The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Wicked Baptists

Does the Holy Spirit work without outward communicative means?

Define "work." He chased me to heck and gone, nagging me relentlessly despite my dogged resistance. I don't think I was saved, i.e. regenerated, until a few years ago, although I was raised Episcopalian (baptized 53 years ago this very day, AAMOF) and was RC for a dozen years.

Does He normatively work through means? To be sure, He does. Still, all we can do is share the gospel and leave the timing up to Him. We cannot force Him to redeem someone. The timing is up to Him. Whether or not He redeems someone at all is up to Him.

Are preaching or baptism necessary for regeneration?

Well, sprinkling or dunking someone with/into water isn't necessary. I already said that, didn't I? I'm no paedobaptist, so I obviously don't tie baptism with regeneration, except that someone who has come to saving faith in Christ ought to obey His command to be baptized.

As to whether or not preaching is necessary, I don't suppose so. It's the most common means He uses, but unless one believes those born profoundly mentally challenged have no chance at salvation, which I don't, obviously preaching is not required in every case, without exception.

Plus some people have come to faith through the sole agency of a Bible. The LORD can easily use His Word to bring someone to eternal life.

This is not common, mind, but it does happen.

If not, does the Holy Spirit come to men through their own preparations, prayers, and works?

Okay, you've sort of lost me here. I don't perfectly understand you're asking.

Isn't anyone else going to respond to your initial question, though? Or am I going to be left to be the mug?

Hey Anne,

I'll respond so that you aren't left to be the "mug"! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

I think Anne sufficiently answered your question by saying that the normal means by which God has ordained to call His elect to faith is the preaching of the Word. (Rom 1:16; 10:14-17; et al) It is in conjunction with the preaching of the Word (outward call) that the Holy Spirit typically regenerates and draws (inward call) sinners to Christ. That there are exceptions does not negate the typical and expected means. What I don't find is any biblical warrant to attribute baptism as one of the "means" through which the Holy Spirit works regeneration. The sacraments (ordinance for my Credobaptist friends <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> ) are ancillary to the verbal communication of the Gospel. They are ineffective in and of themselves as a "means of grace". What is necessary for regeneration is the secret, silent and sovereign work of the Holy Spirit. He is not bound to any particular means, but rather typically works in conjunction with the Word. I find no place in all Scripture where a person has been regenerated in baptism and thereafter believed. There are some paedobaptists, in addition to Lutherans, who would say otherwise; i.e., that infants can be presumed regenerate at their baptism. Yet, not one shred of biblical evidence is offered to substantiate this belief.

Assuredly not. But likewise, the Holy Spirit does not come because of the preparations, prayers, works or administration of a sacrament in behalf of another. (John 1:13; 3:7, 8) Men are not to rest in anything, including baptism, nor seek assurance of salvation in anything, including their baptism, other than the shed blood of Christ and the promise of God to save all who have come to Him through Christ. (1Cor 1:30)

In His Grace,

So, yeah, what Pilgrim said. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bigglasses.gif" alt="" />

Work means produce regeneration of the sinner.
Was regeneration a process where your resistance was gradually worn down by the Holy Ghost until you were eventually saved? If so, what means did the Holy Ghost use to chase you until you gave in?

Do you mean that, without the Word of God, there is no baptism? Is the WCF your confession?


What is the efficacious baptismal grace promised, offered, really exhibited, and conferred? And how does this baptismal grace differ from baptismal regeneration? Is it possible to receive efficacious grace without regeneration?

Do you agree with the English Baptists of the 1689 London Confession that Baptism is an effectual means of salvation? If so, how does that differ from baptismal regeneration?

Or so I've tended to think. Of course, I'm not precisely au courant with the inner working of the Holy Spirit, so can hardly speak definitively on the subject. No more than you can.

We're paddling in the deep end, where we can't see the bottom of the theological pool, and I'm not seeing much point, frankly.

Ciao!

TheClingingVine,

Thanks for your thoughtful response to my question.


You are correct. Regeneration is not a process. God's revealed Word tells us that the contrition that precedes regeneration and the works that follow do not justify us before God. In regeneration, God declares the sinner righteous through the faith of Christ alone that is given by the Holy Spirit alone.

...the same thing, though, do you?

Contrition is merely feeling bad about one's behavior. The reprobate feel contrite, after all. Repentance is recognizing one's sins as an offense against a holy and righteous God, coupled with actively turning away from the sin.

I'll grant you that contrition doubtless precedes repentance, but am going to doggedly insist that repentance is the fruit of a regenerated heart. Therefore, first one is regenerated, then one is capable of repentance.

No, repentance is not a fruit that follows regeneration. Repentance has two parts: contrition (terror smiting the conscience) and faith born of the gospel. Before regeneration, man is spiritually dead incapable of faith but capable of terror. When one is regenerated, he is given faith. And, if he has faith, he also has contrition because you can not have faith without contrition.

I said before regeneration, people can feel contrite.

You said: "Before regeneration, man is spiritually dead incapable of faith but capable of terror (i.e. contrition)."

