XV

1     The taste theory. Theologians base this theory on a view that fails to understand the nature of the soul. Moral depravity, according to this theory, consists in a natural relish, taste, or craving for sin. They believe in original sin and in a sinful nature or constitution. They believe that the heart may not agree with one’s choice or intention. They believe that moral depravity does not consist in a willful state of mind, but that moral depravity controls our conscious decisions. According to them, the wicked heart consists in a natural appetite for sin. They also believe that the appetites, passions, and tendencies of human nature in its fallen state sinful all by themselves. They often illustrate their ideas of a sinful craving for sin by referring to the craving of carnivorous animals for flesh. This philosophy believes that a change of heart must consist in a change of one’s nature. This must be a physical change and produced by a physical, rather than a moral, agency. It is a change wrought by the direct physical power of the Holy Spirit on the constitution of the soul, changing its vulnerabilities, and implanting a new taste, relish, appetite, craving for, or love of holiness. They see regeneration as the implanting of a new principle of holiness. They describe regeneration as the creation of a new taste or principle, an infusion of a holy principle, etc., into an individual. This doctrine teaches that the subject is completely passive during regeneration. They believe that regeneration is exclusively the work of the Holy Spirit; the subject has nothing to do with it. Regeneration is an operation that the Holy Spirit performs on the subject, like a surgeon operating on a patient who is under an anesthetic.
     Regeneration could even take place while a person is asleep, or while he is insane, while he is totally passive, or perhaps even when while is engaged in flagrant rebellion against God. According to them, the agency that does this work is wrought is sovereign, irresistible, and creative. Of course, they believe that man cannot do one thing because regeneration is a direct act of creation. They also insist that there is a difference between regeneration and conversion; that after the Holy Spirit has performs His sovereign operation and implants a new heart, then the subject becomes active in conversion, and turns to God.
     They believe that since the soul naturally opposes to God, the gospel has no tendency to regenerate or convert the soul to God. Instead, before regeneration by the Holy Spirit takes place, every reference to God made in the gospel only tends to inflame and provoke this natural enmity.
     They believe that the sinful taste, relish, or craving for sin, can weaken, but they deny that it ever is completely destroyed in this life. They also contend that the gospel has no tendency to turn or convert the sinner from the error of his ways until the Holy Spirit implants or infuses a holy taste, relish, or craving into the soul. As I have said, their idea of moral depravity is the foundation of their doctrine of regeneration. They assume the doctrine of original sin as taught in the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, and they attempt to harmonize the philosophy of regeneration with their views of sin and moral depravity.
     Please let me make some comments about their theory of regeneration.

a I believe my studies on moral depravity have sufficiently disproved this theory. Since moral depravity is voluntary, and consists in a voluntary selfish state of mind, this philosophy of regeneration has no foundation.

b I also showed, in my studies on moral depravity, that we do not choose sin for its own sake. We do not have any constitutional relish, taste, or craving for sin. When we make a sinful choice, sin is not the end we choose, but rather, we choose self‑gratification, and it is choosing self-gratification that is sinful. If this is true, then the whole philosophy of the taste theory turns out to be completely baseless. Our taste, relish, or craving, that this philosophy mentions, is not a taste, relish, or craving for sin, but a craving for certain things and objects, and enjoying these things, to a certain extent and under certain conditions, is not sinful. However, when our will prefers gratifying our tastes or appetites to more important interests, our willful choice is sin. Our sin never lies in our appetite, but in our will’s consent to unlawful indulgence.

c This philosophy associates appetite or temptation with sin. In fact, it represents sin as consisting in temptation.

d This philosophy throws the blame of not being born again on God. It teaches that since the sinner, being passive, is not involved in regeneration, God alone must be responsible for the fact that the sinner is unregenerate.

e After regeneration, they believe that the newly converted saint takes on a holy nature, rather than the sinful nature they had before. With this holy nature, perseverance and falling from grace becomes naturally impossible. In this situation, good works and holy living are only the gratification of a constitutional appetite that God implanted within them at the time of regeneration.

