Chapter 4: The Proper Subject — the Regenerate as Christian Theologians

The proper subject of evangelical theology — The division of all mankind into two kinds: the regenerate and the unregenerate — Only the regenerate are Christian theologians — In what sense philosophers exclude young men from the hearing of moral philosophy — It is proved that only the regenerate are properly called evangelical theologians — The authority of the apostle (1 Corinthians 2:14) — Of Christ Himself (John 3:3, 8:47, 1:13, 5:37) — The spiritual incapacity of the unregenerate — On spiritual blindness and spiritual death — The Holy Spirit alone is the author of evangelical theology, He alone teaches it — All the unregenerate, being destitute of Him, cannot learn it — The first end of theology: conformity to God — No unregenerate person attains this end — Communion with God, the second end of true theology — The enjoyment of God, the third — The theology of the unregenerate attains none of these.

I. We are here treating of evangelical theology in the concrete — that is, as it occupies a subject or the minds of men. We shall therefore first speak of who and what sort of persons are instructed in it.

II. All men who here live before God — the judge, ruler, and rewarder of all — since this very fact, namely that they live before God, has regard to their present duty and their ultimate end, are either regenerate or unregenerate. Sacred Scripture makes mention many times of the state of spiritual regeneration. Of each man, therefore, it can be either affirmed or denied that he is regenerate. There are none who stand neither absolutely within that state nor absolutely outside it. Some appear to lean or incline one way or the other with respect to it. But speaking absolutely, as they say, every man is either regenerate or not regenerate — this all who know and embrace the gospel confess. Upon this rest all other distributions of the human race found in the sacred writers: into the godly and the ungodly, the wise and the foolish, the faithful and the unbelieving, the holy and the impure, the just and the unjust. For all the regenerate, however liable they may be to sins that do not exceed the compass of the grace of the new covenant — and so that some of them occasionally sin most grievously with respect to this or that particular act — yet as to the spiritual state in which they walk before God and live to Him, they are godly, wise, faithful, holy, just, and are so called by the Holy Spirit; while the ungodly, on the other hand, are foolish, unbelieving, impure, unjust, even though they discharge certain divine and human duties — all the unregenerate, to a man; for "those who are in the flesh cannot please God." And the designation follows the state, not this or that particular act. We therefore assert that the regenerate alone are capable of and partakers in this evangelical theology, all others who profess to give their attention to it being assigned to the philosophico-theological class. What we have said previously lends support to this truth; the progress of our discourse will set the whole matter before the eyes of all. Let it suffice here to confirm the thesis itself briefly. III. Now if Aristotle was permitted to remove and exclude younger men who were subject and enslaved to corrupt affections from the scope of his moral philosophy, to the extent that he did not consider them fit hearers even of it — how much more will it be permitted to a Christian man to pronounce those strangers to true evangelical theology whom he knows to be not only subject to vices and sins, but dead in them. For I myself have known very many young men — drunkards, brawlers, intemperates, languid and withered with lust — who had the moral teaching of Aristotle at their fingertips, so to speak, and were accustomed daily to dispute subtly on its more abstruse chapters. Such rascals, steeped in vices, to have not a whit more of philosophy than of goodness — that is, not a crumb of it — not only Aristotle himself, but by unanimous agreement the entire chorus of the ancient wise men would declare. Let us Christians use at least this much right, and not allow those whom we believe to be no better before God than these to be counted among Christian theologians and genuine disciples of the Lord Jesus on account of their academic knowledge of certain evangelical doctrines. Indeed, some of the ancients are so far from regarding such persons as theologians that they pronounce them utterly unworthy even of the Christian name. Thus Justin in his Apology to the Emperor: those who are found not to live as Christ commanded, when they are made known, are to be declared not Christians — even if they recite the teachings of Christ by word of mouth; for he says that not those who merely profess, but those who confirm their profession also by works, will be saved. And those who live a life less consistent with His precepts, however much they are called Christians, we request that you also punish. "But indeed, those who are found not to live as Christ taught — that is certain evidence that they are not Christians, even though they profess the teaching of Christ with the tongue; for he says that not the professors alone but those who confirm their profession by works at the same time shall be saved. Furthermore, those who lead a life less in keeping with His precepts, however much they are called Christians, we request that you also punish."

Now the case here is not as in other controversies, where the truth is with difficulty drawn from two or three passages; nearly the whole gospel is a witness in this cause, and the opposing opinion owes its origin to nothing but the detestable confusion which ignorance of this truth has introduced into the church. I would be prolix, and tedious to the reader, if I were to gather here all — or even most — of the testimonies of great weight that exist in sacred Scripture supporting this truth. It will be sufficient to point out the sources of the arguments. Thus the apostle inquires (1 Corinthians 2:14): "The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God" — the natural man, that is, he who is not regenerate; "the things of the Spirit" which he does not receive are all those things that belong to evangelical wisdom, especially the doctrine of the cross — that is, the theology of which we are treating. The apostle expounds the meaning of "does not receive" in the following words. He cannot know them, he says — he cannot know those things; and no one has knowledge of the things he cannot know. He then appends the reason for this inability. They are foolishness to him, he says, and he is unable to discern them spiritually — he discerns nothing spiritually. He does not perceive the thing itself, because it is foolishness to him; nor does he attain to the manner by which alone they can rightly be perceived. Now he who neither understands nor can understand spiritual things, to whom they are foolishness, and who is not capable of them — it seems clear to me that such a person is not an evangelical theologian. If there are any who think they hold a different view, our page will not be contentious with them; for in fact they either think differently than they suppose themselves to think, or they do not believe the gospel.

