I have had many discussions with my fellow Calvinists who believe that regeneration precedes faith or conversion, a view that I do not hold, though I once did when I was a Hyper Calvinist Hardshell Baptist. When I have debated this point with the "born again before faith" (BABF) brethren and had them in a tight space by arguments from scripture and reason that were problematic for this view, they nearly always responded by saying "well, really, faith and regeneration occur simultaneously," or will say "regeneration only precedes faith logically, not chronologically." I find these responses rather amusing. Why? Because they on one hand are the ones who stress the word "PRECEDES" in proclaiming their view. If two things occur simultaneously then it cannot be said that one preceded the other. So, it seems that it is important to ascertain why it is important to them to see regeneration as LOGICALLY preceding faith and why I also agree that it is logically important.
Logically but not Chronologically
The above picture about putting the cart before the horse is designed to emphasize how important it is, in many things, to put things in their proper order. For example, order of operations is important in math and logic. If you don't do things in their proper order you will not arrive at the right answer. For instance, mathematicians follow this order:
1. Parentheses (and other grouping symbols like brackets or fraction bars) are calculated first.
2. Exponents (powers and roots) are calculated second.
3. Multiplication and Division are calculated third, working strictly from left to right as they appear in the problem.
4. Addition and Subtraction are calculated last, working strictly from left to right as they appear in the problem.
Evaluating the expression (3 + 4 x 2) without following the order of operations gives the wrong answer of 14 instead of the correct answer of 11.
The Wrong Way (Working straight from left to right): 1. Add first: (3 + 4 = 7) 2. Then multiply: (7 x 2 = 14) The right way: 1. Multiply first: (4 x 2 = 8) 2. Then add: (3 + 8 = 11) Correct Result: 11
Putting regeneration before faith logically creates many problems.
First, in regards to union with Christ. There can be no regeneration apart from union with Christ, but this is what is denied by those who say regeneration precedes faith. They have union prior to faith and apart from faith, and apart from a willing choice to unite to Christ. The scriptures, however, clearly teach that union with Christ is by faith. This is what Calvin and the Calvinists of the Reformation stressed and put first in the order of things. Separation from God or Christ, who is Life, is death. Union with God or Christ is life.
Second, to say that regeneration precedes faith forces those who affirm it to interpret any and all texts that say a person is saved by faith to deny that the salvation is regeneration, and so they say it is a salvation that follows the salvation of regeneration. The Hardshell Baptists do the same thing, saying that any text that speaks of salvation that comes by some act of the sinner or saint cannot be eternal salvation, but a time or temporal salvation which is not necessary for eternal salvation.
Elder Afton Richards wrote a pamphlet in 1956 entitled, "Why I Am A Primitive Baptist." On page 21 he gives a definition of "time salvation." He wrote (emphasis mine):
"When salvation refers to what God does for man without action on his part, and by the meritorious work of Christ, they know and realize that it refers to salvation in its highest order; preparing one to live with God in glory after death. When salvation is mentioned in connection with the acts of men; or man is to perform some action to bring about a better situation for himself, they know it is to be to the child of God (one freed from the guilt of sin), and refers to a timely deliverance, or something that is for man's benefit while he lives here in the world.""
Those of BABF view have a similar rule which says: Any text that says people are saved by faith cannot mean regenerated by faith but must refer to a salvation that follows regeneration. Often this salvation is justification or adoption or sanctification, for their order is 1) regeneration, 2) faith, 3) justification (salvation) or adoption (salvation), etc. However, there is no way that this rule can hold water or endure scrutiny from the word of God. There are many texts that show that being quickened out of spiritual death (which all agree is another description of what occurs in regeneration) is declared to be a salvation that occurs through faith, such as Ephesians 2:8. The context shows that when Paul says "for by grace are you saved through faith" he is specifically talking about being quickened from death in trespasses and sins.
Third, the BABF view lacks clear statements in the Bible that actually say that regeneration precedes faith. On the other hand, there are many clear statements in the Bible that teach that new life comes through faith. Those of the BABF view rely on invalid inferences, philosophical reasonings or logic, and making assumptions based upon the doctrine to total depravity and what it means to be spiritually dead.
Fourth, the BABF view wrongly defines regeneration by what God does, his acts, and leaves out any acts of the sinner or any effects of God's acts. The scriptures do not, however, uphold this reasoning or definition. This leads them to also wrongly affirm that in regeneration a sinner is in every way passive and in no way active, but the scriptures do not demonstrate this to be true.
