Comments on: What is Regeneration?

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:57:24 +0000

“At the Synod of Dort, Arminians were entirely comfortable with Calvin’s language.”

Calvin was entirely comfortable with his language as well. And he wasn’t an Arminian.

By: Duane Garner

Duane Garner — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 04:05:34 +0000

Stuart – thanks for your comment and question.

I suppose it comes down to the question of whether you believe a sign and a seal accomplishes those things it is a sign and seal of, and whether the Westminster divines unilaterally agreed that baptism was merely a sign.

If that were the case, it seems like they could have made things less confusing by leaving all that regeneration and “ingrafting into Christ” language out of it.

Mark – thanks for your comments as well.

The acknowledgement that the meaning of the word has indeed been narrowed, and that it used to have a much broader usage is all that I’m after.

By: Mark Jones

Mark Jones — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 03:32:46 +0000

I think this issue is a little more nuanced than your brief treatment suggests. There’s a very good reason the term was eventually more narrowly defined in the early C17th. At the Synod of Dort, Arminians were entirely comfortable with Calvin’s language. Maccovius seems to have narrowed the term and eventually the term ‘regeneration’ had reference to the monergistic work of the Spirit in conversion. The 17thC puritans also used it to encompass sanctification. Hodge recognizes that Calvin used the term broadly and I think it’s been well-documented, even at a place like WTS East, that this issue has a complex history.

So, I guess, I’m not really sure what your point in all of this is. If it’s simply to say that Calvin used the term ‘regeneration’ to encompass the new life in Christ, great! If it’s a shot at your critics … well, let’s just say you’ll have to do better than that!

Mark Jones
Leiden University

By: Stuart

Stuart — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:04:54 +0000

Thanks for starting this weblog. I am enjoying your endeavors.

Does WCF 28.1 not say that baptism is “a sign and seal… of regeneration”? If so, then I think it is inaccurate to say that the Westminster Standards are describing regeneration as “what happens in baptism.”