Apr 19, 2003 5:35 pm sing wrote:
Dear brethren,
Below is a series of questions asked by Karl, and the responses from Allon (both are pastors) on another discussion list, (a group of believers also holding to the 1689 CoF.)
I believe Regeneration is an interesting subject. You may find the Q&A very useful. Asking the right questions is an essential manner of learning sound doctrine.
-----------
Dear Brother Karl,
I am running about a week behind in reading my e-mail, but I think I am about to get caught up (as you can see, I am now reading two day old mail). I have enjoyed ALL of your good posts. If I am not too late, I would like to respond to your questions. I will try to answer them in the order given.
Question: “Now, lest you grow tired of my little analogy, in the person, the covenant child of God, the elect, unregenerate by nature, what takes place in regeneration?”
Answer: He is made a new creature.
Question: “Let me ask it like this, what part of the old man, {body, soul, spirit}, does God use to make the new man? Does God waste time on the old battery or install a new one?”
Answer: No part of the old man is used by God to make the new man. The old man (soul and spirit) remains totally functional and remains at enmity against God.
Question: “Does God just take up his abode in the old man and attempt to lead the old mind, heart, body in a new direction and make you miserable in the doing?”
Answer: No. God does NOT take up His abode in the carnal mind or heart, neither is the body changed at regeneration.
Question: “Does the Holy Ghost just come from time to time and charge you up, you have a feeling of power and excitement, or does He do a more drastic work?”
Answer: He does a more drastic work than just going in and out of the "old man". The new birth is a lot more than just a "warm fuzzy feeling" or an emotional high.
Question: “Does God just rebuild the old man, take of the same materials and restore what was?”
Answer: “No, regeneration is not just an over haul of the "old man" , but he creates a "new man" and puts it into the old body. This was answered by your battery analogy.”
You wrote: “If we think that the Holy Ghost just passes through on occasion to charge us up, then our battery was not really dead, just run down. But, if dead, had to be replaced. He does not just come and add acid or fire, but replaces the entire battery.”
Question: “Does God create in the same body a new creation, new man, totally separate from the old man in spirit-soul, heart-mind and house him in the same body of death?”
Answer: YES! Exactly that.
Question: “Is the old man, spirit-soul, heart-mind, still in the same body with the new man?”
Answer: Yes. The old man remains functional in spirit-soul, heart-mind until the death of the body.
Question: “Would this not really create a warfare between the two men in the same body?”
Answer: Yes indeed. This warfare is what Paul is describing in Romans Chapter 7
Let us notice a portion of this chapter:
14) For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15) For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16) If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17) Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
In these verses and those that follow, Paul is describing TWO men in the SAME body: "I am carnal, sold under sin"; "it is no more I that do it".
Paul continues:
21) I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22) For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23) But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24) O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
The "old man" cannot please God, therefore, it continues to sin, but the "new man" delights to do the will of God and keep His commandments. The "new man" feels this conviction and is made to realize that there is a warfare going on inside of the body and it brings him into captivity to the law of sin. The "new man" groans and is in travail to be delivered from this captivity. The warfare and struggle becomes so intense that the "new man" is made to cry out, "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"
Question: “With which of these men in the same body does the Holy Ghost abide?”
Answer: The Holy Ghost abides in the "new creature" which abides (lives) in the carnal dying body.
Question: “If God uses the old man, in any part to make the new, would this not be a process rather than a creation?”
Answer:
Yes, but the new birth (regeneration) is not a process, but an instantaneous immediate act of God when He implants the "new creature" into the man (body).
Question: “If God uses means, (such as the gospel, faith, obedience, perseverance, etc.), then to what end? To just recharge the old or make the new?”
Answer: God does not use human means in the new birth, but He uses "means" (the gospel, prayer, reading and meditation of the Scriptures) to make manifest eternal life to the "new creature", thus, bring him hope and blessed assurance by giving him knowledge of the finished work of his Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. God also uses the a fore mentioned means to bring the born again child from babyhood to adulthood (maturity).
Question: “How much good would these means affect in the old, dead, battery, man?”
Answer: Means (the gospel, prayer, faith, obedience, perseverance, reading Scripture, etc) has absolutely NO effect on the "old man", because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8:7-8)
Question: “Would these means not be more useful to the new man for life and not to give life?
Answer: YES! Means does not give life, but makes life manifest to the "new creature".
You wrote: “If these are not enough questions to make you think, I assure you I have more. I sure would like to hear some of your responses to these.
Brother Karl, I appreciate these GOOD questions. If I have answered them correctly, then I am ready for the next set. Maybe, we could put them all together in a book and call them "Karl-Stat Catechism".
