Abraham Kuyper wrote:
"The word "regeneration" is used in a limited sense, and in a more extended sense. It is used in the limited sense when it denotes exclusively God's act of quickening, which is the first divine act whereby God translates us from death into life, from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of His dear Son. In this sense regeneration is the starting-point. God comes to one born in iniquity and dead in trespasses and sins, and plants the principle of a new spiritual life in his soul. Hence he is born again...But this is not the interpretation of the Confession of Faith, for article 24 reads: "We believe that this true faith, being wrought in man by the hearing of the Word of God and the operation of the Holy Ghost, doth regenerate and make him a new man, causing him to live a new life, and freeing him from the bondage of sin." Here the word "regeneration," used in its wider sense, denotes the entire change by grace effected in our persons, ending in our dying to sin in death and our being born for heaven. While formerly this was the usual sense of the word, we are accustomed now to the limited sense, which we therefore adopt in this discussion."
This testimony of Kuyper is significant in that it contains an acknowledgment that the Calvinistic fathers taught a different view than that of Kuyper. They did not define "regeneration" as did Kuyper. They did not divorce regeneration from faith and conversion as did Kuyper. The Confession knew nothing about the new strict definition of Hopkins, Kuyper, and of the founding fathers of Hardshellism. Kuyser confesses - "But this is not the interpretation of the Confession of Faith." And says - "formerly this was the usual sense of the word." And admits - "we are accustomed now to the limited sense."
W. G. T. Shedd, in his "Dogmatic Theology," Volume 2, pages 492-494, confessed much the same, saying:
"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, III. v. And Charnock likewise: Attributes, Practical Atheism. The Westminster [Confession] does not use the term regeneration. In stead of it, it employs the term vocation, or effectual calling. This comprises the entire work of the Holy Spirit in the application of redemption."
Thus, there can be no doubt that the view of Hopkins, Kuyper, Berkhof, Shedd, and the founding fathers of the Hardshells, was not the original view of the Reformers and primitive Calvinists, the view of such men as John Owens, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, John Gill, etc. To accuse those who make regeneration and conversion to be synomous of being "Arminians" is ludicrous.
Shedd continues:
"But this wide use of the term regeneration led to confusion of ideas and views."
This is the frequent charge of those of the "New Divinity," of the Hyper Calvinists. They affirm that the orthodox view was "unscientific," and "unclear," and not "exhaustive" and "exact," and needed to be "refined" and "clarified." The orthodox confessions needed to be "re-worked" by the new "hair-splitting" theologians, who could debate for hours on the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. But all they did in all their theological hacking and hewing was to create confusion in areas where the confessions were unconfusing.
Shedd continues:
"As there are two distinct words in the language, regeneration and conversion, there are also two distinct notions denoted by them. Consequently, there arose gradually a stricter use of the term regeneration, and its discrimination from conversion. Turrettin (XV. iv. 13) defines two kinds of conversion, as the term was employed in his day."
This is illogical, as I have already shown. Will Shedd take all the various words used to decribe the initial saving experience and make them all separate and distinct experiences? But, again Shedd states what is historical fact. The view that separates the experience of regeneration from conversion is not the traditional orthodox view. Shedd says "there arose gradually a stricter use of the term regeneration, and its discrimination from conversion." He says that Turretin was the first to define things differently from what they were before.
Shedd continues:
"After thus defining, Turrettin remarks that the first kind of conversion is better denominated 'regeneration,' because it has reference to the 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. . .We shall adopt this distinction between regeneration and conversion. . . Regeneration is a cause; conversion is an effect."
"Better denominated" to whom? Why can we not say that "the old is better"? The novel paradigm of Shedd and the "New Divinity" was not better than what was the confessional and traditional view of Reformers and Calvinists.
Further, Shedd and the Hyperists erred, as Archibald Alexander said, in failing to exclude the effect from the cause in defining biblical regeneration. If conversion is the "effect," and a definition of "regeneration" includes the effect as well as the cause, then regeneration includes conversion. Applying the logic of Shedd to the statement - "regeneration is a cause, life is an effect" - could we say that one was regenerated who not experienced the effect?
Kuyper wrote:
"Hence the first conscious and comparatively cooperative act of man is always preceded by the original act of God, planting in him the first principle of a new life, under which act man is wholly passive and unconscious."
"Preceded by the original act of God," yes, but since when do we define "regeneration" by the cause alone? If it only refers to the cause, to the exclusion of the effect, then men are regenerated even before they are actually regenerated, logically speaking. In fact, regeneration, salvation, rebirth, re-creation, quickening, etc., are all terms, in scripture, that describe what is actually effected.
Whether man is wholly "passive" or not will be a question we will address later in this series. We will show that it is both passive and active, as well as both conscious and sub-conscious.
Kuyper wrote:
"This led to the distinction of the first and second grace. The former denoted God's work in the sinner, creating a new life without his knowledge; while the latter denoted the work wrought in regenerate man with his full knowledge and consent."
Notice his testimony that the distinction between regeneration and conversion was novel and not the traditional orthodox view. He says "this led to" a later new paradigm.
Kuyper wrote:
"The first grace was naturally called regeneration. And yet there was no perfect unanimity in this respect. Some Scottish theologians put it in this way: "God began the work of grace with the implanting of the faith-faculty (fides potentialis), followed by the new grace of the faith-exercise (fides actualis), and of the faith power (fides habitualis). Yet it is only an apparent difference. Whether I call the first activity of grace, the implanting of the "faith-faculty," or the "new principle of life," in both instances it means that the work of grace does not begin with faith or with repentance or contrition, but that these are preceded by God's act of giving power to the powerless, hearing to the deaf, and life to the dead."
There was "perfect unanimity" among the writers of the oldest confessions, however. Those of the "New Divinity" were trying to solve a problem that they had in their own minds about what is taught in the scriptures and the old confessions, but those problems arose from their lack of understanding of what the scriptures and the old confessions taught. A "regeneration" without faith, repentance, and conviction of sin?
Kuyper wrote:
"2. The keeping of the implanted principle of life, while the sinner still continues in sin, so far as his consciousness is concerned. Persons who received the life-principle early in life are no more dead, but live. Dying before actual conversion, they are not lost, but saved. In early life they often manifest holy inclinations; sometimes truly marvelous. However, they have no conscious faith, nor knowledge of the treasure possessed. The new life is present, but dormant; kept not by the recipient, but by the Giver--like seed-grain in the ground in winter; like the spark glowing under the ashes, but not kindling the wood; like a subterranean stream coming at last to the surface."
Kuyper's definition of the regenerate state allows for someone to be "regenerated" but who still continues in sin! If one of the "regenerated" ones happens to die "before actual conversion," according to Kuyper, "they are not lost, but saved." Thus, one may be "regenerated" but not "born again." Is being "born again" not necessary for eternal salvation? Are some of God's children "still born"? Did not God say - "Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God." (Isa. 66: 9)
Kuyper speaks of the "new life" of the regenerated soul being "present, but dormant." This is what is also taught by the Hardshells. But, such an idea is foreign to scripture.
Kuyper continued:
"4. This call of God produces conviction of sin and justification, two acts of the same exercise of faith. In this, God's work may be represented again either subjectively or objectively. Subjectively, it seems to the saint that conviction of sin and heart-brokenness came first, and that then he obtained the sense of being justified by faith. Objectively, this is not so. The realization of his lost condition was already a bold act of faith. And by every subsequent act of faith he becomes more deeply convinced of his misery and receives more abundantly from the fulness which is in Christ, his Surety."
Kuyper argues that those who are under conviction of sin are "believers" and possessors of both "faith faculty" and actual "faith knowledge," though they do not yet believe the gospel, or in Christ, or accept him as Lord and Savior. Kuyper argues that the limited belief that one is a guilty sinner before God is enough "belief" to prove a prior regeneration. I have addressed this issue of the placement of conviction in the ordo salutis in the present series and in separate chapters early in this book and show that mere conviction of sin is no evidence of regeneration and that this is taught in scripture and in the primitive writings of Calvinists and Reformers. Thus, it is not true that "the realization of his lost condition was already a bold act of faith." Judas realized his doomed fate and lost condition, but it was not a "bold act of faith."
Kuyper wrote:
"And this implies that the work of regeneration is not a moral work; that is, it is not accomplished by means of advice or exhortation."
The denial that the work of regeneration does not involve a "moral work," and is not accomplished by "means" or "exhortation," is against the teaching of scripture and the orthodox writings of the Calvinists and Reformers.
Kuyper wrote:
"For this reason it is so necessary to examine regeneration (in its limited sense) in an infant, and not in an adult, in whom it necessarily includes conversion...Hence regeneration does actually take place in persons that are not self-conscious...These statements being indisputable, it is evident, therefore, that the nature and character of regeneration can be determined most correctly by examining it in these still unconscious persons."
Why is it "so necessary"? to redefined the word regeneration in a limited sense, contrary to both scripture and the orthodox writings? There is no such thing as un unconscious regeneration in either scripture or in the primitive writings of Baptists. The Hardshells became Hopkinsians of the "New Divinity" in their teachings on regeneration and the new birth.
See Kuyper's work here
John Owen (1616–1683), an early Calvinist and Reformed theologian, presented what may be called the original view of Calvinists on the subject of the nature and causes of regeneration, a view that is opposed to the later "New Divinity" views of Hopkins, Kuyper, and the Hardshells.
Owen wrote (see here):
"What our Saviour calls being “born again,” John iii. 3, he calls being “born of the Spirit,” verses 5, 6, because he is the sole, principal, efficient cause of this new birth; for “it is the Spirit that quickeneth,” John vi. 63; Rom. viii. 11. And God saveth us “according to his mercy, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost,” Tit. iii. 5. Whereas, therefore, we are said to be “born of God,” or to be “begotten again of his own will,” John i. 13, James i. 18, 1 John iii. 9, it is with respect unto the especial and peculiar operation of the Holy Spirit.
Our sole inquiry, therefore, must be after the manner and nature of this work; for the nature of it depends on the manner of the working of the Spirit of God herein. This, I acknowledge, was variously contended about of old; and the truth concerning it hath scarce escaped an open opposition in any age of the church.
The ancient writers of the church, who looked into these things with most diligence, and laboured in them with most success...
Frequent mention we find in them of grace, as “preparing, preventing, working, co-working, and confirming.” Under these heads do they handle the whole work of our regeneration or conversion unto God. And although there may be some alteration in method and ways of expression,—which may be varied as they are found to be of advantage unto them that are to be instructed,—yet, for the substance of the doctrine, they taught the same which hath been preached amongst us since the Reformation, which some have ignorantly traduced as novel."
The primitive Christians spoke of regeneration as involving God's work of "preparing" a soul for regeneration, and thus did not see the first act and work of God in producing regeneration to be regeneration itself. Owen says that the early church taught the same view on regeneration that Owen is teaching in his treastise on the subject.
Owen wrote:
"I shall, therefore, in general, refer the whole work of the Spirit of God with respect unto the regeneration of sinners unto two heads:— First, That which is preparatory for it; and, secondly, That which is effective of it. That which is preparatory for it is the conviction of sin; this is the work of the Holy Spirit, John xvi. 8. And this also may be distinctly referred unto three heads:— 1. A discovery of the true nature of sin by the ministry of the law, Rom. vii. 7. 2. An application of that discovery made in the mind or understanding unto the conscience of the sinner. 3. The excitation of affections suitable unto that discovery and application, Acts ii. 37. But these things, so far as they belong unto our present design, have been before insisted on. Our principal inquiry at present is after the work itself, or the nature and manner of the working of the Spirit of God in and on the souls of men in their regeneration; and this must be both negatively and positively declared:— FIRST, The work of the Spirit of God in the regeneration of sinners, or the quickening of them who are dead in trespasses and sins, or in their first saving conversion to God, doth not consist in a moral suasion only. By suasion we intend such a persuasion as may or may not be effectual; so absolutely we call that only persuasion whereby a man is actually persuaded. Concerning this we must consider,—
And I shall handle this matter under this notion, as that which is known unto those who are conversant in these things from the writings of the ancient and modern divines;
That the word of God, thus dispensed by the ministry of the church, is the only ordinary outward means which the Holy Ghost maketh use of in the regeneration of the adult unto whom it is preached."
Notice that Owen believes that God works on a soul prior to its regeneration, a preparatory work. He clearly says that "conviction of sin" is a pre-regeneration work, a preparation for it, and not a result of it. Notice also how he confesses that the preaching of the gospel is God's means of accomplishing the work of regeneration.
Owen wrote:
"That the effect of regeneration or conversion unto God is assigned unto the preaching of the word, because of its efficacy there-unto in its own kind and way, as the outward means thereof, 1 Cor. iv. 15; James i. 18; 1 Pet. i. 23.
We may consider what is the nature and wherein the efficacy of this moral work doth consist. To which purpose we may observe,— (1.) That in the use of this means for the conversion of men, there is, preparatory unto that wherein this moral persuasion doth consist, an instruction of the mind in the knowledge of the will of God and its duty towards him.
Notice that Owen does not make regeneration to be a separate and distinct experience from conversion and that he affirms that the preaching of the word is the means. He says that "preparatory unto that" regeneration experience, there is "moral persuasion," or the working of the means.
Owen wrote:
"The institution of God. He hath appointed the preaching of the word to be the means, the only outward ordinary means, for the conversion of the souls of men, I Cor. i. 17-20; Mark xvi. 15, 16; Rom. i. 16. And the power or efficacy of any thing that is used unto an end in spiritual matters depends solely on its divine appointment unto that end.
That the Holy Spirit doth make use of it in the regeneration or conversion of all that are adult, and that either immediately in and by the preaching of it, or by some other application of light and truth unto the mind derived from the word; for by the reasons, motives, and persuasive arguments which the word affords are our minds affected, and our souls wrought upon in our conversion unto God, whence it becomes our reasonable obedience. And there are none ordinarily converted, but they are able to give some account by what considerations they were prevailed on thereunto."
Notice that Owen argues for both a mediate and an immediate work of the Spirit in regeneration. He does not make regeneration to be separate from conversion nor make regeneration into a unconscious experience, but affirms that regeneration occurs "by some application of light and truth unto the mind derived from the word."
Owen wrote:
"And notwithstanding the perception which the mind may attain unto in the truth of gospel proposals, and the conviction it may have of the necessity of obedience, yet is not the will able to apply itself unto any spiritual act thereof, without an ability wrought immediately in it by the power of the Spirit of God; or rather, unless the Spirit of God by his grace do effect the act of willing in it. Wherefore, not to multiply arguments, we conclude that the most effectual use of outward means alone is not all the grace that is necessary unto, nor all that is actually put forth in, the regeneration of the souls of men."
Owen speaks of regeneration as not only being mediated through the preaching of the word but also with "an ability wrought immediately." He teaches against the "word alone" view as well as the "Spirit alone" view. Regeneration is a "most effectual use" of "means."
Owen wrote:
"There is not only a moral but a physical immediate operation of the Spirit, by his power and grace, or his powerful grace, upon the minds or souls of men in their regeneration. This is that which we must cleave to, or all the glory of God’s grace is lost, and the grace administered by Christ neglected. So is it asserted, Eph. i. 18-20, “That ye may know what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead.” The power here mentioned hath an “exceeding greatness” ascribed unto it, with respect unto the effect produced by it."
When Owen says "not only a moral operation" he is arguing for the view that says that regeneration is both mediate and immediate, and that the "word alone" and "Spirit alone" views are both wrong. He argues that there is both a mediated "moral operation" and an "immediate physical operation."
Owen wrote:
"Wherefore, it is plain in the Scripture that the Spirit of God works internally, immediately, efficiently, in and upon the minds of men in their regeneration. The new birth is the effect of an act of his power and grace; or, no man is born again but it is by the inward efficiency of the Spirit."
Again, even though Owen argues for "means" in regeneration, for its mediate manner, he also argues that "the Spirit of God works immediately."
Owen wrote:
"The power which the Holy Ghost puts forth in our regeneration is such, in its acting or exercise, as our minds, wills, and affections, are suited to be wrought upon, and to be affected by it, according to their natures and natural operations: “Turn thou me, and I shall be turned; draw me, and I shall run after thee.” He doth not act in them any otherwise than they themselves are meet to be moved and move, to be acted and act, according to their own nature, power, and ability. He draws us with “the cords of a man.” And the work itself is expressed by persuading,—“God shall persuade Japheth;” and alluring,— “I will allure her into the wilderness, and speak comfortably unto her:” for as it is certainly effectual, so it carries no more repugnancy unto our faculties than a prevalent persuasion doth."
