The Doctrine of Regeneration, Part 2

I anticipate an objection at this point. Someone will say, “Telling someone about the necessity of being born again in one breath, then that he is utterly helpless to produce such a work in his own soul in the next breath, is self-defeating and self-contradictory.” But that misses the whole point of Jesus’ argument. The point of Jesus’ statement was to expose the fallacy of trusting in your own efforts for salvation. If devotion to a life of law keeping could save person, Nicodemus had it in the bag. In contradistinction to this, Jesus informs him that no one is saved, regardless of personal achievements, family history, social status, or religious devotion. Sin is universal and therefore the new birth is necessary.

(4) The Method of the New Birth

"The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit." (3:8). This verse handles 3 principles with regard to the doctrine of Regeneration.

1. The sovereignty of God in regeneration – the wind blows where it wishes. In the same way that the wind blows unobstructed by political, racial, or cultural hindrances, God’s Spirit cannot be frustrated in his regenerating activity.

2. Regeneration is a Divine mystery – do not know where it comes from and where it is going. To say that regeneration is a divine mystery is to say that there is more to it than we can understand. This accounts for the variety of explanations and experiences we all have with regard to our own conversion. Many people are unaware of the moment when the new birth occurred. While many trace their new birth back to a certain date or time, those dates marked the moment when the person first understood the gospel or first committed himself to Christ in obedience to the gospel. In which case, the date to which the individual has attached significance is not necessarily the date of regeneration, but rather the date of gospel conversion, a separate event entirely. I’ll say it again: to say that regeneration is a divine mysteries to say that there is more to it than we can understand. This should prompt a spirit of reverence, awe, and worship.

3. Everyone who is born again is born again in exactly the same way. Salvation by God’s grace through the direct work of the Holy Spirit upon the heart is the method which Scripture teaches and it is the only method which makes sense of the various circumstances in which sinners are found. Whether one was a Jew under the Old Testament administration of the covenant of grace, an individual who has had all the privileges of New Testament Christianity available to him, a child who dies in infancy, someone who is developmentally or mentally challenged, or someone born in an un-evangelized heathen nation, this is the only way ordained of God for salvation and it “fits” like a key fits a lock, for each of the aforementioned cases. Everyone who is regenerated is regenerated in exactly the same way, by a sovereign and mysterious operation of God’s Spirit within the human soul.

This means that Regeneration is immediate. God doesn’t use the works of the sinner, on the one hand, or the gospel preacher’s efforts on the other hand. Faith is the gift of God in regeneration. Philippians 1:29 says, “For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake,.” Some of the missionaries with whom I used to associate, because they had something of a martyr complex, really liked this verse. They got an inordinate amount of joy out of stressing the fact that the Scripture says that God has granted to us to “suffer for his sake.” Granted, that is true. But the privilege of suffering for Jesus is not the only thing that this verse says has been granted to us, nor is it the primary thing which this verse says has been granted to us. For the sake of Christ it has been granted to us to believe in him. The verb “granted” is the Greek word ἐχαρίσθη. It derives from a root which literally means, “’favor that cancels’. It is used of God giving His grace to pardon. This is freely done and therefore not based on any merit of the one receiving forgiveness.” It is in what is known in grammar the passive voice. In English, our verbs have one of two voices, active or passive. When the verb is in the active voice it signifies that the subject of the sentence is the doer of the verb’s action. The passive voice is used to signify that the subject of the sentence is the recipient of the verb’s action.

Irenaeus writes “God cannot be known without God.” This refers to more than special revelation. Irenaeus means to say that a saving knowledge of God must begin on God’s part. We cannot begin the process. Truly, as Christ said, those who are born of the Spirit are like the wind. God’s Spirit blows where He wills. We see that it blows and we feel it, but it remains a mystery which God alone comprehends. We can only marvel at the provisions of grace made available to us in the finished Mediatorial work of Christ.

Clement of Alexandria writes, "The heavenly and truly divine love comes to men thus, when in the soul itself the spark of true goodness, kindled in the soul by the Divine Word, is able to burst forth into flame; and, what is of the highest importance, salvation runs parallel with sincere willingness – choice and life being, so to speak, yoked together." 

Here we see Clement arguing (to pagan Greeks, we might add) that the human ability to respond to God’s grace comes from God Himself simultaneously with the grace. He does not assert that there is “good in every man.” The “spark of true goodness” Clement mentions, is kindled by Christ. There is no “divine spark” in all men that simply needs to be tapped into. That is Eastern mysticism, not Christian theology.

