|
BY THE AUTHOR
Dr. W. Robert Cook, Th.D
Jesus, I am resting, resting
in the joy of what Thou art;
I am finding out the greatness
of Thy loving heart.
Thou has bid me gaze upon Thee,
and Thy beauty fills my soul,
For by Thy transforming power
Thou hast made me whole.
Jean Sophia Pigott (1845-1882)
Come unto me, ye weary,
And I will give you rest,
0 blessed voice of Jesus,
Which comes to hearts oppressed!
It tells of benediction,
Of pardon, grace, and peace,
Of joy that hath no ending,
Of love which cannot cease.
William Chatterton Dix (1837-1898)
I. The Effectual Call
A. A Definition
The effectual call is that calling of God to the sinner by the proclamation of the gospel whereby the atoning work of God in Christ is savingly applied by the Holy Spirit.
B. Characteristics of the Effectual Call
1. It is efficacious (1 Cor. 1:23-24; 1 Pet. 2:9)
God's aim will surely be realized. There will be an affirmative response to the call.
It is common in Reformed theology to speak of the effectual call of God as irresistible. While we have no problem with this term when it is properly understood, it is more susceptible to misunderstanding than the term efficacious. To some it seems to conjure up the image of God's grace being like a juggernaut, not only overpowering man's rebellious will but doing so despite his desires to the contrary. While we reject any synergism which makes man a partner with God in his regeneration we nonetheless believe that God works in man to will and work his good pleasure. Bloesch has captured the idea when he says, "Grace is irresistible in the sense that it is efficacious, that once it enters into the life of man it will penetrate his inner being and alter his will." [i] We believe, however, that it is an improper use of the term to speak of those who turn from the grace of God as still experiencing irresistible grace. [ii]
2. It is irrevocable (Rom. 11:29)
It will not nor cannot be reversed by God.
3. It involves the proclamation of the gospel (1 Cor. 1:23-24; 2 Thess.2:14)
It includes specific, historical data regarding the saving work of Christ. While God uses human instruments in the proclamation of the message it is not the instrument but the message that is the key element. Even the Holy Spirit has no message apart from the gospel.
4. It is related to regeneration (1 Pet. 1:23; James 1:18)
5. It is purposive and, therefore, specific rather than general (1 Cor. 1:9; Gal. 5:13; 1 Thess. 2:12; 4:7; 2 Thess. 2:14; 1 Tim. 6:12; 1 Pet. 2:9; 3:9)
C. The Relationship of the Effectual Call to Regeneration (John 6:63; cf. James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23)
The Spirit gives life through the words of Christ, by the word of truth, the living and enduring Word of God.
II. Regeneration
A. Biblical Terms
1. Palingenesia — regeneration; rebirth (Titus 3:5)
2. Anagennaō — to be born again
It is to beget into new life; give a new birth (1 Pet. 1:3, 23)
3. Gennaō with anothen —born again, from above (John 1:13; 3:3-8)
4. Ktidzō — to create (Eph. 2:10)
The same term is used in Colossians 1:16 to refer to God's original creative work as it relates to the material and spiritual universe.
5. Kainē ktisis — new creature (2 Cor. 5:17)
6. Ktisis is variously translated "creation" or "creature."
It is always used of a divine work.
7. Sudzōopoieō — to be made alive together with (Eph. 2:5)
Apokueō — to bring forth; to give birth to (James 1:18)
B. Definition
Strong writes, “Regeneration is that act of God by which the governing disposition of the soul is made holy, and by which, through the truth as a means, the first holy exercise of this disposition is secured." [iii] Berkhof uses this identical statement but adds, at the beginning of the definition, "Regeneration is that act of God by which the principle of the new life is implanted in man...." [iv]
Both of these statements reflect the tendency of theologians to over-extend the concept beyond its more precise biblical limits and thus create confusion in the mind of the student. Recognizing this problem Charles Hodge states, "By a consent almost universal the word regeneration is now used to designate, not the whole work of sanctification, nor the first stages of that work comprehended in conversion, much less justification or any mere external change of state, but the instantaneous change from spiritual death to spiritual life." [v]
With all of this in mind we offer the following as a definition: Regeneration is that work of God the Holy Spirit whereby men and women are born again into the Kingdom of God through the implantation of new life.