This work of regeneration that is both the result of the Spirit working through means as well as immediately, does not exclude the changing of the mind regarding faith, for Owen says "the work itself is expressed by persuading." Regeneration involves conversion, the "turning" of the sinner to the Lord in repentance.
Owen wrote:
"The will, in the first act of conversion (as even sundry of the schoolmen acknowledge), acts not but as it is acted, moves not but as it is moved; and therefore is passive therein, in the sense immediately to be explained. And if this be not so, it cannot be avoided but that the act of our turning unto God is a mere natural act, and not spiritual or gracious; for it is an act of the will, not enabled thereunto antecedently by grace. Wherefore it must be granted, and it shall he proved, that, in order of nature, the acting of grace in the will in our conversion is antecedent unto its own acting; though in the same instant of time wherein the will is moved it moves, and when it is acted it acts itself, and preserves its own liberty in its exercise. There is, therefore, herein an inward almighty secret act of the power of the Holy Ghost, producing or effecting in us the will of conversion unto God, so acting our wills as that they also act themselves, and that freely. The Holy Spirit, who in his power and operation is more intimate, as it were, unto the principles of our souls than they are to themselves, doth, with the preservation and in the exercise of the liberty of our wills, effectually work our regeneration and conversion unto God."
In these words we notice how Owen speaks of the experience of regeneration involving both passivity and activity, as well as being both mediate and immediate. He also continues to see regeneration and conversion as being the same experience.
Owen 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."
Owen defines the experience of regeneration as the making of a believer and he condemns the view of Hopkins, Kuyper, and the Hardshells who affirm that God gives a power to believe prior to actual believing. Owen clearly does not argue that regeneration must precede faith as do the Hardshells. The Hardshells say that regeneration must precede faith and conversion because one must first be given the ability to believe before one actually believes. But, Owen says that "the Scripture is silent" in proving such a view.
Owen wrote:
"This is the whole of what we plead: God in our conversion, by the exceeding greatness of his power, as he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead, actually worketh faith and repentance in us, gives them unto us, bestows them on us; so that they are mere effects of his grace in us. And his working in us infallibly produceth the effect intended, because it is actual faith that he works, and not only a power to believe, which we may either put forth and make use of or suffer to be fruitless, according to the pleasure of our own wills."
Again, Owen uproots the Hardshell argument that says that it is not "actual faith" that is obtained in regeneration, but "the power to believe," or as Kuyper affirmed, a "faculty of faith" is given before actual faith is obtained.
Owen wrote:
"Secondly, As God giveth and worketh in us faith and repentance, so the way whereby he doth it, or the manner how he is said to effect them in us, makes it evident that he doth it by a power infallibly efficacious, and which the will of man doth never resist; for this way is such as that he thereby takes away all repugnancy, all resistance, all opposition, every thing that lieth in the way of the effect intended: Deut. xxx. 6, “The LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.” A denial of the work here intended is expressed chap. xxix. 4, “The LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.” What it is to have the heart circumcised the apostle declares, Col. ii. 11. It is the “putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ,”—that is, by our conversion to God. It is the giving “an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear,”—that is, spiritual light and obedience,—by the removal of all obstacles and hinderances. This is the immediate work of the Spirit of God himself. No man ever circumcised his own heart. No man can say he began to do it by the power of his own will, and then God only helped him by his grace. As the act of outward circumcision on the body of a child was the act of another, and not of the child, who was only passive therein, but the effect was in the body of the child only, so is it in this spiritual circumcision,— it is the act of God, whereof our hearts are the subject. And whereas it is the blindness, obstinacy, and stubbornness in sin that is in us by nature, with the prejudices which possess our minds and affections, which hinder us from conversion unto God, by this circumcision they are taken away; for by it the “body of the sins of the flesh is put off.” And how should the heart resist the work of grace, when that whereby it should resist is effectually taken away?
Again, Owen does not distinguish between, or separate, regeneration and conversion. He also argues that the work of regeneration is "the immediate work of the Spirit of God" and one in which the sinner is passive. But, he did not make the whole of regeneration to be immediate and passive.
Owen wrote:
"There is, therefore, in it an implantation of a new principle of spiritual life, of a life unto God in repentance, faith, and obedience, or universal holiness, according to gospel truth, or the truth which came by Jesus Christ, John i. 1 7. And the effect of this work is called “spirit:” John iii. 6, “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” It is the Spirit of God of whom we are born; that is, our new life is wrought in us by his efficiency. And that which in us is so born of him is spirit;
It is true, God doth command us to circumcise our hearts and to make them new: but he doth therein declare our duty, not our power; for himself promiseth to work in us what he requireth of us. And that power which we have and do exercise in the progress of this work, in sanctification and holiness, proceeds from the infused principle which we receive in our regeneration; for all which ends we ought to pray for Him, according to the example of holy men of old." ("Regeneration," CHAPTER V., "THE NATURE, CAUSES, AND MEANS OF REGENERATION.")
Here Owen shows that salvation is both unconditional and conditional, a truth we will deal with in this series. Some Calvinists argue that God never commands men to regenerate or birth themselves, but Owen does not subscribe to this view. He refers to God commanding sinners, in scripture, to circumcise their hearts and to make themselves a new heart, showing that the work is not all passive. Owen believed, like all the old Calvinists, that the commands of the word are means that God makes use of to bring about regeneration.
Owen wrote:
"That the work of the Spirit in regeneration, ought to be seriously considered by the preachers and hearers of the gospel. As to the former, there is a peculiar reason for their attention to it; for they are employed in the work itself by the Spirit of God, as instruments of effecting it. Hence the apostle Paul styles himself a father:—'Though you have ten thousand instructors-in Christ, yet not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.' He had been the instrument of their conversion, and was therefore their spiritual father. So, speaking of Onesimus, he calls him his son, whom he had begotten in his bonds. Now certainly it is the duty of ministers to understand their work...But all this comes short of regeneration, nor does it necessarily ensue upon it. Many are thus enlightened, and yet never converted : but in the order of nature it is previous to conversion' and materially preparatory to it; for saving grace enters into the soul by light." (pg. 88)
Clearly Owen affirms means in regeneration and thus did not see the entirety of the work as being immediate. He says that gospel ministers are instruments in effecting regeneration, what he also makes the same as being "begotten." He also speaks of coming short of regeneration, by remaining under conviction of sin without going to Christ. The Hardshells will not allow that God does any work in "preparing" hearts for the experience of regeneration. He says that "saving grace enters into the soul by light," by the gospel light.
Owen wrote:
"Conviction of sin is another effect of the word, antecedent to real conversion."
This is such an important issue. The Hardshells teach a serious error when they say that conviction of sin is an effect or evidence of a prior regeneration.
Owen wrote:
"All these things may be wrought in the minds of men, und yet the work of regeneration never be perfected in them."
"All these things, wrought instrumentally by the word, are effects of the power of the Spirit of God. The word itself, barely proposed to the minds of men, will not so affect them...It is therefore the ministration of the Spirit, in and by the word, which produces these effects."
Owen states the orthodox view that sees conviction of sin as a preliminary preparation for regeneration and conversion and he sees regeneration as both mediate and immediate.
Owen wrote:
"In many persons who are thus affected, real conversion ensues; and thus these preparatory operations make way for the introduction of a new spiritual life; and so they belong to a work that is perfect in its kind. Wherever they come short of it, it is not from any imperfection in themselves, but from the sins of men. For instance, common illumination and conviction of sin have a tendency to conversion; and where this end is not attained, it is from the wilfulness and stubbornness of the mind. This actual resistance God is pleased to take away in some: it is therefore of sovereign grace where it is removed; but the sin of men, where it is continued." (pg. 88-92 of "Pneumatologia: or, A discourse concerning the Holy Spirit," see here)
Owen again writes about "preparatory operations" which "make way for the introduction of a new spiritual life." He also speaks of some who "come short" of being regenerated even though under conviction of sin. He speaks of the conviction of sin as a "common illumination and conviction," a common grace.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Friday, January 6, 2012
Chpt. 112 - Mediate or Immediate?
In this chapter we will continue our review of the works of Abraham Kuyper whose views on regeneration reflect the views of the founders of the Hardshell denomination. However, the views of Kuyper and of the first Hardshells differ in one respect. All of these Hyper Calvinists affirmed that regeneration preceded faith and conversion, and that the former was immediate while the latter was mediate, but only the Hardshells of today affirm that conversion rarely comes to those who have been regenerated, and deny that conversion is necessary for being born again and for being eternally saved. The older Hyper Calvinists and Hardshells taught that conversion would necessarily and certainly follow regeneration. The typical Hardshell church originally affirmed that "all the elect will be regenerated, converted, and sanctified." Thus, today's Hardshells are not "primitive" nor "original" in their views.
Also in this chapter we will look at other historical figures in the debate over the "ordo salutis" and give further testimony that shows that the "regeneration before faith" error was a later development among Calvinists and those of the Reformed faith and not the original view.
Kuyper wrote:
"For since quickening is an unaided act of God in us, independent of the Word, and frequently separated from the second stage, conversion, by an interval of many days, there is nothing to prevent God from performing His work even in the babe, and the apparent conflict dissolves into beautiful harmony."
The idea that "quickening" is "independent of the Word" is not the teaching of scripture nor of the oldest Calvinist and Reformed statements of belief. David said - "thy word hath quickened me." (Psa. 119: 50) On this verse Dr. Gill, in his Commentary, affirms that it teaches that the word of God is God's means for bringing dead sinners to life. His view reflects the primitive Calvinist and Reformed view. Kuyper affirms that the gospel cannot be a means in giving life, but again, this is not the view of the primitive Calvinists. It is certainly not the view of scripture, as the verse cited above proves. Many other verses teach the same thing. For instance, in talking about the gospel, Paul says that it is a "savour of life unto life." (II Cor. 2: 16) He also calls it the "spirit that gives life." (III Cor. 3: 6)
But, Kuyper is in disagreement with the great Calvinist Jonathan Edwards, who wrote:
"Therefore the apostle compares the work of God, in forming Christians to true virtue and holiness, not only to a new creation, but a resurrection, or raising from the dead, ver. 1, "You hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins." And again, ver. 5, "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ." In speaking of Christians being quickened with Christ, the apostle has reference to what he had said before, in the latter part of the foregoing chapter, of God's manifesting the exceeding greatness of his power towards Christian converts in their conversion, agreeable to the operation of his mighty power, when he raised Christ from the dead." (pg. 432 of "The Works of Jonathan Edwards," from the section on "Original Sin," See here)
Edwards saw "quickening" as being the same as "regeneration" and saw "regeneration" as being the same as "conversion." Kuyper is not teaching the view of Edwards, a true representative of the teachings of Calvin and the first Reformers.
Further, notice how Kuyper not only advocates a mere logical order but also for a chronological order, putting a large space of time between the first and second stage of "regeneration," or between "regeneration" and "conversion." He says there may be an "interval of many days" between the time of "regeneration" and the time of "conversion." He further advocates the Hardshell view by affirming that conversion is not necessary for being saved, at least for infants. He argues that since infants may be regenerated without conversion, a point he did not prove, then ergo, conversion is not essential to regeneration.
Further, Kuyper, like the Hardshells, thought that divorcing conversion from regeneration solved "apparent conflict." But, what is an "apparent conflict" to Kuyper was not so with his forefathers, with the primitive Calvinists and Reformers. Kuyper saw a problem with the views of his forefathers and sought to solve it. He wanted to apply a more "exhaustive," "exact," and "scientific" scheme, one that he thought was more refined and accurate than that of his forefathers. But, in this he failed, and ended up actually opposing the traditional orthodox view. Kuyper thinks that his new paradigm of regeneration "dissolves into beautiful harmony" all "apparent conflict." But, the prior views of Kuyper's forefathers was already in "beautiful harmony." Ironically, what Kuyper created was contradiction and confusion, the very thing he thought he was removing.
Kuyper wrote:
"Touching the question concerning "faith," we are fully prepared to apply the same distinction to this matter. You have only to discriminate between the organ or the faculty of faith, the Power to exercise faith, and the working of faith. The first of these three, viz., the faculty of faith, is implanted in the first stage of regeneration—i.e., in quickening; the power of faith is imparted in the second stage of regeneration—i.e., in conversion; and the working of faith is wrought in the third stage—i.e., in sanctification. Hence if faith is wrought only by the hearing of the Word, the preaching of the Word does not create the faculty of faith."
Zack Guess, present day Hardshell pastor, in an Internet article, titled "Irresistible Grace," also taught the same idea regarding "faith." He gave two definitions of "faith," one legitimate, and one not. Guess said that "faith" is "the ability to believe." Guess's article can be read here. Kuyper says that "faith" is defined in scripture to mean "the Power to exercise faith," to what he calls "the organ or the faculty of faith." But, neither Kuyper nor Guess can give any proof for such a definition of "faith." No biblical Hebrew or Greek scholar ever defines the word "faith" in such a manner. A study of all the places in scripture where the word "faith" (noun) and the word "believe" (verb) are used reveals that they never refer to an "ability to believe." All this is simply a vain attempt to make unbelievers into believers.
Paul says that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10: 17) Does "faith" here mean the "power to believe"? The "power to believe comes by hearing the word of God"? Does the word "repent" also mean the "power to repent"? Does the word "convert" mean the "power to convert"? Etc.? Not only do Kuyper and the Hardshells give a totally unwarranted and new definition to the word "regeneration," but also to the word "faith." They have to do this in order to give plausibility to their theological invention.
Kuyper wrote:
"Look only at what our fathers confessed at Dort: "He who works in man both to will and to do produces both the will to believe and the act of believing also" (Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine, article 14).
Or to express it still more strongly: when the Word is preached, I know it; and when I hear it and believe it, I know whence this working of faith comes. But the implanting of the faith-faculty is an entirely different thing; for of this the Lord Jesus says: "Thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh; and whither it goeth"; and as the wind, so is also the regeneration of man." (See these citations of Kuyper here)
After citing the words of Kuyper's Reformed forefathers, Kuyper tries to twist them into saying what he thinks they should say. He does this when he says that he will "express it still more strongly." But, the attempt to "express" the words of the Reformers was a subversion of them. The idea of "faith-faculty" is foreign to the old Calvinistic and Reformed writers. They all said that God must "work in" a sinner to bring him "to will" and "to do," and they did not see this as "regeneration," or "faith," for this would be to define those terms by reference strictly to the cause alone without any consideration of the effects. We could say that God "works in you to rise from spiritual death," but who would say that the cause alone is the quickening? That would be all the same as saying "God quickens you to quicken you."
Louis Berkhof (1873–1957), Presbyterian theologian, in his Systematic Theology, wrote:
"The exact form of the question ought to be carefully noted. The question is not, whether God works regeneration by means of a creative word. It is generally admitted that He does. Neither is it, whether He employs the word of truth, the word of preaching in the new birth, as distinquished from the divine begetting of the new man, that is, in securing the first holy exercises of the new life. The real question is, whether God, in implanting or generating the new life, employs the word of Scripture of the word of preeaching as an instrument or means. The discussion of this matter often suffered in the past from the lack of proper discrimination."
Berkhof makes the same distinctions that were made by Hopkins and Kuyper. He also holds to a multi stage regeneration. Berkhof distinquishes and separates "the new birth" from "the divine begetting." It is the opinion of Berkhof that "this matter often suffered in the past from the lack of proper discrimination."
Berkhof is expressing the same historical observation made by others regarding the fact that Calvin and the first Reformed and Calvinist authors and confessions did not make conversion distinct and separate from conversion, or have regeneration to precede faith. Berkhof believes that the fathers of the Reformed faith "suffered from the lack of proper discrimination." But, Berkhof is not correct about his forefathers. They had "PROPER discrimination," unlike the later dissecting and hair-splitting of some of their Hyperistic children. The forefathers would not make separate and distinct what the scriptures made the same.
Berkhof then cites from William Greenough Thayer Shedd (1820 – 1894), leading Calvinist author and theologian, in Shedd's "CONSIDERATIONS THAT FAVOR A NEGATIVE ANSWER" to the question.
Dr. Shedd says:
"The influence of the Holy 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 spirit; of one of the trinitarian persons upon a human person."
There is no disagreement that the "influence of the Holy Spirit is distinguishable from that of the truth." That is why the old confessions were correct in attributing regeneration to both the "word" and "Spirit." Further, there is no disagreement that regeneration is immediate in the sense expressed by Shedd when he says that divine "energy acts directly upon the human soul itself" or "of spirit upon spirit." This is not denied by those who affirm mediate regeneration, for they believe as Jesus taught, that "spirit" is "born" of "spirit," which requires spirit immediately touching spirit. The primitive Calvinists affirmed that it was both mediate and immediate.