In bearing this testimony, our Lord and Master Jesus Christ Himself went before His disciple and apostle (John 3:3): "Unless one is born from above," He says, "he cannot see the kingdom of God." No one will deny that to see is the same as to know or understand — that use of the sense of words is most frequent in sacred Scripture. That by the kingdom of God He intends the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven — that is, the doctrine of the gospel — the Lord Jesus shows in several places: as Matthew 13:11; Mark 4:11; Luke 8:10. By His authority, therefore, he who is not regenerate can in no way understand the evangelical doctrine. Again, rebuking the unbelieving Pharisees (John 8:47): "He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear, because you are not of God." To be of God is to be "born of God" (John 1:13). He who is not of God in that manner "cannot hear the words of God." He is not a fit hearer of them, since he neither understands their spiritual wisdom nor is obedient to them. In like manner He affirms of these same Pharisees — who were puffed up with the opinion of the highest skill in hearing and expounding the word of God — that they had "never heard the voice of God" nor seen His form (John 5:37); for "hearing they did not hear," nor "seeing did they see," because they rightly understood nothing of those things they had heard and seen. But those who consider such persons as scribes instructed for the kingdom of heaven, taught of God, or genuine disciples of Christ (as all evangelical theologians are) — I hope they will bear with those who, together with Christ, hold a different opinion. There is no need to accumulate other testimonies after the express words of our Lord.

Furthermore: the things that are said on the one hand about all the unregenerate, and on the other about the communication of this theology, are such as to exclude them entirely from all communion with it; they cry out, indeed: "Every one of you is a stranger."

They are "blind," (2 Peter 1:9; Isaiah 42:7; Luke 4:18); and they are "darkness," (John 1:5; 1 Peter 2:9; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 5:8); "their minds are darkened," (Ephesians 4:18); "they walk in darkness," (1 John 1:6); and "they love darkness," (John 3:19); they are "dead," (Ephesians 2:5); enemies of God (Romans 8:7), "who neither are subject to the law of God, nor can be." But this evangelical doctrine is "light," (Matthew 4:16; 1 Peter 2:9; Hosea 6:5; John 11:9; Psalm 119:130); and it affords light to all who receive it (Psalm 19:8, 9; John 1:5; Psalm 36:9; 2 Peter 1:19; John 12:35, 36). It is also "life," (John 6:33; Philippians 1:16); and it gives life to those who understand it (John 17:3, 25). This doctrine is moreover communicated through the "opening of eyes," (Isaiah 42:7; Acts 26:18); the "renewing of the mind," (Romans 12:2; Ephesians 4:23); "translation from darkness into light," (1 Peter 2:9; Ephesians 5:8); "resurrection from the dead," (Ephesians 5:14); and through a most powerful "irradiation of spiritual light," by which God removes darkness, with no less exertion of His power than He employed in the very creation of all things, when He commanded light to shine out of darkness (2 Corinthians 4:6). To prove that the blind see, the darkness shines, and the dead live, requires no common sophistry. Furthermore, to assert that God opened their eyes, translated them into His marvelous light, raised them from the dead, and shone into their minds to give them the knowledge of His glory — concerning those of whom He Himself openly testifies that He did not deal with them in this way — is the work of none but learned angelic doctors and seraphic sophists. But perhaps they will say that all these things are spoken metaphorically; for in truth and properly speaking, the unregenerate are not blind or dead, nor is the doctrine light, but only metaphorically so. But ever since these foolish little men judged that they could speak more properly of divine things than God Himself, scarcely anything sound or whole has been left in the Christian religion; but the pure, heavenly, spiritual, life-giving evangelical doctrine, having been turned into secular and academic knowledge, has overthrown nearly all truth, godliness, and faith. And in this opinion the most learned Pharisees were of old, who confessed that the poor little fellow born blind had lacked his natural sight — yet refused to admit that they themselves were blind, when in truth they were more blind than all moles. But grant that some of these words are transferred from natural things to spiritual uses; for if the same relation did not hold between spiritual blindness and spiritual light, death and life, as holds between natural blindness and natural light, and likewise natural death and natural life, the Holy Spirit by His use of those words would not be teaching us but deceiving and misleading us — yet He deceives us no more than He can be deceived by us. But there is no room here for disputation with those in whose judgment the gospel has obtained faith — who, I fear, are exceedingly few: "For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? What agreement has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?" (2 Corinthians 6:14-16). Furthermore, evangelical theology is taught by the Holy Spirit and by Him alone: "The Holy Spirit will teach you all things," (John 14:26). Hence all the children of the church are taught of God (Isaiah 54:13; John 6:45). He is the anointing that teaches all things: "You have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things," (1 John 2:20). "The anointing teaches you concerning all things," ver. 27. Nor can He be impeded in His office by anyone. The apostle also teaches this most plainly (1 Corinthians 2:6-13). We have briefly expounded those words of the apostle at the beginning of the work, where we treated of the general nature of theology. Let the reader consult that passage. He teaches that evangelical doctrine is the wisdom of God in a mystery, differing in its whole kind from all human knowledge or wisdom; and he denies that it can be perceived without the special aid of the Holy Spirit. He affirms, moreover, that the Spirit Himself illuminates the minds of the faithful with that wisdom. But those who are not regenerate do not have the Spirit: "natural persons, not having the Spirit," (Jude 19). They belong to the world, which does not receive the Spirit, nor can receive Him: (John 14:17), "The Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him." Nor are they partakers of the anointing. It is therefore remarkable how they can be imbued with this wisdom, since they neither have the Spirit, who alone bestows it, nor wish to have anything in common with Him. Justin speaks admirably in his Dialogue with Trypho: "Unless one has received understanding of the things spoken and done by the prophets through the abundant grace of God, nothing will profit him in being able to recount their words and deeds."

