Awhile back brother Fralick wrote about the inconsistency between the teachings of the Hardshells and some of the songs they nevertheless sing. I have also felt the same way. One of the songs the Hardshells sing but which they would never preach is this song.
Come, ye sinners, poor and needy
Weak and wounded, sick and sore
Jesus ready, stands to save you
Full of pity, love and power
Notice how the song addresses sinners and invites them to "come" to Jesus. But, should a preacher address sinners this way he would be called an "Arminian"! If a Hardshell preacher would tell sinners that Jesus stands ready to save them, they would call him "Arminian."
I will arise and go to Jesus
He will embrace me in His arms
In the arms of my dear Savior,
O, there are ten thousand charms
These words advise the sinner to arise and go to Jesus, but you will never hear Hardshell preachers giving this advice to sinners while preaching.
Come, ye thirsty, come and welcome
God`s free bounty glorify
True belief and true repentance
Every grace that brings you nigh
The message of the song is that "true belief and true repentance" is what will bring you nigh to Jesus and salvation. How can Hardshells sing this and yet preach against it at the same time? The song says "come" but the messages of Hardshell preachers do not say "come."
Come, ye weary, heavy-laden
Lost and ruined by the fall
If you tarry `til you`re better
You will never come at all
Come you "lost" and "ruined" sinners? They will sing this message but they will not preach it? Bidding sinners not to "tarry" but to come now?
I will arise and go to Jesus
He will embrace me in His arms
In the arms of my dear Savior,
O, there are ten thousand charms
Come to Jesus sinners! He will embrace you in his arms? You will never hear a Hardshell preacher end his sermon with such words of invitation. Yet, their oldest preachers did not shun from inviting sinners.
See Him Prostate in the garden
On the ground your Maker lies
On the bloody tree, behold him
Sinner, will this not suffice?
Persuading sinners to come to Jesus for salvation? How can Hardshells sing this but not preach it?
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Pink vs. Pink
In our recent series on "Regeneration - Mediate or Immediate?" we cited these words of A. W. Pink:
"There is a strict analogy between the natural birth and the spiritual: necessarily so, for God is the Author of them both, and He ordained that the former should adumbrate the latter."
But, we find that Pink said this in his book "The Doctrine of Salvation" (pg. 26):
"When treating of regeneration under the figure of the new birth, some writers have introduced analogies from natural birth which Scripture by no means warrants, in fact disallows."
The latter words condemn the former words of Pink, thus pitting Pink against Pink.
"There is a strict analogy between the natural birth and the spiritual: necessarily so, for God is the Author of them both, and He ordained that the former should adumbrate the latter."
But, we find that Pink said this in his book "The Doctrine of Salvation" (pg. 26):
"When treating of regeneration under the figure of the new birth, some writers have introduced analogies from natural birth which Scripture by no means warrants, in fact disallows."
The latter words condemn the former words of Pink, thus pitting Pink against Pink.
Chpt. 117 - Passive or Active?
The fact that men are passive in regeneration and conversion is taught in scripture and in the oldest Calvinistic confessions. The old writers and confessions taught that man was in some respect passive in salvation, but was also, in some respects, active. They acknowledged man to be active in conversion, in his actual turning to the Lord. The fact that the scriptures do not separate or distinguish between regeneration and conversion, as the modern day theologians, forces us to confess that regeneration or conversion has its passive as well as its active aspects.
Let us notice these passages of scripture.
"Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye." (Eze. 18: 30-32)
"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked." (Deut. 10: 16)
"Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings." (Jer. 4: 4)
It shows dishonesty and rebellion to these scriptures to deny that they are all speaking of the same experience, to that experience chiefly called, in the New Testament, a being "born of God," or to a "regeneration" and the "renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Titus 3: 5) or to spiritual "transformation."
It was in response to such passages that Dr. Alvah Hovey wrote:
"The simple fact is, that man is both active and passive in regeneration. The first series of texts brings to view his activity; the second, his passivity. Man is active in thinking upon the truth, in exercising his sensibilities in relation to it, and in giving up his heart to God; he is passive in that he is acted upon by the truth, and also by the Holy Spirit. He both acts and is acted upon." (See "Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible" By John W. Haley, Alvah Hovey - Here)
Arminians are often not willing to acknowledge the unconditionality or undeserved aspect of the work of God in transforming sinners into the image of Christ. (Rom. 8: 29) Hyper Calvinists and Hardshells are unwilling, on the other hand, to acknowledge the conditionality of the transforming experience. However, by examining all of the above passages of scripture it is clear that the transforming experience described is both what God promises to do, and actually does, by sovereign will and gracious pleasure, through unconditional love and unmerited favor, and also what is the duty and privilege of fallen men. Circumcision of heart is both unconditional and conditional, though not in the same sense, and is both the result of the will of God and of the sinner.
Is there a real contradiction between God commanding men to make themselves a new heart and spirit and to Circumcise their hearts, and God doing the same thing?
On Ezekiel 18: 30-32 Dr. Gill wrote:
"...not of the first work of internal conversion, which is by the powerful and efficacious grace of God; though, were both exhorted to, it would not prove that these are in the power of men, only show the want and necessity of them, and so be the means of God's bringing his chosen people to them."
On Deuteronomy 10: 16 Gill wrote:
"Content not yourselves with, nor put your confidence in outward circumcision of the flesh, but be concerned for the circumcision of the heart; for removing from that whatever is disagreeable to the Lord, even all carnality, sensuality, hypocrisy, and superfluity of naughtiness, and for having that put there which is well pleasing in his sight; and which though it is the work of God, and he only can do it and has promised it, yet such an exhortation is made to bring men to a sense of their need of it, and of the importance of it, and to show how agreeable it is to the Lord, and so to stir them up to seek unto him for it."
On Jeremiah 4: 4 Gill wrote:
"...this is the true spiritual circumcision; and they that are possessed of it are the circumcision, the only truly circumcised persons; and they are such who have been pricked to the heart, and thoroughly convinced of sin; who have had the hardness of their hearts removed, and the impurity of it laid open to them; which they have beheld with shame and loathing, and have felt an inward pain on account of it; and who have been enabled to deny themselves, to renounce their own righteousness, and put off the body of the sins of the flesh: and though men are exhorted to do this themselves, yet elsewhere the Lord promises to do it for them, ( Deuteronomy 30:6 ) , and indeed it is purely his own work; or otherwise it could not he called, as it is, "circumcision without hands", and "whose praise is not of man, but of God", ( Colossians 2:11 ) ( Romans 2:29 ), and the reason of this exhortation, as before, is to convince those Jews, who were circumcised in the flesh, and rested and gloried in that, that their hearts were not circumcised, and that there was a necessity of it, and they in danger for want of it; as follows: lest my fury come forth like fire; to which the wrath of God is sometimes compared, ( Nahum 1:6 ) and is sometimes signified by a furnace and lake of fire, even his eternal wrath and vengeance: and burn that none can quench it; such is the fire of divine wrath; it is unquenchable; it is everlasting, ( Mark 9:43 Mark 9:44 ) ( Matthew 3:12 ) ( 25:41 )."
Dr. A. H. Strong wrote:
"The Scriptural view is that regeneration, so far as it secures an activity of man, is accomplished through the instrumentality of the truth. Although the Holy Spirit does not in any way illuminate the truth, he does illuminate the mind, so that it can perceive the truth. In conjunction with the change of man's inner disposition, there is an appeal to man's rational nature through the truth. Two inferences may be drawn:
(a) Man is not wholly passive at the time of his regeneration. He is passive only with respect to the change of his ruling disposition. With respect to the exercise of this disposition, he is active. Although the efficient power which secures this exercise of the new disposition is the power of God, yet man is not therefore unconscious, nor is he a mere machine worked by God's fingers. On the other hand, his whole moral nature under God's working is alive and active. We reject the "exercise-system," which regards God as the direct author of all man's thoughts, feelings, and volitions, not only in its general tenor, but in its special application to regeneration.
(b) The activity of man's mind in regeneration is activity in view of the truth. God secures the initial exercise of the new disposition which he has wrought in man's heart in connection with the use of truth as a means. Here we perceive the link between the efficiency of God and the activity of man. Only as the sinner's mind is brought into contact with the truth, does God complete his regenerating work. And as the change of inward disposition and the initial exercise of it are never, so far as we know, separated by any interval of time, we can say, in general, that Christian work is successful only as it commends the truth to every man's conscience in the sight of God (2 Cor. 4: 2)."
In Eph. 1:17,18, there is recognized the divine illumination of the mind to behold the truth —" may give unto you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him; having the eyes of your heart enlightened, that ye may know what is the hope of his calling." On truth as a means of regeneration, see Hovey, Outlines, 102, who quotes Cunningham, Historical Theology, 1:617 —"Regeneration may be taken in a limited sense as Including only the first lmpartatlon of spiritual life or It may be taken in a wider sense as comprehending the whole of that process by which he is renewed or made over again in the whole man after theimage of God — i. e., as Including the production of saving faith and union to Christ. Only In the first sense did the Reformers maintain that man in the process was whollypassive and not active; for they did not dispute that, before the process in the second and more enlarged sense was completed, man was spiritually alive and active, and continued so ever after during the whole process of his sanctiflcution."
Dr. Hovey suggests an apt illustration of these two parts of the Holy Spirit's work and their union in regeneration: At the same time that God makes the photographic plate sensitive, he pours in the light of truth whereby the Image of Christ is formed in the soul. Without the "sensitizing" of the plate, it would never fix the rays of light so as to retain the Image. In the process of "sensitizing," the plate is passive; under the influence of light, it is active. In both the "sensitizing" and the taking of the picture, the real agent is not the plate nor the light, but the photographer. The photographer cannot perform both operations at the same moment. God can. He gives the new affection, and at the same Instant be secures Its exercise in view of the truth.
For denial of the instrumentality of truth in regeneration, see Pierce, In Bap. 1,'nar.. Jan., 1872: 52. Per contra, see Anderson, Regeneration, 89-122. H. B. Smith holds middle ground. He says: "In adults it [regeneration] is wrought most frequently by the word of God as the instrument. Believing that Infants may be regenerated, we cannot assert that it is tied to the word of God absolutely." We prefer to say that, if infants are regenerated, they also are regenerated in conjunction with some influence of truth upon the mind, dim as the recognition of it may be. Otherwise we break the Scriptural connection between regeneration and conversion, and open the way for faith in a physical, magical, sacramental salvation. Squier, Autobiog., 368, says well, of the theory of regeneration which makes man purely passive, that it has a benumbing effect upon preaching: "The lack of expectation unnerves the efforts of the preacher; an impression of the fortuitous presence neutralizes his engagedness. This antinomian dependence on the Spirit extracts all vitality from the pulpit and sense of responsibility from the hearer, and makes preaching an opus operatum, like the baptismal regeneration of the formalist."
Squier goes to the opposite extreme of regarding the truth alone as the cause of regeneration. His words are none the less a valuable protest against the view that regeneration is so entirely due to God that in no part of it is man active." (Systematic Theology pg. 455-459, See here)
There is no need to prove that the sinner is in some respect passive in salvation since Greek verbs and participles used to describe it are in the passive voice. For instance, John says that those who receive (active voice, meaning to accept) Christ are they who were "born of God." (John 1: 12, 13) The word "born" is passive voice. No one births, creates, or resurrects themselves. People are passive in being born, created, and resurrected.
But, even in this passage John speaks of being born of God as occurring at the same time that sinners "receive" Christ.
"He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1: 11-13)
The word "receive" in verse 12 is from the Greek word "lambano." This word means "to take," "to take with the hand, lay hold of," to "accept" or to "welcome." It means "to claim or procure for one's self." It means "to receive what is offered," or "not to refuse or reject." It also signifies to "seize" or to "grab." It is in the active voice and thus is not a passive acceptance. This same Greek word, as we shall see, is used in many passages in the New Testament in connection with being saved. John is saying that those who "received" Christ actively were passively born of God. John thus shows us that salvation and being born of God has both an active and a passive aspect.
There is a another Greek word sometimes translated as "receive" and that is the Greek word "dechomai" and which often is in the passive voice, but lambano is very active, particularly when it is strengthened as in paralambano. If the New Testament writers wanted to affirm that "receiving" salvation was strictly a passive receiving, they would have used "dechomai" in the passive voice. But, they most often used "lambano" in the active voice.
The first use of "received" in the above passage is paralambano, the second is lambano. The whole mood of this passage is active. To "receive not" is to reject. This is not passive indifference but violent rejection. The positive is also the case, for "lambano" and its derivatives do not denote passive reception but the active "taking hold of." These active Greek verbs are sometimes translated as "take" or "take hold of" in addition to "receive."
"As you have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him." (Col. 2: 6)
"And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." (Rom. 5: 11)
"For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." (Rom. 8: 15)
"This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (Gal. 3: 2)
"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." (I John 2: 27)
Who can deny that these verses deal with regeneration? And, that they show that man is not merely passive, in all respects, but active.
Further, repentance and faith, throughout scripture, are necessary conditions for salvation, and faith and repentance are active voice verbs.
If regeneration is defined in scripture as including the effects as well as the causes, then sinners are both passive and active.
Let us notice these passages of scripture.
"Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye." (Eze. 18: 30-32)
"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked." (Deut. 10: 16)
"Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings." (Jer. 4: 4)
It shows dishonesty and rebellion to these scriptures to deny that they are all speaking of the same experience, to that experience chiefly called, in the New Testament, a being "born of God," or to a "regeneration" and the "renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Titus 3: 5) or to spiritual "transformation."
It was in response to such passages that Dr. Alvah Hovey wrote:
"The simple fact is, that man is both active and passive in regeneration. The first series of texts brings to view his activity; the second, his passivity. Man is active in thinking upon the truth, in exercising his sensibilities in relation to it, and in giving up his heart to God; he is passive in that he is acted upon by the truth, and also by the Holy Spirit. He both acts and is acted upon." (See "Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible" By John W. Haley, Alvah Hovey - Here)
Arminians are often not willing to acknowledge the unconditionality or undeserved aspect of the work of God in transforming sinners into the image of Christ. (Rom. 8: 29) Hyper Calvinists and Hardshells are unwilling, on the other hand, to acknowledge the conditionality of the transforming experience. However, by examining all of the above passages of scripture it is clear that the transforming experience described is both what God promises to do, and actually does, by sovereign will and gracious pleasure, through unconditional love and unmerited favor, and also what is the duty and privilege of fallen men. Circumcision of heart is both unconditional and conditional, though not in the same sense, and is both the result of the will of God and of the sinner.
