen. 2: 5), being a garden of delight. In the old testament it sometimes referred to an orchard. Says the encyclopedia (See here):

"The word paradise originated from Old Persian pairidaeza, which meant "walled enclosure, pleasure park, garden." Pairidaeza came into Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek retaining its original meanings. It appears three times in the Hebrew scriptures (Neh. 2:8, Eccl. 2:5, Sg. 4:13) and also in later rabbinic literature. In the Septuagint, the Hebrew word for "garden" was usually translated by the Greek paradeisos. In Genesis 2–3 paradeisos refers to the original Garden of Eden (lit., "delight")."

In Ezekiel we have God saying to the king of Tyre (representing Lucifer the fallen angel) "thou hast been in Eden the garden of God." (28: 13) Eden was a paradise on earth, reflecting paradise in heaven. Further, the texts in Revelation speak of at least one tree in the Edenic garden, the "tree of life," one that produced twelve kinds of fruit and whose leaves were for the health of "the nations." (Rev. 22: 2) We also see a beautiful and glorious river running through the midst of the new Eden, in the "new heavens and earth" (21: 1), things which were present in the Eden where Adam was placed. In the midst of this glorious paradise is the city of God, "New Jerusalem," "the holy Jerusalem," with its streets of gold, jasper walls, pearly gates, etc. It is a picture of a "great city" (Greek megalopolis). Other texts also show that paradise is a place of gardens, with trees, plants, and exquisite landscapes.  

"And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar." (Gen. 13: 10; See also Isaiah 51: 3; Eze. 36: 35; Joel 2: 3)

The God of the Bible, as well as the gods of the heathen, are all intimately connected with having lavish gardens (in fact there is a place called "garden of the gods" in Colorado, being a 1300+ acre park). So too did wealthy kings have their gardens. Famous among these are the "hanging gardens of Babylon" and the many gardens of king Solomon. In Song of Solomon there is frequent mention of the several luscious gardens of king Solomon and what joys and pleasures were experienced there. There is mention of a "garden inclosed" and describes it in these words: 

"A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed. Thy plants are an orchard of pomegranates, with pleasant fruits; camphire, with spikenard, Spikenard and saffron; calamus and cinnamon, with all trees of frankincense; myrrh and aloes, with all the chief spices: A fountain of gardens, a well of living waters, and streams from Lebanon. Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits." (4: 12-16 kjv)

"The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chesnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty. I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him." (Eze. 31: 8-9)

Thus, paradise, or heaven, or the new heavens and earth, has all manner of trees and vegetation. It is a place to enjoy, to eat and drink, to fellowship with others, to stroll, to admire all the sights, smells, tastes, etc. 

The phrase “under their vine and fig tree” is found three times in Scripture: Micah 4:4, 1 Kings 4:25, and Zechariah 3:10. 

"But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; And none shall make them afraid: For the mouth of the Lord of hosts hath spoken it." (Mic. 4: 4)

The words "dwell safely" are added in I Kings 4: 25. I take that to mean that there will be both common and private areas for all the inhabitants of the new heavens and earth. Each of the redeemed of mankind will have an apartment in the New Jerusalem mega complex and each will no doubt have his or her own private estates. 

Everlasting Pleasures

The Psalmist says that "fulness of joy" and "pleasures forevermore" are at the right hand of God. To be at the right hand of God is to be in heaven and in the immediate presence of God and of the host of heaven. 

Some Christian teachers have tried to make a distinction between "joy" and "pleasure" that is not warranted. These say that "joy" is spiritual, while "pleasure" is carnal. But, that is not so. There is nothing negative about the word "pleasure" in itself, and the above Psalm verse proves it. Yes, there are what are called the "pleasures of sin," (Hebrews 11: 25) which Moses refused to "enjoy." Such language implies that there are pleasures that are not sinful; And, the word "enjoy" in the phrase "enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season," shows that there is a carnal "joy." Paul spoke of how divine love "rejoices not in iniquity." (I Cor. 13: 6) The same text speak of "rejoicing in the truth" as opposed to "rejoicing in falsehood" as well as iniquity. 

