July/August 1996
Volume 2, Number 4

Understanding the New Birth

by Stephen E. Smallman,
(former) pastor of McLean Presbyterian Church, McLean, Virginia.

In 1976, I preached a sermon from John 3 attempting to explain the new birth in terms of how it is actually experienced. Listening to me that day were two members of the fledgling ministry, Prison Fellowship. After the service they approached me and asked if I would give that same message to a group of inmates who would be coming to town. I still remember how they expressed their request, "There is no group of people who are more evangelized than those in prison. They are exhorted over and over to ‘get saved,’ or ‘give their hearts to Jesus.’ BUT no one explains God’s part in their getting saved. You just did and we would like you to tell that to the inmates."

When I teach, I like to use visual aids. So when I prepared to talk to the PF group, I illustrated my teaching by drawing a simple diagram that drew a parallel between physical and spiritual birth which I believe was Jesus’ intention in John 3. On the most basic level, it points out that the critical "moment" in the wonder of birth is not the delivery of the baby, but the conception, whether that describes physical or spiritual birth. Little did I know that the refinements and implications of what we now call the "birthline" would be a tool that would help numbers of people deepen their understanding of God’s grace in their lives and, in turn, enable them to become much more sensitive and effective in their evangelism and pastoral work.

But the fact that something "works" on a practical level does not necessarily make it true. Therefore, I have tried to continually test my teaching not only in terms of biblical fidelity, but in terms of confessional standards and respected teachers of theology. Thus far, that testing has not only encouraged me to continue to develop the birthline paradigm, but also to appreciate that what I have been learning is nothing new. In my view this is a restatement of matters that were carefully thought out by our fathers in the faith, but have been largely overlooked in our generation.

The heart of the matter in writing this is not theology proper. There is ample material available on the doctrines of salvation. I will try to cite many of these excellent resources as I work through the birthline. But what has been lost, in my view, is the skillful pastoral application of these doctrines in the "cure" of souls. In the language of the older teachers, the pastor was known as the "physician of the soul." Using the same imagery, I speak of our ministry of taking Christ to others as being that of a "midwife rather than a salesman." But both the physician and midwife are skilled people who have given serious attention to understanding the process of birth and growth. Those of us involved in the sacred task of dealing with the birth and growth of peoples’ souls, must likewise give these matters serious attention.

The discussion that follows is an attempt to provide a biblical and theological basis for the use of the birthline paradigm in pastoral ministry. I still need to write a tract with this material, but the foundational work needed to be done first. I will not try to discuss every detail and will also use endnotes to provide more extensive citations. My intention, as I noted above, is to search for practical wisdom that grows out of sound theology and exegesis. In that respect, I feel that I have a distinct advantage writing not as an academic, but as a pastor who is putting these concepts to work in personal conversations, teaching and preaching.

As ardent "pro-lifers" we insist that recognition be given to the reality of human life before the baby "goes public." My passion is that we do the same in the spiritual realm and give far more attention to the presence of spiritual life before it "goes public," in what is usually called "conversion."

In the birthline, regeneration is the spiritual equivalent of the conception of the child; effectual calling is a period of spiritual gestation or pregnancy; conversion is the time of actual delivery, or "going public"; sanctification is the spiritual equivalent of the child growing to maturity. The first conclusion that comes from viewing the birthline as a whole is the obvious truth that salvation is a "process, not just an event."

It is very important to keep in mind my use of the term paradigm. That means the process of human birth provides a very helpful model or pattern for understanding what is ultimately an invisible and supernatural process. But not every experience of the new birth will match up in every detail and we should not try to force it into this mold. Nevertheless, when I have presented the birthline idea over and over, I have found that most Christian people considered it very valuable in helping to illuminate their experience with God.

1. The birthline explains what is called the ‘application of redemption.’ The term for this is ‘experimental religion’ in much of the older literature. In other words, this is the division of theology that explains what God does in our souls, not what he ordained in eternity or accomplished at the cross. In the Westminster Shorter catechism, following a presentation of the work of Christ to obtain our redemption, the question is asked, "How are we made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ?" (#29). The answer is, "We are made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ by the effectual application of it to us by his Holy Spirit." So it is a distinct operation of the Holy Spirit to apply to us personally what Christ has accomplished through his finished work on the cross.