The citation of Berkhof from Shedd continued:
"Neither the truth, nor a fellow-man, can thus operate directly upon the essence of the soul itself. The following considerations favor this view."
Here Shedd gets off track and states an untruth. The truth "can," and actually does, "operate directly upon the soul" when the truth is the instrument in the hand of the eternal Spirit. Shedd is arguing that immediate regeneration excludes any mediation. But, this is a fact not proven, and is in fact false.
The first "consideration" that Shedd gives as proof to "favor this view" says:
"a. Regeneration is a creative act, by which the spiritually dead sinner is restored to life. But the truth of the gospel can only work in a moral and persuasive way. Such an instrument has no effect on the dead. To assert its use would seem to imply a denial of the spiritual death of man; which, of course, is not intended by those who take this position."
Shedd's comments reveal one of the perceived logical problems that has led some into Hyper Calvinism. It is the problem of the old Pelagian idea that a "command implies ability." Those fathers in the Augustinian, Calvinist, and Reformed tradition, however, rejected that error. Commands in scripture do not imply ability. But, some Calvinists, accepting the Pelagian premise, attempt to "solve" the problem by denying that God "commands" any unregenerate person to repent, believe, and to be saved. Only those who have been given "ability" in "regeneration" can repent, believe, and be saved.
Shedd denies that gospel truth can have any effect upon the spiritually dead. But, in this the scriptures are against him. Jesus preached the gospel to the spiritually dead and told them what they needed to do to be saved. The invitations and commands of the gospel, pertaining to salvation, are extended to all men. This fact should not have led the Hyper Calvinists to think that universal gospel commands imply universal natural ability.
Berkhof gives Shedd's second "consideration" in his apology:
"b. Regeneration takes place in the sphere of the sub-conscious, that is, outside of the sphere of conscious attention, while the truth addresses itself to the consciousness of man. It can exercise its persuasive influence only when man's attention is fixed on it."
Were the new testament writers present to manifest their reaction to such misinterpretation of their writings on "regeneration," they would surely manifest both wonder and disgust. Who could read their writings for the first time, without preconception and bias, and think that they taught that regeneration was an unconscious Christian experience? When the new testament writers spoke to Christians, in their pastoral letters, and referred to their saving experience, they clearly always referred to their conversion upon hearing and believing the gospel, to a well known conscious experience. To think that the authors of these epistles spoke about an experience of which the Christians addressed were not aware, is absurd.
Speaking about the power of gospel truth and revelation, Shedd said - "It can exercise its persuasive influence only when man's attention is fixed on it." That is true, but the fault lies in the Hyper Calvinist attempt to make "regeneration" to be restricted to the work of the Spirit in getting the mental attention of sinners. Biblical regeneration is much more than the work of simply getting the attention of sinners! This reminds us of the record of Luke concerning the conversion of Lydia through the gospel preaching of Paul. Luke says of the account -
"And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul." (Acts 16: 14)
Many who teach that regeneration is complete prior to conversion will cite these words in order to prove it. In order to do this, however, they have to equate "regeneration" with the "opening of the heart" of Lydia. But, this cannot be confidently done. Luke explains what the opening of Lydia's heart was intended for when he says that such an operation was done so that she might "attend to" the gospel.
In preaching upon the conversion of Lydia, Charles Spurgeon said:
"Although the Lord opened the heart, Paul's words were the instrument of her conversion. The heart may be opened and willing to receive, but then if the Truth of God enters not, what would be the use of an open door? But God always takes care to open the heart at a time when the messenger of mercy shall be going by, that the heart may give him admittance."
"There shall be the plowed field, but there shall be no cry, "Where is the sower?" for when the plow has done its work, here comes the sower and begins to scatter the seed. Paul speaks the Word as surely as God opens the heart." (From Spurgeon's sermon "Lessons From Lydia's Conversion")
Spurgeon taught that the opening of the heart of Lydia was a pre-regeneration experience, what was preparatory to it. He believed that Lydia's regeneration occurred at the same time as her conversion, when she "attended to," that is, when she believed the gospel. Spurgeon, like all the old Calvinist and Puritan writers, taught that conviction of sin preceded and prepared the way for regeneration. They saw that God must first plough the heart through conviction of sin, by the proclamation of law and gospel, before he plant the seed that generates life in the soil.
Spurgeon also said:
"Regeneration is a great mystery, it is out of your reach. "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is everyone that is born of the Spirit." What can you and I do in this matter? It is far beyond our line. We can tell out the truth of God; but to apply that truth to the heart and conscience is quite another thing. I have preached Jesus Christ with my whole heart, and yet I know that I have never produced a saving effect upon a single unregenerate man unless the Spirit of God has opened the heart and placed the living seed of truth within it." (Sermon - "Farm Labourers," see here)
Notice that Spurgeon defines "opening" of the heart as a preparation so that "the living seed of truth" may be placed in the heart. The "life" was in the "seed."
Spurgeon said:
"There is a withering wrought by the Spirit which is the preparation for the sowing and implanting by which salvation is wrought."
Again, this "withering" is equivalent to what is called the evangelical "conviction of sin." It is viewed as a "preparation," a kind of "prevenient grace," a work of God prior to regeneration. Spurgeon also correctly sees "salvation" being "wrought" is effected by the means of the seed being sown, or by the gospel being preached.
Spurgeon wrote:
"Even he did not know that in order to the comforting of God's people, there must first be experienced a preliminary visitation. Many preachers of God's gospel have forgotten that the law is the schoolmaster to bring men to Christ. They have sown on the unbroken fallow ground and forgotten that the plough must break the clods. We have seen too much of trying to sew without the sharp needle of the Spirit's convincing power. Preachers have labored to make Christ precious to those who think themselves rich and increased in goods: and it has been labor in vain. It is our duty to preach Jesus Christ even to self-righteous sinners, but it is certain that Jesus Christ will never be accepted by them while they hold themselves in high esteem. Only the sick will welcome the physician. It is the work of the Spirit of God to convince men of sin, and until they are convinced of sin, they will never be led to seek the righteousness which is of God by Jesus Christ. I am persuaded, that wherever there is a real work of grace in any soul, it begins with a pulling down: the Holy Ghost does not build on the old foundation. Wood, hay, and stubble will not do for him to build upon. He will come as the fire, and cause a conflagration of all proud nature's Babels. He will break our bow and cut our spear in sunder, and burn our chariot in the fire. When every sandy foundation is gone, then, but not till then, behold he will lay in our souls the great foundation stone, chosen of God, and precious. The awakened sinner, when he asks that God would have mercy upon him, is much astonished to find that, instead of enjoying a speedy peace, his soul is bowed down within him under a sense of divine wrath."
Spurgeon refers to the "awakened sinner." All the oldest great Calvinists referred to these characters. Who are they? Does "awakened" mean regenerated and quickened? The Hyperist views of Hopkins, Kuyper, and the Hardshells, would answer yes, but the primitive Calvinists would have said no. With them the "awakened" sinner was the sinner who became suddenly concerned about his relationship with God, about his lost condition, and who had therefore become attentive to those who spoke of God and of the way of salvation. But, they never viewed this "awakening" to be equivalent to "regeneration" but saw it as a "common operation of the Spirit," an example of the effects of "common" or "prevenient" grace, what is preparatory to regeneration.
"Quickening" is connected with giving life, with "enlivening." The Lord quickens the whole soul and spirit, including all his faculties. The soul is quickened first, however, in its attentiveness to the divine revelation, as in the case of the Lord opening the heart of Lydia so that she might be attentive to the preaching of the evangelists. The "deadness" of inattentiveness is first quickened in the hearts of many who hear the gospel. But, this first kind of "quickening" is not "regeneration," or the kind experienced by hearts that are identified as being "good soil," but the kind experienced by shallow and thorny soil hearts. The shallow ground hearer's attention was drawn to the gospel, so much so that he "received it with joy." In fact, it can easily be said that all four of the kinds of hearts (soils) had some level of "attention" given to the preaching of the gospel.
Spurgeon wrote:
"The convincing work of the Spirit, wherever it comes, is unexpected...Everywhere before the salvation there comes the humbling of the creature, the overthrow of human hope...The old must go before the new can come. Even thus the Lord takes away the first, that he may establish the second."
Again, it is the view of Spurgeon, as with the primitive Calvinists, that conviction of sin, a being evangelically humbled, was a preparation for salvation, not an evidence of salvation.
Spurgeon said:
"The Spirit of God it is that withers the flesh. It is not the devil that killed my self-righteousness. I might be afraid if it were: nor was it myself that humbled myself by a voluntary and needless self-degradation, but it was the Spirit of God. Better to be broken in pieces by the Spirit of God, than to be made whole by the flesh! What doth the Lord say? "I kill." But what next? "I make alive." He never makes any alive but those he kills. Blessed be the Holy Ghost when he kills me, when he drives the sword through the very bowels of my own merits and myself-confidence, for then he will make me alive. "I wound, and I heal." He never heals those whom he has not wounded. Then blessed be the hand that wounds; let it go on wounding; let it cut and tear; let it lay bare to me myself at my very worst, that I may be driven to self-despair, and may fall back upon the free mercy of God, and receive it as a poor, guilty, lost, helpless, undone sinner, who casts himself into the arms of sovereign grace, knowing that God must give all, and Christ must be all, and the Spirit must work all, and man must be as clay in the potter's hands, that the Lord may do with him as seemeth him good. Rejoice, dear brother, how ever low you are brought, for if the Spirit humbles you he means no evil, but he intends infinite good to your soul."
Spurgeon did not consider conviction of sin as a "first stage" of regeneration, but rather as a preparation for regeneration, and this was the view of the primitive and first promoters of Reformed theology.
Spurgeon said:
"And what is the result of it? Why, then there comes, according to the text, a new life into us, as the result of the indwelling of the living word, and our being born again by it. A new life it is; it is not the old nature putting out its better parts; not the old Adam refining and purifying itself, and rising to something better. No; have we not said aforetime that the flesh withers and the flower thereof fades? It is an entirely new life. Ye are as much new creatures at your regeneration, as if you had never existed, and had been for the first time created." See here.
This is very clear. Spurgeon taught that the withering work of the Spirit, his humbling and convicting work, is not an evidence of "new life," but a preparation to it. When the convicted souls possess "the living word" of the gospel, then they are "born again," receive "new life," and are made "new creatures at your regeneration."
Spurgeon also wrote:
"If thou believest in Jesus Christ and him crucified, in the moment that thou believest, this great change of nature is effected in thee; for faith has in itself a singularly transforming power. . .So, faith towards God in itself produces a total change of mind in the man who has it. But, beside that, there goes with faith a divine energy which changes the heart of man." (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 41, page 235, Despised Light Withdrawn).
Clearly Spurgeon believed that regeneration was both mediate and immediate, just like the primitive Calvinists. He did not believe in the "word alone" view, nor did he believe in the "Spirit alone" view of regeneration.
Berkhof cites further these words of Shedd:
"The Bible distinguishes the influence of the Holy Spirit from that of the Word of God, and declares that such an influence is necessary for the proper reception of the truth, John 6: 64, 65; Acts 16: 14; I Cor. 2: 12-15; Eph. 1: 17-20."
That the"Bible distinguishes the influence of the Holy Spirit from that of the Word of God," There is no doubt that this is so, but how this prove that regeneration is strictly immediate and different from conversion? Such a truth proposition uproots the "word alone" view, but it certainly does not prove the truth of the "Spirit alone" view.
Still citing Shedd:
"In James 1: 18 we read: 'Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.' This passages does not prove that the new generation is mediated by the Word of God, for the term here used is apokuesen, which does not refer to begetting, but to giving birth. They who believe in immediate regeneration do not deny that the new birth, in which the new life first becomes manifest, is secured by the Word."
Here Shedd affirms the views of Hopkins, Kuyper, and the old Hardshell and Regular Baptists, as well as later Baptists such as A. W. Pink, who made the divine "birth" and "begetting" to be a completely different experience to that which Paul called "regeneration" in Titus 3: 5. But, there is absolutely no warrant for this separation and distinction. Is it a paradigm imposed upon scripture. On this point I shall enlarge upon later in this series.
Can one go to heaven who was "regenerated" but not "born again"? Does that person who is supposedly "regenerated," but not "born again," have an "evil heart of unbelief" and penitent heart? When does one become a believer? When he is "regenerated" or when he is "born again"? Does the Bible teach that there are characters who are "regenerated unbelievers"? Since the "wrath of God abides on" the unbeliever in Jesus (John 3: 36), and one does not believe in Jesus in that period of time between "regeneration" and "birth," does that not affirm the absurd idea that one can be "regenerated" but who is yet under God's wrath? Regenerated but not justified and forgiven?
Berkhof further cites Shedd:
"Peter exhorts believers to love one another fervently in view of the fact that they have been 'begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the Word of God, which liveth and abideth.' I Peter 1: 23. It is not correct to say, as some have done, that 'the Word' in this verse is the creative word, or the second person in the Trinity, for Peter himself informs us that he has in mind the word that was preached unto the readers, vs. 25. But it is perfectly in order to point out that gennao (the word here used) does not always refer to the masculine begetting, but may also denote the feminine giving birth to children." (pg. 475)
Once again Shedd attempts to make the experience of being "begotten again" as something that occurs later, logically and chronologically, than "regeneration." But, the distinction that Shedd argues for is read into the language of Peter, as it was with that of James. But, upon this point there will be enlargement in upcoming chapters in this series.
Also in this chapter we will look at other historical figures in the debate over the "ordo salutis" and give further testimony that shows that the "regeneration before faith" error was a later development among Calvinists and those of the Reformed faith and not the original view.
Kuyper wrote:
"For since quickening is an unaided act of God in us, independent of the Word, and frequently separated from the second stage, conversion, by an interval of many days, there is nothing to prevent God from performing His work even in the babe, and the apparent conflict dissolves into beautiful harmony."
The idea that "quickening" is "independent of the Word" is not the teaching of scripture nor of the oldest Calvinist and Reformed statements of belief. David said - "thy word hath quickened me." (Psa. 119: 50) On this verse Dr. Gill, in his Commentary, affirms that it teaches that the word of God is God's means for bringing dead sinners to life. His view reflects the primitive Calvinist and Reformed view. Kuyper affirms that the gospel cannot be a means in giving life, but again, this is not the view of the primitive Calvinists. It is certainly not the view of scripture, as the verse cited above proves. Many other verses teach the same thing. For instance, in talking about the gospel, Paul says that it is a "savour of life unto life." (II Cor. 2: 16) He also calls it the "spirit that gives life." (III Cor. 3: 6)
But, Kuyper is in disagreement with the great Calvinist Jonathan Edwards, who wrote:
"Therefore the apostle compares the work of God, in forming Christians to true virtue and holiness, not only to a new creation, but a resurrection, or raising from the dead, ver. 1, "You hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins." And again, ver. 5, "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ." In speaking of Christians being quickened with Christ, the apostle has reference to what he had said before, in the latter part of the foregoing chapter, of God's manifesting the exceeding greatness of his power towards Christian converts in their conversion, agreeable to the operation of his mighty power, when he raised Christ from the dead." (pg. 432 of "The Works of Jonathan Edwards," from the section on "Original Sin," See here)
Edwards saw "quickening" as being the same as "regeneration" and saw "regeneration" as being the same as "conversion." Kuyper is not teaching the view of Edwards, a true representative of the teachings of Calvin and the first Reformers.
Further, notice how Kuyper not only advocates a mere logical order but also for a chronological order, putting a large space of time between the first and second stage of "regeneration," or between "regeneration" and "conversion." He says there may be an "interval of many days" between the time of "regeneration" and the time of "conversion." He further advocates the Hardshell view by affirming that conversion is not necessary for being saved, at least for infants. He argues that since infants may be regenerated without conversion, a point he did not prove, then ergo, conversion is not essential to regeneration.
Further, Kuyper, like the Hardshells, thought that divorcing conversion from regeneration solved "apparent conflict." But, what is an "apparent conflict" to Kuyper was not so with his forefathers, with the primitive Calvinists and Reformers. Kuyper saw a problem with the views of his forefathers and sought to solve it. He wanted to apply a more "exhaustive," "exact," and "scientific" scheme, one that he thought was more refined and accurate than that of his forefathers. But, in this he failed, and ended up actually opposing the traditional orthodox view. Kuyper thinks that his new paradigm of regeneration "dissolves into beautiful harmony" all "apparent conflict." But, the prior views of Kuyper's forefathers was already in "beautiful harmony." Ironically, what Kuyper created was contradiction and confusion, the very thing he thought he was removing.