Those who become immortal and experience physical resurrection will have a "spiritual body," but that does not mean that all bodily feelings and sensations are gone. Though immortal, they will take pleasure in eating heavenly manna, and enjoy the taste of the twelve kinds of fruit on the tree of life (though I don't think they will need to urinate nor empty waste through the colon, but that is another question for another time). They will also enjoy the pleasant odors from the spices of the gardens of paradise (as is described in the texts above). They will enjoy varied and sundry pleasures from all their five senses, just as they did on earth while in their mortal bodies. Pleasant sights to see? Heaven and life in eternity in the new heavens and earth, in paradise, will provide many wonderful and delightful things to see with our eyes. And, what about pleasures from hearing? As we delight to hear music and "a very lovely song of one that has a pleasant voice and can play well on an instrument" (Eze. 33: 32), so will we also in eternity. Heaven will have music fit for god like beings, for God and his family, for the angels and other glorious creatures who dwell in the presence of God. 

And what can we say about intellectual pleasures and mental delights? Of the "life of the mind"? Will it not be characterized by peace and joy? Will there not be happy thoughts? Thrilling discoveries?

Will we be able to use these words: thrilling, excitement, fun, fascinating, inspiring, etc.? What about laughter and comedy? Will it be gone? Will everything be sober and serious, like being in a high church or funeral service? Will we have pets? Will we be able to travel to other parts of the cosmos? To teleport? To disappear and appear someone else? What will be our relationship to each other? To the angels? To the brute creation and to animals? Will we sleep? Will we eat? Will we need to use the commode? Will we get tired? Will our bodies have powers like superman? What increased attributes will we have as the children of God? What will keep us from being bored? What will prevent our having an accident so as to hurt our bodies or to die? 

In the next concluding chapters of this series, which has become a book, we will look at these questions and the leading texts on life in eternity. 

"Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, 

inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" 

(Matt. 25: 34 kjv). 

PaedoBaptist Shedd on Regeneration & Means

William Greenough Thayer Shedd

1820-1894

When I was a young Hardshell I was surprised to discover that the Hardshell idea of regeneration without faith and apart from the word of God or gospel as a means was not a view that only they believed. But, when I first began to read Paedo-Baptist writings, I saw that I was mistaken about Hardshells being the only ones who believed such, for other groups also believed like the Hardshells and said that regeneration preceded faith and occurred apart from the means of the word. I discovered this in Shedd's Systematic Theology (which I bought the three volume set). I was so happy to read Shedd on regeneration, and said to myself "that is what we Primitive Baptists believe." I felt good for not being alone in this view. Now, many years later, I see how both the Hardshells and the Paedo-Baptists like Shedd are wrong and against both the Bible and the oldest Baptist confessions (such as the Presbyterian Westminster and 1689 London Baptist Confession). 

Today many, if not all, of those who claim to be "Reformed Baptists," believe what Shedd states. However, they will try to say that they believe in means in regeneration or new birth even though they put regeneration before faith. But, in this they are not consistent. Those who say that regeneration precedes faith embrace the idea, sooner or later, that regeneration is apart from the means of truth and say that means are used after regeneration to produce faith and conversion. Let us hear now from Shedd. 

In "Various Uses of the Term Regeneration"  (See here) Shedd wrote (emphasis mine):

"The term regeneration has been used in a wide and in a restricted sense. It may signify the whole process of salvation, including the preparatory work of conviction and the concluding work of sanctification. Or it may denote only the imparting of spiritual life in the new birth, excluding the preparatory and concluding processes. The Romish church regards regeneration as comprehending everything in the transition from a state of condemnation on earth to a state of salvation in heaven and confounds justification with sanctification. The Lutheran doctrine, stated in the apology for the Augsburg Confession and in the Formula of Concord, employs regeneration in the wide meaning, but distinguishes carefully between justification and sanctification. In the Reformed church, the term regeneration was also employed in the wide signification. Like the Lutheran, while carefully distinguishing between justification and sanctification, the Reformed theologian brought under the term regeneration everything that pertains to the development as well as to the origination of the new spiritual life. Regeneration thus included not only the new birth, but all that issues from it. It comprised the converting acts of faith and repentance and also the whole struggle with indwelling sin in progressive sanctification." 