Is there a real contradiction between God commanding men to make themselves a new heart and spirit and to Circumcise their hearts, and God doing the same thing?
On Ezekiel 18: 30-32 Dr. Gill wrote:
"...not of the first work of internal conversion, which is by the powerful and efficacious grace of God; though, were both exhorted to, it would not prove that these are in the power of men, only show the want and necessity of them, and so be the means of God's bringing his chosen people to them."
On Deuteronomy 10: 16 Gill wrote:
"Content not yourselves with, nor put your confidence in outward circumcision of the flesh, but be concerned for the circumcision of the heart; for removing from that whatever is disagreeable to the Lord, even all carnality, sensuality, hypocrisy, and superfluity of naughtiness, and for having that put there which is well pleasing in his sight; and which though it is the work of God, and he only can do it and has promised it, yet such an exhortation is made to bring men to a sense of their need of it, and of the importance of it, and to show how agreeable it is to the Lord, and so to stir them up to seek unto him for it."
On Jeremiah 4: 4 Gill wrote:
"...this is the true spiritual circumcision; and they that are possessed of it are the circumcision, the only truly circumcised persons; and they are such who have been pricked to the heart, and thoroughly convinced of sin; who have had the hardness of their hearts removed, and the impurity of it laid open to them; which they have beheld with shame and loathing, and have felt an inward pain on account of it; and who have been enabled to deny themselves, to renounce their own righteousness, and put off the body of the sins of the flesh: and though men are exhorted to do this themselves, yet elsewhere the Lord promises to do it for them, ( Deuteronomy 30:6 ) , and indeed it is purely his own work; or otherwise it could not he called, as it is, "circumcision without hands", and "whose praise is not of man, but of God", ( Colossians 2:11 ) ( Romans 2:29 ), and the reason of this exhortation, as before, is to convince those Jews, who were circumcised in the flesh, and rested and gloried in that, that their hearts were not circumcised, and that there was a necessity of it, and they in danger for want of it; as follows: lest my fury come forth like fire; to which the wrath of God is sometimes compared, ( Nahum 1:6 ) and is sometimes signified by a furnace and lake of fire, even his eternal wrath and vengeance: and burn that none can quench it; such is the fire of divine wrath; it is unquenchable; it is everlasting, ( Mark 9:43 Mark 9:44 ) ( Matthew 3:12 ) ( 25:41 )."
Dr. A. H. Strong wrote:
"The Scriptural view is that regeneration, so far as it secures an activity of man, is accomplished through the instrumentality of the truth. Although the Holy Spirit does not in any way illuminate the truth, he does illuminate the mind, so that it can perceive the truth. In conjunction with the change of man's inner disposition, there is an appeal to man's rational nature through the truth. Two inferences may be drawn:
(a) Man is not wholly passive at the time of his regeneration. He is passive only with respect to the change of his ruling disposition. With respect to the exercise of this disposition, he is active. Although the efficient power which secures this exercise of the new disposition is the power of God, yet man is not therefore unconscious, nor is he a mere machine worked by God's fingers. On the other hand, his whole moral nature under God's working is alive and active. We reject the "exercise-system," which regards God as the direct author of all man's thoughts, feelings, and volitions, not only in its general tenor, but in its special application to regeneration.
(b) The activity of man's mind in regeneration is activity in view of the truth. God secures the initial exercise of the new disposition which he has wrought in man's heart in connection with the use of truth as a means. Here we perceive the link between the efficiency of God and the activity of man. Only as the sinner's mind is brought into contact with the truth, does God complete his regenerating work. And as the change of inward disposition and the initial exercise of it are never, so far as we know, separated by any interval of time, we can say, in general, that Christian work is successful only as it commends the truth to every man's conscience in the sight of God (2 Cor. 4: 2)."
In Eph. 1:17,18, there is recognized the divine illumination of the mind to behold the truth —" may give unto you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him; having the eyes of your heart enlightened, that ye may know what is the hope of his calling." On truth as a means of regeneration, see Hovey, Outlines, 102, who quotes Cunningham, Historical Theology, 1:617 —"Regeneration may be taken in a limited sense as Including only the first lmpartatlon of spiritual life or It may be taken in a wider sense as comprehending the whole of that process by which he is renewed or made over again in the whole man after theimage of God — i. e., as Including the production of saving faith and union to Christ. Only In the first sense did the Reformers maintain that man in the process was whollypassive and not active; for they did not dispute that, before the process in the second and more enlarged sense was completed, man was spiritually alive and active, and continued so ever after during the whole process of his sanctiflcution."
Dr. Hovey suggests an apt illustration of these two parts of the Holy Spirit's work and their union in regeneration: At the same time that God makes the photographic plate sensitive, he pours in the light of truth whereby the Image of Christ is formed in the soul. Without the "sensitizing" of the plate, it would never fix the rays of light so as to retain the Image. In the process of "sensitizing," the plate is passive; under the influence of light, it is active. In both the "sensitizing" and the taking of the picture, the real agent is not the plate nor the light, but the photographer. The photographer cannot perform both operations at the same moment. God can. He gives the new affection, and at the same Instant be secures Its exercise in view of the truth.
For denial of the instrumentality of truth in regeneration, see Pierce, In Bap. 1,'nar.. Jan., 1872: 52. Per contra, see Anderson, Regeneration, 89-122. H. B. Smith holds middle ground. He says: "In adults it [regeneration] is wrought most frequently by the word of God as the instrument. Believing that Infants may be regenerated, we cannot assert that it is tied to the word of God absolutely." We prefer to say that, if infants are regenerated, they also are regenerated in conjunction with some influence of truth upon the mind, dim as the recognition of it may be. Otherwise we break the Scriptural connection between regeneration and conversion, and open the way for faith in a physical, magical, sacramental salvation. Squier, Autobiog., 368, says well, of the theory of regeneration which makes man purely passive, that it has a benumbing effect upon preaching: "The lack of expectation unnerves the efforts of the preacher; an impression of the fortuitous presence neutralizes his engagedness. This antinomian dependence on the Spirit extracts all vitality from the pulpit and sense of responsibility from the hearer, and makes preaching an opus operatum, like the baptismal regeneration of the formalist."
Squier goes to the opposite extreme of regarding the truth alone as the cause of regeneration. His words are none the less a valuable protest against the view that regeneration is so entirely due to God that in no part of it is man active." (Systematic Theology pg. 455-459, See here)
There is no need to prove that the sinner is in some respect passive in salvation since Greek verbs and participles used to describe it are in the passive voice. For instance, John says that those who receive (active voice, meaning to accept) Christ are they who were "born of God." (John 1: 12, 13) The word "born" is passive voice. No one births, creates, or resurrects themselves. People are passive in being born, created, and resurrected.
But, even in this passage John speaks of being born of God as occurring at the same time that sinners "receive" Christ.
"He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1: 11-13)
The word "receive" in verse 12 is from the Greek word "lambano." This word means "to take," "to take with the hand, lay hold of," to "accept" or to "welcome." It means "to claim or procure for one's self." It means "to receive what is offered," or "not to refuse or reject." It also signifies to "seize" or to "grab." It is in the active voice and thus is not a passive acceptance. This same Greek word, as we shall see, is used in many passages in the New Testament in connection with being saved. John is saying that those who "received" Christ actively were passively born of God. John thus shows us that salvation and being born of God has both an active and a passive aspect.
There is a another Greek word sometimes translated as "receive" and that is the Greek word "dechomai" and which often is in the passive voice, but lambano is very active, particularly when it is strengthened as in paralambano. If the New Testament writers wanted to affirm that "receiving" salvation was strictly a passive receiving, they would have used "dechomai" in the passive voice. But, they most often used "lambano" in the active voice.
The first use of "received" in the above passage is paralambano, the second is lambano. The whole mood of this passage is active. To "receive not" is to reject. This is not passive indifference but violent rejection. The positive is also the case, for "lambano" and its derivatives do not denote passive reception but the active "taking hold of." These active Greek verbs are sometimes translated as "take" or "take hold of" in addition to "receive."
"As you have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him." (Col. 2: 6)
"And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." (Rom. 5: 11)
"For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." (Rom. 8: 15)
"This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (Gal. 3: 2)
"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." (I John 2: 27)
Who can deny that these verses deal with regeneration? And, that they show that man is not merely passive, in all respects, but active.
Further, repentance and faith, throughout scripture, are necessary conditions for salvation, and faith and repentance are active voice verbs.
If regeneration is defined in scripture as including the effects as well as the causes, then sinners are both passive and active.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Regeneration - Broad and Narrow?
In the writings of some Calvinists and those of the Reformed dogma, such as Gill, Hodge, Shedd, etc., there is affirmation that "regeneration" may be defined in a narrow sense and in a broad sense. But, the question is - do they affirm that the scriptures use the word "regeneration" in both these ways, or do they affirm that it is theologians who use the term in both ways?
The word regeneration is only used in two places in scripture and yet none of the theologians who believe in two usages and definitions for the term confess that the two places in scripture use it in its theologically restricted sense. Thus, when they affirm that regeneration has two significations, they cannot mean that this is so with the biblical writers, but only is so with the theologians in their writings.
"And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matt. 19: 28)
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." (Titus 3: 5)
The former verse speaks of the regeneration of the planet, of the world, when things will be restored per the words of Peter - "until the times of restitution of all things." (Acts 3: 21) Paul also spoke of this:
"Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." (Rom. 8: 21, 22)
The whole creation will experience a rebirth, a regeneration, a deliverance.
The latter verse speaks of regeneration as it pertains to individuals now as they are saved, washed, and renewed. If this verse speaks of a narrowly defined regeneration, then where is the broadly defined definition of regeneration used in scripture? If this verse speaks of a broadly defined regeneration, then where is the narrowly defined definition of regeneration used in scripture?
Even if we equate the words "born again," "begat," and "begotten" with the word "regeneration," where is there proof that these terms have both a broad and narrow definition?
Clearly there are not two definitions of regeneration or rebirth in scripture. Thus, when theologians say that regeneration may be taken in a narrow and in a broad sense, they clearly are not referring to its usage in scripture, but to its usage by some theologians. In fact, many of those theologians who refer to a narrow and broad definition of regeneration will nevertheless admit that the scriptures do not make such a distinction. Further, one must be careful in reading the writings of theologians who say - "if we take regeneration in its narrow usage (by the theologians), where it refers to the first act of God or to the first principles of grace infused into the soul, then regeneration precedes faith and conversion." Of course one could affirm that regeneration precedes faith if one defines it in such a sense. But, that does not mean that regeneration, as it is defined in scripture, precedes faith.
The word regeneration is only used in two places in scripture and yet none of the theologians who believe in two usages and definitions for the term confess that the two places in scripture use it in its theologically restricted sense. Thus, when they affirm that regeneration has two significations, they cannot mean that this is so with the biblical writers, but only is so with the theologians in their writings.
"And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matt. 19: 28)
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." (Titus 3: 5)
The former verse speaks of the regeneration of the planet, of the world, when things will be restored per the words of Peter - "until the times of restitution of all things." (Acts 3: 21) Paul also spoke of this:
"Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." (Rom. 8: 21, 22)
The whole creation will experience a rebirth, a regeneration, a deliverance.
The latter verse speaks of regeneration as it pertains to individuals now as they are saved, washed, and renewed. If this verse speaks of a narrowly defined regeneration, then where is the broadly defined definition of regeneration used in scripture? If this verse speaks of a broadly defined regeneration, then where is the narrowly defined definition of regeneration used in scripture?
Even if we equate the words "born again," "begat," and "begotten" with the word "regeneration," where is there proof that these terms have both a broad and narrow definition?
Clearly there are not two definitions of regeneration or rebirth in scripture. Thus, when theologians say that regeneration may be taken in a narrow and in a broad sense, they clearly are not referring to its usage in scripture, but to its usage by some theologians. In fact, many of those theologians who refer to a narrow and broad definition of regeneration will nevertheless admit that the scriptures do not make such a distinction. Further, one must be careful in reading the writings of theologians who say - "if we take regeneration in its narrow usage (by the theologians), where it refers to the first act of God or to the first principles of grace infused into the soul, then regeneration precedes faith and conversion." Of course one could affirm that regeneration precedes faith if one defines it in such a sense. But, that does not mean that regeneration, as it is defined in scripture, precedes faith.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Chpt. 116 - Mediate or Immediate?
In this chapter we will give scriptural support for affirming that regeneration/rebirth is both mediate and immediate. It is needless for me to multiply citations from Calvinists of the past on this point as they are numerous. All the oldest and soundest Baptists affirmed that regeneration was both mediate and immediate, just as they affirmed that man was both active and passive in being born again. They also taught that salvation was both conditional and unconditional.
It is not necessary to show which comes first, God's mediate work or his immediate work, as both methods are employed in the work. If conviction of sin precedes regeneration, however, a point that has been proven in previous chapters, then it can easily be proved that God's mediate work precedes his immediate, for conviction of sin requires no immediate touch of the Spirit upon the soul. An illustration of how mediate work precedes immediate work is seen in the surgery that God performed upon Adam in creating woman. First, Adam desired a wife and companion, stemming from his loneliness, God responded to the situation by saying - "it is not good for Adam to be alone." Of course, it was God's intention all along to make Adam a wife. But, as a means to bring it about, God used means to bring Adam to desire a wife. Adam saw the animals with their mates and realized he had none. All this led to God operating upon Adam immediately and bringing Eve into being.
People who are sick and need surgery are led by means to request the surgical work of physicians but the work itself may be immediate as well as mediate. Further, the patient would be active in requesting surgery but passive in the surgery. Likewise, we may say that such surgery is both conditional and unconditional. The patient requests the surgery and that makes it conditional. But, when the patient is under anesthesia, the surgery is unconditional on the part of the patient.