VII. Finally, the same truth becomes clear from consideration of the end of all true theology. We have demonstrated abundantly enough that through primordial natural theology — the innate knowledge of God — before the entrance of sin, man was made like and conformed to God, and fit and apt for rendering due obedience to Him. The end of true theology can be learned from that end which God Himself gave to it at the beginning and united with it inseparably. Evangelical theology is substituted for natural theology. And unless it is to be said that it performs its functions improperly, it renders its subject conformed to God.

Book 1, chap. 2, p. 832. — and ready to do His will. That no defect clings to it on this side, we shall show afterward. We acknowledge, therefore, that very many of the unregenerate excel greatly in that knowledge of spiritual things which we have described above; but we utterly deny that they are made conformable to God by virtue of it, and consequently the knowledge with which they are furnished is not theology. For without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6), and all that they perform in the worship of God is plainly nothing (John 15:5). That their works also are "splendid sins" is a famous saying of the ancients, drawn from many passages of sacred Scripture. The knowledge they have of God and of His will does indeed stimulate the consciences of the unregenerate to obey God. It also kindles and increases the natural light of conscience, adds sparks of legal fervor to it, sharpens the sense of sin, and stirs up and fosters many anticipatory forebodings of the coming judgment in the depths of their hearts; but since it does not renew the mind, does not remove the hard heart, does not dispel natural darkness, nor compel the shadows of death to vanish, does not render the soul itself conformed to God, nor bestow spiritual powers for rendering due obedience to God — it therefore by no means attains to the name of true theology. Epictetus would deny that a man is a philosopher who is not free, not master of himself, who has not placed all good in those things that lie within our power. Far be it from us, as Christians, to acknowledge as a theologian one who is not a disciple of Christ, or as a disciple of Christ one who does nothing of what Christ commanded and can do nothing of it — they are all of them, to a man, enemies of Christ, and are regarded by Him as enemies. And very many of them, all the more openly the more learned they are, hold the Spirit of Christ in mockery and contempt. Excellent evangelical theologians indeed! Let them peruse the books of the ancients, let them gorge themselves, let them dispute most keenly, let them turn the bloodless scholastics into flesh and blood, let them devour all the critics, let them write on Scripture, let them preach — yet so far are they from being counted theologians that they do not even properly and directly belong to the church of Christ.

Furthermore, the most holy and most sweet communion with God that is to be cultivated — which is the beginning of man's blessedness — is another end of theology. The first man enjoyed this in the state of integrity, through the benefit of primordial theology. That sinners might again attain communion with the most holy God, this new theology was instituted by Him. This we have abundantly proved above. Therefore, unless one has obtained spiritual communion with God through Christ, no man is instructed in this theology. Whether any of the unregenerate have spiritual communion with God is, so far as I know, a matter of no controversy among the regenerate.

Finally, the ultimate end of true theology is the praise of the glory of the grace of God to be celebrated in the eternal salvation of theologians — that is, the very enjoyment of God to the praise of His grace through Jesus Christ. If that light which the unregenerate possess as their own can direct them in a saving manner toward this end, so that they at length attain it in reality by its benefit, no one will deny that they are theologians; but if not, they must be assigned to whatever other class of learned men one chooses. The comprehension of political precepts is not civil prudence, nor is he at once a good citizen who has carefully studied the books of Plato on the Republic and the Laws, or those of Cicero; nor is he a Christian theologian who has only a superficial notion and knowledge of terms, and nothing beyond that of a disciple of Christ or a true theologian. Indeed, such little men fall shamefully upon themselves, and into that saying of the philosopher: "For," he says, "when reason does not agree with life, one must seem to speak in a foreign tongue, like a flute," Philostratus, in the Life of Crates.