Fifth, the BABF view, by separating faith and repentance or evangelical conversion from the definition of regeneration or rebirth grossly dilutes what regeneration or spiritual life is. It says that a regenerated person is an unbeliever, unrepentant, ignorant of God and the way of salvation, and unenlightened.
Sixth, the BABF view leads to a denial that the word of God or the gospel is a means in effecting regeneration. The advocates of that view realize this and so have great difficulty in handling those texts that say sinners are born again by the word of God or by the word of truth. They say a person must be first born again before he can savingly hear the gospel and believe it.
Seventh, the BABF view leads to the Catholic doctrine (which is false) that says sanctification precedes justification or is the same as sanctification, but the scriptures show that it is on the basis of justification that regeneration and sanctification occurs.
Eighth, the BABF view has led many of its advocates to give unbiblical definitions to "faith."
Ninth, the BABF view has led many of its advocates to deny that faith was not only not necessary for regeneration but is even not necessary for justification or final salvation, such as the Hardshell Baptist sect, who it can be argued is the logical result of the BABF view.
Tenth, the BABF view has had a chilling effect on evangelism and on ministers giving passionate appeals to lost sinners to "give their hearts to Jesus," or to pray for salvation as in the sinner's prayer, and to decry "altar calls." They tend to restrict their addresses to those they think have already been regenerated and have spiritual life.
Let the reader understand also that many of the BABF Calvinists do not believe that regeneration (or rebirth) occurs simultaneously with faith. Many of them put a gap in time between regeneration and faith. The Presbyterians do this when they teach that infants are regenerated in baptism and come to faith later in life.
Of course, many of them see the problem with this, and so will give a definition to faith that has no validity in scripture or reason, so that they may say that infants have faith and so not have the problem of affirming the existence of a regenerated unbeliever, a character the Bible knows nothing about. They call this "faith" of infants "seed faith" or "latent faith," or "root faith," a faith that believes or knows nothing, being non-cognitive, a faith that is dormant in an infant or adult person, like a seed, virus, or parasite. I have written on this much through the years.
Paedo Baptist theologian Francis Turretin (1623 -1687) wrote the following (as cited here; emphasis mine):
“Although infants do not have actual faith, the seed or root of faith cannot be denied to them, which is ingenerated in them from early age and in its own time goes forth in act (human instrumentation being applied from without and a greater efficacy of the Holy Spirit within)” (Institutes 15.14.13, vol 2, p. 586)."
In my post "Hassell on Faith" (here) I cited from Elder Sylvester Hassell's editorial "Faith and it's Relation to Salvation" in "The Gospel Messenger" for May, 1898. He was a leading apologist for the Hardshell "Primitive Baptists" in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In his paper he wrote the following about this "latent faith":
"Even in that fear of the Lord which is the beginning of wisdom, and in evangelical repentance towards God for sins against Him, there is latent or hidden faith, just as there may be in a liquid a dissolved and unseen solid; and this latent faith, while it does not comfort, yet does something even more important in humbling the soul and causing it to hate sin..."
In this post (
here) I give citations from others who have believed the same, and is a view held by Hyper Calvinists and Paedo-Baptists. So, these brethren of the BABF view do not say that regeneration and faith are simultaneous, but affirm that there is a gap in time between the two, sometimes a gap of many years. The Hardshell Baptists even teach that most of the regenerated never come to have biblical faith (belief) in the one true God, in his word or gospel, and not in Christ.
I have cited from Dr. Wayne Grudem, present day theologian who promotes the BABF view and has also indicated that faith does not always immediately exist with being regenerated. Wrote Dr. Grudem:
"Using the verses quoted above, we have defined regeneration to be the act of God awakening spiritual life within us, bringing us from spiritual death to spiritual life. On this definition, it is natural to understand that regeneration comes before saving faith. It is in fact this work of God that gives us the spiritual ability to respond to God in faith. However, when we say that it comes "before" saving faith, it is important to remember that they usually come so close together..." (Systematic Theology By Wayne A. Grudem - page 702)
In this post (here) of mine I cited from one of Grudem's sermons on regeneration. I wrote:
"Dr. Grudem, in his sermon on "Regeneration," said that he made a profession at twelve years of age but that he thinks he was born again or regenerated before that time. He also says that he does not know when he was regenerated, just that it preceded his trusting in Christ.
