The Fallacies of Moral Government Theology- Part V

(modern Finneyism)
 

Charles G. Finney & Regeneration - Part A

by Leon Stump

We have been examining the theology of the renowned nineteenth century evangelist Charles G. Finney, especially on some of the most central subjects in Christianity-justification by faith, the atonement, and now, regeneration. We have seen that his theology revolves around moral responsibility. According to him, man is not born with a sinful nature; he has in his natural state the ability to keep the moral law of God faultlessly. Virtue or righteousness consists only in the keeping of the moral law of God, therefore the atonement of Christ was not an exchange in which the sinless victim bore the sins of the guilty so that righteousness might be imputed to the believing sinner as a result, but merely a demonstration of "public justice," acting as a deterrent to sin and motivating men to repent and obey the moral law of God. Seeing that there is a vital connection between all these subjects, it is not surprising that Finney's view of the new birth is also influenced by his core emphasis upon moral responsibility. Since he rejects the idea of a sinful nature in man, there is no change of nature in regeneration because there is no need for it. For him the new birth is only an act of the will in which, under the moral influence of the Holy Spirit, a man turns from sin and begins to live a life of righteousness. According to him, nothing is imparted to man in the new birth that he did not possess naturally. All of man's faculties remain unchanged in their nature; they are only redirected away from selfishness to a better end: obedience to God.

In his Systematic Theology, Finney follows his two chapters on the atonement with four on regeneration (chapters 23-26). Most of his remarks on the subject are in refutation of the "Old School" Presbyterian or Calvinistic view which prevailed in large areas of the country in his day. The Calvinists taught that regeneration and conversion were not the same and that regeneration preceded conversion. According to their theological system, man was totally depraved, unable in his natural state even to respond to the gospel without first being quickened to new life by a sovereign act of the Holy Spirit. In other words, a man could not repent and believe the gospel (be converted) until he was first quickened (regenerated) by the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit quickened only those who were predestined by God's choice in eternity past to be saved. Preachers of this persuasion, including Finney's own pastor, would preach on the new birth and conversion, repentance and saving faith, but always add that unless the person was elected to salvation, then regeneratid and thus given the ability to repent and believe, all efforts of his own towards salvation were useless. People were counseled to do absolutely nothing until God first sovereignly quickened tlwm by the Holy Spirit. Lying in this totally passive state as so many thousands were, few conversions took place (at least in tlwse churches).

Finney had joined the church primarily out of social and business concerns. (At this time, unconverted people were allowed to join the church provided they lived a good moral life, in the hope that they would at some indefinite future time be converted.) But soon Finney became genuinely concerned about his soul. He rejected the Calvinistic notions as contrary to reason, unworthy of God's justice, and unscriptural. He determined, contrary to the counsel to remain passive, that he would actively seek God for his salvation. Soon he was gloriously saved, and the account of his conversion stands as one of the all time classics. This confirmed and strengthened his opposition to the Calvinistic model, and he began to exhort those desiring salvation to cease putting off their conversion until some indefinite future time of God's choosing and to actively seek the Lord instead and to repent and believe the gospel.

There can be no doubt that the old Calvinistic view of regeneration is serious error. Many precious souls died in their sins falsely believing that it was entirely up to God when if ever they should be converted. The plain language of Scripture and the practice of the apostles in the book of Acts is decidedly against this. Finney, however, in his reaction to Calvinism, swung just as clearly into error on the opposite side. All of our quotations of his views on regeneration are taken from Finney's Systematic Theology; Bethany House Publishers: Minneapolis,MN; abridged in 1976 from Finney's Lectures on Systematic Theology, 1846-7.

He writes:

Regeneration is the term used by some theologians to express the divine agency in changing the heart. With them regeneration does not include and imply the activity of the subject, but rather excludes it. These theologians, as will be seen in its place, hold that a change of heart is first effected by the Holy Spirit while the subject is passive, which lays a foundation for the exercise, by the subject, of repentance, faith, and love. The term conversion with them expresses the activity and turning of the subject, after regeneration is effected by the Holy Spirit.. .. With them the Holy Spirit first regenerates or changes the heart, after which the sinner turns or converts himself.. .. Thus the subject is passive in regeneration, but active in conversion. When we come to the examination of the philosophical theories of regeneration, we shall see that the views of these theologians respecting regeneration result naturally and necessarily from their holding the dogma of constitutional moral depravity .... (p.218)

