Thursday, December 13, 2007

The "Church" does not REPLACE "Israel"


Introduction

The Church has been debating a particular topic for quite some time. And it is unlikely that my paper will be the one to solve all the questions at hand. However, it is my goal to clearly communicate the problems at hand and dissolve them to the best of my ability. The topic being dealt with in this paper is the relationship between Israel and the Church. Respected scholars come from both ends arguing their point of view from scripture. How does one work through all of this? How can someone know which view is right? This paper will hopefully distinguish the differences between both camps, as well as state the proper view, according to the writer’s perspective.

The two major camps on this topic are dispensational and covenant theologians. Now it must be understood that even within these camps there are differing views on certain aspects. One must always be careful not to generalize when speaking on broad topics or whole systems pertaining to differing views. The fundamental difference between these two groups is one crucial understanding. The dispensationalist believes that the Church and the True Israel are distinctly different groups of people. The covenant camp sees the two being the same. An outworking of where one stands here can effect one’s understanding of numerous other doctrines such as: Ecclesiology, Soteriology, and Eschatology. This is another reason why this paper is being written. Because of a realization that no one doctrine stands by itself. Therefore, in the following paper, it is my goal to present both views on the topic, deal with certain passages pertaining to the subject matter, and state why I stand where I do.

Understanding the Abrahamic Covenant.

In Genesis 12,13,15,17, and 22 we find the Abrahamic Covenant. It is this covenant that is being argued over the most, when speaking about the relationship to Israel and the Church. In short, the covenant has three aspects which are as follows: land, seed, and blessings. In the Genesis 12 account of the Abrahamic Covenant, God speaks to Abram/Abraham and makes a covenant of what He will do to/for Abraham. In each following account (13,15,17,22) God does not make any changes to the covenant or to whom it pertains, He only expounds upon what was originally said to Abram. In Genesis 12 it says:

Now the LORD said to Abram, Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to a land that I will show you. I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and him who dishonors you I will curse you, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.

Just prior to this point, Abraham was a gentile. There was no such thing as a Jew before Abraham, for he is the father of all Jews. What is interesting to point out is that what made Abraham a Jew was that He was called out by God, whom he then followed, was selected to be a chosen instrument of God, and was later circumcised as a mark of the covenant that was made. This be crucial to understanding later.

So the next thing that should be noted is, to whom was the covenant made? Renald Showers, a dispensationalist, believes the covenant was made to Abraham and His physical descendants. He says:

The Abrahamic Covenant was established by God with Abraham and his physical descendants, Isaac, Jacob, and the people of Israel. Genesis 15:18 states, “In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘Unto thy seed have I given this land from the river Euphrates.’ [1]

This is the understanding for all dispensationalists. All would agree that the covenant given to Abram/Abraham was given to him and his “physical” descendants. This is a crucial point as well. The Abrahamic Covenant was given to Abraham and all his descendants.

The last thing that needs to be defined when dealing with any covenant is, “what are the conditions?” What are the conditions required by Abraham for God to follow through with what He is promising? Covenants in the ANE were understood to be made between two parties and a mediator. The mediator in the culture was always a god. What would often take place is what takes place in the covenant God makes with Abraham. Although there is something unique about this event. Genesis 15 says,

And He said to him, “I am the LORD who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess. But he said, “O Lord GOD, how am I to know that I shall possess it?’ He said to him, “Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.” And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half. And when the birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away. As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him. Then the LORD said to Abram, “Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. As for yourself, you shall go on to your fathers in peace. You shall be buried in a good old age. And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.” When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadomnites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.”

Notice how only one person walks through “these pieces”. This is significant! Upon whomever walked through the pieces were placed conditions for them to fulfill. God makes a promise to Abram, Abram wants to know how he can “know” God is going to do this. God tells him to do what was common in the culture. Get out some animals cut them in half and thrown them down on two sides. What would then happen, is the people in the party would walk through the pieces, which would be understood by both parties that if the individual did not complete his side of the deal he would become like one of these animals.[2] Only God walked through the pieces which meant that Abraham had no part to fulfill on his end of the deal to receive the promises spoken by God. In other words, the Abrahamic Covenant is what is known as an “unconditional covenant”. Therefore, we can conclude that the Abrahamic Covenant was an unconditional covenant of land, seed, and blessings made with Abraham and his seed.

This brings us to our first problem for the dispensationalist. If indeed, the Abrahamic Covenant is made unconditionally to Abraham and his physical descendants, then every descendant of Abraham would be without fault in the land, part of a great nation, and receive of the blessings in the Covenant. Many attempts have been made to solve this problem. Benware states:

If any involved in the covenant relationship chose not to “walk before the Lord,” they would lose out on the benefits and blessings on the covenant. That is a critical distinction to keep in mind. Sin and disobedience would cause the loss of the covenant blessings but would never cancel the covenant. The blessings of the covenant were indeed conditioned on the obedience of an individual. But the complete and final fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant depends on God alone. He intends to fulfill this covenant even if His people Israel are not faithful and obedient.[3]

But does this response actually solve the problem? It does not. In fact, it only contradicts itself. Benware, along with all other dispensationalist want to stand firm on two impossibilities. One, the Abrahamic Covenant is unconditional. Two, that it is made with the physical seed of Abraham and himself. If indeed, the covenant is unconditional, then it does not matter whether the descendants of Abraham “walk before the Lord”. Did Abraham need to fulfill this stipulation for God to fulfill His end of the covenant? Was not that the whole point being made in the paragraph dealing with the covenant being unconditional? What the dispensationalist wants to do is make the covenant to Abraham and his descendants unconditional, but change the conditions of the covenant when it applies to his descendants (“walk before the Lord”). Was not this the problem with the Jews in Jesus’ day? They thought they were “in” because they were simply Jews by lineage. Jesus rebukes them and tells them that He can raise up sons of Abraham from stones. I will explain who this covenant pertains to when I get to some passages later in the paper to save space and redundancy. But for now, it should be acknowledged that the covenant should not and cannot be understood to mean unconditional to physical descendants.

How is the word “Jew” and “Israel” used in the Old Testament?

In the Old Testament the word “Jew” appears ten times. But what should be factored into this account should be the variable of this word, such as, “Jews”. With these two variations counted together we have the word used seventy times in the Old Testament. It is also undisputed that in every case this word is being used to refer to the people who followed the God of Abraham and were circumcised and were part of the nation of Israel. I did not use the word physical in this definition because of one reason. When Israel was brought out of slavery from Egypt, a large amount of Egyptians left Egypt and became a part of the nation of Israel. And this is not the only exception. There are a couple of other instances where gentiles who were not physically from the seed of Abraham were recognized as part of the nation. This is because in the Old Testament, anyone who forsook their false gods and followed the one true God, YAHWEH, and took the sign of the covenant were to be considered a Jew. So in the case of Esther, Haman wanted to destroy all of the Jews because they would not bow to him. It could easily be understood that even Haman would consider the gentiles who would not bow to him as Jews, whom he wanted to kill off. This being said, it should not be thought that this was the norm for the nation of Israel. The majority of Jews were physically descended from Abraham and Sarah. The word “Israel” is used two thousand four hundred and eighty-five times in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament it used to refer to the chosen nation as the chosen people of God.

