The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-02-16
For the Central Presbyterian.
"R. r. H." on Regeneration.

| Ae' ~ - Oh 4sCSCAlcIdClOu.
MesSrs Editors,-In your issue of Jan.
18th, appears an article over the sigma
ture " R. R. H., which is virtually dis
cussion of regeneration, from which 1 clip
the following paragraph:
Certainly the man must be bold-and rash as
bold-who will venture to declare that in the
passage from the third chapter of John in which
Christ speaks of regeneration, He explains or
defines it. Thus much, however, He does: He
negatives entirely all idea that natural birth in
this world can furnish any illustration of the
nature of the new birth from God; and He en-
courages us rather to believe that more ap-
propriate illustration of it is found in the eternal
and :nexplicable generation of God the Son from
God the Father.
deem these statements, both from the
intrinsic doctrinal merits of the subject
under consideration, and the lack of con-
formity of you resteemed correspondent s
views with the generally received opin-
ions, worthy of careful review. A mere
logomachy is always contemplate, vet
history shows that even the spelling of
word with an in it involves sometimes
fundamental truth. Certainly" says
K. K. II" the man must be bold-and
rash as bold-who will venture to declare
that in the passage from the third chap
ter OF John in which Christ speaks of re-
generation, He explains it or defines it.
L suspect he would insist on giving to the
words "explain" and define" strict,
technical meaning; and, on this ground
defend his position. But definition or
explanation, which includes all the at
tributes of the subject and nothing in ad-
dltlon, is thing the existence of which
in the whole realm of human knowledge,
may be doubted: that is to say, if in Or
der to the existence of definition or ex-
PLANTATION, the sum total of all the attri-
butes. properties, qualities, and character
istics, whether possessed in common with
others or not, must be noted with infal-
llble exactness; then [ doubt whether we
can affirm that Christ ever explained or
defined any thing, or any one else ever
did. If such explanation or definition
ever existed, it would be entitled to the
denomination adequate In common par
lance we have to take an inadequate de-
finition for an adequate one, and much
Misrepresentation and confusion result
from this fact An explanation may be
so defective as to amount almost to moth
ing, and it may be so far forth adequate
that practically, it precludes reasonable
danger of misapprehension. Now there
may result, from the study of the inter-
view between Christ and Nicodemus. a
variety of opinions as to the adequacy of
Christs explanation or, as I would call
it, illustration; but, it seems to me- if
Christ's language to Nicodemus did not
define anything to his mind, he did right
~ j. L
sounding brass or tinkling cymbal
That 1 have not misunderstood "R. R.
FL. in his defining or explaining his view,
appears, even painfully, from what fol-
lows Immediately: "Thus much, how
ever, He Christi does: lie negatives en-
tirely Gtalics mine) all idea that natural
birth in this world can furnish any IL
Illustration of the nature of the new birth
from Cod To all which I respond:
No marcel that Nicodemus maa1veIledl
What sense could possibly be put upon
the phrases: "That which is born of the
flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of
the Spirit, is spirit" if natural birth fur
nishes no illustration Of spiritual birth
Why are the two things brought together
and spoken of, spiritual birth under the
idea of natural birth, if the latter has no
point of analogy to the former? Can it
be possible that our Divine Teacher said
a" Except man be born, etc., and, when
Nicodemus became astonished, added, in
thought: ri used the figure of natural
birth because it in no sense illustrates
regeneration, and for the purpose of show
ing the inscrutible mystery of spiritual
birth Such, it seems is your correspon-
dents Interpretation. But, not content
with the denial of all analogy between
natural and spiritual birth, he proceeds
to furnish an illustration Z" in the eternal
and inexplicable generation of God the
Son from God the Father" the philoso-
ply of which is: AS the eternal genera
ton of the Son is inexplicable, even so is
regeneration: that is, we are told, there
is an inexplicable mystery in heaven, and
there is one in the earth, and they mu-
tually illustrate each other; and, since
the one in heaven is unknowable, the
other on earth is unknowable; but what
ever they are, natural birth furnishes no
illustration of them Thus, all the sub
stratum of the doctrine of regeneration
melts and oozes away, and we have left
in its stead an inexplicable mystery.
But, still more: "R. r. H. . informs us
that regeneration has both its divine
and its human elements" like "repen-
lance faith and conversion Well the