The path of truth has a ditch on either side of it. The truth is in the middle of extremes. One extreme "adds to" the words and thoughts of scripture, and another extreme "takes away from" those words and thoughts. Some see too much in texts of scripture and some do not see enough. This phenomenon is evident in the texts that deal with regeneration and with being born again. Those who teach a "word alone" view of regeneration represent on extreme and those who teach a "Spirit alone" view represent another extreme.
Groups such as those who call themselves "Churches of Christ," also known as "Campbellites," are examples of those who hold to the "word alone" view, while groups such as the Hardshells and the Hopkinsian Presbyterian Calvinists, and many of those who call themselves "Reformed," represent the "Spirit alone" view. The Lord instructs us not to "turn to the left" in our interpretation of his word, and also not to "turn to the right." Regarding the nature and causes of regeneration we may say that the "word alone" interpreters have gone to the left and the "Spirit alone" interpreters have gone to the right.
But the scriptures and the oldest confessions of Calvinistic Baptists teach neither of these extremes, but teach that regeneration/rebirth is by both God's word and Spirit. The "word alone" view teaches strictly a mediate regeneration while the "Spirit alone" view teaches strictly an immediate regeneration. But the scriptures and the oldest confessions teach that regeneration is both mediate and immediate.
Identifying the nature of the "initiatiatory" act or power that begins the process of regeneration and the Christian life is the quest of theologians on the topic of the "ordo salutis." Whatever the Hyper Calvinist identifies as the primordial act in regeneration is then strictly styled "regeneration." Since this primordial act is thus defined as "regeneration" by the Hardshells, then there can be no act prior to regeneration, that is, there can be no divine preparatory work prior to regeneration.
Another error of those who separate regeneration from conversion, faith, and repentance, is to define "regeneration" simply as respects the "cause," whereas biblical "regeneration" includes both causes and effects, and primarily focuses upon the effect. On this point the great head of Princeton Seminary, Archibald Alexander, wrote:
"Evangelical repentance, conversion and regeneration, are substantially the same. They all signify a thorough change of views, affections, purposes and conduct; and this change is every where declared to be essential to salvation."
This is in keeping with the view of Edwards.
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 includes 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.
Alexander also wrote:
"Ezekiel was commanded to prophesy over the dry bones in the valley of vision. Thus ministers are now sent to call upon those who are dead in trespasses and sins, to awake and arise from the dead, but none will obey their voice, unless a divine power accompanies their words...That the word of God is indeed the instrument or means of producing this change is evident from many plain testimonies of Scripture..." See Here
Those Hyper Calvinists who limit their definition of the word "regeneration" to the cause of the change, to the exclusion of the effect, or actual change, greatly err. Alexander is correct to affirm that scripture defines the experience of regeneration in such a way as to include the effect, or to what is actually effected by the cause of regeneration.
Since regeneration is, by all accounts, a process (as we have discussed in previous chapters), though instantaneous, should this process be minutely analyzed so as to divide up the experience into distinct and separate events? Is there any benefit in making such divisions? of dividing up regeneration into precise parts, steps, and stages? of going further in such distinctions than did the new testament writers?
Should we act as Gentiles and modern "scientists" by such minute analysis? Should we view regeneration as if it were a material substance, or an atom? Will we dissect the atom of regeneration into its parts and then draw conclusions about the relationships of the parts to each other and to the whole? When will such theological "hair-splitting" end?
No one denies that the regeneration/new birth experience is a multi-faceted experience. Paul appropriately speaks of those "things that accompany salvation." (Heb. 6: 9) Not only are there things that "accompany" salvation, but there are things that precede and follow it. The disagreement among theologians concerns deciding the right category in which to put the various gifts, graces, and experiences of salvation. Does such and such a thing precede, follow, or occur simultaneously with regeneration? What is the cause and effect of regeneration? In which of the three categories do we put faith and repentance? In which category do we put conviction of sin? Into which category do we put water baptism? Etc.
All generally agree that the experience of being "regenerated" is the same experience as being "born again," at least as respects how these actual terms are used in the bible. All agree that being "created in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2: 10; II Cor. 5: 17) is the same thing as being regenerated or born again. All agree that being created and born anew are the same thing as being "quickened" or "resurrected" from spiritual death. Thus, it must be agreed that it would be a "foolish and unlearned question," and a debate which would "gender strife," to discuss and debate whether one is regenerated before he is born, or whether he is born again before he is quickened, etc. It would be foolish to enquire as to "which comes first" as regarding all these various terms (regenerated, born, created, quickened, etc.) because they are words that describe the same multi-faceted experience. Each of these words and concepts simply give a greater detailed picture of the singular simple experince.
