Whatever Happened to Regeneration?
A Baptist Recommitment to the New Birth
In 1976, the presidential campaign of the Southern Baptist Jimmy Carter brought into the popular political lexicon the term “Born again” or “Evangelical” voter. The political press stood baffled by this terminology and struggled to figure out what it meant when someone said they were a “born again Christian.”[1] While the news media can be forgiven for their lack of theological prowess, no excuse can be given for some Baptists and other evangelicals who too often seem ignorant of what makes the new birth so special. With political and cultural winds blowing hard for control and power to achieve some type of external conformity, are we in danger of cheapening the new birth and robbing the glory of God in regeneration?
The confessional tradition of Baptists emphasized the concept of regenerate church membership. In The First London Confession of Faith, the Particular Baptists in the 1640s defined a church as “a company of visible saints, called and separated from the world by the word and Spirit of God, to the visible profession of faith of the gospel. . .”[2] Baptists believed that the church consisted only of those who possessed a credible testimony of the inward work of the Spirit. This meant that the preaching of the gospel and dependence upon the Holy Spirit became a central component in Baptist life. Church growth did not hinge upon families growing. Church growth was a divine work of the Holy Spirit as He added men and women, boys and girls to the body of Christ. Regeneration in Baptist life never was tied to the sacraments nor to physical descendants. The new birth was not something manufactured nor was it the by-product of conducive conditions. Baptist preachers, whether in the streets, the churches, or the prison house, proclaimed without stammer or stutter “Ye must be born again.”
In our current context, there is a spirit moving about that claims to be Baptist yet seems to be a new version of the seeker-sensitive movement. A generation or two ago, a model of doing church centered upon identifying the felt needs and desires of individuals. A church strategy developed then in how to organize a church that catered to often unregenerate men and women. Many in Reformed circles rightly critiqued the pragmatism on steroids that marked church growth models and ministries as replacing the Word and Spirit with cheap trinkets and ploys. Ironically, some of those voices are now following a seeker-sensitive model of culture and politics. Ministries are forming that see cultural bonds as more important than confessional unity. Political slogans and clickbait serve as substitutes for creedal theology. Podcasts that appeal to the gut over the mind replace catechesis. Plain preaching of the gospel, the ordinary means of grace, and the centrality of the local church are not enough. A dismissive tone against “pietism” seems more of an indictment on those who present themselves as magisterial guardians of the Reformed tradition. Tickling itching ears is not only a phenomenon on “the left” but marks some on “the right” as well. The critiques of building churches based on unregenerate cravings were right regardless of whether the unregenerate philosophy suits our cultural desires.
The preaching of the gospel, the emphasis on the new birth, and the church being composed of only the regenerate are a part of the Baptist tradition that sorely needs to be reclaimed. While a state sponsored version of Christianity might be a faster path to “Christianize” a community, it often becomes the vehicle of deception that lulls souls into eternal damnation. Esteemed Baptist historian Tom Nettles rightly explains that Baptist ecclesiology “involves believers’ baptism by immersion, regenerate church membership, liberty of conscience, separation of church and state, and the necessity of gospel proclamation to all persons in all nations.”[3] These tenets of the Baptist faith are not a buffet that one can choose from and leave the others behind. They form a coherent body of truths that all Baptists should seek to recover.
One champion of the Baptist cause who understood how these truths were related was Charles H. Spurgeon (1834-1892). Spurgeon rightly understood the great doctrine of regeneration as well as how a state church suffocated spiritual life. As a Dissenter, Spurgeon experienced Anglican control as well as the threats of Roman Catholic tyranny. In the face of it, Spurgeon did not desire a Baptist or Dissenting state that persecuted its opponents. Spurgeon boldly stated, “The inmost soul of Protestantism is the responsibility of the conscience to God alone, the spiritual nature of true religion, and the freedom of faith from the rule of earthly lords. State-churchism is antichristian, and always ripens into oppression and tyranny wherever opportunity is given it.”[4] Spurgeon’s hope rested not in the dictates of the state but the power of the Holy Spirit.
The tug and the pull of settling for the crumbs of the cultural table is not going away. As Baptists feel pressure to strive for power and authority, let us remember that the power is not found in the might of man or the wisdom of the world. The power lies in the new birth and that preaching which calls souls to Christ. Let us stand with Spurgeon and a host of others who never got over the fact that they were born again. Churches witnessing new souls born into the kingdom is far more extraordinary than any vibe shifts in our nation.
[1] See https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/podcasts/gospelbound/the-election-of-the-evangelical/
[2] See Article 33 in https://nobts.edu/baptist-center-theology/confessions/First_London_Baptist_Confession_of_Faith_1646.pdf
[3] Tom Nettles, The Baptists: Volume One – Beginnings in Britain (Christian Focus Publications: Ross-shire, Scotland, 2005), 44.
[4] C.H. Spurgeon, “The Inquisition,” in The Sword and Trowel (Passamore & Alabaster: London, August 1968), 342.
Good stuff, Jake!
The term "Regeneration" has had a broader range of meaning throughout reformation tradition, often linking it with baptism, which stands against the neocalvinist understanding, which sees regeneration as an invisible, internal change of heart.
Here's what Calvin, in his response to the Counsel of Trent, wrote:
"That this may be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a two-fold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made, but that regeneration is only begun, and goes on making progress during the whole of life."