This is what Bob Ross and I have contended for all along. The first Reformers and Calvinists (time of Luther and Calvin and shortly thereafter) did not affirm that regeneration preceded faith. They saw evangelical conversion as being the same as regeneration or the new birth. Later Calvinists split the work of regeneration in half, calling the first "regeneration" (or first conversion or narrowly defined) and the second "conversion" (or second conversion or broadly defined). 

Most who adopted this division confessed 1) that this new paradigm was created by post reformation Calvinists and was not the original view of the first Calvinists, and 2) that the restricted definition of "regeneration" was an invention of theologians and not how the bible defines it, for the bible defined it broadly so as to include conversion. 

Wrote Shedd:

"This wide use of the term passed into English theology. The divines of the seventeenth century very generally do not distinguish between regeneration and conversion, but employ the two as synonyms. Owen does this continually (On the Spirit 3.5), and Charnock likewise (Attributes, Practical Atheism). The Westminster Creed does not use the term regeneration. Instead of it, it employs the term vocation or effectual calling. This comprises the entire work of the Holy Spirit in the application of redemption. Under it belongs everything pertaining to the process of salvation, from the first step of conviction of sin to the act of saving faith in Jesus Christ (cf. Fisher, On the Catechism)."

I too do not make regeneration and conversion to be distinct separate experiences as do the Hardshells and Reformed Baptists. It is full blown Hyper Calvinism and often involves Antinomianism. Further, the older orthodox view was held to by Luther, Calvin, and expressed in both the Westminster (Presbyterian) and London Baptist confessions of faith. Note also how Shedd mentions how John Owen and Stephen Charnock (pronounced as "Harnock") did not define regeneration to exclude conversion but saw it as the same thing.

Shedd said:

"The wide and somewhat vague use of the term regeneration was suggested by a few scriptural texts." 

He says the bible is "somewhat vague" to define "regeneration" (or rebirth) broadly, and then he tries to improve on how the bible describes such an experience; But I will stick with the Bible's definition and encourage others to do so! Further, it is not a "few" texts that suggest such a restricted definition, but the hair splitting theologians in the Hyper Calvinistic tradition. I tell you, such language now (as opposed to when I was a Hyper Calvinist) makes my blood to boil. To say that the scriptures are vague in how they define regeneration or rebirth and to say that later Hyper Calvinist theologians came out with an improvement of the biblical definition is to show disrespect to the scriptures and to mishandle them. Further, the effects of such "clarifying" and improving of the way the scriptures define the new birth was no improvement upon the scriptures, and was in fact a view that led to even further departures from the biblical record. A regeneration without a conversion is no regeneration at all.  

Shedd continued:

"But this wide use of the term regeneration led to confusion of ideas and views." But, as stated, many of those who share Shedd's view admit that the bible generally defines regeneration as conversion, giving it a broad definition and "wide use," and yet say that the bible's way of describing the experience "led to confusion of ideas and views"! Oh my! That is simply not acceptable to me. Shedd thinks that the way the bulk of bible texts speak of regeneration or rebirth (which shows that conversion was regeneration), and the way the first Calvinists also did, is inferior to the way the theologians later defined them (narrowly so as to exclude faith, repentance, and evangelical conversion). 

Shedd continued:

"As there are two distinct words in the language, regeneration and conversion, there are also two distinct notions denoted by them." 