Regeneration is a Resurrection
The illustration of the mediate and immediate work of God in the work of God in raising the spiritually dead may be seen in the case of the resurrection of the "dry dead bones" in the vision of Ezekiel. (Ezekiel 37) Two things effected the resurrection. The mediate cause was the speaking of the word of God through the mouth of the prophet to the dead bones. The immediate cause was the "wind," or breath and Spirit of God. The wind (Spirit) came into immediate contact with the dead but the Spirit also came mediately to the dead through the spoken word of the prophet. Thus, the resurrection was the result of God working both mediately and immediately, by the Spirit and the word.
"And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise." (Mark 5: 41)
Notice how there was both immediate touch - "he took her by the hand." But, there was also means, for he spoke words to her.
Further, the apostles raised the dead. They were instruments in the hand of the Lord. Thus the resurrection was mediated. But, it was also immediate for Peter says, in regard to such miracles - "why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?" (Acts 3: 12) The power of the Lord accompanied the instrument and made the instrument effective.
The Hand of the Lord
"And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the LORD Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord." (Acts 11: 20, 21)
Notice how faith and repentance ("believed and turned") were the work of God both immediately and mediately. God spoke his word through his evangelists. He was working mediately through them and the word they preached. But, notice also how something else attended the preaching of the word. "The hand of the Lord was with them." That is, the power of the Spirit attended the word, and was something distinct from it. The "hand of the Lord" actually touches the heart, soul, and mind. It is an immediate touch. Spirit touches spirit. But, at the same time, God is also operating through the word preached.
Regeneration is a Writing
"Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." (II Cor. 3: 2, 3)
On this verse Dr. John Gill wrote;
"to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us; so that the apostles and ministers of the word were only amanuenses, Christ was the author and dictator; yea, he himself is the very matter, sum, substance, and subject of the epistle; he is formed in the hearts of his people in conversion, his image is stamped, his grace is implanted, his word, his Gospel dwells richly, his laws and ordinances are written here...now in writing these epistles, the ministers of the Gospel are only instruments, "ministered by us". They are made use of to show the sinner the black characters which are written upon him, and that what is written in him, and to be read by him, by the light of nature is not sufficient for salvation; they are employed as instruments in drawing the rough draught of grace in conversion, and in writing the copy over again, fairer and fairer; being the happy means blessed by God, for the building up of souls in faith and holiness, in spiritual knowledge and comfort."
Regeneration is a Circumcision
Regeneration is called a Circumcision. (See Rom. 2: 28, 29; Col. 2: 11) Circumcision is both mediate and immediate. The one performing Circumcision touches the human body part and yet uses a cutting instrument.
Regeneration is a Washing
Regeneration is a washing. (I Cor. 6: 11) In bathing one touches the the thing being washed and also uses means, such as water, soap, or a cloth. (Jer. 2: 22)
Regeneration is a Sealing
Regeneration is a sealing. (II Cor. 1: 22; Eph. 1: 13, 4: 30) Sealing involves direct touch and also the use of an instrument, the signet.
Regeneration is an Application of Blood
Regeneration is an application of the blood of Christ. (Ex. 12: 22; Heb. 9: 14-25) In sprinkling the blood an instrument was used (hyssop) and the blood came into direct contact with the person.
These examples show that it is false to affirm, as do the Hardshells, that a work cannot be both mediate and immediate. Further, it does not take away from the glory of the Lord for the work to be both mediate and immediate.
In our next series we will show how the work of regeneration is both viewed as being passive and active, and then we will follow with a series showing how salvation is both conditional and unconditional.
It is not necessary to show which comes first, God's mediate work or his immediate work, as both methods are employed in the work. If conviction of sin precedes regeneration, however, a point that has been proven in previous chapters, then it can easily be proved that God's mediate work precedes his immediate, for conviction of sin requires no immediate touch of the Spirit upon the soul. An illustration of how mediate work precedes immediate work is seen in the surgery that God performed upon Adam in creating woman. First, Adam desired a wife and companion, stemming from his loneliness, God responded to the situation by saying - "it is not good for Adam to be alone." Of course, it was God's intention all along to make Adam a wife. But, as a means to bring it about, God used means to bring Adam to desire a wife. Adam saw the animals with their mates and realized he had none. All this led to God operating upon Adam immediately and bringing Eve into being.
People who are sick and need surgery are led by means to request the surgical work of physicians but the work itself may be immediate as well as mediate. Further, the patient would be active in requesting surgery but passive in the surgery. Likewise, we may say that such surgery is both conditional and unconditional. The patient requests the surgery and that makes it conditional. But, when the patient is under anesthesia, the surgery is unconditional on the part of the patient.
Regeneration is a Resurrection
The illustration of the mediate and immediate work of God in the work of God in raising the spiritually dead may be seen in the case of the resurrection of the "dry dead bones" in the vision of Ezekiel. (Ezekiel 37) Two things effected the resurrection. The mediate cause was the speaking of the word of God through the mouth of the prophet to the dead bones. The immediate cause was the "wind," or breath and Spirit of God. The wind (Spirit) came into immediate contact with the dead but the Spirit also came mediately to the dead through the spoken word of the prophet. Thus, the resurrection was the result of God working both mediately and immediately, by the Spirit and the word.
"And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise." (Mark 5: 41)
Notice how there was both immediate touch - "he took her by the hand." But, there was also means, for he spoke words to her.
Further, the apostles raised the dead. They were instruments in the hand of the Lord. Thus the resurrection was mediated. But, it was also immediate for Peter says, in regard to such miracles - "why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?" (Acts 3: 12) The power of the Lord accompanied the instrument and made the instrument effective.
The Hand of the Lord
"And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the LORD Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord." (Acts 11: 20, 21)
Notice how faith and repentance ("believed and turned") were the work of God both immediately and mediately. God spoke his word through his evangelists. He was working mediately through them and the word they preached. But, notice also how something else attended the preaching of the word. "The hand of the Lord was with them." That is, the power of the Spirit attended the word, and was something distinct from it. The "hand of the Lord" actually touches the heart, soul, and mind. It is an immediate touch. Spirit touches spirit. But, at the same time, God is also operating through the word preached.
Regeneration is a Writing
"Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." (II Cor. 3: 2, 3)
On this verse Dr. John Gill wrote;
"to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us; so that the apostles and ministers of the word were only amanuenses, Christ was the author and dictator; yea, he himself is the very matter, sum, substance, and subject of the epistle; he is formed in the hearts of his people in conversion, his image is stamped, his grace is implanted, his word, his Gospel dwells richly, his laws and ordinances are written here...now in writing these epistles, the ministers of the Gospel are only instruments, "ministered by us". They are made use of to show the sinner the black characters which are written upon him, and that what is written in him, and to be read by him, by the light of nature is not sufficient for salvation; they are employed as instruments in drawing the rough draught of grace in conversion, and in writing the copy over again, fairer and fairer; being the happy means blessed by God, for the building up of souls in faith and holiness, in spiritual knowledge and comfort."
Regeneration is a Circumcision
Regeneration is called a Circumcision. (See Rom. 2: 28, 29; Col. 2: 11) Circumcision is both mediate and immediate. The one performing Circumcision touches the human body part and yet uses a cutting instrument.
Regeneration is a Washing
Regeneration is a washing. (I Cor. 6: 11) In bathing one touches the the thing being washed and also uses means, such as water, soap, or a cloth. (Jer. 2: 22)
Regeneration is a Sealing
Regeneration is a sealing. (II Cor. 1: 22; Eph. 1: 13, 4: 30) Sealing involves direct touch and also the use of an instrument, the signet.
Regeneration is an Application of Blood
Regeneration is an application of the blood of Christ. (Ex. 12: 22; Heb. 9: 14-25) In sprinkling the blood an instrument was used (hyssop) and the blood came into direct contact with the person.
These examples show that it is false to affirm, as do the Hardshells, that a work cannot be both mediate and immediate. Further, it does not take away from the glory of the Lord for the work to be both mediate and immediate.
In our next series we will show how the work of regeneration is both viewed as being passive and active, and then we will follow with a series showing how salvation is both conditional and unconditional.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Chpt. 115 - Mediate or Immediate?
Among those who have advocated the idea that spiritual birth is exactly like physical birth, and have divided it into stages, have nevertheless not forsaken the idea that birth, in all its stages, is a "passive" work. Thus, those Hardshells today, like Barber, who make conversion to be equated with birth, or deliverance from the womb, nevertheless deny that conversion is a passive work.
In denying the three stage model of spiritual birth I am unable to find previous writings where this Kuyperian and Hardshell model was refuted and so I will be doing this without previous help. I will be relying upon scripture alone to refute it.
Needless to say, most theologians have not made a distinction between "regeneration" and being "born again." Even the later Hardshells of the mid to late 19th century did not distinguish between them, but equated them.
Kenneth Wuest, Greek exegete, said this about the word "regeneration."
"The word paliggenisia is made up of the Greek word palin and genesis. Palin is an adverb meaning "back, again, back again." Genesis is a noun used in the N.T., in the sense of "origin, race, birth." It is rendered "birth" in Mt. 1: 18. It means "race, lineage." It is translated "generation" in Mt. 1: 1. It comes from the verb ginomai which means "to become, to begin to be." Used of persons it means "to become, to be born." In John 8: 58 we have, "before Abraham came into existence (i.e., was born), I am." "Was" is the A.V., translation of ginomai here, the verb which means "to come into existence." In Rom. 1: 3, the words referring to our Lord "which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh," could read, "who with reference to the flesh (His humanity), was born of the seed of David." Another clear case of the usage of ginomai in the sense of "to be born" is in Gal. 4: 4 where the Greek reads "having become out of a woman as a source." The participle is aorist, the classification ingressive. The participle for ginomai refers here therefore to entrance into a new state. It was His humanity into which our Lord entered. This entrance into human existence had its source in a woman, the preposition being ek (out of) and the case being ablative, thus, ablative of source. This entrace into human existence was effected by the virgin birth. Thus, while ginomai means fundamentally "to become, to begin to be," it is used at times in the sense of "to begin to be by being born." The word paliggenisia therefore means "to be born again."
In John 3: 3, reference is made by our Lord to regeneration, but there both the adverb and the verb are different. The verb is gennao, which in its active voice means "to beget," and in the passive voice, "to be born." (Wuest's Word Studies - Studies in the Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament)
Regeneration therefore simply means to be reborn. It is therefore an error to say that regeneration is not the new birth, as Kuyper, Best, Pink, and the Hardshells affirm. Best argued that the being "born again" in I Peter 1: 23 was not regeneration, and yet these words mean the same thing.
Further, in John 3: 3 the birth is not the implanting done by the male seed for Nicodemus said - "how can a man enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born." The word "born" therefore focused on the idea of emerging from the womb into existence. The word for "born" (gennao) in the words of Christ is from the same Greek word used by Peter in I Peter 1: 23.
Jesus said that this birth is "of the Spirit" and Peter says that it is "of incorruptible seed," or "of God" as John also said (John 1: 13), but Peter also said that it was "by the word of God."
Vines’ Expository Dictionary of Old and New testament Words, under the heading REGENERATION, we read the following:
"Palingenesia “new birth” (palin – “again”; genesis – “birth”) is used of “spiritual regeneration” [Titus 3:5] involving the communication of A NEW LIFE, the two operating powers to produce which are “The Word of Truth” [James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23] and “The Holy Spirit” [John 3:5-6]…The NEW BIRTH and REGENERATION do not represent successive stages in spiritual experience, they refer to the same event but view it in different aspects. The NEW BIRTH stresses the communication of spiritual life in contrast to the antecedent spiritual death; [see Ephesians 2:1] REGENERATION stresses the inception of a new state of things in contrast with the old’ [see 2 Corinthians 5:17]."
The Greek word "gennaō" is used, in scripture, of men who fathered children and also of women giving birth to children, most often in the latter sense.
"Among them that are born (gennētos from gennao) of women..." (Matt. 11: 11)
"...that holy thing which shall be born (gennao) of thee." (Luke 1: 35)
"A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world." (John 16: 21)
"...devour her child as soon as it was born..." (Rev. 12: 4)
These verses show that gennao focuses on birth from the womb of women. However, we also read that "Abraham begat (gennao) Isaac" (Acts 7: 8) and "...him that begat." (I John 5: 1)
Now let us examine the chief passage used by the advocates of the multi-stage view of spiritual birth to support their thesis.
"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." (James 1: 18)
The first thing to notice is the use of the personal masculine pronoun "he." This is important because those who advocate that this begetting is not regeneration, not the first stage of seed implantation, but rather refers to the final stage of birth, cannot reconcile this with the fact that James speaks of God in the masculine gender. The fact that "he" begat shows that the implantation of seed is not excluded from the begetting. On this A. T. Robertson, Greek scholar, said: "First aorist active indicative of apokuew (verse 15), only here of the father (4 Macc. 15:17), not of the mother."
The Greek word for apokyeō (beget) means "to bring forth from the womb," to "give birth to," to produce. But, this does not exclude the whole work of birth, as J. P. Boyce stated, for the masculine aspect is present. It is true that God not only sires but that he also acts as mother and midwife in bringing to full birth. This being true, James is not excluding any part of the birth process and thus being begotten "by the word of truth" is true with regard to the seed implantation as well as the birth from the womb. The purpose of those who attempt to restrict the begetting of this verse to only the final stage is to eliminate the use of the "word of truth," but if the entire birth is referred to, this becomes a failed attempt.
Scholars agree that the use of apokyeō, used by James in this chapter and no where else in the New Testament, does so in order to contrast spiritual birth with the metaphorical birth of spiritual death of verse 15. Let us notice that verse with the pertinent birthing words highlighted with their Greek word sources.
"Then when lust hath conceived (syllambanō - to conceive, to become pregnant), it bringeth forth (tiktō - produce or generate, as of a woman giving birth) sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth (apokyeō - give birth to) death." (James 1: 15)
Notice that "death" is not produced until lust has conceived, and brought forth. Death results not from the first stage of the birth process, but from the final stage. "Sin when it is finished brings forth death." Since death is not produced till the birth process of sin is "finished," so then life is not produced till the birth process of the Spirit is finished. The comparison is between "when the birth process of sin is completed death is produced" and "when the birth process of the Spirit is completed life is produced." But, this is what is denied by the Kuyperian Hyper Calvinists in their argumentation on this verse. They believe that life is produced before the birth process is completed.
