Calvinistic Controversy

Thus I have endeavoured to explain, prove, and defend the doctrine of gracious ability, a doctrine always maintained in the orthodox Church, until the refinements of Calvinism made it necessary to call it in question; and a doctrine on which, viewed in its different bearings, the orthodox Arminian system must stand or fall. I have been the more minute and extended in my remarks from this consideration; and also from the consideration that while this doctrine has of late been most violently assailed by all classes of Calvinists, very little has been published in its defence. If the reader has had patience to follow the subject through, he is now perhaps prepared to judge whether our holy volitions are the result of a gracious ability or of natural power.

Should I find time to pursue this subject farther, it would be in place now to examine the doctrine of regeneration; in which examination the nature of inherent depravity, and of that choice which is conditional to the new birth, would be more fully noticed. “This will I do if God permit.”

NUMBER XIII.

REGENERATION

An important error in any one cardinal doctrine of the Gospel will make a glaring deformity in the entire system. Hence when one of these doctrines is marred or perverted, a corresponding change must be made in most or all of the others to keep up the appearance of consistency.

These remarks apply with special emphasis to the doctrine of regeneration. As this is a focal point, in which many other leading doctrines centre, this doctrine must of necessity give a character to the whole Gospel plan. This might be inferred a priori from the knowledge of the relation of this to the other parts of the Christian system, and it is practically illustrated in the history of the Church. There are those who believe, that by the various terms used in Scripture to express the change commonly called regeneration or the new birth, nothing is intended but some outward ceremony, or some change of opinion in matters of speculative belief or the like. Some say it is baptism, or a public profession of faith; others that it is a mere speculative renunciation of heathen idolatry, and an acknowledgment of the Christian faith; others that it is merely a reformed life; and a few maintain that it is the change that we shall undergo by death, or by the resurrection of the body. These persons, and all in fact who make the new birth something short of a radical change of heart, are obliged, for consistency’s sake, to accommodate the other doctrines to their views of regeneration. Hence they very generally deny constitutional or derived depravity, the inflexibility and rigorous exactions of the Divine law, the destructive character of sin, the atonement, the supernatural agency of the Spirit upon the human heart, justification by faith, and the like. Thus a radical error on one point actually leads to another gospel – if gospel it may be called.

It does not come within the scope of my present design to enter into a refutation of the foregoing errors. But from the disastrous results of these errors we may infer the importance of guarding carefully and of understanding clearly the Scripture doctrine of the new birth. Even where the error is not so radical, as in the instances above alluded to, the evil may be considerable, and in some cases fatal.

The Arminians and Calvinists agree in this doctrine, in so far as that they both make it a radical change of moral nature, by the supernatural agency of the Holy Ghost. But they differ in respect to the order in which the several parts of the change take place – in respect to the manner and degree of the agency of the Holy Spirit, and also in respect to the part which human agency has in the accomplishment of this change. And in some, if not all of these points, Calvinists differ as much from each other as they do from us.

It is my present purpose to point out some of the more prominent Calvinistic modes of stating and explaining this doctrine, with the difficulties attending them: after which I shall endeavour to present and defend what we believe to be the Scripture doctrine of regeneration.

First Theory. – The notion that the mind is entirely passive in this change, that is, that nothing is done by the subject of it, which is preparative or conditional, or in any way co-operative in its accomplishment, has been a prevailing sentiment in the various modifications of the old Calvinistic school. It is not indeed pretended that the mind is inactive, either before or at the time this renovation is effected by the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, it is said that the sinner is resisting with all the power of the mind, and with all the obstinacy of the most inveterate enmity, up to the very moment, and in the very act of conversion. So that the sinner is regenerated, not only without his co-operation, but also in spite of his utmost resistance. Hence it is maintained, that, but for the irresistible influence of the Holy Ghost upon the heart, no sinner would be converted.

1. One of the leading objections to this view of conversion is, that it is inseparably connected with the doctrine of particular and unconditional election. The two reciprocally imply each other, and must therefore, stand or fall together. But this doctrine of particular and unconditional election has been sufficiently refuted, it is hoped, in the sermon that gave rise to this controversy; if so, then the doctrine of passivity and irresistible grace is not true.

2. Another very serious difficulty which this theory of conversion has to contend with is, that the Scriptures, in numerous passages, declare that the Spirit of God may be resisted, grieved, quenched, and utterly disregarded; and that the grace of God may be abused, or received in vain. The passages to establish these propositions are so frequent that I need not stop to point them out. But if this be so, then the grace of God and the Spirit of grace are not irresistible.