In the following passage, the Theologian, Gregory of Nazianzus eloquently describes the loving response to God’s grace that regeneration creates. “If thou hast poured out upon God the whole of thy love; if thou hast not two objects of desire, both the passing and the abiding, both the visible and the invisible, then thou hast been so pierced by the arrow of election, and hast so learned the beauty of the Bridegroom, that thou too canst say with the bridal drama and song, thou art sweetness and altogether loveliness.”

Notice that Gregory gives a test, so to speak, for one’s assurance of salvation. Can one be sensibly aware of the greatness of his own sin and misery, and of the greatness of God’s provision in Christ for this sin and misery, and not express it in gratitude and love? Can you say that you are enthralled by the glory and beauty of God’s plan of salvation? Here we see what Packer called “signs of life.” If we indeed have what, Scougal called, “the life of God in the soul of a man,” it will manifest itself naturally in a life of loving communion with God.

The pioneer missionary Patrick described his own conversion in these telling words: "Whence I, once rustic, exiled, unlearned, who does not know how to provide for the future, this at least I know most certainly that before I was humiliated I was like a stone lying in the deep mire; and He that is mighty came and in His mercy lifted me up, and raised me aloft, and placed me on the top of the wall. And therefore I ought to cry out aloud and so also render something to the Lord for His great benefits here and in eternity - benefits which the mind of men is unable to appraise.”

Patrick envisions himself like an inanimate stone lying in the mud.  This is a brilliant image.  It illustrates perfectly man’s inability to do anything about his own spiritual condition.  It illustrates man’s deadness in “trespasses and sins.” A stone can no more lift itself from the mire than it can understand the obnoxiousness of its condition. 

These quotes, I hope, show us that, though centuries separate us from our forefathers in the faith, our experience of God’s grace is one and the same. We should find it very encouraging to read of a Christian conversion from 1700-1800 years ago, and complete resonate with the language of being sought by God and raised into newness of life.

The Doctrine of Regeneration, Part 1

Regeneration

Regeneration is a picture word. It means 2^nd birth. It denotes a new beginning of life. That’s why the Bible uses as illustrations ideas such as resurrection from the dead, creation, and birth. Before looking at these ideas, I’d like to give a brief, succinct definition of the word. “Regeneration is that supernatural act of God, whereby a new and divine life is infused into the person spiritually dead, and that from the incorruptible seed of God, made fruitful by the infinite power of the Spirit.”

We must begin by realizing that we are all dead in Adam. This is what we are taught in 1 Corinthians 15:22* and Ephesians 2:1. This means, first of all, we are separated from God – the life of our life, or the language of Paul, “alienated from the life of God.” (Ephesians 4:18) secondly, we are spiritually insensible to all spiritual things and destitute of all true feeling. We are unaware that we are heavily laden because we are in our element in sin (Ephesians 4:19). Therefore we have no relish or desire for truly spiritual and heavenly things. Thirdly, we are incapable of any act of true life. Acknowledging as Scripture does, that we are dead in sins and trespasses prior to regeneration, it should go without saying that we are incapable of any act of true life – in the words of Paul “not sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves” (2 Corinthians 3:5).

*in Adam all—in union of nature with Adam, as representative head of mankind in their fall.

in Christ … all—in union of nature with Christ, the representative head of mankind in their recovery. The life brought in by Christ is co-extensive with the death brought in by Adam.

As J.I. Packer notes in his book 18 Words, it is our Lord’s conversation with Nicodemus that provides us with a theology of regeneration in crystallized form. John 3:3-8 is crucial to a biblical understanding of the doctrine of regeneration. From Christ’s teaching we can extract for major components of the doctrine of Regeneration. They are as follows: (1) The Source of the New Birth; (2) The Nature of the New Birth; (3) The Necessity of the New Birth; (4) The Method of the New Birth.

We will look at these 4 points in turn. First of all we have the source of the new birth. Jesus’ own words are, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” If you have ever done any word studies on this verse, you will know that the word rendered “again” is purposely ambiguous in the Greek, and can be translated either “again” or “from above.” Unlike your first birth, rebirth is a vertical matter. It comes from above. What does that even mean? The obvious answer to that question is that regeneration is supernatural, as opposed to natural. It is something miraculous; it is something heavenly. It is not commonplace or biological. You’ll remember that later in that conversation Jesus says, “if I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” Regeneration is a heavenly thing. In order to express something supernatural in language that man can understand, i.e. a metaphor, Christ chose the image of birth to communicate something divine to man’s finite mind . The moral of the lesson is this: God is the source of the new birth. We are told in James 1:17 that every good and perfect gift is from above and comes down from the Father of lights. Every blessing, whether it be spiritual or physical in nature, comes from above, comes from the hand of God. Regeneration is no exception. Salvation in all of its constituent parts is God’s work. As we are told in Jonah 2:9, “Salvation belongs to the Lord.”