I believe that we can think of the issues of election and predestination as taking place "off stage" in terms of the actual experience of God transforming the soul. I have no question that the work of the Spirit is a fulfillment of God’s eternal purpose ("Those whom he predestined, he also called," Romans 8:30), but the birthline deals with the real-time activity of God in a person’s life. My experience in dealing with people about their spiritual condition, whether before or after conversion, is that if we deal first with their awareness of God’s unique work in their souls, then the "big picture" of sovereign grace is much more appreciated.

2. The watershed issue theologically is the fact that regeneration, or the work of God in the soul, is prior to conversion, which is the human response. It is regeneration that enables us to trust Christ. If there is one thing very explicit in the birthline, it is the distinction between regeneration and conversion. That has enormous practical consequences in helping people understand the meaning of grace and the work of God in their souls. I believe people who are born again have an intuitive sense that God has been moving in their souls long before they found Christ. Consider, for example, the way people respond to the words of "Amazing Grace." That hymn has remarkable power even with unbelievers-- perhaps it touches people’s sense of powerlessness-- but Christians feel a particular affinity with the message.

In general evangelical writing, however, the distinction between regeneration and conversion is usually muddled. An author will say something about the Holy Spirit being necessary, but then identify conversion as the beginning point of spiritual life. This may include language such as, "When you received Christ, you were born again," actually reversing the order, or making rebirth and believing in Jesus synonymous. Theologically that could be clearly identified as Aminianism, and in some cases it is. But in my opinion, most of that type of teaching is rooted in modern indifference to serious theology and should not be given any label other than "carelessness."

The sad reality is that far too many of those who wear the label "Reformed" or "Calvinist" do not understand this distinction in terms of their evangelistic or pastoral ministries. John Gerstner in an article on Jonathan Edward’s teaching on "preparation" said, "Nothing brings more blinking stares than to lecture to American Calvinistic groups today on seeking as the cutting edge of Calvinistic evangelism."

3. Once the fundamental issue is determined, that God’s work of regeneration must come first, then comes the recognition that within Reformed tradition there is a variety of ways to define how that actually happens in the "experimental" sphere. I will try to explain some of the variations, but I do not believe that there is any substantial difference among Reformed teachers, once their definitions are understood. I have discovered that a study of the use of regeneration can be very confusing unless careful attention is given to the matter of definition of terms.

I teach that regeneration is equivalent to conception. That means it is the first move of God on the soul. It can be argued that the Greek word, gennan, should be translated "begotten," rather than "born." Once the conception occurred, then the new life would grow on the analogy of pregnancy, which fits beautifully with the Shorter Catechism’s description of effectual calling (#31). So regeneration, strictly defined, is that invisible moment known only to God, when spiritual life begins. However, the new birth, like physical birth, is actually a process and both processes end with the delivery of the baby.

Another New Testament image for regeneration is spiritual resurrection-- the idea that we who "were dead in transgressions and sins" were "made alive with Christ" (Ephesians 2:1-5;

Colossians 2:13). Following through with the birthline paradigm, the act of resurrection or "quickening" would not be the conversion, but that point where one formerly dead now has the ability to respond to God and can hear and ultimately believe the gospel-- regeneration.

A primary source that supported this understanding of regeneration was Abraham Kuyper in his Work of the Holy Spirit. In a chapter introducing regeneration, he speaks of the "old and new terminology." He recognized that regeneration could be used in a limited sense, in which case it is "the starting point. God comes to one dead ... and plants the principle of a new spiritual life in his soul. Hence he is born again." Or it could be used in a wider sense, in which case regeneration "denotes the entire change by grace effected in our persons, ending in our dying to sin in death and our being born for heaven." Kuyper argued, as I would, that too broad a definition of regeneration would ultimately dilute a true appreciation of the wonder of salvation by grace alone. Therefore he answered the question, "What has God wrought in the soul? with the answer, "the first implanting of life."

It is also possible to reverse the order and place calling before regeneration. Dr. John Murray argues for this, but acknowledges that no fundamental issue of theology would be at stake if regeneration were put first. However, Murray understands "the call" as an act of God the Father summoning us to Christ, and takes exception to the Westminster Confession’s definition of calling as a work of the Holy Spirit. Regeneration follows the call and is the work of the Spirit enabling us to respond to it. When Murray defines regeneration it is little different than any other Reformed author.