Kuyper wrote:
"Touching the question concerning "faith," we are fully prepared to apply the same distinction to this matter. You have only to discriminate between the organ or the faculty of faith, the Power to exercise faith, and the working of faith. The first of these three, viz., the faculty of faith, is implanted in the first stage of regeneration—i.e., in quickening; the power of faith is imparted in the second stage of regeneration—i.e., in conversion; and the working of faith is wrought in the third stage—i.e., in sanctification. Hence if faith is wrought only by the hearing of the Word, the preaching of the Word does not create the faculty of faith."
Zack Guess, present day Hardshell pastor, in an Internet article, titled "Irresistible Grace," also taught the same idea regarding "faith." He gave two definitions of "faith," one legitimate, and one not. Guess said that "faith" is "the ability to believe." Guess's article can be read here. Kuyper says that "faith" is defined in scripture to mean "the Power to exercise faith," to what he calls "the organ or the faculty of faith." But, neither Kuyper nor Guess can give any proof for such a definition of "faith." No biblical Hebrew or Greek scholar ever defines the word "faith" in such a manner. A study of all the places in scripture where the word "faith" (noun) and the word "believe" (verb) are used reveals that they never refer to an "ability to believe." All this is simply a vain attempt to make unbelievers into believers.
Paul says that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10: 17) Does "faith" here mean the "power to believe"? The "power to believe comes by hearing the word of God"? Does the word "repent" also mean the "power to repent"? Does the word "convert" mean the "power to convert"? Etc.? Not only do Kuyper and the Hardshells give a totally unwarranted and new definition to the word "regeneration," but also to the word "faith." They have to do this in order to give plausibility to their theological invention.
Kuyper wrote:
"Look only at what our fathers confessed at Dort: "He who works in man both to will and to do produces both the will to believe and the act of believing also" (Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine, article 14).
Or to express it still more strongly: when the Word is preached, I know it; and when I hear it and believe it, I know whence this working of faith comes. But the implanting of the faith-faculty is an entirely different thing; for of this the Lord Jesus says: "Thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh; and whither it goeth"; and as the wind, so is also the regeneration of man." (See these citations of Kuyper here)
After citing the words of Kuyper's Reformed forefathers, Kuyper tries to twist them into saying what he thinks they should say. He does this when he says that he will "express it still more strongly." But, the attempt to "express" the words of the Reformers was a subversion of them. The idea of "faith-faculty" is foreign to the old Calvinistic and Reformed writers. They all said that God must "work in" a sinner to bring him "to will" and "to do," and they did not see this as "regeneration," or "faith," for this would be to define those terms by reference strictly to the cause alone without any consideration of the effects. We could say that God "works in you to rise from spiritual death," but who would say that the cause alone is the quickening? That would be all the same as saying "God quickens you to quicken you."
Louis Berkhof (1873–1957), Presbyterian theologian, in his Systematic Theology, wrote:
"The exact form of the question ought to be carefully noted. The question is not, whether God works regeneration by means of a creative word. It is generally admitted that He does. Neither is it, whether He employs the word of truth, the word of preaching in the new birth, as distinquished from the divine begetting of the new man, that is, in securing the first holy exercises of the new life. The real question is, whether God, in implanting or generating the new life, employs the word of Scripture of the word of preeaching as an instrument or means. The discussion of this matter often suffered in the past from the lack of proper discrimination."
Berkhof makes the same distinctions that were made by Hopkins and Kuyper. He also holds to a multi stage regeneration. Berkhof distinquishes and separates "the new birth" from "the divine begetting." It is the opinion of Berkhof that "this matter often suffered in the past from the lack of proper discrimination."
Berkhof is expressing the same historical observation made by others regarding the fact that Calvin and the first Reformed and Calvinist authors and confessions did not make conversion distinct and separate from conversion, or have regeneration to precede faith. Berkhof believes that the fathers of the Reformed faith "suffered from the lack of proper discrimination." But, Berkhof is not correct about his forefathers. They had "PROPER discrimination," unlike the later dissecting and hair-splitting of some of their Hyperistic children. The forefathers would not make separate and distinct what the scriptures made the same.
Berkhof then cites from William Greenough Thayer Shedd (1820 – 1894), leading Calvinist author and theologian, in Shedd's "CONSIDERATIONS THAT FAVOR A NEGATIVE ANSWER" to the question.
Dr. Shedd says:
"The influence of the Holy 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 spirit; of one of the trinitarian persons upon a human person."
There is no disagreement that the "influence of the Holy Spirit is distinguishable from that of the truth." That is why the old confessions were correct in attributing regeneration to both the "word" and "Spirit." Further, there is no disagreement that regeneration is immediate in the sense expressed by Shedd when he says that divine "energy acts directly upon the human soul itself" or "of spirit upon spirit." This is not denied by those who affirm mediate regeneration, for they believe as Jesus taught, that "spirit" is "born" of "spirit," which requires spirit immediately touching spirit. The primitive Calvinists affirmed that it was both mediate and immediate.
The citation of Berkhof from Shedd continued:
"Neither the truth, nor a fellow-man, can thus operate directly upon the essence of the soul itself. The following considerations favor this view."
Here Shedd gets off track and states an untruth. The truth "can," and actually does, "operate directly upon the soul" when the truth is the instrument in the hand of the eternal Spirit. Shedd is arguing that immediate regeneration excludes any mediation. But, this is a fact not proven, and is in fact false.
The first "consideration" that Shedd gives as proof to "favor this view" says:
"a. Regeneration is a creative act, by which the spiritually dead sinner is restored to life. But the truth of the gospel can only work in a moral and persuasive way. Such an instrument has no effect on the dead. To assert its use would seem to imply a denial of the spiritual death of man; which, of course, is not intended by those who take this position."
Shedd's comments reveal one of the perceived logical problems that has led some into Hyper Calvinism. It is the problem of the old Pelagian idea that a "command implies ability." Those fathers in the Augustinian, Calvinist, and Reformed tradition, however, rejected that error. Commands in scripture do not imply ability. But, some Calvinists, accepting the Pelagian premise, attempt to "solve" the problem by denying that God "commands" any unregenerate person to repent, believe, and to be saved. Only those who have been given "ability" in "regeneration" can repent, believe, and be saved.
Shedd denies that gospel truth can have any effect upon the spiritually dead. But, in this the scriptures are against him. Jesus preached the gospel to the spiritually dead and told them what they needed to do to be saved. The invitations and commands of the gospel, pertaining to salvation, are extended to all men. This fact should not have led the Hyper Calvinists to think that universal gospel commands imply universal natural ability.
Berkhof gives Shedd's second "consideration" in his apology:
"b. Regeneration takes place in the sphere of the sub-conscious, that is, outside of the sphere of conscious attention, while the truth addresses itself to the consciousness of man. It can exercise its persuasive influence only when man's attention is fixed on it."
Were the new testament writers present to manifest their reaction to such misinterpretation of their writings on "regeneration," they would surely manifest both wonder and disgust. Who could read their writings for the first time, without preconception and bias, and think that they taught that regeneration was an unconscious Christian experience? When the new testament writers spoke to Christians, in their pastoral letters, and referred to their saving experience, they clearly always referred to their conversion upon hearing and believing the gospel, to a well known conscious experience. To think that the authors of these epistles spoke about an experience of which the Christians addressed were not aware, is absurd.
Speaking about the power of gospel truth and revelation, Shedd said - "It can exercise its persuasive influence only when man's attention is fixed on it." That is true, but the fault lies in the Hyper Calvinist attempt to make "regeneration" to be restricted to the work of the Spirit in getting the mental attention of sinners. Biblical regeneration is much more than the work of simply getting the attention of sinners! This reminds us of the record of Luke concerning the conversion of Lydia through the gospel preaching of Paul. Luke says of the account -
"And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul." (Acts 16: 14)
Many who teach that regeneration is complete prior to conversion will cite these words in order to prove it. In order to do this, however, they have to equate "regeneration" with the "opening of the heart" of Lydia. But, this cannot be confidently done. Luke explains what the opening of Lydia's heart was intended for when he says that such an operation was done so that she might "attend to" the gospel.
In preaching upon the conversion of Lydia, Charles Spurgeon said:
"Although the Lord opened the heart, Paul's words were the instrument of her conversion. The heart may be opened and willing to receive, but then if the Truth of God enters not, what would be the use of an open door? But God always takes care to open the heart at a time when the messenger of mercy shall be going by, that the heart may give him admittance."
"There shall be the plowed field, but there shall be no cry, "Where is the sower?" for when the plow has done its work, here comes the sower and begins to scatter the seed. Paul speaks the Word as surely as God opens the heart." (From Spurgeon's sermon "Lessons From Lydia's Conversion")
Spurgeon taught that the opening of the heart of Lydia was a pre-regeneration experience, what was preparatory to it. He believed that Lydia's regeneration occurred at the same time as her conversion, when she "attended to," that is, when she believed the gospel. Spurgeon, like all the old Calvinist and Puritan writers, taught that conviction of sin preceded and prepared the way for regeneration. They saw that God must first plough the heart through conviction of sin, by the proclamation of law and gospel, before he plant the seed that generates life in the soil.
Spurgeon also said:
"Regeneration is a great mystery, it is out of your reach. "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is everyone that is born of the Spirit." What can you and I do in this matter? It is far beyond our line. We can tell out the truth of God; but to apply that truth to the heart and conscience is quite another thing. I have preached Jesus Christ with my whole heart, and yet I know that I have never produced a saving effect upon a single unregenerate man unless the Spirit of God has opened the heart and placed the living seed of truth within it." (Sermon - "Farm Labourers," see here)
Notice that Spurgeon defines "opening" of the heart as a preparation so that "the living seed of truth" may be placed in the heart. The "life" was in the "seed."
Spurgeon said:
"There is a withering wrought by the Spirit which is the preparation for the sowing and implanting by which salvation is wrought."
Again, this "withering" is equivalent to what is called the evangelical "conviction of sin." It is viewed as a "preparation," a kind of "prevenient grace," a work of God prior to regeneration. Spurgeon also correctly sees "salvation" being "wrought" is effected by the means of the seed being sown, or by the gospel being preached.
Spurgeon wrote:
"Even he did not know that in order to the comforting of God's people, there must first be experienced a preliminary visitation. Many preachers of God's gospel have forgotten that the law is the schoolmaster to bring men to Christ. They have sown on the unbroken fallow ground and forgotten that the plough must break the clods. We have seen too much of trying to sew without the sharp needle of the Spirit's convincing power. Preachers have labored to make Christ precious to those who think themselves rich and increased in goods: and it has been labor in vain. It is our duty to preach Jesus Christ even to self-righteous sinners, but it is certain that Jesus Christ will never be accepted by them while they hold themselves in high esteem. Only the sick will welcome the physician. It is the work of the Spirit of God to convince men of sin, and until they are convinced of sin, they will never be led to seek the righteousness which is of God by Jesus Christ. I am persuaded, that wherever there is a real work of grace in any soul, it begins with a pulling down: the Holy Ghost does not build on the old foundation. Wood, hay, and stubble will not do for him to build upon. He will come as the fire, and cause a conflagration of all proud nature's Babels. He will break our bow and cut our spear in sunder, and burn our chariot in the fire. When every sandy foundation is gone, then, but not till then, behold he will lay in our souls the great foundation stone, chosen of God, and precious. The awakened sinner, when he asks that God would have mercy upon him, is much astonished to find that, instead of enjoying a speedy peace, his soul is bowed down within him under a sense of divine wrath."
Spurgeon refers to the "awakened sinner." All the oldest great Calvinists referred to these characters. Who are they? Does "awakened" mean regenerated and quickened? The Hyperist views of Hopkins, Kuyper, and the Hardshells, would answer yes, but the primitive Calvinists would have said no. With them the "awakened" sinner was the sinner who became suddenly concerned about his relationship with God, about his lost condition, and who had therefore become attentive to those who spoke of God and of the way of salvation. But, they never viewed this "awakening" to be equivalent to "regeneration" but saw it as a "common operation of the Spirit," an example of the effects of "common" or "prevenient" grace, what is preparatory to regeneration.
"Quickening" is connected with giving life, with "enlivening." The Lord quickens the whole soul and spirit, including all his faculties. The soul is quickened first, however, in its attentiveness to the divine revelation, as in the case of the Lord opening the heart of Lydia so that she might be attentive to the preaching of the evangelists. The "deadness" of inattentiveness is first quickened in the hearts of many who hear the gospel. But, this first kind of "quickening" is not "regeneration," or the kind experienced by hearts that are identified as being "good soil," but the kind experienced by shallow and thorny soil hearts. The shallow ground hearer's attention was drawn to the gospel, so much so that he "received it with joy." In fact, it can easily be said that all four of the kinds of hearts (soils) had some level of "attention" given to the preaching of the gospel.
Spurgeon wrote:
"The convincing work of the Spirit, wherever it comes, is unexpected...Everywhere before the salvation there comes the humbling of the creature, the overthrow of human hope...The old must go before the new can come. Even thus the Lord takes away the first, that he may establish the second."
Again, it is the view of Spurgeon, as with the primitive Calvinists, that conviction of sin, a being evangelically humbled, was a preparation for salvation, not an evidence of salvation.
Spurgeon said:
"The Spirit of God it is that withers the flesh. It is not the devil that killed my self-righteousness. I might be afraid if it were: nor was it myself that humbled myself by a voluntary and needless self-degradation, but it was the Spirit of God. Better to be broken in pieces by the Spirit of God, than to be made whole by the flesh! What doth the Lord say? "I kill." But what next? "I make alive." He never makes any alive but those he kills. Blessed be the Holy Ghost when he kills me, when he drives the sword through the very bowels of my own merits and myself-confidence, for then he will make me alive. "I wound, and I heal." He never heals those whom he has not wounded. Then blessed be the hand that wounds; let it go on wounding; let it cut and tear; let it lay bare to me myself at my very worst, that I may be driven to self-despair, and may fall back upon the free mercy of God, and receive it as a poor, guilty, lost, helpless, undone sinner, who casts himself into the arms of sovereign grace, knowing that God must give all, and Christ must be all, and the Spirit must work all, and man must be as clay in the potter's hands, that the Lord may do with him as seemeth him good. Rejoice, dear brother, how ever low you are brought, for if the Spirit humbles you he means no evil, but he intends infinite good to your soul."
Spurgeon did not consider conviction of sin as a "first stage" of regeneration, but rather as a preparation for regeneration, and this was the view of the primitive and first promoters of Reformed theology.
Spurgeon said:
"And what is the result of it? Why, then there comes, according to the text, a new life into us, as the result of the indwelling of the living word, and our being born again by it. A new life it is; it is not the old nature putting out its better parts; not the old Adam refining and purifying itself, and rising to something better. No; have we not said aforetime that the flesh withers and the flower thereof fades? It is an entirely new life. Ye are as much new creatures at your regeneration, as if you had never existed, and had been for the first time created." See here.
This is very clear. Spurgeon taught that the withering work of the Spirit, his humbling and convicting work, is not an evidence of "new life," but a preparation to it. When the convicted souls possess "the living word" of the gospel, then they are "born again," receive "new life," and are made "new creatures at your regeneration."
Spurgeon also wrote:
"If thou believest in Jesus Christ and him crucified, in the moment that thou believest, this great change of nature is effected in thee; for faith has in itself a singularly transforming power. . .So, faith towards God in itself produces a total change of mind in the man who has it. But, beside that, there goes with faith a divine energy which changes the heart of man." (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 41, page 235, Despised Light Withdrawn).
Clearly Spurgeon believed that regeneration was both mediate and immediate, just like the primitive Calvinists. He did not believe in the "word alone" view, nor did he believe in the "Spirit alone" view of regeneration.
Berkhof cites further these words of Shedd:
"The Bible distinguishes the influence of the Holy Spirit from that of the Word of God, and declares that such an influence is necessary for the proper reception of the truth, John 6: 64, 65; Acts 16: 14; I Cor. 2: 12-15; Eph. 1: 17-20."
That the"Bible distinguishes the influence of the Holy Spirit from that of the Word of God," There is no doubt that this is so, but how this prove that regeneration is strictly immediate and different from conversion? Such a truth proposition uproots the "word alone" view, but it certainly does not prove the truth of the "Spirit alone" view.
Still citing Shedd:
"In James 1: 18 we read: 'Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.' This passages does not prove that the new generation is mediated by the Word of God, for the term here used is apokuesen, which does not refer to begetting, but to giving birth. They who believe in immediate regeneration do not deny that the new birth, in which the new life first becomes manifest, is secured by the Word."