I love this method of study (learning by questions).
In closing let us consider these verses:
1 Timothy 4:6 "If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained."
2 Timothy 1:6 "Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands."
2 Timothy 2:14 "Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers."
2 Peter 1:12 "Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. (13) Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance;"
God bless.
Allon
============
Sat Apr 19, 2003 5:35 pm Geek wrote:
Dear Sing,
I have been musing about Carl’s and Allen’s discussion on regeneration. I have one question to ask about your opinion. My question in ## .
Karl’s Question: “Does God create in the same body a new creation, new man, totally separate from the old man in spirit-soul, heart-mind and house him in the same body of death?
Allon’s Answer: YES! Exactly that.
My question: If this is true, wouldn’t that mean that a believer has two souls? The old and the new? Can this be possible? Or have I misunderstood Allen’s answer?
Geek
=======
Brother Geek,
If you have understood and agree with some of the thing Karl is conveying in his questions, you would realize that regeneration is the birth of a new spiritual man in an elect. A believer has two natures: the old sinful nature, and the new nature born from above. A believer is made up of two men - the old man and the new man. So there is the new man as the result of the regeneration. This new man is spiritual in nature. Regeneration is not renovating the old man. What is the constitution of the new man - that's is a question that need to be considered first. What do you think?
sing
=======
Sun Apr 27, 2003 6:39 pm, Kay-U
Dear brethren,
Have you all gone through the book 'Physicians of souls' by Dr Peter Masters? If you have, and have also read 'Redemption Accomplished & Applied' by Prof John Murray, you would have realized that Reformed people have held various views about the doctrine of REGENERATION.
In his book, Dr Peter Masters has stated that how we preach the gospel is determined by how we understand the doctrine of regeneration. According to Peter Masters, majority of Reformed people today hold to the once-for-all view of regeneration that was held by the late prof Murray. He states that most Reformed preachers today have embraced it through reading of Prof Murray's book 'Redemption Accomplished & Applied.
John Murray essentially presents the doctrine of regeneration as that regeneration is an instantaneous act of God in which He sovereignly does in the sinner, causing him to become a new creature and thus inevitably able to exercise faith and repentance.
Peter Masters argument is as follows:
Regeneration is an elongated process rather than an instantaneous act. He is in perfect agreement with John murray that regeneration is necessary before a sinner can consciously exercise faith and repentance. However, he differs in that he says that when God first begins to work in the sinner, this is what he calls initial regeneration, which is God's sovereign work in which sinners begin to see their spiritual lostness /danger. This is followed by awakening & conviction. This is then only followed by faith and repentance. Here, Peter Masters states that the stage of awakening and conviction is the protracted stage, which could take time depending on individual to individual- eg some instantly renounce their sins and embrace Christ while some may wrestle or be under deep soul searching etc for a long period before they reach the stage of faith and repentance.
Now, Peter Masters argues that how we present the gospel depends on how we understand regeneration. He says that it is only in the elongated view, in which preachers will plead and persuade sinners with zeal the way Whitefield, Spurgeon did. He says that John Murray's view, not only does it detract from the biblical proofs, it also is different from the view of the historic Calvinistics and Puritans and the framers of the Westminster Confession and Baptist Confession. He claims that because of this view, most of our contemporary evangelistic preaching by Reformed people lacks the element of the preacher urging and persuading people to come to Christ.
This whole thing seems confusing. Your insights to this would be most helpful.
Kay-U
============
Mon Apr 28, 2003 10:55 am sing wrote:
Dear brethren,
Brother Kay-U has raised a very interesting subject. I remember that the subject was dealt with by both Pastor Olyott and Pastor Masters at different conferences in the past. I believe it is mainly a matter of definition.
Perhaps the first matter is to consider the expressing 'once-for-all' as 'instantaneous' - since that is what is meant. Whether it is 'instantaneous' or 'elongated' they are both saying that regeneration is a once for all event, not to be repeated.
I believe that regeneration is instantaneous but the conversion (coming to repentance towards God and faith in Jesus Christ through the gospel preaching) is elongated. The part which Dr Masters would group together with regeneration - such as awakening and conviction and repentance and faith - are distinct from, and consequent to regeneration. They should be considered under the process of conversion - through the process of reasoning, explaining, demonstrating and persuading in the gospel preaching (Acts 17:1-4). Without the prior regeneration, it is utter futility to try to reason, explain, demonstrate and persuade - since 'the natural man does not receive the things of Spirit of God, for they are FOOLISHNESS to him, nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned' (1Cor 2:14).