That is faulty reasoning and I have run into it before. Hardshell apologist Jason Brown also argued the same. I respond by saying that there are numerous words (along with the ideas connected with them) used to refer to the same exact experience or phenomenon. In the scriptures these words are used to speak of that same initial experience of salvation: saved, regenerated, renewed, transformed, converted, reborn, quickened (or made alive), risen (or resurrected), re-created, enlightened, etc. If we use the logic of Shedd and other Hyper Calvinists, then we would have to say that each of the above words denotes a distinct experience separate from the experience denoted by the other words. If you put that kind of logic in a bird it will fly backwards. 

Shedd continued:

"Consequently, there arose gradually a stricter use of the term regeneration and its discrimination from conversion. Turretin (15.4.13) defines two kinds of conversion, as the term was employed in his day. The first is habitual or passive conversion. It is the production of a habit or disposition in the soul: Habitual or passive conversion occurs through the infusion of supernatural habits by the Holy Spirit. The second kind is actual or active conversion. It is the acting out in faith and repentance of this implanted habit or disposition: Actual or active conversion occurs through the exercise of those good habits in which the acts of faith and repentance are both granted by God and called forth from man. After thus defining, Turretin remarks that the first kind of conversion is better denominated regeneration because it has reference to that new birth by which man is renewed in the image of his maker; and the second kind of conversion is better denominated conversion because it includes the operation and agency of man himself. De Moor on Marck (23.2), after distinguishing between conversio activa and passiva, says that the latter is synonymous with vocation."

Note again the admission that the divorcing of conversion from the experience of regeneration or rebirth was a later development that certain Hyper Calvinist leaning Calvinists and Reformed Churches imposed upon the scriptures. It is insulting to men like Luther, Calvin, Owen, etc., to say that they could not see how the scriptures divorced conversion (faith and repentance) from the regeneration experience. So Turretin defined regeneration better than Paul, Peter, John, Christ, etc.? Further, rather than help explain the bible on the subject, such Hyper Calvinists (on the ordo salutis) rather made it more inexplicable. Rather than removing confusion they increased it. Further, though men like the late R.C. Sproul said that Augustine believed that regeneration preceded faith, others have shown from the writings of Augustine that he believed no such thing. For instance, Augustine wrote: "We are united by faith, quickened by understanding. Let us first adhere to Him through faith, that there may be that which may be quickened by understanding." (As cited by writer Daniel Musick here)

Wrote Shedd:

"We shall adopt this distinction between regeneration and conversion. Regeneration, accordingly, is an act; conversion is an activity or a process." 

"We shall adopt it"? Even though it is not what we see in scripture? I think this is not a good adoption at all and has created so much division in the body of Christ. 

Wrote Shedd:

"Regeneration is the origination of life; conversion is the evolution and manifestation of life." 

Where is the text that says men have to be quickened, regenerated, or born again before they can believe, repent, or be converted? Where is the scripture that says men believe because they are already saved and that faith only manifests that they are saved? That is what the Hardshells and their Two Seed believing forefathers also said. Conversion manifests that one is of the seed of God, one of the elect. 

Wrote Shedd:

"Regeneration is wholly an act of God; conversion is wholly an activity of man." 

Again, we have another man-made proposition as the previous and these propositions are accepted as inspired truth and they are taken to the scriptures and the scriptures made, by hewing and hacking, twisting and distorting, to square with or otherwise support those propositions. I deny both parts of the proposition. That is, I deny that regeneration is defined only by what God does and this blog is filled with proof to sustain my denial. Jesus acted to bring Lazarus to life, but his coming to life was his act. It was Lazarus who did the "coming forth." Jesus acted and Lazarus acted. It took both for Lazarus to be resurrected. 

I also deny that "conversion is wholly an activity of man." So, if that be so, then God cannot get any credit for our being converted, or to say it another way, God is not the one who converted us. You see where the divorcing of regeneration from conversion (or defining regeneration narrowly) leads, and how it is a slippery slope and leads to other errors?

Wrote Shedd:

"Regeneration is a cause; conversion is an effect. Regeneration is instantaneous; conversion is continuous."