How is the word “Jew” and “Israel” is used in the New Testament?

In the New Testament the word “Jew” is used one hundred and thirty-four times. And the word “Israel” is used sixty times. Both these words are used in two types of ways. One refers to the physical descendants of Abraham. The second refers to the believing Jew or corporately believing Jews of Israel. In this section, we will take a look at some of the highly discussed and debated passages found in the New Testament.

The first passage to be looked at is Romans 2:28-29. Romans is an epistle written to the saints in Rome. The saints were composed of both gentiles and Jews. The main thrust of the epistle is to prove that justification is by faith alone. In the first three chapters, Paul is demonstrating that all mankind fall short of the glory of God. He shows that no one is able to fulfill the requirements of the law, and as a result, are under the wrath of God. The pagan worships false gods that are images of creatures and other created things instead of acknowledging the One true God in his attributes that are displayed in all creation. He then goes to the Jew who claims to have the law. Paul condemns them because they had thought that by merely possessing the law they were righteous. Paul says it is not the hearer of the Law that is just, but the doer of the law. Paul knows that after saying this the Jew would think he stills has the trump card, that is, circumcision. Boice comments on this by saying that the Jews of this time believed that by just being circumcised that they were bound for heaven. He says:

Still, the Jew had one last card to play, one final argument. He had been circumcised, and circumcision had brought him into visible outward fellowship with that body of covenant people to whom God had made salvation promises. It was like saying that circumcision had made him a member of that body, and because of that membership his salvation was certain.[4]

Some of the quotes from the rabbis were, “Our Rabbis have said that no circumcised man will see hell”[5] and “circumcision saves from hell”[6] and “Abraham sits before the gate of hell, and does not allow that any circumcised Israelite should enter there.” [7] Therefore, in this passage, Paul is defining what true circumcision is, and as a result what a true Jew is. Romans says,

For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor, is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

In reference to this verse, the dispensationalist says that this passage is saying that true “Jew” is one who is both one outwardly and inwardly. They understand this by referring to whom they understand to be the audience for this portion of Romans. Because Paul has dealt with the gentiles and now is dealing with the Jews, the outwardly should automatically be implied in the statement of what a true Jew was. Saucy interprets the passages in this light, when he says:

. . . the context of this statement-like that of 9:6- is concerned with ethnic Jews and not believers in general. Clearly, by verse 17 Paul is addressing those who call themselves “Jews.” The term “Jew” like “Israel,” carried not only ethnic but also religious meaning, and the apostle was concerned to define it’s true meaning, which always involved faith and obedience and not simply external covenant claim. The presence of the Spirit brought a new depth to the inward reality in accord with the promise, but neither in the Old Testament promise nor the New Testament teaching is the any indication that this changes the meaning of “Jew.” Although depth inwardness was a new under the new covenant, one could argue that Paul’s notion of inwardness was not essentially different in kind from that under the Old Covenant, which likewise call for spiritual reality (c. Dt. 10:16; Jer 4:4).[8]

Saucy argues this point as good anyone would, taking this stance. However, the question must be asked, “why didn’t Paul say ‘but also’ when explaining what a true Jew was?” Wouldn’t that be a more accurate way of saying what Saucy and the dispensational camp are attempting to argue that Paul is saying? Why would Paul not clarify and only speak of a true Jew being one who is one “inwardly”? In the immediate context we even have gentiles (vs. 27). In fact, the whole point Paul is making is that there are gentiles who are truly circumcised because they keep the law, while the Jew is not circumcised because he does not keep the law. Would not a plain reading of the passage within the context be stating that, just as the true circumcision is not the one who is outwardly circumcised, but rather, the one whose heart is circumcised, so also, the true Jew is not one outwardly, but inwardly? The first example is referring to true circumcision requiring inward only, so why wouldn’t the second example, true Jew, only require the inward only? Where in the text does Paul ever indicate otherwise? Furthermore, when was it ever required to be a blood Jew to be a true Jew, and recognized as part of the nation of Israel. Did we not see in the Old Testament that this was not a requirement to becoming a Jew or part of the nation of Israel? No one would argue that Rahab, the ancestor of Jesus, was not a Jew, merely because in the flesh she was not a descendant of Abraham. Why do we change the standard in the New Testament with no passage to back this new standard for becoming a Jew? Furthermore, in this time where Paul is writing, circumcision and Jew were nearly used interchangeably by the common people. Is not this Paul’s whole purpose in Philippians 3 when he calls the Philippians the “real circumcision.” And following that thought, he says that he considers his flesh and accomplishments in the flesh as poop! Why then do we insist that the physical is a requirement? Where did this idea even come from? Paul is very clear that salvation is for the doers of the law, who have the law written on their hearts, because they have been circumcised by the hand of the “Spirit.” R.C Sproul puts it like this,

Isn’t this a fitting climax to the argument in chapter 2? What Paul has been driving at all along is this: God is going to look as the heart. We come adorned with all kinds of externals, but if there is no circumcision of the heart, it will be to no avail. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit- that is by the Holy Spirit- not by the letter.[9]

This concludes our exegesis with Romans 2:28-29. However, it should be noted that much more could be said concerning this text. Also, because of the length of this paper, not all the problems with this passage could be dealt with. Therefore, it is my hope that this exposition will be sufficient.

In Romans 9:4-6, we have Paul dealing with the obvious question that was inevitably going to come after the great promises being made in Romans 8. “How can we count on this God to do all He is saying He is going to do when Israel has seemingly been forgotten?” Not only this, but also because of this great promise just being stated in Romans 8, it is likely that Paul is reminded himself of his kinsmen and what has happened. When the church began, it was physical Jews only. The Messiah was a Jew, the apostles were Jews, etc. But by the time Paul was writing this letter, the large majority of Jews had rejected the Messiah and Paul was seeing more and more gentiles coming into the New Covenant that was promised to the “House of Israel and the House of Judah.” So within this context Paul writes:

They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever, Amen. But it not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel. (Romans 9:4-6)

Here, the dispensationalist can make a strong argument that what Paul is doing here is not changing who Israel is, but rather narrowing the scope of who true Israel is. For example:

This is what should be understood in reading Romans 9 when it says that not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. This is a pretty accurate diagram illustrated what Paul is trying to communicate in Romans 9. Essentially what Paul is doing defending the faithfulness of God to His people by narrowing who the people are. By doing this God is not seen as abandoning Israel. However, this being said, there should be one change in the diagram. It is lacking in one area in Illustrate the completeness to what Scripture is communicating. This diagram has been taken from Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?[10] (as shown below)

The reason for the slight change is because the first chart made no room for the rare exceptions like the Egyptians in Exodus or Rahab. Therefore, this small addition to the chart makes room the rare exceptions for the Old Testament and early New Testament. With this understanding Paul is making it clear that for the ones with whom he shares ancestry and loves, He wishes that he could be accursed, so that some of his physical brothers (kinsman) could be saved. But he adds, that the word of God to Israel has not failed because, not everyone who descends from Abraham is part of the promises. But rather, true Israel are those who believe. This links with Romans 11. Therefore, I will go to this passage in the following paragraphs.