In the previous chapter it was shown how Samuel Hopkins, Presbyterian Hyper Calvinist, in the 18th century, was a founder and propagator of the "New Divinity," which system promoted the "regenerated before faith" error, and that this novel paradigm on regneration was adopted by many in the Baptist denomination, including Andrew Fuller. Nearly all of these men, however, rejected the extreme of Hardshellism, that taught that unconverted men could ever be called regenerated. They may have taught that "regeneration," as defined by theologians, logically preceded conversion, but they did not believe that it chronologically preceded it. They all taught that conversion was the completing act in regeneration, per scripture. They all taught that scripture did not distinguish between regeneration and conversion.
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 cites I Peter 1: 23, one of the verses that were often cited in opposition to the views of Hopkins and Kuyper.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever."—1 Peter 1:23.
Kuyper says in reply:
"There is a possible objection to what has been said above concerning regeneration. It is evident that God's Word, and therefore our symbols of faith, offers a modified representation of these things which, superficially considered, seems to condemn our representation. This representation, which does not consider children, but adults, may thus be stated: Among a circle of unconverted persons God causes the Word to be preached by His ambassadors of the cross. By this preaching the call reaches them. If there are elect persons among them, for whom it is now the time of love, God accompanies the outward call with the inward. Consequently they turn from their ways of sin to the way of life. And so they are begotten of God."
The old confessions that Kuyper referred to not only "seemed" to "condemn" the "New Divinity" views of Kuyper, but they actually did condemn them. He admits that the older Calvinist confessions and writers taught that men were "begotten of God" when they responded to both the "outward call" of the gospel and the "inward" call of the Spirit.
Kuyper continues:
"For this reason our fathers confessed in their Confession (article 24): "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." And likewise teaches the Heidelberg Catechism (see question 65): "Such faith proceedeth from the Holy Ghost, who works faith in our hearts by the preaching of the Gospel, and confirms it by the use of the sacraments." And also the canons of Dort, Third and Fourth Heads of doctrine, section 17: "As the almighty operation of God, whereby He prolongs and supports this our natural life, does not exclude, but requires the use of means by which God of His infinite mercy and goodness hath chosen to exert His influence; so also the before-mentioned supernatural operation of God, by which we are regenerated, in no wise excludes or subverts the use of the Gospel; which the most wise God hath ordained to be the seed of regeneration and food of the soul. Wherefore, as the apostles and the teachers who succeeded them piously instructed the people concerning this grace of God, to His glory and the abasement of all pride, and in the mean time, however, neglected not to keep them by the sacred precepts of the Gospel in the exercise of the Word, the sacraments, and discipline; so even to this day, be it far from either instructors or instructed to presume to tempt God in the Church, by separating what He of His good pleasure hath most intimately joined together. For grace is conferred by means of admonitions; and the more readily we perform our duty, the more eminent usually is this blessing of God working in us, and the more directly is His work advanced."
Kuyper was in a tight spot on his "immediate regeneration" apart from the word for it was against the faith of his forefathers as stated in the primitive confessions. He was in the same spot regarding the Westminster Confession as were the Hardshells in regard to the 1689 London Confession. What will Kuyper do? Will he deny the confession's teaching about mediate regeneration? Or, will he subvert its teachings on the sly? Will he do as the Hardshells did in 1900 at the "Fulton Convention"? Will he subvert the confession and try to make it say what he wants it to say as did the Hardshells?
Kuyper wrote:
"And now, in order to eradicate every suspicion that we contend against this representation, we declare openly and definitely that we give it our most hearty assent.
We only beg it be considered that in this presentation both Scripture and the symbols of faith always point to the mysterious background, to a wonderful work of God hiding back of it, to an inscrutable mystery without which all this comes to naught."
This is what the Hardshells said about the London Confession at the Fulton Convention. They professed, on one hand, to give their "hearty assent" to the confession but then gave their interpretation of it in their infamous "footnotes" whereby they completely distorted its teachings on predestination and the divine decrees and effectual calling being by God's word and Spirit. They gave their "hearty assent" to their own perversion of the confession and Kuyper will do the same with the old Presbyterian confession.
