Terminological Changes

Some theologians point out that the term ‘regeneration’ was used in the 16thC to encompass sanctification. This is true. They argue that this term has been narrowed so as to only speak of conversion. One of my criticisms of some, not all, FV writers is that they use terms that, in our context, are open to possible misunderstanding. This can be (notice I said “can be” not “is”) pastorally insensitive. For example, the term “baptismal regeneration” has different connotations today than it did in the 16thC (see below). We need to be careful, especially as Pastors, that we use phrases that do not leave readers/hearers confused. You may be an authority on 16thC theology and know the various respective terms used in the 16thC. But don’t go and use terms on people who can’t appreciate your vast learning. There’s a very good reason for why the term “regeneration” came to be more narrowly defined. The reason is given below.

In the case of regeneration, it is not so much a matter of wholesale revision, but rather one of emphasis. Calvin had a broader understanding of the term than later Reformed theologians. This change took place in reaction to the claims of Arminius and his followers; hence, we see in the Canons of Dordt a particular emphasis on the “one-time” monergistic work of the Spirit in order to combat the Arminians who were happy with much of Calvin’s language, but not happy with the irresistability of the Spirit which had been a hallmark of Reformed orthodoxy.

Beginning with the Swiss Reformers, the word has become more narrow in its scope. Calvin certainly understood the idea to signify more than an aspect of the ordo salutis. For him, it incorporated many aspects of the whole Christian life (Institutes, III.3.9). Hodge remarked that “Calvin gives the term its widest scope” (Systematic Theology, 3.3). That is not to say, of course, that Calvin denies the doctrine as it has been typically understood; that is, as an instantaneous “bringing to life from the dead”. For example, Calvin writes: “[The Spirit] regenerates us and makes us to be new creatures” (Institutes, II.2.27). But he was not content with such a narrow view of the doctrine. Regeneration is akin to sanctification insofar as “it is a renewal of the divine image in us” (Ibid, III.17.5). Importantly, though he understands regeneration to encompass sanctification, “God only regenerates the elect with incorruptible seed forever” (Ibid, II.13.2).

The doctrine of regeneration was also clearly linked with baptism. But there is a definite distinction between the sign and the thing signified. Calvin writes: “We put on Christ in baptism … for all the gifts of God proffered in baptism are found in Christ alone … But we obtain regeneration by Christ’s death and resurrection only if we are sanctified by the Spirit and imbued with a new spiritual nature” (Ibid, IV.15.6). Bucer, however, writes in a way that would make many of my Southern Presbyterian friends shudder: “[when baptism is] given and received according to the Lord’s command, [it] is in the case of adults and of young children truly a baptism of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, whereby those who are baptized have all their sins washed away …” (Common Places, 84). Bucer was not necessarily a sacramentalist however. He believed faith is necessary for the efficacy of baptism (Ibid, 320). But the important point is that Bucer uses the term differently than I would today, though I think I can appreciate what he is saying.

Because regeneration had a broader scope among Calvin than some of his later followers, the texts he adduces in support are conspicuously missing from later Reformed dogmaticians (see Ps. 15:2; 51:10; 86:2; 100:3; Jer. 31:31-33; Ez. 11:19-20; Matt. 12:33; Jn. 1:13; 8:36; 15:5; Rom. 6:1-4; 1 Cor. 2:12; 4:15; ). This is admittedly hard to prove, but we note that certain texts become more prominent and others fall into the background (see Van Maastricht’s work on Regeneration where he uses John 3 as his locus classicus).

There is also a good deal of evidence that the early English Puritans (I’m using this term very loosely) had a very elastic view of regeneration. Perkins, for example, understood John 3:5 to incorporate sanctification (Foundation of Christian Religion, 278).

The narrowing of the term was a result of the theological controversies that led up to the Synod of Dordt in the early seventeenth century. The Arminians used Reformed language in describing their views, but they denied explicitly the irresistibility of the Spirit’s work; rather, it was “a gentle advising”. They were happy with Calvin’s language regarding regeneration as it pertained to the Christian life, but they were not happy with the Reformed view of “irresistibility”. Maccovius was responsible for restricting the term regeneration, which had hitherto been more elastic in meaning, in order to uphold a monergistic view of the Spirit’s working (see Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit, 293). From this point on, the Reformed doctrine of regeneration was, in a sense, distinguished from sanctification while at the same time it was understood that one necessarily led to the other.

So, there’s no great theological point to be made by suggesting that ‘regeneration’ encompasses sanctification. The more important point is to understand what the writer means in his specific theological context. A lot of historical-theological blunders are made in scholarship because of anachronisms. The same is true for the covenants of redemption and works.