More On J. P. Boyce & Hyperism

Boyce writes:

"V. The relation of regeneration to conversion will, therefore, appear to be one of invariable antecedence.

Wherever the appropriate truth is at the time present its relation is almost that of producing cause, for the prepared heart at once receives the truth. Hence, as this is so generally the case, they have been usually regarded as contemporaneous and by some even as identical. But that regeneration is the invariable antecedent is seen,

1. From the fact that the heart is the soil in which the seed, the word of God, is sown, and that seed only brings forth fruit in the good soil. The heart is made good soil by regeneration.

2. Regeneration (as in infants) MAY exist without faith and repentance, but the latter cannot exist without the former. Therefore, regeneration precedes.

3. Logically the enabling act of God must, in a creature, precede the act of the creature thus enabled. But this logical antecedence involves actual antecedence, or the best conceptions of our mind deceive us and are not reliable. For this logical antecedence exists only because the mind observes plainly a perceived dependence of the existence of the one on the other. But such dependence demands, if not causal, at least antecedent existence. Here it is only antecedent.

VI. There is not only antecedence, but in some cases an appreciable interval.

1. This is true even of conversion regarded as a mere turning to God. Between it and regeneration must intervene in some cases some period of time until the knowledge of God's existence and nature is given, before the heart turns, or even is turned towards that God.

(1.) This must be true of all infants and of all persons otherwise incapable of responsibility, as for example idiots.

(2.) There is no reason why it should not be true of some heathen. The missionaries of the cross have been sought by men, who knew nothing of Christianity, but whose hearts, unsatisfied with the religion of their fathers, were restlessly seeking for what their soul was crying out.

2. It is still more manifestly true of full Christian conversion.

(1.) The Scriptures teach this in many examples of persons pious, holy, and fearing God, yet unacquainted with the full truth which secures union with Christ.

Ethiopian Eunuch: Acts 8:26-40.

Paul: Acts, chapter 9, 22 and 26. Galatians, chapters 1st and 2d.

Cornelius the Centurion: Acts 10:2.

Lydia: Acts 16:14.

(2.) The experience of ministers in all ages with persons seeking and attaining salvation confirms this idea. The attainment of conversion may be marked by stages. The sinner is at first totally indifferent. The word produces on him no effect. Then (1.) There is an evident willingness to give serious attention to the truth of God. God has opened the heart as he did that of Lydia. (2.) There is conviction of sin, sense of its vileness, and of its dangerous effects. (3.) The soul, oppressed by these, strives to do something by which to attain salvation, but finds all in vain. (4.) At last accepting the truth of God's word it rests in trust of a personal Saviour.

VII. The term conversion is not technically applied to any change, except that which follows upon regeneration, and consists in the Godward turning of one heretofore turned entirely away from God. The return of men who have backslidden, or fallen into grievous sin, is also called "a return to God," and such a return is possibly what is called "conversion" in Peter's case. Luke 22:32. But conversion is theologically used exclusively of the first act."

(http://www.founders.org/library/boyce1/ch32.html)

From the above, the words of Boyce seems to echo the words of the Hardshells. It is, sadly, a view that the founders.org group is trying to promote as being the historic teaching of the Baptists. What about these words of Boyce? Are they like the words, often cited from Dr. Gill, that alledgedly prove he also denied, like Boyce, the use of means in regeneration, or that "regeneration" did NOT include conversion?

If people want to cite these words of Boyce, without consideration of what he said about the "biblical definition" of "regeneration," then they will end up putting Boyce into that category of people who believe in a two or three stage model of the new birth. People are regenerated under this scheme but are NOT born again. Yet, the bible and Baptist forefathers taught that "regeneration" is a virtual synonym for "begotten."

Remember that in Boyce's discussion of "regeneration" and the "new birth" that he looked at it from the standpoint of both definitions.

The cases that Boyce used to prove (theoretically, and given the theological definitions) that men are "regenerated" BEFORE they are born or begotten have been partially addressed by me in preceding chapters on "Infant Regeneration" (chapter 41) and on "Infant and the Idiot" (Chapter 10). I also have plans to address the other cases mentioned by Boyce (and regularly by the Hardshells also) when I get to that series titled "Hardshell Proof Texts."

On the "good soil" being so by "regeneration," I have already addressed this also in Chapter 35 on "The Sower and The Seed," and also in Chapter 60 on "Gill and the Hardshells."

Again, I think that Boyce, in these remarks, is simply arguing points using the theologian's definition of regeneration and birth, not the bible!

Will we take the "strict" definition of regeneration and say that it does not include faith and repentance? Boyce argues that the case of the regeneration of infants proves that one can be regenerated without faith and repentance. This is Hardshellism. Besides, in this case, and by this definition of "regeneration" we have a man "regenerated" but NOT "born" of the Spirit!

Notice also that Boyce, like Carroll, says that regeneration is the first of two parts that constitute the "new birth."

Boyce said:

"The SCRIPTURES CONNECT the TWO under THE ONE IDEA of the NEW BIRTH."

Carroll said:

"Therefore the new birth is not completed without faith."

If I only had these comments to review, from both Boyce and Carroll, then I would think that they also held to a two or three stage model to the new birth.

Is there sometimes, as Boyce inferred, and as the Hardshells avow, a long period of time after one has been "regenerated" and before he is "born again"?