Kuyper continues:
"The canons of Dort describe this mysterious, inscrutable, and wonderful background most elaborately and most beautifully in article 12, Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine: "And this is the regeneration so highly celebrated in Scripture and denominated a new creation; a resurrection from the dead, a making alive, which God works in us without our aid. But this is in no wise effected merely by the external preaching of the Gospel, by moral suasion, or such a mode of operation that, after God has performed His part, it still remains in the power of man to be regenerated or not; to be converted or to continue unconverted; but it is evidently a supernatural work, most powerful and at the same time most delightful, astonishing, mysterious, and ineffable; not inferior in efficacy to creation or the resurrection from the dead, as the Scripture inspired by the Author of this work declares; so that all in whose hearts God works in this marvelous manner are certainly, infallibly, and effectually regenerated, and do actually believe. Whereupon the will thus renewed is not only actuated and influenced by God, but in consequence of this influence becomes itself active."
Notice how the old Calvinists equated "regeneration" with "conversion" and how they believed that such was accomplished by the Spirit's use of the word. Notice also that the primitive or original Presbyterian Calvinists (like the original Baptist Calvinists), according to Kuyper, affirmed that "IN this" work of being "effectually regenerated," sinners "do actually believe." They did not affirm that sinners were first regeneration and then later believed, but that they believed "in" regeneration, thus affirming the ancient Calvinist position that conversion and regeneration occurred simultaneously. They did not believe in the "word alone" view, the view that Alexander Campbell would promote, for they say that it is not "merely" the preaching of the gospel that regenerates. They taught that the Spirit of God must apply power to the heart and soul in addition to the word. They believed that regeneration was in some respects immediate and in some respects was mediate.
Kuyper, still citing the Confession and the forefathers, wrote:
"Wherefore, also, man is himself rightly said to believe and repent, by virtue of that grace received." And also in article 11: "But when God accomplishes His good pleasure in the elect, or works in them true conversion, He not only causes the Gospel to be externally preached to them, and powerfully illuminates their minds by His Holy Spirit, that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God; but by the efficacy of the same regenerating Spirit, He pervades the inmost recesses of the man; He opens the closed and softens the hardened heart, and circumcises that which was uncircumcised; infuses new qualities into the will, which, tho heretofore dead, He quickens; from being evil, disobedient, and refractory, He renders it good, obedient, and pliable; actuates and strengthens it, that like a good tree it may bring forth the fruits of good actions." The Heidelberg Catechism points to this, in question 8: "Except we are regenerated by the Spirit of God." And also the Confession, article 22: "We believe that to attain the true knowledge of this great mystery, the Holy Spirit kindleth in our hearts an upright faith, which embraces Jesus Christ with all His merits.""
Again, such citations not only "seem" to teach against the view of Kuyper, but actually do so. How does Kuyper deal with this? He says that he gives his "hearty assent" to what they say, but let us watch how he subverts the teaching of the old Calvinists.
Notice the use of the adverb "when" in this confession's statement - "when God accomplishes His good pleasure in the elect, or works in them true conversion," and "when" he "causes the Gospel to be externally preached to them, and powerfully illumines their minds by His Holy Spirit." The old confessions did not say "after" but "when." They did not believe that conversion occurred "after" regeneration, but "when" regenerated. "When" a man is regenerated, he actually does believe. Or, it could be justly reversed - when a man believes, he is regenerated. Faith and repentance are elements that describe the change or transformation of regeneration. The change makes a dead man into a living man, and makes an impenitent into a penitent, and makes an unbeliever into a believer.
Kuyper wrote:
"This mysterious background, which our fathers at Dort called "His pervading the inmost recesses of man by the efficacy of the, regenerating Spirit," is evidently the same as what we call "the divine operation which penetrates the center of our being to implant the germ of the new life."
And what is this mysterious working? According to the universal testimony based upon Scripture, it is an operation of the Holy Spirit in man's innermost being.
Hence the question, whether this regenerating act precedes, accompanies, or follows the hearing of the Word. And this question should be well understood, for it involves the solution of this seeming disagreement."
It is at this point that Kuyper begins his subversion of the old writings and confessions. He will not deny that the confession taught mediate regeneration and that it did not avow a regeneration apart from means. So, Kuyper has to "read into" the document his "New Divinity" and Hopkinsian views. The old documents do not explicitly deny means in regeneration, but Kuyper will try to show that there is nevertheless an implicit denial of means, and an implicit affirmation of the ordo salutis that puts regeneration before faith and conversion. He attempts to do this even though he has already acknowledged that the old records did not separate regeneration and conversion.
What Kuyper calls the "mysterious background" behind the actual words of the confession (about God regenerating through the gospel), would be the the doctrine of immediate regeneration. Immediate regeneration, to the exclusion of mediate regeneration, is not taught in the foreground, so Kuyper will try to find it taught in the "background." He will read immediate regeneration into the confession by his deductions from the confession.
Kuyper thinks that the old confession contained contradictions on the subject of regeneration, or what he called "seeming disagreement." This is also what the Hardshells thought about the same topic in the 1689 London Confession, and they too sought to "read into" the confession the "Spirit alone" or "no means" view of regeneration. The only difference is that Kuyper will argue that the confession taught that regeneration was both mediate and immediate, that the first stage of regeneration was immediate, but the last stage was mediate, while the Hardshells would not allow that the London confession taught "mediate regeneration" in any stage.
Of course, Kuyper was in error to confine "regeneration" to the first stage. Kuyper argues that the term "regeneration," when used in its narrow sense, excluded means, was immediate only, but that the term, when used in its broad sense, included means (was mediate) and conversion. Further, Kuyper will acknowledge that the broad definition is what is generally recognized by the scriptural writers.
Kuyper wrote:
"We answer: The Holy Spirit may perform this work in the sinner's heart before, during, or after the preaching of the Word. The inward call may be associated with the outward call, or it may follow it. But that which precedes the inward call, viz., the opening of the deaf ear, so that it may be heard, is not dependent upon the preaching of the Word; and therefore may precede the preaching."
Notice how Kuyper is timid in his affirmation of the "New Divinity" teaching of "immediate regeneration." He uses the word "may" at least five times. Such a word is not a word denoting absoluteness and certainty. The Lord "may" regenerate" a man "before" he hear "the preaching of the Word." No doubt he seeks to promote his "New Divinity" view without antagonizing the orthodox in his denomination. Yes, God "may," if it pleases him, "of stones raise up children unto Abraham," but who would dare say that this is the way he has chosen? God "may" regenerate without human means, but is this the way that he has chosen to do it? For Kuyper to actually and explicitly assert that God not only "may," but actually does, regenerate sinners apart from the gospel and from faith, puts him squarely in rebellion to the teachings of his Calvinist forefathers.
Kuyper even goes so far astray, in his comments, that he affirms that regeneration "precedes the internal call." So, he not only has the experience of regeneration preceding the external call of the gospel, but also preceding the "internal call." A man "regenerated" who has not been internally or externally "called"! Kuyper has so narrowed his definition of "regeneration" to where it now excludes being internally called. All the old confessions and writings of primitive Calvinists, however, taught that regeneration and calling alluded to the same thing.
Kuyper wrote:
"Correct discrimination in this respect is of greatest importance."
This reminds us of the words of Hyper Calvinist John Gerstner who attempted to prove that Jonathan Edwards strictly defined "regeneration" so as to exclude conversion, even though Edwards affirmed that the scriptures made no distinction in the words and used them to refer to the same experience.
Gerstner wrote:
"This is a rather unfortunate and unscientific way of proceeding. While it is true that Scripture tends to use these different terms synonymously, there are significant differences. Edwards himself notes that the mind, active in repentance, is passive in regeneration. Edwards often notes that conversion too has reference to the passivity of the mind as well as its reflex activity. He especially observes that repentance is a change of the mind, which we shall soon see he constantly attributes exclusively to God, the mind of man being passive (if not hostile) at the time of the change."
Why does Gerstner say that the words of Edwards are "unfortunate and unscientific way of proceeding" is Edwards is promoting the Hyperist views of Gerstner? Edwards "unscientific" in his teaching on regeneration and conversion? Who can believe that? Gerstner says - "it is true that Scripture tends to use these different terms synonymously." From these statements it is obvious that Gerstner rejects the teaching of Edwards which he recognizes as being "unfortunate and unscientific," but yet are in line with scripture which "tends to use these different terms synonymously" as did Edwards. The words of Edwards that Gerstner rejects are these:
"...repentance signifies a change of the mind; as the word conversion means a change or turning from sin to God. And that this is the same change with that which is called regeneration..." See Here
Conversion, according to Edwards, "is the same change with that which is called regeneration" in scripture. Gerstner even admits that this is true, saying that the scriptures "use these different terms synonymously." Yet, he rejects the teaching of scripture! He believes what the biblical writers did in using them synonymously was "unfortunate" and "unscientific"!
Kuyper, even though he affirms that Edwards identifies conversion with regeneration, as do the scriptures, yet he will then affirm that Edwards actually believed that they were not the same! He will make Edwards to contradict himself! He does this from misinterpreting these parenthetical words of Edwards: "excepting that this latter term (regeneration) especially signifies the change, as the mind is passive in it." Edwards, however, did not affirm that the word "regeneration" signified no other change, other than the passive change of the mind, in scripture. Had this been his intent then he would not have put the word "especially" in front of "signifies."
Kuyper wrote:
"If I designate the whole conscious work of grace from conversion until death, "regeneration," without any regard to its mysterious background, then I may and must say with the Confession (article 24): "That this faith, being wrought in man by the hearing of the Word, and the operation of the Holy Spirit, doth regenerate him and make him a new man."
But, the confession and old Calvinist writings did not generally define "regeneration" as including the whole Christian life. It is true that John Calvin sometimes did. The primitive Calvinistic documents taught what Edwards taught, and believed that regeneration and conversion were alluding to the same experience.
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."
The first thing to notice from the views of Kuyper and the "New Divinity" school is how they confess that their views are not the views of scripture nor of their forefathers, for the scriptures and the primitive writings of Kuyper's forefathers were "unfortunate and unscientific." Second, Gerstner will give no scriptural authority for his arbitrarily creating stages to regeneration. This is just what we would expect men who use "scientific" and philosophical standards to judge holy things. But, it is what Paul called "false science." (I Tim. 6: 20) It is just what one would expect from Gentile theologians who have become "hair-splitters." They separate what God has not separated. What God has joined together they seek to separate.
According to the multi-stage regeneration view of Kuyper, there are gaps in time between these "stages," so that a one man can be one-third regenerated, another man two-thirds regenerated, and another man fully regenerated! A man may be "quickened" (regenerated) who is neither converted nor sanctified! "Regenerated" unbelievers! "Regenerated" heathens!
Gerstner does not have any problem with the second and third "stages" of "regeneration" being mediate and involve activity from the recipient of regenerating grace and power, but he does with the first "stage" that he wants to strictly define as "regeneration." Though he acknowledges that the scriptures equate quickening and regeneration with conversion, yet he wants to impose upon the scriptures a more "scientific" paradigm, and not equate them. That is clearly a violation of sound hermeneutic principles and is not handling the word of God honestly and correctly.
Kuyper continues:
"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."
This may be "scientific" but it is not scriptural nor the primitive teaching of the Calvinists. Kuyper has no scriptural authority for making regeneration and conversion into two distinct stages of a broader regeneration. He in fact acknowledges that he is doing what the new testament writers do not do themselves.
Kuyper continues:
"Condensing the foregoing, there is one great act of God which re-creates the corrupt sinner into a new man, viz., the comprehensive act of regeneration, which contains three parts—quickening, conversion, and sanctification.
For the ministry of the Word it is preferable to consider only the last two, conversion and sanctification, since this is the appointed means to effect them. The first, regeneration, is preferably a subject of private meditation, since in it man is passive and God only active; and also because in it the majesty of the divine operation is most apparent."
Kuyper invents two kinds of "regeneration," one that is a novel strict definition, and which he connects with the first stage of "regeneration," scripturally and broadly defined. He acknowledges that the scriptures only promote the broad definition, for the scriptures speak of conversion as being all the same as regeneration. Thus, Kuyper is inventing a new definition for "regeneration" and imposing it on scripture. His paradigm of a three stage regeneration is arbitrarily created and them imposed upon scripture.
Kuyper will not allow that "quickening" can be the result of complete regeneration, but limits it strictly to the first stage of regeneration alone. But, by doing this, he goes against the scriptures and the primitive teachings of Calvinists. The older Calvinists did not believe that a man was spiritually alive until he had been converted, until he had believed and repented. The truth is, the Spirit works both mediately and immediately in the whole of the regeneration experience. And, there is no indication in scripture or in the Reformed and Calvinist confessions and authoritative writings that says that the immediate work of the Spirit must precede the mediate work. In fact, scripture and the confessions show that often the Spirit works mediately before he works immediately, so it is false to assert that the latter always precedes the former.