Because regeneration is a miracle, a new birth, a new creation, a resurrection from the dead, only God can regenerate. “God has saved us and called us with a holy calling not according to our works but according to his own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before the world began” (2 Timothy 1:9). This verse is Paul’s version of Psalm 100:3, “is he that has made us and not we ourselves.” In the prologue of his gospel, John argues the same way. He says, “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become the children of God, who were born, not of the will of flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” The new birth is not the product of human lineage, nor is it the result of human relationship, nor is it the result of a human decision. Man is born, “of God.” The preposition “of” denotes the source or origin. People are not again, people are not regenerated as a result of something they do, but solely on the basis of God’s will and power.

(2) The Nature of the New Birth

What then, is the nature of the new birth? Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a 2^nd time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Nicodemus was puzzled by the nature of the new birth. It is obvious by his question that he is thinking of regeneration in terms of the birth process. Jesus uses a word (gennao) that refers to the concept of generational descent. In other words, Jesus is not focusing on the experience of birth but on the fact that the father’s nature is passed on to his child. What happens in a new birth? What kind of birth is it? It is a birth in which the divine nature is imparted into the soul. Jesus said that your first birth reproduced in you the nature of your parents. That is what is meant by the words “that which is born of the flesh is flesh.” The 2^nd birth, i.e. Regeneration implants within you the divine nature. That is what is meant by the words “and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” In the same way that children possess the nature of their parents, God’s children possess a new nature, is a spiritual and divine nature which they are given when they are born again. It is clear then from this argument that regeneration is something supernatural. It is something which only the Holy Spirit can do in the nature of the human heart.

Our regeneration and communion with Christ consists in conformity with these two public acts of Christ: in a mortification of the body of sin in conformity to His death – a putting to death of the “body of sin;” in conformity to His resurrection, a “newness of life,” by quickening grace.

 (3) The Necessity of the New Birth

“Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’” Regeneration is necessary because people are born in Original Sin, by nature totally depraved. No one can be saved without the new birth. The Greek word Δεῖ, translated “must,” signifies logical necessity. By using such a strong term Jesus is indicating that regeneration is essential, imperative, absolutely necessary for salvation. Notice that Jesus does not tell Nicodemus to do anything in order to be born again. “You must be born again” is simply a statement of fact. It is not a command. It is what theologians call and indicative, or declarative sentence. It is not an imperative sentence. We can easily summarize the whole passage like this: Regeneration is not something that any man can do, because flash can only produce flesh. It is a work of God’s Spirit, like the wind blows when and where he pleases. Jesus is saying to Nicodemus, “Regeneration is a necessity, but neither you nor anyone other man can cause the happen, even if you could think of the way to return to your mother’s womb. Only God can perform this work.”

J.C. Ryle on Baptism & Regeneration

1. What is Baptism?

It is a holy ordinance or sacrament appointed by Christ, for the continual admission of new members into His Church. Every Christian begins his Church membership by being solemnly baptized with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Baptism, also, is a sign of regeneration or new birth, and has a most wholesome effect, as the Twenty-fifth Article says, in those who receive it worthily. Moreover, St. Paul says, “As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal. iii. 27.)

2. Do all baptized persons receive inward spiritual benefit from the outward ordinance of baptism

with water?

Most certainly not, to all appearance. Myriads are outwardly baptized every year, who, from the font to the coffin, and from their births to their deaths, never give the slightest evidence that they have grace in their hearts, or have received any inward spiritual benefit at their baptism. They live and die apparently without knowledge, faith, repentance, obedience to God, or meetness for heaven. In fact, notwithstanding their baptism, they exhibit no more Christianity in their lives and characters than many heathens.

Judas Iscariot, Simon Magus, Ananias and Sapphira, and others mentioned in Scripture, were baptized but certainly not regenerate.

3. What is regeneration?

It is that complete change of heart and character which the Holy Spirit works in a person when he becomes a real Christian. The Church Catechism calls it “a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness.” It is the same thing as being “born again,” or “born of God,” or “born of the Spirit.” “Except a man be born again” means “except a man be regenerate.” “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature;” that is, he is “born again, or regenerate.” (John iii. 3; 2 Cor. v. 17.)

4. What are the marks and evidences of regeneration?

They are laid down for us so clearly and plainly in the First Epistle of St. John, that he who runs may read them. It is written there, “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin,” “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God,”—“Every one that doeth righteousness is born of Him,”—“Every one that loveth is born of God,”—“Whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world,”—“He that is begotten of God keepeth himself.” (1 John iii. 9; 1 John v. 1; 1 John ii. 29; 1 John iv. 7; 1 John v. 4; 1 John v. 18.) If plain English words have any meaning, these texts mean that he who has these marks is “born again” or “regenerate,” and he who has them not is not regenerate.