I said repentance is only possible after regeneration.

You said: "Before regeneration, man is spiritually dead incapable of faith but capable of terror. When one is regenerated, he is given faith."

I can see where we aren't singing precisely the same verse, but still, I don't see how we're not singing the same song.

"Hate to jump in here, but..."

Huh?

Is this really an honest question? The difference between the grace given us through the ordinances (sacraments for my paedobaptist friends <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/jester.gif" alt="" />) and the regenerative, effacious work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration is axiomatic to me, and more then apparant in the Scriptures. Perhaps your confusion on this matter is the source of your misunderstanding on this whole issue.

Pilgrim really hit the nail on the head for this whole conversation when he stated:

Could you show us this biblical warrant? That is the real question. Short of this, all other discussion on this matter is pointless.

Henry,

Please feel free to answer any of the questions I posed to pilgrim regarding the Westminster and London Baptist confessions. These are honest questions. It appears to me that modern Reform and Reform Baptists no longer hold to these confessions or they interpret them in a way I don't understand.

And, if you wish to explain how modern Reform and Reform Baptists can interpret Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 22;16; Rom. 6:3,4; Gal. 3:26, 27; Eph. 5:25, 26; Col. 2:12; Titus 3: 5; and 1 Peter 3:21 in such a way as to exclude the possibility of baptismal regeneration, I would appreciate that also.

I don't care what the confessions say if what they say isn't in the Bible. Dealing with what the statements you provided mean in context is something to be done by someone other then myself, but you're still evading the question. Where is the scriptural warrant for baptism being a means of the Holy Spirit's regeneration?


Again, the question is being evaded. Even if an exegesis of those verses provided the possibility for baptismal regeneration (see again: https://www.the-highway.com/forum/showthr...amp;o=&vc=1 ), this means nothing, because we'd still be lacking the Scriptural warrant to believe in what the possibility would allow. And if Christian theology has degraded to the point that cardinal doctrines like regeneration hang on mere biblical "possibilities," then I'd rather go join the Ba'Hai and at least do things honestly.

To be clear, the supposed possibility would only be meaningful if my preconcieved theological construct required that I believe in baptismal regeneration. Are you able to show to us that your belief is not based upon this, but rather Scripture? Again, until this can be done, all other dialogue is meaningless.

Please don't take what I'm saying in a harsh manner- I'm quite enjoying this exchange, and am eager for a clear response to my question.

Exactly, God alone works baptismal regeneration when it pleases Him without any cooperation from man.


We have God's promises (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 22;16; Rom. 6:3,4; Gal. 3:26, 27; Eph. 5:25, 26; Col. 2:12; Titus 3: 5; and 1 Peter 3:21). What more do you want?


Good point! How can someone be regenerated in baptism, when they reject the possibility that baptism could be efficicious? Similarly, how can someone be regenerated through preaching, when they do not believe in the possibility that preaching could be efficacious?

I have already given you ample evidence from scripture which you have chosen to ignore in order to persue doctrines based on man's reason not scripture.

Honestly, there is no need for someone to take the extended time needed to exegete every one of the passages you listed to show an inseparable connection between baptism and regeneration, simply because one doesn't exist. The practice of eisogesis could easily do so, but it could also produce just about anything a person could imagine. But, just for fun, I'll take Acts 2:38, but IN CONTEXT (for a text out of context is nothing more than pretext).

Acts 2:14, 37-41 (ASV) "But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spake forth unto them, saying, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and give ear unto my words. . . . Now when they heard [this,] they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do? And Peter [said] unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him. And with many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, Save yourselves from this crooked generation. They then that received his word were baptized: and there were added [unto them] in that day about three thousand souls."

Briefly then, what we read first is that Peter stands before the crowd and begins to "preach"; setting forth biblical history and prophesy concerning the Jews and the Lord Jesus Christ, as is recorded in the Scriptures. Secondly, we read that when Peter had finished preaching, there were a group of hearers who were "pricked in their heart", i.e., they came under conviction and consequently cried out asking what they should do. No man seeks after God (by nature)! (Rom 3:11; Jh 1:12, 13; 6:44) Conviction of sin is only possible if the Holy Spirit changes the heart. (Jh 3:3, 5; 16:8; Acts 11:18; 2Tim 2:25) This change of heart and other analogies are synonymous with regeneration. (Ezek 36:26; Jer 31:33; Jh 3:3, 5; Eph 2:1-5; et al) Thirdly, Peter instructs those under conviction that they must "repent and subsequently be baptized". The order is salient here as baptism was to follow repentance. Additionally, believing in Christ although not included in the immediate verse is assumed, which can be seen from v. 41, where it says that all those who had believed were subsequently baptized. Thus the order of events presented by the inspired text is: conviction, repentance, belief/faith in Christ and finally baptism.

One would be more than hard-pressed to find anything which would evidence that regeneration came through, in and/or during baptism. What IS evident is that all those who were regenerated evidenced that they had indeed been "born from above" in that they were immediately converted and then submitted to baptism thereafter.

In His Grace,