C. The Necessity of Regeneration
1. Established by direct biblical statement (John 3:3, 5, 7; 1 Cor. 2:14).
Our Lord very categorically states that apart from the new birth one cannot (ou dunatai) see or enter the kingdom of God. To this he adds, "you must (dei) be born again." This is also the Pauline teaching (1 Cor. 2:14)
2. Established by man's deadness in sin (total depravity) (Eph. 2:1)
Since lost mankind is dead "in trespasses and sins" birth to new life is needed.
3. Illustrated by the biblical pattern (Acts 16:14)
Luke records regarding Lydia "that the Lord opened her heart to respond...."
D. The Effecting of Regeneration
1. Its basis —the finished work of Christ (John 3:14-16 (in context); 1 Pet. 1:3)
In John 3 the new birth is presented in conjunction with Christ's being "lifted up" (v. 14). Peter says that we are "born again… through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead."
2. Its efficient cause
a) It is not human will
1) Pelagian view (auto-soterism).
Pelagianism affirms the goodness of man and denies his depravity. Whatever is involved in regeneration is performed by man.
2) Semi-Pelagian or Arminian view (synergism)
Regeneration is partially a work of man cooperating with God. This is a denial of total depravity.
H. Orton Wiley, an evangelical Wesleyan (Nazarene) theologian, states this view as follows:
That regeneration is solely the work of the Spirit is not denied, but that it is absolutely so, apart from all conditions, is not according to the Scriptures. We are commanded to seek, to ask, to repent, to open the heart, and to receive Christ. These are requisites which cannot be met apart from human agency. There can be no regeneration without them, and yet they are not possible to the unaided resources of human of nature. While this help is graciously bestowed upon man by the Spirit, yet with every communication of saving grace, there must be the cooperation of the human will." [vi]
He approvingly quotes Pope, who says,
Lutheran Synergism rightly taught that there is a cooperation of the human will with divine grace, but it did not trace this with sufficient distinctiveness to the special grace of the Spirit restored in redemption. Wesleyanism even more than earlier Arminianism developed the doctrine of prevenient grace, asserting that man is not now found in the state of nature simply, but that very nature itself is grace; that the Spirit works through the word with His own preliminary influences, deepening and bringing them to perfection; and that this continuous prevenient grace is in salvation consummated by the gift of regenerate life. [vii]
Later he quotes from Raymond to the effect that "the work of regeneration is synergistic and not modernistic, as is affirmed in Augustinian anthropology.... Synergism affirms that the will of man cooperates in this work." [viii] While he thus admits that both the Wesleyan and the Semi- Pelagian views are synergistic he disavows Semi-Pelagianism because it denies "the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit, who alone can effect the new birth." [ix]
The errors of synergism have been dealt with several places elsewhere but see specially the discussion of Total Depravity in Chapter 25.
b) It is not the truth as a system of motives
To effect a change from unholiness to holiness the Holy Spirit presents the truth as motivation to the human will. While this view differs from the preceding in details it suffers from the same basic error by denying the depravity of the human will.
Charles Hodge has pinpointed the fault in this kind of thinking in his discussion of efficacious grace. He points out the significant difference between moral suasion as a moving cause (which is called for by this view) and the divine omnipotence. [x]
This concept completely overlooks the natural man's assessment of the truth as clearly delineated in the scripture (Rom. 1:18, 25; 1 Cor. 2:14). He views truth as something to suppress, exchanges it for the lie and considers it foolishness. "Truth does not in itself constrain the will." [xi]
c) It is the Holy Spirit (John 1:12-13; 3:5-6)
The passage in John 1:12-13 makes it clear that the work is wholly divine, while 3:5-6 relates it more particularly to the Holy Spirit.