3. It may be yet farther objected to this doctrine of the mind’s passivity in conversion, that it is a virtual denial of all gracious influence upon the heart before regeneration. It has been shown in previous numbers that man was not able to comply with the conditions of salvation without grace – and that the gracious influences of the Divine Spirit are given to every sinner previous to regeneration. But there would be no necessity for this, and no consistency in it, if there are no conditions and no co-operation on the part of the sinner in the process of the new birth. Hence the advocates of this doctrine very consistently maintain that the first act of grace upon the heart of the sinner is that which regenerates him. Since then this theory conflicts with the Bible doctrine of a gracious influence anterior to conversion, it cannot be admitted.

4. This theory of regeneration removes all conditions on the part of the sinner to the removal of the power and guilt of sin. It teaches that if the sinner should do any thing acceptable to God, as a condition to his conversion, it would imply he did not need converting; that such an idea, in fact, would be inconsistent with the doctrine of depravity, and irreconcilable with the idea of salvation by grace. And this is the ground on which the old Calvinists have so repeatedly charged us with the denial of the doctrines of grace, and with holding that we may be justified by our works.

There is something very singular in these notions respecting the necessity of unconditional regeneration, in order that it may be by grace. These same Calvinists tell us that the sinner can repent, and ought to repent, and that the Scriptures require it at his hand. What! is the sinner able and obliged to do that which would destroy the whole economy of grace! which would blot out the Gospel and nullify the atonement itself? Ought he to do that which would prove him a practical Pelagian and an operative workmonger? Is he indeed, according to Calvinists themselves, required in Scripture to do that which would prove Calvinism false, and a conditional regeneration true? So it would seem. Put together these two dogmas of Calvinism. 1. The sinner is able, and ought to repent. 2. The idea that the sinner does any thing toward his regeneration destroys the doctrine of depravity and of salvation by grace. I say put these two together, and you have almost all the contradictions of Calvinism converged to a focus – and what is most fatal to the system, you have the authority of Calvinism itself to prove that every intelligent probationer on the earth not only has the ability, but is authoritatively required to give practical demonstration that the system is false!! What is this but to say, “You can, and you cannot;” – if you do not, you will be justly condemned – if you do, you will ruin the Gospel system, and yourself with it? Where such glaring paradoxes appear, there must be something materially wrong in, at least, some parts of the system.

5. But the inconsistency of this theory is not its only, and certainly not its most injurious characteristic. In the same proportion as men are made to believe that there are no conditions on their part to their regeneration, they will be likely to fall into one of the two extremes of carelessness or despair, either of which, persisted in, would be ruinous. I cannot doubt but that, in this way, tens of thousands have been ruined. We should infer that such would be the result of the doctrine, from only understanding its character; and I am fully satisfied that, in my own personal acquaintance, I have met with hundreds who have been lulled in the cradle of Antinomianism on the one hand, or paralyzed with despair on the other, by this same doctrine of passive, unconditional conversion. Calvinists, it is true, tell us this is the abuse of the doctrine; but it appears to me to be the legitimate fruit. What else could we expect? A man might as well attempt to dethrone the Mediator, as to do any thing toward his own conversion. Teach this, and carelessness ensues, Antinomian feelings will follow – or if you arouse the mind by the curse of the law, and by the fearful doom that awaits the unregenerate, what can he do? Nothing! Hell rises from beneath to meet him, but he can do nothing. He looks until he is excited to phrensy, from which he very probably passes over to raving madness, or settles down into a state of gloomy despair.

6. Another very decisive objection to this doctrine is, the frequent, and I may say uniform language of Scripture. The Scriptures require us to seek – ask – knock – come to Christ – look unto God – repent – believe – open the door of the heart —receive Christ, &c. No one can fail to notice how these instructions are sprinkled over the whole volume of revelation. And what is specially in point here, all these are spoken of and urged upon us as conditions of blessings that shall follow – even the blessings of salvation, of regeneration – and as conditions, too, without which we cannot expect these blessings. Take one passage of many – “As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” If any one doubts whether “becoming the sons of God,” as expressed in this text, means regeneration, the next verse will settle it – “Which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,” John i, 12, 13. The latter verse I may have occasion to remark upon hereafter; it is quoted here to show that the new birth is undoubtedly the subject here spoken of. And we are here expressly taught, in language that will bear no other interpretation, that receiving Christ and believing on his name are the conditions of regeneration. If there were no other passage in the Bible to direct our minds on this subject, this plain unequivocal text ought to be decisive. But the truth is, this is the uniform language of Scripture. And are there any passages against these, any that say we cannot come, cannot believe, seek, &c? or any that say, this work of personal regeneration is performed independent of conditions? I know of none which will not fairly admit of a different construction. We are often met with this passage – “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” See Rom. ix, 16. But whoever interpreteth this of personal and individual regeneration can hardly have examined the passage carefully and candidly. But we are told again, it is God that renews the heart; and if it is his work, it is not the work of the sinner. I grant this; this is the very sentiment I mean to maintain; but then there may be conditions —there are conditions – or else we should not hear the psalmist praying for this, in language that has been preserved for the edification of all subsequent generations, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.” This is a practical comment on Christ’s conditional salvation, “Ask and ye shall receive.”

