Mediate Regeneration

Some concluding thoughts (see also here and here) on Stuart Olyott's article in the Banner Magazine for December 2009 entitled Where Luther Got It Wrong - and Why We need To Know about It. I especially want to focus on his claim that the doctrine of "mediate regeneration" as he calls it will be the ruin of gospel work in the UK. Why does he take issue with the idea that the Word is the instrument by which the Spirit brings a person to new life in Christ? We start with his proposed definition of the new birth,

"Regeneration is a supernatural enlightenment of the human soul brought about by the direct and immediate energy of the Holy Spirit working within that soul. There is nothing 'mediate' about it. It is not brought about by some influence or instruction from outside, but by the implanting of new spiritual life inside." (p. 26)

This statement is typical of what might be found in the standard works of Reformed systematic theology. Olyott stresses the unmediated character of regeneration in order to safeguard the sovereignty of the Spirit. He wants to avoid any suggestion that the Word inhrently contains the Spirit's saving power. But is it right to suggest that regeneration is ordinarily an immediate act of the Spirit apart from the instrumentality of the Word? Part of the problem is that the discourse of systematic theology is not always the same as that of the Bible itself. Systematics in its drive for conceptual clarity can sometimes ride roughshod over the differing nuances of the biblical material. Regeneration, or being born again is sometimes described in the Bible as a work of the Spirit without mention of the instrumentality of the Word. The classic passage is John 3:3-8. But this is not the whole story. Other texts attribute the new birth to God working by his Word, James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23. Olyott is aware of this and addresses the issue in his article. He suggests (p. 28) that these verses are "not [about] the act of germination (where new life comes into being) but to the moment of birth (where a new life becomes visible)." But I'm not sure that such a distinction can be justified. Biblical writers use a variety of terminology to refer to the same saving event. In the Gospel According to John Jesus speaks of being "born again" (John 3:3, 8), Paul writes, "if anyone is in Christ he is a new creation" (2 Corinthians 5:17), he teaches that the dead in sin are "made alive" (Ephesians 2:5), and uses the language of "regeneration" (Titus 3:5). In each case Scripture is referring to God's great work of bringing the dead in sin to new life in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Also, take Peter's teaching on the new birth in his First Epistle. In 1 Peter 1:3, we read that "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ...has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead". This stands in parallel with what Paul says in Ephesians 2:4-5, where God makes those who were dead in sin alive together with Christ. In neither case is the Word explicitly mentioned as an instrument of regeneration. However, Peter uses the same Greek word in 1 Peter 1:3 (translated "begotten again" NKJV) and 1 Peter 1:23 (translated "born again" NKJV). Note that in the latter text we read, "having been born again... through the word of God". The word is the "incorruptible seed...which lives and abides forever". This "word" is identified with the gospel that was originally preached to Peter's readers, 1 Peter 1:23-25. For Peter the Word of the gospel is clearly the means by which God begets us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Reformed systematic theology needs to be revised to take this fact into account (see John Murray's attempt to do this in The Collected Works of John Murray Volume 2, Banner of Truth Trust, p. 196-198).

Now, Olyott knows that regeneration ordinarily takes place in the context where the Word of God is proclaimed (p 27), but he denies that the Word is the means by which the Holy Spirit regenerates people. But from what we have just seen in 1 Peter, the gospel does not simply provide the context in which the new birth takes place. We are born again "through the word of God". Of course, this does not mean that the Word in itself contains the saving power of the Spirit. The Word is only an instrument of the regenerating power of God. But it is just that. Is regeneration any the less a monergistic act of God if he uses his own Word to bring those who are dead in sin to new life in Christ by the power of the Spirit?

Sinclair Ferguson comments helpfully on this,

"For the New Testament writers, however, there is not hint of a threat to divine sovereignty in the fact that the word is the instrumental cause of regeneration, while the Spirit is the efficient cause. This is signalled in the New Testament by the use of the preposition ek to indicate the divine originating cause (e.g. Jn. 3:5; 1 Jn. 3:9; 5:1) and dia to express the instrumental cause (e.g. Jn 15:3; 1 Cor 4:15; 1 Peter 1:23).

