The following was recently discovered by me on the Internet. The writing shows that there are Presbyterians today, and some Baptists too, who are promoting this "three stage model" of the "new birth," who teach this model in what he calls the "new birth timeline."
I will be writing a scriptural rebuttal to this paradigm of the new birth in upcoming posts. But, for now, here are two articles on this topic that I wish to rebut.
Stephen
This Presbyterian pastor wrote:
"In 1976, I preached a sermon from John 3 attempting to explain the new birth in terms of how it is actually experienced. Listening to me that day were two members of the fledgling ministry, Prison Fellowship. After the service they approached me and asked if I would give that same message to a group of inmates who would be coming to town. I still remember their request, "There is no group of people who are more evangelized than those in prison. They are exhorted over and over to 'get saved,' or 'give their hearts to Jesus.' BUT no one explains God's part in their getting saved. You just did, and we would like you to tell that to the inmates."
"When I teach I like to use visual aids. So when I prepared to talk to the PF group, I illustrated my teaching by simple diagram drawing a parallel between physical and spiritual birth, which I believe was Jesus' intention in John 3. On the most basic level, it points out that the ‘critical moment’ in the wonder of birth is not the delivery of the baby, but the conception, whether describing physical or spiritual birth. Little did I know that the refinements and implications of what we now call the ‘birthline’ would be a tool that would help numbers of people deepen their understanding of God's grace in their lives and, in turn, enable them to become much more sensitive and effective in their evangelism and pastoral work.
The fact that something works on a practical level does not necessarily make it true. Therefore, I have tried to continually test my teaching not only in terms of biblical fidelity, but also in terms of confessional standards and respected teachers of theology. Thus far, that testing has encouraged me to continue to develop the birthline paradigm. As I have continued, I realize that what I have been learning is nothing new. In my view this is a restatement of matters that were carefully thought out by our fathers in the faith, but largely overlooked in our generation.
The heart of the matter in this writing is not theology proper. Ample material is available on the doctrine of salvation. I cite many of these excellent resources as I work through the birthline. But what has been lost, in my view, is the skillful pastoral application of these doctrines in the cure of souls. In the language of the older teachers, the pastor was known as the physician of the soul.
Using similar imagery, I describe our ministry of taking Christ to others as being that of a midwife rather than a salesman. Richard Lovelace has written, "Our task as evangelists is therefore that of midwives, and not that of parents" (Dynamics of Spiritual Renewal, p. 108). Both the physician and midwife are skilled people who have given serious attention to understanding the process of birth and growth. We must likewise give these matters serious attention as we deal with the birth and growth of the spiritual life.
As ardent pro-lifers we insist that recognition be given to the reality of human life before the baby "goes public." My passion is that we do the same in the spiritual realm and give far more attention to the presence of spiritual life before it ‘goes public’ in what is usually called ‘conversion.’"
II. Discussion of the Issues
The Birthline:
"In the birthline, regeneration is the spiritual equivalent of the conception of the child. Effectual calling is a period of spiritual gestation or pregnancy. Conversion is the time of actual delivery, or "going public," and sanctification is the spiritual equivalent of the child growing to maturity. (I recognize that these words can have somewhat different definitions when used by different writers and even when used in Scripture). The first conclusion that comes from viewing the birthline as a whole is the obvious truth that salvation is a process, not just an event.
John 3:1-8
It is very important to keep in mind the use of the term paradigm here. That means the process of human birth provides a very helpful model or pattern for understanding what is ultimately an invisible and supernatural process. But not every experience of the new birth will match up in every detail and we should not try to force it into this mold. Nevertheless, when I have presented the birthline idea over and over, I have found that most Christian people considered it very valuable in helping to illuminate their experience with God.
1. The birthline explains what is called the Application of Redemption. The older term for this is ‘experimental religion.’ In other words, this is the division of theology that explains what God does in our souls, not what he ordained in eternity or accomplished at the cross. In the Westminster Shorter Catechism, following a presentation of the work of Christ to obtain our redemption, the question is asked, "How are we made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ?" (#29). The answer is, "We are made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ by the effectual application of it to us by his Holy Spirit." So it is a distinct operation of the Holy Spirit to apply to us what Christ has accomplished through his finished work on the cross. Note this distinction in our Confession:
"God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit, doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them" (XI:4).
I believe that we can think of the issues of election and predestination as taking place off stage in terms of the actual experience of God transforming the soul. I have no question that the work of the Spirit is a fulfillment of God's eternal purpose ("Those whom he predestined, he also called," Rom. 8:30), but the birthline deals with the real-time activity of God in a person's life. My experience in dealing with people about their spiritual condition, whether before or after conversion, is that if we deal first with their awareness of God's unique work in their souls, then the big picture of sovereign grace is much more appreciated. (It is worth noting that Calvin did not explain election until Book III of The Institutes Of the Christian Religion.)
2. The watershed issue theologically is the fact that regeneration, or the work of God in the soul, is prior to conversion which is the human response. It is regeneration that enables us to trust Christ. If there is one thing very explicit in the spiritual birthline, it is the distinction between regeneration and conversion. That has enormous practical consequences in helping people understand the meaning of grace and the work of God in their souls. So Jesus, in John 3:3-7, is not describing the conversion experience when he speaks of being "born again."
I believe people who are born again have an intuitive sense that God has been moving in their souls long before they found Christ. Consider the way people respond to the words of "Amazing Grace." That hymn has remarkable power even with unbelievers--perhaps it touches people's sense of powerlessness--but Christians feel a particular affinity with the message. In the second stanza of the hymn, for example, the author recognized that after coming to faith that grace had been at work before he believed. "How precious did that grace appear the hour I first believed."