Since then this doctrine of passive and unconditional regeneration implies unconditional election – since it is in opposition to those scriptures which teach that the Spirit and grace of God may be resisted and received in vain – since it is a virtual denial of all gracious influences upon the heart before regeneration – since it leads the abettors of the theory into gross contradictions, by their endeavours to reconcile the can and the cannot of their system – since its practical tendency is to make sinners careless, or drive them to despair – and finally, since it contradicts that numerous class of scriptures, some of which are very unequivocal, that predicate the blessings of regeneration and justification upon certain preparatory and conditional acts of the sinner —therefore we conclude that this theory cannot be true.

Second Theory. – To avoid these difficulties, to make the sinner feel his responsibility, and to bring him into action, a new theory of regeneration is proposed. This constitutes a leading characteristic of the New Divinity. It is the theory of self – conversion. Its advocates maintain that there is no more mystery or supernatural agency in the process of the change, called the new birth, than there is in any other leading purpose or decision of the mind. It is true, they do not wholly exclude the Holy Spirit from this work, but his agency is mediate and indirect. He acts in some undefinable way, through the truth as an instrument. The truth acts upon the mind, in the way of moral suasion, and the sinner, in the view and by the influence of truth, resolves to give himself up to God and to his service – and this is regeneration. The preparation is of God – but the actual change is man’s own work. The God of providence reveals the truth and arranges the means for its promulgation, the Spirit of grace applies it to the understanding, the sinner looks at it, reflects upon it, and at length is persuaded to set about the work, and regenerates himself!

That we may be the better prepared to meet this hypothesis, it should be noticed that it is inseparable from the notion that all sin consists in voluntary exercise, or in other words, in a series of sinful volitions. Regeneration is a change from sin to holiness – and hence a regenerate state is the opposite of a sinful state. If then a regenerate state is nothing more than a series of holy volitions, an unregenerate state, which is its opposite, is nothing more than a series of unholy volitions. Thus it appears that this doctrine of regeneration by the act of the will must stand or fall with the notion that all sin consists in voluntary exercise. Any argument, therefore, brought against this latter theory will bear with equal weight against this new idea of regeneration. Bearing this in mind, we are prepared to object to this doctrine,

1. That it is inconsistent with the doctrine of constitutional depravity. This is granted by the supporters of the theory, and hence constitutional depravity is no part of their system. All the arguments therefore that have been adduced in favour of derived, inherent depravity, or that can be urged in favour of this doctrine, will stand directly opposed to this view of regeneration. The arguments in favour of our views of depravity need not be repeated; and the reader is referred to a previous number in which this point has been discussed.

2. Another objection to this theory of regeneration is, that it makes entire sanctification take place at the time of regeneration. Conversion, holiness, are nothing more than a decision of the will; and since the will can never be more than decided, of course the decision at regeneration is the perfection of holiness. On this ground, therefore, though Christians are exhorted to “cleanse themselves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of the Lord;” though the saints are commanded to “grow in grace,” to “confess their sins,” that they may be “cleansed from all unrighteousness,” though some of the Corinthian Christians were “carnal and walked as men,” and for that reason were, after years of experience, only babes in Christ – still, if we embrace this sentiment, we must call the convert, at his first spiritual breath, as holy as he ever can be in any of the subsequent stages of his experience! Surely the apostles taught not this! And yet so strongly are men impelled forward by their systems, this doctrine of perfect holiness at conversion is the very sentiment that many of the advocates of the New Divinity are now propagating – a clear proof that it necessarily follows from their theory of conversion. This of itself, it strikes me, ought to destroy the doctrine.

3. Another bearing of this hypothesis, and one which I think must prove fatal to it, is, that the Scriptures represent this change to be chiefly in the affections, whereas this doctrine makes it exclusively in the will. That the Scriptures place the change in the affections chiefly, I suppose will not be denied. If it should be, without stopping here to quote specific passages, or use many arguments, one consideration alone will be sufficient to set the question at rest. – True evangelical holiness consists in love to God and man; and sin is loving the creature rather than the Creator. The apostle brings into view both the regenerate and the unregenerate state in this passage – “Set your affection on things above, and not on things on the earth.” Numerous are the passages which teach that love to God is the essence of the Christian character. The affections, therefore, are the seat of this change. But we are told by this new theory the change is in the will. It is only to resolve to serve God, and we are converted. – Either this theory, therefore, or the Bible account of this matter must be wrong.