He said:
"So, it looks like from the Bible, from a theological sense, that this regeneration comes before, usually, just a few seconds before saving faith."
You can read other posts I have written on Grudem defending BABF. (See
here,
here,
here)
I have also heard Grudem not only say that there is a gap of a few seconds between regeneration and faith but said that it may be a week or more. In the above citation from his Systematic Theology he says that faith and regeneration "usually come so close together," showing that he does not believe that they are always simultaneous. So, during the gap in time between faith and regeneration, we have a man who is regenerated or born of God but who is still condemned (not justified) and has "the wrath of God abiding on him." (John 3:36) We also have a person who is regenerated but who has not yet come to Christ, or been joined to him. We also have a person who has not yet been saved, for people are saved by faith.
Two Stages to Birth
Many Calvinists have held to the view that spiritual birth, like physical birth, has two meanings. First, birth may denote the time when conception in the womb occurs. Second, birth may denote the time when the child in the womb is delivered from the womb. In this case there is indeed a gap in time between these two phases of birth.
In "Quickening Is the Initial Operation of the Spirit," A.W. Pink (1886-1952), a leading apologist for Calvinism and author of many books, 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)."
This was the view of most of the Hardshell ("Primitive" or "Old School") Baptists in the 19th century. My Old Baptist Test blog is full of articles from them to show that they believed the same.
Hardshell founding father, Elder Samuel Trott (1783-1866), 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." ("THE NEW BIRTH" From "SIGNS of the TIMES" - Vol.21 - 1853 - Writings of Elder Samuel Trott, pages 404 - 409)
In chapter fifty two of my series
"The Hardshell Baptist Cult" I give numerous citations from Elders Gilbert Beebe (1800-1881) and Samuel Trott where they elaborate on this paradigm. (See
here)
John Hendryx of monergism.com (a web site that promotes BABF view), also advocates the view of Pink 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)
In this post (
here) I cited from Hardshell elder James F. Poole (now deceased) who wrote the following:
"There is first, conception, then development, travail, and birth; in that order, and life exists within all these essential stages that bring a new creature into the sinful world of the dying.
This first birth, we are sure, is a mirror image of the spiritual birth."
("The Remnant" - September –– October 1992
"For a spiritual birth to take place there must be a spiritual begetting. Thus the one who begets and the begotten are of one substance.
We would observe that in nature there is a travail before the birth, and usually much agony in bringing forth. There is usually great travail in spiritual birth.
Could anyone question that there is life before birth? The birth then did not give that which was conceived life! No! the birth only made manifest the life that existed previous to its wondrous introduction into the world."
In this post (
here) I cited from Dr.
J. P. Boyce (1827-1888), founder and first president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who wrote the following in his Systematic Theology and chapter 33 on "Regeneration and Conversion" (emphasis mine):
"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. He is denying that spiritual birth, like natural birth, has its stages. 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."
In this post (
here) I cited from J.C. Philpot (1802-1869) and his article
"The Authority and Power of the Word upon the Heart" where he also wrote a denial of the views of Pink, Trott, and the Hardshells, etc:
"We need not therefore enter into the controversy about the difference between begetting and being born again, as if the new birth exactly corresponded with the old, and as if the analogy could be precisely carried out between natural and spiritual generation. Figures (and this is a figure) must not be pressed home to all their logical consequences, or made to fit and correspond in all their parts and particulars. It is sufficient for us to know that the mighty change whereby a sinner passes from death unto life, (1 John 3:14,) is “delivered from the power of darkness, and translated into the kingdom of his dear Son,” (Col. 1:13,) is by the power of the word of God upon his soul."
In this post (
here) I cited much from
Samuel Hopkins (1721 –1803) who did much to promote the BABF scheme and it led him to deny that the word of God or light therefrom was a means in regeneration. His views came to be known as a "new divinity" or "Hopkinsianism." I wrote about this extensively in this post (
here). Here are some citations from that article with my words of introduction to them:
The following work by an able historian demonstrates that the view of the "hybrids" is a novel doctrine among Calvinists, a "New Divinity." The following citations are from "Theology in America: Christian Thought from the Age of the Puritans to the Civil War" by E. Brooks Holifield. This "New Divinity" is also sometimes called "Hopkinsianism." Holifield wrote (emphasis mine - SG):
"Conversion required regenerating grace, and this truth too the New Divinity had misunderstood. First, the Edwardeans had insufficiently appreciated the "common work of the Spirit of God preparatory to a saving faith." Hart believed that Hopkins allowed for "no preparatory work of the Spirit," but Hemmenway saw that the problem lay in differing understandings of preparation. The difference was visible in the readiness of the Old Calvinists to talk of degrees of preparation, to claim that some of the unregenerate might be "more prepared than others." The New Divinity could tolerate no such idea of progress in the unregenerate state, no such gradualism in the religious life. The Old Calvinists also said that the same means of grace that prepared the heart also produced its regeneration; the New Divinity denied that means ever regenerated anybody."