Here Shedd affirms the views of Hopkins, Kuyper, and the old Hardshell and Regular Baptists, as well as later Baptists such as A. W. Pink, who made the divine "birth" and "begetting" to be a completely different experience to that which Paul called "regeneration" in Titus 3: 5. But, there is absolutely no warrant for this separation and distinction. Is it a paradigm imposed upon scripture. On this point I shall enlarge upon later in this series.
Can one go to heaven who was "regenerated" but not "born again"? Does that person who is supposedly "regenerated," but not "born again," have an "evil heart of unbelief" and penitent heart? When does one become a believer? When he is "regenerated" or when he is "born again"? Does the Bible teach that there are characters who are "regenerated unbelievers"? Since the "wrath of God abides on" the unbeliever in Jesus (John 3: 36), and one does not believe in Jesus in that period of time between "regeneration" and "birth," does that not affirm the absurd idea that one can be "regenerated" but who is yet under God's wrath? Regenerated but not justified and forgiven?
Berkhof further cites Shedd:
"Peter exhorts believers to love one another fervently in view of the fact that they have been 'begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the Word of God, which liveth and abideth.' I Peter 1: 23. It is not correct to say, as some have done, that 'the Word' in this verse is the creative word, or the second person in the Trinity, for Peter himself informs us that he has in mind the word that was preached unto the readers, vs. 25. But it is perfectly in order to point out that gennao (the word here used) does not always refer to the masculine begetting, but may also denote the feminine giving birth to children." (pg. 475)
Once again Shedd attempts to make the experience of being "begotten again" as something that occurs later, logically and chronologically, than "regeneration." But, the distinction that Shedd argues for is read into the language of Peter, as it was with that of James. But, upon this point there will be enlargement in upcoming chapters in this series.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Observations on "Time Salvation Defended"
Jason Brown, our apologist for the Primitive Baptists, has written an article entitled "Time Salvation Defended" which serves both as a response to my own article, "Time Salvation: Its Modest Defense" and his own presentation of time salvation.
Jason writes:
"It is quite evident that Fralick believes that Conditional, Time Salvation (CTS henceforth), taken to it's logical conclusion, leads to universalism, as he accuses the doctrine of compromising the ordo salutis."
It is not a foregone conclusion that CTS will lead one to universalism, and I never stated otherwise. If so, then we would expect all of its proponents to be guilty of it, which is not the case. I specifically stated that it has led some into it. Jason correctly notes that it was not within my present scope to give an answer as to why this is so, but since he mentions it I will oblige, even though this is actually deserving of its own separate posting.
CTS blurs the distinction between the lost and the saved. It broadens the scope of the regenerate family of God to include the very ones which scripture forbids. The Bible excludes non-believers, the impenitent, and the heathen from being part of the regenerate, but CTS welcomes many of them with open arms. CTS so narrows what constitutes as regeneration, that it can say along with E.D. McCutcheon that many idol-worshippers are “working righteousness”. When this is done, it becomes difficult to find someone who is not saved, seeing that the recognition of a deity and religious profession is attainable to natural men. At this point the mind can become very susceptible to the idea that all are saved, and none are lost. One thus finds himself on the doorsteps of universalism with only a decision as to whether to walk through.
Let Jason know that universalism being one of the potential traps into which CTS may lead is the exact same observation made by Elder Thomas Mann in his 2002 sermon “Re-thinking Conditional Time Salvation”. Elder Sonny Pyles mentioned as well in a sermon that such charges were being circulated in emails by those who he claimed were in-the-closet gospel regenerationists. So I am not by myself in this charge. It is something commonly recognized by those who have come to see the error of time salvation.
It might be good for Jason to deeply consider this. He has correctly admitted from time to time that there are some Primitives who err. But Mann and these other brethren that Pyles mentions are the very ones ostracized by those who are in error! Perhaps, then, Mann and those of like mind are correct.
Now universalism is not the central heresy of CTS, but is one of the potential central consequences. The central heresy is that it is an error compromising every single one of the doctrines I listed at the outset of my article. For an example of what it does to justification, see my article A Novel Twist on Justification . Nor did I say, as Jason insinuates, that universalism compromises these doctrines. It is CTS itself which compromises them by its own faulty view of the order of salvation. He makes mention of my ordo salutis, when in actual fact I did not proclaim a particular stand on the issue. It can be gathered from what I wrote, however, that I believe that conversion, justification, and sanctification are inseparable elements from eternal salvation because that's what I believe the Bible to teach. In order to destroy CTS it does not really matter which particular version of the ordo salutis one advocates, whether it be logical or chronological, as both are destructive of its teaching. The problem with CTS is that it says there is not necessarily any order at all, seeing that parts of it are rendered optional. The "steps" of gospel conversion and sanctification do not have to be met, seeing that many may go to heaven without them.
In the discussion surrounding universalism, Jason is also guilty of claiming that I contradicted myself. In stating that practically all of Christendom understands the basic idea of receiving "blessings in this life" yet are not guilty of being universalists he deduces that my charge therefore does not hold water. He writes:
“More than this, he even admits in contradiction to this presumption that no one denies that gospel obedience leads to temporal blessings, and all of Christendom is not guilty of a quasi-universalism. So it plainly follows from this that an understanding of temporal deliverances does not lead to the error he perceives in modern PB's. He effectively proves that CTS is not responsible for the errors of modern PB's that he perceives.”
This is a false charge as it presumes that I claim that the MODEST presentation of CTS leads to universalism when what I had in mind is its teaching in its extreme form. It is not teaching that God grants temporal blessings in this life which may potentially lead to universalism, but claiming that one may continue in a state of unconversion for the whole of his life, and yet be regenerated, which may lead to it. That is what I meant. The conception formed of temporal deliverances by the average Christian is not the same as that what is formulated by the Primitives, who use the doctrine to dismiss things peculiar to Calvinism.
Jason himself admitted during his debate with Brother Stephen that some among the Primitives have come close to universalism, stating something which would land him in hot water amongst them today:
“Particularly with reference to the view that many Primitive Baptists hold today that most of the world is in fact comprised of regenerate children of God, which they erroneously affirm from texts of Scripture that state that the family of God is a numerous seed.”
We would remind him of the very question which Brother Stephen posted to him in response:
“What Hardshell teachings helped to create this error?”
Jason on Garrett's Work
It certainly is not the modest teaching that one is "saved from doubt" upon being baptized. It must be something else then. What is that certain something?
Even in his current posting he writes:
“…some arbitrarily make the category of sons most of the people of the world.”
But Jason, these are the very ones of whom I am myself speaking. You see the error as well, for which I'm thankful. You do mention that some have abused CTS to justify their universalism. This is the very thing I'm saying!
I also find it extremely interesting in a posting entitled “Time Salvation Defended” Jason resorts to the very thing which prompted me to write my article, for he himself ascribes very modest explanations to the doctrine. His definitions towards the end of his article do not even begin to address the issue of what CTS really is. The extreme version of this heresy is not that there is a salvation from doubt in baptism, but things surrounding the purpose of the preached gospel. The Means and Anti-Means Baptists did not meet at Mt. Carmel a century ago to discuss whether we receive “blessings in this life”, but issues surrounding the gospel means pattern of salvation. Nor did the Fulton brethren supply footnotes to the London Confession to clarify that God can deliver his people from fear, anxiety, depression, etc. And Elder John Watson did not describe as ultraists those who were teaching that the Egyptian exodus was an example of time salvation, but those who had departed on crucial doctrines of the scriptures.
It is not these modest explanations of CTS which arose from the upheavals of the day, and it is most certainly not the cause of the current controversy among the Primitives.
Does the application of biblical truth effect an eternal salvation, or only a temporal one? Are gospel conversion, faith, repentance, sanctification, and perseverance definite or optional parts of the salvation package? That is what the whole controversy is about, and where any "defenses" should focus their thoughts.
I have one other thing which I would like to point out in Jason’s response; that is, the question as to whether I am preaching to the choir of fellow contributor Stephen and Bob Ross, whom I do not even know, apart from ordering from his bookstore. If this was in fact my objective then I should have remained in my former position. It was there that I could get away with preaching the reprobate into heaven to the hearty Amen of many. It was actually my refusal to preach to the choir but chose rather to condone real OLD Baptist doctrine which was landed me where I am today.
Jason writes:
"It is quite evident that Fralick believes that Conditional, Time Salvation (CTS henceforth), taken to it's logical conclusion, leads to universalism, as he accuses the doctrine of compromising the ordo salutis."
It is not a foregone conclusion that CTS will lead one to universalism, and I never stated otherwise. If so, then we would expect all of its proponents to be guilty of it, which is not the case. I specifically stated that it has led some into it. Jason correctly notes that it was not within my present scope to give an answer as to why this is so, but since he mentions it I will oblige, even though this is actually deserving of its own separate posting.
CTS blurs the distinction between the lost and the saved. It broadens the scope of the regenerate family of God to include the very ones which scripture forbids. The Bible excludes non-believers, the impenitent, and the heathen from being part of the regenerate, but CTS welcomes many of them with open arms. CTS so narrows what constitutes as regeneration, that it can say along with E.D. McCutcheon that many idol-worshippers are “working righteousness”. When this is done, it becomes difficult to find someone who is not saved, seeing that the recognition of a deity and religious profession is attainable to natural men. At this point the mind can become very susceptible to the idea that all are saved, and none are lost. One thus finds himself on the doorsteps of universalism with only a decision as to whether to walk through.
Let Jason know that universalism being one of the potential traps into which CTS may lead is the exact same observation made by Elder Thomas Mann in his 2002 sermon “Re-thinking Conditional Time Salvation”. Elder Sonny Pyles mentioned as well in a sermon that such charges were being circulated in emails by those who he claimed were in-the-closet gospel regenerationists. So I am not by myself in this charge. It is something commonly recognized by those who have come to see the error of time salvation.
It might be good for Jason to deeply consider this. He has correctly admitted from time to time that there are some Primitives who err. But Mann and these other brethren that Pyles mentions are the very ones ostracized by those who are in error! Perhaps, then, Mann and those of like mind are correct.
Now universalism is not the central heresy of CTS, but is one of the potential central consequences. The central heresy is that it is an error compromising every single one of the doctrines I listed at the outset of my article. For an example of what it does to justification, see my article A Novel Twist on Justification . Nor did I say, as Jason insinuates, that universalism compromises these doctrines. It is CTS itself which compromises them by its own faulty view of the order of salvation. He makes mention of my ordo salutis, when in actual fact I did not proclaim a particular stand on the issue. It can be gathered from what I wrote, however, that I believe that conversion, justification, and sanctification are inseparable elements from eternal salvation because that's what I believe the Bible to teach. In order to destroy CTS it does not really matter which particular version of the ordo salutis one advocates, whether it be logical or chronological, as both are destructive of its teaching. The problem with CTS is that it says there is not necessarily any order at all, seeing that parts of it are rendered optional. The "steps" of gospel conversion and sanctification do not have to be met, seeing that many may go to heaven without them.
In the discussion surrounding universalism, Jason is also guilty of claiming that I contradicted myself. In stating that practically all of Christendom understands the basic idea of receiving "blessings in this life" yet are not guilty of being universalists he deduces that my charge therefore does not hold water. He writes:
“More than this, he even admits in contradiction to this presumption that no one denies that gospel obedience leads to temporal blessings, and all of Christendom is not guilty of a quasi-universalism. So it plainly follows from this that an understanding of temporal deliverances does not lead to the error he perceives in modern PB's. He effectively proves that CTS is not responsible for the errors of modern PB's that he perceives.”
This is a false charge as it presumes that I claim that the MODEST presentation of CTS leads to universalism when what I had in mind is its teaching in its extreme form. It is not teaching that God grants temporal blessings in this life which may potentially lead to universalism, but claiming that one may continue in a state of unconversion for the whole of his life, and yet be regenerated, which may lead to it. That is what I meant. The conception formed of temporal deliverances by the average Christian is not the same as that what is formulated by the Primitives, who use the doctrine to dismiss things peculiar to Calvinism.
Jason himself admitted during his debate with Brother Stephen that some among the Primitives have come close to universalism, stating something which would land him in hot water amongst them today:
“Particularly with reference to the view that many Primitive Baptists hold today that most of the world is in fact comprised of regenerate children of God, which they erroneously affirm from texts of Scripture that state that the family of God is a numerous seed.”
We would remind him of the very question which Brother Stephen posted to him in response:
“What Hardshell teachings helped to create this error?”
Jason on Garrett's Work
It certainly is not the modest teaching that one is "saved from doubt" upon being baptized. It must be something else then. What is that certain something?
Even in his current posting he writes:
“…some arbitrarily make the category of sons most of the people of the world.”
But Jason, these are the very ones of whom I am myself speaking. You see the error as well, for which I'm thankful. You do mention that some have abused CTS to justify their universalism. This is the very thing I'm saying!
I also find it extremely interesting in a posting entitled “Time Salvation Defended” Jason resorts to the very thing which prompted me to write my article, for he himself ascribes very modest explanations to the doctrine. His definitions towards the end of his article do not even begin to address the issue of what CTS really is. The extreme version of this heresy is not that there is a salvation from doubt in baptism, but things surrounding the purpose of the preached gospel. The Means and Anti-Means Baptists did not meet at Mt. Carmel a century ago to discuss whether we receive “blessings in this life”, but issues surrounding the gospel means pattern of salvation. Nor did the Fulton brethren supply footnotes to the London Confession to clarify that God can deliver his people from fear, anxiety, depression, etc. And Elder John Watson did not describe as ultraists those who were teaching that the Egyptian exodus was an example of time salvation, but those who had departed on crucial doctrines of the scriptures.
It is not these modest explanations of CTS which arose from the upheavals of the day, and it is most certainly not the cause of the current controversy among the Primitives.
Does the application of biblical truth effect an eternal salvation, or only a temporal one? Are gospel conversion, faith, repentance, sanctification, and perseverance definite or optional parts of the salvation package? That is what the whole controversy is about, and where any "defenses" should focus their thoughts.
I have one other thing which I would like to point out in Jason’s response; that is, the question as to whether I am preaching to the choir of fellow contributor Stephen and Bob Ross, whom I do not even know, apart from ordering from his bookstore. If this was in fact my objective then I should have remained in my former position. It was there that I could get away with preaching the reprobate into heaven to the hearty Amen of many. It was actually my refusal to preach to the choir but chose rather to condone real OLD Baptist doctrine which was landed me where I am today.
Chpt. 111 - Mediate or Immediate?
The path of truth has a ditch on either side of it. The truth is in the middle of extremes. One extreme "adds to" the words and thoughts of scripture, and another extreme "takes away from" those words and thoughts. Some see too much in texts of scripture and some do not see enough. This phenomenon is evident in the texts that deal with regeneration and with being born again. Those who teach a "word alone" view of regeneration represent one extreme and those who teach a "Spirit alone" view represent another extreme.
Groups such as those who call themselves "Churches of Christ," also known as "Campbellites," are examples of those who hold to the "word alone" view, while groups such as the Hardshells and the Hopkinsian Presbyterian Calvinists, and many of those who call themselves "Reformed," represent the "Spirit alone" view. The Lord instructs us not to "turn to the left" in our interpretation of his word, and also not to "turn to the right." Regarding the nature and causes of regeneration we may say that the "word alone" interpreters have gone to the left and the "Spirit alone" interpreters have gone to the right.
But the scriptures and the oldest confessions of Calvinistic Baptists teach neither of these extremes, but teach that regeneration/rebirth is by both God's word and Spirit. The "word alone" view teaches strictly a mediate regeneration while the "Spirit alone" view teaches strictly an immediate regeneration. But the scriptures and the oldest confessions teach that regeneration is both mediate and immediate.
Identifying the nature of the "initiatiatory" act or power that begins the process of regeneration and the Christian life is the quest of theologians on the topic of the "ordo salutis." Whatever the Hyper Calvinist identifies as the primordial act in regeneration is then strictly styled "regeneration." Since this primordial act is thus defined as "regeneration" by the Hardshells, then there can be no act prior to regeneration, that is, there can be no divine preparatory work prior to regeneration.
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 includes 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.
Since regeneration is, by all accounts, a process (as we have discussed in previous chapters), though instantaneous, should this process be minutely analyzed so as to divide up the experience into distinct and separate events? Is there any benefit in making such divisions? of dividing up regeneration into precise parts, steps, and stages? of going further in such distinctions than did the new testament writers?
Should we act as Gentiles and modern "scientists" by such minute analysis? Should we view regeneration as if it were a material substance, or an atom? Will we dissect the atom of regeneration into its parts and then draw conclusions about the relationships of the parts to each other and to the whole? When will such theological "hair-splitting" end?
