The Doctine of Regeneration in Historic Baptist Teaching

[Guest]

Here's an article that discusses the doctrine of regeneration and the change that has occurred in modern times in the SBC (I'm a Southern Baptist Calivinist, which is a bit of a rare breed these days, sadly):

http://www.founders.org/journal/fj02/article2.html

From the article:

In many Christian circles today experiencing "regeneration" (or "being born again") is simply something that happens when a person "makes a decision to accept Jesus Christ into his heart as personal Savior." Now it is certainly true that Jesus is the Savior, and that he saves sinners on a personal level. However, the idea that the experience of regeneration is a decision which every sinner ought to make and indeed every sinner can make is an idea which is seriously defective. The defects in this idea become increasingly clear when viewed from the vantage points of Biblical material, historic Baptist teachings, and the contemporary Southern Baptist position on this doctrine.

The article goes on to quote the section on regeneration in the current Baptist Faith and Message:

Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I note with interest that regeneration apparently precedes faith, as the "sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ".

But the statement is vague, because it speaks of "a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures". Does that mean regeneration is applied to believers as believers? It's not clear; "believers become new creatures", but "the sinner responds" in repentance and faith.

The vast majority of Southern Baptists I know would follow the "pop Arminianism" of the day and reject the idea that regeneration precedes faith. But we can see the strong historic roots of this doctrine even in the current (although somewhat vague) statement of the BFM.

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

Here's an article that discusses the doctrine of regeneration and the change that has occurred in modern times in the SBC (I'm a Southern Baptist Calivinist, which is a bit of a rare breed these days, sadly):

http://www.founders.org/journal/fj02/article2.html

From the article:

In many Christian circles today experiencing "regeneration" (or "being born again") is simply something that happens when a person "makes a decision to accept Jesus Christ into his heart as personal Savior." Now it is certainly true that Jesus is the Savior, and that he saves sinners on a personal level. However, the idea that the experience of regeneration is a decision which every sinner ought to make and indeed every sinner can make is an idea which is seriously defective. The defects in this idea become increasingly clear when viewed from the vantage points of Biblical material, historic Baptist teachings, and the contemporary Southern Baptist position on this doctrine.

The article goes on to quote the section on regeneration in the current Baptist Faith and Message:

Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I note with interest that regeneration apparently precedes faith, as the "sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ".

But the statement is vague, because it speaks of "a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures". Does that mean regeneration is applied to believers as believers? It's not clear; "believers become new creatures", but "the sinner responds" in repentance and faith.

The vast majority of Southern Baptists I know would follow the "pop Arminianism" of the day and reject the idea that regeneration precedes faith. But we can see the strong historic roots of this doctrine even in the current (although somewhat vague) statement of the BFM.

Cheers,
Bob

Hi Bob,

This article is like so many others that I have seen. The author addresses the wrong issue to try to prove his point. I don't think anyone will argue that regeneration is the work of God, so the Scriptures that he quotes are going to show regeneration to be soley the work of God. The issue is "What promps God to regenerate someone?" Is it just God's choice or is it God drawing all men and some responding positively?
Either way regeneration is done completely by God.

[Guest]

or is it God drawing all men and some responding positively?
This part of the equation is the issue?

In the calvinist universe God does not respond to men who respond to him but rather Regeneration (salvation) must occur BEFORE the person responds to God.

This is antithetical to the arm. notion that God saves those who repent; those who are sorry and ask for salvation.

In the calvinist system the person ONLY repented and became sorrowful because God had already BROKEN thier arrogance and his breaking them did not depend on their stuboorness.
Rather mans arrogance depends on if God wills to break it or not.

[Guest]

And deeper and deeper into the swamp we go.

Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus.

So here we have a believer, i.e., someone who believes the testimony (facts) about Messiah are true, who becomes a new creature (regenerated) in Christ Jesus. Are there any "new creatures" who are not in Christ Jesus? Who are not believers? The Calvinist would have us think so. Where in the scriptures are we told of even one?

It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin,

Fair enough. This change of heart through the conviction of the Holy Spirit is a response to hearing the gospel message. The gospel is "the power unto salvation" says Paul. And who has ever been convicted, who hasn't heard? This change of heart is actually one aspect of repentance.

to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

And this aspect of repentance, perhaps better termed "reformation", involves a commitment to the Lordship of Messiah in all things and trust (faith) in Him as Savior.

[Guest]

Homer,
where do calvinists believe that there are new creatures NOT in Christ?
Thats a bit of a stretch. Every calvinist I know believes all new creatures are in Christ. Can you explain your point a bit more.

Also the gospel is the power unto salvation does not mean that God does not open peoples minds to hear the gospel. Is God hearing the gospel dependent upon God having mercy? Is it a random event?
This point does not really address the calvinist pointedly enough.
The calvinist agrees with the statement they simply believe that God changes the heart of the unbeliever so that he responds to the message of the good news.

Aug

[Guest]

Aug,

You wrote:

where do calvinists believe that there are new creatures NOT in Christ?
Thats a bit of a stretch. Every calvinist I know believes all new creatures are in Christ. Can you explain your point a bit more.

I refer to this statement:

Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus.

The Calvinist maintains that a person must be regenerated prior to faith. They are dead, totally unable to believe prior to this. Yet, this statement says believers become new creatures (born again? regenerated?) in Christ Jesus. If this statement is in support of Calvinism it is a mess. Some folks have gotten their shorts wrapped around the axle again.

You should be aware that Calvinists have claimed that a person may be regenerated long before, and totally apart from, ever hearing the gospel. Thus you have born again, regenerated unbelievers. Others who believe in regeneration prior to faith believe that infants are regenerated at their baptism. I have a book by one of them titled "Baptismal Regeneration and Adult Conversion".

[Guest]

Homer,
Oh I see. Perhaps there are but there are those who believe in lfw who believe it is works that save (mormons especially).

Not all calvinists, I imaginge would hold to that statement. In fact they probably would make the correction and say "when the unbeliever..."

I agree with the calvinist on these grounds that God has mercy before we repent and not after. To declare it is after seems to me to push in the direction that God responds to us. As if he is impressed of our humility.
It is he who humbles and no one else. So the regeneration Idea I feel is sound by the calvinist.

I am a UR monergist who believe in LFW (sounds wack huh?) LOL.
I simply believe concerning salvation, GOD does it and does it when he wants, but does have a plan to save all (in time).
he also allows free will but not to the point that a blind man can walk off a cliff. He is merciful and I do not beleieve a merciful God allows a blind man to go wandering.

Anyhow, I find the arm. view of how God showing mercy is dependent on man as akward as the calvinist view that man receives mercy before ever hearing the gospel...

Auggy

[Guest]

I refer to this statement:

Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus.

The Calvinist maintains that a person must be regenerated prior to faith. They are dead, totally unable to believe prior to this. Yet, this statement says believers become new creatures (born again? regenerated?) in Christ Jesus. If this statement is in support of Calvinism it is a mess. Some folks have gotten their shorts wrapped around the axle again.

Hi Homer,

The passage you quoted is taken directly from the current Baptist Faith and Message. You're right that it's a mess, as I noted above. Modern Southern Baptists have cut loose from their historical doctrinal groundings and are now drifting on the seas of the post-modern seeker-sensitive man-centered churchianity. You can see in the BFM some echoes of the historic beliefs, but they have sadly been watered down and confused.

Cheers,
Bob