My good friend, Jason Ewert, recently posted a review of Pastor Douglas Wilson’s book, Against the Church. Jason correctly notes that Pastor Wilson’s main pastoral motivation in writing this book is to combat dead orthodoxy. Dead orthodoxy is a real problem in Reformed churches that celebrate the primacy of the intellect. I do not mean, of course, that all Reformed churches are guilty of this error, but some certainly are. In such congregations, faith is primarily viewed as assent to certain doctrines, rather than trusting in Jesus.
When faith is viewed primarily as assent, all sorts of problems arise, and this should not surprise us. When living faith isn’t present, faux faith produces rotten fruit, only and always. As Jesus puts it, when one does not abide him, one withers and dies.
For the last several years, Pastor Wilson has rightly suggested that the solution to this problem is true, saving faith. And, as Wilson correctly observes, true, saving faith is solely the work of the Holy Spirit. Or, to use standard theological jargon, regeneration precedes faith. Wilson expresses his view well when he writes: “I don’t care what you call it – transformation, conversion to God, effectual call, being born again to God – but this reality is the only thing that will enable us to make faithful sense of the secular and ecclesiastical worlds around us.”
So far, so good. I don’t think anyone in the Reformed world would object to what Wilson says here. Even Jim Jordan and Peter Leithart, whose views Wilson has labelled as “non-evangelical,” would agree with him. (Wilson has not publicly identified Leithart’s views as non-evangelical, but Leithart has, on more than one occasion, expressed his agreement with Jordan).
It is unquestionable that all Reformed theologians would agree with the following:
- From beginning to end, salvation is of the Lord.
- The Father has, from all eternity, chosen a definite and innumerable company unto salvation.
- Those whom the Father has, from all eternity, chosen will come to faith, through the gracious operation of the Holy Spirit.
- Those whom the Father has, from all eternity, chosen, will not only come to faith, but will persevere until the end, through the gracious operation of the Holy Spirit.
The key difference between Wilson and Jordan is found in the answer to this question: what are the mechanics of regeneration and how do they relate to perseverance? To his credit, Wilson notes that different theological formulations of the doctrine of regeneration are acceptable within the confessional Reformed Tradition. He notes, for example, in an appendix, that there is no reason why we cannot have a “detailed theological discussion within the garden about the differences between lettuce regeneration and arugula regeneration. So to speak.”
Jordan has repeatedly affirmed his commitment to the Reformed understanding of the effectual call:
- He affirms the doctrine contained in WCF X.
- He affirms that the elect come to faith only by the working of the Holy Spirit.
- He affirms that the elect persevere to the end only by the working of the Holy Spirit.
So why does Wilson find Jordan’s view problematic? In my opinion, the main issue is “lettuce regeneration” versus “arugula regeneration.” (I acknowledge that Jordan, at times, does not express himself as clearly and precisely as Bavinck would, but Wilson is no better in this regard).
Wilson insists that in regeneration, God gives us a new “nature.” Jordan, however, insists that in regeneration, God gives us the Holy Spirit now and forevermore. While these two views are not contradictory, Wilson suggests that they are. In his mind, his view is evangelical, and Jordan’s is not.
When Wilson talks about “nature,” his main point is, I think, that God gives life to a dead man. In other words, for him, life is a different “nature” than death. Wilson insists upon the biblical truth that when a sinner is given life by the power of the Holy Spirit, he is changed all the way down. Whereas he once hated God, he now loves God. Whereas he once was deaf and blind, he can now hear and see. Wilson is not saying that the regenerated man undergoes a transformation in the way that a frog would become a prince. There is no change in that sense.
In his discussions on regeneration, Jordan shies away from the term “nature.” He insists on the obvious and biblical truth that there is no change “in the being” of those elected to heaven. A regenerated man does not become a different kind of being, in the way that a frog would become a prince. Rather, like Wilson, Jordan insists on a change all the way down, a complete reorientation. However, Jordan makes an additional point, which is not contrary to, but enhances Wilson’s emphasis. The regenerated man’s confidence is that he will persevere not because the Holy Spirit granted him life once and then let him go, like a clockmaker who winds up the clock of the soul and leaves it to run on its own. No! Jordan has no patience for a deistic understanding of regeneration that places all the emphasis on a transubstantiated “heart” and minimizes the need for the continual presence and work of the Holy Spirit in the believer. Jordan says that perseverance is grounded in the “ongoing and mysterious wrestling of the Spirit” in the regenerated man until the end. Until the very end.