"Since the Spirit's work in regeneration involves the transformation of the whole man, including his cognitive and affective powers, the accompanying of the internal illumination of the Spirit by the external revelation of the word (and vice versa) is altogether appropriate. Since faith involves knowledge, it ordinarily emerges in relationship to the teaching of the gospel found in Scripture. Regeneration and the faith to which it gives birth are seen as taking place not by revalationless divine sovereignty, but within the matrix of the preaching of the word and the witness of the people of God (cf. Rom. 10:1-15). Their instrumentality in regeneration does not impinge upon the sovereign activity of the Spirit. Word and Spirit belong together." (Contours of Christian Theology: The Holy Spirit, Sinclair B. Ferguson, IVP, 1996, p. 125-126).

The big issue then is not "mediate regeneration". It is how we construe the relationship between Word and Spirit in the preaching of the gospel. I have enormous respect for Olyott and agree with the main burden of his piece. He is right to point out that Spirit's power is not so tied to the Word that the Word in effect contains the saving power of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is sovereign and his use of the Word is subject to variation as he pleases. We cannot therefore take his power for granted. Rather, we need to plead with God that the proclamation of the gospel of Christ will be accompanied by the empowering presence of the Spirit, Acts 4:31, 1 Corinthians 2:1-5. Failure to grasp this will lead to preaching being seen as little more than a well-delivered exposition of the Bible. Such an outlook will indeed have a damaging effect on gospel work in this country. The New Testament presents an altogether more dynamic picture of the relationship between Word and Spirit in preaching. The Spirit’s empowering presence enables preachers to proclaim the Lord Jesus with boldness, liberty and life-transforming effectiveness. His presence makes preaching an event where the God of the gospel is encountered in all the fullness of his grace and power. That is the crying need of the church and the world today. We should give God no rest until we know more of what it means to preach the gospel with the Holy Spirit sent from heaven.

Word and Spirit

The main point of Stuart Olyott's article in the Banner Magazine for December 2009 entitled Where Luther Got It Wrong - and Why We need To Know about It is to criticize the doctrine of "mediate regeneration". Apparently this teaching stands poised to "soon take us over completely" and if it does so, "gospel work in the country will be ruined." (p. 26). What is this pernicious doctrine? Olyott offers a definition,

"when the Holy Spirit transforms somebody into a new creature in Christ, he uses an instrument to bring this about. That instrument is the Word - the Holy Scriptures. The work of the Spirit is so intimately tied to his instrument, that we can say that the Word of God actually contains the converting power of the Holy Spirit. If you let the Word loose, you are letting the Holy Spirit loose." (p. 26).

I wonder whether Olyott has slightly oversated his case here? What he says in the first two sentences of the quote, that the Spirit works by the instrumentality of the Word does not necessarily imply what is said in the remainder of the citation. It is perfectly legitimate to hold that the Spirit ordinarily works by and with the Word in granting sinners new life in Christ. Indeed, some Scriptures seem to teach this, for example James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23. But this does not necessarily mean that the Holy Spirit always works in the same way and with the same effect so that, "If you let the Word loose, you are letting the Spirit loose." According to Charles Hodge this is how Lutherans tended to describe the relationship between Word and Spirit. The Princeton theologian argued that this construction is both unbiblical and detrimental to church life, see here. Perhaps it was with this in mind that Olyott took exception to the Luther saying with regard to the Reformation, "I did nothing: I left it to the Word." Although as I pointed out in a previous post, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the Reformer's statement in itself.

However, I believe Olyott is right to raise an alarm that Lutheran-type teaching is gaining ground in Reformed circles. It is believed by some that all that is needed is for preachers to teach the Bible for Holy Spirit to work. Consequently there is no need for men to pray for a special empowering of the Spirit when they preach. Spirit and Word are so indissolubly tied together that whenever the Bible is taught the Spirit's power is invariably active. However, this is quite wrong. The Holy Spirit is a sovereign divine Person who works by and with the Word as he pleases. He is not a prisoner of the Word, but its Master. In some instances he may even work apart from the Word, see here. To quote Paul, what we need is a kind of preaching that is "not in word only, but also in power, in the Holy Spirit and much assurance" (1 Thessalonians 1:5 - emphasis added).