Regeneration is instantaneous, and without means. Conversion is a process and requires gospel preaching to bring it about – it is clearly stated 'faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.' It is important not to confuse conversion with regeneration. Remembering that conversion is a process, a preacher would preach like apostle Paul did - wrestling with the hearers through reasoning, explaining, demonstrating and persuading. God’s children alone (regenerated elect) can be persuaded to believe the truth of their salvation by grace.
I quite doubt the connection construed by Dr Masters between one's view on regeneration and the manner one preaches.
just a quick thought written in sand,
sing
------
Mon Apr 28, 2003 4:11 pm
Dear sing,
Thanks for your thoughts on the issue of regeneration. I was going through Prof Murray's book on the chapter on regeneration. In pages 103 and 104 of his book (the Banner of Truth one), it leaves no doubt that faith & repentance result only after regeneration has taken place. But it also gives the impression that the moment one is regenerated, he then immediately is converted, that is, he exercises repentance & faith. In page 103,, paragraph 3, Prof Murray quotes 1 John 3:9, 5:4 and 5:18. He then states:
"When we put these texts together they expressly state that every regenerate person has been delivered from the power of sin, overcomes the world by the faith of Christ, and exercises that self-control by which he is no longer the slave of sin and of the evil one. That means, when reduced to simplest terms, that the regenerate person is converted and exercises faith and repentance....."
going then to page 104 of his book, the professor then states:
" ....If it is true that no one enters the kingdom of God except by regeneration (John 3:3-5), it is also just as true that everyone who is born again has entered into the kingdom of God..."
In other words, Prof Murray is saying that the moment regeneration has taken place, conversion takes place and the person is justified and adopted and made a child of God instantaneously.
Prof Murray correctly shows that regeneration must occur before one can believe the gospel. The question is, is the Professor also telling that the subsequent faith and repentance occurs immediately?
Of course, how the whole panorama of salvation occurs is only for God to know. Our finite minds are only allowed to grasp what he has revealed to us in scriptures. I will now humbly try to conclude what the two views of regeneration will imply in the salvation of individuals. Do correct me if I am wrong, as this is not something straightforward:
A man is unconverted, who hears the gospel preached. His heart is stirred and he sees that he is sinful against God. He struggles and wrestles and undergoes deep anxiety for months before he finally savingly turns from sin and embraces the Saviour.
Let us take a more classic case:
The Phillipian jailor. We don't know for certain when he heard the facts of the gospel. But up to the point just before the great earthquake in the jail, he is still dead in trespasses and sin and I would safely say that he was still unregenerate. Then suddenly, the earthquake comes, then he falls down before Paul and Silas and cries out "Sirs what must I do to be saved?" The apostle and Silas direct the jailor to Christ and the jailor believes and is converted!
CH Spurgeon's conversion:
For many years, Spurgeon knew all the facts of the gospel and even experienced deep conviction of sin. But it was only one particular day that the light suddenly dawned on him and he looked to Christ and was converted.
The question now is, if we apply either John Murray's (JM) view or Peter Master's (PM) view to the above 3 cases, we will get something like this:
case 1:
JM: The man was simply awakened at first. The Spirit of God can externally make the preached gospel cause deep anxiety about one's soul without actually effectually calling him and regenerating him. Then, at God's own appointed time, he effectually calls the person, regenerates him and he then believes the gospel, in an instant. Thus, those many months before that, the man was not yet regenerated.
PM: The man initially underwent initial regeneration or conception due to the sovereign work of God's Spirit who has begun effectually calling him. He is then brought to the stage of awakening and conviction which lasts for months before finally being brought to faith & repentance.
case 2:
JM: The jailor remained unregenerate. The earthquake awakens him and he begins to fall under a deep conviction of sin ( of course, he must have had some exposure to the gospel before that in terms of the facts, but now it grips him) He asks Paul how to be saved. Up to this point, no regeneration has taken place. Then, by the mighty work of the Spirit, effectual calling and regeneration take place and he 'believes on the Lord Jesus and is saved'
PM: The jailor underwent initial regeneration simultaneous to the earthquake. Awakening and conviction followed and he asks Paul how to be saved. Paul gave the answer. He is brought to faith. Here, the conversion experience is elongated , although faster compared to case 1
case 3:
JM: Spurgeon was unregenerate all those years, even during the time when he underwent deep conviction of sin. It was only when the light dawned on him during a preaching session that God sovereignly effectually called him, regenerated him and brought him to faith in an instant that he then was truly saved.
PM: Spurgeon underwent initial regeneration during the days when he was under conviction of sin, which was followed by a long period of awakening and conviction until finally one day, he was brought to saving faith and repentance.