First, I want to note that what Finney says in his last sentence about the Calvinistic view of regeneration is equally true of his own views on it-they "result naturally and necessarily from [his] holding" on the other hand "the dogma of constitutional moral [neutrality]." Finney continues:

III. The objections to this distinction [of the Calvinists between regeneration and conversion] .... Regeneration is, in the Bible, the same as the new birth. To be born again is the same thing, in the Bible use of the term, as to have a new heart, to be a new creature, to pass from death unto life. In other words, to be born again is to have a new moral character, to become holy .... [T]he term regeneration, or the being born of God, is designed to express primarily and principally the thing done, that is, the making of a sinner holy, and expresses also the fact that God's agency induces the change .... (p.219)

Well, so far, so good, except for the statement, ''To be born again is to have a new moral character." There is no doubt, according to the apostle John in his first epistle, that the new birth produces a change in moral behavior, but this new moral behavior or character is not the new birth. It is plain from the term itself that the new birth is an event, but according to Finney, it is rather but having of a new moral character which he goes on to define as obedience to the law of God:

It has been objected, that the term [regeneration] really means and expresses only the Divine agency; and, only by way of implication, embraces the idea of a change of moral character and of course of activity in the subject. To this I reply- .... The thing which the agency of God brings about, is a new or spiritual rebirth, a resurrection from spiritual death, the inducing of a new and holy life ... .It is nonsense to affirm that his moral character is changed without any activity or agency of his own. Passive holiness is impossible. Holiness (p.219) is obedience to the law of God, the law of love, and of course consists in the activity of the creature. (p.220)

You see that Finney confuses on going behavior with an event. They cannot by definition be the same. He argues that since holiness is active obedience, that is, it requires the activity of the subject, it must follow that activity on the part of the subject is necessary in the new birth. But this does not at all follow logically; in fact it is just what he charges as nonsense. He continues:

We have said that regeneration is synonymous, in the Bible, with a new heart. But sinners are required to make to themselves a new heart, which they could not do, if they were not active in this change .... (p.220)

Finney refers here, as he often did in preaching to sinners, to Ezekiel 18:31-

30. Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, everyone according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. 31. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, 0 house of Israel? 32. For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye. (Ezekiel 18:30-32, KJV)

This is followed eighteen chapters later by the promise and prophecy-

24. For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. 25. 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. 26. 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 an heart of flesh. 27. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. 28. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God. (Ezekiel 36:24-28,KJV)

In the first passage the people are told to make themselves a new heart, and in the second God says that He will do this. The easiest way to harmonize these two statements would be to say simply, as Finney does, that both the subject and God are active in regeneration. But this would be an oversimplification. The New Testament brings much more to light on regeneration than was ever typified or prophesied in the Old. Our final word on the precise nature of regeneration must be sought and found in the New Testament alone. The same is true of justification by faith and a whole host of other Bible doctrines. However they may be prophesied, represented, or alluded to in the Old Testament, they are brought to full light only in the New. Nevertheless, in a sense we do "make ourselves a new heart and a new spirit"-we must, as the context of Ezekiel 18:31 shows is meant, repent. Sandwiched between "make yourselves a new heart" (v.31) is "repent, and turn yourselves" (v.30) and "turn yourselves" (v.32).

Repentance and regeneration do occur together or nearly together. Repentance begins with conviction of and sorrow for sin and continues sometimes a while before and leading up to regeneration; nevertheless, repentance and regeneration are not strictly the same thing, as I will demonstrate as we go along. Finney makes no distinction between the two, which is the grand mistake underlying his whole discussion. He continues:

Regeneration is ascribed to man in the gospel, which it could not be, if the term were designed to express only the agency of the Holy Spirit. "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel."-l Cor.iv.15 ... .It is ascribed to the word of God-"The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple."-Ps.xix.7. To man. "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." -- James v.19,20. Both conversion and regeneration are sometimes in the Bible ascribed to God, sometimes to man, and sometimes to the subject; which shows clearly that the distinction under examination is arbitrary and theological, rather than biblical. The fact is, that both terms imply the simultaneous exercise of the human and Divine agency. The fact that a new heart is the thing done demonstrates the activity of the subject; and the word regeneration, or the expression "born of the Holy Spirit," asserts the Divine agency. The same is true of conversion, or the turning of the sinner to God. God is said to turn him and he is said to turn himself. God draws him, and he follows.' In both alike God and man are both active, and their activity is simultaneous. God works or draws, and the sinner yields or turns, or which is the same thing, changes his heart, or in other words, is born again. The sinner is dead in trespasses and sins. God calls on him, "Arise thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light."-Eph.v.14. God calls; the sinner hears and answers, Here am 1. God says, Arise from the dead. The sinner puts forth his activity, and God draws him into life; or rather, God draws, and the sinner comes forth to life. (p.220) The distinction set up [between regeneration and conversion] is not only not recognized in the Bible, but is plainly of most injurious tendency, for two reasons:- (i.) It assumes and inculcates a false philosophy of depravity and regeneration. (ii.) It leads the sinner to wait to be regenerated, before he repents or turns to God. It is of most fatal tendency to represent the sinner as under a necessity of waiting to be passively regenerated, before he gives himself to God ....

The fact that Paul says he begot the Corinthians (as well as Philemon, v.10) through the gospel does not mean there are other agents besides God in regeneration. All this means is that God uses human vessels. By preaching the gospel to them through the power of the Holy Spirit, Paul was simply the instrument through which God worked to bring about their regeneration. In this sense alone they were "his children" but not in the proper and strict sense. God remains the sole Agent and true Father in regeneration. As for Finney's point that the Word of God is also an agent in regeneration, it is true that, "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures" (James 1:18, KJV). But note again that God is the only true agent in regeneration. He works by His Word and His Spirit in regeneration, but these are not additional agents. Psalm 119:7, which Finney cites in support, ''The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.. .. ," does not refer to regeneration at all; neither does James 5:19,20, " ... he that converteth a sinner from the error of his ways," etc. James refers to a straying believer being restored, not an unbeliever: the first part of verse 19 reads, "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him .... " Secondly, James 5:18,19 uses the terms "convert" and "converteth," not regeneration. Finney's logic and method is faulty. He throws verses referring to regeneration and conversion together. He merely assumes they are the same; he does not show that they are. He says, "Both conversion and regeneration are sometimes in the Bible ascribed to God, sometimes to man, and sometimes to the subject; which shows clearly that the distinction under examination is arbitrary and theological, rather than biblical." He does not conclusively demonstrate that regeneration is sometimes ascribed to man, as our treatment of Ezekiel 18:31 and I Corinthians 4: 15, the only evidence he offers in support, shows. But besides this, even if he could demonstrate that both conversion and regeneration are sometimes ascribed to God and sometimes to man, this would not at all prove that they are the same thing. He makes a simple error in logic. Two different things may be alike in some respects but different in others.

It is not difficult to establish from Scripture that even though regeneration and conversion are related, they are not the same thing. All of the occurrences of the words denoting regeneration in the New Testament-regeneration, born, born again, begotten, etc.-are renderings of some form of the basic Greek verb gennao, "to beget," and the corresponding noun genesis, "birth." And from all these occurrences as well as from reason itself, one thing is abundantly clear: giving birth is an action that by definition cannot be performed on oneself. One can be the subject of a birth, or he can be the agent in another's birth, that is, give birth to another, but one can never be an active agent in one's own birth. This alone would seem to destroy Finney's contention to the contrary. One can be born or begotten (gennao in the passive voice), that is, be the subject of the new birth, but never the agent of his own new birth. The case is quite different with the group of words in the New Testament denoting "conversion"-"converted," "convert," etc. They are renderings of some form of the Greek word strepho, "to turn." Part of the confusion concerning whether there is a difference between regeneration and conversion is due to the fact that the word "conversion" has attained specialized theological uses and meanings today that it probably does not carry in the New Testament. The term "conversion" is popularly used today as a synonym for regeneration. The Puritans (Calvinists) used "conversion," as Finney notes, for a process following regeneration that included repentance and faith and related actions. But for quite some time now the common practice in theology has been to retain the term "conversion" to denote the overall process of a person's coming to God including repentance, faith, justification, and regeneration. "Regeneration" is reserved for that specific act of God in which He by His Word and Spirit imparts the new principle of life to the person who repents and believes. Thus it is quite right to speak of the subject as active in conversion passive in regeneration. In the act or event of regeneration itself, he remains passive. It is something that happens to him, not something he does. It is not the same with repentance and believing. These the subject, assisted by the Spirit, certainly does himself. The insistence that one must be regenerated before he is converted, however, has been abandoned by everyone but true Calvinists.