  

5. Have all regenerate persons these marks of regeneration in the same degree of depth, strength, clearness, and distinctness?

Most certainly not. There is a wide difference between the highest and lowest measure of grace possessed by those who are “born again.” There are real and true Christians who are only “babes” in spiritual attainments, and there are others who are “strong,” and vigorous, and able to do great things for Christ. (1 John ii. 12-14.) The Scripture speaks of little faith and great faith, of little strength and great strength. One thing only is certain,—every regenerate person has more or less the marks of regeneration, and he who has none of them is not born again. (Matt. xiv. 31, xv. 28; Rev. iii. 8; Rom. xv. 1.)

6. But are not all baptized persons regenerate, and does not regeneration always accompany baptism?

Certainly not. Myriads of baptized persons have not a single scriptural mark of regeneration about them, and never had in their lives. They know nothing whatever of “a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness.” On the contrary, they too often live in sin, and are enemies of all righteousness. To say that such persons are “regenerate” on account of their baptism, is to say that which seems flatly contrary to the First Epistle of St. John. The Church Catechism says that baptism contains two parts,—the outward and visible sign, and the inward and spiritual grace. But the Catechism nowhere says that the sign and the grace always go together.

7. But does not the Baptismal Service of the Church Prayer Book say of every baptized child, “this child is regenerate,” and does if not tell us to thank God that it hath “pleased Him to regenerate the infant?” What can this mean? How can it be explained?

The Baptismal Service uses these expressions in the charitable supposition that those who use the service, and bring their children to be baptized, are really what they profess to be. As Bishop Carleton says, “All this is the charity of the Church; and what more can you make of it?”—As Bishop Downame says, “We are to distinguish between the judgment of charity and the judgment of certainty.”

8. But is this explanation of the language of the Baptismal Service honest, natural, and just? Is it the real meaning which ought to be put on the words?

It is the only meaning which is consistent with the whole spirit of the Prayer Book. From first to last the Prayer Book charitably assumes that all who use it are real, thorough Christians. This is the only sense in which the Burial Service can be interpreted, or the Service for Adult Baptism, or for the Churching of Women. This is the only sense in which we can teach children the Church Catechism. We bid them say, “The Holy Ghost sanctifieth me and all the elect people of God.” Yet no man in his senses would say that all children who say the Catechism are really “sanctified” or really “elect,” because they use these words. On the contrary, large numbers of children never show the slightest evidence of sanctification or election.

9. But ought we not to believe that all who use Christ’s ordinances receive a blessing as a matter of course?

Certainly not. The benefit of Christ’s ordinances depends entirely on the spirit and manner in which they are used. The Scripture expressly says that a man may receive the Lord’s Supper, “unworthily,” and eat and drink “to his own condemnation.” The Articles of the Church of England declare that in such only as receive sacraments “rightly, worthily, and with faith,” they have a wholesome effect and operation. The famous Hooker teaches that “all receive not the grace of God which receive the sacraments of His grace.” To maintain that every child who is baptized with water is at once regenerated and born again, appears to turn the sacrament of baptism into a mere form, and to contradict both Scripture and Articles.

10. But do not all infants receive baptism worthily, since they offer no obstacle to the grace of baptism? and are they not consequently all regenerated, as a matter of course, the moment they are baptized?

Certainly not. No infant is of itself worthy to receive grace, because, as the Catechism says, it is “born in sin and a child of wrath.” It can only be received into the Church and baptized on the faith and profession of its parents or sponsors. No true missionary thinks of baptizing heathen children without friends or sponsors. The Church Catechism asks the question, “Why are Infants baptized?” But it does not give as an answer, “Because they offer no obstacle to grace,”—but “because they promise repentance and faith by their sureties.” Let us always remember that an infant has no title to baptism but the profession of its sureties. Surely when these sureties know nothing of repentance or faith, or of what they are promising, common sense points out that the infant is not likely to get much inward benefit from the sacrament. In plain words, if parents or sponsors bring an infant to baptism in utter ignorance, without faith or prayer or knowledge, it is monstrous to suppose that this infant must, nevertheless, receive regeneration. At this rate it would matter nothing in what way sacraments are used, whether with ignorance or with knowledge, and it would signify nothing whether those who use them were godly or ungodly. The children of believing and of unbelieving parents would receive precisely the same benefit from baptism. Such a conclusion seems unreasonable and absurd.

11. But does not St. Paul say in his Epistles that Christians are “buried with Christ in baptism;” and that baptized persons have “put on Christ”? (Gal. iii. 27; Col. ii. 12.)