Do the new testament writers distinguish and separate being born of the Father versus being born of the mother, spiritually speaking? That is the chief question. Did they think that a gap in time existed between being born of God the Father and being born from the womb of mother church? Is physical birth exactly like spiritual birth? We know that in physical birth that both a mother and father are required. Do Hardshells believe this? Who do they believe is the mother? Is the church not viewed as the mother in scripture? It is also true that God sometimes pictures himself as both father and mother in the birth of his children.
In physical birth there are indeed stages. First, there is the implantation of the seed, then the germination of the seed when the seed (sperm) comes in contact with the egg and fertilizes it. Second, there is a nine month period of growth and gestation in the womb. Third, there is the birth from the womb.
The first Hardshells believed that the final birth stage corresponded to conversion via the preaching of the gospel and faith. They also held to the view that all those who had the seed implanted would come to the birth, and that there would be no "still born." They believed that the child was passive in all the stages of the birth process. Later Hardshells generally rejected this staged model of the new birth, and saw regeneration as the same experience as being born, and in doing so, rejected the idea that spiritual birth was exactly like physical birth.
In physical birth there is a period of nine months between being conceived in the womb and being delivered from the womb. But, if this is true in spiritual birth, then we must affirm that no one is converted at the same time that he is regenerated. Yet, we have many examples in scripture where people were regenerated and born again at the same time, were regenerated and converted at the same time, such as the apostle Paul on the Damascus Road. Paul's experience of being regenerated and born (converted) at the same time shows that spiritual birth is not exactly like physical birth.
Let us notice these words of the prophet and see if God follows the normal birth process of flesh.
"Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children. 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: 7-9)
In normal birth, travail comes first before the the "bringing forth" and before the "delivery." But, God does not follow this procedure in the above words, hence the rhetorical words of surprise - "who has heard of such a thing?" and "who has seen such things?" It is unique. The normal birth process does not take place all at once, but the birth process in the above words takes place all at once. The church is here compared to a pregnant woman that brings forth suddenly and easily.
On these words of God from Isaiah, Dr. Gill wrote:
"The church may pray, and her ministers preach, and both be said to travail in birth, but it is the Lord that brings to it; regeneration is not the work of man, but of God; it is he that beget, again, quickens, renews, and sanctifies; it is he that begins the work of grace in regeneration, in real and thorough convictions of sin; which are right when men are convinced of the impurity of their nature, the exceeding sinfulness of sin, have a godly sorrow for it, and forsake it: the work is begun when souls feel the burden of sin; the inward struggling, of grace and corruption; a want of spiritual food, and hunger after it; desires after spiritual things, and a glowing love and affection for them; and when light is infused, faith, fear, and love produced, and every other grace implanted; and he that has begun the good work will perform it...As in the natural birth it is he that gives strength to conceive, forms the embryo in the womb, ripens it for the birth, and takes the child out of its mother's womb; so he does all that answers hereunto in the spiritual birth...God will not shut the womb of conversion until they are all brought to faith in Christ, and repentance towards God."
Gill comments further upon these words of the text - "for as soon as Zion travailed she brought forth her children," saying:
"...this is to be understood of the pains which Gospel ministers take in preaching the word, which is the means of regeneration, and they the instruments of it; and so are called fathers, who through the Gospel beget souls to Christ; and of their anxious concern for the conversion of sinners, and the formation of Christ in them, which is called a travailing in birth; see (1 Peter 1:23) (James 3:18) (1 Corinthians 4:15) (Galatians 4:19) (Romans 8:22 Romans 8:23) and it may also design the earnest prayers of the church and its members, striving and wrestling with God, being importunate with him, that the word preached might be useful for the good of souls..."
In these words Gill equates being regenerated with being begotten and with being converted.
Jesus also spoke of the birth process in these words:
"A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world." (John 16: 21)
Surely to be "born into the world" means to have existence in the world. Birth brings a person into being in the ordered world. So, likewise does spiritual birth bring one into being in the ordered world of grace and of the kingdom of God. When does one enter the spiritual world? Is it not after being delivered from the womb, when the birth process is finished?
What are the consequences to the belief that there is a gap in time between regeneration (see implantation and germination) and birth? What are the consequences for making spiritual birth to be, in every way, exactly like physical birth?
The most absurd and unscriptural consequence is that it redefines the nature of regeneration. First, it affirms that a person is "regenerate" who is not "born," and this in spite of the fact that regenerate means the same thing as reborn. It creates a difference where there is no difference.
Second, it affirms that a man is "regenerate" who is yet unsanctified and unjustified, for sanctification and justification, in scripture, are said to be "by faith." (See Acts 26: 18 & Rom. 5: 1)
Third, it affirms that a man is regenerate, has a changed heart and new nature, but who is yet an unbeliever and impenitent in heart, and who still is condemned and has the wrath of God abiding upon him. (See John 3: 18, 36)
Fourth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who has not yet taken possession of the Holy Spirit, for the Spirit is "received" (active voice) through faith via the gospel. (Gal. 3: 2; Rom. 8: 15)
Fifth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who has not been forgiven of sins, for forgiveness comes by faith. (See Acts 26: 18)
Sixth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet in darkness (in the womb) and has not come into the light, whereas the scriptures define the regeneration experience as involving enlightenment. (See II Cor. 4: 6)
Seventh, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet unwashed and unclean, for cleansing is "by the word." (See Eph. 5: 26)
Eighth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet unconverted, for conversion is by faith. (See Acts 3: 19)
Ninth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is not yet saved, for men are saved by faith. (See Eph. 2: 8)
Tenth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who has not yet "received (active voice - by faith) the atonement." (See Rom. 5: 11)
Eleventh, it affirms that regeneration precedes justification whereas the scriptures are clear that justification is logically first. (See Col. 2: 13)
Twelfth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet under the power and dominion of Satan. (See Acts 26: 18)
Thirteenth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet not a child and heir of God. (the Greek word "teknon" - becoming children involves birth - tek - See Rom. 8: 17)
Fourteenth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet not liberated, for being yet in the womb the infant is still confined. (See Rom. 6: 18)
Fifteen, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is not yet united to Christ, which is by faith. (See I Cor. 6: 19)
Sixteen, it affirms that a man is regenerate who has not yet had his person and garments washed in the blood of the Lamb. (See Rev. 7: 14 - active voice in Greek)
Seventeenth, it affirms that a man is regenerate whose sins have not been propitiated. (See Rom. 3: 25 where propitiation is "through faith")
Needless to say, there are other absurd consequences, but these should be sufficient to show the untenable theory of those who divorce regeneration from birth, and from faith and conversion.
In denying the three stage model of spiritual birth I am unable to find previous writings where this Kuyperian and Hardshell model was refuted and so I will be doing this without previous help. I will be relying upon scripture alone to refute it.
Needless to say, most theologians have not made a distinction between "regeneration" and being "born again." Even the later Hardshells of the mid to late 19th century did not distinguish between them, but equated them.
Kenneth Wuest, Greek exegete, said this about the word "regeneration."
"The word paliggenisia is made up of the Greek word palin and genesis. Palin is an adverb meaning "back, again, back again." Genesis is a noun used in the N.T., in the sense of "origin, race, birth." It is rendered "birth" in Mt. 1: 18. It means "race, lineage." It is translated "generation" in Mt. 1: 1. It comes from the verb ginomai which means "to become, to begin to be." Used of persons it means "to become, to be born." In John 8: 58 we have, "before Abraham came into existence (i.e., was born), I am." "Was" is the A.V., translation of ginomai here, the verb which means "to come into existence." In Rom. 1: 3, the words referring to our Lord "which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh," could read, "who with reference to the flesh (His humanity), was born of the seed of David." Another clear case of the usage of ginomai in the sense of "to be born" is in Gal. 4: 4 where the Greek reads "having become out of a woman as a source." The participle is aorist, the classification ingressive. The participle for ginomai refers here therefore to entrance into a new state. It was His humanity into which our Lord entered. This entrance into human existence had its source in a woman, the preposition being ek (out of) and the case being ablative, thus, ablative of source. This entrace into human existence was effected by the virgin birth. Thus, while ginomai means fundamentally "to become, to begin to be," it is used at times in the sense of "to begin to be by being born." The word paliggenisia therefore means "to be born again."
In John 3: 3, reference is made by our Lord to regeneration, but there both the adverb and the verb are different. The verb is gennao, which in its active voice means "to beget," and in the passive voice, "to be born." (Wuest's Word Studies - Studies in the Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament)
Regeneration therefore simply means to be reborn. It is therefore an error to say that regeneration is not the new birth, as Kuyper, Best, Pink, and the Hardshells affirm. Best argued that the being "born again" in I Peter 1: 23 was not regeneration, and yet these words mean the same thing.
Further, in John 3: 3 the birth is not the implanting done by the male seed for Nicodemus said - "how can a man enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born." The word "born" therefore focused on the idea of emerging from the womb into existence. The word for "born" (gennao) in the words of Christ is from the same Greek word used by Peter in I Peter 1: 23.
Jesus said that this birth is "of the Spirit" and Peter says that it is "of incorruptible seed," or "of God" as John also said (John 1: 13), but Peter also said that it was "by the word of God."
Vines’ Expository Dictionary of Old and New testament Words, under the heading REGENERATION, we read the following:
"Palingenesia “new birth” (palin – “again”; genesis – “birth”) is used of “spiritual regeneration” [Titus 3:5] involving the communication of A NEW LIFE, the two operating powers to produce which are “The Word of Truth” [James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23] and “The Holy Spirit” [John 3:5-6]…The NEW BIRTH and REGENERATION do not represent successive stages in spiritual experience, they refer to the same event but view it in different aspects. The NEW BIRTH stresses the communication of spiritual life in contrast to the antecedent spiritual death; [see Ephesians 2:1] REGENERATION stresses the inception of a new state of things in contrast with the old’ [see 2 Corinthians 5:17]."
The Greek word "gennaō" is used, in scripture, of men who fathered children and also of women giving birth to children, most often in the latter sense.
"Among them that are born (gennētos from gennao) of women..." (Matt. 11: 11)
"...that holy thing which shall be born (gennao) of thee." (Luke 1: 35)
"A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world." (John 16: 21)
"...devour her child as soon as it was born..." (Rev. 12: 4)
These verses show that gennao focuses on birth from the womb of women. However, we also read that "Abraham begat (gennao) Isaac" (Acts 7: 8) and "...him that begat." (I John 5: 1)
Now let us examine the chief passage used by the advocates of the multi-stage view of spiritual birth to support their thesis.
"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." (James 1: 18)
The first thing to notice is the use of the personal masculine pronoun "he." This is important because those who advocate that this begetting is not regeneration, not the first stage of seed implantation, but rather refers to the final stage of birth, cannot reconcile this with the fact that James speaks of God in the masculine gender. The fact that "he" begat shows that the implantation of seed is not excluded from the begetting. On this A. T. Robertson, Greek scholar, said: "First aorist active indicative of apokuew (verse 15), only here of the father (4 Macc. 15:17), not of the mother."
The Greek word for apokyeō (beget) means "to bring forth from the womb," to "give birth to," to produce. But, this does not exclude the whole work of birth, as J. P. Boyce stated, for the masculine aspect is present. It is true that God not only sires but that he also acts as mother and midwife in bringing to full birth. This being true, James is not excluding any part of the birth process and thus being begotten "by the word of truth" is true with regard to the seed implantation as well as the birth from the womb. The purpose of those who attempt to restrict the begetting of this verse to only the final stage is to eliminate the use of the "word of truth," but if the entire birth is referred to, this becomes a failed attempt.
Scholars agree that the use of apokyeō, used by James in this chapter and no where else in the New Testament, does so in order to contrast spiritual birth with the metaphorical birth of spiritual death of verse 15. Let us notice that verse with the pertinent birthing words highlighted with their Greek word sources.
"Then when lust hath conceived (syllambanō - to conceive, to become pregnant), it bringeth forth (tiktō - produce or generate, as of a woman giving birth) sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth (apokyeō - give birth to) death." (James 1: 15)
Notice that "death" is not produced until lust has conceived, and brought forth. Death results not from the first stage of the birth process, but from the final stage. "Sin when it is finished brings forth death." Since death is not produced till the birth process of sin is "finished," so then life is not produced till the birth process of the Spirit is finished. The comparison is between "when the birth process of sin is completed death is produced" and "when the birth process of the Spirit is completed life is produced." But, this is what is denied by the Kuyperian Hyper Calvinists in their argumentation on this verse. They believe that life is produced before the birth process is completed.
Do the new testament writers distinguish and separate being born of the Father versus being born of the mother, spiritually speaking? That is the chief question. Did they think that a gap in time existed between being born of God the Father and being born from the womb of mother church? Is physical birth exactly like spiritual birth? We know that in physical birth that both a mother and father are required. Do Hardshells believe this? Who do they believe is the mother? Is the church not viewed as the mother in scripture? It is also true that God sometimes pictures himself as both father and mother in the birth of his children.
In physical birth there are indeed stages. First, there is the implantation of the seed, then the germination of the seed when the seed (sperm) comes in contact with the egg and fertilizes it. Second, there is a nine month period of growth and gestation in the womb. Third, there is the birth from the womb.
The first Hardshells believed that the final birth stage corresponded to conversion via the preaching of the gospel and faith. They also held to the view that all those who had the seed implanted would come to the birth, and that there would be no "still born." They believed that the child was passive in all the stages of the birth process. Later Hardshells generally rejected this staged model of the new birth, and saw regeneration as the same experience as being born, and in doing so, rejected the idea that spiritual birth was exactly like physical birth.