In Romans 11, Paul is further expounding on the fact that God has not forsaken His people Israel. Paul argues this throughout the whole chapter. It should be noted, that Paul, in this chapter, is dealing with the present time, not some future event. He shows this by speaking in the present tense the whole chapter, only going back into the Old Testament for support for what he is arguing is true for his time. The question is being asked in Paul’s present time, because so little Jews are coming to the faith, and yet so many gentiles are being brought in. So the question is, “has God rejected his people?” Paul answers this question with an emphatic “NO!” or in Paul’s words, “By no means!” What is Paul’s argument that God has not abandoned his people? The first is that he himself (dealing with the present) is an Israelite, a descendant from Abraham, and from the tribe of Benjamin. Paul then shows an example from the past to liken to the present situation. Paul appeals to Elijah. Elijah felt the same as Paul, because the people of Israel had turned away from God and had killed the prophets sent by God. But God responds that He has kept for Himself “seven thousand” from that time who were His. Paul then says, “so too at the present time there is a remnant. . .”

Paul then explains that a hardening of Israel has taken place, so that a great amount of gentiles can be “grafted in.” From what were the original branches broken off and into what were the foreign branches grafted? I think a good understanding can be grasped by looking at verse 25-26 which says:

Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved.” (Italics and bold added for emphasis).

Why does Paul want the readers to be careful to understand this mystery, lest they be filled with conceit? I think the answer is obvious. The gentiles could easily become puffed up for being blessed, thinking that they had replaced the original branches and the nation of Israel. But there are two things Paul wanted to make clear. They were only brought in by God hardening others. They had been brought in at the expense of the original branches. Indeed, this would shut up the most boastful of men. They were obtaining something they never deserved nor earned. Rather, they were reaping the blessings of someone else! As a gentile, I will always be humbled by this truth. I was not an original branch. I was without God in the world. I was without Hope. But according to God’s gracious choice, I have been brought in. Charles Hodge says it like this:

The stumbling of the Jews was not attended with the results of their utter and final ruin, but was the occasion of facilitating the progress of the Gospel among the Gentiles. It was, therefore, not designed to lead to the former but to leave the latter result. From this very design it is probable that they shall be finally restored, because the natural effect of the conversion of the Gentiles is to provide the emulation of the Jews.[11]

Secondly, the gentiles were not replacing Israel. Why is this important? Because Paul had just spent the whole chapter and the two preceding it, demonstrating that God was not going to reject His people despite their unfaithfulness. He was not going to forget His people. How then, does Paul argue this? In verse 26, Paul argues this by stating that they are not replacing Israel, but rather being blessed by being grafted into Israel. Did you catch the link between verse 25b and 26a? “Until the fullness of Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved.”(Italics and bold added for emphasis). In what way was God going to save “all” of Israel? By bringing in the “fullness of the Gentiles.” I am not making this up. This is plainly stated in this text.

So what is the point? The point is, God is not replacing Israel! He has not rejected His people Israel. But rather, He is expanding the nation of Israel. This is the mystery Paul is referring to. In the past, true Israel was composed mostly of the physical descendants of Abraham. But now, a partial hardening has happened to the physical descendants, so that the fullness of Gentiles can now come “in.” In this interpretation, God may remain faithful to His promises and yet open the blessings of Abraham to all the nations. In this way, God’s promises and gifts are irrevocable!

Paul writes to the Galatians, because, the Jews are imposing the idea that to become apart of the blessings of Abraham they have to become circumcised. This is because the promises were spoken to Abraham and his seed. To become a Jew one must be circumcised, so how dare they act as though they were recipients of the blessings apart from circumcision? Paul later points out that these Jews who persecute the Gentiles for not being circumcised are not different then children of the bond woman Hagar. But it should also be noted that Paul is equating the uncircumcised Gentiles as being the children of Sarah as children of promise! Just “like” Isaac was a child of promise, so too, were these uncircumcised Gentiles because of their faith in Christ! How can Paul say this? We find his ground for saying this in Galatians 3:16-29. In Galatians 3:29 he says, “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” How can Paul say if you are Christ’s then you are the offspring of Abraham? In Galatians 3:16 Paul lays out who the Abrahamic Covenant was made to, as well as, explain the answer to this, seemingly, outlandish statement. Paul says, “Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many, but rather to one, ‘And to your offspring,’ who is Christ.”(Italics, bold, and underline were added for emphasis). Who was the Abrahamic Covenant made too? Is it the physical descendants of Abraham? No! Had it been made to the physical the Jews would have all the right to be angry. But what Paul points out is completely crucial. The Abrahamic Covenant was spoken to two people, that is, Abraham and Christ. If you are in Christ, then you are in the Abrahamic Covenant. Now here is where the dispensationalist says, “yes, the gentiles are in the Abrahamic Covenant, but only the ‘blessings’ aspect, not the land, or the seed aspect.” They argue this because, in the context of chapter three Paul is dealing with Salvation by faith not by works. But does this do justice to the text? First, the problem the Jews had was how could the uncircumcised Gentiles be part of the Abrahamic Covenant. In response to this, Paul does not distinguish to the readers, by stating that he is speaking only of eternal life but not the land and the commonwealth of Israel. Not all the promises, just one of them. But does Paul not do this, he contradicts this idea by saying that all the promises were being spoken to Abraham and Christ. Notice, Paul uses the plural when referring to the promises of the covenant made to Abraham and Christ. How can anyone exegetically argue that only one promise is being spoken of here in the context? Nor could anyone argue that only two of the promises are being spoken of, for no clarification by Paul is given to which He would be referring to. Instead, Paul does not specify, but rather, uses the plural, implying all the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant were made to Abraham and to His seed, that is Christ. And if you are in Christ, then you are heirs to all the “promises.”

Paul carries this idea through the whole book, even in his closing statements being made in the epistle. Galatians 6: 15-16 says:

For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon you, and upon the Israel of God.

