Basic HTML Version
448
conceived of it as a strictly monergistic work of God, in which the human subject cannot
cooperate, and which man cannot resist. For Pelagius, of course, “regeneration” did not mean
the birth of a new nature, but the forgiveness of sins in baptism, the illumination of the mind by
the truth, and the stimulation of the will by divine promises. The confusion of regeneration and
justification, already apparent in Augustine, became even more pronounced in Scholasticism. In
fact, justification became the more prominent concept of the two, was thought of as including
regeneration, and was conceived of as an act in which God and man co-operate. Justification,
according to the common representation, included the infusion of grace, that is, the birth of a
new creature or regeneration, and the forgiveness of sin and the removal of the guilt attaching
to it. There was a difference of opinion, however, as to which of these two elements is the
logical prius. According to Thomas Aquinas the infusion of grace is first, and the forgiveness of
sins is, at least in a certain sense, based on this; but according to Duns Scotus the forgiveness of
sin is first, and is basic to the infusion of grace. Both elements are effected by baptism ex opere
operato. The opinion of Thomas Aquinas gained the upper hand in the Church. Up to the
present time there is a certain confusion of regeneration and justification in the Roman Catholic
Church, which is, no doubt, largely due to the fact that justification is not conceived as a
forensic act, but as an act or process of renewal. In it man is not declared but made just. Says
Wilmers in his Handbook of the Christian Religion: “As justification is a spiritual renewal and
regeneration, it follows that sin is really destroyed by it, and not, as the Reformers maintained,
merely covered, or no longer imputed.”
2. BY THE REFORMERS AND IN THE PROTESTANT CHURCHES.
Luther did not entirely escape
the confusion of regeneration with justification. Moreover, he spoke of regeneration or the
new birth in a rather broad sense. Calvin also used the term in a very comprehensive sense as a
designation of the whole process by which man is renewed, including, besides the divine act
which originates the new life, also conversion (repentance and faith) and sanctification.[Inst. III.
3,9.] Several seventeenth century authors fail to distinguish between regeneration and
conversion, and use the two terms interchangeably, treating of what we now call regeneration
under vocation or effectual calling. The Canons of Dort also use the two words
synonymously,[III and IV. 11,12.] and the Belgic Confession seems to speak of regeneration in
an even wider sense.[Art. XXIV.] This comprehensive use of the term “regeneration” often led
to confusion and to the disregard of very necessary distinctions. For instance, while
regeneration and conversion were identified, regeneration was yet declared to be monergistic,
in spite of the fact that in conversion man certainly co-operates. The distinction between
regeneration and justification had already become clearer, but it gradually became necessary
and customary also to employ the term “regeneration” in a more restricted sense. Turretin
defines two kinds of conversion: first, a “habitual” or passive conversion, the production of a
disposition or habit of the soul, which, he remarks, might better be called “regeneration”; and,