Both Wilson and Jordan are clear that pastoral concerns motivate their approach. Wilson wants us to understand clearly that not all who are in the covenant (i.e. baptized) are elect, and our theologizing must account for this distinction, which is where regeneration fits in. Wilson writes: “There are disciples [i.e. covenant members] and there are disciples indeed [i.e. the regenerated] (John 8:31). There are Jews [i.e. covenant members] and there are Jew inwardly [i.e. the regenerated] (Rom. 2:29). Not all Israel [i.e. covenant members] are of Israel [i.e. the regenerated] (Rom. 9:6). There are Christians who abide in Christ, and Christians who don’t (John 15:1-6). There is the outside of the cup, and then there is the inside of it (Matt. 23:26). This means there are Christians and there are Christians indeed.”
Jordan also wants to us understand clearly that not all who are in the covenant (i.e. baptized) are elect (i.e. regenerated), and he wants to make the same pastoral exhortations as Wilson (i.e. to trust and obey, for there’s no other way!), but he formulates his position somewhat differently. To those in the covenant (i.e. the baptized), he says: “I don’t know if you will persevere or not [i.e. I don’t know if you are elect/regenerated], but I know this: God has chosen you before the foundation of the world [i.e. to be part of the covenant]. God has given you every benefit in Christ [i.e. every covenantal gift in your baptism]. God has promised that His Spirit will wrestle with you and preserve you – if you want Him to do so [i.e. if you respond to the covenant promises in faith]. You are on the road to heaven [i.e. you are in the covenant]. But know this also: God will honor you as a human being made in His image, and if you insist on departing, God’s Spirit will not always strive with you. You can grieve Him. You get off the way to heaven [i.e. you can apostatize and get excommunicated if you refuse to live by faith]. Yet be assured, that’s not what God wants for you. He baptized you [i.e. made you part of the covenant people] and has made Himself your God and Father [i.e. he has covenantally adopted you into his family]. So make your [covenantal] calling and [covenantal] election sure by continuing to be faithful to Him [i.e. embrace the covenant promises by faith and respond to the Gospel with joy, thanksgiving and obedience].”
And to ensure that there is no misunderstanding concerning his affirmation of God’s eternal, immutable and irreversible predestinating decree, Jordan adds the following words in the very next sentence: “Now, we know that behind all this is the predestinating plan of God. Those who leave the Way were predestined to this end.” For Jordan, the eternal decrees are immutable. God’s decrees cannot change, and by his sovereign good pleasure he establishes them. They are not dependant upon or subject to the response of man. To put it yet another way, for Jordan, the eternal decrees of God ultimately determine the destiny of each individual.
Unless I am missing something, and that is certainly possible, Wilson and Jordan are not that far apart in their understanding of regeneration, and I am not the first person to make this observation. A respected Reformed scholar known to many readers of this blog makes the same point here. Does Wilson agree with everything that Jordan writes about regeneration? Obviously not. Does Jordan agree with everything that Wilson writes about regeneration? Obviously not. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Some prefer lettuce, others prefer arugula. But those preferences should not disrupt the peace and unity of the church, for, to paraphrase Klaas Schilder with a Wilsonian twist: “The point in question is only this: may you dare to break a church apart for a dogmatic formula of Wilson which Jordan can attack, or one of Jordan which Wilson can attack, while indeed both in good conscience live within the Reformed confessional garden?”
Unless Wilson, Jordan or Leithart’s dogmatic formulations are viewed as outside of the confessional garden of the Reformed Tradition, I humbly suggest that we should not cast a net of suspicion upon any of them. The Reformed churches need to maintain their unity based on their common confession, and that confession, as Schilder rightly recognized, and as Wilson eloquently confesses, allows for debate over the precise nature and mechanics of regeneration. Some prefer lettuce regeneration, while others prefer arugula regeneration. But so long as we express our preference within the Reformed confessional garden, we ought to strive together for the unity of Christ’s church.
A final footnote: Jordan much prefers to reserve the term “regeneration” for the New Age brought about by the descent of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. The only two times the word is used in the Bible, he says, this is what it means. So, Jordan prefers to use terms like conversion, transformation, and reorientation.
Garry Vanderveen is the pastor of Christ Covenant Church, a confessionally Reformed congregation in Langley, BC, Canada, whose members regularly eat lettuce, arugula, spinach and kale at fellowship meals.