The Westminster Confession does not even have a chapter on regeneration. It would seem that it is understood as part of effectual calling (chapter X). However, that chapter also deals with the question of children who die in infancy. It states, "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit...so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word" (section III). This teaches that while ordinarily those elect and therefore regenerated will be called through the preaching of the Word, there may be instances of those whom God saves who never consciously exercise faith. This also means that Jesus’ statement that no one can enter the Kingdom unless they are born again means exactly that.

As I noted above, there is limited value in trying to be overly precise about defining an invisible and supernatural work. But pastorally, I believe it is an invaluable insight to be reminded that there was life well before we consciously entered into a relationship of faith. Furthermore, we must labor on a practical level to distinguish being "born again," as a work of God, from our response of faith and repentance. In my experience, the simple analogy of conception leading to a time of spiritual pregnancy, and inevitably to a point of delivery, or "going public," has been extremely useful in introducing this deeper meaning of salvation.

4. That leads to further consideration of effectual calling, which in my paradigm is equivalent to the time of pregnancy. As much as I respect John Murray, I would be very reluctant to give up the wonderful description of calling as a work of the Holy Spirit. Consider the masterful way the authors of the Catechism describe the process of our coming to faith: "Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit whereby (three progressive participles indicate inward changes beginning to unfold): convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills; he (the Spirit, having prepared our hearts) doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered in the Gospel" (#31).

The various nuances of that catechism answer are extraordinary and provide great insight into helping a person recall the powerful working of God before they actually believed. Usually when people give a testimony of their salvation they will allude to these kinds of experiences, but often with the thought that they were almost random events rather than the deliberate moving into their lives of the Holy Spirit of God. It seems to me that taking time to reflect back on our lost condition and then recall how God moved in and changed us is a pattern frequently applied by Paul

(1 Corinthians 1:26-31, "think of what you were when you were called..."; Ephesians 2:1; Colossians 1:13,14,21).

For those in the position of pastors or spiritual counselors, an understanding of the work of effectual calling is extraordinarily important. The matter of helping people discern the work of God in their souls gave rise to the idea of the "cure of souls" as I noted above. I have read recently of the use of the term by those providing counseling-- in the modern sense of counseling-- but I am anxious for a return to focus on the historic meaning of the cure of souls. Only God, of course, changes the soul, but the pastor as "physician of the soul" needs to develop expertise in the "cure." He needs to be patient and sensitive and learn to listen carefully as people describe their spiritual struggles.

But not only is an understanding of the process of ‘calling’ valuable as a pastoral tool, it also makes a major difference in the way we present the gospel to unbelievers. In 1 Corinthians 1, Paul makes it clear that he understood the limitation of his message to effect those dead in sin. But he nevertheless faithfully preached the cross of Christ, because among the Jews and Greeks hearing him were those "whom God has called," and to them that message of foolishness was the power and wisdom of God. This means we must be patient while the Holy Spirit does his work and not force the birth. But it also means we should not change the truth of the gospel in an effort to make it more winsome.

5. The next issue that is surfaced by the birthline is that of conversion. In the process of physical birth, that which is conceived will ultimately grow to the point where he/she is delivered into the world. We usually associate this with the baby’s first cry. When we hear the cry we usually do not make a statement like, "Johnny’s ALIVE!" because we know Johnny has been alive for some time. But now it is time for him to announce that fact and for his life to take a very major new step.

On a spiritual level, we recognize this new step as some form of conversion. Scripturally, we could note any number of passages calling for faith and repentance, for trusting Christ, etc. But of particular significance is Romans 10:10: "For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that YOU confess and are saved." It would seem that in Paul’s understanding, the initial process of salvation is not complete until some kind of verbal confession is made. Perhaps it means that while God knows our hearts (and has already justified us, if I understand that verse correctly), we cannot get on with the challenge of living out our life in Christ until we have used our mouths in confession of Christ. In a public presentation of the birthline, I take a great deal of time to talk about the importance of conversion, but for this paper, let me go on to say more about the phrase I used above, "some form of conversion."