The New Testament does not use the term "conversion" in any of these modern senses. For this reason, to avoid confusion, it might be better if the Greek word were simply translated in its ordinary meaning, "to turn." Strepho denotes the literal action of turning, to which various prefixes are .added for the kind of turning referred to. In Mark 5:30, "Jesus turned around [epistrepho] in the crowd;" in Matthew 5:39 Jesus taught that we should "turn the other cheek." Strepho with the prefix apo- means "turn away;" with dio- "turn aside;" with epi- "turn towards or from;" with hupo- "turned back;" ektrepo is "turned from;" peritrepo is "turned about." It is a form of the word strepho that is used for "conversion" in the New Testament -- epistrepho (verb) and epistrophe (noun) -- Matthew 13:15; 18:3; Mark 4:12; Luke 22:32; John 12:40; Acts 3:19; 28:27; James 5:19. Instead of "conversion" it would be helpful to read, "turning." As we said, the action of begetting must be limited to begetting someone or something other than one's self or a state of having been begotten. But not so with the action of turning. You can turn yourself, turn someone or something else, or be turned by another. All of these aspects of turning are found in the New Testament both as physical or mental action and "conversion." It is evident, therefore, from the very nature of the words for regeneration and conversion that they are not the same.

Another difference is that in the New Testament, regeneration is reserved for unbelievers, but conversion may be used of either unbelievers or believers. Conversion is a more general term while regeneration is more specific-the event in which God imparts a new principle of life into the spirit, the beginning of the Christian life. Conversion may be repeated but regeneration is a one time event. There is very little difference between "conversion" as it is used in the New Testament (as well as the Old) and repentance. It is a turning to God away from sin. Those, then, who make a distinction between regeneration and conversion have sufficient grounds for doing so, while Finney, who makes them the same, does not.

Finney says, "The fact that a new heart is the thing done demonstrates the activity of the subject." Only if you accept his prior definition that the heart is the will. "God works or draws, and the sinner yields or turns, or which is the same thing, changes his heart, or in other words, is born again." No; God works or draws, and the sinner yields or turns [that is, repents], but the changing of the heart is more than this. It is the impartation of a new principle of life within, and this is the work of God alone. Finney winds up saying that the sinner "changes his heart, or is born again." This would mean, in effect, that the sinner regenerates himself which is as much a spiritual as it is a physical impossibility by the very definition of the term "born." To adopt Finney's own language, it is an absurdity. Finney is right that the sinner is active, not passive as the Calvinists claim, in coming to God, that is, responding to the call of the gospel, turning from sin, and believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. And in this sense he "arises from the dead." But the actual impartation of life does not and cannot come from himself for the simple reason that he does not have that life-only God and Christ have it. It is "God who is rich in mercy, [who] made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions ... " (Ephesians 2:5). The act of regeneration itself is the prerogative of God alone. The response that leads or brings one to that event is indeed partly man's and partly God's. Finney's conclusion in the above section must be reversed: the distinction set up between regeneration and conversion is recognized in the Bible and is not "plainly of most injurious tendency" if one discards the Calvinistic order of regeneration first, then conversion (repentance and faith), and instead recognizes that men do repent and believe (with Divine assistance) in order to be regenerated by God. The "false philosophy of depravity" (i.e., that men are incapable of responding to the gospel, and therefore must wait for regeneration before they can be converted) is the peculiar fault of Calvinism and is not that of the Biblical distinction between regeneration and conversion. Once again we are beginning to see what we have seen all along as the fatal weakness in Finney's positions-he did not have to swing all the way out of the Bible on his Pelagianistic vine to counter the false notions of Calvinism. He would have been much better off sticking to Scripture and not leaning so much on natural reasoning in his reaction. He could have arrived at the same place, rejecting and defeating Calvinism, without negating Scripture in the process.