No doubt St. Paul says so. But the persons of whom he said this, in all human probability, were not baptized in infancy, but when they were grown up, and in days too when faith and baptism were so closely connected that the moment a man believed he confessed his faith publicly by baptism. But there is not a single passage in the New Testament which describes at length the effect of baptism on an infant, nor a single text which says that all infants are born again, or regenerated, or buried with Christ in baptism. As Canon Mozley says, “Scripture nowhere asserts, either explicitly or implicitly, the regeneration of infants in baptism.” (Mozley’s Baptismal Controversy, p. 34.) Beside this, we are expressly told that Simon the sorcerer, after his baptism, had “no part” in Christ, and his “heart was not right in the sight of God.” Simon, therefore, could not have been regenerated, or born again in baptism. (Acts viii. 21.)

12. But does not St. Peter say, “Baptism doth also save us?” and if it saves us, must it not also regenerate us? (1 Pet. iii. 21.)

No doubt St. Peter says so. But those who quote this text should not stop at the words “save us,” but read carefully on to the end of the sentence. They will then see that St. Peter distinctly fences and guards his statement by saying that the baptism which “saves” is not the mere outward application of water to the body, but the baptism which is accompanied by the “answer of a good conscience toward God.” Moreover, it is a curious fact that St. Peter, who uses the expression “baptism saves,” is the very same apostle who told Simon after baptism that he was “in the bond of iniquity,” and his “heart was not right in the sight of God.” (Acts viii. 21.)

13. But does not our Lord Jesus say to Nicodemus, “Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”? (John iii. 5.) Does not that prove that all who are baptized with water are regenerate?

Certainly not. It proves nothing of the kind. The utmost that can be made of this famous and often quoted text is, that it shows the necessity of being “born of water and the Spirit” if we would be saved. But it does not say that all who are baptized, or “born of water,” are at the same time “born of the Spirit.” It may prove that there is a connection sometimes between baptism and regeneration, but it does not supply the slightest proof that an invariable connection always exists.

14. But may it not be true that all baptized persons receive the grace of regeneration in baptism, and that it remains within them like a dormant seed, alive, though at present bearing no fruit?

Certainly not. The Apostle St. John expressly forbids us to suppose that there can be such a thing as dormant, or sleeping grace. He says, “Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin, for His seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God.” (1 John iii. 9.) This witness is true. When there can be light which cannot be seen, and fire without heat, then, and not till then, there may be grace that is dormant and inactive. The well-known words, “Stir up the gift of God that is in thee” (2 Tim. i. 6), are far too often addressed to the baptized, as if they referred to some gift received in baptism.

Yet common sense will tell any one who refers to his Bible that these words were not used at all about baptism, but about ordination. (1 Tim. iv. 14.)

15. But does not this view of regeneration, according to which many baptized persons are not regenerate at all, and receive no benefit whatever from their baptism, do great dishonour to one of Christ’s sacraments, and tend to bring it into contempt?

Not at all. The truth is exactly the other way. To say that infant baptism confers grace mechanically, as a chemical solution produces an effect on a photographic plate, and that if water and certain words are used by a thoughtless, careless clergyman over the child of thoughtless, ignorant parents, the child is at once born again,—to say, furthermore, that an immense spiritual effect is produced by baptism when no effect whatever can be seen, all this, to many thinking persons, seems calculated to degrade baptism. It tends to make observers suppose that baptism is useless, or that regeneration means nothing at all.

He that would do honour to baptism should maintain that it is a high and holy ordinance, which, like every ordinance appointed by Christ, ought not to be used without solemn reverence; and that no blessing can be expected unless it is used with heart, and knowledge, and faith, and prayer, and followed by godly training of the child baptized. Above all, he should maintain that when baptism does good, the good will be seen in the life and ways of the baptized. Those who do not feel satisfied about this matter will do well to study attentively the strong language which God uses about His own ordinances, when used formally and carelessly, in the prophet Isaiah. (Isa. i. 11, 12.) What did the prophet mean when he wrote these words: “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord. I delight not in the blood of bullocks or of lambs.” He evidently meant that God’s own ordinances may be made perfectly useless by man’s misuse of them.

16. But may we not believe that regeneration means nothing more than a change of state, and does not mean a moral and spiritual change at all? May we not believe that it is a mere ecclesiastical word, signifying nothing more than admission to a state of Church privilege? And may we not then say that every person baptized is regenerated in baptism.