As we can see above, the implications of both views on the application of salvation.
I agree with Pastor Lau that either view should not affect how the preacher preaches. I think the lack of persuasion and urging to repentance and faith might be due more to the fault of some preachers rather than due to his view of regeneration. You see, for Peter Master's view, his model may fit nicely with the idea that preaching should be more persuasive because when we evangelisticly urge sinners to come to Christ, we are working on the awakening/conviction phase. But then, why should'nt someone holding to John Murray's view also be equally fired up to call sinners to repentance? After all, he knows that although regeneration and conversion is God's work of sovereign grace, but God uses the instrumentality of preaching the gospel to cause the sinner to willingly respond with faith and repentance.
I think, correct me if I am wrong, the preacher who holds to Prof Murray's view does not try to figure out at what stage of the order salutis is his hearer. He is content to be sure that so long as that person gives no public and credible profession of repentance and faith, the person is to still be treated as unsaved or unregenerate and thus to be continually dealt huge doses of the gospel with plenty of urging and calling of the person to trust in Christ.
But if one holds to Peter Master's view, one might start to form an idea of what state of the order salutis the hearer is in based on how the hearer understands or responds to the word. In the case of outright unbeliever, it is no problem. But what of the seeker who seems to show interest and even some degree of conviction? But of course, to be fair, Peter Masters will not assure any hearer that he is converted until that hearer also gives a credible profession of faith.
I think the point to make here is that whichever view one holds to, it should not affect how we preach the gospel or how we deal with sinners or professing believers. I think that at the end of the day, God's word tells us enough to know that the order of salvation is regeneration, followed by repentance and faith so that we know that the new birth is necessary for a depraved and dead sinner to embrace the gospel and enter the kingdom. This is also so that we know that God is the author of regeneration and even faith and repentance and not man. But I think God has not given us the privilege of seeing the process of salvation unfold like the way embryologists talk about the stages of development of an embryo to become a fetus and then a newborn baby, We are only supposed to preach the gospel and recognise that regeneration and conversion has taken place by seeing the credible profession of repentance and faith in a person.
It can all be summed up as the underlying principle of historic Calvinism, that DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY IN SALVATION goes hand in hand with HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY TO GIVE ALL OF ONE'S EFFORT INTO THE PREACHING OF THE GOSPEL AND THE PLEADING TO SINNERS TO EMBRACE THE SAVIOUR.
Anyway, just for the sake of doctrinal clarity, which view is the correct one, or maybe both views are reconcilable?
In Christ,
Kay-U
=====
Tue Apr 29, 2003 11:25 am, sing wrote:
Dear brother Paul,
My comments within in your post in bracket ## … ##
Thanks for your thoughts on the issue of regeneration. I was going through Prof Murray's book on the chapter on regeneration. In pages 103 and 104 of his book (the Banner of Truth one), it leaves no doubt that faith & repentance result only after regeneration has taken place. But it also gives the impression that the moment one is regenerated, he then immediately is converted , that is he exercises repentance & faith. In page 103,, paragraph 3, Prof Murray quotes 1 John 3:9, 5:4 and 5:18. He then states:
## I believe when there is agreement about the absolute necessity and the priority of regeneration to and for conversion. There may be different opinions on the outworking of these two principles. ##
"When we put these texts together they expressly state that every regenerate person has been delivered from the power of sin, overcomes the world by the faith of Christ, and exercises that self-control by which he is no longer the slave of sin and of the evil one. That means, when reduced to simplest terms, that the regenerate person is converted and exercises faith and repentance....."
going then to page 104 of his book, the professor then states:
" ....If it is true that no one enters the kingdom of God except by regeneration (John 3:3-5), it is also just as true that everyone who is born again has entered into the kingdom of God..."
In other words, Prof Murray is saying that the moment regeneration has taken place, conversion takes place and the person is justified and adopted and made a child of God instantaneously.
## Regeneration is instantaneous but conversion is a process, sometimes may be quite elongated. Though conversion is chronologically after regeneration, it is not necessary that it follows immediately after conversion. It is regeneration that puts a sinner to the road of seeking and searching for the truth. [I am NOT saying that any who gives an appearance of seeking is regenerated. Many are seeking after carnal things! and not the things of the Spirit of God.]##
Prof Murray correctly shows that regeneration must occur before one can believe the gospel. The question is, is the Professor also telling that the subsequent faith and repentance occurs immediately?
## Conversion - faith and repentance - may occur immediately after regeneration... or a much longer period may also intervene. The many cases of the proselytes - Ethiopian eunuch, Cornelius, Lydia, etc - described as 'fearer of God', I believe they were regenerated long before their conversion to Christ through the preaching of the gospel to them. [Abraham’s regeneration at Ur preceded his conversion at Gen 15:1-6 by many years.]