Of course in a sense the Holy Spirit is always at work when the Word is preached. Our authority is "the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture" (WCF I:X). Whenever the Bible is read or its message proclaimed we are subject to the communicative action of the Spirit. By the Word he is revealing truth about God, making promises, issuing commands and so on. But something more is needed if revealed truth is to be understood, promises believed and commands obeyed. The Spirit who speaks in the Scripture must also apply the Word to those who hear and enable them to respond appropriately. This is what drives us to our knees in prayer - that the Holy Spirit will make the Word effective and fruitful in the lives of those who hear its message, 1 Thessalonians 2:13. For me this is the point at issue - the relationship between Word and Spirit in preaching rather than "mediate regeneration" per se. I hope to reflect further on the issue of "mediate regeneration" itself in a future post. See here for more on Word and Spirit in preaching.

The Word of God did it?

“I opposed indulgences and all papists, but never by force. I simply taught, preached, wrote God’s Word: otherwise I did nothing. And then, while I slept, or drank Wittenberg beer with my Philip of Amsdorf, the Word so greatly weakened the papacy that never a prince or emperor did such damage to it. I did nothing: the Word did it all. Had I wanted to start trouble . . . I could have started such a little game at Worms that even the emperor wouldn’t have been safe. But what would it have been? A mug’s game. I did nothing: I left it to the Word." Martin Luther

According to Stuart Olyott, writing in the December 2009 edition of The Banner of Truth magazine, Luther got it wrong in the statement quoted above - and we need to know why. I am in broad sympathy with the drift of Olyott's article. He is right to say that the Word alone can accomplish nothing and that the power of the Spirit is needed to make the Word effective. But I don't believe that Luther was incorrect to speak as he did. The first thing to remember is that what we have here is not a piece of dogmatic theology where Luther was attempting to capture all the nuances of biblical teaching in one statement. It was a quickfire response to someone who asked him how the Reformation happened. We don't need to include everything the Bible teaches on a subject in order to say something meaningful and true. To suggest that we do is to go beyond the pattern of Scripture itself.

Luther's words are comparable with what Luke says in Acts where he attributes the growth of the church to the Word of God (Acts 6:7, 12:24, 19:20). Now, Luke sets such statements in the context of the outpouring of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1:5-8, 2:1-4). He makes it clear that preachers need to be filled with the Spirit to empower them to proclaim the word boldly and effectively, (Acts 4:31). But he did not feel the need to qualify what he said in Acts 6:7 in order to bear this out by saying something like, "Then the word of God spread by the power of the Holy Spirit and the number of the disciples were multiplied greatly". Where the agency of the Word alone is mentioned in Scripture it is assumed but not always stated that it was the Holy Spirit who made the word effective in the salvation of sinners. Often Scripture explicitly links Word and Spirit together (1 Corinthians 2:1-5, 1 Thessalonians 1:5), but not in every case. This is analogous to Calvin's point that whenever Scripture attributes salvation solely to the cross of Jesus, his resurrection is always assumed and when salvation is attributed solely to his resurrection, the cross is always assumed.

Luther knew very well that the Reformation was not the product of the bare Word of God. He would have agreed entirely with Olyott that, "the Word, on its own, did nothing." The Reformer taught clearly that the Holy Spirit enables us to savingly believe the Word. In his Small Catechism he asks,

Why do you need the Holy Spirit to begin and sustain this faith in you?

By nature I am spiritually blind, dead, and an enemy of God, as the Scriptures teach; therefore, I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him.

What has the Holy Spirit done to bring you to faith?

The Holy Spirit "has called me by the Gospel," that is, He has invited and drawn me by the Gospel to partake of the spiritual blessings that are mine in Christ.

When we bear this in mind, Luther wasn't wrong to say, "I did nothing: I left it to the Word", unless we are willing to charge Luke and other biblical writers with a similar error. In a future post I hope to reflect on what Olyott had to say in his article concerning "mediate regeneration" .