2     The Divine efficiency theory.
     Theologians base this theory on an ancient heathen philosophy that bears the same name. This ancient philosophy teaches that what we call laws of nature are nothing more than the way God works. It denies that the universe could even exist for one moment, if God withdrew His Divine hand for even one second. It maintains that the universe exists only by an act of present and perpetual creation. It denies that matter, or mind, has any ability to originate laws or motions all by itself; that everything that happens is the result of an irresistible direct Divine power; that this is not only true in the natural universe, but it is also true of everything that is done by everybody in heaven as well as on earth.
     The supporters of the Divine efficiency theory of regeneration apply this philosophy especially to moral agents. They believe that a direct act of God’s unlimited universal power produces all the exercises and actions of moral agents in all worlds, whether those exercises are holy or sinful. They believe that both holy and sinful acts are the results of an irresistible cause, and that this cause is the power and agency of God.
     This philosophy denies original sin, but believes that moral depravity is constitutional. It maintains that moral character belongs to our willful choices. It says that regeneration does not consist in creating any new taste, relish, or craving, or in implanting any new principles into our soul. However, it does say that regeneration consists in a choice that conforms to the law of God, or in a change from selfishness to unselfish love, which is brought about by a direct act of Divine power as irresistible as any creative act whatever. This philosophy teaches that the moral character of every moral agent, whether holy or sinful, forms by the working of God as direct, as sovereign, and as irresistible, as something that first gave existence to the universe. This philosophy also teaches that true submission to God implies the hearty consent of our will to have moral character formed within our soul, and then God treats us accordingly, for His glory.
     My objections to this theory are as follows:

a It tends to produce and perpetuate a sense of Divine injustice. To create a character by a work of God as direct and irresistible as that of the creation of the world itself, and then to treat moral beings according to that character that God formed within them, is totally inconsistent with all our ideas of justice.

b It contradicts human consciousness. I know many believe that consciousness only makes us aware of our mental actions and states, but our conscience does not cause our mental actions and states. I deny this. Our consciousness not only makes us aware of our mental actions and states, but it also makes us aware of the cause of them. It especially makes us aware that we are the cause of the choices that we make. I am just as aware of choosing in a sovereign way, as I am of the choices themselves. We have to admit that we are the cause of our own choices and conscious decisions.

c This philosophy really represents God as, essentially, the only agent in the universe. If God produces the acts of moral beings in the way that this philosophy represents, then they are no more agents than the planets are agents. If the power of God directly produces everything we do, it is ridiculous to call us agents. What we generally call moral beings and moral agents, are no more moral agents than the winds and the waves, or any other substance or thing in the universe.

d If this theory is true, no one but God has, or can have, moral character. No other being is the author of his own actions.

e This theory forces its advocates to give false and nonsensical definitions of free will and free agency. According to them free agency consists in doing whatever we will, while, at the same time, their theory denies our power to will, except as God causes our conscious decisions. This is not true free will. This is not true liberty. Our freedom to do what we want to do is really no freedom at all here. Our choice must be connected with its results; and if an effect follows our conscious decisions, then, they say that it is the result of an act that God really caused. It does not follow freely. They contend that free will must consist in the sovereign power to originate our own choices. However, if I am unable to freely choose, I am unable to do anything; and it is absurd to claim that someone is a free moral agent when he doesn’t have the power to originate his own choices.

f If this theory is true, the whole moral government of God is no moral government at all. It is no different from physical government. It overlooks and virtually denies the fundamentally important difference between moral and physical power, and moral and physical government. According to this theory, all power and all government is physical.

g This theory involves the delusion that God not only creates our conscious decisions, but also creates the persuasion that we are responsible for them.