[Simultaneous regeneration and conversion is logically IMPOSSIBLE. Preaching takes time, hearing the preached word takes time. The regenerate elect takes time to hear, wrestle, and understand – and these many take a long time =- before he can be brought to faith in Jesus Christ. ##
Of course, how the whole panorama of salvation occurs is only for God to know. Our finite minds are only allowed to grasp what he has revealed to us in scriptures. I will now humbly try to conclude what the two views of regeneration will imply in the salvation of individuals. Do correct me if I am wrong, as this is not something straightforward:
A man is unconverted, who hears the gospel preached. His heart is stirred and he sees that he is sinful against God. He struggles and wrestles and undergoes deep anxiety for months before he finally savingly turns from sin and embraces the Saviour.
## Regeneration must have taken place (at least logically) before the gospel is preached, otherwise the man would consider the gospel 'foolishness! (1Cor 2:14.) ##
Let us take a more classic case:
The Phillipian jailor. We don't know for certain when he heard the facts of the gospel. But up to the point just before the great earthquake in the jail, he is still dead in trespasses and sin and I would safely say that he was still unregenerate. Then suddenly, the earthquake comes, then he falls down before Paul and Silas and cries out "Sirs what must I do to be saved?" The apostle and Silas directs the jailor to Christ and the jailor believes and is converted!
## We can't say for certain whether he is regenerated before or after the earthquake. It is certain that he must have been regenerated before he could utter the words, 'what must I do to be saved?' To ask that question implies that he is aware of spiritual realities of being lost... the need to be saved... that there is salvation, etc. even though he may not have heard the gospel before. Regeneration is always without means – the Spirit of God acts directly and immediately upon an elect sinner. Conversion is always with gospel means. ##
CH Spurgeon's conversion:
For many years, Spurgeon knew all the facts of the gospel and even experienced deep conviction of sin. But it was only one particular day that the light suddenly dawned on him and he looked to Christ and was converted.
## People say that he was a theologian before he was a Christian. His unique background made this a very high possibility.##
The question now is, if we apply either John Murray's (JM) view or Peter Master's (PM) view to the above 3 cases, we will get something like this:
## I think JM deals more with the logical order of regeneration and conversion, and not so much period that elapse between the two. PM is dealing more with what happens between regeneration and conversion. So it is a little difficult to compare the two, I would think. ##
case 1:
JM: The man was simply awakened at first. The Spirit of God can externally make the preached gospel cause deep anxiety about one's soul without actually effectually calling him and regenerating him . Then, at God's own appointed time, he effectually calls the person, regenerates him and he then believes the gospel, in an instant. Thus, those many months before that, the man was not yet regenerated.
PM: The man initially underwent initial regeneration or conception due to the sovereign work of God's Spirit who has begun effectually calling him. He is then brought to the stage of awakening and conviction which lasts for months before finally being brought to faith & repentance.
## Would JM consider the 'awakened at first' to be different from regeneration? PM would call that as 'initial regeneration.' I could hardly believe that the 'awakened at first' is not regeneraion itself or that initial regeneration is not a full regeneration! A new birth is a new birth... not a birth in measures or stages!!! ##
just some thoughts,
sing
======
Mon Apr 28, 2003 3:11 pm tomy wrote:
Yes I remember Pastor Olyott speaking on that in an earlier conference, and it also appears to be one of Peter Masters' favourite. Why can't regeneration be instantaneous or elongated? After all it is the Spirit's work.
One's view on the regeneration process (in this context) and the manner of preaching are mutually exclusive. Are we splitting hairs here?
In my quick flipping through of Pink and Charnock I don't see them making this an important issue. If anything (i could be wrong) Charnock seems to say that regeneration is instant! Perhaps this may be an interesting M.Div thesis - The Puritan's view on the duration of regeneration!
tomy
======
Tue Apr 29, 2003 12:27 pm tomy wrote:
Dear Kay-U,
I think no Christian worth the name 'reformed' will doubt that regeneration precedes conversion - so that's taken care of.
The late EF Kevan seemed to distinguish two elements of regeneration 1) The impartation spiritual life and 2) the birth process- implying the possibly that regeneration could be a process (elongated). No mention of how prolonged that process can be.
The second issue is the interpretation of human response to the gospel. The apostle Paul also warned us that there are those who sorrow without biblical repentance (2 Cor.7:10). Perhaps Bunyan is a classic case of being sorrowful on and off for long periods of time before actual repentance and faith. Was he a case of elongated regeneration or was he just sorrowing after the manner of the world?
