THE USE OF THE THEORY OF REGENERATION.
One would imagine, from the voluminous arguments, debates and sermons
upon the theory of regeneration, that a sound theory was essential to
salvation: that it must be preached in every sermon, in order to
regenerate the hearers. Nothing can be more preposterous. Who can
think that any theory of the resurrection or regeneration of the body,
can affect the body in the grave! As little can any theory affect the
unregenerate, or those dead in trespasses and in sins. A sermon upon
generation, or upon natural birth, would be as efficacious upon those
unborn in bringing them into this life, as a sermon upon moral or
physical regeneration. This explains the fact, that in all the
accounts of apostolical preaching to Jew and Gentile--in all the
extracts of their sermons and speeches found in the New Testament, the
subject of regeneration is not once mentioned. It is, in all the
historic books of the New Testament, but once propounded, but once
[463]
named; and that only in a private conference with a Jewish senator on
the affairs of Christ's kingdom. No theory understood or believed by
the unregenerate; no theory proposed to them for their acceptance, can
avail any thing to their regeneration. We might as reasonably deliver
a theory on digestion to a dyspeptic, to cure his stomach--or a theory
upon vegetation to a scion, to hasten its growth, as to preach any view
of regeneration to a sinner, to make him a Christian.
Of what use, then, are the previous remarks on this subject? I will
first candidly inform the reader, that they were not written for his
regeneration, either of mind or body; but for the benefit of those who
are employed in the work of regenerating others, and for the
convictions of such Christians as may have been induced to regard us as
aiming at nothing but the mere immersion of persons, as alone necessary
to the whole process of conversion or regeneration, in their
acceptation of these words.1 The use of
this theory, if it have any, is, as a guide to those who are laboring
publicly or privately for the regeneration of sinners. If we have
assigned a proper place to facts, testimony, faith, feeling, action,
the bath of regeneration, the renewing [464]
of the Holy Spirit, and a new life, the course is fairly marked out.
They are to present the great facts, to declare the whole testimony of
God to sinners, in order to their conversion or regeneration. Like
Paul, in his account of his labors in Corinth, they must go out, not in
the strength of human philosophy, "but declaring the testimony of
God," and laying before their hearers "the wonderful works of God."
This is the use, and the only proper use of sound theory on any
subject. It is to guide the operator, not the thing operated upon. I
would hope, under the Divine blessing, to be the means of regenerating
more persons in one year, never once naming regeneration, nor
speculating upon the subject, by stating and enforcing the testimony of
God, than by preaching daily the most approved theory of regeneration
ever sanctioned by any sanhedrim on
earth.2 With these views we have, then,
offered the preceding remarks; and shall now briefly turn our attention
to [THE REGENERATION OF THE CHURCH.]
[A. C.]
1
It may again be necessary in this fastidious age to remark, that in
this essay, in order to disabuse the public mind on our use and
acceptation of the term regeneration, we have taken the widest range
which a supreme regard for the apostolic style could, in our judgment,
allow. While we argue that the phrase bath of regeneration (Tit.
iii. 5) is equivalent to immersion, as already explained, and as
contradistinguished from the renewing of the Holy Spirit, of
which the immersed believer is a proper subject; we have spoken of the
whole process of renovation, not in the strict application of the
phrase, (Tit. iii. 5,) but rather in the whole latitude of the figure
employed by the Apostle. It is not the first act of begetting, nor the
last act of being born, but the whole process of conversion alluded to
in the figure of generation, to which we have directed the
attention of our readers. For, as often before stated, our opponents
deceive themselves and their hearers by representing us as ascribing to
the word immersion and the act of immersion all that they call
regeneration. While, therefore, we contend that being "born
again," and being immersed, are, in the Apostle's style, two names for
the same action, we are far from supposing or teaching that in forming
the new man there is nothing necessary but to be born.
If any ask why this matter was not fully developed in our first essays
on this subject, our answer is, Because we could not anticipate that
our opponents would have so represented or misrepresented our views.
Were a General asked why he did not arrange all his troops in the
beginning of the action as he had them arranged when he triumphed over
his enemy, he would reply that the manoeuvres and assaults of the enemy
directed the disposition of his forces.
Our opponents contend for a regeneration begun and perfected before
faith or baptism--a spiritual change of mind by the Holy Spirit
antecedent to either knowledge, faith, or repentance, of which infants
are as susceptible as adults; and therefore, as we contend, make the
gospel of no effect. By way of reprisals they would have their
converts to think that we go for nothing but water, and sarcastically
call us the advocates of " water regeneration." They think there is
something more sublime and divine in "spirit regeneration;" and
therefore claim the title of orthodox. This calumny has been one
occasion of the present essay, and it has occasioned that part of it
which gives the fullest latitude to the term regeneration, which
analogy gives to the figure used by the Apostle. But when we speak in
the exact style of the living oracles on this subject, we must
represent being born again, (John iii. 5,) and
regeneration, (Tit. iii. 5,) as relating to the act of immersion
alone. See Extra Defended, pp. 24-36. [464]
2
August 1st.--I have just now opened the Cincinnati
Baptist Journal of 26th July, from which I read an approved
definition of regeneration. It is orthodox, spiritual, physical,
mystical, and metaphysical Regeneration. It is quoted from the
Standard. Regeneration, in the Evangelical Standard, is
thus defined:--
"Is the sinner active in regeneration? Certainly he is. His mind is a
thinking, rational principle, which never ceases to act; and therefore,
when the word passive is applied to it, by Old Divines, or by
Calvinists, they do not mean that it is literally dead, like
inert matter, which requires a physical impulse to put it in motion.
They only mean to convey the Scriptural idea that the Holy Spirit is
the sole agent in regeneration, and that the sinner has no more
efficient agency in accomplishing it, than Lazarus had in
becoming alive from the dead. Still they grant that his mind is most
active, but unhappily its activity is all against the Divine
influence; as the Scriptures assure us, unregenerated persons 'do
always resist' the strivings of the Spirit. 'Every imagination
of the thoughts of man's heart, is only evil continually.'
'There is none that doeth good, no, not one.' The sinner,
therefore, instead of voluntarily co-operating with the Holy Spirit,
does all he can to resist his divine influence, and prevent his
own regeneration until he is made willing by almighty power."
What a comfortable thing is this theory of regeneration! The sinner is
to be regenerated when actively striving against the Divine influence.
At the moment of regeneration "he has," in one sense," no more
efficient agency in accomplishing it, than Lazarus had in becoming
alive from the dead; " and in another sense, he is not passive, but
"does all he can to resist the Divine influence, and
prevent his own regeneration, until he is made willing by
almighty power." This is standard divinity; and he that preaches
this divinity, is a pious, regenerated, Regular Orthodox Baptist
Christian Minister! How much value, on this theory, is all the
preaching in Christendom? The Holy Spirit may be busily at work upon
some drunken sot, or some vile debauchee, who is as dead as Lazarus on
one side, and on the other resisting the Spirit, with all his moral and
physical energy, up to the moment that the almighty arm pierces him to
the heart, without a sword, and makes him alive by killing him!!!
The absurdity and licentiousness of such a view of the great work of
renovation, we had thought so glaring, that no editor in the West would
have had boldness to have published it. This is a proof of the
necessity of our present essay, and will explain to the intelligent
reader why we have given to the whole process of renovation the name of
regeneration, which properly belongs to the last act. [465]
| Source: |
|
Alexander Campbell. "The Use of the Theory of Regeneration."
The Millennial Harbinger Extra 4 (August 1833): 359-361.
|
[MHA1 463-465]