Here is another false proposition. Where is the text that says regeneration is the cause of faith and repentance, or of conversion? There are many texts that say faith precedes. Again, this blog is filled with postings showing this (see my series on Regeneration Precedes Faith proof texts). 

Further, it can be argued that both regeneration and conversion are both instantaneous and continuous. Calvin thought regeneration was continuous throughout a believer's life, but that it began with faith. I agree. We are initially regenerated (transformed and renewed) but we are also progressively being regenerated. The same with conversion. There is initial conversion and continuous conversion (the same with repentance).  

Wrote Shedd:

"While the operation of the Holy Spirit upon the human will is inexplicable (John 3:8), yet certain particulars are clear. (a) The influence of the Spirit is distinguishable from that of the truth, from that of man upon man, and from that of any instrument or means whatever. His energy acts directly upon the human soul itself. It is the influence of spirit upon a spirit, of one of the trinitarian persons upon a human person. Neither the truth nor a fellowman can thus operate directly upon the essence of the soul itself."

Though I agree that the influence of the Spirit is not limited to that which is through the word of God (a point that was much argued between Alexander Campbell and the Baptists), yet the Spirit does not regenerate apart from the application of truth to the heart. Further, the above is too much metaphysics and theological hair splitting for me (as it is for most Christians). I wrote a whole series on how regeneration or the new birth is both mediate and immediate and is both viewed as an experience where a person is both active and passive. It cannot be made to be all one or the other, in the same way that Dr. Archibald Alexander affirmed that regeneration cannot be defined by what causes it but must include the effects. (See the blog archives, using the search engine with Archibald Alexander)

Wrote Shedd:

"That the influence of the Holy Spirit is directly upon the human spirit and is independent even of the word itself is further proved by the fact that it is exerted in the case of infants without any employment of the truth. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb (Luke 1:15)."

But, as I have rebutted this line of argument many times with the Hardshells and other Hyper Calvinists, where is the text that says that even dying infants are regenerated apart from faith and conversion? Do they go to heaven then as unbelievers? Did not John the Baptist hear the good news from the mouth of Mary and leap for joy? I rest my case. So, the example Shedd gives does not prove his proposition.

Wrote Shedd:

"Sixth, regeneration is a work of God in the human soul that is below consciousness. There is no internal sensation caused by it. No man was ever conscious of that instantaneous act of the Holy Spirit by which he was made a new creature in Christ Jesus. And since the work is that of God alone, there is no necessity that man should be conscious of it. This fact places the infant and the adult upon the same footing and makes infant regeneration as possible as that of adults."

Well, that certainly was not the case with Paul who was formerly the persecuting Saul of Tarsus. He was very much conscious of his regeneration and conversion! Shedd says of Paul "he was never conscious of that instantaneous act of the Holy Spirit which made him a new creature in Christ Jesus"! Egad! How awful is that? Further, we can refer to many texts where Paul or other bible writer refers to the time when the ones they were writing to were born again. How many Christians don't know when they were converted or first believed? When they sing that line in "Amazing Grace" that says "the hour I first believed," do they not know when that was? Spurgeon knew when he was called to life in the Methodist chapel. Notice these words of Paul in regard to his regeneration or rebirth:

"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus." (Gal. 1: 15-17 kjv)

It seems that Paul does not agree with Shedd for he knew when he was saved and was not unconscious as he was being drawn to Christ. 

Wrote Shedd:

"Seventh, regeneration is not effected by the use of means, in the strict signification of the term means. The Holy Spirit employs means in conviction, in conversion, and in sanctification, but not in regeneration." 

Well, that is simply not biblical. It is a view that Shedd and other Hyper Calvinists invented because of their reliance upon human logic and reason rather than on the word of God. Notice how Shedd adds his caveat by saying "in the strict signification of the term" regeneration. But, the bible does not define it so strictly as did Shedd and as stated, many of his cohorts even admit that the bible defines it broadly as including conversion. Quite frankly, I don't care how learned Shedd and his ilk are, the above statement is simply an example of biblical ignorance. 

