Spurgeon and His "Theory on Regeneration"

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is alive, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

While this passage is not the sum total of the source of such a teaching, the doctrine of trichotomus man stems, in part, from passages like these along with the observation in Scripture that there is a distinction of soul and spirit in some places, while in others there is a lesser distinction. It is in these passages containing elevated distinctions that the observation in Scripture is made by the student and theologian that it is not merely anecdotal or incidental but deliberate by design and separated by category.

Supporting this is the immaterial part of man called the soul, which all humans have but, when a man is “born again” we must ask ourselves, what was “born again”? Surely not his soul since it is with him at birth and already alive. But something was born, something was made alive.

Then, in Scripture, we observe terms like “the new man” being “spiritually minded” “made alive in Christ” “the spirit of your mind” and so on which are treated in contrast to “the old man” or “the natural man”. And these natural men or old men (meaning what one was before salvation) clearly possess a soul just as the man who is saved in Christ, therefore the Scriptures are pointing to something beyond believers being body and soul. Hence, men such as Spurgeon recognized this and came to understand that the when a man or woman is made alive in Christ it is their spiritual birth that occurs and this immaterial but real dimension of the believer comes to life and is why they hold to the trichotomus view.

This is a very, very abbreviated response and let me encourage you to research this more thoroughly since a forum like this does not provide the realistic possibility of appropriately instructing you fully on the matter which would be to your benefit. But hope this helps a bit.

[Jack Hampton] If a person is “regenerated” by the Holy Spirit then that means that one must have previously been born of the Holy Spirit.

Wow, Jack. The position you articulate here is at least border line heresy. Your failure in reasoning is stunning. The fact that the Spirit provides new life does not necessarily indicate a previous life given by the Spirit. All it has to mean is that the Spirit provided a life that did not exist before. This is in perfect harmony with the many assertions in the epistles that before salvation we were all dead in trespasses and sin. Before we were dead; after we were alive. (for example Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13; 1 John 3:14)

I have read the other threads with which you have interacted and agree with Alex’s conclusion that you appear more interested in asserting a position than inquiring for truth. Your statement here is the logical conclusion of the position you have espoused elsewhere, but it is DEFINITELY NOT the reasonable outcome of faithful hermeneutics. You are practicing a dangerous form of isogesis rather than sound biblical exegesis.

Until you read and understand point #7 of SI’s doctrinal statement your theology will be flawed. In every post and thread you comment in, it seems to fall back to an improper understanding of Total Depravity. I do not want to debate this doctrine with you as others have tried with seemingly no positive results. I only want to point you to the SI doctrinal statement for those of us who post here.

[Anthony Hayden] Alex

I understand the great debate of the tri and di

I guess the thing that caught me off guard was how the “theory” essentially meshes the 2 positions into one.

It also seems logical that this theological position is not unique to Spurgeon, and I was wondering if there might be any more clear or detail designation of this theory.

I’m not calling it right or wrong… yet, just a different way than I have heard it explained before.

So would it be heresy to say,

“I believe in the dichotomy of unregenerate man, and I believe in the trichotomy of regenerate man”

No, this statement would not be heretical. I cannot say, right now, the origins of this view with respect to who first uttered it in whatever form but I do not really see how it meshes the two positions. He clearly states there is the “body, soul and spirit”. That would be trichotomus.

Possibly you take the view that the unregenerate man is born trichotomus, that is alive spiritually. That would be outside orthodoxy regarding the state of man and the need of redemption. And that certainly is not a valid orthodox view.

So right now I am still unsure of your view and what you believe represents the typical Protestant/Evangelical orthodox view of both di and tri.

Anthony, I do not know of a name for this theory, but I strongly disagree. It certainly does not stem from Spurgeon’s generally Reformed theology, so I would suspect that its origins might be in popular British theology of the era.

In any case, the anthropology is terribly flawed. What people are regenerated, God performs several actions: “enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills” (WCF 10.1). In other words, God’s rebirthing people is his beginning to restore all their non-physical faculties to the original integrity which they possessed in Adam. (The physical faculties get restored, too, but later). It is not God adding some new spiritual part on top of what they already possess. That would be an unbiblical two-story view of nature and grace. We don’t need a new part; we need the parts we have renewed.

[Jack Hampton]

This can only mean that a person is born spiritually alive. Then when he sins he becomes spiritually dead. Then when he believes he receives a repition of his spiritual birth, and this is effected by the renewing of the Holy Spirit.

I will only engage you once here to point out your error and am not interested in a dialogue with you which I believe will only result in a detraction from the OP and its author’s pursuit.

Your rationalization of course is that if one is made alive spiritually by being regeneration, they, themselves, must have been spiritually alive, previously. They were, in Adam, and not as you contend, born alive spiritually. Just as all died in Adam, all are made alive in Christ.

Again, though and as pointed out, you are presenting views and arguing positions contrary to SI’s doctrinal statement. I certainly am not a moderator but as a co-member with you, let me encourage you to re-read the doctrinal statement and fully understand what is meant by #7 “The total depravity of man through the fall.” And then if you are not sure contact a Moderator or Admin and ask them to fully explain it because from what I understand, in joining as a member, you agree that you hold to these views and to argue against these views I believe would be considered a violation of the terms of your membership. So if you want to keep posting it might be in your interest to either consider that this may not be the place where you will succeed in maintaining a membership or that you need to modify your approach.

No, Jack’s position is heretical, outside the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy. I’m not really sure what his point is. Personally, I prefer dichotomy, but I’m not convinced it’s a major issue. The important thing is that regeneration begins the restoration of the image of God that was marred by the fall; it’s not plopping a new component into man’s nature.

