"Regarding presuming the regeneracy of Covenant-children, Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), a great popularizer of presumptive regeneration, “taught that God can and often does regenerate his elect as infants” and that “covenant parents are to presume that their covenant children are regenerate until they give prolonged and conscious evidence in their mature years that they are unregenerate.” (Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism (Dallas: Scholarly Reprints, 1993, p. 131)"
Concerning the views of Kuyper regarding regeneration and its similarity to the views of most PBs of the twentieth century and today see my postings in Chapters 111-113 of that series titled -
"Mediate or Immediate?" (See
here,
here,
here) In those chapters I give the views of Kuyper and offer critical analysis of them.
Now let me cite from
"Regeneration" by Abraham Kuyper (see
here) as it relates to this idea of presumptive regeneration of infants. Kuyper wrote (all emphasis mine):
"Before we examine the work of the Holy Spirit in this important matter, we must first define the use of words. The word "regeneration" is used in a limited sense, and in a more extended sense.
It is used in the limited sense when it denotes exclusively God's act of quickening, which is the first divine act whereby God translates us from death into life, from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of His dear Son. In this sense regeneration is the starting-point. God comes to one born in iniquity and dead in trespasses and sins, and plants the principle of a new spiritual life in his soul. Hence he is born again.
But this is not the interpretation of the Confession of Faith, for article 24 reads: "We believe that this true faith, being wrought in man by the hearing of the Word of God and the operation of the Holy Ghost, doth regenerate and make him a new man, causing him to live a new life, and freeing him from the bondage of sin." Here the word "regeneration," used in its wider sense, denotes the entire change by grace effected in our persons, ending in our dying to sin in death and our being born for heaven. While formerly this was the usual sense of the word, we are accustomed now to the limited sense, which we therefore adopt in this discussion.
Respecting the difference between the two--formerly the work of grace was generally represented as the soul consciously observed it; while now the work itself is described apart from the consciousness."
Kuyper states what has been stated by others about how the use of the word "regeneration" has changed since the days of Calvin and the Reformation. At first the Calvinists defined regeneration broadly as including conversion (faith and repentance).
Bob Ross, citing Berkhof, wrote:
"Berkhof taught that "new life is often implanted in the hearts of children long before they are able to hear the call of the gospel," and that they may receive the "seed of regeneration long before they come to years of discretion," and therefore this rules out the Holy Spirit's use of the Gospel as a means (pages 471, 472)." (See
here)
Bob Ross also writes in further detail to show that the first Calvinists and Reformers, and the first Confessions of faith, spoke only of regeneration broadly defined and I cite from him extensively in this blog posting (
here). Kuyper is simply agreeing that the first Calvinists spoke only of regeneration that included evangelical conversion, this being the only kind the bible spoke about. For instance, here is some of what is posted in that entry:
W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, pages 492-494, attributes the distinction between "regeneration" and "conversion" to Turretin, and Shedd adopted this approach. He says:
"The divines of the seventeenth century [Puritans] very generally do not distinguish between regeneration and conversion, but employ the two as synonyms. Owen does this continually: On the Spirit, III. v. And Charnocke likewise: Attributes, Practical Atheism. The Westminster [Confession] does not use the term regeneration. In stead of it, it employs the term vocation, or effectual calling. This comprises the entire work of the Holy Spirit in the application of redemption. . . ." Shedd then alleges: "But this wide use of the term regeneration led to confusion of ideas and views. As there are two distinct words in the language, regeneration and conversion, there are also two distinct notions denoted by them. Consequently, there arose gradually a stricter use of the term regeneration, and its discrimination from conversion. Turrettin (XV. iv. 13) defines two kinds of conversion, as the term was employed in his day. . . . After thus defining, Turrettin remarks that the first kind of conversion is better denominated 'regeneration,' because it has reference to the new birth by which man is renewed in the image of his Maker; and the second kind of conversion is better denominated 'conversion,' because it includes the operation and agency of man himself. . . ."
Then Shedd says: "We shall adopt this distinction [by Turretin] between regeneration and conversion. . . . Regeneration is a cause; conversion is an effect."
J. I. Packer also contends that the theory arose in "later Reformed theology:" Packer says:
"Many seventeenth century Reformed theologians equated regeneration with effectual calling and conversion with regeneration . . . LATER REFORMED THEOLOGY has defined regeneration more narrowly, as the implanting of the 'seed' from which faith and repentance spring (I John 3:9) in the course of effectual calling."
