The Nature of Conversion

Grillsy · #41 (**permalink**) 07-30-2009, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

In addition to John the Baptist, I would also point to Psalm 22:9 which plainly indicates that trust can happen in an infant: "Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts" (ESV). Not only the second part of the verse, but also the first part of the verse is instructive. The Lord took David from the womb, and then made David trust while still an infant. We also need to be careful in this discussion not to assume that we know what a baby in utero or just born can and cannot do with regard to their understanding. Remember that the sensus divinitatis is inborn in us. If that is true (as part of the image of God), then we cannot assume that other things are impossible for the baby. At any rate, it can be dangerous to require a conversion experience, since this might undermine a child's natural trust in God (if present). At any rate, it could easily confuse them. Of course, we cannot assume that they are regenerated. But should we always be doubting a 4 or 5 year old if they say they trust Jesus?

In other psalms the "I" of the psalm may be David or another psalmist, but can Ps. 22 be read that way? Since the NT identifies Christ as the "I" in Ps. 22, and the focus of the Psalm is primarily a recounting of Christ's experience, I am left wondering whether it is legitmate exegesis to support an element of the experience of sinful men from this psalm?

I would like to hear a response to this question. It is a good one

***greenbaggins*** · #42 (**permalink**) 07-30-2009, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

In addition to John the Baptist, I would also point to Psalm 22:9 which plainly indicates that trust can happen in an infant: "Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts" (ESV). Not only the second part of the verse, but also the first part of the verse is instructive. The Lord took David from the womb, and then made David trust while still an infant. We also need to be careful in this discussion not to assume that we know what a baby in utero or just born can and cannot do with regard to their understanding. Remember that the sensus divinitatis is inborn in us. If that is true (as part of the image of God), then we cannot assume that other things are impossible for the baby. At any rate, it can be dangerous to require a conversion experience, since this might undermine a child's natural trust in God (if present). At any rate, it could easily confuse them. Of course, we cannot assume that they are regenerated. But should we always be doubting a 4 or 5 year old if they say they trust Jesus?

In other psalms the "I" of the psalm may be David or another psalmist, but can Ps. 22 be read that way? Since the NT identifies Christ as the "I" in Ps. 22, and the focus of the Psalm is primarily a recounting of Christ's experience, I am left wondering whether it is legitmate exegesis to support an element of the experience of sinful men from this psalm?

Bruce gave a good answer to this one. Some things carry over from type to antitype. Some things do not. Some thing are true of both. Surely it would not be a huge stretch to imagine that just as David trusted from infancy, so also Jesus the man trusted His heavenly Father from infancy. The whole point of a type is that there is something in the type that points forward. Ultimately, it is speaking about Jesus. However, that does not erase what is true of the type.

A.J. · #43 (**permalink**) 07-30-2009, 11:25 PM

Interestingly, Psalm 22:10 was used as a prooftext for Q&A 74 of the Heidelberg Catechism in its 1563 orginal editions. (See Reformed Church in the United States. The Three Forms of Unity. Sioux Falls, South Dakota: RCUS, 2001)

Brian Withnell · #44 (**permalink**) 07-31-2009, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by christiana

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by christiana

John 3:3 (New King James Version)

3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

This is conversion, regeneration, the new birth, being born again. It is done by the Holy Spirit in a sinful heart, bringing change to it that may or may not be remembered as to the exact time and date, and yet it is clear that it did in fact occur!

Of course, but that regenerative work by God could be before one is born into this world. If it were not, then those that are stillborn are the most tragic deaths of all, for even those descended from the elect would be without any hope. It isn't that I would disagree that everyone must experience regeneration in order to be saved, but regeneration is an act of God that is not an effect of some action on the part of the elect. Regeneration logically, if not chronologically, precedes faith; those that are not regenerate cannot exercise saving faith. Those that are regenerate can and do exercise saving faith by virtue of that regeneration.

Actually I must apologize for the 'thanks' as I intended to hit the 'quote' and to express my extreme disagreement with such a statement!
We were chosen in eternity past and are consciously brought to faith in Christ during our lifetime at the time of the Holy Spirit's intervention. It is repeated over and over in scripture that we place our faith in Christ and be granted repentance of sin; this indicating regeneration has taken place.
Never in this lifetime have I ever heard of one being regenerated in utero! There must be a consciousness of sin and guilt in order to see ones need of a Savior! Until and unless one sees themself as a sinner and feels the guilt they will not be seeking a Savior from the same!