A person needs to repent, profess faith and walks the path of righteousness, before I am 100% comfortable (humanly speaking) that his sorrowing after sin was a work of grace.
thinking out loud (and can still be wrong!)
tomy
========
Wed Apr 30, 2003 8:09 am Kirk wrote:
Dear Kay-U & other brethren,
Sing seems to hold to an elongated conversion. He added that instantaneous regeneration is without means.
I personally hold to Dr Masters' view of an elongated regeneration. Though we do not know the actual mechanism in the regenerating process, I believe that means are involved - 1 Peter 1:23 "being born again...through the living and enduring word of God".
So it appears to me that the Holy Spirit uses the Word (i.e., our preaching) to bring about regeneration. How does He do that? Would it be that during our preaching, the Holy Spirit suddenly jerks the sinner and awakens him?
I think not - at least, not normally. I believe the Spirit uses our reasoning and persuasion and pleading to bring about conviction. This may happen in one preaching session or in many sessions over a period of time. Then one day, the birth takes place & the sinner cries out in repentance and faith.
I liken this regenerating process to child-birth. Once the seed is planted, the process has begun. Initially, it is not so obvious. After a period of gestation the baby is finally born & she makes the first cry.
by no means got all the answers,
Kirk
=========
Wed Apr 30, 2003 1:19 am
Dear Kirk and brethren,
Here comes the bride in beautiful black, with two red carnations.
Distinction is the essence of sound theology!
Regeneration is the sovereign work of the Spirit of God and it is without means - John 3:3-8. In regeneration man is entirely passive because he is spiritually dead. In his state of spiritual deadness, all the means would have no effects upon him in any case. All the means - even 'the things of the Spirit of God' - would be 'foolishness' to an un-regenerated man, dead in sins and trespasses, 1Cor 2:14. So, really, no amount of means can regenerated a man!!! Without the prior new birth, there is NO seeing the kingdom of God, and there is NO entering the kingdom of God.
I have not said that conversion is without means. Conversion is the active response of sinners to the preaching of the word of God - which involves reasoning, explaining, demonstrating, persuading, etc. Yes, the Holy Spirit is pleased to use all these to bring about conviction of sin, of judgement, of righteousness... and repentance and faith – conversion to the truth. 'So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.' They is an active and dynamic interaction between the preacher and the regenerated person. We are to preach in such a way as to secure conversion to the truth of the gospel... but no amount of preaching can bring about regeneration.
Often John 3:3-8 is misused, and hearers are commanded to be born again - as though the hearers are called upon to do something to bring about their new birth. 'Ye must be born from above' is a statement of fact, in the indicative mood, and not imperative mood. It speaks of the absolute necessity of the new birth - literally 'from above,' anothen
You quoted: 1Pet 1:23 says, 'having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever.... but the word of the LORD endures forever.'
Please consider very carefully whether 'the word of God which lives and abides forever' here refer to the preached word. The adjectives 'incorruptible' and the adverbs 'lives and abides forever' would point us away from the preached word by even the most eloquent preachers. But as in 'so then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,' it is clear from the context that 'the word of God' is the preached word because preacher is mentioned in verse 10:14.
Another similar passage like 1Pet 1:23 is Heb 4:12, 'For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any double-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.' The next verse tells us that 'the word of God' here is a person. 'And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.' [The knee-jerk reaction is to say that ‘the word of God’ refers to the Scriptures or the preached word. I say it refers to the second person of the Trinity, John 1:1.
The illustration of childbirth is useful only if we define the various terms in the process. To me, the instantaneous conception speaks of the instantaneous regeneration, instantaneous begetting of life... the gestation period is the interval between regeneration and conversion. [However, I don't think the child-birth is a suitable illustration for regeneration.] The spiritual gestation period may vary from being negligible to considerable lengthy period, but in physical birth, it is fairly fixed by nature.
good to discuss and search for clarity of thought,
sing
-----
Wed Apr 30, 2003 1:38 am
Dear Kirk and brethren,
Just one more thought to clarify:
Regeneration can happen BEFORE, DURING or AFTER the hearing of the preached word. However it is not because of the preached word or any human means that brings about regeneration, that's is, regeneration is without means, but directly and immediately (no human means) the work of the Holy Spirit upon a sinner.
keep on talking to sharpen our ploughshares
sing
=========
Tue Apr 29, 2003 7:24 pm Kay-U wrote:
Dear Kirk,
Thanks for your contribution. Just wanted to clarify. The part you mentioned:
== I think not - at least, not normally. I believe the Spirit uses our reasoning and persuasion and pleading to bring about conviction. This may happen in one preaching session or in many sessions over a period of time. Then one day, the birth takes place & the sinner cries out in repentance and faith. ==
When you mentioned birth taking place and the sinner cries out in repentance and faith, is this birth synonymous with regeneration or new birth? Because you mean that to be regeneration, then it means that regeneration occurs instantly and conversion follows at once. This will then mean that when the hearer over a period of time falls under conviction, he was still not yet regenerated. Just wanted to clarify.