To avoid this difficulty, it may be said, that a change of the will implies a change of the affections. But this is changing the position – which is, that a decision of the will is regeneration. If however this new position be insisted upon, it can be reconciled with the phraseology used only by making a change of the affections a mere subordinate part of regeneration, whereas the Scriptures make the change consist essentially in this. But there is still a more serious difficulty in this idea, that the change of the will implies a change in the affections. It necessarily implies that the affections are at all times under the control of the will. But this is as unphilosophical as it is unscriptural. It is even directly contrary to the observation and knowledge of men who have paid only common and casual attention to mental phenomena. The will is oftener enthralled by the affections, than the affections by the will. Even in common and worldly matters let a man try by an effort of the will to beget love where it does not exist, or to transfer the affections from one object to another, and how will he succeed? Will love and hatred go or come at his bidding? You might as well attempt, by an act of the will, to make sweet bitter, or bitter sweet to the physical taste. How much less can a man, by an act of the will, make all things new, and transfer the heart from the grossness of creature love to the purity of supreme love to God. The Apostle Paul has taught us his failure in this matter. When he “would do good, evil was present with him.” “For,” says he, “the good that I would do, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do.” And this is the fact in most cases of genuine awakening. Resolutions are formed, but the current of the unsanctified affections sweeps them away. Over the untowardness of the unregenerate heart the will has, in fact, but a feeble influence; and this is the reason why the man, struggling with the corruptions of his heart, is driven to despair, and exclaims, “O! wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?”

We shall see hereafter how the action of the will is indispensable in regeneration; but not in this direct way to change and control the affections, by the power of its own decisions. When I find my will capable of doing this, I must have an essentially different intellectual character from the one I now have.

Since the Scriptures make the new birth a change of affections, and this theory makes it a change of volitions; and especially since the affections cannot be transferred from earth to heaven by a mere act of the will, therefore the doctrine which teaches and implies these views must be false.

4. This idea of the character of sin and of the new birth makes man sinless, at particular times, even without regeneration. I do not mean by this that he is not obnoxious to punishment for past unholy volitions. But if sin consists only in voluntary exercise, whenever the mind does not act; or whenever its action is not under the control of the will, there is nothing of sin personally appertaining to the man. – When the action of the will is suspended by an all – absorbing emotion of wonder or surprise – in sound sleep when the mental states, if there are any, are not under the control of the will – in cases of suspended animation, by drowning, fainting, or otherwise – in short, whenever the mind is necessarily wholly engrossed, as is often the case, by some scientific investigation, or matter of worldly business, not of a moral character, then, and in every such case, whatever may be the guilt for past transgressions, there is no personal unholiness. And by the same reasoning we may show that the regenerate pass a great portion of their time without any personal holiness!

5. According to the theory we are opposing, regeneration, strictly speaking, means nothing. The work of grace, by which a sinner is made meet for heaven, embraces two essential points, pardon and renewal. The former is not a positive change of character, but a relative change, from a state of condemnation to a state of acquittal. But as regeneration, if it have any appropriate meaning, cannot mean a mere change of relation, any construction or system that forces such a meaning upon it does, in fact, do it away. Hence, being born again, being renewed, being created anew, being sanctified, being translated from darkness to light, being raised from the dead, and numerous other scripture expressions, are figurative forms of speech, so foreign from the idea they are used to express, that they are worse than unmeaning – they lead to error. But if these expressions mean any thing more than pardon, what is that meaning? This doctrine makes the principal change take place in the neighbourhood of the will; not in the will itself, meaning by that, the mental power by which we put forth volitions. This faculty of the mind is sound, and needs no change – all the other mental susceptibilities are sound, the essence of the mind and the susceptibilities of the mind are perfectly free from any moral perversion. It is the mental action that is bad. – What is there then in the man that is to be changed? Do you say his volitions? But these he changes every hour. Do you say, he must leave off wrong volitions, and have right ones? This too he often does. “But he must do it with right motives,” you say, “this acting from right motives is the regenerate state.” Indeed! Suppose then that he has resolved to serve God, from right motives, what if he should afterward resolve, from false shame or fear, to neglect a duty, is he now unregenerate? This is changing from regenerate to unregenerate, from entire holiness to entire unholiness with a breath. Truly such a regeneration is nothing. But you say, after he has once submitted, he now has a “governing purpose” to serve God, and this constitutes him regenerate; aye, a governing purpose that does not govern him. Let it be understood, you cannot divide a volition; it has an entire character in itself; and if it be unholy, no preceding holy volition can sanctify it. Hence every change of volition from wrong to right, and from right to wrong, is a change of state, so that regeneracy and unregeneracy play in and out of the human bosom in the alternation of every criminal thought or every pious aspiration. Is this the Bible doctrine of the new birth? And yet this is all you can make of it, if you resolve it into the mere action of the will.