The phrase ex hudatos kai pneumatos in John 3:5 has been the occasion of theological controversy which has direct bearing upon this issue. While it is a difficult passage many modern translations of the phrase attempt to solve the problem interpretively rather than with a forthright translation.
For example, the NASB, NIV and RSV translate "born of water and the Spirit" (adding a definite article with pneuma and a capital ‘S’ to Spirit). On the other hand the NEB more accurately reflects the Greek text with "born from water and spirit."
The various interpretations may be grouped into two categories, as far as treatment of the grammar is concerned, with each having variations. The first grouping views "water" and "spirit" as two distinctly separate entities. Some interpretations falling within this grouping are:
i. the sacramentarian (baptismal regeneration) view which gives efficacy to the experience of water baptism;
ii. the physical birth/spiritual birth view which relates "water" to natural birth "spirit" to spiritual birth; and
iii. the Word/Spirit view which views "water" as a metaphor for scripture based on such a passage as Ephesians 5:26.
These views all suffer from the common weakness that the grammatical construction seems to call for the two nouns to refer to two aspects of the same thing. In addition, it should be noted regarding the Sacramentarian view that "neither Jesus' nor John the Baptist's ministry was in any sense instrumental, mechanical, or ritualistic." [xii] This passage does not suggest that the rite of baptism nor the water itself is efficacious for the removal of sin. "Baptismal regeneration is a concept foreign to Jesus' teaching, to John's gospel, and to the entire New Testament. John's message throughout the gospel is keyed on faith, not ritual, and 'the whole passage [John 3] emphasizes the work of the Spirit, not the permanence of any rite.’” [xiii] Furthermore, this still cannot be a reference to Christian baptism for the simple reason that there was no such thing as yet. The church did not begin until Pentecost.
Some have advanced the physical birth/spiritual birth view by appealing to the context in which the discussion seems to revolve around Nicodemus' confusion regarding the two. Two things militate against this interpretation. If this were the intended meaning we would expect two kai’s and read "both water and spirit"; however, there is only one. Also, the use of only one preposition (ex, "of") with only one kai (and) closely identifies the two objects of the preposition (“water and spirit") as referring to two aspects of the same basic idea rather than two unrelated things such as this view requires.
The metaphorical view which calls for "water" to be a metaphor for the scriptures urges a Pauline metaphor to explain a Johannine statement. Also, it assumes that hremati in Ephesians 5:26 refers to the scriptures when it may possibly refer to the believer's confession of faith at his baptism.
Donald Bloesch rejects the concept of baptismal regeneration and proposes a variation of the Sacramentarian view that is much more evangelical in character. He writes,
The overall witness of the New Testament seems to be that baptism by itself is not indispensable for salvation, but baptism joined with repentance and faith becomes the means whereby people receive the gift of regeneration.... To be effectual for salvation baptism must be accompanied by faith or else give rise to faith (cf. Heb. 10:22; Col. 2:12; Acts 2:38).... The Word of God alone is the indispensable means of salvation, while baptism is a spiritual aid.... With John Nevin we affirm the reality of baptismal grace but not baptismal regeneration. [xiv]
In response to this view we would say that we agree that a close relationship is established in the New Testament between the doctrine of salvation and the believer's confession of this great truth in water baptism. We disagree, however, that this is a matter of what he calls "baptismal grace." Certainly no such idea may be found in John 3 for the reason adduced above.
Hebrews 10:22 may not even refer to baptism and even if it does it merely associates the ideas of cleansing and faith rather than imputing grace to the water. Colossians 2:12 does not refer to water baptism but to Spirit baptism as is seen by the parallel drawn with circumcision (v. 11), which is a spiritual rather than physical thing here ("made without hands"), and by the fact that the result is a spiritual one, namely our co-resurrection with Christ "through faith in the working of God."