I personally, though I must myself pour over more texts of scripture to strengthen my understanding, I personally agree with sing (… ), in that Peter Masters and John Murray actually do not contradict each other. I think both of these great men, and also all of us agree beyond any doubt that regeneration MUST take place, before a sinner can see the kingdom of God and enter in via repentance and faith. Sing mentioned that conversion may take place immediately or sometimes after a prolonged period, and this actually explains why the ways in which God's elect are saved (converted) differ. Some, during periods of powerful revival, eg the Edwards-Whitefield awakening, are regenerated and converted instantaneously as the Spirit of God mightily attended the gospel preaching of Edwards and Whitefield. We have to agree that most conversions don't occur so dramatically, but nevertheless, they do occur; such that the seeker first undergoes regeneration and is made anxious about his soul and seeks hard to find the Saviour through hearing sermons and reading the scriptures until conversion occurs. Most of these conversions are such that the conversion process is so gradual that the convert cannot pinpoint exactly when he got truly converted.
I think John Murray was attempting more to give the order of regeneration and conversion, and to establish that:
In every regeneration, there will be conversion.
In every conversion, there was preceding regeneration.
Prof Murray was so determined to emphasize this truth that people might have even misconstrued the professor's writings to suggest that conversion always immediately takes the place the moment regeneration has occurred, without even entertaining the possibility that conversion might take place later after a prolonged period of Spirit led awakening and conviction.
Much as we respect and value Dr Master's works and contributions to the Reformed faith, I personally feel that he should not have criticized Prof Murray's writings in his book 'Physicians of souls', but rather should have given the late professor the benefit of the doubt. I have personally listened to Al Martin's sermons on tape, who is a man who greatly admires John Murray and has been greatly influenced by his writings; and find that Al Martin actually pleads and persuades with fervour and passion to call sinners or false professing church goers to repent and come to Christ.
glad to be able to discuss biblical issues over the email. good for learning.
Kay-U
==========
Wed Apr 30, 2003 8:45 am, Geek wrote:
Dear brethren,
If a man is regenerated and converted later, what is his status before God when he was regenerated? Is he in the kingdom of God or still outside?
just trying to clear my confused mind,
Eng Ghee
=======
Wed Apr 30, 2003 9:09 am
Dear Geek,
You would be referring to that period of time which ranges from a microsecond and several months? Never thought of that before! But if salvation has a forensic element then drawing upon the OT saints' status the person would be in the kingdom of God.
That is perhaps just a theoretical consideration because surely a man will be converted if he is regenerated.
getting more confused by the moment, waiting to hear more
tomy
=======
Wed Apr 30, 2003 12:43 pm sing wrote:
Dear Tomy and Geek,
You have got the bull's eye by saying, 'salvation has a forensic element.' That is really the answer to Geek’s good question. [A forensic element' implies a non-forensic, i.e. experiential/practical element.]
Let me illustrate by a passage of what I mean - Titus 1:1-3
"Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect and the acknowledgement of the truth which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began, but has in due time manifested His word through preaching, which was committed to me..."
Note the phrases 'promised before time began' and 'in due time manifested.'
Eternal life is promised to God's elect before time began. Forensically, eternal life is already the portion of God's elect - secured by the finished work of Jesus Christ at the cross. So also the eternal life is the portion of God's elect who are not yet born! It is theirs... why? It was promised to, and secured for them. God cannot lie.
But in due time that eternal life applied to an elect personally, and that eternal life became manifested... brought to light... such that an elect child of God come into a conscious and experiential knowledge and enjoyment of this eternal life that was promised him before time began. This began with the application of that eternal life through regeneration (through the direct and immediate activity of the Holy Spirit without means) and conversion (through gospel means of preaching, etc).
This point is brought out beautifully in 2Tim 1:8-11 "Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began, but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, to which I was appointed a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles."
All the blessings of election were already given to the elect in Christ before time began! And these blessings of life and immortality given to the elect before time began is brought to light, made manifest through the gospel preached. The preaching of the gospel does not create salvation but make manifest the salvation which God has promised before time began and bringing it to pass in time. Therefore apostle Paul laboured and suffered in preaching the gospel to all, knowing that the regenerated elect among his hearers will be made manifest through the gospel preached.