When we read this statement in light of we have learned from Paul in Galatians, not to mention, how we have seen Him use Israel in Romans 11, we can understand it more clearly. The dispensational view of this chapter is that Paul is given a blessing first on the Gentile Christians for their observance of this rule and not succumbing to being circumcised and standing firm in the midst persecution. The word “kai” is then understood to be in addition to these people and this blessing, a blessing also to the believing Jews who do not associate with these Jews who persecute the Gentile believers. However, there is a serious problem with this interpretation as Robertson points out, he states:

First, the word kai may be understood as meaning “and,” as it usually does in the Greek New Testament. On this understanding, Paul would be pronouncing his benediction of peace first over “as many as” (that’s, “all who”) hold to the rule that the distinction between Jew and Gentile cannot serve as a basis for determining who is and who is not to be reckoned among the people of God. But then he would be extending that blessing to another category of people, and that presents the problem. He would in effect be violating the very rule that he himself has just established by pronouncing his blessing over elect Jews who did use circumcision to identify themselves as the people of God. “The Israel of God” would be a group of people other than all those who make it a practice never to regard a distinction between Jew and Gentile as a basis for identifying the people of God. But this would have Paul contradicting his own line of argument. It would include in his apostolic blessing people who made the very distinction that Paul has just disallowed.[12]

This is, indeed, what the dispensationalist is arguing for. A strong distinction of the Church and the nation of Israel being different, both now and forevermore. Ryrie says,

The heavenly Jerusalem we are told, is inhabited by angels, the church, God, Jesus, and the “spirits of the just men made perfect. The point is, however, that there are distinct groups of believers in Heaven. Distinction is maintained even though the destiny is the same.[13](italics added for emphasis)

Is this really what the Bible is teaching? Distinctions among the people of God? Distinctions in blessings, promises, and covenants among the people of God? Are not all the promises yes in Christ? Are not all those who are saved in Christ co-heirs with Christ? Is not Christ an heir to all the promises in the Scriptures concerning the covenants? How can anyone draw such strong lines of distinctions, from the Scriptures?

The last passage to be exegeted is in I Peter 2:9-10. Peter is writing to the saints to comfort them in the midst of suffering. He just told them of an imperishable inheritance that is theirs in Christ. He then builds off this theme by speaking of Christ being a cornerstone to a temple of which we are built upon too as “living stones.” It is in this context that Peter says to the saints:

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who called you out of darkness in His marvelous light. Once you were not a people of God, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

I will comment little on this passage, because I have already gone over the page limit. Please note first that Peter is not just making a random statement here. He is quoting from the Old Testament a promise that was given by God to the nation of Israel(Exodus 19:5). This is significant. Often when one is making an attempt to prove Jesus is God we will go to the Old Testament where we see phrases, titles, and names that are designated to God and then show how these exclusive titles, names, and phrases that are used for God are now being used for Jesus. We then conclude, this must mean that Jesus is God. So when we go to the Old Testament and we see all these covenants, promises, titles, and names used exclusively for Israel now being applied to the Church, would not the same logic follow? No one would say, “Oh, you are replacing God with some guy named Jesus!” So why do some conclude that about those who see the Church being a gift to the true Israel as an expansion to all the world, when, all the names, phrases, and titles, being applied to the church do some say, “OH, you are replacing Israel with the Church.” It should be understood that, the Church is Jewish in its roots. The Church has a Jewish heart! With Jewish Covenant, and a Jewish Messiah, along with Jewish Apostles. How else could Peter refer to the Church as a “chosen race” or a “holy nation”. I often hear, “Israel is a nation, the church is not.” How can some understand that, in light of Peters statement? According to Peter and God the church is a “holy nation.” Should we spiritualize the text and say, “well, that’s just spiritually, it is not literally a nation.” One could ask, “if the church is a nation, where is it’s land?” To this I say, “The Jerusalem above, she is our mother.” Just as Paul did. I believe the Church has a citizenship in Zion in the New Jerusalem above where it awaits being finished by an architect who’s builder is God. For when it is finished it will descend from Heaven on the New Earth. And for all eternity Heaven will be on Earth. Once again, just like in the original creation, only better, will this New Earth be. For the Garden will extend its boundaries around all the earth. Who is the king of this nation? It is Christ Jesus who has been given all authority, and has come from the tribe of Judah, a seed of David. The covenants spoken to Abraham should not be seen as only physical nor only spiritual! Too often we fall to one extreme or the other. God’s promises to Abraham and his offspring was “forever.” The only way this can be fulfilled literally is for it to be fulfilled in the New Heavens and the New Earth. This was the hope of Isaiah that we find in Isaiah 65. We also find that this was the hope of all the patriarchs, in Hebrews 11.

The Beginnings of Israel and the Church.

The people of God have taken on different names as more revelation reveals more fully the purpose of Gods people. It started with the seed of the Adam and Even. In Genesis 12 we find the selection of a man (Abraham)through which will come the promised seed. From Abraham comes forth a great family and a chosen race. The great family becomes a nation (Israel). In acts 2, the birth of the Church is brought forth in new power and authority. This power and authority come as a result of a new and living King, that is, Jesus Christ.

Similarities and distinctions between Israel and the Church.

There are a number of similarities between Israel and the Church. Both are likened to the wife/bride of God. Both are given the New Covenant. Both have the same Messiah. Both have outward and inward aspects them. Not everyone that was from Israel was truly Israel. So also not all professing Christians are truly apart of the true catholic Church. Both are saved grace through faith. Distinctions are fewer, whereas Israel was mainly composed of one physical race, the church is composed of countless nationalities. Israel was under the Old Covenant. The Church was never under such a law. Israel of the Old Testament did not have the power that the Church is given at Pentecost. There are other similarities and differences between the two, but this will suffice for this papers purposes.

Conclusion

In the following paper, I have presented to the reader the two major views concerning the relationship of the Church and Israel. I have exposited the major text listed, as well as, share my own personal views concerning the topic at hand. I also hope, that this paper may be used to clear up any confusion that has been going on for over a hundred years now. I also want to thank the dispensationalist, although I disagreed with their main point. It was the dispensationalist that actually showed me the importance of seeing the Jewish ancestry in the Church, as well as, equip me to study the Bible. As a result, I have seen the importance of a physical fulfillment, as well as, a spiritual one. Much thanks can go out to many of the books published from dispensationalist demonstrating the importance of proper hermeneutics. I feel confident that the conclusions I have come to are a result of the hermeneutic taught by men such men as Roy B. Zuck and Dr. Michael Rydelnik. It is teachers like these that have shown me the importance of taking the Bible and specifically the covenants found in Scripture, literally! I anxiously await to enter the promise land with my Messiah and King who will reign over me and all His people forever! He will be our God, we will be His people, and He will dwell amongst us!


[1] Renald E. Showers, There Really Is a Difference, (Bellmawr, NJ: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, Inc., 1990) pg. 56

[2] R.C. Sproul, ESV Reformation Study Bible, (Orlando, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2005)pg. 35

[3] Paul N. Benware, Understanding End Times Prophecy, (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishing, 1995, 2006) pg. 43

[4] James Montgomery Boice, Romans Volume 1 Justification by Faith, Romans 1-4, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1991) 258

[5] Rabbi Menachem, Commentary on the Books of Moses, (Fol. 43, col. 1) quoted by Charles Hodge’s commentary

[6] Jalkut Rubeni, (num. 1) quoted by Charles Hodge’s commentary

[7] Akedath Jizehak, (fol. 54, col. 2) quoted by Charles Hodge in Commentary

[8] Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993) pg 197-198

[9] R.C. Sproul, The Gospel of God Romans, (Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 1999) pg. 58

[10] Keith A. Mathison, Dispensationalism Rightly Dividing the People of God?, (Phillipsburg, NJ, Reformed Publishing Company, 1995) pg. 39

[11] Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, (Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886) pg. 361

[12] O. Palmer Robertson, The Israel of God Yesterday Today and Tomorrow, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2000) pg. 41-42

[13] Charles C. Ryrie, A Survey of Bible Doctrine, (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1972) pg. 158

Monday, December 10, 2007

"Biblical Regeneration"


Introduction

Today, in the American professing church we have a wide variety of denominations and beliefs. This broad mix includes four major groups, which are as follows: Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, and cults. Within these groups it only gets more complex. There are some key questions a person needs to ask oneself. How does one discern which church holds to what was intended by the Messiah? In addition to this, what are the issues over which one needs to separate? And which doctrines are okay to acknowledge within “true Christianity”? After one has established these answers, where does the individual take a firm stance upon what he seeks to see within the church he intends on attending. The doctrine that is being dealt with in this paper concerns the last question being raised. Some of the most major problems that have arisen within the church of America in the last fifty to sixty years are a result of a lack of understanding of Biblical regeneration. This is why this is such a crucial doctrine to understand today.