Acts 2:38 unquestionably has water baptism in view and does relate it closely to repentance. The preposition "for" (eis) in this passage, however, is best understood as meaning “on the basis of.” When given this sense both repentance and baptism, in association with each other, are related to forgiveness (as inward commitment and outward witness, respectively). (For a more extended discussion of Acts 2:38 see Chapter 45).
The second grouping views "water" and "spirit" as two ways to refer to the same entity. Some interpretations fitting into this grouping are:
i. The epexegetical view, which makes "water" a metaphor for spiritual cleansing and sees the kai as ascensive or epexegetical; and
ii. the thorough-going-change view, which views the words as a phraseological unit referring to external (as evidenced in baptism) and internal (as evidenced in the human spirit) change.
The first of these two options is a grammatical possibility, although is only infrequently used this way. "Also, as Westcott points out, [xv] the term 'water' in this context seems to symbolize purification (John 1:25-26) if it symbolizes anything. ’Hence all the interpretations which treat the term water here as simply figurative and descriptive of the cleansing power of the Spirit are essentially defective, as they are opposed to all ancient tradition.'" [xvi]
The explanation we would propose for this passage, then, is the last named.
If being “born of water and spirit” is being born "anew," it must be an experience not hitherto experienced in any sense. Since being born "anew" involves birth "of water and spirit," it is clearly a complex rather than simple experience. It has at least two dimensions, as indicated by the two nouns. That the phrase is governed by just one preposition (ex [of]) strongly identifies the two objects, “water” and “spirit.”
That is to say, although they are distinct they may not be separated….
In light of the historical context (see John 1:19-34; 3:22-26 as well as parallel passages in the synoptics), it seems nearly certain that Jesus' words would have brought John's baptism to Nicodemus's mind. Mark 1:4 describes John's baptism as a "baptism of repentance," which may have been an abbreviated or interpretive way of referring to John's ministry. Certainly the rite itself is not efficacious. Neither Jesus' nor John the Baptist's ministry was in any sense instrumental, mechanical, or ritualistic. John's message was "Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:1-2)…. Thus, John's baptism symbolized purification (John 3:25-26) and signified outward as well as inward repentance.
Repentance (metanoia) means "mind-change." In its most external sense it refers to a change of opinion (see Heb. 12:17), while at its deepest level it refers to transformation of character. In Jesus' statement, "water" probably emphasizes the outward, demonstrative aspect of the new birth, while "spirit" refers to the inward, transformational side of the same thing. That is, He is saying there must be both external and internal change if one can claim to be born anew. [xvii]
3. Its instrument — the Word of God (James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23; cf. 2 Pet. 1:4).
This is the point of interface between the effectual call and regeneration. "He brought us forth by the word of truth" (James 1:18). "You have been born again... through the living and abiding word of God" (1 Peter 1:23). "The gospel... is the power of God for salvation" (Rom. 1:16). God saves those who believe through the preaching of Christ crucified (1 Cor. 1:21-23).
"The proclamation of the Word of God—that is, of the revealed truth of the Gospel centering in the incarnate, crucified and risen Logos—therefore propels every hearer into a crisis of decision, since it calls for an immediate verdict on redemption by Jesus Christ that leads either to or away from eternal life in the present and to future eschatological salvation or damnation." [xviii]
At this juncture there is sometimes rather elaborate debate about the word of God as a means in regeneration or not, and, if it is, about the order of relationship. The passages noted above, if interpreted without blind commitment to a particular theological system quite clearly relate the scriptures to the doctrine of regeneration. Most would agree that whatever relationship the effectual call and regeneration bear to one another it must be understood logically rather than chronologically.
Rather than trying to defend a cause/effect order, which in most statements of Reformed theology seems demanded more by the system than the text of Scripture, [xix] it would appear that another approach may be more satisfactory. Since the Spirit does not seem to exercise an independent voice apart from the written word, and since the scriptures do not have an independent energizing of their own apart from the Spirit, it seems that this relationship is best construed as a concurrent one.