Finney continues:

IV. What regeneration is not. It is not a change in the substance of soul or body. (If it were, sinners could not be required to effect it.) Such a change would not constitute a change of moral character. No such change is needed, as the sinner has all the faculties and natural attributes requisite to render perfect obedience to God. All he needs is to be induced to use these powers and attributes as he ought. The words conversion and regeneration do not imply any change of substance, but only a change of moral state or of moral character. The terms are not used to express a physical, but a moral change. Regeneration does not express or imply the creation of any new faculties or attributes of nature, nor any change whatever in the constitution of body or mind .... (p.222)

First, Finney says regeneration must not be a change in the substance of soul or body because sinners are required to effect it. But we have already noted that sinners do not effect regeneration itself properly speaking, only God (albeit through human agents who preach the gospel). Second, he says a change in substance of soul or body would not constitute a change of moral character. But as we noted, by saying this Finney confuses regeneration (an single event in time) with ongoing moral behavior over time. Because nothing except behavior can be moral, he reasons, the new birth must be effected by the sinner himself as a moral act. This is really goofy. At any rate, by these "arguments" (which are really only bare assertions), he by no means destroys the possibility that the new birth, while it may not be a moral change in itself, may indeed be such a change in the soul or spirit that it produces or leads to holiness.

Next, he displays his blatant Pelagianism, as we covered in our first articles on his views of the Fall of man and justification. "No such change [of the substance of soul or body] is needed, for the sinner has all the faculties and natural attributes requisite to render perfect obedience to God. All he needs is to be induced to use these powers and attributes as he ought." But is this really what the Bible teaches about the sinner? We were by nature the children of wrath (Ephesians 2:4). The flesh is enmity against God for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be, so that those who are in the flesh cannot please God (Romans 8:7,8). There is a "law" of sin in our members which, in the case of Paul, though he delighted in the law of God in his inward man, he nevertheless was a captive of sin (Romans 7:22,23). He needed more than to be induced to use his faculties rightly, he needed the deliverance that came through Jesus Christ (Romans 7:25), that is, regeneration by the infusion of a new principle of life, replacing the former law of sin and death (Romans 8:2), -deliverance from the law of sin through death and resurrection with Christ (Romans 6), and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9). Now if language means anything at all, this is far more than mere inducement to using our faculties rightly. Inducement to use one's faculties rightly would not be a moral reformation such as was already available under the law and not a new birth at all. New Testament regeneration is far more than this.

Finney adds, ''The words conversion and regeneration do not imply any change of substance, but only a change of moral state or of moral character." Actually the word "regeneration" itself (setting aside conversion in the light of our former comments) implies no such thing. He does not derive this from any knowledge of the meaning of the word itself but imposes this meaning upon it from his already established conclusions about the nature of regeneration. And, once again, he confuses an event (regeneration) with on going behavior. Regeneration expresses a spiritual change that issues in a moral change. In fact, there is evidence that the word "regeneration" does indeed imply a change of substance. J.V. Bartlet writes concerning the Greek word for regeneration, palingenesia:

This word is not found in [the Septuagint], but it has a history in Classical and Hellenistic Greek, being used mainly in the figurative sense of complete renovation ... .It is this idea of restoration to pristine state that meets us in the nearest. equivalent to the term found in the [Septuagint, Job 14:14, "If a man dies, will he live again? All the days of my hard service I will wait for my renewal to come."][referring to the change or renewal which would come to him in the resurrection] .... Hence, on the whole, [palingenesia], in non-biblical usage seems to denote a restoration of a lost state of well-being, amounting to recreation or renovation. (A Dictionary of the Bible, edited by James Hastings; Charles Scribner's Sons: NY; 1909; "Regeneration," Vol. IV, p.214)

Jesus used this word for regeneration in Matthew 19:28 for the millennial kingdom (or, alternatively, the final state) when the world will be renewed or restored from its present state and condition. Evidently, a far more complete and dramatic change is implied in the very term for regeneration than Finney is willing to allow.

