I was speaking with a Presbyterian friend the other day who told me the story of his conversion. As he spoke he related an incident that caught my attention. He said something like this: “Earlier in my life I only thought I was saved. But later on when I was converted I knew for a fact that I was.”

I ought to have asked him how he knew because when I was a Lutheran we emphasized baptismal regeneration in direct response to such things. For instance, one may think he is born again, but some time later has a powerful spiritual experience wherein he says, “Previously I only thought I was saved. I was only fooling myself because now I know I am saved.” Obviously this experience can be replayed any number of times. In opposition to such a Lutheran would hold that he knows he is saved because of his baptism; that the sacrament is objective, God-worked, and has nothing to do with how he feels or what he experiences.

So how would a Presbyterian or a Baptist respond to this? How does reformed theology avoid the trap of “experience” or “feeling” when speaking of regeneration without falling into a theology of baptismal regeneration and ex opere operato?

__________________
Kevin Guillory
Pastor
Redeemer Christian Congregation
Baltimore, MD

I don't interpret Scripture. Scripture
interprets itself. And in the process ...
Scripture interprets me!