In physical birth there is a period of nine months between being conceived in the womb and being delivered from the womb. But, if this is true in spiritual birth, then we must affirm that no one is converted at the same time that he is regenerated. Yet, we have many examples in scripture where people were regenerated and born again at the same time, were regenerated and converted at the same time, such as the apostle Paul on the Damascus Road. Paul's experience of being regenerated and born (converted) at the same time shows that spiritual birth is not exactly like physical birth.
Let us notice these words of the prophet and see if God follows the normal birth process of flesh.
"Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children. 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: 7-9)
In normal birth, travail comes first before the the "bringing forth" and before the "delivery." But, God does not follow this procedure in the above words, hence the rhetorical words of surprise - "who has heard of such a thing?" and "who has seen such things?" It is unique. The normal birth process does not take place all at once, but the birth process in the above words takes place all at once. The church is here compared to a pregnant woman that brings forth suddenly and easily.
On these words of God from Isaiah, Dr. Gill wrote:
"The church may pray, and her ministers preach, and both be said to travail in birth, but it is the Lord that brings to it; regeneration is not the work of man, but of God; it is he that beget, again, quickens, renews, and sanctifies; it is he that begins the work of grace in regeneration, in real and thorough convictions of sin; which are right when men are convinced of the impurity of their nature, the exceeding sinfulness of sin, have a godly sorrow for it, and forsake it: the work is begun when souls feel the burden of sin; the inward struggling, of grace and corruption; a want of spiritual food, and hunger after it; desires after spiritual things, and a glowing love and affection for them; and when light is infused, faith, fear, and love produced, and every other grace implanted; and he that has begun the good work will perform it...As in the natural birth it is he that gives strength to conceive, forms the embryo in the womb, ripens it for the birth, and takes the child out of its mother's womb; so he does all that answers hereunto in the spiritual birth...God will not shut the womb of conversion until they are all brought to faith in Christ, and repentance towards God."
Gill comments further upon these words of the text - "for as soon as Zion travailed she brought forth her children," saying:
"...this is to be understood of the pains which Gospel ministers take in preaching the word, which is the means of regeneration, and they the instruments of it; and so are called fathers, who through the Gospel beget souls to Christ; and of their anxious concern for the conversion of sinners, and the formation of Christ in them, which is called a travailing in birth; see (1 Peter 1:23) (James 3:18) (1 Corinthians 4:15) (Galatians 4:19) (Romans 8:22 Romans 8:23) and it may also design the earnest prayers of the church and its members, striving and wrestling with God, being importunate with him, that the word preached might be useful for the good of souls..."
In these words Gill equates being regenerated with being begotten and with being converted.
Jesus also spoke of the birth process in these words:
"A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world." (John 16: 21)
Surely to be "born into the world" means to have existence in the world. Birth brings a person into being in the ordered world. So, likewise does spiritual birth bring one into being in the ordered world of grace and of the kingdom of God. When does one enter the spiritual world? Is it not after being delivered from the womb, when the birth process is finished?
What are the consequences to the belief that there is a gap in time between regeneration (see implantation and germination) and birth? What are the consequences for making spiritual birth to be, in every way, exactly like physical birth?
The most absurd and unscriptural consequence is that it redefines the nature of regeneration. First, it affirms that a person is "regenerate" who is not "born," and this in spite of the fact that regenerate means the same thing as reborn. It creates a difference where there is no difference.
Second, it affirms that a man is "regenerate" who is yet unsanctified and unjustified, for sanctification and justification, in scripture, are said to be "by faith." (See Acts 26: 18 & Rom. 5: 1)
Third, it affirms that a man is regenerate, has a changed heart and new nature, but who is yet an unbeliever and impenitent in heart, and who still is condemned and has the wrath of God abiding upon him. (See John 3: 18, 36)
Fourth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who has not yet taken possession of the Holy Spirit, for the Spirit is "received" (active voice) through faith via the gospel. (Gal. 3: 2; Rom. 8: 15)
Fifth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who has not been forgiven of sins, for forgiveness comes by faith. (See Acts 26: 18)
Sixth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet in darkness (in the womb) and has not come into the light, whereas the scriptures define the regeneration experience as involving enlightenment. (See II Cor. 4: 6)
Seventh, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet unwashed and unclean, for cleansing is "by the word." (See Eph. 5: 26)
Eighth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet unconverted, for conversion is by faith. (See Acts 3: 19)
Ninth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is not yet saved, for men are saved by faith. (See Eph. 2: 8)
Tenth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who has not yet "received (active voice - by faith) the atonement." (See Rom. 5: 11)
Eleventh, it affirms that regeneration precedes justification whereas the scriptures are clear that justification is logically first. (See Col. 2: 13)
Twelfth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet under the power and dominion of Satan. (See Acts 26: 18)
Thirteenth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet not a child and heir of God. (the Greek word "teknon" - becoming children involves birth - tek - See Rom. 8: 17)
Fourteenth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet not liberated, for being yet in the womb the infant is still confined. (See Rom. 6: 18)
Fifteen, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is not yet united to Christ, which is by faith. (See I Cor. 6: 19)
Sixteen, it affirms that a man is regenerate who has not yet had his person and garments washed in the blood of the Lamb. (See Rev. 7: 14 - active voice in Greek)
Seventeenth, it affirms that a man is regenerate whose sins have not been propitiated. (See Rom. 3: 25 where propitiation is "through faith")
Needless to say, there are other absurd consequences, but these should be sufficient to show the untenable theory of those who divorce regeneration from birth, and from faith and conversion.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Chpt. 114 - Mediate or Immediate?
In this chapter we will begin an analysis of the "three stage" view of "regeneration" believed by the founding fathers of Hardshellism and of Abraham Kuyper and compare it with both scripture and the writings of the first Calvinists and Reformers. In earlier chapters we cited from the writings of several founding fathers of the Hardshell denomination to prove this fact. For instance, Hardshell founding father, Elder Samuel Trott, wrote (emphasis mine - SG):
"Thus in the new birth there is a striking correspondence to the natural birth; to each there is a seed implanted, and then a quickening by which life is manifested. And when the natural child is brought to the birth, the sorrows of the woman in travail, the fetus being broke loose from that by which alone it had been hitherto nourished, strongly represents the agonies and the killing by the law belonging to the second birth."
Though the first Hardshells made "regeneration" ('quickening') to be a separate experience from the later experience of "birth," yet they did not, like today's Hardshells, deny that all the regenerated would be born again.
Jimmy Barber, present day Hardshell elder, wrote (see here):
"Often James 1:18 is set forth to show gospel regeneration. On the surface, this verse appears to teach gospel regeneration. A study in the Greek language will show otherwise. However, James 1:18 proposes no problem if it did teach that the spoken or written Word was used by God in the new birth. Why? Because in giving life, it is the Son of God that speaks the word. But in revealing the life, it is the preacher speaking the word. Nevertheless, this passage teaches how life is revealed or brought to light."
Barber repeats the view of Elder Gilbert Beebe, one of the chief leaders of the new Hardshell denomination, when he speaks of the "direct voice speaking" of Christ in "giving life," a view that was examined in early chapters. Barber believes that the Lord personally speaks to sinners, on the sub-conscious level, when they are "regenerated," or when the divine seed is "implanted." But, he does not believe that the Lord personally speaks to sinners, on the sub-conscious level, when thay are converted. In "regeneration" the Lord speaks directly, apart from preachers, but in "conversion" the Lord speaks indirectly, through his commissioned evangelists.
"Let us study the word "begot," in this verse. This word is "apokueo" in the Greek language, and it comes from the word "kuo" or "kueo" which means to be pregnant. Therefore, "apo-kueo" means "to bring forth as from the womb, or to give birth to." This word is used only twice in the Scriptures--here and in verse fifteen where it is translated "bringeth forth." James is not speaking about the initial quickening or giving of life, but how the life is manifested or brought to light. Thus, the giving of life to a child of God in the Spiritual realm is like conception in the natural realm."
"When God quickens a person, or gives him Spiritual life, he is alive like the babe in the womb of its mother. When someone preaches the Word of truth to that individual, it is parallel to the doctor bringing a child into the world. Therefore, from the time an individual is quickened or born from above, until the gospel is preached to him, he is existing by the umbilical cord of God's grace. It is possible for a person to be quickened for a time and not know anything about it, as a person is conceived and living for some time before he has a conscience awareness of his existence."
There are a number of errors in these words of Barber. The first error is his dividing up the new birth into stages. The second is his contention that being "born" of God is not necessary for salvation. The third error is his contention that "it is possible for a person to be quickened for a time and not know anything about it." One wonders if Adam, upon being created, knew that he had been created? One wonders, if Lazarus, upon being raised from the dead, knew it? Again, I repeat, that it is absurd to think that the personal salvation experience that the apostles referred to in their letters to the early Christians was something of which the Christians did not understand as being their conversion to Christ.
Barber wrote:
"Our conclusion is that James was not speaking about giving spiritual life to anyone; he was speaking about life being brought to light as Paul said in Timothy (II Timothy 1:9-10). The context of the first chapter of James (as well as the entire book) bears out that he wrote to encourage professing believers to exhibit fruits of a child of God. James did not write to instruct how one becomes spiritually alive." Another writer wrote:
"It was the will of the Father of lights to give birth (apekuêsen) to us. Apokueô occurs in the New Testament only here and in verse 15. This signals that James is contrasting God’s deliberate birthing of the community to sin’s birthing of death. The feminine image of God giving birth is present in the Old Testament: God asks if he had “conceived” (hrh) or had “given birth to” (yld) Israel (Num 11:12), while in Deut 32:18 Yhwh is directly referred to as “the God who gave birth to [Israel].” (See here)
Barber again makes some huge errors in these words. He makes the experience of being "begotten" of God to be unnecessary for being eternally saved! But, we will save our full rebuttal of his argumentation till after we have given other sources for this multi-stage view of regeneration.
W. E. Best, whom the Hardshells often cite to add weight to their views, wrote the following "on the New Birth."
"One of the greatest blunders, on the subject of the new birth, is to make it dependent on man’s faith. Opposers of Biblical regeneration advocate that the new birth must, in some way, be the response of one who hears the gospel. Such verses as James 1:18 and I Peter 1:23 are used to prove their theory; but the exegesis of the two texts demands no such conclusion. James 1:18 does not refer to begetting or conception, but bringing forth or giving birth. Immediate regeneration does not deny that the new birth, in which the new life becomes manifest, is secured by response to the gospel; but distinction must be made between conception and birth. They are not the same, There are two prepositions in I Peter 1:23 that must be distinguished before the verse can be understood. The first is “of [ek—from out of—the source] incorruptible seed.” This is not the instrument, but the source of regeneration. “By [dia—through—the instrument] the word of God” is the second; this shows that God’s word is the instrument of conversion, not regeneration."
Like the Hardshell founding fathers, and like Hopkins and Kuyper, Best makes "regeneration" to be distinct from being "born again" and being "begotten." Like Barber, Best believes that I Peter 1: 23, like James 1: 18, speaks of birth as distinct from regeneration. This, we will show, however, is untenable, for the word in Peter is not the same word in James. While it is possible that the Greek word for "begat" in James may be referring to the female aspect, yet this can hardly be said about the word "gennao" in Peter. But, more on this later.
Best speaks of the prepositions used by Peter, how Peter speaks of being born "of" (ek) God but "by" (dia) the Holy Spirit. Best attempts to argue that "of God" refers to the first stage of the birth process while "by the word of God" refers to the last stage. But, this is untenable. It is the exact same birth that is "of" God and "by" the word of God. There are not two births under consideration, one "of" God and one "by" the gospel.
Best continues:
"Regeneration is the begetting of the new life. The effectual call is the bringing forth of that life by Divine summons into the light of the gospel. If the hearing of the word (call of the gospel) is indispensable to regeneration, then what about babies who die in infancy? As soon as we distinguish quickening from conversion, the light enters. There must first be life before there can be any response to living things." (REGENERATION AND CONVERSION by W. E. Best - See here)
Best does not equate "regeneration" with the "effectual call," and yet all the oldest Calvinistic writings and confessions equate them. Further, the scriptures teach that new life in Christ is the result of God's call. Best also brings up the case of those who die in infancy, a common argument by those who deny means, but this argument has been refuted in earlier chapters in this book. Best also follows the lead of men such as Kuyper in affirming that the separating of regeneration from birth (conversion) causes the light to enter, clearing up supposed confusion and contradiction in the writings of those who do not separate them.
John Hendryx of monergism.com, also advocates the view of Hopkins and the founding fathers of Hardshellism, and wrote:
"I. Regeneration is described as a spiritual new birth.
1. This is affirmed in the following New Testament passages: John 1:12-13; 3:3-8; I Corinthians 4:15; Philemon 10; James 1:18; I Peter 1:3,23; I John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1,4,18.
2. The embryonic stage of regeneration is what is called "quickening", and it is the work of the Holy Spirit alone.
3. The final stage of regeneration is delivery or birth, and it is the work of the Holy Spirit in dependence upon the Word as a means. Consequently, the spiritual knowledge conferred by illumination is the spiritual content or revelation (holy Scripture)." ("Biblical Regeneration and Affectional Theology," see here)
From the same web site there is an article titled "Irresistible Grace" by Brian Schwertly where he taught the same thing. He wrote:
"Some misunderstanding regarding regeneration is understandable given the fact that regeneration has two different senses in the New Testament. Sometimes it refers to the whole conversion process in which the reborn heart comes in contact with the word and is first called into action. Passages such as 1 Peter 1:23 and James 1:18 discuss the regenerate heart as it comes in contact with the Word of God and issues forth into conversion. “This is the effectual calling through the instrumentality of the word of preaching, effectively applied by the Spirit of God. This effectual calling finally secures, through the truth as a means, the first holy exercises of the new disposition that is born to the soul. The new life begins to manifest itself, the implanted life issues in the new birth.”