In this paper it will be my goal to briefly explain what a Biblical understanding of regeneration is. I hope to be able to more clearly display when regeneration takes place in the life of an individual. The latter is the thesis of this paper.

Regeneration, as I see it, is the work of God (alone) raising a spiritually dead person to life, the changing of the heart, the washing of sin, and ultimately the equipping of the person to repent and believe in the gospel. In the following pages I will hope to expound on this statement.

A summary of the major views on the order of salvation concerning “regeneration”.

Before we go into the two views, I would like to clarify that, when speaking of anything concerning the order of salvation, I am not denying that salvation takes place in a moment. But rather, the order of what precedes the other aspects of salvation for the logical working of salvation in the sinner. Dr. Geisler states:

But before we look at the text, a clarification must be made in the question. The word “prior” is not used in a chronological sense, but in a logical sense. For salvation and faith are simultaneous, since one cannot be saved without faith, and faith cannot be present without our being saved. The question is: Which one is logically prior to the other? That is, which one is the logical condition for receiving the other?

Now with this in mind, let us go into the topic at hand. The doctrine of regeneration has two major differing views concerning the order of where it takes place in the Christian. One camp would argue that regeneration takes place as a response of the individual’s repentance and faith in the gospel. Norman Geisler, one the proponents of this view, speaks about this topic in his book, Chosen but Free. In this book, he writes a whole chapter explaining how the view of regeneration prior to faith should be rejected. He states:

Contrary to the claims of extreme Calvinists, there are no verses properly understood that teach regeneration is prior to faith. Instead, it is the uniform pattern of Scripture to place faith logically prior to salvation as a condition for receiving it. Consider the following selection of numerous text on the topic.[1]

He goes on to list passages such as: Romans 3:24-25, 5:1; Luke 13:3; 2 Peter 3:9; John 3:6-7,16; Acts 16:31; Titus 3:5-7. He is clear on this, by adding a brief commentary on the passages listed above, that in every case, salvation is through faith and judgment does not come upon those who believe. Because of these passages, Dr. Geisler believes strongly that logically speaking, faith is the first act on man’s part that then initiates the working of God on man to be regenerated.

The other camp sees regeneration as a work of God upon man that enables him/her to then believe in the gospel message given. This camp is often called “Calvinist”. Those who are reformed hold this as a crucial doctrine to understanding “grace” and the good news of the “gospel”. One of the proponents for this views, R.C. Sproul, says:

In regeneration, God changes our hearts. He gives us a new disposition, a new inclination. He plants a desire for Christ in our hearts. We can never trust Christ for our salvation unless we first desire him. This is why we said earlier that regeneration precedes faith. [2]

Contrary to Dr. Geisler, those who hold this view believe that they have the Scriptures

weighing in their favor. John Murray argues by stating:

If we think in scriptural terms it is not difficult to insert another step. It is that of regeneration. It, in turn, must be prior to faith. Much controversy turns on this question and into all the angles of that controversy we now enter. Still further, it will not be possible in this chapter to give all the evidences establishing the priority of regeneration.[3] (Italics added for emphasis)

There seems to be from both camps a confidence that Scripture is backing them strongly on their understanding of the order of salvation. Therefore, the next topic will be to dive into the Scriptures to see which view is truly founded on the Rock.

An exegetical significant overview

In the past section we saw the two major views concerning the order of salvation when dealing with regeneration. Dr. Geisler set out for us a large list of passages that he saw clearly teaching faith prior to regeneration. It is, therefore, important to note that the list given by Geisler is not pertinent to the question at hand. The question at hand was, “is regeneration prior to faith?” But in the list given by Geisler, he is arguing for salvation through faith. This argument is known as a straw man, because the Calvinist camp holds this truth as well. Therefore, the argument that Geisler is arguing is pointless. This is because both views would emphatically agree that salvation is always solely “through faith”. To use passages that teach that God saves “through faith” and state that they clearly mean faith precedes regeneration does not answer our question. This mistake is made, seemingly, by all of the proponents of this camp. Dave Hunt also argues against the doctrine of regeneration preceding faith by saying,

But doesn’t Scripture say that the new birth comes as a result of faith? Paul reminded the Galatians that they were “all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus”(Galatians 3:26, emphasis added). Yet White insists that “regeneration must take place first”.[4]

Notice how Hunt uses a passage that is not even talking about regeneration, but rather adoption (“all children of God”). This seems to be the major misunderstanding of Scripture that causes the camp to come to the conclusions they do. Again, both camps would cheerfully agree that adoption proceeds faith. What is needed to prove, from Scripture, the point of view held by Geisler and many others would be passages speaking directly on the topic. That is, that a person believes the gospel and then is “regenerated” not “saved”. The mistake being made by Geisler and many in this camp is lumping aspects of salvation into one big mess. That is to say, justification is not regeneration, nor is sanctification the same as adoption. For, in the quote on page two of this paper, he does use the words “regeneration” and “salvation” interchangeably (the words were italicized to show this). These terms are important to keep distinct, because each term has a unique meaning to understanding the fullness of the gospel and salvation. The purpose in this paper is not defining all of these terms of one being saved. It is rather to explain specifically what regeneration is and when it takes place in the list of: The gospel call, effectual call, faith and repentance, justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification. Therefore, in this section we will look at passages that deal specifically with faith and regeneration, rather than, general passages dealing with salvation through faith.

In the Old Testament, the people of God were promised a New Covenant because of the failure of the people to fulfill the requirements of the Old Covenant. The New Covenant would succeed where the Old never could. The New Covenant is the Covenant by which everyone to whom it is made will truly be saved. One of the New Covenant passages that is pertinent to the topic of regeneration being a complete and solo work of God is Ezekiel 36: 24-27 which says:

I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleanness, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

Here, God had just condemned the house of Israel for profaning His name among all the

nations. They had failed Him and, because of this, had made a mockery of His name among the whole world. This is because, in this culture, a god of a people would destroy a people like this. But in this case, the God of Israel would be accused of being either too soft-hearted, or unable to cause His people to honor Him. So in response to all this, God declares that He will do a great work to save His name from being shamed in the nations. He will do such a mighty deed that all the nations will honor His name. So what is this mighty act that God is going to do to “save face”? In this passage God declares that He will make a people who will be set apart for Him alone. They will know and love Him, honor Him as God, and joyfully obey all that He commands. One’s first impression of this passage is usually that God uses the phrase “I will” a lot. This is important because it indicates the list given in the passage is a work of God alone! He is not going to be dependent on the individual for this to take place. For He emphatically says thirteen times that He “will” do this! We know that God does not lie! What He says, He “will” do, He “will” do! He is, indeed, the Great “I AM”. It is also important to note that in the passage there are five times He states that His people “shall” or “will” do certain acts. We as Christians must understand we can be absolutely sure that whatever God says He will do. However for our part we must realize that whatever He says we 'shall' and 'will' do, we 'shall' and 'will' do. None of the things listed in this passage are dependent on anyone but God. This is relevant because in this passage one of the things God is talking about is regeneration. From this passage then, we can deduct that regeneration is solely a work of God in which nothing of its work is dependent on anything that man does.