When I first presented the birthline, I drew out the image of conception and pregnancy, and then made a firm "X" that crossed the line. The more I have listened carefully to how people have experienced the grace of God in their effectual calling, the more I am inclined to rethink the whole way in which we have understood the conversion experience, particularly as evangelicals. I now draw the "X" as dotted lines. The necessity of conscious and expressed faith in Christ is absolutely clear biblically, but have we so boxed that expression of faith in our cultural wrappings that we deny assurance to some who have genuine faith even though they cannot testify to a conversion experience? And just as importantly, do we give false assurance to others whose only claim to Christian faith is some sort of religious experience that fits our idea of a conversion?

Many things have contributed to this rethinking of conversion experience. But the most dramatic push I received was a reading, years ago, of the "conversion" of Malcolm X. His testimony fulfills all the classic symptoms of a conversion story. He even entitled that chapter, "Saved." His conversion experience was genuine and life-changing-- but it was conversion to faith in Elijah Muhammed and the Black Muslims!

We need to reckon with the fact that we have built an understanding of salvation around the kinds of religious experiences that can be duplicated emotionally and psychologically in any manner of circumstances and teachings. And it would be presumptuous to assume that within the church we do not have any number of people who have been "converted" apart from the true calling work of the Holy Spirit.

This concern about superficial conversions is not a new one and is being raised even in evangelical circles today. But on a practical and pastoral level, I have found that the birthline is very effective in making the point that a true conversion is only part of a work of salvation that began before the person came to know Christ, and that will continue after that first experience. It also has served to take the spotlight away from particular experiences without denying the validity of them. I have found that this has been particularly helpful for those raised in Christian homes who give genuine evidence of the new birth, but cannot point to a particular conversion moment. I have also discovered that there are others, (including many Roman Catholics), who have grown up sincerely believing in the doctrines of the faith and who personally embrace Christ, but for whom the evangelical idea of conversion is foreign. Archibald Alexander remarks that Christian denominations differ from one another not only in doctrine and worship, but in their understanding of religious experience. The issue is not, at what moment people were converted, but are they currently trusting only in Christ and knowing the inward work of God in their lives.

6. My wrestling with the nature of conversion has led to thoughts about the nature of faith. We recognize that faith is a gift from God and that by virtue of our faith we are justified and adopted. But at what point in our spiritual pilgrimage does this happen? Do we tie faith to conversion when we first believed in Jesus? I have always tended to do that. But what does this mean when conversion is not distinct? What about those who grow up believing, or who cannot identify a conversion experience, even though they give evidence of being born again?

Once again, the Shorter Catechism helped solve my puzzle. Question #30 asks, "How doth the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?" and then answers, "The Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling." So the Holy Spirit implants faith in us when He calls us. Using my birthline, that suggests that when God conceives new spiritual life within us, what is conversion is FAITH. That germ of faith grows until it is finally expressed in conversion and subsequently grows for the rest of our earthly existence. Abraham Kuyper again provided insights on this matter. He quoted some Scottish theologians (unnamed) as follows: "God began the work of grace with the implanting of the faith-faculty (fides potential) is followed by the new grace of the faith-exercise (fides actual) and of the faith-power (fides habitual)."

So the continuum suggested by the birthline also represents a progress of faith-- but a faith begun by a sovereign act of God in our souls (Ephesians 2:8; 2 Peter 1:1). Conversion, then is not the beginning of faith any more than it is the beginning our spiritual life. It is the conscious exercise of a faith that was already given.

It follows, it seems to me, that the benefits of our effectual calling-- justification, adoption, and sanctification (Shorter Catechism #32) are also not begun at conversion. But at conversion we begin to appropriate and enjoy what has been given us when we were "united to Christ in our effectual calling." This is a departure from the usual assumption that all of these benefits actually begin at conversion. But this new way of thinking (for me) squares with the pastoral experience of welcoming people into the church who give genuine evidence of sincere trust in Christ and a changed life, but who, because of poor teaching, have virtually no appreciation of what it means to be justified or adopted. So these are "saved" people, who therefore are justified, adopted and already in process of sanctification, but they do not know this. We are quick to tell people who profess Christ what they need to be doing. But the Apostle Paul, it seems to me, made his first point of stress what he prayed they would be knowing.