No one denies that the regeneration/new birth experience is a multi-faceted experience. Paul appropriately speaks of those "things that accompany salvation." (Heb. 6: 9) Not only are there things that "accompany" salvation, but there are things that precede and follow it. The disagreement among theologians concerns deciding the right category in which to put the various gifts, graces, and experiences of salvation. Does such and such a thing precede, follow, or occur simultaneously with regeneration? What is the cause and effect of regeneration? In which of the three categories do we put faith and repentance? In which category do we put conviction of sin? Into which category do we put water baptism? Etc.
All generally agree that the experience of being "regenerated" is the same experience as being "born again," at least as respects how these actual terms are used in the bible. All agree that being "created in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2: 10; II Cor. 5: 17) is the same thing as being regenerated or born again. All agree that being created and born anew are the same thing as being "quickened" or "resurrected" from spiritual death. Thus, it must be agreed that it would be a "foolish and unlearned question," and a debate which would "gender strife," to discuss and debate whether one is regenerated before he is born, or whether he is born again before he is quickened, etc. It would be foolish to enquire as to "which comes first" as regarding all these various terms (regenerated, born, created, quickened, etc.) because they are words that describe the same multi-faceted experience. Each of these words and concepts simply give a greater detailed picture of the singular simple experience.
In the previous chapter it was shown how Samuel Hopkins, Presbyterian Hyper Calvinist, in the 18th century, was a founder and propagator of the "New Divinity," which system promoted the "regenerated before faith" error, and that this novel paradigm on regeneration was adopted by many in the Baptist denomination, including Andrew Fuller. Nearly all of these men, however, rejected the extreme of Hardshellism, that taught that unconverted men could ever be called regenerated. They may have taught that "regeneration," as defined by theologians, logically preceded conversion, but they did not believe that it chronologically preceded it. They all taught that conversion was the completing act in regeneration, per scripture. They all taught that scripture did not distinguish between regeneration and conversion.
In the 19th century a Dutch Reformed theologian carried the newly created banner of the "New Divinity." Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), in his work "The Work of the Holy Spirit," promoted the "regenerated before faith" error. In section XXIII. of chapter four, on "Regeneration and Faith," Kuyper's views are stated.
Kuyper cites I Peter 1: 23, one of the verses that were often cited in opposition to the views of Hopkins and Kuyper.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever."—1 Peter 1:23.
Kuyper says in reply:
"There is a possible objection to what has been said above concerning regeneration. It is evident that God's Word, and therefore our symbols of faith, offers a modified representation of these things which, superficially considered, seems to condemn our representation. This representation, which does not consider children, but adults, may thus be stated: Among a circle of unconverted persons God causes the Word to be preached by His ambassadors of the cross. By this preaching the call reaches them. If there are elect persons among them, for whom it is now the time of love, God accompanies the outward call with the inward. Consequently they turn from their ways of sin to the way of life. And so they are begotten of God."
The old confessions that Kuyper referred to not only "seemed" to "condemn" the "New Divinity" views of Kuyper, but they actually did condemn them. He admits that the older Calvinist confessions and writers taught that men were "begotten of God" when they responded to both the "outward call" of the gospel and the "inward" call of the Spirit.
Kuyper continues:
"For this reason our fathers confessed in their Confession (article 24): "We believe that this true faith, being wrought in man by the hearing of the word of God, and the operation of the Holy Ghost, doth regenerate and make him a new man." And likewise teaches the Heidelberg Catechism (see question 65): "Such faith proceedeth from the Holy Ghost, who works faith in our hearts by the preaching of the Gospel, and confirms it by the use of the sacraments." And also the canons of Dort, Third and Fourth Heads of doctrine, section 17: "As the almighty operation of God, whereby He prolongs and supports this our natural life, does not exclude, but requires the use of means by which God of His infinite mercy and goodness hath chosen to exert His influence; so also the before-mentioned supernatural operation of God, by which we are regenerated, in no wise excludes or subverts the use of the Gospel; which the most wise God hath ordained to be the seed of regeneration and food of the soul. Wherefore, as the apostles and the teachers who succeeded them piously instructed the people concerning this grace of God, to His glory and the abasement of all pride, and in the mean time, however, neglected not to keep them by the sacred precepts of the Gospel in the exercise of the Word, the sacraments, and discipline; so even to this day, be it far from either instructors or instructed to presume to tempt God in the Church, by separating what He of His good pleasure hath most intimately joined together. For grace is conferred by means of admonitions; and the more readily we perform our duty, the more eminent usually is this blessing of God working in us, and the more directly is His work advanced."
Kuyper was in a tight spot on his "immediate regeneration" apart from the word for it was against the faith of his forefathers as stated in the primitive confessions. He was in the same spot regarding the Reformed Confession as were the Hardshells in regard to the 1689 London Confession. What will Kuyper do? Will he deny the confession's teaching about mediate regeneration? Or, will he subvert its teachings on the sly? Will he do as the Hardshells did in 1900 at the "Fulton Convention"? Will he subvert the confession and try to make it say what he wants it to say as did the Hardshells?
Kuyper wrote:
"And now, in order to eradicate every suspicion that we contend against this representation, we declare openly and definitely that we give it our most hearty assent.
We only beg it be considered that in this presentation both Scripture and the symbols of faith always point to the mysterious background, to a wonderful work of God hiding back of it, to an inscrutable mystery without which all this comes to naught."
This is what the Hardshells said about the London Confession at the Fulton Convention. They professed, on one hand, to give their "hearty assent" to the confession but then gave their interpretation of it in their infamous "footnotes" whereby they completely distorted its teachings on predestination and the divine decrees and effectual calling being by God's word and Spirit. They gave their "hearty assent" to their own perversion of the confession and Kuyper will do the same with the old Reformed confession.
Kuyper continues:
"The canons of Dort describe this mysterious, inscrutable, and wonderful background most elaborately and most beautifully in article 12, Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine: "And this is the regeneration so highly celebrated in Scripture and denominated a new creation; a resurrection from the dead, a making alive, which God works in us without our aid. But this is in no wise effected merely by the external preaching of the Gospel, by moral suasion, or such a mode of operation that, after God has performed His part, it still remains in the power of man to be regenerated or not; to be converted or to continue unconverted; but it is evidently a supernatural work, most powerful and at the same time most delightful, astonishing, mysterious, and ineffable; not inferior in efficacy to creation or the resurrection from the dead, as the Scripture inspired by the Author of this work declares; so that all in whose hearts God works in this marvelous manner are certainly, infallibly, and effectually regenerated, and do actually believe. Whereupon the will thus renewed is not only actuated and influenced by God, but in consequence of this influence becomes itself active."
Notice how the old Calvinists equated "regeneration" with "conversion" and how they believed that such was accomplished by the Spirit's use of the word. Notice also that the primitive or original Reformed Calvinists (like the original Baptist Calvinists), according to Kuyper, affirmed that "IN this" work of being "effectually regenerated," sinners "do actually believe." They did not affirm that sinners were first regeneration and then later believed, but that they believed "in" regeneration, thus affirming the ancient Calvinist position that conversion and regeneration occurred simultaneously. They did not believe in the "word alone" view, the view that Alexander Campbell would promote, for they say that it is not "merely" the preaching of the gospel that regenerates. They taught that the Spirit of God must apply power to the heart and soul in addition to the word. They believed that regeneration was in some respects immediate and in some respects was mediate.
Kuyper, still citing the Confession and the forefathers, wrote:
"Wherefore, also, man is himself rightly said to believe and repent, by virtue of that grace received." And also in article 11: "But when God accomplishes His good pleasure in the elect, or works in them true conversion, He not only causes the Gospel to be externally preached to them, and powerfully illuminates their minds by His Holy Spirit, that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God; but by the efficacy of the same regenerating Spirit, He pervades the inmost recesses of the man; He opens the closed and softens the hardened heart, and circumcises that which was uncircumcised; infuses new qualities into the will, which, tho heretofore dead, He quickens; from being evil, disobedient, and refractory, He renders it good, obedient, and pliable; actuates and strengthens it, that like a good tree it may bring forth the fruits of good actions." The Heidelberg Catechism points to this, in question 8: "Except we are regenerated by the Spirit of God." And also the Confession, article 22: "We believe that to attain the true knowledge of this great mystery, the Holy Spirit kindleth in our hearts an upright faith, which embraces Jesus Christ with all His merits.""
Again, such citations not only "seem" to teach against the view of Kuyper, but actually do so. How does Kuyper deal with this? He says that he gives his "hearty assent" to what they say, but let us watch how he subverts the teaching of the old Calvinists.
Notice the use of the adverb "when" in this confession's statement - "when God accomplishes His good pleasure in the elect, or works in them true conversion," and "when" he "causes the Gospel to be externally preached to them, and powerfully illumines their minds by His Holy Spirit." The old confessions did not say "after" but "when." They did not believe that conversion occurred "after" regeneration, but "when" regenerated. "When" a man is regenerated, he actually does believe. Or, it could be justly reversed - when a man believes, he is regenerated. Faith and repentance are elements that describe the change or transformation of regeneration. The change makes a dead man into a living man, and makes an impenitent into a penitent, and makes an unbeliever into a believer.
Kuyper wrote:
"This mysterious background, which our fathers at Dort called "His pervading the inmost recesses of man by the efficacy of the, regenerating Spirit," is evidently the same as what we call "the divine operation which penetrates the center of our being to implant the germ of the new life."
And what is this mysterious working? According to the universal testimony based upon Scripture, it is an operation of the Holy Spirit in man's innermost being.
Hence the question, whether this regenerating act precedes, accompanies, or follows the hearing of the Word. And this question should be well understood, for it involves the solution of this seeming disagreement."
It is at this point that Kuyper begins his subversion of the old writings and confessions. He will not deny that the confession taught mediate regeneration and that it did not avow a regeneration apart from means. So, Kuyper has to "read into" the document his "New Divinity" and Hopkinsian views. The old documents do not explicitly deny means in regeneration, but Kuyper will try to show that there is nevertheless an implicit denial of means, and an implicit affirmation of the ordo salutis that puts regeneration before faith and conversion. He attempts to do this even though he has already acknowledged that the old records did not separate regeneration and conversion.
What Kuyper calls the "mysterious background" behind the actual words of the confession (about God regenerating through the gospel), would be the the doctrine of immediate regeneration. Immediate regeneration, to the exclusion of mediate regeneration, is not taught in the foreground, so Kuyper will try to find it taught in the "background." He will read immediate regeneration into the confession by his deductions from the confession.
Kuyper thinks that the old confession contained contradictions on the subject of regeneration, or what he called "seeming disagreement." This is also what the Hardshells thought about the same topic in the 1689 London Confession, and they too sought to "read into" the confession the "Spirit alone" or "no means" view of regeneration. The only difference is that Kuyper will argue that the confession taught that regeneration was both mediate and immediate, that the first stage of regeneration was immediate, but the last stage was mediate, while the Hardshells would not allow that the London confession taught "mediate regeneration" in any stage.
Of course, Kuyper was in error to confine "regeneration" to the first stage. Kuyper argues that the term "regeneration," when used in its narrow sense, excluded means, was immediate only, but that the term, when used in its broad sense, included means (was mediate) and conversion. Further, Kuyper will acknowledge that the broad definition is what is generally recognized by the scriptural writers.
Kuyper wrote:
"We answer: The Holy Spirit may perform this work in the sinner's heart before, during, or after the preaching of the Word. The inward call may be associated with the outward call, or it may follow it. But that which precedes the inward call, viz., the opening of the deaf ear, so that it may be heard, is not dependent upon the preaching of the Word; and therefore may precede the preaching."
Notice how Kuyper is timid in his affirmation of the "New Divinity" teaching of "immediate regeneration." He uses the word "may" at least five times. Such a word is not a word denoting absoluteness and certainty. The Lord "may" regenerate" a man "before" he hear "the preaching of the Word." No doubt he seeks to promote his "New Divinity" view without antagonizing the orthodox in his denomination. Yes, God "may," if it pleases him, "of stones raise up children unto Abraham," but who would dare say that this is the way he has chosen? God "may" regenerate without human means, but is this the way that he has chosen to do it? For Kuyper to actually and explicitly assert that God not only "may," but actually does, regenerate sinners apart from the gospel and from faith, puts him squarely in rebellion to the teachings of his Calvinist forefathers.
Kuyper even goes so far astray, in his comments, that he affirms that regeneration "precedes the internal call." So, he not only has the experience of regeneration preceding the external call of the gospel, but also preceding the "internal call." A man "regenerated" who has not been internally or externally "called"! Kuyper has so narrowed his definition of "regeneration" to where it now excludes being internally called. All the old confessions and writings of primitive Calvinists, however, taught that regeneration and calling alluded to the same thing.
Kuyper wrote:
"Correct discrimination in this respect is of greatest importance."
This reminds us of the words of Hyper Calvinist John Gerstner who attempted to prove that Jonathan Edwards strictly defined "regeneration" so as to exclude conversion, even though Edwards affirmed that the scriptures made no distinction in the words and used them to refer to the same experience.
Gerstner wrote:
"This is a rather unfortunate and unscientific way of proceeding. While it is true that Scripture tends to use these different terms synonymously, there are significant differences. Edwards himself notes that the mind, active in repentance, is passive in regeneration. Edwards often notes that conversion too has reference to the passivity of the mind as well as its reflex activity. He especially observes that repentance is a change of the mind, which we shall soon see he constantly attributes exclusively to God, the mind of man being passive (if not hostile) at the time of the change."
Why does Gerstner say that the words of Edwards are "unfortunate and unscientific way of proceeding"? Is it not because Edward's view is agaiinst the Hyperist views of Gerstner? Edwards is "unscientific" in his teaching on regeneration and conversion? Who can believe that? Gerstner says - "it is true that Scripture tends to use these different terms synonymously." From these statements it is obvious that Gerstner rejects the teaching of Edwards which he recognizes as being "unfortunate and unscientific," but yet are in line with scripture which "tends to use these different terms synonymously" as did Edwards. The words of Edwards that Gerstner rejects are these:
"...repentance signifies a change of the mind; as the word conversion means a change or turning from sin to God. And that this is the same change with that which is called regeneration..." See Here
Conversion, according to Edwards, "is the same change with that which is called regeneration" in scripture. Gerstner even admits that this is true, saying that the scriptures "use these different terms synonymously." Yet, he rejects the teaching of scripture! He believes what the biblical writers did in using them synonymously was "unfortunate" and "unscientific"!
Kuyper, even though he affirms that Edwards identifies conversion with regeneration, as do the scriptures, yet he will then affirm that Edwards actually believed that they were not the same! He will make Edwards to contradict himself! He does this from misinterpreting these parenthetical words of Edwards: "excepting that this latter term (regeneration) especially signifies the change, as the mind is passive in it." Edwards, however, did not affirm that the word "regeneration" signified no other change, other than the passive change of the mind, in scripture. Had this been his intent then he would not have put the word "especially" in front of "signifies."
Kuyper wrote:
"If I designate the whole conscious work of grace from conversion until death, "regeneration," without any regard to its mysterious background, then I may and must say with the Confession (article 24): "That this faith, being wrought in man by the hearing of the Word, and the operation of the Holy Spirit, doth regenerate him and make him a new man."
But, the confession and old Calvinist writings did not generally define "regeneration" as including the whole Christian life. It is true that John Calvin sometimes did. The primitive Calvinistic documents taught what Edwards taught, and believed that regeneration and conversion were alluding to the same experience.
Kuyper wrote:
"Hence God's work of grace runs through these three successive stages:
1st. Regeneration in its first stage, when the Lord plants the new life in the dead heart.
2d. Regeneration in its second stage, when the new-born man comes to conversion.
3d. Regeneration in its third stage, when conversion merges into sanctification.
In each of these three God performs a wonderful and mysterious work in man's inward being. From God proceed quickening, conversion, and sanctification, and in each God is the Worker: only with this difference, that in the quickening He works alone, finding and leaving man inactive; that in conversion He finds us inactive, but makes us active; that in sanctification He works in us in such a manner that we work ourselves through Him."
The first thing to notice from the views of Kuyper and the "New Divinity" school is how they confess that their views are not the views of scripture nor of their forefathers, for the scriptures and the primitive writings of Kuyper's forefathers were "unfortunate and unscientific." Second, Gerstner will give no scriptural authority for his arbitrarily creating stages to regeneration. This is just what we would expect men who use "scientific" and philosophical standards to judge holy things. But, it is what Paul called "false science." (I Tim. 6: 20) It is just what one would expect from Gentile theologians who have become "hair-splitters." They separate what God has not separated. What God has joined together they seek to separate.
According to the multi-stage regeneration view of Kuyper, there are gaps in time between these "stages," so that one man can be one-third regenerated, another man two-thirds regenerated, and another man fully regenerated! A man may be "quickened" (regenerated) who is neither converted nor sanctified! "Regenerated" unbelievers! "Regenerated" heathens!