"The first stage of regeneration can be compared to the implantation of a seed, and the second stage could be compared to the process of giving birth. Regeneration in the strict sense logically precedes or is coterminous with the preaching of the gospel because the gospel cannot have persuasive power over a corpse." (See here)
A. W. Pink, leading 20th century Baptist author, highly touted by the Hardshells, in support of the same view, wrote:
"We shall now confine ourselves to the initial operation of the Spirit within the elect of God. Different writers have employed the term "regeneration" with varying latitude: some restricting it unto a single act, others including the whole process by which one becomes a conscious child of God. This has hindered close accuracy of thought, and has introduced considerable confusion through the confounding of things which, though intimately related, are quite distinct. Not only has confusion of thought resulted from a loose use of terms, but serious divisions among professing saints have issued therefrom. We believe that much, if not all, of this would have been avoided had theologians discriminated more sharply and clearly between the principle of grace (spiritual life) which the Spirit first imparts unto the soul, and His consequent stirrings of that principle into exercise."
Pink argues, like Kuyper and others, that the older Calvinist theologians created confusion by their teaching that biblical regeneration was the same as the new birth, and the same as conversion.
In "Quickening Is the Initial Operation of the Spirit," Pink wrote:
"In earlier years we did not ourselves perceive the distinction which is pointed by John 6:63 and 1 Peter 1:23: the former referring unto the initial act of the Spirit in "quickening" the spiritually-dead soul, the latter having in view the consequent "birth" of the same. While it is freely allowed that the origin of the "new creature" is shrouded in impenetrable mystery, yet of this we may be certain, that life precedes birth. There is a strict analogy between the natural birth and the spiritual: necessarily so, for God is the Author of them both, and He ordained that the former should adumbrate the latter. Birth is neither the cause nor the beginning of life itself: rather is it the manifestation of a life already existent: there had been a Divine "quickening" before the child could issue from the womb. In like manner, the Holy Spirit "quickens" the soul, or imparts spiritual life to it, before its possessor is "brought forth" (as James 1:18 is rightly rendered in the R.V.) and "born again" by the Word of God (1 Pet. 1:23)."
Pink makes the same arguments made by Kuyper and others of the "New Divinity" in affirming that spiritual birth is exactly like physical birth in arguing that regeneration is not birth. I would argue that Pink was correct in his earlier years when he held to the confessional view that did not separate regeneration from birth and conversion.
Pink continued:
"James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23, and parallel passages, refer not to the original communication of spiritual life to the soul, but rather to our being enabled to act from that life and induced to love and obey God by means of the Word of Truth—which presupposes a principle of grace already planted in the heart. In His work of illumination, conviction, conversion, and sanctification, the Spirit uses the Word as the means thereto, but in His initial work of "quickening" He employs no means, operating immediately or directly upon the soul. First there is a "new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:10), and then the "new creature" is stirred into exercise. Faith and all other graces are wrought in us by the Spirit through the instrumentality of the Word, but not so with the principle of life and grace from which these graces proceed."
Pink argues the same thing that Best argued in affirming that the "birth" of James 1: 18 and I Peter 1:23 is not regeneration, is not the way in which a sinner is given spiritual life. Notice also how Pink makes "conviction of sin" to be the result of regeneration, what is accomplished through "means."
Pink, under the heading "Quickening Imparts Life" wrote:
"In His work of "quickening," by which we mean the impartation of spiritual life to the soul, the Spirit acts immediately from within, and not by applying something from without. Quickening is a direct operation of the Spirit without the use of any instrument: the Word is used by Him afterwards to call into exercise the life then communicated. Regeneration is a direct operation of the Holy Spirit upon the human spirit. It is the action of Spirit upon spirit, of a Divine Person upon a human person, whereby spiritual life is imparted. Nothing, therefore, of the nature of means or instruments can come between the Holy Spirit and the soul that is made alive. God did not employ an instrument or means when He infused physical life into the body of Adam. There were only two factors: the dust of the ground and the creative power of God which vivified that dust. The Divine omnipotence and dead matter were brought into direct contact, with nothing interposing. The dust was not a means or instrument by which God originated life. So in regeneration there are only two factors: the human soul destitute of spiritual life, and the Holy Spirit who quickens it."
In these words Pink argues much the same way as do the Hardshells and many of these arguments I have already addressed and rebutted and will enlarge my rebuttal in this chapter and in the next.
Pink wrote:
"No, men are not "quickened" by the Word, they must be quickened in order to receive and understand the Word. "And I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the LORD; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God" (Jer. 24:7): that statement would be quite meaningless if a saving knowledge of or experimental acquaintance with God were obtained through the Word previous to the "new heart" or spiritual life being given, and was the means of our being quickened. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" (Prov. 1:7); the "fear of the Lord" or Divine grace communicated to the heart (spiritual life imparted) alone lays the foundation for spiritual knowledge and activities." ("THE HOLY SPIRIT," Chapter 11 - "The Spirit Quickening")
The idea that men are not "quickened" by the word has been shown to be false throughout our work on "The Hardshell Baptist Cult." For instance, we have looked at the words of David who said that he had been "quickened" by God's word. (Psa. 119: 50)
There have been others who have also divided up the Christian's spiritual birth into stages but who did not make conversion, through repentance and faith, to be the post regeneration "birth."
Alexander Campbell believed that sinners were "regenerated" when they believed the gospel but were not "born" until they were baptized in water.
Irvin Himmel wrote this about the views of Herbert W. Armstrong:
"According to Armstrong and his comrades, no one is born again until the resurrection."
"Armstrongism maintains that true Christians are only "begotten" of God while humans, but "we shall be born of God in the resurrection" ("Why the Resurrection?" by Roderick C. Meredith, Plain Truth, March, 1983, p. 14). Armstrong says God is "reproducing Himself after His own kind" (Why Were You Born? p. 29). When a person is impregnated with the Holy Spirit he is begotten of God. This is conversion (Just What Do You Mean . . . Conversion? p. 8)." ("Armstrong's Doctrine Of The New Birth" by Irvin Himmel - See here)
In beginning a rebuttal of the views of the men cited above, I wish to begin with the words of J. P. Boyce, one of the first great leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention and leader at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
J. P. Boyce wrote:
"The word apekuesen is used in James 1:18, and means to bring forth or bear young, and there evidently means to bring to the condition of sonship."
"However much James 1:18 suggests a different aspect of the work, namely, the bringing forth that which has been begotten, still it so nearly connects that idea with the begetting as to create doubt if the whole work may not be virtually involved."
Boyce is correct to say that James has in mind "the whole work" when he speaks of "bringing forth" in birth.
Boyce continues:
"From the Scriptural teaching we see that the whole work of Regeneration and Conversion is included under the one term regeneration."
"The whole work is thus spoken of, however, because God is operative from the beginning to the end, but this does not prove that he does not operate differently in one part from what he does in the other."
"The Scripture teaching is that God operates immediately upon the heart to produce the required change, by which it is fitted to receive the truth, and mediately through the word in its reception of that truth."
"He operates immediately upon the heart to prepare the way for the truth."
(CHAPTER XXXII - REGENERATION AND CONVERSION - See Notice that Boyce affirms what I affirm. He affirms that regeneration/new birth is both mediate and immediate.
Boyce also wrote:
"At the outset of a discussion of these two subjects we are met by the question, whether they are not one and the same thing. They are unquestionably so intimately associated that it is difficult to separate them and point out the distinctions between them. The Scriptures connect the two under the one idea of the new birth, and teach that not only is regeneration an absolute essential in each conversion, but that in every intelligent responsible soul conversion invariably accompanies regeneration...From the Scriptural teaching we see that the whole work of Regeneration and Conversion is included under the one term regeneration." What does Boyce say is the teaching of scripture, in contrast to that of the hair-splitting theologians? He says that "conversion is included under the one term regeneration."
Boyce also did not define "regeneration" by the cause alone. He wrote:
"It is true that but few of the passages refer to anything save the work of God; yet these few sufficiently teach the use of the word in regeneration to lead us not to reject, as a part of it, that result of God's act which, in connection with the word, leads to the full union of its subject with Christ through repentance and faith."
Boyce says that the scriptures include the "result" or effect in its definition of what it means to be regenerated. He does not see the scriptures as defining it by the cause alone.
In the next chapter we will show that the idea of the new birth having stages, like physical birth, is not scriptural and that defining "regeneration" to the mere "implantation" of "seed" (impregnation) to the exclusion of birth (conception) is false.
"Thus in the new birth there is a striking correspondence to the natural birth; to each there is a seed implanted, and then a quickening by which life is manifested. And when the natural child is brought to the birth, the sorrows of the woman in travail, the fetus being broke loose from that by which alone it had been hitherto nourished, strongly represents the agonies and the killing by the law belonging to the second birth."
Though the first Hardshells made "regeneration" ('quickening') to be a separate experience from the later experience of "birth," yet they did not, like today's Hardshells, deny that all the regenerated would be born again.
Jimmy Barber, present day Hardshell elder, wrote (see here):
"Often James 1:18 is set forth to show gospel regeneration. On the surface, this verse appears to teach gospel regeneration. A study in the Greek language will show otherwise. However, James 1:18 proposes no problem if it did teach that the spoken or written Word was used by God in the new birth. Why? Because in giving life, it is the Son of God that speaks the word. But in revealing the life, it is the preacher speaking the word. Nevertheless, this passage teaches how life is revealed or brought to light."
Barber repeats the view of Elder Gilbert Beebe, one of the chief leaders of the new Hardshell denomination, when he speaks of the "direct voice speaking" of Christ in "giving life," a view that was examined in early chapters. Barber believes that the Lord personally speaks to sinners, on the sub-conscious level, when they are "regenerated," or when the divine seed is "implanted." But, he does not believe that the Lord personally speaks to sinners, on the sub-conscious level, when thay are converted. In "regeneration" the Lord speaks directly, apart from preachers, but in "conversion" the Lord speaks indirectly, through his commissioned evangelists.
"Let us study the word "begot," in this verse. This word is "apokueo" in the Greek language, and it comes from the word "kuo" or "kueo" which means to be pregnant. Therefore, "apo-kueo" means "to bring forth as from the womb, or to give birth to." This word is used only twice in the Scriptures--here and in verse fifteen where it is translated "bringeth forth." James is not speaking about the initial quickening or giving of life, but how the life is manifested or brought to light. Thus, the giving of life to a child of God in the Spiritual realm is like conception in the natural realm."
"When God quickens a person, or gives him Spiritual life, he is alive like the babe in the womb of its mother. When someone preaches the Word of truth to that individual, it is parallel to the doctor bringing a child into the world. Therefore, from the time an individual is quickened or born from above, until the gospel is preached to him, he is existing by the umbilical cord of God's grace. It is possible for a person to be quickened for a time and not know anything about it, as a person is conceived and living for some time before he has a conscience awareness of his existence."
There are a number of errors in these words of Barber. The first error is his dividing up the new birth into stages. The second is his contention that being "born" of God is not necessary for salvation. The third error is his contention that "it is possible for a person to be quickened for a time and not know anything about it." One wonders if Adam, upon being created, knew that he had been created? One wonders, if Lazarus, upon being raised from the dead, knew it? Again, I repeat, that it is absurd to think that the personal salvation experience that the apostles referred to in their letters to the early Christians was something of which the Christians did not understand as being their conversion to Christ.
Barber wrote:
"Our conclusion is that James was not speaking about giving spiritual life to anyone; he was speaking about life being brought to light as Paul said in Timothy (II Timothy 1:9-10). The context of the first chapter of James (as well as the entire book) bears out that he wrote to encourage professing believers to exhibit fruits of a child of God. James did not write to instruct how one becomes spiritually alive." Another writer wrote:
"It was the will of the Father of lights to give birth (apekuêsen) to us. Apokueô occurs in the New Testament only here and in verse 15. This signals that James is contrasting God’s deliberate birthing of the community to sin’s birthing of death. The feminine image of God giving birth is present in the Old Testament: God asks if he had “conceived” (hrh) or had “given birth to” (yld) Israel (Num 11:12), while in Deut 32:18 Yhwh is directly referred to as “the God who gave birth to [Israel].” (See here)
Barber again makes some huge errors in these words. He makes the experience of being "begotten" of God to be unnecessary for being eternally saved! But, we will save our full rebuttal of his argumentation till after we have given other sources for this multi-stage view of regeneration.
W. E. Best, whom the Hardshells often cite to add weight to their views, wrote the following "on the New Birth."
"One of the greatest blunders, on the subject of the new birth, is to make it dependent on man’s faith. Opposers of Biblical regeneration advocate that the new birth must, in some way, be the response of one who hears the gospel. Such verses as James 1:18 and I Peter 1:23 are used to prove their theory; but the exegesis of the two texts demands no such conclusion. James 1:18 does not refer to begetting or conception, but bringing forth or giving birth. Immediate regeneration does not deny that the new birth, in which the new life becomes manifest, is secured by response to the gospel; but distinction must be made between conception and birth. They are not the same, There are two prepositions in I Peter 1:23 that must be distinguished before the verse can be understood. The first is “of [ek—from out of—the source] incorruptible seed.” This is not the instrument, but the source of regeneration. “By [dia—through—the instrument] the word of God” is the second; this shows that God’s word is the instrument of conversion, not regeneration."
Like the Hardshell founding fathers, and like Hopkins and Kuyper, Best makes "regeneration" to be distinct from being "born again" and being "begotten." Like Barber, Best believes that I Peter 1: 23, like James 1: 18, speaks of birth as distinct from regeneration. This, we will show, however, is untenable, for the word in Peter is not the same word in James. While it is possible that the Greek word for "begat" in James may be referring to the female aspect, yet this can hardly be said about the word "gennao" in Peter. But, more on this later.
Best speaks of the prepositions used by Peter, how Peter speaks of being born "of" (ek) God but "by" (dia) the Holy Spirit. Best attempts to argue that "of God" refers to the first stage of the birth process while "by the word of God" refers to the last stage. But, this is untenable. It is the exact same birth that is "of" God and "by" the word of God. There are not two births under consideration, one "of" God and one "by" the gospel.
Best continues:
"Regeneration is the begetting of the new life. The effectual call is the bringing forth of that life by Divine summons into the light of the gospel. If the hearing of the word (call of the gospel) is indispensable to regeneration, then what about babies who die in infancy? As soon as we distinguish quickening from conversion, the light enters. There must first be life before there can be any response to living things." (REGENERATION AND CONVERSION by W. E. Best - See here)
Best does not equate "regeneration" with the "effectual call," and yet all the oldest Calvinistic writings and confessions equate them. Further, the scriptures teach that new life in Christ is the result of God's call. Best also brings up the case of those who die in infancy, a common argument by those who deny means, but this argument has been refuted in earlier chapters in this book. Best also follows the lead of men such as Kuyper in affirming that the separating of regeneration from birth (conversion) causes the light to enter, clearing up supposed confusion and contradiction in the writings of those who do not separate them.