4. Its process
In his discussion of regeneration Bloesch suggests that “it is possible to recognize several stages in regeneration.” [xx] He then goes on to list four.
First there is the pre-Christian stage in which one is encountered by the grace of God and thereby awakened to seek for salvation. We are not her affirming a universal prevenient grace: it is redemptive grace itself that arouses man and quickens him, grace that comes to him only through the hearing of the Word. [xxi]
As he continues his discussion of this stage he contrasts his view with that of Lutheran orthodoxy, which held that “the first act seeks to divert the unconverted man from his state of sin and instill within him a horror and detestation of his past sin.” [xxii] Instead he holds “that the man who is confronted by divine grace is no longer an unregenerate person but a person who has already tasted the grace of regeneration.” [xxiii] He has thus adopted a strange position wherein you seem to have a regenerate but unsaved (“pre-Christian”) person at this particular point. Later on he likens his view to that of Jonathan Edwards but points out some important differences. Again, however, he holds that the person in this “pre-Christian stage” “is to be considered not spiritually lost but assuredly on the way to regeneration.” [xxiv]
“The second stage of regeneration is the new birth in the narrow sense. Here the Holy Spirit enters our lives and makes his indwelling place within us. Now we are convicted of sin and awakened to faith.” [xxv] The third and fourth stages of regeneration, according to Bloesch, are sanctification and glorification, respectively.
As will be observed by the reader of this theology the view set forth herein does not accept his analysis. First of all, the effectual call (or work of efficacious grace) relates to man as an unbeliever. This is preliminary to regeneration but is not regeneration itself. Secondly, sanctification and glorification are the divinely designed subsequent steps following regeneration but are completely distinct works of God.
i. It is a sovereign work of God (John 3:8; 5:21; James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:3). Note carefully the references to the direct exercise of God’s will in these passages. A corollary to this is the irresistible character of this work (John 5:21; note the analogy in this verse regarding giving life to the dead and the statement, “to whom he is pleased to give it” NIV). Since regeneration is not the product of moral suasion (see above) but rather of omnipotence we are inescapably led to this conclusion. It is, like all other works of a miraculous, supernatural nature, the issue of God’s power and may be likened to the creation of the universe in this regard (cf. 2 Cor. 4:6).
ii. It is an instantaneous work of God (John 5:24). By its very nature creation must be instantaneous. The one who believes has eternal life; he “has crossed over (changed his place; metabebeken, perfect tense) from death into life.” “The new birth is both an event and an experience, but it is primarily and essentially the former and only secondarily the latter…. While one can expect to feel the love and joy of Christ, this feeling should not itself be identified with the new birth.” [xxvi]
iii. It is a permanent work of God (1 Pet. 1:23; 1:3-5). The “seed” to which Peter refers is the divine life implanted by the word (see 2 Peter 1:4; 1 John 3:9) which is imperishable.
5. Its means of appropriation (John 1:12; 5:24)
These passages speak of faith in Jesus Christ and in the one who sent him (God the Father). These are not to be viewed as two separate acts of faith since it is the Father’s word regarding his Son that is to be believed.
That faith is not to be viewed as meritorious or as a contribution to a person’s salvation, but only as a means of appropriation of God’s work is quite clear from scripture (Eph. 2:8-0). We are passive in this work (John 1:13). We are not to work the works of God but to believe in Christ which is the work of God (John 6:28-29).
6. Its results
a) Negatively
1) Nothing is removed from the sinner (Rom. 7:14-15).
In Romans 6:6 Paul speaks of the old man as having been crucified with Christ. This is a metaphor for a real truth. To understand it we must remember that death in scripture is separation not extinction. This identification with Christ accomplished the death of our old man (all that we were in Adam) which in turn has two purposes.
First, the body of sin (the body as conditioned and controlled by sin) may thus be annulled (rendered inoperative). This is God’s provision for us in the delay until the redemption of our bodies, that is, until glorification, the last step in the comprehensive salvation work.