Louis Berkhof:
Berkhof likewise acknowledged that the theory had post-Creedal development:
"It is true that some Reformed authors have occasionally used the term 'regeneration' as including even sanctification, but that was in the days when the ORDO SALUTIS was not as fully developed as it is today" (Systematic Theology, page 468).
So, the question is whether Kuyper and others who restricted the original meaning were rightly fine tuning the teaching of scripture or obscuring it?
That infants who die in infancy are regenerated at some point before they enter heaven I do not question, yet the scriptures do not address this in any detail. But, that is not the question in the present discussion. The question is whether many adults who have been converted to Christ were previously regenerated when they were infants, which if true, might lend support to the idea that regeneration is distinct from conversion, and may exist apart from evangelical knowledge, faith, and repentance.
Kuyper continued:
"But this subjective representation, more or less incomplete, can not satisfy us now. It was to be expected that the supporters of "free will" would abuse it, by inferring that the origin and first activities of the work of salvation spring from man himself. A sinner, hearing the Word, is deeply impressed; persuaded by its threats and promises, he repents, arises, and accepts the Savior. Hence there is nothing more than a mere moral persuasion, obscuring the glorious origin of the new life. To resist this repulsive deforming of the truth, Maccovius, already in the days of the Synod of Dort, abandoned this more or less critical method to make regeneration the starting-point. He followed this order: "Knowledge of sin, redemption in Christ, regeneration, and only then faith." And this was consistent with the development of the Reformed doctrine. For as soon as the subjective method was abandoned, it became necessary in answer to the question, "What has God wrought in the soul?" to return to the first implanting of life. And then it became evident that God did not begin by leading the sinner to repentance, for repentance must be preceded by conviction of sin; nor by bringing him under the hearing of the word, for this requires an opened ear. Hence the first conscious and comparatively cooperative act of man is always preceded by the original act of God, planting in him the first principle of a new life, under which act man is wholly passive and unconscious."
Again, Kuyper admits that the old original Calvinist and Reformed view that saw regeneration and conversion as the same thing was unacceptable to him and later Calvinists and so they spoke of two kinds of regeneration, one which excluded conversion, and one which included it. We have shown where men like Gill and Charles Hodge admit that the bible defines it in terms of conversion, or broadly.
Kuyper continued:
"This led to the distinction of the first and second grace. The former denoted God's work in the sinner, creating a new life without his knowledge; while the latter denoted the work wrought in regenerate man with his full knowledge and consent.
The first grace was naturally called regeneration. And yet there was no perfect unanimity in this respect. Some Scottish theologians put it in this way: "God began the work of grace with the implanting of the faith-faculty (fides potentialis), followed by the new grace of the faith-exercise (fides actualis), and of the faith power (fides habitualis). Yet it is only an apparent difference. Whether I call the first activity of grace, the implanting of the "faith-faculty," or the "new principle of life," in both instances it means that the work of grace does not begin with faith or with repentance or contrition, but that these are preceded by God's act of giving power to the powerless, hearing to the deaf, and life to the dead."
So, not only did later Calvinists redefine regeneration but they also began to redefine
"faith." The Hardshells did the same thing. They too began to speak of
"seed faith," a faith that did not believe anything, or know anything, a faith that was non cognitive, a faith that was
"dormant" in the regenerated infant, imbecile, or heathen idolater. They also, like Hardshell apologist Zack Guess, defined faith as
"the ability to believe." Of course, the bible knows nothing of these altered definitions. (See our posting on this
here) Also, the bible does not define regeneration or initial salvation as occurring when God first begins to work on the heart of a sinner for it speaks of prevenient grace or preparatory work towards regeneration. We have several postings where we show that the first Calvinists saw conviction of sin as a preparation towards regeneration and not an effect of it (as the Hardshells believe). We have also shown how the bible and Calvinists such as Jonathan Edwards and Archibald Alexander said that regeneration cannot be defined alone by what causes it but also by what is effected by it. (See our postings
here and
here) In those postings here is what Edwards and Alexander said:
Jonathan Edwards wrote and I commented as follows:
"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.