How then does this work of God come about? In Ezekiel 37 we see another passage dealing with regeneration. In this passage, the prophet, Ezekiel, is commanded to preach to “dry bones”. The dryness of the bones is to point the contribution that these bones can do. That is, nothing! You may ask, “what is the point in preaching something to someone who is unable to hear what you are saying?” Not to mention that these bones would be unable to even respond if they could somehow hear the message. Yet, God promises the prophet that He will bring “breath” into these “dry bones” through his preaching and “cause” these “dry bones” to “live”. Here, the raising of the dead and giving of life is not the work of anyone but God! He promises to use the preaching of the prophet to give life to death. An important question should be asked here, “did these dry bones do anything prior to being regenerated?” The obvious answer to this question is “NO!” Ezekiel 36 and 37 go together to speak of the great work of salvation and, more specifically, regeneration. In both these passages we see how regeneration is completely a solo work of God. In addition to this, we find in Ezekiel 37 that nothing is done on the recipients side to be regenerated. In other words we have now looked at two passages where faith is nowhere seen to logically cause or precede regeneration. But something else should be pointed out from Ezekiel 37. Take note how the scriptures define man’s condition prior to regeneration. Could the “dry bones” desire to exercise faith in the preaching of the message prior to being made alive? Not only could the “dry bones” not desire to exercise faith, but they couldn’t exercise faith, period. However, because of the work of regeneration these “dry bones” can be commanded and fulfill the commands given to them through the preaching of the word. Because of regeneration taking place these “dry bones” are able to do the impossible. We then find from Ezekiel 37 the necessity of regeneration to precede faith. For if regeneration does not precede faith, faith will be impossible. The Prince of Preachers, Charles H. Spurgeon had this to say on the need for regeneration :

…if God had left me alone, and had not touched me by His grace, what a great sinner I should have been! I should have run to the utmost lengths of sin, dived into the very depths of evil, nor should have I stopped at any vice or folly, if God had not restrained me. I cannot understand the reason why I am saved, except upon the ground that God would have it so…I did not commence my spiritual life-no, I rather kicked, and struggled against the things of the Spirit: when He drew me, for a time I did not run after Him: there was a natural hatred in my soul of everything holy and good…It was He who turned my heart, and brought me down on my knees before Him.[5]

Notice the strong language Spurgeon uses to describe the affections of his heart and desires. Spurgeon recognized the great need of regeneration before he could place his faith in Jesus. R.C Sproul uses the historical event of the raising of Lazarus from the dead to equate our deadness prior to the regenerating work of God. He says:

Lazarus was dead, not critically ill or at the point of dying. He was already a corpse and was decomposing. The stench from his rotting body was repugnant to his sister Martha. The miracle of his resurrection was accomplished without means, that is, without balms, medicines, CPR, and so forth. The only power Christ used was the power of His voice. He uttered a command, not a request or an invitation. He made no attempt to woo Lazarus from the tomb. This resurrection was strictly monergistic. Lazarus rendered absolutely no assistance. He was incapable of assisting in any way because he was completely dead.[6]

Sproul is using the language that is found to referring to sinners (spiritually dead) and taking a physical situation to give us understanding in the necessity of regeneration or being born-again for the spiritually dead person to believe. Is this an adequate equivalent? Let’s look at some more passages to discern whether this is an accurate understanding of man prior to regeneration.

In the gospel of John, which is where we see the phrase “born-again” first being used, we come to a passage dealing with spiritual birth. This will give us more light on this topic. John 1:11-13 says:

He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But to all who did receive Him, who believed in His name. He gave the right to become children of God. Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

This passage is often used by those who advocate a regeneration proceeding faith, because it says that all who “receive” Him, that is, to “believe” in His name, He gave the right to “become children of God.” Indeed, the passage clearly teaches that one first “believes” and then God gives them the right to become children of God! But then the question, again, must be asked, “is becoming children of God the same as being regenerated?” The answer is, indeed, no. Here the passage is teaching that one places their faith in Jesus Christ, and then God adopts those who believe to be His children. Notice, however, the next verse speaks of being born. Why does John see this as being significant? I believer the obvious answer is, one cannot be adopted as a child unless one is first born. But how does John explain the means to one being born, and what kind of birth is John talking about? The first phrase “not of blood” removes the concept that John is talking about a physical birth. John is speaking about one being “born-again” or born from above. John makes it clear that no one becomes a child of God because he is born of blood. He also makes it clear that it is not because of the “will” of the “flesh” or the “will” of “man”. John is very specific with his words in limiting any possibility of anyone thinking that their being born from above had anything to do with what they did. For someone may have said, “of course I am not a child of God because of my ancestry nor because of the will of my flesh, for that is very wicked, but in my spirit or soul or heart or somewhere in me I desired to be saved and placed my faith in God and so I was born again”. But John says not of “blood” nor of the “will” of the “flesh” nor any part of the “will” of “man”. John clearly states the being born is “of God”. There is nothing else that contributes to this work of one being born-again. So here, John states that though one is a child of God after they have placed their faith in Jesus, they only believe because God has made them alive first. God takes “dry bones” and causes them to be born-again, so that, the bones can believe in the name of Jesus!

But where does John get this idea? Is he original in thinking this? Or had he learned it from His teacher, Jesus? I would argue that John learned this from Jesus’ teachings. We find Jesus speaking to a man about being born-again in John 3. The passage speaks of a Pharisee named Nicodemus coming to Jesus and claiming that he knew that Jesus was a teacher from God because of the signs that Jesus did. Jesus, seemingly, misunderstands what Nicodemus says by responding, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” What in the world does this have to do with Nicodemus’ statement? I have wondered this many times when reading this passage until I understood what Nicodemus was claiming by his statement. He was claiming to know God and who came from Him and to Him. Jesus responds lovingly that Nicodemus cannot know this, let alone “see” the kingdom of God unless he be born-again. Nicodemus asks an important question, “how can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus responds by explaining with what kind of birth He is speaking of by stating:

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 flesh is flesh, and that which is born of Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.

