REGENERATION
John Miley, D.D., LL.D.
While regeneration is closely related to justification, there are real points of difference between them. They differ widely in the grounds of their necessity. The necessity for justification lies in the fact of guilt, while the necessity for regeneration lies in the depravity of our nature. Hence they must fulfill different offices in the work of our salvation. It is the office of justification to cancel our guilt, while it is the office of regeneration to renew or purify our moral nature. Yet in other facts the two are closely related. They are coincident in time. There is no reason for any chronological separation; not even where the consciousness of the moral change wrought by regeneration is a gradual attainment. Further, we are justified and regenerated on the same act of faith. The two great blessings are not separately offered to separate acts of faith; they are offered together as inseparable blessings of the salvation in Christ, and so are received on one and the same act of faith.
Regeneration, like justification, is a vital part of Christian soteriology. It must be such, since native depravity is a reality, and regeneration a necessity to a truly spiritual life. It follows that a truthful doctrine of regeneration must be profoundly important. Yet it is one respecting which error has widely prevailed, and greatly to the detriment of Christian life. However, as between evangelical systems, the doctrine of regeneration has been far less in issue than that of justification, mostly because it is less directly concerned in the doctrinal view of the atonement.
I. THE NATURE OF REGENERATION
1. In the Light of the Scriptures.—The nature of regeneration must be studied in the light of the Scriptures. The true doctrine must be found in the meaning of the terms and facts wherein the gracious work is expressed.
The question is not open to a philosophical interpretation, nor to any purely scientific treatment. The reason is, that we cannot in any such mode reach the facts which vitally concern the doctrine. For instance, we cannot thus reach the nature of depravity, in which lies the necessity for regeneration. We know that it is a state of our sensous and moral nature, and we know its characteristic tendency to evil; but just what it is in itself we cannot know. Yet the nature of depravity as a subjective state must largely determine the nature of regeneration. Therefore, as we cannot in any purely scientific or philosophic mode know the nature of depravity itself, neither can we in any such mode discover the inner nature of regeneration.
Some have thought the subject more open to rational treatment on the ground of a trichotomic anthropology than on the dichotomic. We do not see any clearing of the question in this view. Trichotomy is not an established truth; and so long as it remains uncertain in itself it can render little service in the interpretation of any doctrine. Further, trichotomy effects no change in the real question, so far as it relates to our thinking. No class of sensuous or moral phenomena, as now known, is eliminated or in the least modified; no new class is introduced. Nothing is other than it was for our thinking. Hence the assumption of three distinct natures in man—of a psychic nature intermediate to the physical and mental, and additional to them—cannot clear the way to any direct insight into the nature of depravity as a subjective state. We are just as far short of any such insight as we were on the ground of a dichotomic anthropology.
Not a few have been pleased with Henry Drummond’s treatment of regeneration. This is really the subject, although his own topical word is biogenesis.[1] The treatment is admirable in literary quality, and attractive in scientific cast. The lase of biogenesis on which his doctrine is constructed are thoroughly valid. Life is begotten only of life. Biogenesis holds the ground securely against abiogenesis. There is no life from the lifeless. We see no reason to question other laws set forth: that the source of life must answer for the kind or grade of that which it produces; and that a lower form of life can be lifted up into a higher form only through the power of the higher. On the ground of such principles only a divine source can answer for a truly spiritual life in man. This is the necessity for regeneration. Man must be born from above; must be born of God. However, the treatment is new only in its scientific cast and terminology, and in the application of the laws of biogenesis to the questions of regeneration. That regeneration is necessary to a truly spiritual life, and that it is possible only through the divine agency, are truths long familiar to our evangelical theology, and widely and effectively preached from many pulpits.
But the laws of biogenesis, as here applied, lead into serious error respecting the real necessity for regeneration. According to these laws, as here set forth, that necessity must have been original to the constitution of man; while the real necessity lies in a corruption of human nature consequent to the Adamic fall. There is in Drummond no proper recognition of the ground. Indeed, it could not be made to chime with his doctrine. Nor do his principles require either the atonement in Christ or the special mission and work of the Holy Spirit for which it provides. It is true that in his treatment there is frequent recognition of both Christ and the Holy Spirit as the source of the new spiritual life, but this fact cannot affect the truth of our position; for nothing in the original constitution of man could require the grace of a redemptive economy for its relief. It in his original constitution man was placed in the plane of a purely natural life, then, according to the laws of biogenesis, he would need a spiritual endowment which only divinity itself could confer, in order to a truly spiritual life; but he could not need the grace of a redemptive economy as the provisional ground of such endowment. These inevitable implications mean some serious error in the doctrine of Drummond. Regeneration, whether in respect to its nature or necessity, cannot be explained on the ground of “natural law in the spiritual world.”
2. Representative Terms.—There is a class of Scripture terms in which regeneration, or the gracious work which it represents, is expressed as a new birth. We may instance the following: born again;[2] born of God;[3] born of the Spirit.[4] These several forms of expression have the same meaning respecting the nature of regeneration. When we reach the deeper principle of their interpretation we shall find that meaning very clear and full. There are other forms of expression which contain the same truth respecting regeneration, but we get their full meaning only as we read them in the light of the truly representative terms. With such limitation, they still render valuable service in setting forth the true nature of regeneration. However, the terms which set forth this great moral change in the light of a new birth are properly designated the representative terms. The are the ground of the specific term regeneration—παλιγγενεσία—the one common theological use for the expression of the doctrine.