In general evangelical writing, however, the distinction between regeneration and conversion is usually muddled. An author will say something about the Holy Spirit being necessary, but then identify conversion as the beginning point of spiritual life. This may include language such as, "When you received Christ, you were born again," actually reversing the order, or making rebirth and believing in Jesus synonymous. Theologically, that could be clearly identified as Arminianism, and in some cases it is. In my opinion, most of that type of teaching is rooted in modern indifference to serious theology and should not be given any label other than "carelessness."
The sad reality is that far too many of those who wear the label "Reformed" or "Calvinist" do not demonstrate an understanding of this distinction in terms of evangelistic or pastoral ministries. John Gerstner in an article on Jonathan Edward's teaching on "preparation" said, "Nothing brings more blinking stares than to lecture to American Calvinistic groups today on seeking as the cutting edge of Calvinistic evangelism" (Westminster Theological Journal, Fall 1979).
3. The relation between regeneration and conversion is the fundamental issue because it emphasizes that God’s work must precede our response. The next question is how the invisible work of God in the soul becomes visible in some form of conversion. This is an area of mystery, but as Christian workers we are (or should be) in regular contact with people who seem to be "on the way" but not ready for a commitment. How can we help them? In the birthline paradigm I make regeneration equivalent to conception. (This is explained in detail in Vol. II of Work of the Holy Spirit by Abraham Kuyper). Regeneration is the first move of God on the soul. (It can be argued that the Greek word, gennan, should be translated ‘begotten’ rather than '‘born’). Once the conception occurs, then the new life would build on the analogy of pregnancy, which fits beautifully with the Shorter Catechism's description of effectual calling: "Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ freely offered to us in the Gospel," (Shorter Catechism #31). So regeneration, strictly defined, is that invisible moment, known only to God, when the process of spiritual life begins. The new (spiritual) birth, like physical birth, is actually a process with the delivery of the baby, an important part of the total life experience.
4. That leads to consideration of conversion itself. Note that I draw that as an "X" with dotted lines. The more I have talked in depth to people about their conversion "experience," the more I want to revisit the whole way we evangelicals look on conversion. Many things have contributed to rethinking of this whole conversion experience. The most dramatic push I received was a reading, years ago, of the "conversion" of Malcolm X. His testimony fulfills all the classic symptoms of a conversion story. He even entitled that chapter, "Saved." His experience was genuine and life-changing-- but it was conversion to faith in Elijah Muhammed and the Black Muslims!
The concern about superficial conversions is not a new one especially in our Reformed churches. But it is being raised even in some evangelical circles today. But on a practical and pastoral level, I have found that the birthline explanation is very effective in demonstrating the point that true conversion is only part of the work of salvation that begins before the person comes to know Christ, and continues after that initial experience. It also serves to take the spotlight away from particular experiences, without denying the validity of them. I have found this particularly helpful for those raised in Christian homes who give genuine evidence of the new birth, but cannot point to a particular conversion moment. I have also discovered that there are others, including many from a Roman Catholic background who have grown up sincerely believing in the doctrines of the Christian faith and who come to personally embrace Christ, but for whom the evangelical idea of conversion is foreign.
Archibald Alexander in his classic Thoughts on Religious Experience (1895), once remarked that Christian denominations differ from one another not only in doctrine and worship, but in their understanding of religious experience. The issue is not, at what moment people were converted, but are they currently trusting only in Christ, and knowing the inward work of God in their lives. ("Understanding the New Birth" by Stephen E. Smallman, (former) pastor of McLean Presbyterian Church, McLean, Virginia)
http://www.pcacep.org/publications/EquipArchives/9607-UnderstandNewBirth.htm
Abraham Kuyper
XIX - Old and New Terminology.
“That which is born of the flesh is flesh.”—John iii. 6.
"Before we examine the work of the Holy Spirit in this important matter, we must first define the use of words.
The word “regeneration” isused 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.
Of course, a child knows nothing of the genesis of his own existence, nor of the first period of his life, from his own observation. If he were to tell his history from his own recollections, he would begin with the time that he sat in his high chair, and proceed until as a man he went out into the world. But, being informed by others of his antecedents, he goes back of his recollections and speaks of his parents, family, time, and place of birth, how he grew up, etc. Hence there is quite a difference between the two accounts.
The same difference we observe in the subject before us. Formerly it was customary, after the manner of Romish scholastics, to describe one’s experience from one’s own recollections. Being personally ignorant of the implanting of the new life, and remembering only the great spiritual disturbance, which led one to faith and repentance, it was natural to date the beginning of the work of grace not from regeneration, but from the conviction of sin and faith, thence proceeding to sanctification, and so on.
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.
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.
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 inthe 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
This shows how the operations of grace are riveted together as the links of a chain. 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.
Hence it follows that that which succeeds is contained in that which precedes. A regenerate deceased infant died to sin in death just as surely as the man with hoary head and fourscore years. There can be no first without including the second and last. Hence the entire work of grace might be represented as one birth for heaven, one continued regeneration to be completed in the last day.
Wherefore there may be persons ignorant of these stages, which are as indispensable as milestones to the surveyor; but they may never be made to oppress the souls of the simple. He who breathes deeply unconscious of his lungs is often the healthiest.
Touching the question whether the Scripture gives reference to this arrangement over the old, we refer to the word of Jesus: “Except a man be born of water and the Spirit he can not see the kingdom of God” (John iii. 5); from which we infer that Jesus dates every operation of grace from regeneration. First life, and then the activity of life."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/kuyper/holy_spirit.vii.iv.i.html
Before I complete my rebuttal, any comments?
No comments:
Post a Comment