Of course we may say and believe anything we please in a free country like England, and this idea of an ecclesiastical regeneration cuts the knot of some difficulties, and has always satisfied some minds. But it is an insuperable difficulty that the word “regeneration” is never once used in this sense in the New Testament. Moreover, the parallel expression “born of God,” in St. John’s First Epistle, most certainly means a great deal more than being admitted into a state of ecclesiastical privilege! To say, for instance, “Whosoever is baptized doth not commit sin,—and overcometh the world,” would be ridiculous, because untrue. Moreover, the Church Catechism distinctly teaches that the inward and spiritual grace in baptism is not a mere ecclesiastical change, but “a, death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness.” Moreover, the Homily for Whitsunday expressly describes regeneration as an inward and spiritual change. One thing is very certain, no plain reader of the Bible ever seems to understand how a person can be “regenerate” and yet not saved. The poor and simple-minded cannot take in the idea of ecclesiastical regeneration.

Why Trichotomy is Wrong 3 F, The Errors It Spawns

3F Various Other Errors

As if the last 5 posts weren't enough to expose Trichotomy for the false doctrine that it most definitely is, we will conclude this series today by looking at a few other assorted erroneous theological consequences of Trichotomy.

1. Let us consider first what Trichotomy means for the doctrine of regeneration. On the Trichotomist scheme, regeneration is the miracle which occurs when God gives us a new spirit, since we are spiritually dead. Christians are said to have a new life which unbelievers do not possess. God has given us a new spirit, or as some prefer to put it, God has created in us a new spirit. B.B. Warfield clearly saw the inherent theological flaw in the Trichotomist scheme. He writes, "Thus the man is not saved after all; a different newly created man is substituted for him. When the old man is got rid of - and that the old man has to be ultimately got rid of [we do] not doubt - the saved man that is left is not at all the old man that was to be saved, but a new man that has never needed saving." (B.B. Warfield, Review of "He That Is Spiritual," by Lewis Sperry Chafer.) Warfield's point, while apparently philosophically obtuse, is actually a very valid objection. If regeneration means that the "old man" who was me is no more and has been replaced by a "new man" by God's miraculous act of creating a new spirit, then I am no longer me. If I replace an apple tree with a cherry tree, I no longer have the same tree. In other words: I was not saved; I was made into a man that didn't even need to be saved.

2. Trichotomy also allows for the false doctrine of free-will. The body, since it is flesh, we are told tends toward evil - and we are said to be spiritually dead. But the soul remains magically unaffected by the Fall into sin, therefore it is able, when properly induced, to make a decision to accept Christ and savingly believe on Him. Trichotomist anthropology lets its adherents appear to take seriously the passages of Scripture which speak of men as dead in their fallen sinful condition, while at the same time, making full allowances for this Baal of free-will. In the final analysis, this makes man's will, and not God's grace, to be the final arbiter and determining factor of each man's eternal destiny. If we reject Trichotomy, we are left with a man who is composed of two elements, a body and a soul, both of which are ruined by sin. Thus any hope of salvation must reside in God's good pleasure and not in man's pretended abilities to do that which is diametrically opposed to his nature. Fish can't fly; neither can dead sinners resurrect themselves.

3. Trichotomy is responsible also for many of the more flagrant errors of Pentecostalism and Charismaticism. Let's consider the issue of Tongues again for a moment. If I edify myself by speaking in a language which my mind does not understand, why is an interpreter required by Paul when I do this in church? If I can edify myself by hearing my babbling of unintelligible syllables, why can't the rest of the church be edified by hearing the same uninterpreted things which edify me? This alone is sufficient to demolish the whole modern tongues-speaking movement. It is obvious from the text that the speaker understood what he was saying in a language he knew but with which the rest of his hearers were unlearned. This is why his understanding was unfruitful. He knew what he was saying, but no one else did. I speak Tagalog fluently. If I were to stand up in a small country church in rural America and speak in Tagalog, I may edify myself by the wondrous truths I was proclaiming, but my understanding would be unfruitful because no one else in the room would benefit from my understanding without an interpreter.

4. Another potential danger of Trichotomy is dualism. By elevating the "realm of the spirit" over the body, i.e., by understanding the spirit to be higher than the body and soul, one creates an unscriptural dichotomy between the material and immaterial. This is plain old Greek speculative philosophy. It pits spirit against soul and body in a way that is unjustifiable. Matter is not evil. God proved this by (1) creating it in the first place, (2) by the Incarnation, and (3) by the promise of resurrection. If matter is inherently evil, how can we maintain that a good God created it? This is exactly what the ancient dualistic heretics did. If the body, as matter, is inherently bad, how can we maintain that Christ took on human flesh? If Christ did not take on human flesh, we are still in our sins, because a hologram cannot die. If our bodies, as matter, are inherently bad, how can we hope for their resurrection? Killing a flawed inferior thing is a good thing. It does not gain dignity simply by being brought back to life. Let me anticipate a question here, too. Why, you might ask, is the soul considered with the body as part of the lower nature of man and not up with the spirit in the higher nature? It is for this reason. "The most familiar, but also the crudest form of Trichotomy is that which takes the body for the material part of man's nature, the soul as the principle of animal life, and the spirit as the God-related rational and immortal element in man" (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology).

