INTRODUCTION
One of the major errors that has raised its head in the church over and over again since the days of the apostles is the gnostic understanding of the new birth. In a nutshell, this view of the new birth is comprised of two basic parts. First of all, the new birth is a transaction made upon the human heart that is little more than a rubber stamp. It doesn’t change the heart in any significant way. The new birth can exist for months or years without presenting any visible evidence. Secondly, the new birth is ministered to man through a salvation form. If you have done the form, you are born again, and you are justified by grace alone.
Historically, this understanding of the new birth has been labeled antinomianism. This terminology, however, is not ideal. The error in question is not opposition to the law but a misunderstanding of the nature of the new birth. Descriptions like profession without possession, empty profession, and dead faith are better, but they still don’t get to the core of the issue. The real issue is a spurious new birth, a profession without regeneration. In plain English, we are speaking of men who are religious but not born again.
Don’t get wound too tight over the terminology. The critical issue here is the fundamental misunderstanding of the new birth. The terminology is secondary. The fact is, much of our established theological terminology is less than ideal. But, generally speaking, it is a matter of wisdom to leave this terminology in place—as the Bible exhorts, “remove not the ancient landmarks.” There are three reasons for this. One, when we replace long-established terminology, we typically add to the confusion rather than reduce it. Two, the errors in doctrinal content are ten times more important than the shortcomings in terminology. Three, with precious few exceptions, when men wage war over terminology, their real motivation is waging war against the doctrinal truth represented by the terminology.
OVERVIEW
This article will contrast the gnostic conception of the new birth with the biblical conception of the same, doing so in six points.
- The biblical view of the new birth.
- Clarification on saving grace.
- “Christians” who aren’t regenerated.
- Defending the gnostic gospel with a false dichotomy.
- The new birth controversy in proper perspective.
- The origin of the gnostic gospel.
BIBLICAL VIEW OF THE NEW BIRTH
The new birth is an essential component of the new covenant.
Jeremiah 31:33 says, “This is the covenant that I will make … I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.” Ezekiel 36:26 adds, “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you.” This internal change is what John was referring to when he said, “unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (3:3). The truth is, regeneration is just as integral to the new covenant as justification is. In fact, it is only those who are regenerated and sealed by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:14, 4:30, Rom. 8:23) who are justified. Those who have not the Spirit do not belong to God (Rom. 8:9).
The new birth is the impartation of spiritual life in the heart that renews and cleanses.
This spiritual life is imparted by two omnipotent means: the living and powerful word of God (Heb. 4:12) and the same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead (Rom. 6:10-11). Concerning the former, we read in 1 Peter 1:23, “having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever.” The Lord uses this word to cleanse us through “the washing of the water in the word” (Eph. 5:26). Concerning the latter, we read in Titus 3:5 that we are saved “through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.”
The new birth manifests itself in a new life path.
In 1 John 3:9 we read, “Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.” (See also 1 John 5:18). This is not teaching sinless perfection or anything that even remotely resembles it. This is simply saying that the regenerated man cannot continue in his old way of living for self, sin, and pleasure. He is now on the path of following Jesus and walking in newness of life (Rom. 6:4). He now fights and resists the things that he used to indulge with impunity. He can and will struggle. He can stumble. He can fall seven times. But if he does, he will get up seven times. He now operates in the promise of God that he will overcome, “For whosoever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith” (1 John 5:4). This victorious faith is wrought in us through the energizing power of the indwelling Holy Spirit—“Kept by the power of God through faith” (1 Pet. 1:5).
Now many insist that if we are looking for evidence of the new birth, then we are denying free grace. But this is way off course. The issue isn’t whether or not grace is free. Grace is absolutely free. No man can earn it. This precious truth is embraced by all evangelicals. The issue is whether free grace comes with a rubber stamp of salvation or whether free grace comes with the seal of the indwelling, regenerating, and empowering Holy Spirit.
The corn plant illustration.
Suppose a gardener planted a hundred hills of corn. Thirty hills came up with vigor. The plants were pushing two feet in height and dark green in color. Thirty hills were stunted. The plants varied from four to ten inches in height and were sickly looking. Forty hills were barren. Suppose further that his neighbor came by and commented that forty of the hills hadn’t produced corn plants. What would you think if the gardener, in a fit of fury, retorted, “It is legalistic farming to claim that the barren hills don’t have living corn plants. I farm by grace not by sight. Just because you don’t see evidence of life in the forty hills doesn’t mean that they are unproductive. You are judging between the hills. We aren’t supposed to do that. We should simply trust that every hill that received the seed is productive.” Now, assuming that the corn seed had been given sufficient time and opportunity to manifest germination and growth, wouldn’t you think that the gardener was unreasonable, if not daft? I would.
