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.
"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.
No comments:
Post a Comment