You might object that no professing Christian holds to such false views of the body. I beg to differ. Even if Trichotomists denied belief in such propositions, this would not make them invalid consequences of their system, mind you. Once you divide man into superior and inferior parts - and you put soul and body down into the inferior category, you have nowhere to go logically but to dualism. If you pit the spirit against the soul as the animal life of the body, soul and body must be viewed, and accordingly treated, as inherently bad. This has been proven repeatedly by Church history. Monasticism is a case in point. Why did men and women deprive themselves of sleep and food? Why did Simon sit on the top of a pole for decades? Why did countless monks sleep on the ground and not in beds? Why did they wear hair shirts? Because they saw their bodies as part of a lower nature with the soul, that was necessary to keep under wraps if one was to nourish and nurture his higher, i.e., spiritual nature. Animals eat, drink, bathe, breed, sleep, etc. If we are higher than animals, and the soul is the animal life of the body, then these impulses must be subdued if one wishes to be spiritual. Why was poverty considered such a noble state? To read some of the medieval mystics, or John Wesley for that matter, you'd think that being poor was already a deeply spiritual accomplishment on its own. If one had to choose between poverty and even sufficient provisions, there was no doubt in these people's minds that poverty was the more spiritual option. This foolishness is also what was behind the whole celibacy movement as well. How could a person who enjoys the bodily pleasures associated with the marriage bed be as spiritual as one who has deprived himself of such? Again, nothing in Scripture even remotely suggests that we should ask this question.

5. There is another potential Trinitarian error inherent in Trichotomy. If you recall when we dealt with the false teaching of the 'carnal Christian,' we quoted Chuck Smith, an advocate of such teaching, as saying, "We meet God in the realm of our spirit." Many people have misunderstood John's phrase "in the Spirit" (Revelation 1:10) to be describing a different realm or dimension of reality. This is an extremely dangerous idea. It depersonalizes the Holy Spirit into a 'force' or a 'dimension.' Think of Frank Peretti's novels. There is the realm of the physical and a spiritual realm in which is mirrored all the events of the physical realm. This spawned all the strange idea current in our days regarding 'spiritual warfare.' Christians, through mind-denigrating spiritual exercises can somehow influence unseen things in this spiritual realm, which in turn, impact events in the physical realm. There is nothing new under the sun. The Manicheans of old held the same view of reality. By referring to the Spirit as a realm, the Trinity is denied. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches us that God is one, and that He exists in one divine Essence, yet subsists in three Persons. 'Person' is the operative word. A realm is not a person. This seems to me to be latently pantheistic. Pantheism is the belief that God is the sum total of all existence. In other words, everything is God and God is everything. If my spirit and your spirit and God's Spirit are a realm, then they are all by definition one common realm of common experience for us all - which means that my spirit and God's are essentially the same thing. How can I distinguish my own spirit from God's? This is pantheism. If my spirit is a dimension or realm for experiencing the divine and your spirit is an entirely different realm, then there could be no talk of a "realm of the spirit." We would have to allow for an innumerable multitude of these "realms." But no one speaks this way. Trichotomists constantly and consistently speak of one "realm of the spirit." This has at least a tinge of pantheism in it. Therefore it is no surprise when the spiritual exercises proposed to nurture the spirit are identical, whether they be "Christian" or Pantheist. It also explains why their form of the spiritual gift of a "words of knowledge" looks suspiciously like mind-reading or a Vulcan mind-meld. We reiterate: the Holy Spirit is not a realm, a force, or a dimension of experience. Speaking this way is an implicit denial of the Trinity. Incautiousness in speech begets wrong ideas; wrong ideas beget false doctrine; false doctrine begets more false doctrine; and false doctrine damns, especially when it spawns idolatrous notions about the Godhead. Other doctrines may be negotiable; doctrines about God and His nature are not.

Dickson on Regeneration

The following excerpt is from David Dickson's "Therapeutica Sacra" published in 1664. I have left the spelling and punctuation intact.

Regeneration (being one in effect with effectual calling) is the Work of God’s invincible Power and meer Grace, wherein, by His Spirit, accompanying His Word, He quickeneth a Redeemed Person lying Dead in his Sins, and reneweth him in his Mind, Will, and all the Powers of His Soul; convincing him savingly of Sin, Righteousness and Judgment, and making him heartily to embrace Christ and Salvation, and to consecrat himself to the Service of God in Christ, all the days of his Life.

