The first generation of "Primitive," "Old School," or "Hardshell" Baptists went haywire on a few areas of Bible doctrine. In many cases it was due to going to a doctrinal or practical extreme in their fighting against a perceived extreme, which is a common danger and one which needs to be guarded against. They went too far in trying to find exact parallels between natural birth and spiritual birth. Yes, there are similarities as the above image says in regard to a message by the late Dr. Adrian Rogers. But, there are also dissimilarities, as Dr. Rogers I am sure would agree.
Elder David Pyles, present day "Primitive" or "Hardshell" Baptist wrote the following in "Perfections of Grace: Comparisons & Contrasts of Old Baptist Doctrine & Calvinism" (See here; emphasis mine):
"By using the analogy of a birth, the Bible forcefully conveys the extent of inability in fallen man. No man has ever contributed to his own physical birth, nor could he do so. Accordingly, no man has ability to contribute to his own spiritual birth. Natural birth is something every man has experienced, so every man should know these things to be true. But to ensure that the point is not missed, the same inability is conveyed by every other analogy the Bible uses to describe the acquisition of spiritual life. In particular, it is compared to a birth (Jn 3:3-5), a quickening (Eph 2:1), a resurrection (Jn 5:25), a translation (Col 1:12-13) and a creation (Eph 2:10, 2Cor 5:17). All these analogies imply man is passive in it, which is the logical consequence of the fact that his fallen state has produced absolute inability in respect to spiritual things." (pg. 8)
Many Calvinists, especially Hyper Calvinists, argue the same way. As no one chose to be born the first time (natural birth), so no one chooses to be reborn of the Spirit. Is this argument sound? I don't believe so, and in this posting I will show why.
But, we must not forget that there are things different about the first and second birth. Jesus even acknowledged this, for he said "that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Even the Two Seed Primitive Baptists often made this same observation. So, why then did they and others insist, at other times, that everything about the first birth is the same as the second birth? Most of the first Hardshells, even Two Seeders like Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, and Wilson Thompson, believed that regeneration and rebirth were not the same, that being "born" happened in stages like natural physical birth. Thus a person is "born" when he is conceived in the womb, but is also "born" when about nine months later he emerges or is delivered from the womb. This being so, a person could be regenerated (conceived or begotten) but not born or delivered. In this post (here) I cited from Hardshell founder Elder Samuel Trott who wrote:
"Thus in the new birth there is a striking correspondence to the natural birth; to each there is a seed implanted, and then a quickening by which life is manifested. And when the natural child is brought to the birth, the sorrows of the woman in travail, the fetus being broke loose from that by which alone it had been hitherto nourished, strongly represents the agonies and the killing by the law belonging to the second birth."
I also cited from several other Bible teachers who affirmed the same, not only in the post mentioned above but in several other posts on the same subject through years past. For instance, I showed how A.W. Pink, well known Bible teacher and author, believed the same.
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)."
In the same post I cited from Dr. J.P. Boyce to show how he saw flaws in dividing the new birth experience into such stages, and affirmed that the Bible writers did not do so. He saw, as I do, how this paradigm is not taught in the Bible, and if adopted creates all sorts of doctrinal problems. The fact is, spiritual birth is not like natural birth in every way, for it does not take nine months of regeneration time in the womb before being born of God. The Bible does not separate regeneration from conversion, nor does it teach that one can be regenerated without being converted, or be a regenerated unbeliever and yet this is what such a paradigm of spiritual birth leads one to believe. If Pyles or other Calvinists argue that spiritual birth is not the result of a choice of the sinner because natural birth is not a result of the choice of the person being born, the enthymeme behind this argument is this premise: spiritual birth is in every way analogous to natural birth. But, that is a begging of the question, for one must first prove that the second birth is in every way exactly like the first birth. If that is so, then they must affirm that one cannot be born of God until he has first been conceived and spent time in the womb. This is similar to the debate among Calvinists and Arminians about whether regeneration precedes faith (or evangelical conversion) or whether a person chooses to be born again.
Many Calvinists also, in supporting the belief that a person cannot lose salvation, will say that you cannot undo your birth so that you are no longer the birth child of your parents. Adrian Rogers preached or wrote about the ways in which natural birth is like spiritual birth. (See here) I want to cite some of what he said and make some observations. Rogers said first (emphasis mine):
"1. Two Parents Are Involved Just as physical birth requires two parents, spiritual birth requires two: the Word of and the Spirit of God. Jesus told Nicodemus, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Water is a symbol in the Bible for the Word of God. Believers are cleansed by “the washing of water by the word” (Ephesians 5:25), “born again…through the Word of God, which lives and abides forever” (1 Peter 1:23). The other parent is the Spirit of God. When the Word and the Spirit come together, conception happens. But it is up to you to supply the womb of faith, as Jesus explained to Nicodemus moments later (John 3:16). When we believe, we’ll have everlasting life."
I agree with this except that I would say that the mother is the church or heavenly Jerusalem (Gal. 4: 26) because she is the one who brings the word of God that is instrumental in the new birth, or who is "holding forth the word of life" (Phil. 2: 16). I have often reasoned with my Hardshell brothers on this very point, for they deny that the word of God or the church is in any way an instrument of regeneration or rebirth. I asked them - "who is the mother in the birth of the Spirit?" Most of them will avoid answering and yet some will say "there is no mother." But, if that is so, then they are admitting that spiritual birth is not in every way like natural birth. Even if, for the sake of argument, we grant that spiritual birth is divided into conception (planting of the seed of divine life or regeneration) and birth (conversion), with a gap in time between them corresponding to time in the womb, how can the mother (or word of God) be excluded from the first stage of conception? Many of those who hold to this three stage view of spiritual birth will argue that the gospel or word of God is no means in regeneration (conception) but confess that it is a means in conversion (birth). But, this is not so in birth, whether it be the conception or the birth, for in both the mother is necessary.