Alexander wrote:
"Curious inquiries respecting the way in which the word is instrumental in the production of this change are not for edification. Sometimes regeneration is considered distinctly from the acts and exercises of the mind which proceed from it, but in the Holy Scriptures the cause and effect are included; and we shall therefore treat the subject in this practical and popular form. The instrumentality of the word can never derogate from the efficient agency of the Spirit in this work. The Spirit operates by and through the word. The word derives all its power and penetrating energy from the Spirit. Without the omnipotence of God the word would be as inefficient as clay and spittle, to restore sight to the blind."
Alexander pinpoints the error of those Hyper Calvinists who restrict the definition of regeneration to include only the "cause." He correctly states that the scriptures include what is effected in the definition. A man cannot then be said to have been "regenerated" who lacked the "effects," or constituent elements of regeneration. In other words, a man cannot be said to have been "saved" who lacks the "things which accompany salvation." Thus, to say a man is regenerated before he believes and repents is to define regeneration strictly by the cause to the exclusion of the effect.
Kuyper continued:
"For a correct idea of the entire work of grace in its different phases let us notice the following successive stages or milestones:
1. The implanting of the new life principle, commonly called regeneration in the limited sense, or the implanting of the faith-faculty. This divine act is wrought in man at different ages; when, no one can tell. We know from the instance of John the Baptist that it can be wrought even in the mother's womb. And the salvation of deceased infants constrains us, with Voetius and all profound theologians, to believe that this original act may occur very early in life.
This view is very close to that view of the first Hardshells that saw the new birth as much like physical birth, where there are three stages, first the implanting of the seed, then the time of formation in the womb, then the time of emergence or delivery from the womb. But, the bible knows nothing of such a thing and such a view creates lots of theological problems.
And, as far as John the Baptist is concerned, even if we allow that his being filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb was his regeneration, it was not divorced from cognitive faith and knowledge. His regeneration was not unconnected from conversion. His faith was not dormant but active in "leaping for joy." Further, his experience ought to be viewed as the exception and not the rule.
Kuyper continued:
2. The keeping of the implanted principle of life, while the sinner still continues in sin, so far as his consciousness is concerned. Persons who received the life-principle early in life are no more dead, but live. Dying before actual conversion, they are not lost, but saved. In early life they often manifest holy inclinations; sometimes truly marvelous. However, they have no conscious faith, nor knowledge of the treasure possessed. The new life is present, but dormant; kept not by the recipient, but by the Giver--like seed-grain in the ground in winter; like the spark glowing under the ashes, but not kindling the wood; like a subterranean stream coming at last to the surface.
Before their conversion they are not lost? That is hyper Hyper Calvinism, or neo Hardshellism. However, the bible says that all unconverted people are lost. Again, the Hardshell notion of dormant "seed faith" is a pedobaptist idea stemming from their view about "covenant children."
Kuyper continued:
3. The call by the Word and the Spirit, internal and external. Even this is a divine act, commonly performed through the service of the Church. It addresses itself not to the deaf but to the hearing, not to the dead but to the living, altho still slumbering. It proceeds from the Word and the Spirit, because not only the faith-faculty, but faith itself--i.e., the power and exercise of the faculty--are gifts of grace. The faith-faculty can not exercise faith of itself. It avails us no more than the faculty of breathing when air and the power to breathe are withheld. Hence the preaching of the Word and the inward working of the Holy Spirit are divine, correspondent operations. Under the preaching of the Word the Spirit energizes the faith-faculty, and thus the call becomes effectual, for the sleeper arises.
Again, this is Hardshellism in a nutshell. The gospel does not address itself to the spiritually dead? The bible does not teach such a thing. Jesus himself addressed his gospel message to people who he identified as spiritually dead.
Kuyper continued:
4. This call of God produces conviction of sin and justification, two acts of the same exercise of faith. In this, God's work may be represented again either subjectively or objectively. Subjectively, it seems to the saint that conviction of sin and heart-brokenness came first, and that then he obtained the sense of being justified by faith. Objectively, this is not so. The realization of his lost condition was already a bold act of faith. And by every subsequent act of faith he becomes more deeply convinced of his misery and receives more abundantly from the fulness which is in Christ, his Surety.
Concerning the question, whether conviction of sin must not precede faith, there need be no difference. Both representations amount to the same thing. When a man can say for the first time in his life "I believe," he is at the same moment completely lost and completely saved, being justified in his Lord.