John Hendryx of monergism.com, also advocates the view of Hopkins and the founding fathers of Hardshellism, and wrote:
"I. Regeneration is described as a spiritual new birth.
1. This is affirmed in the following New Testament passages: John 1:12-13; 3:3-8; I Corinthians 4:15; Philemon 10; James 1:18; I Peter 1:3,23; I John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1,4,18.
2. The embryonic stage of regeneration is what is called "quickening", and it is the work of the Holy Spirit alone.
3. The final stage of regeneration is delivery or birth, and it is the work of the Holy Spirit in dependence upon the Word as a means. Consequently, the spiritual knowledge conferred by illumination is the spiritual content or revelation (holy Scripture)." ("Biblical Regeneration and Affectional Theology," see here)
From the same web site there is an article titled "Irresistible Grace" by Brian Schwertly where he taught the same thing. He wrote:
"Some misunderstanding regarding regeneration is understandable given the fact that regeneration has two different senses in the New Testament. Sometimes it refers to the whole conversion process in which the reborn heart comes in contact with the word and is first called into action. Passages such as 1 Peter 1:23 and James 1:18 discuss the regenerate heart as it comes in contact with the Word of God and issues forth into conversion. “This is the effectual calling through the instrumentality of the word of preaching, effectively applied by the Spirit of God. This effectual calling finally secures, through the truth as a means, the first holy exercises of the new disposition that is born to the soul. The new life begins to manifest itself, the implanted life issues in the new birth.”
"The first stage of regeneration can be compared to the implantation of a seed, and the second stage could be compared to the process of giving birth. Regeneration in the strict sense logically precedes or is coterminous with the preaching of the gospel because the gospel cannot have persuasive power over a corpse." (See here)
A. W. Pink, leading 20th century Baptist author, highly touted by the Hardshells, in support of the same view, wrote:
"We shall now confine ourselves to the initial operation of the Spirit within the elect of God. Different writers have employed the term "regeneration" with varying latitude: some restricting it unto a single act, others including the whole process by which one becomes a conscious child of God. This has hindered close accuracy of thought, and has introduced considerable confusion through the confounding of things which, though intimately related, are quite distinct. Not only has confusion of thought resulted from a loose use of terms, but serious divisions among professing saints have issued therefrom. We believe that much, if not all, of this would have been avoided had theologians discriminated more sharply and clearly between the principle of grace (spiritual life) which the Spirit first imparts unto the soul, and His consequent stirrings of that principle into exercise."
Pink argues, like Kuyper and others, that the older Calvinist theologians created confusion by their teaching that biblical regeneration was the same as the new birth, and the same as conversion.
In "Quickening Is the Initial Operation of the Spirit," Pink wrote:
"In earlier years we did not ourselves perceive the distinction which is pointed by John 6:63 and 1 Peter 1:23: the former referring unto the initial act of the Spirit in "quickening" the spiritually-dead soul, the latter having in view the consequent "birth" of the same. While it is freely allowed that the origin of the "new creature" is shrouded in impenetrable mystery, yet of this we may be certain, that life precedes birth. There is a strict analogy between the natural birth and the spiritual: necessarily so, for God is the Author of them both, and He ordained that the former should adumbrate the latter. Birth is neither the cause nor the beginning of life itself: rather is it the manifestation of a life already existent: there had been a Divine "quickening" before the child could issue from the womb. In like manner, the Holy Spirit "quickens" the soul, or imparts spiritual life to it, before its possessor is "brought forth" (as James 1:18 is rightly rendered in the R.V.) and "born again" by the Word of God (1 Pet. 1:23)."
Pink makes the same arguments made by Kuyper and others of the "New Divinity" in affirming that spiritual birth is exactly like physical birth in arguing that regeneration is not birth. I would argue that Pink was correct in his earlier years when he held to the confessional view that did not separate regeneration from birth and conversion.
Pink continued:
"James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23, and parallel passages, refer not to the original communication of spiritual life to the soul, but rather to our being enabled to act from that life and induced to love and obey God by means of the Word of Truth—which presupposes a principle of grace already planted in the heart. In His work of illumination, conviction, conversion, and sanctification, the Spirit uses the Word as the means thereto, but in His initial work of "quickening" He employs no means, operating immediately or directly upon the soul. First there is a "new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:10), and then the "new creature" is stirred into exercise. Faith and all other graces are wrought in us by the Spirit through the instrumentality of the Word, but not so with the principle of life and grace from which these graces proceed."
Pink argues the same thing that Best argued in affirming that the "birth" of James 1: 18 and I Peter 1:23 is not regeneration, is not the way in which a sinner is given spiritual life. Notice also how Pink makes "conviction of sin" to be the result of regeneration, what is accomplished through "means."
Pink, under the heading "Quickening Imparts Life" wrote:
"In His work of "quickening," by which we mean the impartation of spiritual life to the soul, the Spirit acts immediately from within, and not by applying something from without. Quickening is a direct operation of the Spirit without the use of any instrument: the Word is used by Him afterwards to call into exercise the life then communicated. Regeneration is a direct operation of the Holy Spirit upon the human spirit. It is the action of Spirit upon spirit, of a Divine Person upon a human person, whereby spiritual life is imparted. Nothing, therefore, of the nature of means or instruments can come between the Holy Spirit and the soul that is made alive. God did not employ an instrument or means when He infused physical life into the body of Adam. There were only two factors: the dust of the ground and the creative power of God which vivified that dust. The Divine omnipotence and dead matter were brought into direct contact, with nothing interposing. The dust was not a means or instrument by which God originated life. So in regeneration there are only two factors: the human soul destitute of spiritual life, and the Holy Spirit who quickens it."
In these words Pink argues much the same way as do the Hardshells and many of these arguments I have already addressed and rebutted and will enlarge my rebuttal in this chapter and in the next.
Pink wrote:
"No, men are not "quickened" by the Word, they must be quickened in order to receive and understand the Word. "And I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the LORD; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God" (Jer. 24:7): that statement would be quite meaningless if a saving knowledge of or experimental acquaintance with God were obtained through the Word previous to the "new heart" or spiritual life being given, and was the means of our being quickened. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" (Prov. 1:7); the "fear of the Lord" or Divine grace communicated to the heart (spiritual life imparted) alone lays the foundation for spiritual knowledge and activities." ("THE HOLY SPIRIT," Chapter 11 - "The Spirit Quickening")
The idea that men are not "quickened" by the word has been shown to be false throughout our work on "The Hardshell Baptist Cult." For instance, we have looked at the words of David who said that he had been "quickened" by God's word. (Psa. 119: 50)
There have been others who have also divided up the Christian's spiritual birth into stages but who did not make conversion, through repentance and faith, to be the post regeneration "birth."
Alexander Campbell believed that sinners were "regenerated" when they believed the gospel but were not "born" until they were baptized in water.
Irvin Himmel wrote this about the views of Herbert W. Armstrong:
"According to Armstrong and his comrades, no one is born again until the resurrection."
"Armstrongism maintains that true Christians are only "begotten" of God while humans, but "we shall be born of God in the resurrection" ("Why the Resurrection?" by Roderick C. Meredith, Plain Truth, March, 1983, p. 14). Armstrong says God is "reproducing Himself after His own kind" (Why Were You Born? p. 29). When a person is impregnated with the Holy Spirit he is begotten of God. This is conversion (Just What Do You Mean . . . Conversion? p. 8)." ("Armstrong's Doctrine Of The New Birth" by Irvin Himmel - See here)
In beginning a rebuttal of the views of the men cited above, I wish to begin with the words of J. P. Boyce, one of the first great leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention and leader at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
J. P. Boyce wrote:
"The word apekuesen is used in James 1:18, and means to bring forth or bear young, and there evidently means to bring to the condition of sonship."
"However much James 1:18 suggests a different aspect of the work, namely, the bringing forth that which has been begotten, still it so nearly connects that idea with the begetting as to create doubt if the whole work may not be virtually involved."
Boyce is correct to say that James has in mind "the whole work" when he speaks of "bringing forth" in birth.
Boyce continues:
"From the Scriptural teaching we see that the whole work of Regeneration and Conversion is included under the one term regeneration."
"The whole work is thus spoken of, however, because God is operative from the beginning to the end, but this does not prove that he does not operate differently in one part from what he does in the other."
"The Scripture teaching is that God operates immediately upon the heart to produce the required change, by which it is fitted to receive the truth, and mediately through the word in its reception of that truth."
"He operates immediately upon the heart to prepare the way for the truth."
(CHAPTER XXXII - REGENERATION AND CONVERSION - See Notice that Boyce affirms what I affirm. He affirms that regeneration/new birth is both mediate and immediate.
Boyce also wrote:
"At the outset of a discussion of these two subjects we are met by the question, whether they are not one and the same thing. They are unquestionably so intimately associated that it is difficult to separate them and point out the distinctions between them. The Scriptures connect the two under the one idea of the new birth, and teach that not only is regeneration an absolute essential in each conversion, but that in every intelligent responsible soul conversion invariably accompanies regeneration...From the Scriptural teaching we see that the whole work of Regeneration and Conversion is included under the one term regeneration." What does Boyce say is the teaching of scripture, in contrast to that of the hair-splitting theologians? He says that "conversion is included under the one term regeneration."
Boyce also did not define "regeneration" by the cause alone. He wrote:
"It is true that but few of the passages refer to anything save the work of God; yet these few sufficiently teach the use of the word in regeneration to lead us not to reject, as a part of it, that result of God's act which, in connection with the word, leads to the full union of its subject with Christ through repentance and faith."
Boyce says that the scriptures include the "result" or effect in its definition of what it means to be regenerated. He does not see the scriptures as defining it by the cause alone.
In the next chapter we will show that the idea of the new birth having stages, like physical birth, is not scriptural and that defining "regeneration" to the mere "implantation" of "seed" (impregnation) to the exclusion of birth (conception) is false.
Regeneration = Cause Alone?
Jason Brown, Hardshell apologist, believes that Archilbald Alexander was wrong to include the effect in defining "regeneration." He disagrees with this great Calvinist spokesman who affirmed that regeneration, in scripture, was defined by both cause and effect. Alexander was intelligent enough to know how silly it is to define "regeneration" by its cause alone. It is silly and a moment's reflection on it will demonstrate it to any intelligent and unbiased mind, as I shall presently show.
Jason wrote:
"Obviously this view of regeneration is dependent on it being true that the Holy Scriptures always include cause and effect. If there are Scriptures that distinguish cause and effect in the context of being "born again" or "regenerated", one cannot object to interpreting this word as a reference to the Divine cause."
Jason creates a "straw man," once again, when he insinuates that I do not "distinguish" between cause and effect. Certainly cause and effect are different! That is not the issue in dispute! The issue is whether "regeneration" is strictly defined by the cause to the exclusion of the effect. Both scripture and reason show that "regeneration" is chiefly, if not solely, defined by the effect, or by what is actually experienced. It is silly to say that the act of God is regeneration, for this would be equivalent to saying that regeneration precedes regeneration.
The views of Alexander are the same as Jonathan Edwards, who wrote:
Jonathan Edwards wrote:
"If we compare one Scripture with another, it will be sufficiently manifest, that by regeneration, or being begotten, or born again, the same change in the state of the mind is signified with that which the Scripture speaks of as effected in true repentance and conversion. I put repentance and conversion together, because the Scripture puts them together, Acts iii. 19, and because they plainh signify much the same thing."
"This inward change, called regeneration and circumcision of the heart, which is wrought in repentance and conversion, is the same with that spiritual resurrection so often spoken of, and represented as a dying unto sin, and living, unto righteousness." (THE WORKS of PRESIDENT EDWARDS," pg. 213, Chapter II)
Edwards defines "regeneration" by the effect, by the actual "change" of heart. Again, it is just pure nonsense to say that a man is changed (act of God, or cause alone) before he is actually changed. But, that is the foolish consequence of defining regeneration by cause alone.
Let us notice these words of Ezekiel that clearly are talking about the experience or regeneration.
"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh." (Eze. 36: 26)
Is regeneration not defined as the actual experience of having the heart changed? Yes, God's act precedes the change, but God's act of "giving" is not regeneration, but the effect of God's act is what is defined as being regeneration.
Paul wrote:
"And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." (I Cor. 6: 11)
Here is another verse that clearly speaks of the regeneration experience. True, washing, sanctification, and justification are effects of God's action, but who would be so silly to say that regeneration is not the actual effect of the divine act?
Let us think of another way to express the same idea. Let us focus on verbal or vocal "communication." Is this not the result of an act of the mind, the result of a choice? But, who would define "communication" as being the act or choice of the brain? Is not communication the actual event of speaking words?
Brown wrote:
"Even if Garrett is correct in his depiction of the contrast of Calvinist theologians of the Old and New Divinity, it hardly follows that the evolution of the terms "regeneration" and "conversion" was illegitimate."
There is no "if" about the question, however. I have cited numerous writers, such as Shedd and Berkhof, who testified that the older Calvinists and Puritans did not teach the "New Divinity" view! Shedd said that Turretin was the first to make a distinction between regeneration and conversion. If Brown has evidence that such a view pre-dated Turretin, and that there were older Calvinists who made such a distinction, then let him produce it!
Brown speaks of "the evolution" in the definition of the terms regeneration and conversion and simply says that their novelty does not prove that they are "illegitimate." Is this not an admission that his views are indeed not "primitive"? Does he not say that he is more clear and correct than the first Calvinists and Reformers? I agree that the scriptures are the final authority for judgment, and I offered my historical argumentation not as the final proof for veracity, but simply to show that they were not the original position of the great Calvinist Reformers. But, having won the point on proving the novelty of the views of Brown and the Hardshells and Hyper Calvinists, I am perfectly willing to show that such novel views are against scripture. I believe that the old Baptists and Calvinists knew the scriptures better on this subject than does Brown and his Hardshell brethren.