There are two examples in scripture in which those either in the womb, or at least in infancy are stated as being in faith (and that is off the top of my head). John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit from the womb, David in the passage I quoted claims a similar experience in Psalm 22 (which even though it points to Christ, was written by David).

Certainly for those outside the church, foreigners to the promises of God, strangers to the Kingdom, there will be a time when they hear the word preached and the Spirit work within them (even I am a brand snatched from the fire). Yet I would not speak as to contradict what scripture says in Psalm 22, or Luke 1:15 - 44, or even Romans 9:11. It is not that God chooses based on seeing what we will eventually do. It is not what we do that puts our name in the book of life, it is what God does. My name was written in the book of life and because he wrote it, he accomplished bringing me to faith by the work of the Spirit. The work of the Spirit in John the Baptist was explicitly stated as happening in the womb. While there may be some argument as to David, it is doubtless that he did not have comprehension of abstract concepts on his mother's breast. And while Jacob may have a time when he certainly was less sanctified in his walk, he never had a time when his name was not recorded in the book of life.

While I fully understand the Bible commands us to repent, it also commands us to do so continually. Repentance is not something that we ever stop exercising in this life.

I see nothing in scripture that says the Holy Spirit is bound to only work in those that have mental capacity. I think this is one of those things that goes back to the idea that faith is something we have because we have enough knowledge. That those that are outside of Christ do not believe because they do not have enough knowledge to believe. I firmly believe that those outside of Christ do in fact know the truth (Rom 1:18 and following) and persist in unbelief because of a moral defect (a sinful nature). If God regenerates, it does not matter what the mental capacity of the person whom he regenerates is at the time of regeneration. They trust Christ at that time. The mentally retarded are not necessarily outside of Christ. Little children are not necessarily outside of Christ. John was in Christ from the womb if we are to believe scripture.

Certainly we require those that wish to partake of the supper to be capable of proper reflection as to their standing in Christ, but that does not mean that those that are not admitted to the table are not already in Christ. I have great confidence in the faith of my eldest daughter. From the time she was 2 years old, I know she expressed a desire to turn from sin and cling to Christ ... as much as what a 2 year old can. While she, like all of us, has not been perfect in her walk, she has always been walking from what I can see. Does a 2 year old understand everything about faith? No. But can a 2 year old place faith in someone? Of course. If faith (or lack of faith) is a moral issue, not an intellectual issue, then being in faith ... by grace are you save through faith ... is not an intellectual exercise. So if the Spirit works in the womb to regenerate (removes the heart of stone, and replaces it with a heart of flesh) that is when "conversion" occurs.

-----Added 7/31/2009 at 06:42:00 EST-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbcbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Quote:

Originally Posted by christiana

Actually I must apologize for the 'thanks' as I intended to hit the 'quote' and to express my extreme disagreement with such a statement!
We were chosen in eternity past and are consciously brought to faith in Christ during our lifetime at the time of the Holy Spirit's intervention. It is repeated over and over in scripture that we place our faith in Christ and be granted repentance of sin; this indicating regeneration has taken place.
Never in this lifetime have I ever heard of one being regenerated in utero! There must be a consciousness of sin and guilt in order to see ones need of a Savior! Until and unless one sees themself as a sinner and feels the guilt they will not be seeking a Savior from the same!

John the Baptist was.

Why do you limit the moment of regeneration to some time ex utero? Why can't it be that some are regenerated in the womb? Nobody who argues that regeneration can in principle happen in utero would dispute your correct assertion that one must be conscious of sin and guilt.... but why does that fact limit in ANY way WHEN the Spirit might regenerate an individual?

Todd,
I am not disagreeing with your point, I think it is helpful. But I have a further question which might stimulate further refinement of this discussion (or maybe not

). Can someone be regenerated in the womb and live twenty or thirty years before repenting and believing? I know that further questions would then follow. What are your thoughts?

Can a person repent and believe in the womb? I would say yes.