The new born child illustration.
A newborn child manifests evidence of life: seeking his mother’s breast, growing, learning, exploring, interacting, making messes. Likewise, a newborn Christian will manifest evidence of life: desiring the sincere milk of the word, growing, learning, exploring, interacting with other born again humans, and making messes. God used the concept of the new birth because he wanted us to draw the parallel between physical birth and spiritual birth. We undermine the analogy between birth and the new birth if we insist that the new birth is genuine even if there is zero evidence that new life has been born in the spiritual realm.
CLARIFICATION ON SAVING GRACE
Everyone seems to understand the justification aspect of grace, but many appear to have overlooked the regeneration and sanctification aspects of grace. They have read the passages which mention these aspects, but the truth never went home. For instance, Titus 2:11-12 -says, “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age.” Romans 2:4 adds, “Do you not know that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?” Such verses indicate that where men have refused to turn away from ungodliness and worldly lusts and get on the path of following Jesus in godly living, they have rejected the offer of grace. Folks need to understand that the offer of grace in the gospel is not a cafeteria lunch line. We are not given the option to say yes to justification (our criminal record cleansed in a moment) and no to regeneration (the power to live a new life) and sanctification (our criminal practice cleansed progressively). They come as a package deal. We either say yes to the whole package or we say no to the whole package. You can distinguish justification from regeneration and sanctification. You cannot divide them. They are inseparable aspects of the new covenant.
“CHRISTIANS” WHO AREN’T REGENERATED
Those who hold the gnostic (antinomian) view of the gospel are loathe to make a distinction between the mere profession of born-again Christianity and the possession of the same. They want to believe that all who make professions of faith are eternally saved. Or, at the very least, that it is impossible to tell them apart. But the New Testament is filled with passages that put the lie to this idea.
Matt 7:21-23, for instance, says, Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name? And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of iniquity! Here we have “Christians” with far more than a profession. These “Christians” are actively involved in what they claim to be prophesying, casting out devils (deliverance ministry), and performing miracles. Yet the Lord rejects them as ungodly men indulging iniquity. This is the iniquity of religious delusion at the very least, if not also the iniquity of indulging the flesh. Notice, too, that this class is not few, but many. In other words, this is not a minor problem but a major one.
Similar observations are found all over the New Testament. In 2 Timothy 3:5 we read about “Christians” who have the form of godliness, but deny the power of godliness. In Jude 1:11-12 we read of “Christians” who have gone the way of Cain, indulged the error of Balaam, and been corrupted with the rebellion of Korah. These “believers” are spots in the church’s love feasts. They are twice dead and headed for the blackness of darkness for ever. Such are in the camp but not of the camp.
Others leave the fold of born-again Christianity after walking with the believers for a while. For instance, in 2 Peter 2:20-22 we read of men who temporarily walked in the way of righteousness through the knowledge of Jesus, then went back to the pollutions of the world, like a dog returning to his vomit or a sow returning to her wallow. And in 1 John 2:19 we read of men who leave the fellowship of the believers because they were not really a believer. The dog did not become a non-dog, then return to being a dog. He never ceased being a dog.
DEFENDING THE GNOSTIC GOSPEL WITH A FALSE DICHOTOMY
Now men might wonder how christians could be persuaded to embrace the gnostic view of the gospel when the Bible clearly teaches that the new birth unleashes supernatural power in the heart, that grace brings regeneration and sanctification as well as justification, and that there are “Christians” in the church who are not born-again.
The answer is simple actually. They are persuaded by a false dichotomy. No significant error can make headway without erecting a dichotomy which forces men to pick between itself and a contrasting error which is seen as repugnant. In this case a false dichotomy has been erected beween free grace and lordship/legalism.
Free grace ascribes the new birth to everyone who has done a salvation form and insists that the reality of this new birth must not be judged. Looking for evidence of life is a rejection of salvation by grace alone. The Lordship message, on the contrary, tends to look for signs of spiritual health as signs of life. When they don’t see signs of health, conversions are regarded as dubious.