No, conviction of sin is not an evidence of regeneration or salvation! (See my posting
here, which posting gives links to several other postings on this question). In those postings I cite from Hardshell founding father Wilson Thompson who did not believe conviction of sin by itself was evidence of regeneration. Notice these words from him and others:
Elder Wilson Thompson wrote:
"We shall now proceed to show what men may experience and not be under the work of the spirit of grace. He may feel all that weight of guilt which the law of God charges upon him; and yet not be a subject of the spirits operation, for the law is the ministration of condemnation and death."
Stephen Charnock wrote:
"The soul must be beaten down by conviction before it be raised up by regeneration..."
John Owen (1616-1683) addresses the subject in the third volume of his Works in a section entitled, "Works of the Holy Spirit Preparatory Unto Regeneration." Owen writes:
"Ordinarily there are certain previous and preparatory works, or workings in and upon the souls of men, that are antecedent and dispositive unto it [i.e. regeneration]. But yet regeneration doth not consist in them, nor can it be educed out of them."
Wrote Thomas Boston (emphasis mine): (here)"A person may have sharp soul-exercises and pangs, and yet die in the birth. Many "have been in pain," that have but, "as it were, brought forth wind." There may be sore pangs of conscience, which turn to nothing at last. Pharaoh and Simon Magus had such convictions, as made them to desire the prayers of others for them. Judas repented: and, under terrors of conscience, gave back his ill-gotten pieces of silver. All is not gold that glitters. Trees may blossom fairly in the spring, on which no fruit is to be found in the harvest: and some have sharp soul-exercises, which are nothing but foretastes of hell."Again, this is the teaching of Scripture and of the old Baptists and Calvinists. Boston also wrote:"Some have sharp convictions for a while: but these go off, and they become as careless about their salvation, and as profane as ever, and usually worse than ever; "their last state is worse than their first," Matt. 12:45. They get awakening grace—but not converting grace; and that goes off by degrees, as the light of the declining day, until it issues in midnight darkness."He also wrote:"There may be a wonderful moving of the affections in souls that are not at all touched with regenerating grace. When there is no grace, there may, notwithstanding, be a flood of tears, as in Esau, who "found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears," Heb. 12:17. There may be great flashes of joy; as in the hearers of the word, represented in the parable of the stony ground, who "with joy receive it," Matt. 13:20. There may be also great desires after good things, and great delight in them too; as in those hypocrites described in Isa. 58:2, "Yet they seek me daily, and delight to know my ways – they take delight in approaching to God."
I have also pointed out how the affirmation that those under conviction of sin (and not yet converted) are nevertheless regenerate makes the Spirit of God a liar (See
here,
here).
Kuyper continued:
5. This exercise of faith results in conversion; at this stage in the way of grace the child of God becomes clearly conscious of the implanted life. When a man says and feels "I believe," and does not recall it, but God confirms it, faith is at once followed by conversion. The implanting of the new life precedes the first act of faith, but conversion follows it.
Again this is Hyper Calvinism, or Hardshellism. The idea that men may be regenerated without being converted is foreign to the scriptures. There is no such thing as a regenerated unbeliever.
Kuyper continued:
"Conversion does not become a fact so long as the sinner only sees his lost condition, but when he acts upon this principle; for then the old man begins to die and the new man begins to rise, and these are the two parts of all real conversion.
In principle man is converted but once, viz., the moment of yielding himself to Immanuel. After that he converts himself daily, i.e., as often as he discovers conflict between his will and that of the Holy Spirit. And even this is not man's work, but the work of God in him. "Turn Thou me, O Lord, and I shall be turned." There is this difference, however, that in regeneration and faith's first exercise he was passive, while in conversion grace enabled him to be active. One is converted and one converts himself; the one is incomplete without the other."
So, according to Kuyper's paradigm, a soul who is convicted of his lost condition is regenerated (and not really lost) but is not converted. So, it is evident that the separating of conversion from regeneration logically led to its being separated chronologically. Yea, it even led to the heresy that unconverted heathen who worship false gods are saved and regenerated.
Kuyper continued:
6. Hence conversion merges itself in sanctification. This is also a divine act, and not human; not a growing toward Christ, but an absorbing of His life through the roots of faith. In children of twelve or thirteen deceased soon after conversion, sanctification does not appear. Yet they partake of it just as much as adults. Sanctification has a twofold meaning: first, sanctification which as Christ's finished work is given and imputed to all the elect; and second, sanctification which from Christ is gradually wrought in the converted and manifested according to times and circumstances. These are not two sanctifications, but one; just as we speak sometimes of the rain that accumulates in the clouds above and then comes down in drops on the thirsty fields below.