3 The susceptibility theory.

a This theory believes that the Holy Spirit’s influences are both physical and moral; that He, by a direct and physical influence, excites the soul and prepares it so the truth can affected it. Then the Holy Spirit exerts a moral or persuasive influence by presenting the truth that then leads to regeneration. This philosophy requires the Holy Spirit to add a physical influence above the moral or persuasive influence He provides for regeneration. This theory admits and maintains that only a moral influence brings about regeneration. However, it also claims that the direct physical agency of the Holy Spirit performs an indispensable and necessary work on the soul to quicken the soul, to wake it up, and prepare it so the truth can affect it properly. The defenders of this doctrine believe that the Bible forbids the idea that the Holy Spirit’s influence in regeneration is simply moral or persuasive, and instead proclaims that He physically prepares the mind to be positively affected by the truth.

b In reply to this argument, I am afraid to belittle the agency of the Holy Spirit in the work of man’s redemption from sin, and would never resist, deny, or even call into question, anything that the Bible clearly teaches or implies on this subject. I firmly believe that the personal agency of the Holy Sprit always influences and produces regeneration. The question here relates to the method, rather than the fact of Divine agency in regeneration. Please understand this, because these old school theologians, as soon as you call into question their doctrine of a physical regeneration, and of a physical influence in regeneration, commonly cry out and insist that you are denying Divine influence altogether, and that your teaching a self‑regeneration independent of any Divine influence. I have been ashamed of the harsh response many of these Christian scholars have made to me, and their opposition distresses me. Since the advocates of this theory admit that the Bible teaches that Divine moral persuasion influences regeneration, the point of debate is simply, whether the Bible teaches that there is also a physical influence exerted by the Holy Spirit, in exciting our constitutional appetites. We will now examine their proof texts:

c “And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.” (Luke 24:45)
They believe that this text teaches that a physical influence must have opened their understanding. But what is the proper meaning of this passage? We must understand how they used the words in this passage by looking at the subject matter of this passage. Here the subject of the sentence is the understanding. But what does opening it mean? Can this be a physical prying, pulling, or forcing open any part of our constitution? The way this word is commonly used simply means that Jesus shared some things in order to help them gain a right understanding of the scriptures. Everyone knows this, and so should we assume that the Bible intends anything more here? The context of this passage clearly indicates that this was the only thing done in this situation.

d “Then He said to them, ‘O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?’ And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. Then He said to them, ‘Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day’” (Luke 24:25‑27, 46)
From these verses, we see that Jesus explained the scriptures to them in the light of what had just taken place. When they associated the recent events with the Divine illumination that they just received, they understood what Jesus was saying to them. It does not seem to me, that this passage warrants the idea that there was a physical influence exerted. This scripture certainly doesn’t claim anything like that at all.

e “Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.” (Acts 16:14)
This expression is very similar to the expression in our previous passage. Here it says, “that the Lord opened the heart of Lydia, so that she heeded”; that is, the Lord inclined her to heed. But how? “Why”, the advocates of this theory say, “by a physical influence”. But, where does this appear in the passage? What is her heart that it should be physically pulled or forced open? And what can the phrase, “that the Lord opened her heart” mean? All that this passage can mean is that the Lord got her attention, and so enlightened her while she was paying attention she believed. There is no claim of any physical influence, or any just ground to suggest that God exerted such an influence. A moral influence can sufficiently explain this passage, and any text that agrees with both opposing theories, proves neither.

f There are many passages that represent God as opening spiritual eyes, and passages where prayers are offered to God to do this. This theory assumes that such passages suggest a physical influence. But, this assumption appears unwarrantable to me. We often say that someone’s eyes open, when we simply mean that they have received an understanding or a revelation. This comes through a moral or a persuasive influence. How can we assume that the influence is physical? Does the nature of the situation demand a physical influence? I know that those who believe in a constitutional moral depravity support the idea of a physical influence. But, we know that this doctrine is false, and even those who believe in this theory agree that it is false. If we believe that our constitution is not morally depraved, should we even consider the possibility that we need any constitutional change, or physical influence to produce regeneration? There isn’t one good reason to believe that a physical influence is demanded or exerted. I will admit; that we cannot say that such an influence is impossible, or there will never be a need for such an influence. The only question I have is, “does the Bible clearly teach or imply such an influence”? I can’t see that it does. They use the passages that I just quoted to support their theories, and since my answer is the same to them as it is to others, I will move on.