I have written several articles through the years where I showed that the Bible says that there is a mother in the new birth, a fact which overthrows the reasoning of Hardshells and Hyper Calvinists. For instance I wrote an article titled "Children of Zion" in my series "God's Elect or World's Elite?" (See here) I began by citing Joel 2: 23, Psalm 87: 3-6, Gal. 4: 23-26, etc. about the children of God being called the children of Zion and saying:
In another posting titled "Children of Zion" (See here) I cited a text and John Gill's commentary upon it.
"...this man was born there" (Psa. 87:4-7).On these words Dr. Gill wrote in his commentary:
"...but it designs many persons in each of those countries that should be born again, of water, and of the Spirit, of the incorruptible seed of grace, by the ministry of the word; who, because they should be regenerated by means of the Gospel preached in Zion, therefore are said to be born there; and besides, being born again, they are admitted members of Zion, and to all the privileges of Zion, as true born Israelites; and are brought up there, are nourished with the sincere milk of the word, and nursed with the breasts of Gospel ordinances there administered; and so Zion, or Jerusalem, the Gospel church, is truly the mother of them all, ( Galatians 4:26)."
Consider also the fact that God creates or gives birth to every human being. Paul agreed with the heathen Athenians in affirming "we are all God's offspring" (Acts 17: 28 and 29). What we learn from this is that God is the begetter of all men in their first natural birth, and yet men and women are also the begetters. So, if spiritual rebirth is like natural birth, then God does not procreate immediately but mediately through the man and woman. We say that the man and the woman are human means in giving birth to human beings, and yet Hardshell Baptists and Hyper Calvinists say that God uses no human means in giving birth. They also say that God uses no means in creation, and yet birth is called "procreation." God created me and yet I was created by the means of my mother and father.
Pyles also mentions not only being begotten and born as examples where God uses no human means, but also that of resurrection. But, has not God used men to raise the dead? Did not many men of God do so in the scriptures? According to Pyles and others of his ilk this is not possible. Further, people can choose to be resurrected as well as to be reborn. Jesus spoke to spiritually dead people and said "you will not come unto me that you might have life" (John 5: 40). Also, in the preaching of the Gospel God says "Therefore He says: “Awake, you who sleep, Arise from the dead, And Christ will give you light.” (Eph. 5: 14 nkjv)
So, we are focusing on two arguments made by Calvinists from the nature or essential elements of natural or physical birth. They may be stated thusly:
1) No one is born into the world by his or her choice, and so no one chooses to be born again.
2) No one who is born can become unborn so that he or she is no longer the child of X.
So, partial Calvinist Rogers says the following in defending the Calvinist doctrine that salvation cannot be lost:
"4. Birth is a one-time event Some people think you can get saved and then lost, then saved again—and this can happen multiple times. No baby is ever born twice. In the spiritual realm, too, it’s a once-for-all experience. That’s one of several reasons I believe in the eternal security of the believer. I can never be unborn."
I certainly do agree with this. However, Rogers would not agree with those Calvinists who argue that since one does not choose to be born so no one can choose to be born again. So, even he would pick and choose which things are alike and which are not alike when comparing natural birth, the first birth, with spiritual birth, the second birth.
One of the things that makes spiritual birth different from natural birth is the fact that a person does not exist before birth (viewing birth from the standpoint of conception on to birth from the womb). So, unless we believe in the preexistence of souls, as did many Primitive Two Seed Baptists, and as do many in other religions such as those who believe in reincarnation, a person cannot choose to be born the first time. But, this is not true when it comes to being born again of the Spirit. That person who is to be born again does exist before it and so it may be possible for such a person to choose to be born again of the Spirit. When Jesus said to Nicodemus (John 3) "you must be born again" he was talking to someone who could ask to be born again. So, here is another way in which natural birth is not like spiritual birth.
What about adoption? Many Calvinists who argue as did Pyles also believe that people not only become children of God by being born of God but also by being adopted; And, people can choose to be adopted. And if they choose to be adopted by God, and God then adopts and subsequently begets them, then they did choose to become God's begotten children.
The apostle Peter and James the Lord's brother wrote the following about being born again:
"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." (James 1: 18 kjv)
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (I Peter 1: 23 kjv)
These verses say that God uses the means of "the word of God" or "the word of truth" to give birth to his children. But, the word cannot produce a new birth in any who reject that word. It can only give birth to those who believe that word, and so faith must precede the birth, and believing in Christ or trusting in him is a choice or act of the will. Therefore, it is clear that people do choose to be born again. That is not to say that they do the birthing as the efficient cause, for God is the one who does the birthing. But, Paul does say to the Corinthian believers who he had been instrumental in saving: "I have begotten you through the gospel." (I Cor. 4: 15) We could say that God was the father in this birthing but Paul was the mother. We also know this from Paul's letter to the Galatians where he says: "My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you." (4: 19)
So, in conclusion we must warn all to be careful about making arguments based upon supposed similarities between physical natural birth and spiritual birth.
I have numerous articles in this blog, the Baptist Gadfly blog, and the Hardshell Baptist Cult blog where I cite many of the founding fathers of Hardshellism and show that they believed that the first part of the birth process, the conception or regeneration, occurred apart from no means, but held to the final stage of birth (delivery from the womb) occurred in conjunction with evangelical faith in Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment