"The Bible doctrine of regeneration has suffered at the hands of its enemies as well as its friends."
"More tragic than that, perhaps, is the treatment that the Bible doctrine of regeneration has received at the hands of its professed "friends."
It is ironic to me that the man who wrote this is himself guilty of the thing he condemns. The fact is, it is the view of Bill and other "Reformed Baptists," concerning regeneration, that has suffered at the hands of "its professed friends." To sever faith from regeneration, and to make it a post hoc thing, as he and they do, has been detrimental to the spread of the gospel. The history of the Hardshells, who share Bill's view, proves this to be the case.
Bill says further:"In many Christian circles today experiencing "regeneration" (or "being born again") is simply something that happens when a person "makes a decision to accept Jesus Christ into his heart as personal Savior." Now it is certainly true that Jesus is the Savior, and that he saves sinners on a personal level. However, the idea that the experience of regeneration is a decision which every sinner ought to make and indeed every sinner can make is an idea which is seriously defective. The defects in this idea become increasingly clear when viewed from the vantage points of Biblical material, historic Baptist teachings, and the contemporary Southern Baptist position on this doctrine."
First, it seems that Bill equates "regeneration" with the "new birth." I take that as an evidence that he does not believe in the three stage model of the spiritual birth.
Second, Bill does not believe that sinners are to be called upon to decide in favor of Christ, that is, choose to follow him. He believes this is bad doctrine. He does not believe that sinners are to ask for, or pray for, or seek to be saved (regenerated or born again)! I say that such statements like that have 1) done more to hurt the spread of biblical Calvinism than all his other efforts at promoting it, and 2) done more to hinder evangelism than perhaps any other doctrine, and 3) done more to fog the minds of disciples about what constitutes biblical regeneration than to enlighten them about it.
Does Bill not believe it is scriptural to call upon sinners to make a decision to be saved? To call upon them to seek it and to ask Christ for it? Apparently so. What is Bill's message to sinners, then? It is the same as the Hardshells, which says - "if you are regenerated and already saved, then decide to follow Christ"! Friends, you can call it by any other name but it is still Hyper Calvinism and Hardshellism.
If I were still a Hardshell, I would be contacting all these "reformed Baptists" and trying to get them to join with us! Maybe this is why some of them have lately been to visits with the Hardshells?
But, before I discuss the role of decision, choice, and the will in the experience of salvation (or the new birth or regeneration), I will cite Bill further where he tries to prove that the will of the sinner makes no choices either "in order to" or "in" his new birth exerience.
Bill wrote:
"Regeneration may be defined as that supernatural work of the Holy Spirit of God which is performed in the life of a sinner whereby the sinner is given a new heart, being brought from spiritual death to spiritual life, and is made able and willing to repent of his sin before God and trust alone in Jesus Christ to be his Lord and Savior."
Yes, all this is true, except I think for the misinterpretation of them by Bill and others. Would it make any difference to rephrase the paragraph to say -
"Regeneration may be defined as that supernatural work of the Holy Spirit of God which is performed in the life of a sinner whereby the sinner is made able and willing to repent of his sin before God and trust alone in Jesus Christ to be his Lord and Savior, and given a new heart, being brought from spiritual death to spiritual life."
When men list things they may do it in order to demonstrate precise order, or with no precise order. Not all lists are to be taken as expressive of chronological order. Where there is no chronological order, and yet a list needs to be made, one cannot argue for one in such cases.
So, in the above listing of things that take place IN regeneration, I simply inverted which was listed first. I did this simply to demonstrate that the statement as written does not prove that one must first be regenerated and then come to faith and repentance, but that it simply lists the various things which take place or occur in regeneration, with no precise chronological order intended.
Under the title "The Bible and Regeneration," and in the same article, Bill writes:"There are many texts of Scripture which teach us about this work of the Holy Spirit. Two particular Old Testament prophets, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, were led by the Holy Spirit to communicate the doctrine of regeneration in terms of what God will do. One such reference is found in Ezek. 36:26-27: "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws." From these verses (and others like them--see Jer. 31:31-34, and Ezek. 11:19) it is easy to see that the force of the work of regeneration is bound up with God's initiating activity. It is also evident that the stony-hearted sinner will do nothing until God gives him a heart of flesh."