The main thing we must take heed to in this work, is to give to God intirely the Glory of His Grace and Power and Wisdom, so that the Glory of Mans Regeneration be neither given to Man, nor Man made sharer of the glory with God, but God may have the whole glory of His free Grace, because out of His own good-will, not for any thing at all foreseen in Man, He lets forth His special Love on the Redeemed in a time acceptable; and the glory of His Almighty Power, because by His omnipotent and invincible working, He makes the Man dead in sins to live, opens his Eyes to take up savingly the Things of God, takes away the Heart of Stone, and makes him a new Creature, to will and to do His holy Will; and the Glory of His Wisdom, who dealeth so with His Creature as He doth not destroy, but perfect the natural Power of Man’s will, making the Man regenerat, most freely deliberately and heartily to embrace Christ, and to consecrate himself to God’s service. The reason why we urge this, is, because Satan, by corrupting the Doctrine of Regeneration, and perswading Men that they are able of themselves by the common and the natural strength of their own free-will, without the special and effectual Grace of God, both to convert themselves and others also, doth foster the native pride of Men, hindereth them from emptying and humbling themselves before God, keepeth them from Self-denyal, doth mar the Regeneration of them that are deluded with this Error, and obscureth what he can, the shining of the Glory of God’s Grace, Power, and Wisdom in the conversion of Men: for whatsoever Praise, proud Men let go toward God for making Mens Conversion possible, yet they give the whole Glory of actual Conversion to the Man himself, which Christ ascribeth to God only, and leaveth no more for Man to glory in his spiritual Regeneration, then he hath to glory in his own natural Generation. Joh. 3.5, 6, 7, 8.

And the same doth the Apostle teach, Ephes. 2. 8, 9, 10. and Philip. 2. 13. It is God (saith he) which worketh in you both to will and to do of His own good pleasure. And therefore it is the duty of all Christ’s Disciples, but chiefly their duty who are consecrat to God, to preach up the Glory of God’s free Grace, omnipotent Power and unsearchable Wisdom, to live in the sense of their own Emptiness, and to depend upon the furnitour of Grace for Grace, out of Christ’s Fulness; and zealously to oppose the proud Error of Man’s natural ability for converting himself, as they love to see, and to find the effectual blessing of the Ministry of the Gospel, and themselves accepted for true Disciples at the day of their meeting with Christ the Judge at His second coming.

David Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, Bk 1 , Ch. 3

Ears to Hear

Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. Matt 13:9 (KJV)

This is another one of those frequently misused statements. How many times have you heard this verse quoted in a context that implies willingness or unwillingness on the part of the listeners? I hope you can see the flaw there.

Jesus did not say, “Who hath ears, let him listen.” Listening is a conscious act; hearing is not. If you have ears that work, you can’t help but hear. Whether or not you listen is another subject. But Jesus isn’t speaking of attentiveness. He is speaking of the actual ability to hear. The very statement insinuates, nay, presupposes, that many of His listeners did not possess the spiritual faculty of hearing.

This quite interestingly illustrates what the Reformers called the general and the efficacious calls. When the Gospel is preached there is always a mixed audience. Some have been awakened by God’s Spirit and some have not. Some will be regenerated, some will not. The distinction lies not in the hearers, for Scripture declares, “What hast thou that thou didst not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7). The difference lies in God’s sovereignty. “As many as were ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48).

Haven’t you ever heard (or perhaps you’ve actually spoken this) someone say that they grew up in church, or that they attended church for a long time and never heard the Gospel? Now, in today’s watered down sugar-coated Christian world, I believe that this is theoretically possible, however, it seems more likely to me that they are simply misinterpreting their own experience. Formerly, they had no ears to hear. Then when God’s appointed time arrived, He sovereignly regenerated them. They then had the faculty of hearing with which they heard the efficacious call of the Gospel to believe in Christ. They could easily have heard the same Gospel preached every Sunday for years. But until God, in His absolute sovereignty, opened their ears, they didn’t have ears to hear – thus they didn’t hear.

This reminds me of Theophilus of Antioch, the 3rd Century Apologist. Writing to an unbeliever, says, “For God is seen by those who are enabled to see Him when they have the eyes of their soul opened: for all have eyes; but in some they are overspread, and do not see the light of the sun. Yet it does not follow, because the blind do not see, that the light of the sun does not shine; but let the blind blame themselves and their own eyes." (Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus bk.1 ch.2)

Jesus' own audiences demonstrate this. No one could say that He didn't preach properly to them or that He hid His light under a bushel. But many that physically "heard" Him rejected Him to the point of crying, "Crucify!"