Similarly the elect were already Christ's sheep before they hear and follow him. It is not their hearing and following of Christ that makes them sheep. If they were not sheep, they won't hear and follow.
To answer your question, "If a man is regenerated and converted later, what is his status before God when he was regenerated? Is he in the kingdom of God or still outside?"
His legal status before God has always been and will ever be God's beloved in Christ from before the foundation of the world, even before he was conceived or born. Forensically, he is in the kingdom of God. Experientially, he is not in the kingdom of God - he is just like any other unbelieving sinners. Experientially, he would be in the kingdom of God only when he enters it through repentance and faith, conversion. At conversion he enters into an experiential knowledge of God as his Father - crying out 'Abba Father - because the gift of the Spirit of adoption is given (Romans 8:15)... the right to become children of God is given/experienced (John 1:12). It is the Spirit of adoption Himself who bears witness with our regenerated spirit that we are children of God... through repentance and faith.
sorry for my rambling,
sing
p/s there are regenerated elect (sentient) of God who are not converted at all. Read 1689.10.3 please. But a person who hears the gospel and does not repent and believe has ABSOLUTELY NO GROUND WHATSOEVER to think that he is an elect of God (note the simple present tense please).
===========
Wed Apr 30, 2003 12:31 pm, Kay-U wrote:
Dear Pastors and brethren,
Regarding the thought about where is the person in between the time he is regenerated and the time he is converted, I also never thought of it. If we look from a temporal or human standpoint, then it is true that we have a question here. One thing is, the pronouncement of justification would take place only upon saving faith. So then, before that, the sinner is not yet justified, therefore still in emnity against God. I think that until the seeker has truly turned from sin and embraced the Saviour, they would still be considered dead in sin and under the condemnation of God. It would be the worst kind of seeking when the sinner tells God that he is regenerated, therefore now able to embrace the gospel (not totally depraved or unable) and then believe. It would be as crazy as a man who believes he is regenerated, therefore effectually called, therefore elected from eternity, before he responds in faith and repentance.
I agree with Al Martin in one of his sermons that he said that a preacher must systematically present the truths in the bible, but yet we must not imagine that we can compartmentalise all the doctrines so neatly like an engineering flowchart until a man's experience of salvation becomes so 'mechanical'. Thank God that he has made it clear in his word that regeneration precedes conversion, and that He will see to it that these two acts will take place in every convert. For the seeker, his/her duty is to seek the Savior as what the bible says he/ she is- a guilty, dead, sinner who is impotent to save himself. Thus, until he has experienced in his heart the forgiveness of his sins, he is to be clear in his mind that he is totally depraved, guilty, condemned ( even though God may have already worked initial regeneration in him). Even after we are converted, we are to be like Paul in Romans 7:
Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.Rom 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
I have come to realise that it is really not important for a person to be able to pin-point precisely at which point in his life that he got converted, even more so that he need not be able to tell precisely the date in which he got regenerated. The most important thing is, for the person to ask himself, even after all his dramatic or non-dramatic experience of repentance and faith; is he today, at present converted? Is he today, still having continual repentance from sin and faith in his Savior? Is he today, still trusting fully on Christ's propitiatory death and justifying righteousness as the ONLY ground for his justification? Does his lifestyle today reflect growth in grace and godliness and greater dying to self?
Those who embrace dispensational and Arminian teachings today will find the above very hard to swallow. To them, they are always looking back at a certain time and place where their so called converts prayed a prayer of salvation or 'invited Jesus into my heart' or 'decided for Jesus' or went forward to an 'altar call'. As long as they can be satisfied at these past experiences, they don't care even if the convert today is living worldly and being a reproach to Christ's name.
Just some further thoughts on the profound doctrine of regeneration.
Kay-U
=======
Wed Apr 30, 2003 1:17 pm sing wrote
Dear Kay-U,
You wrote: I have come to realise that it is really not important for a person to be able to pin-point precisely at which point in his life that he got converted, even more so that he need not be able to tell precisely the date in which he got regenerated. The most important thing is, for the person to ask himself, even after all his dramatic or non-dramatic experience of repentance and faith; is he today, at present converted? Is he today, still having continual repentance from sin and faith in his Savior? Is he today, still trusting fully on Christ's propitiatory death and justifying righteousness as the ONLY ground for his justification? Does his lifestyle today reflect growth in grace and godliness and greater dying to self?
Experientially, you have stated the bottom line!! A converted man is now a converting, repenting and believing man. [Conversion is a life long process – very elongated, beginning with initial conversion to faith in Jesus.]
sing