The New International Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, another standard theological work, says of palingenesia ("regeneration"):

In every day speech it denotes various kinds of renewal: the return or restoration of something, return to former circumstances, termination of captivity, restoration to health following a birth or illness .... Among the Stoics it was a concept used in a cosmic context. The cosmos would periodically perish through a world-conflagration ... and then arise in a rebirth .... [It] was also used to express the rebirth of individuals in a new cosmic age ... .In the mystery religions of the Helenistic [Greek] period the idea of rebirth occupied a large place .... represented in a dramatic way in which the initiate ... took part [in the death and resurrection of their deity] thus sharing in the life-giving and renewing power of their deity. Rebirth is a renewal to a higher, divine existence. The old history of religions school [of the 1800's] tried to relate the rebirth in Titus 3:5 to the influence of the mystery religions. But ... the connection is very much disputed. However, it cannot be denied that NT language at this point presents certain parallels to the mystery religions. (Colin Brown, editor; Zondervan: Grand Rapids,MI; 1978, Vol. 1, p.184)

Finney adds, "Regeneration does not express or imply ... any change whatever in the constitution of body or mind .... " Surely this is going way too far. The age to come, termed "regeneration" by Christ, will surely be characterized by a change in the constitution of the whole world [e.g., "the desert shall rejoice and blossom as the rose" (Isaiah 35:1)]. When used of the spiritual rebirth of individuals, therefore, "regeneration" cannot mean anything less than a change of constitution. And again, Finney's statement is a bare assertion, not an "argument" as such. It is arguing in a circle--offering as evidence of the truth of a proposal the proposal itself. There surely is, contrary to his claim, something in the term itself that more than implies, but expresses a change in the constitution of something.

We find at this point in Finney's comments on regeneration exactly what we found regarding justification and the atonement. He speaks of these things and discusses them as though he merely has a different view of them than is commonly held, but in reality he destroys justification by faith, the atonement, and regeneration. For him there are actually no such things. For instance, his views on regeneration are identical to repentance. If regeneration were never spoken of in the Bible, if there were no such thing as regeneration, the Finney system of salvation would not suffer one whit. Everything he wants to say about salvation he can explain in terms of repentance and the moral influence of the Holy Spirit.

I have read in writers other than Finney and those of his stripe the assertion that in regeneration there is no change in the constitution or substance of the soul or spirit, and I must say I take issue with it. Regeneration is the displacement of the law of sin and death with the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:2). It is the creation of a new man in righteousness and true holiness (Ephesians 4:24). This righteousness and holiness is nothing more nor less than the Person and Presence of Christ within us Whom God made to be our righteousness and holiness (1 Corinthians 1:30). Regeneration brings us into union with Christ in our spirits (1 Corinthians 6:17). Now, how can we have a new principle of life imparted to us, the very resurrection life of Christ Himself (Ephesians 2:5), be recreated in righteousness and true holiness and become the workmanship of God in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:10), become new creations in which old things pass away and all things become new (2 Corinthians 5: 17), come into union with Christ in spirit and have Him dwelling within us as part of us and we a part of Him (John 15:4,5), and all this not constitute a change in the substance of our souls or spirits? But the "clincher" is this statement by John in his first epistle:

No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. (1 John 3:9)

The apostle John is a true authority on the subject of regeneration, referring to it more than any other writer. According to him, being born again means that something of God is deposited in the believer that remains a part of him. How can this not be a change in the substance of the soul or spirit? What is this "seed" that remains in him? Actually, as far as our present point is concerned, it doesn't matter. Some have said the "seed of God" is Christ Himself (a la 5:20 and Galatians 3: 16); others, that it is the Word of God (a la 2:14 and Matthew 8 and Mark 4, the parable of the sower). I am rather inclined, with many others still, to think that John is extending the metaphor from natural birth. Just as in natural generation, the seed of the father is the passing on of his genetical characteristics to his offspring, so it is with the spiritual rebirth from God. Something of His own nature and heredity is imparted to us in regeneration and because He is righteous and holy, the one who is born of Him and has His seed remaining in him cannot go on sinning. Regardless of the meaning of "seed" in 1 John 3:9, it is something foreign to man in his natural state, something added to his constitution bringing a change therein, contrary to what Finney so confidently asserts. Something besides what we possess as natural characteristics is indeed imparted to us in regeneration, a real change in the substance of the soul or spirit.

Judging from the length of what I have to say in response to Finney on regeneration, I have no choice but to break it off here and continue next time. Hang on to this issue, as we will not take up a lot of space next time repeating what we have written here. If any of you are not certain that you have been born again, I sincerely pray that you will repent of all your sins and receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior so that you can experience for yourself what it means to be a child of God.
 

Until next time, God bless.
Leon Stump, Pastor of Victory Christian Center

Go to: Part B / Charles G. Finney & Regeneration