So, does this prove that men are regenerated before and without faith? Why cannot Bill see that the "new heart" is a believing heart? That the change of heart is one that changes if from unbelief to belief? What Calvinist, who believes that faith is not after, but a part of regeneration, denies that God must "initiate" the work of salvation and that the sinner is unable and unwilling to do so? Why, even most Arminians agree that God must initiate this work. So, Bill has not said anything yet to prove that men are first regenerated and later come to have faith. In fact, I have posted previous writings, with citations from Dr. Gill, where he taught that faith was the "principal part of regeneration," and that the creation of faith is the same as being born again. I have also cited him to show how he believed that the word was a means in producing this new heart.
Bill says:
"It should not surprise us that the New Testament writers are of one mind in their agreement with the language of the Old Testament writers concerning this matter of the new birth. For John, the only explanation for the fact that any "received Jesus" was that they were "born . . . of God" (see John 1:12-13). In fact, John categorically denies the possibility of a person being born again by virtue of a human decision when he states that these believing ones "were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." It is John who records for us the teachings of Jesus on the subject when he instructs Nicodemus that the new birth is mysterious much like the movement of the wind, and that, furthermore, it is a supernatural work so that we must be "born of the Spirit." (see John 3:1-8)."
I do not see how Bill can sever the decision to follow Christ, and to "receive him," and to "believe" on him, from what is principally the part of what it means to be "begotten." Are these things not what the sinner is begotten "to." Sinners are begotten TO life, faith, hope, and to a decision! Without these items, no one can be said to be "born of God" or "regenerated."
Actually, this verse, together with I John 5: 1, are the chief verses used by the Hardshells to prove that faith is no part of regeneration, affirming that men are regenerated first, without faith, and that faith comes later, or perhaps not at all. Is that what these verses teach? "I trow not," as Spurgeon would say.
I have also shown in previous writings how it was false to assert that there are no commands in the bible for a man to be saved, or converted, or to be born again and regenerated. I cited lots of them. To call men to be saved is to call them to be "made willing" or to "choose" for Christ to save them. And yes, when one obeys the invitation (or command), he is at the same time coming to life! But, I will save a more in depth review of these passages when I get to my next series on "Hardshell Proof Texts."
Bill says:
"Paul reminds the Ephesian believers that it was while they were still dead in their trespasses and sins that they were quickened to life by the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in the new birth (Eph. 2:1-5). James asserts that our new birth experience must be traced back to the will of God (James 1:18). Peter exults that the new birth did not come to pass by the agency of anything corruptible, but by that which is incorruptible (1 Pet. 1:23-25)."
Again, I have already cited these words of Bill in a previous entry and stated that Bill errs in not seeing how that Paul identifies the gospel conversion of the Ephesians as synonymous with their "regeneration" or spiritual "resurrection" (or 'quickening'). So, there is no argument here. Paul equates the coming to life with the coming to faith! (Eph. 1: 19)
Bill says:
"It should be clear from this brief overview that the key Old and New Testament passages on the subject of regeneration do not teach that it is the decision made by a person to accept Jesus as personal Savior."
No, those passages do not teach that at all! What kind of "renewed heart" is it that has not yet decided for Christ or believed on him? Did I not cite passages in both Testaments where God called upon sinners to "make themselves a new heart" and "circumcise their hearts to the Lord"? Was this not calling upon them to choose to do as he called upon them to do?
Bill says:
"The Biblical language forces the serious and honest student of Scripture to consider regeneration as a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a sinner producing a change of heart that is the equivalent of being brought from spiritual death to spiritual life. Repentance and faith are evidences that this spiritual life has been planted in the soul of the individual. Some of this may happen in a manner that is beyond our comprehension, but those things which are comprehensible cannot be denied."
How can faith be an "evidence" of regeneration if there be not faith "in" regeneration or a part of it? Life is an "evidence" of being "begotten," but one cannot be said to be "begotten" if he has no life! Again, one who believes that faith be a part of regeneration, yea, even a means of experiencing it, does not necessarily, as Bill avers, deny that the work is not of God nor supernatural!
Bill next tries to prove that his "pre-faith" view of "regeneration" is Baptistic under a subsection titled - "Historic Baptists and Regeneration." But, as brother Ross and I have already shown, the people he cites as agreeing with him do NOT agree with him. But, more on this in a separate post where I finish this review of Ascol's writing on "regeneration."http://www.founders.org/journal/fj02/article2.html
No comments:
Post a Comment