Wrote Shedd:

"The appointed means of grace are the word, the sacraments, and prayer. None of these means are used in the instant of regeneration; first, because regeneration is instantaneous and there is not time to use them; second, because 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 to be made alive. God did not employ an instrument or means when he infused physical life into the body of Adam." 

Again, this is not what one discovers from the scriptures but what he has deduced by reasoning from the doctrine of total depravity erroneously and not sticking with the plain statements of scripture. All the propositions highlighted above in bold letters are propositions that are not upheld in scripture. In fact, there are many scriptures that affirm just the opposite as I have shown through the years. 

Wrote Shedd:

"In like manner, the word and truth of God, the most important of all the means of grace, is not a means of regeneration, as distinct from conviction, conversion, and sanctification. This is evident when it is remembered that it is the office of a means or instrument to excite or stimulate an already existing principle of life. Physical food is a means of physical growth; but it supposes physical vitality. If the body is dead, bread cannot be a means or instrument. Intellectual truth is a means of intellectual growth; but it supposes intellectual vitality. If the mind be idiotic, secular knowledge cannot be a means or instrument. Spiritual truth is a means of spiritual growth, in case there be spiritual vitality. But if the mind be dead to righteousness, spiritual truth cannot be a means or instrument. Truth certainly cannot be a means unless it is apprehended. But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God, neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:14)."

I used to hear the Hardshells parrot such things as Shedd says above. Many of them no doubt read them from Shedd and those of his kind. The above is not biblical. The fact is, dead minds are objects of the Spirit's work through the word. Yes, it is illogical to think that giving bread to the dead will revive them. But, Jesus taught differently. He said that one must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to obtain spiritual life. I have used several examples over the years to show that Shedd's and Hardshell logic on this point is faulty. Do we not use defibrillators to restart the heart of someone who is clinically dead? Do we not use "jumper cables" to start a dead battery?  

Wrote Shedd:

"That regeneration is not effected by the use of means will appear from considering those cases in which means are employed. First, the word and truth of God are means of conviction, because there is in the human conscience a kind of vitality that responds to the truth as convicting and condemning. The apostasy did not kill the conscience stone-dead. If it had, no fallen man could feel remorse. Adam's fall has benumbed and stupefied the conscience, but there is still sufficient vitality left in it for it to be a distressing witness to man. Consequently, the Holy Spirit employs truth as a means of exciting and stimulating the human conscience, not of regenerating it in the strict sense of the term. The conscience is not "made alive from the dead" in the sense that the will is. It has not lost all sensibility to moral truth. It possesses some vitality that only needs to be stimulated and toned up. This is done in conviction and by the use of truth as an instrument. Second, the word and truth of God are means of conversion, because regeneration has preceded and has imparted spiritual life to the soul. There is now a spiritual vitality that can respond to the truth. The understanding having been enlightened by regeneration, when the particular truth that the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin is presented, it is apprehended." 

Friends, Hardshell heretics give a hearty amen to these words of Shedd. It is Hyper Calvinism and has awful consequences for believing it. Where is the scripture that says the things Shedd says above? 

Wrote Shedd:

"The new life is not implanted because man perceives the truth, but he perceives the truth because the new life is implanted. A man is not regenerated because he has first believed in Christ, but he believes in Christ because he has been regenerated. He is not regenerated because he first repents, but he repents because he has been regenerated."

Well, that is not what the bible or first Calvinists during the Reformation taught. The bible teaches that sinners are born again by faith, born again by virtue of union with Christ who is life, and union is by faith. 

Wrote Shedd:

"Eighth, regeneration is the cause of conversion. The Holy Spirit acts in regeneration, and as a consequence the human spirit acts in conversion." 

Again, the bible no where affirms this to be the case. Rather, it shows that conversion and regeneration are terms referring to the same experience.