Gerstner does not have any problem with the second and third "stages" of "regeneration" being mediate and with it involving activity from the recipient of regenerating grace and power, but he does have problems with the first "stage" being mediated, and so he redefines "regeneration." Though he acknowledges that the scriptures equate quickening and regeneration with conversion, yet he wants to impose upon the scriptures a more "scientific" paradigm, and not equate them. That is clearly a violation of sound hermeneutic principles and is not handling the word of God honestly and correctly.
Kuyper continues:
"Describing it still more closely, we say that in the first stage of regeneration, that of quickening, God works without means; in the second stage, that of conversion, He employs means, viz., the preaching of the Word; and in the third stage, that of sanctification, He uses means in addition to ourselves, whom He uses as means."
This may be "scientific" but it is not scriptural nor the primitive teaching of the Calvinists. Kuyper has no scriptural authority for making regeneration and conversion into two distinct stages of a broader regeneration. He in fact acknowledges that he is doing what the new testament writers do not do themselves.
Kuyper continues:
"Condensing the foregoing, there is one great act of God which re-creates the corrupt sinner into a new man, viz., the comprehensive act of regeneration, which contains three parts—quickening, conversion, and sanctification.
For the ministry of the Word it is preferable to consider only the last two, conversion and sanctification, since this is the appointed means to effect them. The first, regeneration, is preferably a subject of private meditation, since in it man is passive and God only active; and also because in it the majesty of the divine operation is most apparent."
Kuyper invents two kinds of "regeneration," one that is a novel strict definition, and which he connects with the first stage of "regeneration," scripturally and broadly defined. He acknowledges that the scriptures only promote the broad definition, for the scriptures speak of conversion as being all the same as regeneration. Thus, Kuyper is inventing a new definition for "regeneration" and imposing it on scripture. His paradigm of a three stage regeneration is arbitrarily created and them imposed upon scripture.
Kuyper will not allow that "quickening" can be the result of complete regeneration, but limits it strictly to the first stage of regeneration alone. But, by doing this, he goes against the scriptures and the primitive teachings of Calvinists. The older Calvinists did not believe that a man was spiritually alive until he had been converted, until he had believed and repented. The truth is, the Spirit works both mediately and immediately in the whole of the regeneration experience. And, there is no indication in scripture or in the Reformed and Calvinist confessions and authoritative writings that says that the immediate work of the Spirit must precede the mediate work. In fact, scripture and the confessions show that often the Spirit works mediately before he works immediately, so it is false to assert that the latter always precedes the former.
Kuyper continues:
"Hence there is no conflict or opposition. Referring, according to the Confession, article 17, only to conversion and sanctification, the unstopping of the deaf ear as preceding the hearing of the Word is not denied. And penetrating into the work which antedates conversion, "In which God works in us without our aid" (article 12 of the canons of Dort), it is not denied, but confessed, that conversion and sanctification follow the unstopping of the deaf ear, and that, in the proper sense, regeneration is completed only at the death of the sinner."
The error of Kuyper in his interpretation of the old Reformed confessions is seen in his equating "unstopping the deaf ear" with "regeneration," rather than seeing it as a preparatory work prior to biblical regeneration. Further, he errs in assuming that "the unstopping of the deaf ear" is accomplished apart from means. Kuyper affirms that the Reformed confessions do not deny that unstopping the deaf ears was immediate and preceded the hearing of the word of God. But, he does not prove what he asserts. The confessions and writings which he cites do not present his three stage paradigm.
The old Reformed and Calvinist writers affirmed that both the Spirit and the word were the causes of regeneration and the new birth. They did not deny that this work was in some respects immediate, that the Spirit of God in a mysterious way came into direct contact with the human spirit, but they also taught that the immediate work occurred simultaneously with the mediate work of the Spirit, within the same divine "operation."
Kuyper continues:
"Do not suppose that we make these two to conflict. In writing a biography of Napoleon it would be sufficient simply to mention his birth, but one might also mention, more in particular, the things that took place before his birth. Just so in this respect: I may refer either to the two parts of regeneration, conversion and sanctification, or I may include also that which precedes conversion, and speak also of the quickening. This implies no antagonism, but a mere difference of exactness. It is more exhaustive, with reference to regeneration, to speak of three stages—quickening, conversion, and sanctification; altho it is customary and more practical to speak only of the last two."
"Do not suppose that we make these two to conflict"? "No antagonism" between the two? Is that not exactly what Kuyper's new paradigm, his "New Divinity," does? Does his view not put strict regeneration into conflict with broad regeneration? Does he not take his paradigm to scripture and impose it on scripture? When he reads a verse that shows means are used in the "change of mind" involved in regeneration, he will make this only applicable to the second and third stage of regeneration, but when he reads a verse where he assumes that no means are (or could be) involved, he then arbitrarily applies this to his strict definition of "regeneration," to the "first stage" alone. He did not find this paradigm and hermeneutic rule in scriptures, but invented it himself and then applies it to scripture.
Notice also how Kuyper makes "birth" to be distinct from "regeneration," a view of the first founding fathers of Hardshellism. They too saw three "stages," and saw spiritual birth as exactly the same as physical birth. In physical birth there is first the implanting of the "seed" by the act of the Father (first stage), and then there is the growth time spent in the womb of the mother (second stage), and then there is "birth," or "deliverance" from the womb of the mother (third stage). The difficulties with this paradigm are great and will be enlarged upon later in this series.
Kuyper tries to say, like Gerstner, that such a paradigm of biblical regeneration, with three stages similar to physical birth, is simply more "exact" and "exhaustive," more "scientific." More exact than the apostles!
Kuyper continues:
"And herein lies a real danger. For to speak of the little ones without considering the first stage of regeneration—i.e., the quickening—causes confusion and perplexity from which there is no escape.
Salvation depends upon faith, and faith upon the hearing of the Word; hence our deceased infants must be lost, for they can not hear the Word. To escape this fearful thought it is often said that the children are saved by virtue of the parents' faith—a misunderstanding which greatly confused our entire conception of Baptism, and made our baptismal form very perplexing. But as soon as we distinguish quickening, as a stage of regeneration, from conversion and sanctification, the light enters."
Kuyper, rather than going to scripture to prove his unscriptural and non-traditional paradigm on regeneration, goes to science, philosophy, and human logic instead. He argues just as do the Hardshells, affirming that mediate regeneration by the word of God condemns all those who have died in infancy, saying that this must be so because "they can not hear the Word." But, he did not prove the proposition that says that "they cannot hear the Word." He assumes it as true. If dry dead bones can hear the word of God as announced by the prophet, then surely infants can be made to hear it. If John the Baptist can hear it in his mother's womb and rejoice, then surely the assumed proposition of Kuyper and the Hardshells is to be rejected. And, if his proposition about infants being unable to hear is false, then so is his conclusion that regeneration by means damns infants.
Kuyper thinks that he has solved a great riddle, has harmonized what seemed to him to be conflicting propositions. He has illumined what was previously dark to the Reformers and Calvinists, saying that once one accepts his definitions of things, and his new paradigm, "the light enters"! He confesses that the first Reformers and Calvinists were all in the dark on the subject of regeneration and conversion!
In the next chapter I will finish reviewing the views of Kuyper and discuss more the history of the "New Divinity" teaching on regeneration and show how regeneration is both mediate and immediate.
Groups such as those who call themselves "Churches of Christ," also known as "Campbellites," are examples of those who hold to the "word alone" view, while groups such as the Hardshells and the Hopkinsian Presbyterian Calvinists, and many of those who call themselves "Reformed," represent the "Spirit alone" view. The Lord instructs us not to "turn to the left" in our interpretation of his word, and also not to "turn to the right." Regarding the nature and causes of regeneration we may say that the "word alone" interpreters have gone to the left and the "Spirit alone" interpreters have gone to the right.
But the scriptures and the oldest confessions of Calvinistic Baptists teach neither of these extremes, but teach that regeneration/rebirth is by both God's word and Spirit. The "word alone" view teaches strictly a mediate regeneration while the "Spirit alone" view teaches strictly an immediate regeneration. But the scriptures and the oldest confessions teach that regeneration is both mediate and immediate.
Identifying the nature of the "initiatiatory" act or power that begins the process of regeneration and the Christian life is the quest of theologians on the topic of the "ordo salutis." Whatever the Hyper Calvinist identifies as the primordial act in regeneration is then strictly styled "regeneration." Since this primordial act is thus defined as "regeneration" by the Hardshells, then there can be no act prior to regeneration, that is, there can be no divine preparatory work prior to regeneration.
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 includes 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.
Since regeneration is, by all accounts, a process (as we have discussed in previous chapters), though instantaneous, should this process be minutely analyzed so as to divide up the experience into distinct and separate events? Is there any benefit in making such divisions? of dividing up regeneration into precise parts, steps, and stages? of going further in such distinctions than did the new testament writers?
Should we act as Gentiles and modern "scientists" by such minute analysis? Should we view regeneration as if it were a material substance, or an atom? Will we dissect the atom of regeneration into its parts and then draw conclusions about the relationships of the parts to each other and to the whole? When will such theological "hair-splitting" end?
No one denies that the regeneration/new birth experience is a multi-faceted experience. Paul appropriately speaks of those "things that accompany salvation." (Heb. 6: 9) Not only are there things that "accompany" salvation, but there are things that precede and follow it. The disagreement among theologians concerns deciding the right category in which to put the various gifts, graces, and experiences of salvation. Does such and such a thing precede, follow, or occur simultaneously with regeneration? What is the cause and effect of regeneration? In which of the three categories do we put faith and repentance? In which category do we put conviction of sin? Into which category do we put water baptism? Etc.
All generally agree that the experience of being "regenerated" is the same experience as being "born again," at least as respects how these actual terms are used in the bible. All agree that being "created in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2: 10; II Cor. 5: 17) is the same thing as being regenerated or born again. All agree that being created and born anew are the same thing as being "quickened" or "resurrected" from spiritual death. Thus, it must be agreed that it would be a "foolish and unlearned question," and a debate which would "gender strife," to discuss and debate whether one is regenerated before he is born, or whether he is born again before he is quickened, etc. It would be foolish to enquire as to "which comes first" as regarding all these various terms (regenerated, born, created, quickened, etc.) because they are words that describe the same multi-faceted experience. Each of these words and concepts simply give a greater detailed picture of the singular simple experience.
In the previous chapter it was shown how Samuel Hopkins, Presbyterian Hyper Calvinist, in the 18th century, was a founder and propagator of the "New Divinity," which system promoted the "regenerated before faith" error, and that this novel paradigm on regeneration was adopted by many in the Baptist denomination, including Andrew Fuller. Nearly all of these men, however, rejected the extreme of Hardshellism, that taught that unconverted men could ever be called regenerated. They may have taught that "regeneration," as defined by theologians, logically preceded conversion, but they did not believe that it chronologically preceded it. They all taught that conversion was the completing act in regeneration, per scripture. They all taught that scripture did not distinguish between regeneration and conversion.
In the 19th century a Dutch Reformed theologian carried the newly created banner of the "New Divinity." Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), in his work "The Work of the Holy Spirit," promoted the "regenerated before faith" error. In section XXIII. of chapter four, on "Regeneration and Faith," Kuyper's views are stated.
Kuyper cites I Peter 1: 23, one of the verses that were often cited in opposition to the views of Hopkins and Kuyper.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever."—1 Peter 1:23.
Kuyper says in reply:
"There is a possible objection to what has been said above concerning regeneration. It is evident that God's Word, and therefore our symbols of faith, offers a modified representation of these things which, superficially considered, seems to condemn our representation. This representation, which does not consider children, but adults, may thus be stated: Among a circle of unconverted persons God causes the Word to be preached by His ambassadors of the cross. By this preaching the call reaches them. If there are elect persons among them, for whom it is now the time of love, God accompanies the outward call with the inward. Consequently they turn from their ways of sin to the way of life. And so they are begotten of God."
The old confessions that Kuyper referred to not only "seemed" to "condemn" the "New Divinity" views of Kuyper, but they actually did condemn them. He admits that the older Calvinist confessions and writers taught that men were "begotten of God" when they responded to both the "outward call" of the gospel and the "inward" call of the Spirit.
Kuyper continues:
"For this reason our fathers confessed in their Confession (article 24): "We believe that this true faith, being wrought in man by the hearing of the word of God, and the operation of the Holy Ghost, doth regenerate and make him a new man." And likewise teaches the Heidelberg Catechism (see question 65): "Such faith proceedeth from the Holy Ghost, who works faith in our hearts by the preaching of the Gospel, and confirms it by the use of the sacraments." And also the canons of Dort, Third and Fourth Heads of doctrine, section 17: "As the almighty operation of God, whereby He prolongs and supports this our natural life, does not exclude, but requires the use of means by which God of His infinite mercy and goodness hath chosen to exert His influence; so also the before-mentioned supernatural operation of God, by which we are regenerated, in no wise excludes or subverts the use of the Gospel; which the most wise God hath ordained to be the seed of regeneration and food of the soul. Wherefore, as the apostles and the teachers who succeeded them piously instructed the people concerning this grace of God, to His glory and the abasement of all pride, and in the mean time, however, neglected not to keep them by the sacred precepts of the Gospel in the exercise of the Word, the sacraments, and discipline; so even to this day, be it far from either instructors or instructed to presume to tempt God in the Church, by separating what He of His good pleasure hath most intimately joined together. For grace is conferred by means of admonitions; and the more readily we perform our duty, the more eminent usually is this blessing of God working in us, and the more directly is His work advanced."
Kuyper was in a tight spot on his "immediate regeneration" apart from the word for it was against the faith of his forefathers as stated in the primitive confessions. He was in the same spot regarding the Reformed Confession as were the Hardshells in regard to the 1689 London Confession. What will Kuyper do? Will he deny the confession's teaching about mediate regeneration? Or, will he subvert its teachings on the sly? Will he do as the Hardshells did in 1900 at the "Fulton Convention"? Will he subvert the confession and try to make it say what he wants it to say as did the Hardshells?
Kuyper wrote:
"And now, in order to eradicate every suspicion that we contend against this representation, we declare openly and definitely that we give it our most hearty assent.
We only beg it be considered that in this presentation both Scripture and the symbols of faith always point to the mysterious background, to a wonderful work of God hiding back of it, to an inscrutable mystery without which all this comes to naught."
This is what the Hardshells said about the London Confession at the Fulton Convention. They professed, on one hand, to give their "hearty assent" to the confession but then gave their interpretation of it in their infamous "footnotes" whereby they completely distorted its teachings on predestination and the divine decrees and effectual calling being by God's word and Spirit. They gave their "hearty assent" to their own perversion of the confession and Kuyper will do the same with the old Reformed confession.
Kuyper continues:
"The canons of Dort describe this mysterious, inscrutable, and wonderful background most elaborately and most beautifully in article 12, Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine: "And this is the regeneration so highly celebrated in Scripture and denominated a new creation; a resurrection from the dead, a making alive, which God works in us without our aid. But this is in no wise effected merely by the external preaching of the Gospel, by moral suasion, or such a mode of operation that, after God has performed His part, it still remains in the power of man to be regenerated or not; to be converted or to continue unconverted; but it is evidently a supernatural work, most powerful and at the same time most delightful, astonishing, mysterious, and ineffable; not inferior in efficacy to creation or the resurrection from the dead, as the Scripture inspired by the Author of this work declares; so that all in whose hearts God works in this marvelous manner are certainly, infallibly, and effectually regenerated, and do actually believe. Whereupon the will thus renewed is not only actuated and influenced by God, but in consequence of this influence becomes itself active."
Notice how the old Calvinists equated "regeneration" with "conversion" and how they believed that such was accomplished by the Spirit's use of the word. Notice also that the primitive or original Reformed Calvinists (like the original Baptist Calvinists), according to Kuyper, affirmed that "IN this" work of being "effectually regenerated," sinners "do actually believe." They did not affirm that sinners were first regeneration and then later believed, but that they believed "in" regeneration, thus affirming the ancient Calvinist position that conversion and regeneration occurred simultaneously. They did not believe in the "word alone" view, the view that Alexander Campbell would promote, for they say that it is not "merely" the preaching of the gospel that regenerates. They taught that the Spirit of God must apply power to the heart and soul in addition to the word. They believed that regeneration was in some respects immediate and in some respects was mediate.