Jesus repeats Himself by saying that someone must be born-again, but he changes it this time to state that one must be born-again to “enter the Kingdom of God”. He says that it must be a birth not of flesh but rather of Spirit. Well, how do I get born of the Spirit? Jesus says that the Spirit goes wherever it wants and it cannot be known where it is going or where it came from. No one can control it for the Spirit “goes wherever it wishes”. Jesus explains that we can know when it has come for we hear its sound, but we cannot manipulate the Spirit to go where we want, nor can we know its plans. No amount of faith can make the Spirit come to you. No amount of prayer can push the Spirit to go somewhere. The Spirit will do whatever it “wishes”. In other words, we have faith because the Spirit has come and not the other way around. We pray not to move the Spirit, but because the Spirit moved in us. The Spirit is the mover, and we are the moved. We do not influence the Spirit, but rather, He influences us! Jesus is telling Nicodemus, if you want to see or enter the Kingdom of God you must be born from above, and the only way that is going to happen is if the Spirit blows your way. This places Nicodemus’ dependence on God completely for salvation. We see here that Jesus is teaching, again, the same concept of being “born-again” or being “regenerated” as we had been seeing the previous passages. Charles Leiter when speaking on this passage says:

Why is it that I am a Christian and my neighbor is not? There are only two possibilities: either the explanation lies in man (“I was more responsive; I was not so hard-hearted; I sought God of my own initiative.”) or the explanation lies in God (“He chose to ‘blow’ by His Spirit, softening my hardened heart and making me responsive to His call.”). The Bible makes it clear that the latter alternative is the correct one: “It does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs but on God who has mercy.” In our natural state, “there none who seeks for God.” But God being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ.”[7]

Over and over again we are seeing a pattern that when dealing with regeneration it has nothing to do with man’s contribution. Like it was stated earlier in the paper, regeneration is “the work of God (alone) . . .” But do any of these passages outright say that regeneration or being born-again precedes faith? In the next passage we will look at a passage dealing specifically with this area.

In the Epistle, I John, John is writing to his “children” in the faith, how they may know they have been born-again. In the letter he lays out some test, so that, they may know whether God has done such a work in them. This is because many false teacher had arisen within the church and caused much confusion and problems and eventually left the church. John says that they (false teachers) left them because they were never of the family of God. How then can they know that they have been born-again? How then can they know if they are God’s children? This is the context into which John is writing this book. One of the first test in knowing whether one has been born of God is in I John 2:29b which says, “you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of Him.” Notice the order and structure of the sentence. John says if someone practices “righteousness” he “has been” (past tense) “born” of God. In this test, both camps would agree that one is first born-again and then he/she practices “righteousness”. No one in the evangelical camp is going to argue that one first must practice righteousness and then he is “born” of God. So in this test, John says if you do righteousness you “have been” past tense” born of Him. The second test is in I John 3:9 which says, “ No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.”(Italics added). Again the same order and structure in the sentence. How can I know if I have been born of God? Well, John says that if you don’t make a practice out of sinning then you can know that you have been (past tense) “born” of God. Again, both camps would agree that it is teaching that one is first born of God and then he is no longer able to practice sinning. No one within the Evangelical group is going to argue that by ceasing from a practice of sinning one is “born of God”. The third passage with this type of test is in I John 4:7 which states, “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.” Again, the exact same structure and order in tense where one is first born f God and then is able to love God and know God. No one is going to argue that one first must loves God and knows him before he can be born of God. The order and tense is clear, “has been”. It is because one “has been” born of God that he/she is capable of loving and knowing God. John gives the reader another test in 5:1b where he writes, “and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of Him.” You may ask, “what is the point Stephen?” or say. “you are beating a dead horse”. But the point is this, in everyone of these test, being “born of God” always precedes the deed or thing being done by the one being “born of God”. This is important when we look at the next text which is from the same book and context in which he writes, “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God,” (Italics added for emphasis in 5:1a). Did you catch it? The structure of the sentence and order is the exact same. Not only this but also the tense for being born of God is the same. John in writing the saints tells them; you want to know if you “have been” been of God, well if you believe that Jesus is the Christ you have. Just like in every other case, the deed is following being “born of God” so also in this case believing is following the work of God alone, that is, being “born of God”. If one is honest with the text, there can be no other conclusion to come to. John is teaching that belief is a gift from God that comes the one who “has been” born of Him. This being born-again is a much needed work of God, because just like in every other case, the work of God in causing one to be “born of Him” enables the person to be able to “practice righteousness”, cease from “practicing sinning”, “loving” and to “know God”, to “love those born of Him” and to “believe” that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God. This is because prior to this work of God no man will ever desire to seek to be saved. The affections of a man’s heart prior to regeneration will do nothing but reject and hate the truth apart from God’s common grace or saving grace. One theologian put it like this:

In Deuteronomy 30:6 we find our spiritual renewal figuratively described as a circumcision of the heart: “ The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live” Since the heart is the inner core of the person, the passage teaches that God must cleanse us within before we can truly love him. What we would call regeneration is described by Jeremiah in these words: “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts”(31:33).[8]

The point is, every man is in utter need of God to show mercy and be gracious, from start to finish, in order that one may be born of God. In the following section of the paper I will go in what I personally believe and why.

A statement of my position and why.

In the past section we dove into some of the primary passages dealing with when and how regeneration works. In this section, I will seek to explain what and why I believe what I do on this topic. I will do so in two ways, first negatively. That is, I will explain why the other view fails or falls short. And I will do so positively, that is, why my view is right.

I believe a doctrine that teaches that being born-again is something we do, when we believe, leads to a false assurance as well as removes the miracle of it. In all the passages we looked at, we saw how regeneration is a work of God. It is God raising the dead. It is God giving a man a new heart that loves Him and His commands. It is God causing the man to obey Him by placing a Spirit within the person, so that, he/she will do so. When one removes this monergistic work of God and places any necessity on man, to that degree they will fail. If God is unable to raise the dead without the man’s permission, then God is unable to raise the dead. If God is unable to change the affections of the man, apart from the cooperative work of man, God is unable to change the affections of man. If we teach that man is able to believe and repent, apart from the working of God prior, then God is no longer needed in what was once taught a miracle. That is, salvation. As a result of this understanding of regeneration being either a cooperative work of God and man or man alone, two things have resulted. One many have come to think wrongly of what faith is. When man has been called to believe on the LORD Jesus Christ, man has come to think that faith is some sort of intellectual ascent to a doctrine. That faith is an agreement to a truth. That faith is walking an aisle, or driving a stake in the ground, or raising the hand, or signing a card. Faith is no longer a reckless abandonment of all one has to chase after his/her one hope, that is, Jesus and His work accomplished on the cross. Faith is no longer letting go of all that one has to grab hold of Jesus. The second danger that flows from this understanding of regeneration is a lowering of the standard/ command of God for salvation. Some have come to see that it is impossible to command men to come follow Jesus and die to self, and have them do it. As a result of being dependant on the man’s cooperation, preachers no longer have the confidence to preach as Jesus did to the rich young ruler. That would certainly be a hard teaching, and too difficult for man to do. Instead, we will encourage men to do something that any man in the flesh can do. That is, say a prayer, or come forward, or stand –up, the list can go on. Any man can do this. It is no miracle nor is it ever the command given by our LORD Jesus when He proclaims the gospel to the lost and dead. Instead, Jesus tells men that, those who are not willing to forsake family, money and self are not worthy to be His disciples. The apostle Paul commands those in Rome to confess that Jesus is LORD in a time where doing so meant having your head chopped off. Because of a misunderstanding of the work of God alone in regeneration, many have lost the confidence that God will save. And so, many have lowered the standard by which one may be saved. This is also why much of the gospel being presented in America is man-centered, rather than Christ-centered. Walter Chantry says:

Much modern preaching is anemic, with the life-blood of God’s nature absent from the message. Evangelists centre their message upon man. Man has sinned and missed a great blessing. If man wants to retrieve his immense loss he must act thus and so. But the Gospel of Christ is very different. It begins with God and His glory. It tells men that they have offended a holy God, who will by no means pass by sin. It reminds sinners that the only hope of salvation is to be found in the grace and power of this same God. Christ’s Gospel sends men to beg pardon of the Holy One.[9]

This type of Gospel is the result of a false teaching on the doctrine of regeneration. Oh the power in the God who saves! Many have forgotten that our God is “mighty to save”. That of all that He calls, none are left missing. But He calls His sheep and they know Him and they follow Him.

This altering of the truth about regeneration for another has been detrimental to the church in America, and it is why we have so many professing Christians. So soon have we forgotten the LORD’s teaching that many are those who are on the road to destruction, but few who those who find and walk on the path to life. Many have forgotten that with man salvation is “impossible” but with God all things are “possible”. Many have forgotten the strength of the LORD’s grace and efficacy, and so, they feel as though they need to prop God up with catchy music, or tear jerking stories, or charismatic speaking, and have ultimately abandoned the preaching of the World. This is why I hold strong to this teaching concerning regeneration. For fear that I may become useless.

It is here that I will explain why I see my position as correct. First, it promotes a Christ-centered Gospel. In the quote given above we saw how denying regeneration as a monergistic work of God leads to a humanistic gospel, so also, to affirm it, is to promote a Christ-centered Gospel. This is not to say that one who holds to a monergistic regeneration view will preach a Christ-centered Gospel. But rather, an understanding on regeneration encourages and promotes a preaching of the true Gospel. Another reason I hold to this view is because it fits best with what scripture says of regeneration. I have found this view being consistently taught throughout the whole of Scriptures. Lastly, but most importantly, this view promotes a Christ exalting environment. When one see’s how completely dead he/she is, and how much in need they are of God, they will become solely dependant on one person, that is, Jesus Christ and His work, not there faith or anything else. There are more reasons for holding this view but the reader will be able to see most on their own. You will also find, that the blessings that flow from this doctrine are seemingly, endless. Also, because more will be listed off in the practical section of the paper.

Why this doctrine is important practically.

When looking at this doctrine from a practical level, one can see many reasons for why this doctrine matters. Perhaps the most obvious practical outflow of this doctrine is this: Christians will show grace in the way they believe it has been given to them. When one teaches that a person needs to be repentant and place their faith in God prior to Him showing grace, then we will place the same requirement on those around us. Someone may hurt me, or may be in need of money (due to a lack of diligence). Do I require of them to first be repentant and do something to earn or forgiveness or generosity? Is this really how God works with us? Is it faith that prepares us for grace? Or grace that prepares us for faith? I believe that Scripture teaches the latter. Because God did not wait for me, but rather, poured out His unmerited favor, trusting that His grace would change my heart towards Him and my attitude towards sin. Because of this doctrine, I have been freed to give to many, with no reason, other that I have been shown such mercy and grace. And because I believe God will use my mercy and grace towards those to hurt or are in need of me to change them! This, I believe, is the practically out-flowing of a proper understanding of regeneration.

Conclusion

This teaching concerning the regenerating work of God does not sit alone by itself. Indeed, how one understands this doctrine, will effect one’s understanding of many other doctrines. It is here I will lay out a list, albeit, not an exhaustive one. Some of the major doctrines that will be affected are: Anthropology, Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology, Soteriology, and Ecclesiology. The list above is a vague one, however, it should be noted that because of the number of doctrines this one doctrine will effect I left the list more broad. For example, in Anthropology one could have a wrong view how lost man is, or what man is capable of and so on. For Theology Proper, one could get God’s aseity wrong, or sovereignty wrong, or omnipotence wrong. When dealing with Christology, one could misunderstand what Christ accomplished on the cross. For Pneumatology one could fail understand the applying work of the Spirit on the lost. There are many obvious reasons for why this would effect the doctrine of salvation. And for ecclesiology, it would affect how the Gospel is preached, and how church discipline should be applied etc. Again, this doctrine on regeneration does not stand alone. It is beautifully weaved with all the doctrines in the Holy Scriptures.

This view will affect my life, ministry, and worldview in so many ways! Some can be found in the section above on application. However, I must say, that studying and learning about this doctrine has change my whole outlook on how I share the Gospel. It has also given me such a new and fresh confidence that is unwavering! Learning about regeneration has changed my whole worldview of how lost man is! How much man is in great need of a compassionate, loving, gracious, patient, forgiving, merciful God. And this study has enabled me to see God as all those thing so much more fuller that I could have ever imagined.

This study has also changed the way I intend on doing ministry. Not only will it affect my style of preaching but how I prepare to preach. It has also affected how I pray. Understanding the more fully the great work of God in regeneration has changed the way I will minister to people with struggles and trials in the Christian walk. The list of how this study will effect and affect my ministry is growing as I continue to reflect on the richness of the grace shown to me!

The learning that had come in studying regeneration has affected spiritual life in a plethora of ways. Again, I learning more and more new things from this doctrine and how it applies to my life. It has greatly impacted my understanding of how God works with His people. And in following, how I should treat His people, as well as those I deal with every day. Grace is an amazing thing that changes the way we live our lives and understanding regeneration is just another way in more fully seeing grace for what it is.

In conclusion, I have presented the major points of views on the topic at hand, as well as, explain my conclusions from my studies. I hope and pray that this paper will be a blessing to those who read it, as much as it has been to me.


[1] Norman L. Geisler, Chosen but Free, 2nd edition, ( Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany Publishing House, 1999,2001) pg. 237-238

[2] R.C. Sproul, Chosen by God, (Wheaton, IL.: Tyndale House Publishers, 1986) pg. 235

[3] John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, ( Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1955) pg. 85

[4] Dave Hunt, Debating Calvinism, five points two views, ( Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 2004) pg. 282

[5] C.H. Spurgeon, Autobiography,(Edinburg: Banner of Truth, 1962) 1:164

[6] R. C. Sproul, What is Reformed Theology?, ( Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997) pg. 185

[7] Charles Leiter, Justification and Regeneration, ( Muscle Shoals, AL: Heartcry Missionary Society, 2007) pg. 72

[8] Anthony A. Hoekema, Saved By Grace, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989) pg. 95

[9] Walter Chantry, Today’s Gospel Authentic o Synthetic?, ( Carlisle, Pennsylvania: Banner of Truth Trust, 1970) pg. 25