This false dichotomy, like false dichotomies in general, works to the advantage of both camps. Those who regard antinomianism (new births that don’t manifest evidence of life) as the foulest evil will gravitate toward the lordship gospel. Those who regard lordship (looking for signs of spiritual health) as the foulest evil will gravitate toward free grace.
THE NEW BIRTH CONTROVERSY IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE
But false dichotomies not only direct men to one of two extreme positions, they also exclude the middle position. This is a tragedy. No man can rightly understand a doctrinal controversy dominated by a false dichotomy until he understands that there are actually three positions, not two.
In the new birth controversy, the middle position is looking for signs of life. Those convinced of lordship will generally regard looking for signs of life as a variation of antinomianism. Those convinced of free grace will typically regard looking for signs of life as a watered-down version of the lordship message. Both sides find it both convenient and necessary to regard the middle position as a variation of the enemy’s hated heresy. To allow the middle is to reject the false dichotomy. To reject the false dichotomy is to admit that they are in error.
It should be obvious by now, if it wasn’t already, that the believer who seeks to be totally biblical in his doctrine will walk away from the false dichotomy and embrace the middle position. But there is a cost to doing so. The middle position is despised and rejected by both sides. You will appear to be in a theological no-man’s land. You could lose friends and opportunities in one camp, and have no hope of replacement in the other. You could be falsely accused of error or heresy. But such is a small price to pay for faithfulness to the word of God.
But what does it mean to look for signs of life? Exactly what it says. Signs of life. Not signs of health. Young believers are typically carnal. They don’t walk in the degree of victory that they will enjoy later. They may stumble and fall, even multiple times. But they will manifest a new life that is every bit as obvious as the life of a newborn physical child. They will be growing, learning, changing. But believers often do not grow at the rate they ought to. As we read in the tail end of Hebrews 5, “Given the time that you have had, you ought be teachers, but you … need milk and not solid food.” We need to graciously and patiently bear in mind that signs of life may well appear at a slower pacethan we would prefer.
THE ORIGIN OF THE GNOSTIC GOSPEL
In the early church, men like Irenaeus did spiritual battle with the gnostics. While there were many varieties of this heresy, they shared a few common threads. One was the view that salvation was a spiritual transaction that had nothing to do with the flesh. The new birth did not introduce a new life of reining in or denying of the flesh. There was no correlation between salvation and conduct. This had tremendous practical ramifications. Those who were enlightened—that is those who had embraced the true understanding of God and the gospel and done the requisite religious form—were free to indulge the sins of the flesh without impunity.
The early church regarded this understanding as heresy and eventually crushed it. Over time, the various gnostic testimonies died as overt cultic branches of Christendom. But, as with so many heresies over the centuries, the error somehow managed to take root in the church in a moderated form. In this instance, the church began to teach the absolute efficacy of salvation by grace in baptism. Those who had done the baptismal salvation form were regarded as secure in their salvation. No amount of wickedness could call their salvation into question. Pointing to wickedness was regarded as a denial of salvation by grace and trusting in dead works.
This view prevailed until the Reformation. Then the Protestant churches replaced baptismal salvation with professional salvation. It wasn’t merely that professions of salvation were taken at face value unless and until sufficient evidence presented itself to entertain reasonable doubts. It was that all professions of faith were regarded as genuine instances of faith (and genuine believers) and all efforts to vet professions by looking for evidence were regarded as a denial of salvation by grace.
This practice prevails yet today in many evangelical circles. While the salvation forms vary widely in evangelical circles, all who have done the faith form are received as genuine believers whose new birth must not be vetted by looking for evidence of Holy Spirit regeneration and spirit-energized faith. All such investigation is regarded as a denial of salvation by grace.
CONCLUSION
I trust that this article has been a help to you. May you clearly see the doctrinal confusion foisted upon the church by false dichotomies. May you embrace the excluded middle in the free grace vs. lordship controversy—looking for evidence of Holy Spirit wrought regeneration. The new birth is not a rubber stamp.The new birth is a powerful regeneration of the heart by the same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead. This resurrection power can’t be hidden. It can’t remain buried in the heart of man. It will spring forth in the man’s life.
Eyes wide open, brain engaged, heart on fire,
Lee W. Brainard
No Comments