Kuyper, still citing the Confession and the forefathers, wrote:
"Wherefore, also, man is himself rightly said to believe and repent, by virtue of that grace received." And also in article 11: "But when God accomplishes His good pleasure in the elect, or works in them true conversion, He not only causes the Gospel to be externally preached to them, and powerfully illuminates their minds by His Holy Spirit, that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God; but by the efficacy of the same regenerating Spirit, He pervades the inmost recesses of the man; He opens the closed and softens the hardened heart, and circumcises that which was uncircumcised; infuses new qualities into the will, which, tho heretofore dead, He quickens; from being evil, disobedient, and refractory, He renders it good, obedient, and pliable; actuates and strengthens it, that like a good tree it may bring forth the fruits of good actions." The Heidelberg Catechism points to this, in question 8: "Except we are regenerated by the Spirit of God." And also the Confession, article 22: "We believe that to attain the true knowledge of this great mystery, the Holy Spirit kindleth in our hearts an upright faith, which embraces Jesus Christ with all His merits.""
Again, such citations not only "seem" to teach against the view of Kuyper, but actually do so. How does Kuyper deal with this? He says that he gives his "hearty assent" to what they say, but let us watch how he subverts the teaching of the old Calvinists.
Notice the use of the adverb "when" in this confession's statement - "when God accomplishes His good pleasure in the elect, or works in them true conversion," and "when" he "causes the Gospel to be externally preached to them, and powerfully illumines their minds by His Holy Spirit." The old confessions did not say "after" but "when." They did not believe that conversion occurred "after" regeneration, but "when" regenerated. "When" a man is regenerated, he actually does believe. Or, it could be justly reversed - when a man believes, he is regenerated. Faith and repentance are elements that describe the change or transformation of regeneration. The change makes a dead man into a living man, and makes an impenitent into a penitent, and makes an unbeliever into a believer.
Kuyper wrote:
"This mysterious background, which our fathers at Dort called "His pervading the inmost recesses of man by the efficacy of the, regenerating Spirit," is evidently the same as what we call "the divine operation which penetrates the center of our being to implant the germ of the new life."
And what is this mysterious working? According to the universal testimony based upon Scripture, it is an operation of the Holy Spirit in man's innermost being.
Hence the question, whether this regenerating act precedes, accompanies, or follows the hearing of the Word. And this question should be well understood, for it involves the solution of this seeming disagreement."
It is at this point that Kuyper begins his subversion of the old writings and confessions. He will not deny that the confession taught mediate regeneration and that it did not avow a regeneration apart from means. So, Kuyper has to "read into" the document his "New Divinity" and Hopkinsian views. The old documents do not explicitly deny means in regeneration, but Kuyper will try to show that there is nevertheless an implicit denial of means, and an implicit affirmation of the ordo salutis that puts regeneration before faith and conversion. He attempts to do this even though he has already acknowledged that the old records did not separate regeneration and conversion.
What Kuyper calls the "mysterious background" behind the actual words of the confession (about God regenerating through the gospel), would be the the doctrine of immediate regeneration. Immediate regeneration, to the exclusion of mediate regeneration, is not taught in the foreground, so Kuyper will try to find it taught in the "background." He will read immediate regeneration into the confession by his deductions from the confession.
Kuyper thinks that the old confession contained contradictions on the subject of regeneration, or what he called "seeming disagreement." This is also what the Hardshells thought about the same topic in the 1689 London Confession, and they too sought to "read into" the confession the "Spirit alone" or "no means" view of regeneration. The only difference is that Kuyper will argue that the confession taught that regeneration was both mediate and immediate, that the first stage of regeneration was immediate, but the last stage was mediate, while the Hardshells would not allow that the London confession taught "mediate regeneration" in any stage.
Of course, Kuyper was in error to confine "regeneration" to the first stage. Kuyper argues that the term "regeneration," when used in its narrow sense, excluded means, was immediate only, but that the term, when used in its broad sense, included means (was mediate) and conversion. Further, Kuyper will acknowledge that the broad definition is what is generally recognized by the scriptural writers.
Kuyper wrote:
"We answer: The Holy Spirit may perform this work in the sinner's heart before, during, or after the preaching of the Word. The inward call may be associated with the outward call, or it may follow it. But that which precedes the inward call, viz., the opening of the deaf ear, so that it may be heard, is not dependent upon the preaching of the Word; and therefore may precede the preaching."
Notice how Kuyper is timid in his affirmation of the "New Divinity" teaching of "immediate regeneration." He uses the word "may" at least five times. Such a word is not a word denoting absoluteness and certainty. The Lord "may" regenerate" a man "before" he hear "the preaching of the Word." No doubt he seeks to promote his "New Divinity" view without antagonizing the orthodox in his denomination. Yes, God "may," if it pleases him, "of stones raise up children unto Abraham," but who would dare say that this is the way he has chosen? God "may" regenerate without human means, but is this the way that he has chosen to do it? For Kuyper to actually and explicitly assert that God not only "may," but actually does, regenerate sinners apart from the gospel and from faith, puts him squarely in rebellion to the teachings of his Calvinist forefathers.
Kuyper even goes so far astray, in his comments, that he affirms that regeneration "precedes the internal call." So, he not only has the experience of regeneration preceding the external call of the gospel, but also preceding the "internal call." A man "regenerated" who has not been internally or externally "called"! Kuyper has so narrowed his definition of "regeneration" to where it now excludes being internally called. All the old confessions and writings of primitive Calvinists, however, taught that regeneration and calling alluded to the same thing.
Kuyper wrote:
"Correct discrimination in this respect is of greatest importance."
This reminds us of the words of Hyper Calvinist John Gerstner who attempted to prove that Jonathan Edwards strictly defined "regeneration" so as to exclude conversion, even though Edwards affirmed that the scriptures made no distinction in the words and used them to refer to the same experience.
Gerstner wrote:
"This is a rather unfortunate and unscientific way of proceeding. While it is true that Scripture tends to use these different terms synonymously, there are significant differences. Edwards himself notes that the mind, active in repentance, is passive in regeneration. Edwards often notes that conversion too has reference to the passivity of the mind as well as its reflex activity. He especially observes that repentance is a change of the mind, which we shall soon see he constantly attributes exclusively to God, the mind of man being passive (if not hostile) at the time of the change."
Why does Gerstner say that the words of Edwards are "unfortunate and unscientific way of proceeding"? Is it not because Edward's view is agaiinst the Hyperist views of Gerstner? Edwards is "unscientific" in his teaching on regeneration and conversion? Who can believe that? Gerstner says - "it is true that Scripture tends to use these different terms synonymously." From these statements it is obvious that Gerstner rejects the teaching of Edwards which he recognizes as being "unfortunate and unscientific," but yet are in line with scripture which "tends to use these different terms synonymously" as did Edwards. The words of Edwards that Gerstner rejects are these:
"...repentance signifies a change of the mind; as the word conversion means a change or turning from sin to God. And that this is the same change with that which is called regeneration..." See Here
Conversion, according to Edwards, "is the same change with that which is called regeneration" in scripture. Gerstner even admits that this is true, saying that the scriptures "use these different terms synonymously." Yet, he rejects the teaching of scripture! He believes what the biblical writers did in using them synonymously was "unfortunate" and "unscientific"!
Kuyper, even though he affirms that Edwards identifies conversion with regeneration, as do the scriptures, yet he will then affirm that Edwards actually believed that they were not the same! He will make Edwards to contradict himself! He does this from misinterpreting these parenthetical words of Edwards: "excepting that this latter term (regeneration) especially signifies the change, as the mind is passive in it." Edwards, however, did not affirm that the word "regeneration" signified no other change, other than the passive change of the mind, in scripture. Had this been his intent then he would not have put the word "especially" in front of "signifies."
Kuyper wrote:
"If I designate the whole conscious work of grace from conversion until death, "regeneration," without any regard to its mysterious background, then I may and must say with the Confession (article 24): "That this faith, being wrought in man by the hearing of the Word, and the operation of the Holy Spirit, doth regenerate him and make him a new man."
But, the confession and old Calvinist writings did not generally define "regeneration" as including the whole Christian life. It is true that John Calvin sometimes did. The primitive Calvinistic documents taught what Edwards taught, and believed that regeneration and conversion were alluding to the same experience.
Kuyper wrote:
"Hence God's work of grace runs through these three successive stages:
1st. Regeneration in its first stage, when the Lord plants the new life in the dead heart.
2d. Regeneration in its second stage, when the new-born man comes to conversion.
3d. Regeneration in its third stage, when conversion merges into sanctification.
In each of these three God performs a wonderful and mysterious work in man's inward being. From God proceed quickening, conversion, and sanctification, and in each God is the Worker: only with this difference, that in the quickening He works alone, finding and leaving man inactive; that in conversion He finds us inactive, but makes us active; that in sanctification He works in us in such a manner that we work ourselves through Him."
The first thing to notice from the views of Kuyper and the "New Divinity" school is how they confess that their views are not the views of scripture nor of their forefathers, for the scriptures and the primitive writings of Kuyper's forefathers were "unfortunate and unscientific." Second, Gerstner will give no scriptural authority for his arbitrarily creating stages to regeneration. This is just what we would expect men who use "scientific" and philosophical standards to judge holy things. But, it is what Paul called "false science." (I Tim. 6: 20) It is just what one would expect from Gentile theologians who have become "hair-splitters." They separate what God has not separated. What God has joined together they seek to separate.
According to the multi-stage regeneration view of Kuyper, there are gaps in time between these "stages," so that one man can be one-third regenerated, another man two-thirds regenerated, and another man fully regenerated! A man may be "quickened" (regenerated) who is neither converted nor sanctified! "Regenerated" unbelievers! "Regenerated" heathens!
Gerstner does not have any problem with the second and third "stages" of "regeneration" being mediate and with it involving activity from the recipient of regenerating grace and power, but he does have problems with the first "stage" being mediated, and so he redefines "regeneration." Though he acknowledges that the scriptures equate quickening and regeneration with conversion, yet he wants to impose upon the scriptures a more "scientific" paradigm, and not equate them. That is clearly a violation of sound hermeneutic principles and is not handling the word of God honestly and correctly.
Kuyper continues:
"Describing it still more closely, we say that in the first stage of regeneration, that of quickening, God works without means; in the second stage, that of conversion, He employs means, viz., the preaching of the Word; and in the third stage, that of sanctification, He uses means in addition to ourselves, whom He uses as means."
This may be "scientific" but it is not scriptural nor the primitive teaching of the Calvinists. Kuyper has no scriptural authority for making regeneration and conversion into two distinct stages of a broader regeneration. He in fact acknowledges that he is doing what the new testament writers do not do themselves.
Kuyper continues:
"Condensing the foregoing, there is one great act of God which re-creates the corrupt sinner into a new man, viz., the comprehensive act of regeneration, which contains three parts—quickening, conversion, and sanctification.
For the ministry of the Word it is preferable to consider only the last two, conversion and sanctification, since this is the appointed means to effect them. The first, regeneration, is preferably a subject of private meditation, since in it man is passive and God only active; and also because in it the majesty of the divine operation is most apparent."
Kuyper invents two kinds of "regeneration," one that is a novel strict definition, and which he connects with the first stage of "regeneration," scripturally and broadly defined. He acknowledges that the scriptures only promote the broad definition, for the scriptures speak of conversion as being all the same as regeneration. Thus, Kuyper is inventing a new definition for "regeneration" and imposing it on scripture. His paradigm of a three stage regeneration is arbitrarily created and them imposed upon scripture.
Kuyper will not allow that "quickening" can be the result of complete regeneration, but limits it strictly to the first stage of regeneration alone. But, by doing this, he goes against the scriptures and the primitive teachings of Calvinists. The older Calvinists did not believe that a man was spiritually alive until he had been converted, until he had believed and repented. The truth is, the Spirit works both mediately and immediately in the whole of the regeneration experience. And, there is no indication in scripture or in the Reformed and Calvinist confessions and authoritative writings that says that the immediate work of the Spirit must precede the mediate work. In fact, scripture and the confessions show that often the Spirit works mediately before he works immediately, so it is false to assert that the latter always precedes the former.
Kuyper continues:
"Hence there is no conflict or opposition. Referring, according to the Confession, article 17, only to conversion and sanctification, the unstopping of the deaf ear as preceding the hearing of the Word is not denied. And penetrating into the work which antedates conversion, "In which God works in us without our aid" (article 12 of the canons of Dort), it is not denied, but confessed, that conversion and sanctification follow the unstopping of the deaf ear, and that, in the proper sense, regeneration is completed only at the death of the sinner."
The error of Kuyper in his interpretation of the old Reformed confessions is seen in his equating "unstopping the deaf ear" with "regeneration," rather than seeing it as a preparatory work prior to biblical regeneration. Further, he errs in assuming that "the unstopping of the deaf ear" is accomplished apart from means. Kuyper affirms that the Reformed confessions do not deny that unstopping the deaf ears was immediate and preceded the hearing of the word of God. But, he does not prove what he asserts. The confessions and writings which he cites do not present his three stage paradigm.
The old Reformed and Calvinist writers affirmed that both the Spirit and the word were the causes of regeneration and the new birth. They did not deny that this work was in some respects immediate, that the Spirit of God in a mysterious way came into direct contact with the human spirit, but they also taught that the immediate work occurred simultaneously with the mediate work of the Spirit, within the same divine "operation."
Kuyper continues:
"Do not suppose that we make these two to conflict. In writing a biography of Napoleon it would be sufficient simply to mention his birth, but one might also mention, more in particular, the things that took place before his birth. Just so in this respect: I may refer either to the two parts of regeneration, conversion and sanctification, or I may include also that which precedes conversion, and speak also of the quickening. This implies no antagonism, but a mere difference of exactness. It is more exhaustive, with reference to regeneration, to speak of three stages—quickening, conversion, and sanctification; altho it is customary and more practical to speak only of the last two."
"Do not suppose that we make these two to conflict"? "No antagonism" between the two? Is that not exactly what Kuyper's new paradigm, his "New Divinity," does? Does his view not put strict regeneration into conflict with broad regeneration? Does he not take his paradigm to scripture and impose it on scripture? When he reads a verse that shows means are used in the "change of mind" involved in regeneration, he will make this only applicable to the second and third stage of regeneration, but when he reads a verse where he assumes that no means are (or could be) involved, he then arbitrarily applies this to his strict definition of "regeneration," to the "first stage" alone. He did not find this paradigm and hermeneutic rule in scriptures, but invented it himself and then applies it to scripture.
Notice also how Kuyper makes "birth" to be distinct from "regeneration," a view of the first founding fathers of Hardshellism. They too saw three "stages," and saw spiritual birth as exactly the same as physical birth. In physical birth there is first the implanting of the "seed" by the act of the Father (first stage), and then there is the growth time spent in the womb of the mother (second stage), and then there is "birth," or "deliverance" from the womb of the mother (third stage). The difficulties with this paradigm are great and will be enlarged upon later in this series.
Kuyper tries to say, like Gerstner, that such a paradigm of biblical regeneration, with three stages similar to physical birth, is simply more "exact" and "exhaustive," more "scientific." More exact than the apostles!
Kuyper continues:
"And herein lies a real danger. For to speak of the little ones without considering the first stage of regeneration—i.e., the quickening—causes confusion and perplexity from which there is no escape.
Salvation depends upon faith, and faith upon the hearing of the Word; hence our deceased infants must be lost, for they can not hear the Word. To escape this fearful thought it is often said that the children are saved by virtue of the parents' faith—a misunderstanding which greatly confused our entire conception of Baptism, and made our baptismal form very perplexing. But as soon as we distinguish quickening, as a stage of regeneration, from conversion and sanctification, the light enters."
Kuyper, rather than going to scripture to prove his unscriptural and non-traditional paradigm on regeneration, goes to science, philosophy, and human logic instead. He argues just as do the Hardshells, affirming that mediate regeneration by the word of God condemns all those who have died in infancy, saying that this must be so because "they can not hear the Word." But, he did not prove the proposition that says that "they cannot hear the Word." He assumes it as true. If dry dead bones can hear the word of God as announced by the prophet, then surely infants can be made to hear it. If John the Baptist can hear it in his mother's womb and rejoice, then surely the assumed proposition of Kuyper and the Hardshells is to be rejected. And, if his proposition about infants being unable to hear is false, then so is his conclusion that regeneration by means damns infants.
Kuyper thinks that he has solved a great riddle, has harmonized what seemed to him to be conflicting propositions. He has illumined what was previously dark to the Reformers and Calvinists, saying that once one accepts his definitions of things, and his new paradigm, "the light enters"! He confesses that the first Reformers and Calvinists were all in the dark on the subject of regeneration and conversion!
In the next chapter I will finish reviewing the views of Kuyper and discuss more the history of the "New Divinity" teaching on regeneration and show how regeneration is both mediate and immediate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)