Brown wrote:
"No less a scholar that Dr. John Gill was aware of the differences among Calvinists on the definition of the term "regeneration", as he writes (Book 6, Chapter 11 of A Body of Doctrinal Divinity):
"Regeneration may be considered either more largely, and then it includes with it effectual calling, conversion, and sanctification: or more strictly, and then it designs the first principle of grace infused into the soul; which makes it a fit object of the effectual calling, a proper subject of conversion, and is the source and spring of that holiness which is gradually carried on in sanctification, and perfected in heaven."
Notice that Gill does not argue against a strict definition of regeneration, which excludes conversion, but, rather, incorporates it as he exegetes 1 John 3:9 a little later:
"It is also signified by "seed" (1 John 3:9). "Whosoever is born of God—his seed remaineth in him"; which is the principle of grace infused in regeneration; and as seed contains in it virtually, all that after proceeds from it, the blade, stalk, ear, and full corn in the ear; so the first principle of grace implanted in the heart, seminally contains all the grace which afterwards appears, and all the fruits, effects, acts, and exercises of it."
The idea that Garrett and Bob Ross have espoused that Calvinists began to distinguish regeneration from conversion for paedo-Baptist ulterior motives does not explain why John Gill allowed for the legitimacy of defining regeneration "strictly" as the creative act of God in forming the new man within the reprobate. Gill was certainly a Baptist."
Brown ought to give up and wave the white flag on the views of Gill for I have shown that Gill taught that regeneration was accomplished by means and that he, like Edwards, did not make regeneration to be distinct and separate from conversion. I cited Gill where Gill said that one cannot be more regenerated than another, and could not be regenerated more tomorrow than he is today. But, if Gill believed the scriptures to teach stages in regeneration, then he could not say such. Gill, when he referred to two kinds of regeneration was not referring to their use in scripture but to their use by theologians of the 18th century. On the passage Brown cited Gill, however, Gill wrote the following in his commentary:
"Whosoever is born of God…In a figurative and spiritual sense; who are regenerated, or born from above; who are quickened by the grace of God, and have Christ formed in them; who are made partakers of the divine nature, and new creatures in Christ; which spiritual birth is not owing to men, to the power and will of men, but to the grace of God; and is sometimes ascribed to the Father, who of his own will and abundant mercy begets souls again to a lively hope, and saves them by the washing of regeneration;
for his seed remaineth in him; not the word of God, or the Gospel, though that is a seed which is sown by the ministers of it, and blessed by God, and by which he regenerates his people; and which having a place in their hearts, becomes the ingrafted word, and there abides, nor can it be rooted out; where it powerfully teaches to avoid sin, is an antidote against it, and a preservative from it: nor the Holy Spirit of God, though he is the author of the new birth, and the principle of all grace..."
Notice that Gill does not say that the "regeneration" that is accomplished by the Gospel is a limited kind, the strict kind invented by the hair-splitting theologians, which he would do if he wanted to avoid being misunderstood.
Brown wrote:
"The Biblical emphasis of the necessary condition for "seeing" the Kingdom of God and exercising faith (John 3:3), is the scriptural depiction of the natural man being dead in trespasses and in sins - in need of something far more decisive and radical than prevenient grace would allow. Notice that John 3:3 markedly makes intellectual "sight" - the sight Nicodemus claims to have in his declaration that he knows Jesus is a teacher sent from God - quite beside the point of spiritual rebirth. Nicodemus' claims - as if they qualified for true spiritual knowledge - are struck down by Christ."
Brown uses these words of Christ in order to prove the Hardshell "ordo salutis" that says that one is "born again" before faith (seeing). So does R.C. Sproul and James White. But, this is a very weak argument. Clearly Jesus equates "seeing" the kingdom of God with "entering" the kingdom for he says "except a man be born again he cannot enter the kingdom." "Cannot see" is equated with "cannot enter." So, what is meant by "entering the kingdom"? Surely it means "entering into the eternal kingdom, the same thing Peter speaks about when he writes:
"For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." (II Peter 1: 11)
This is yet future and denotes entrance into the eternal state in heaven, when the saints are glorified.
Further, by "seeing" the kingdom is meant the actual experience or enjoyment of the kingdom. Being born again is what is necessary for being eternally saved. Let us notice these passages where the same word, in English and Greek, are used and see how they bear out this interpretation.
"Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." (Acts 13: 35)
Surely to "see" corruption means to experience corruption.
"After I have been there, I must also see Rome." (Acts 19: 21)
Surely to "see" Rome means the same thing as "entering" Rome so as to experience Rome.
"By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death..." (Heb. 11: 5)
Surely to "see" death means to experience death.
"Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory." (I Peter 1: 8)
Surely the ones to whom Peter wrote are born again, and if so, then they will "see" both Christ the king and his kingdom. But, is this a present experience? When will the born again ones "see" the king and the kingdom? Is it not when he returns and he is then seen and experienced?
"But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face." (III John 1: 14)
Notice that John conjoins "seeing" a person with being "face to face" with that person. When will we see Christ and the kingdom then? Is it not when we see him face to face?
Thus, Jesus is simply teaching that the new birth is necessary in order to entering the eternal kingdom and seeing Christ face to face.
Thus, Brown has been refuted once again. It is my hope that he will one day "give up" and acknowledge the error of Hardshellism.
Jason wrote:
"Obviously this view of regeneration is dependent on it being true that the Holy Scriptures always include cause and effect. If there are Scriptures that distinguish cause and effect in the context of being "born again" or "regenerated", one cannot object to interpreting this word as a reference to the Divine cause."
Jason creates a "straw man," once again, when he insinuates that I do not "distinguish" between cause and effect. Certainly cause and effect are different! That is not the issue in dispute! The issue is whether "regeneration" is strictly defined by the cause to the exclusion of the effect. Both scripture and reason show that "regeneration" is chiefly, if not solely, defined by the effect, or by what is actually experienced. It is silly to say that the act of God is regeneration, for this would be equivalent to saying that regeneration precedes regeneration.
The views of Alexander are the same as Jonathan Edwards, who wrote:
Jonathan Edwards wrote:
"If we compare one Scripture with another, it will be sufficiently manifest, that by regeneration, or being begotten, or born again, the same change in the state of the mind is signified with that which the Scripture speaks of as effected in true repentance and conversion. I put repentance and conversion together, because the Scripture puts them together, Acts iii. 19, and because they plainh signify much the same thing."
"This inward change, called regeneration and circumcision of the heart, which is wrought in repentance and conversion, is the same with that spiritual resurrection so often spoken of, and represented as a dying unto sin, and living, unto righteousness." (THE WORKS of PRESIDENT EDWARDS," pg. 213, Chapter II)
Edwards defines "regeneration" by the effect, by the actual "change" of heart. Again, it is just pure nonsense to say that a man is changed (act of God, or cause alone) before he is actually changed. But, that is the foolish consequence of defining regeneration by cause alone.
Let us notice these words of Ezekiel that clearly are talking about the experience or regeneration.
"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh." (Eze. 36: 26)
Is regeneration not defined as the actual experience of having the heart changed? Yes, God's act precedes the change, but God's act of "giving" is not regeneration, but the effect of God's act is what is defined as being regeneration.
Paul wrote:
"And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." (I Cor. 6: 11)
Here is another verse that clearly speaks of the regeneration experience. True, washing, sanctification, and justification are effects of God's action, but who would be so silly to say that regeneration is not the actual effect of the divine act?
Let us think of another way to express the same idea. Let us focus on verbal or vocal "communication." Is this not the result of an act of the mind, the result of a choice? But, who would define "communication" as being the act or choice of the brain? Is not communication the actual event of speaking words?
Brown wrote:
"Even if Garrett is correct in his depiction of the contrast of Calvinist theologians of the Old and New Divinity, it hardly follows that the evolution of the terms "regeneration" and "conversion" was illegitimate."
There is no "if" about the question, however. I have cited numerous writers, such as Shedd and Berkhof, who testified that the older Calvinists and Puritans did not teach the "New Divinity" view! Shedd said that Turretin was the first to make a distinction between regeneration and conversion. If Brown has evidence that such a view pre-dated Turretin, and that there were older Calvinists who made such a distinction, then let him produce it!
Brown speaks of "the evolution" in the definition of the terms regeneration and conversion and simply says that their novelty does not prove that they are "illegitimate." Is this not an admission that his views are indeed not "primitive"? Does he not say that he is more clear and correct than the first Calvinists and Reformers? I agree that the scriptures are the final authority for judgment, and I offered my historical argumentation not as the final proof for veracity, but simply to show that they were not the original position of the great Calvinist Reformers. But, having won the point on proving the novelty of the views of Brown and the Hardshells and Hyper Calvinists, I am perfectly willing to show that such novel views are against scripture. I believe that the old Baptists and Calvinists knew the scriptures better on this subject than does Brown and his Hardshell brethren.
Brown wrote:
"No less a scholar that Dr. John Gill was aware of the differences among Calvinists on the definition of the term "regeneration", as he writes (Book 6, Chapter 11 of A Body of Doctrinal Divinity):
"Regeneration may be considered either more largely, and then it includes with it effectual calling, conversion, and sanctification: or more strictly, and then it designs the first principle of grace infused into the soul; which makes it a fit object of the effectual calling, a proper subject of conversion, and is the source and spring of that holiness which is gradually carried on in sanctification, and perfected in heaven."
Notice that Gill does not argue against a strict definition of regeneration, which excludes conversion, but, rather, incorporates it as he exegetes 1 John 3:9 a little later:
"It is also signified by "seed" (1 John 3:9). "Whosoever is born of God—his seed remaineth in him"; which is the principle of grace infused in regeneration; and as seed contains in it virtually, all that after proceeds from it, the blade, stalk, ear, and full corn in the ear; so the first principle of grace implanted in the heart, seminally contains all the grace which afterwards appears, and all the fruits, effects, acts, and exercises of it."
The idea that Garrett and Bob Ross have espoused that Calvinists began to distinguish regeneration from conversion for paedo-Baptist ulterior motives does not explain why John Gill allowed for the legitimacy of defining regeneration "strictly" as the creative act of God in forming the new man within the reprobate. Gill was certainly a Baptist."
Brown ought to give up and wave the white flag on the views of Gill for I have shown that Gill taught that regeneration was accomplished by means and that he, like Edwards, did not make regeneration to be distinct and separate from conversion. I cited Gill where Gill said that one cannot be more regenerated than another, and could not be regenerated more tomorrow than he is today. But, if Gill believed the scriptures to teach stages in regeneration, then he could not say such. Gill, when he referred to two kinds of regeneration was not referring to their use in scripture but to their use by theologians of the 18th century. On the passage Brown cited Gill, however, Gill wrote the following in his commentary:
"Whosoever is born of God…In a figurative and spiritual sense; who are regenerated, or born from above; who are quickened by the grace of God, and have Christ formed in them; who are made partakers of the divine nature, and new creatures in Christ; which spiritual birth is not owing to men, to the power and will of men, but to the grace of God; and is sometimes ascribed to the Father, who of his own will and abundant mercy begets souls again to a lively hope, and saves them by the washing of regeneration;
for his seed remaineth in him; not the word of God, or the Gospel, though that is a seed which is sown by the ministers of it, and blessed by God, and by which he regenerates his people; and which having a place in their hearts, becomes the ingrafted word, and there abides, nor can it be rooted out; where it powerfully teaches to avoid sin, is an antidote against it, and a preservative from it: nor the Holy Spirit of God, though he is the author of the new birth, and the principle of all grace..."
Notice that Gill does not say that the "regeneration" that is accomplished by the Gospel is a limited kind, the strict kind invented by the hair-splitting theologians, which he would do if he wanted to avoid being misunderstood.
Brown wrote:
"The Biblical emphasis of the necessary condition for "seeing" the Kingdom of God and exercising faith (John 3:3), is the scriptural depiction of the natural man being dead in trespasses and in sins - in need of something far more decisive and radical than prevenient grace would allow. Notice that John 3:3 markedly makes intellectual "sight" - the sight Nicodemus claims to have in his declaration that he knows Jesus is a teacher sent from God - quite beside the point of spiritual rebirth. Nicodemus' claims - as if they qualified for true spiritual knowledge - are struck down by Christ."
Brown uses these words of Christ in order to prove the Hardshell "ordo salutis" that says that one is "born again" before faith (seeing). So does R.C. Sproul and James White. But, this is a very weak argument. Clearly Jesus equates "seeing" the kingdom of God with "entering" the kingdom for he says "except a man be born again he cannot enter the kingdom." "Cannot see" is equated with "cannot enter." So, what is meant by "entering the kingdom"? Surely it means "entering into the eternal kingdom, the same thing Peter speaks about when he writes:
"For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." (II Peter 1: 11)
This is yet future and denotes entrance into the eternal state in heaven, when the saints are glorified.
Further, by "seeing" the kingdom is meant the actual experience or enjoyment of the kingdom. Being born again is what is necessary for being eternally saved. Let us notice these passages where the same word, in English and Greek, are used and see how they bear out this interpretation.
"Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." (Acts 13: 35)
Surely to "see" corruption means to experience corruption.
"After I have been there, I must also see Rome." (Acts 19: 21)
Surely to "see" Rome means the same thing as "entering" Rome so as to experience Rome.
"By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death..." (Heb. 11: 5)
Surely to "see" death means to experience death.
"Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory." (I Peter 1: 8)
Surely the ones to whom Peter wrote are born again, and if so, then they will "see" both Christ the king and his kingdom. But, is this a present experience? When will the born again ones "see" the king and the kingdom? Is it not when he returns and he is then seen and experienced?
"But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face." (III John 1: 14)
Notice that John conjoins "seeing" a person with being "face to face" with that person. When will we see Christ and the kingdom then? Is it not when we see him face to face?
Thus, Jesus is simply teaching that the new birth is necessary in order to entering the eternal kingdom and seeing Christ face to face.
Thus, Brown has been refuted once again. It is my hope that he will one day "give up" and acknowledge the error of Hardshellism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)