"To the Old Calvinists, one of the worst errors of the Hopkinsians was their failure to recognize that regeneration occurred through illumination of the mind by the means of grace. A recurring theme in Old Calvinist polemics was the assertion that "all judicious Calvinist divines" believed that "conversion or regeneration is wrought by light, by the moral power of divine truth." In the Old Calvinist order of salvation, the Spirit first illumined the mind with a "common doctrinal understanding and belief of truth." This truth brought a sense of guilt, a fear of punishment, and an affecting view of the holiness and mercy of God; and the assent to truth moved the will toward a heartfelt consent and faith. How, the Old Calvinists asked, could the will ever consent to anything without first understanding it? Only the conviction that faith came "through the truth" made such means of grace as sermons and meditations worth defending." (pg. 154-55)
"The debate over the promises of salvation furnished the context in which Hopkins employed the New Divinity distinction between regeneration and conversion. Expanding on a point that Edwards had once made in reference to infants, Bellamy concluded in 1750 that regeneration preceded conversion, which he defined as an exercise of the heart that flowed from a new direction. Hopkins used the same distinction to counter Mayhew. He argued that God regenerated the sinful by laying a foundation in their mind by which they could discern the excellence of Christian truth and embrace the gospel with their hearts. This regeneration was an "unpromised favor," a divine work, immediate, instantaneous, and imperceptible. The conditional promises of the New Testament-do this and you will be saved-were directed to men and women who were regenerate but not yet converted. They still had to turn to repentance, faith, and holiness. This turn constituted their conversion, and in it they were active."
In the 19th century a Dutch Reformed theologian carried the newly created banner of the "New Divinity." Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), in his work "The Work of the Holy Spirit," promoted the "regenerated before faith" error. In section XXIII. of chapter four, on "Regeneration and Faith," Kuyper's views are stated. Kuyper wrote:
"Hence God's work of grace runs through these three successive stages:
1st. Regeneration in its first stage, when the Lord plants the new life in the dead heart.
2d. Regeneration in its second stage, when the new-born man comes to conversion.
3d. Regeneration in its third stage, when conversion merges into sanctification.
In each of these three God performs a wonderful and mysterious work in man's inward being. From God proceed quickening, conversion, and sanctification, and in each God is the Worker: only with this difference, that in the quickening He works alone, finding and leaving man inactive; that in conversion He finds us inactive, but makes us active; that in sanctification He works in us in such a manner that we work ourselves through Him."
"Describing it still more closely, we say that in the first stage of regeneration, that of quickening, God works without means; in the second stage, that of conversion, He employs means, viz., the preaching of the Word; and in the third stage, that of sanctification, He uses means in addition to ourselves, whom He uses as means."
Salvation depends upon faith, and faith upon the hearing of the Word; hence our deceased infants must be lost, for they can not hear the Word. To escape this fearful thought it is often said that the children are saved by virtue of the parents' faith—a misunderstanding which greatly confused our entire conception of Baptism, and made our baptismal form very perplexing. But as soon as we distinguish quickening, as a stage of regeneration, from conversion and sanctification, the light enters."
The Hardshell paradigm identified conception of the embryo with regeneration or begetting, and the time in the womb while the fetus was developing corresponded to the time when a sinner comes to feel his guilt and lost condition and who begins to struggle for deliverance, and the time of deliverance from the womb, or birth proper, corresponded to when the begotten child is manifested or brought forth in conversion. In that paradigm we do have a long gap in time between regeneration and conversion. So, while the person is conceived, begotten, or regenerated, he is still an unbeliever and therefore under the wrath of God. That is an insurmountable problem with this paradigm. What if the child died in the womb, died while regenerated but not yet brought to faith? The Bible says all unbelievers are condemned.
In this post (here) I wrote the following about those who say spiritual birth has phases like physical birth:
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")
No comments:
Post a Comment