3. Analogical Interpretation.—In these forms of expression there is a comparison of spiritual regeneration with natural generation or birth. The comparison implies some analogy between the things thus compared. Accordingly, some attempt an interpretation of regeneration on the ground of such analogy. It is easy to institute points of comparison; but if we stop short of a really interpreting principle, little light is grained for the real question. Under these figurative expressions, or in natural generation and birth, we may find the inception of a new life, a new life in the mode of derivation, and a transition into a new mode of life. These are facts of natural generation and birth; and it is easy to find corresponding facts in regeneration. It surely means the inception of a new life, and a new life by derivation or communication, and a new mode of life.
In this manner regeneration is interpreted, but the interpretation is superficial,and fails to give us any clear insight into its real nature. The failure arises from the fact that these points of comparison mean nothing in themselves fro the nature of the new life received in regeneration. They are too broadly applicable for any such definite meaning. The same facts are true of all orders of propagated life; just as true of the lion as of the lamb; just as true in the animal plane as in the human. These points of analogy lead us up to the one fact which is full of meaning for the nature of regeneration, but fall short of it, and therefore fail to give us any clear insight into that nature.
4. Deeper Principle of Interpretation.—Underlying the points of comparison usually presented in the analogical treatment, there is a deeper fact which gives us the true nature of regeneration. It is the fact that the offspring is in the likeness of the parentage. This principle rules in all the forms of propagated life. It is the determining law of species. It here suffices that we merely state this law, as it was sufficiently discussed in our anthropology. We there found it a valid and sufficient ground for the genetic transmission of depravity from Adam down through the race. This is the principle which opens the clearer view of regeneration. As by natural generation we inherit from the progenitors of the race a corruption of the moral nature, so by the new birth we receive the impress and likeness of the Holy Spirit.
This is our interpreting principle. Nor is it fetched from afar, but is right at hand in the classical passage on regeneration: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”[5] In the first part the truth is deeper than the derivation of a body of flesh in the form and likeness of the parental body; it means the inheritance of a corrupt nature. This was shown in our anthropology. In this corruption of nature lies the necessity for the new birth. It was on the ground of this fact that Christ said to Nicodemus: “Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.” But such a necessity can be met only by a divine operation within the moral nature which shall purify it and transform it into the moral likeness of the divine. All this is in the meaning of the words of Christ: “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit”—spirit, not essentially, but in the sense of a spiritual or holy quality. As the depravity of the original parentage is transmitted through natural generation, so through regeneration we are transformed into the moral likeness of the Holy Spirit. This meets the necessity for regeneration. There is no other way in which it can be met. Thus we find the real meaning of being born of the Spirit.
The nature of the regenerate state is thus manifest. It is a state of subjective holiness. We state the characteristic or predominant fact, without reference to the proper distinction between regeneration and entire sanctification. It must be a state of subjective holiness because it is the result of an operation of the Holy Spirit which as the law of nature determine the likeness of the offspring to its parentage.
There is no mystery in this doctrine which should in the least discredit it with any who believe in God. Just what it is in the inner nature of a mineral, a plant, or an animal which determines its peculiar cast, we do not know; but God knows, and it was easy for him to so determine the nature in each. So did he make man, even in his own image; and, after he has fallen into a corrupt state, he can renew him in holiness after his own image. If this is not possible, no agency of God is possible in either creation or providence.
5. Other Forms of Presentation.—Regeneration, or that moral renovation which it represents, is expressed in other forms of thought, but the deeper idea of a moral transformation into the likeness of the divine holiness is ever present. A few instances will answer for illustration; and we shall thus bring other texts into service in setting forth the nature of regeneration.
“Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.”[6] Here is a state of moral corruption and of insensibility to spiritual things. The filthiness and the heart of stone can mean nothing less. Such is the subject of the moral renovation. The renovation is a purification, and the inception of a new spiritual life. Such is the meaning of the sprinkling with clean water, the cleansing, and the new heart and new spirit. Such is the work of regeneration.
“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”[7] To be in Christ, as here expressed, is to be in living union with him. This is the state of an actual salvation, and the same as the regenerate state. To be thus in Christ is to be a new creature, or a new creation. By such a new creation we are transformed into a state of holiness like unto the primitive holiness wherein man was made in the likeness of God. This is the same deep sense of regeneration.
“That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.”[8] The old man is both a corrupt nature and a vicious habit of life. The new man is the opposite in both respects. This is plain from the contrast in which they are placed. It is manifest in the fact that the new man is created in righteousness and true holiness. The old man and the new are such that the former can be put off and the latter put on only through a renewal in the spirit of our mind. This must be a thorough moral transformation. It is such in fact, for it is being created anew in the image of God. This is the same deep truth of regeneration which we found in its representative terms. St. Paul expresses the same truth elsewhere, and in very similar words: “Seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.”[9]