7. From a practical perspective, we teach these great doctrines after people have come to an exercise and profession of faith. That is clearly what Paul was doing in Romans. He was writing to people "called to belong to Jesus Christ...called to be saints" (Romans 1:6,7). But the fact that they had experienced the (effectual) calling of God did not mean they understood what was already theirs in Christ. So the Apostle explained the gospel to the church (1:14-17). He starts with the human condition (1:18-3:20), the meaning of the cross and justification (3:21-5:21), sanctification (6:1-8:11), adoption (8:12-27), and finally predestination and perseverance (8:28-39). It is only in chapter 12 that he moves on to the imperatives that are a consequence of these "mercies of God" (12:1).

If we take this as a model of teaching a young church, as I think we should, then I believe it suggests that our starting point with people is a discerning about the effectual call in their lives and providing an opportunity for them to "confess with their mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord’," (Romans 10:9,10). Then to those who have experienced the call and have confessed Christ, we proceed to explain carefully the gospel of grace-- justification, adoption, and sanctification.

For those who are newly converted, this is a fairly natural progression and the truth is welcomed and appropriated as one would expect to happen in a young child or new student. But in the case of those who have considered themselves Christians for some time, a careful teaching of the gospel and the depth of grace comes as a revolution that can be so dynamic it makes a person question whether they were ever converted. In many cases, there is resistance and then a need to put long-held assumptions under scrutiny of Scripture. Popular author Jerry Bridges has just written a book in which he explains the gospel-- to evangelical believers because he is convinced that most do not really understand it.

Not only is a careful explanation of the gospel of grace critical to personal growth, but it is key to the life and renewal of the Church. Richard Lovelace wrote a highly regarded book, The Dynamics of Spiritual Life. He listed among his "primary elements of continuous renewal" a proper understanding and application of justification and sanctification. How sad that the need of our day is for the evangelical church to understand the "evangel."

8. Finally, a word needs to be said about sanctification. On the parallel with human growth, I have put this as equivalent to the growth of the newborn baby to maturity. This is certainly a biblical image and provides many useful analogies in understanding the pattern of spiritual growth. But before we focus on our activity in the growth process, we first need to see it as that which God graciously initiates. The Catechism labels sanctification as a "work of God’s free grace" as opposed to justification and adoption, which are "acts of God’s free grace" (#33-35). But sanctification, living out the life God placed within us, is "by grace through faith."

On the birthline, I have always started sanctification with conversion. But as in physical birth we recognize that growth really began with conception, so sanctification actually begins with regeneration. Lovelace calls regeneration the "beachhead" of sanctification. This does not change the typical definitions of sanctification by the Reformed theologians. But it does raise some interesting issues on a practical level that once again relate to caution about focusing so much on the conversion experience. This perspective merges effectual calling and sanctification and is a reminder that "embracing Jesus Christ, freely offered in the gospel" through faith and repentance, needs to be an ongoing part of our Christian experience. On a practical level, this insight gives richer meaning to the communion as a fundamental means of grace, during which we repeatedly embrace Jesus.

This thinking also helps me redefine the idea of discipleship. "Thirty years of discipleship programs, and we are not discipled," laments Jim Petersen of the Navigators, a ministry devoted to discipleship. Among other things, he calls for a very deliberate overlap between what we think of as evangelism and discipleship. But why not consider the whole process as discipleship, in which "teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19) means different things at different phases of spiritual growth? In the earliest phases of discipleship it means teaching what is needed to make an initial profession of faith and baptism (when appropriate). So evangelism is simply the first step of discipleship, not a separate category.

But then we do not stop presenting the gospel. As contemporary teachers like Jack Miller and Jerry Bridges, echoing the great evangelical tradition of the "doctrines of grace," are urging us, we go more deeply into the gospel and appreciate "God’s grace in all its truth" (Colossians 1:6). In fact, we need to preach the gospel to others and ourselves every day. This is the essence of discipleship. This is the last command of Jesus, who assured us that as we go with this mission, he who has all power will go with us even to the end of the age.

[Return to Article]

Presbyterian Church in America
Christian Education and Publications
1700 North Brown Road, Suite 102, Lawrenceville, GA  30043-8122
Phone:  678.825.1100  Fax: 678.825.1101   Email:  cep@pcanet.org   

Copyright © 2008  PCA Christian Education & Publications. All rights reserved.