Kuyper continues:
"Hence there is no conflict or opposition. Referring, according to the Confession, article 17, only to conversion and sanctification, the unstopping of the deaf ear as preceding the hearing of the Word is not denied. And penetrating into the work which antedates conversion, "In which God works in us without our aid" (article 12 of the canons of Dort), it is not denied, but confessed, that conversion and sanctification follow the unstopping of the deaf ear, and that, in the proper sense, regeneration is completed only at the death of the sinner."
The error of Kuyper in his interpretation of the old Reformed confessions is seen in his equating "unstopping the deaf ear" with "regeneration," rather than seeing it as a preparatory work prior to biblical regeneration. Further, he errs in assuming that "the unstopping of the deaf ear" is accomplished apart from means. Kuyper affirms that the Reformed confessions do not deny that unstopping the deaf ears was immediate and preceded the hearing of the word of God. But, he does not prove what he asserts. The confessions and writings which he cites do not present his three stage paradigm.
The old Reformed and Calvinist writers affirmed that both the Spirit and the word were the causes of regeneration and the new birth. They did not deny that this work was in some respects immediate, that the Spirit of God in a mysterious way came into direct contact with the human spirit, but they also taught that the immediate work occurred simultaneously with the mediate work of the Spirit, within the same divine "operation."
Kuyper continues:
"Do not suppose that we make these two to conflict. In writing a biography of Napoleon it would be sufficient simply to mention his birth, but one might also mention, more in particular, the things that took place before his birth. Just so in this respect: I may refer either to the two parts of regeneration, conversion and sanctification, or I may include also that which precedes conversion, and speak also of the quickening. This implies no antagonism, but a mere difference of exactness. It is more exhaustive, with reference to regeneration, to speak of three stages—quickening, conversion, and sanctification; altho it is customary and more practical to speak only of the last two."
"Do not suppose that we make these two to conflict"? "No antagonism" between the two? Is that not exactly what Kuyper's new paradigm, his "New Divinity," does? Does his view not put strict regeneration into conflict with broad regeneration? Does he not take his paradigm to scripture and impose it on scripture? When he reads a verse that shows means are used in the "change of mind" involved in regeneration, he will make this only applicable to the second and third stage of regeneration, but when he reads a verse where he assumes that no means are (or could be) involved, he then arbitrarily applies this to his strict definition of "regeneration," to the "first stage" alone. He did not find this paradigm and hermeneutic rule in scriptures, but invented it himself and then applies it to scripture.
Notice also how Kuyper makes "birth" to be distinct from "regeneration," a view of the first founding fathers of Hardshellism. They too saw three "stages," and saw spiritual birth as exactly the same as physical birth. In physical birth there is first the implanting of the "seed" by the act of the Father (first stage), and then there is the growth time spent in the womb of the mother (second stage), and then there is "birth," or "deliverance" from the womb of the mother (third stage). The difficulties with this paradigm are great and will be enlarged upon later in this series.
Kuyper tries to say, like Gerstner, that such a paradigm of biblical regeneration, with three stages similar to physical birth, is simply more "exact" and "exhaustive," more "scientific." More exact than the apostles!
Kuyper continues:
"And herein lies a real danger. For to speak of the little ones without considering the first stage of regeneration—i.e., the quickening—causes confusion and perplexity from which there is no escape.
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."
Kuyper, rather than going to scripture to prove his unscriptural and non-traditional paradigm on regeneration, goes to science, philosophy, and human logic instead. He argues just as do the Hardshells, affirming that mediate regeneration by the word of God condemns all those who have died in infancy, saying that this must be so because "they can not hear the Word." But, he did not prove the proposition that says that "they cannot hear the Word." He assumes it as true. If dry dead bones can hear the word of God as announced by the prophet, then surely infants can be made to hear it. If John the Baptist can hear it in his mother's womb and rejoice, then surely the assumed proposition of Kuyper and the Hardshells is to be rejected. And, if his proposition about infants being unable to hear is false, then so is his conclusion that regeneration by means damns infants.
Kuyper thinks that he has solved a great riddle, has harmonized what seemed to him to be conflicting propositions. He has illumined what was previously dark to the Reformers and Calvinists, saying that once one accepts his definitions of things, and his new paradigm, "the light enters"! He confesses that the first Reformers and Calvinists were all in the dark on the subject of regeneration and conversion!
In the next chapter I will finish reviewing the views of Kuyper and discuss more the history of the "New Divinity" teaching on regeneration and show how regeneration is both mediate and immediate.
No comments:
Post a Comment