Secondly, and growing out of the first, the bondage of sin may thus be broken. We stand acquitted, all the claims of sin on our lives are settled, and we are now legally entitled not to obey sin (v. 7).
2) The soul of the sinner is not changed.
Holiness is not infused to the soul thus leading to its perfection and sinlessness (1 John 1:8, 10). (See also the discussion of Hamartiology in Chapters 24-27.)
b) Positively
1) The gift of new life is imparted (John 3:15-16; 5:24; Eph. 2:5; Col. 2:13)
Contrary to some theological thinking, “regeneration does not consist in the alteration of the old nature but in the impartation of a new nature." [xxvii] Furthermore, the new life in Christ is not merely a future possibility or expectation. "Every fallen person can share already here and now in a spectacular sampling of Christ's enduring final victory." [xxviii]
2) A spiritual transformation is effected (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:10)
i. We receive a living hope (1 Pet. 1:3).
ii. We receive an immutable and secure inheritance (1 Pet. 1:4).
iii. We are enabled to practice righteousness rather than sin (1 John 2:29 cf. 3:9).
iv. We are enabled to demonstrate a pattern of love (1 John 4:7).
v. We are provided with a life of faith and victory over the world (1 John 5:1, 4-5).
E. Summary
Attempts to understand and explain the doctrine of regeneration have led to a wide variety of erroneous views. These range from neo-universalism [xxix], to the liberal view [xxx] , to liberation theology [xxxi], to sacramentalism as evidenced in Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and high-church Anglicanism and Lutheranism [xxxii], to second-work-of-grace theology [xxxiii].
In response to these views evangelical theologian Donald Bloesch proposes yet another somewhat syncretistic position which attempts to thread orthodox theology through what he feels may be valid in these other traditions. He writes:
It is not within man's power, nor even within the power of the church, to bring about the new birth. The church can only proclaim the Word and hope and pray that the Spirit of God, who alone can penetrate the hearts of sinners, will act in his own time and way. Baptism by water is the sacramental sign of the new birth, but baptism itself does not effect the new birth. Like the Word of God itself baptism can be an instrument of the Spirit's redemptive action, but it is not a pre-condition for this action. The new birth will be accompanied by conviction of sin and assurance of salvation, but these are not absolute guarantees that the new birth has actually occurred, since feelings are not always trustworthy. The new birth may be followed by mystical phenomena, including speaking in tongues, but these, too, cannot be considered rational or even experiential proofs. Our certainty is based not on our feelings or experiences but on the promises of God in Scripture that whoever calls on the name of Christ will be saved (Acts 2:21; 16:31; Mark 16:16), and whoever repents and believes will indeed receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). Yet repentance and the obedience of faith are not the presuppositions of the new birth but the evidence and consequence of it. [xxxiv]
Bloesch's statement has much to commend it. I wholeheartedly subscribe to his emphasis upon the absolute sovereignty of divine grace in regeneration. Also, his emphasis upon the non-determinacy of feelings is well-taken. The work of regeneration is God's work alone and depends for its validity upon his trust- worthiness not ours or our subjective feelings. At the same time I cannot accept his affirmation of "baptismal grace" [xxxv] or of the possibility of regeneration being attended by mystical phenomena such as speaking in tongues. There is no question that some Christians experience some ecstatic or psychologically induced phenomena but these are not to be confused with or related in any way to the new birth. As was noted at the beginning of this section, regeneration is that work of God the Holy Spirit whereby men and women are born again into the kingdom of God through the implantation of new life. It is predicated on the facts that the work of Christ is finished and that we are complete in him (Col. 2:10) making any subsequent work unnecessary.
[i] Donald Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, I, 205
[ii] Ibid., p. 206; Bloesch follows Barth on this point
[iii] A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 809
[iv] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 469
[v] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, III, 5
[vi] H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology, II, 417-18
[vii] William Burt Pope, A Higher Catechism of Theology, p. 220
[viii] Robert L. Raymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, II, 356
[ix] Wiley, op. cit., pp. 416-17