There is no such thing as a person who is regenerated and converted and who has not been sanctified. Yes, sanctification is progressive, but it is begun in conversion, when he becomes a saint, when he is "sanctified by faith" in Christ Jesus. (Acts 26: 18; Etc.)
Kuyper continued:
7. Sanctification is finished and closed in the complete redemption at the time of death. In the severing of body and soul divine grace completes the dying to sin. Hence in death a work of grace is performed which imparts to the work of regeneration its fullest unfolding. If until then, considering ourselves out of Christ, we are still lost in ourselves and lying in the midst of death, the article of death ends all this. Then faith is turned into sight, sin's excitement is disarmed, and we are forever beyond its reach.
If one is completely sanctified at death, why can we not say the same of those who die in infancy? I.e., that they were regenerated, converted, and sanctified in death? They certainly do not go to heaven as infants or idiots, right? Don't they transition to adulthood immediately and miraculously?
Kuyper continued:
"The work of grace must begin with quickening the dead. Once implanted, the still slumbering life must be awakened by the call. Thus awakened, man finds himself in a new life, i.e., he knows himself justified. Being justified, he lets the new life result in conversion. Conversion flows into sanctification. Sanctification receives its keystone through the severing of sin in death. And in the last day, glorification completes the work of divine grace in our entire person."
Why must the work of grace begin with quickening? Kuyper has already spoken of preparatory work that God does before he quickens. What about the quickening of the dry dead bones in Ezekiel? Was there not much movement and coming together of bones and sinew, etc, before coming to life? The idea that infants have spiritual life but it is "slumbering" or "dormant" is ridiculous. Again, however, this is the language of hardshellism. In their minds many of the elect are regenerated in infancy and such is not known until that life is awakened by preaching. Thus, in their minds, many Muslims, Hindoos, and other idolaters fit this description. They would say that this was the case with the Athenian idolaters of Acts 17, affirming that many of them were regenerated (though believers in false gods) and not converted, and that the preaching of Paul "brought to light" those who were previously alive by regeneration. Such nonsense!
Kuyper continued:
"From the preceding it is evident that preparatory grace is different in different persons; and that distinction must be made between the many regenerated in the first days of life, and the few born again at a more advanced age."
Again, he speaks of "preparatory grace" but in essence he does not believe in it (since he has said that regeneration is the first thing). Further, though there is indeed a difference in the amount of grace at work in the elect before their salvation as opposed to the non elect, still common or prevenient grace was operative in both. Notice also how Kuyper believes that many of the elect are born again in infancy and that only a minority of them are regenerated as adults. This is what many Hardshells also believe.
Kuyper continued:
"Of course, we refer only to the elect. In the non-elect saving grace does not operate; hence preparatory grace is altogether out of the question. The former are born, with few exceptions, in the Church. They do not enter the covenant of grace later on in life, but they belong to it from the first moment of their existence. They spring from the seed of the Church, and in turn contain in themselves the seed of the future Church. And for this reason, the first germ of the new life is imparted to the seed of the Church (which is, alas! always mixed with much chaff) oftenest either before or soon after birth."
Again, all this is an invention and not what is affirmed in scripture. It is also the belief of the Hardshells. It shows again that their doctrine came not only from the Two Seeders but also from the pedobaptists. We showed how Spilsbury debated pedobaptist Bakewell on this very point back in the 17th century. (See my posting on this debate
here)
Kuyper continued:
"The Reformed Church was so firmly settled in this doctrine that she dared establish it as the prevailing rule, believing that the seed of the Church (not the chaff of course} received the germ of life even before Baptism; wherefore it is actually sanctified in Christ already; and receives in Baptism the seal not upon something that is yet to come, but upon that which is already present. Hence the liturgical question to the parents: "Do you acknowledge that, altho your children are conceived and born in sin, and therefore are subject to condemnation itself, yet that they are sanctified in Christ, and therefore as members of His Church ought to be baptized?"
Here he speaks of infants who are sanctified when they are regenerated and yet earlier he spoke of young people being converted but dying before being sanctified. That is a contradiction.
This is not Baptist doctrine, nor is it Bible doctrine. All this is the result of divorcing conversion from regeneration, a thing the scriptures do not do.