[Charlie] Personally, I prefer dichotomy, but I’m not convinced it’s a major issue. The important thing is that regeneration begins the restoration of the image of God that was marred by the fall; it’s not plopping a new component into man’s nature.

One technique I have noticed often used in theological arguments is for one person to state the views of others in rather unflattering contexts. And here you have done this by characterizing the trichotomous view as a “plopping”. To plop something gives a context of a less than careful and distinct act. It is to place something with minimal concern for boundaries or affect. This may help convince yourself in the way you argue against the view of trichotomous man but it certainly does not fairly represent any of the theological expressions I know of on the matter.

The arguments for man’s trichotomous state upon his rebirth are quite developed and exegetically weighty. And never minding a comprehensive argument for the moment, I am interested in the exegesis and rationalization of the dichotomous insistence with regard to the verse posted earlier, Hebrews 4:12:

For the word of God is alive, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Even in an elementary observation one sees the distinction recognized by Paul that the soul and spirit are not synonymous but are classified separately in that he furthers this by a concrete analogy, the joints and marrow which, while are included in the singular skeleton of man are distinct and separate parts themselves. Just as thoughts and intents are not identical though both are part of the mentality. And simple exegesis points to this distinction with the use of the particle “te” denoting “both” the soul and spirit and “both” the joints and marrow.

As to the comment that “regeneration begins the restoration of the image of God that was marred by the fall”, I believe this does not properly, though in part true, represent a shortharnd case of Adam’s fall. More than a marring took place, a death. And it is that argument that is, in part, the basis for the resurrection or rebirth of man’s spirit by God the Holy Spirit upon faith in the gospel (true in all ages) that gives him spiritual restoration and commune with God.

Alex, I’m not here to make a case for dichotomy, although I do believe that it is a superior position. Were I to grant some sort of trichotomy for the sake of argument, that still leaves me far from the belief that fallen human nature is dichotomous, whereas restored (and I’m assuming unfallen) nature is trichotomous. That needs to be argued separately.

I certainly understand and maybe another time or place will give rise to the occasion. In the mean time, however, and without reference to some of the things I pointed out in my post in response, the unflattering description of “plopping” will always be objectionable, both academically and theologically and serves no fair purpose in describing the views of those holding to a trichotomous view.

Alex, if you were personally offended by the use of plopping, I will pass along something a former pastor used to tell me. If your little feelings get hurt, don’t have little feelings.

If you were not personally offended by the statement, then c’mon man. You are fighting a ridiculous battle on behalf of a supposed victim who doesn’t care enough to voice a concern himself.

I think you are reading a little bit too much into the statement. I understood exactly what he was trying to say and think it accurately conveyed what was being described. Lighten up a little, k? ;)

[Chip Van Emmerik] Alex, if you were personally offended by the use of plopping, I will pass along something a former pastor used to tell me. If your little feelings get hurt, don’t have little feelings.

If you were not personally offended by the statement, then c’mon man. You are fighting a ridiculous battle on behalf of a supposed victim who doesn’t care enough to voice a concern himself.

I think you are reading a little bit too much into the statement. I understood exactly what he was trying to say and think it accurately conveyed what was being described. Lighten up a little, k? ;)

It is clear that in your spiritual and theological development you believe discovery and enlightenment of Scripture involves ego and feelings, hence the projection of this possibility onto my response.

One should never invest ego, feelings or any other subjective dynamic in objective discovery. The fact that you believe this is a possible element in attempting to explain the responses of others with which you disagree will always act as a subversive agent to your own attempts at objective discovery. Let me encourage you to move from hoping such speculations are adequate substitutes for substantive responses.

As well, you also believe there is some virtue in attempting to administrate the theological values of others through dictating to them what they should find important and not and to what degree those values should be articulated. While in your zeal these may feel like good defenses or responses they, in fact, are presumptive and take one off the path of discovery. Again I encourage you to avoid the temptation for such crusading.

So, let’s stay on topic, please and refrain from personalizing issues, please. It might be worth your consideration, however, in believing nuances and subtleties are not valid pursuits in theological debate that , “a little leaven, leveaneth the whole lump”.

Alex

Alex, I rescind my use of “plopping.” In my anthropology and soteriology, the faculties of human nature, which can be variously labeled and divided, were greatly damaged (turned from God) in the fall, and man’s spiritual communion was lost. In regeneration, man is united to Christ, thus restoring his spiritual union, and those faculties which were corrupted begin to reorient themselves toward God. I do not see the necessity to affirm either that man lost a constituent part of his being in the fall, nor that he regains it in regeneration. In any case, my statement was not aimed at trichotomy simpliciter, but at the view that man can lose or gain component parts of his being.

Alex, certainly a word smith. You managed to get two reprimands out of one little word. Yet, somehow, you still seemed to completely miss both our points.

I generally appreciate your posts. All I am saying is that you went a little overboard reading your perspective into Charlie’s comment. Plopped didn’t have to mean anything other than “suddenly deposited.” Just asking you to scale back a little brother.

Back to the topic.

Chip,

I’d be happy to discuss your personal concerns in PM’s. But do understand that I certainly disagree that any scaling back needs to be done and do not believe that attempting to instruct me as to what I should find theologically important and to what extent I should respond to it is an appropriate role for you to assume.

As to the word “plopped”, I see Charlie has rescinded its use. Possibly he recognized its imprecision in the least. But certainly that dimension of this topic has been laid to rest by the author of its use.