g The supporters of this theory say that, because the Bible represents sinners as dead in trespasses and sins, as asleep, etc., a physical influence is necessary. But, all such representations speak refer to a moral state, a state of voluntary alienation from God. If the death the Bible talks about is a moral death, and the sleep is a moral sleep, why assume that we have to have a physical influence to correct a moral evil? Can’t truth, when urged and pressed by the Holy Spirit, bring about the required change? “But”, they object, “Truth makes such a different impression at one time than it does at another time. Doesn’t this suggest a physical influence because sometimes the Holy Spirit so presents the truth that at one time the mind apprehends it and feels its power, whereas at another time He does not”?

h But, some say that there sometimes appears to have been a preparatory work performed by a physical influence that predisposes the mind to pay attention to, and be affected by the truth. Answer: There often is a preparatory work influencing the mind to attend to, and be affected by truth. But, why assume that this must be a physical influence? Providential occurrences can have a lot to do with it. The Holy Spirit can direct our thoughts and communicate instructions in many ways, to prepare our mind to pay attention and obey. Who then can confidently say that this preparatory influence must be physical? I admit that it may be, but I cannot see that it must be. Neither can I see that there is any good ground for assuming that it this influence is physical.

4 The last theory we will examine is the theory of a Divine Moral Persuasion.
This theory teaches:

1) Regeneration consists in a change in our ultimate intention or our ultimate goal in life, or in a change from selfishness to unselfish love.

2) Regeneration is brought about by a Divine moral influence; that is, that the Holy Spirit brings it about it with, through, or by the truth.

5 The advocates of this theory assign the following as the principal reasons to support it:

a The Bible clearly affirms it.

1) “Jesus answered, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Something that is born of the flesh is flesh, and something that is born of the Spirit is spirit.’” (John 3:5-6)

2) “Having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever” (1 Peter 1:23)

3) “Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of first fruits of His creatures” (James 1:18)

4) “For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.” (1 Cor. 4:15)

b The Bible represents us as being sanctified by and through the truth.

1) “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (John 17:17)

2) “You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.” (John 15:3)

c The nature of regeneration declares that truth addressed to our mind must produce regeneration. We who are born again are aware that the truth influenced us when we turned to God. We are aware of no other influence than light poured upon our souls, or truth presented to our minds.
When God affirms that He regenerates our soul with the truth, we have no right to conclude that He does it any other way. The Bible reveals that God regenerates our soul with the truth. Therefore, the Bible has settled the philosophy of regeneration. That God exerts any other influence other than a moral influence, such as Divine teaching and illumination, is sheer assumption.

B Remarks

1 The theory I have placed before you honors the Holy Spirit without belittling the truth of God.

2 Regeneration, by the Holy Spirit through the truth, illustrates the wisdom of God. There is a deep and divine philosophy in regeneration.

3 This theory has great practical importance. For if sinners must be regenerated by the influence of truth, argument, and persuasion, then ministers can see what they must do, and how important it is for them to be “workers together with God.” (2 Cor. 6:1)

4 Also, sinners may see that they can’t not wait for a physical regeneration or influence, but must submit to, and embrace the truth if they ever expect to be saved.

5 If this theory is true, sinners are most likely to be regenerated while sitting under the sound teaching of the gospel, while listening to a clear exhibition of truth.

6 Ministers should pour forth their hearts, and address every consideration to the attention of sinners just as heartily and as freely as if they expected to convert them by themselves. They should aim at, and expect the regeneration of sinners on the spot, before they leave the house of God.

7 Sinners must not wait for and expect God to physically regenerate them. The unlimited physical power of God is helpless in the conversion of men because physical power cannot produce regeneration. God cannot do the sinner’s duty, and regenerate him unless the sinner properly exercises his own agency.

8 This view of regeneration shows that the sinner needs to depend on the Holy Spirit because of his own voluntary stubbornness, and the greater his stubbornness, the greater his guilt.