Is Conversion Ever Called a Birth?
By George I. Butler
That there are certain texts of Scripture which speak of the resurrection as a birth we do not doubt; but there are others which to the writer seem just as clearly to speak of conversion as a birth also. Webster says a “birth is the act of coming into life or being born.” He says further that “life is the period between birth and death,” or the “state of an animal or plant in which its organs are capable of performing their functions.” In no proper sense of the term, then, does life commence until one is born. The entering upon a physical life is called a birth. Entering upon an immortal life is called a birth; and with equal propriety, we claim that entering upon a spiritual life, absolutely necessary in order to the attainment of the immortal life, should be called a birth. It surely will be admitted that the Scriptures recognize a spiritual life distinct from the physical life in this mortal state, a life with which every child of God is acquainted. It would be strange indeed how a new, distinct life could commence without some act answering to a birth. We propose to notice several texts of Scripture in which we claim this doctrine is plainly taught, with a sincere desire that truth may be advanced, and this important subject be better understood. We first call attention to 1 Pet. 1:22: “Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently; being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.” “Wherefore laying aside all malice and all guile and hypocrisies and envies and all evil speakings, as new born babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.” “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light: which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God.” See chap. 2. For brevity I have omitted several verses which seem not to have a special bearing on the subject. Peter first sets forth the condition of these converted persons who have purified their souls by obeying the truth through the help of the Spirit of God. He says of these, “Being born again of incorruptible seed by the word of God,” that is, by means of that, this new life commences. He here positively states this birth is in the past, and plainly shows this new life had commenced. This could not of course be the resurrection, neither could he refer to the commencement of the physical life. He must refer to conversion when he speaks of being born again. But it may be objected that he speaks of being begotten instead of being born, seeing that born and begotten are both translated from the same word in the original, so that the passage should read being begotten again. How shall we ascertain which term would be proper, seeing it is a fact that both of these terms came from the same word in the original? Manifestly we shall have to be governed by the context. If things are spoken of in connection with this subject, which would not be true to translate the word begotten, but which would be true to translate it born, then we should consider the latter the proper translation in the passage. The apostle immediately draws his conclusion, “Wherefore laying aside all malice, . . . as new born babes desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.” He also calls them a “chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people.” Before they were converted he says they “were not a people,” but that they “are now the people of God.” Here we see represented a state of things not following a begetting, but one that does follow a birth, a state of things certainly existing before the resurrection. We do not believe a single passage of Scripture can be found where any part of Christian experience succeeding the first steps in conversion is compared to fetal life, coming between generation and birth. Indeed we have seen, by reference to Mr. Webster’s definition, that life does not properly commence till birth. We reckon our ages from birth. That there is a species of life before, we do not dispute; but we do dispute that Bible writers ever compare Christian experience to it. But according to the view which teaches that the resurrection alone is spoken of as a birth, taking place after our physical one, then all that portion of Christian experience coming between conversion and death is a fetal life, and we ought not to be called “babes in Christ,” “children of God,” or “sons of God,” till after the resurrection. In the passage above noticed the apostle speaks of these converted persons as babes in Christ, capable of eating milk after being born again; but he could not properly speak of them as such had he used the term begotten, supposing the birth not to take place till the resurrection. He speaks of them as a people and a nation which, as such, did not exist till they were born again. But he could not properly have called them so, had he spoken of them as merely begotten, when they were not to be born for eighteen hundred years. It would be a strange people and nation living merely a fetal life. We propose now to show that acceptance of God’s word, repentance of sin, true faith in Christ as our Saviour, and obedience to the truth, connected as they ever will be with the work of the Spirit of God upon the heart, will produce a radical transformation of the life, and that the Scriptures recognize this changed life as a new life, and the man living it as a new man, a new creature, and the point where the old life stops as a death, and the beginning of the new life as a birth, recognizing those just commencing this life, or having made but little proficiency in it, as babes, while those more experienced are called young men, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty, children of the living God and heirs with Christ, even in this present mortal life. We first quote Rom. 7:9–11: “I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment which was ordained unto life, I found to be unto death; for sin taking occasion by the commandment deceived me, and by it slew me.” Here we find it plainly stated that the “holy, just and good” law of God was the instrument which caused the death of carnal Paul. His repentance of sin was so thorough that it is properly called a death of the old man of sin. This radical transformation is plainly referred to in Rom. 6:1: “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein? Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. . . . Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. . . . Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” The death of the old man, his figurative burial in the watery grave, and the new life of obedience to God brought into being through the life-giving Saviour, are all plainly brought to view in this scripture. That this new life commences in connection with conversion and baptism, all must admit. This new life here spoken of is the spiritual Christian life, lived by all true disciples in this mortal state. We next notice Gal. 2:19, 20: “For through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” Here the death of the old carnal man is again brought to view, and the new life also, wholly separate and distinct from the old carnal life. It is a life which is supported by other means, nourished by the never failing fountain of a Saviour’s strength. This separate condition is here certainly called a life. The commencement of life is called a birth, which, as Webster says, “is the act of coming into life.” If there is a life, there must of course be a coming into it. Hence the beginning of this new, spiritual life is properly called a birth. We must inquire what kind of a life this is which we “live by the faith of the Son of God,” as Paul states above. Is it that sort of a life between being begotten and being born, a mere fetal life? or is it the life of childhood and manhood? Let Paul answer. Gal. 3:26: “For ye are all children of God by faith in Jesus Christ. For as many of you as have been baptized into Jesus Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Faith in Christ Jesus, the apostle states, makes us children of God, Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. This is not the life of an embryo; but these are the sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty. To this relationship the carnal man can never attain, unless he be “born again”; and yet this state must be reached in this mortal life. Will those who take the view that this new birth is the resurrection deny that the Scriptures teach the existence of a distinct and separate spiritual life, of which the worldly man knows nothing, to be lived by all those who are truly converted to God, who have tasted of the powers of the world to come, and that those entering this life are called children of God, sons of God, &c.? If they do not deny this, will they tell us what that process is called, which ushers them into this new life, if not a birth? I have yet to learn where an embryo is ever called a son, or daughter, a babe, an heir, or a child, by any right use of language. And yet that is precisely what every true believer is while in this world if the new birth does not occur till the resurrection. It seems to me the Holy Scriptures have made this point too plain to admit of a doubt, and this is a vital point in this question. We will introduce several passages more bearing on this point. “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.” Col. 2:12, 13. “Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.” Chap. 3:9, 10. “That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which, after God, is created in righteousness and true holiness.” Eph. 4:22–24. “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” 2 Cor. 5:17. “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.” Gal. 5:15. The above scriptures plainly bring to view in connection with conversion and baptism a new life, a new creature, separated from the old sinful life, which must be introduced by a new creation or a new birth, in order to its existence. This is plainly stated in John 1:12, 13: “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name, which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” When do these to whom he gave power become the sons of God? Let the same writer answer in 1 John 3:1, 2: “Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is”; and the verse that precedes this last quotation reads, “If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.” These scriptures seem to me to be decisive on this question. A birth is here brought to view, produced by the power of God, resulting in making those who experience it sons of God in this life. This condition of sonship is plainly distinguished from the immortal life commencing at the resurrection, “when we shall see him as he is.” We are sons of God here and now, before that more glorious life is attained. He declares this life results from our being “born of him.” We are then born of him in order that we may become sons of God in this life, hence the new birth comes before the resurrection, and commences the spiritual life. Embryos are not called sons of God. “Sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty.” It could not be said of such,58he “doeth righteousness,” or that “we know that when he (Christ) shall appear we shall be like him,” for such never knew anything. It could not, therefore, be proper to render the word born in this connection begotten as some attempt to do, for it would involve consequences most absurd. If it could be, then consistency would require that they should not be called sons for eighteen hundred years after, viz., till the resurrection; but the apostle plainly declares we are adopted into the royal family in this present mortal life. After a proper test we shall then enter the immortal life, when our bodies will become like his glorious body. “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God; and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” Rom. 8:14–17. How clearly and beautifully Paul sets before us the exalted privilege of the Christian! Adopted into the family of God in this world of darkness; given the Holy Spirit as a constant token of this membership as long as we live faithful lives in his service, and also as a pledge of the future and glorious immortal life; exalted to be joint heirs with Christ when he shall finally redeem the purchased inheritance; he gives us the spirit of adoption, and is pleased to have us say Abba, Father. This is a position higher than the proud sons of earthly royalty or sons of emperors of earth can claim. This position is ours as long as we are willing to suffer with Christ and bear patiently the wear and tear of life, the scoffs and scorn which come upon us for Christ’s sake. Surely this exalted position of sonship is the Christian’s in this mortal life. We are tested here as was Christ, the elder brother of the same family. The glorious reward is over yonder, but the sonship is here. We belong to the family of God here. Do we come into this exalted family relation of joint heirship with Christ before we are born? We must if not born till the resurrection. Could an embryo cry Abba, Father? Preposterous! This glorious relationship presented in this scripture surely follows, not a begetting, but a birth. It is the life that we live by faith in the Son of God. Again we argue that conversion must be a birth from the fact that the Scriptures recognize those of a limited spiritual experience as babes, while those of greater proficiency are spoken of as young men, strong men, fathers, &c., which could not properly be done if Christians in this life were mere embryos and were not born till the resurrection. “And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able; for ye are yet carnal; for whereas there is among you envying and strife and division, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?” 1 Cor. 3:1–3. “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are full of age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. Therefore, leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,” &c. Heb. 5:12–14; 6:1. “I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake. I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one.” 1 John 2:12, 13. It must be evident from the above language that those who are here called “babes,” “little children,” “young men,” “strong,” and “fathers,” are called such in reference to their spiritual lives and not their physical lives. Probably these were nearly all grown persons physically. When their spiritual proficiency was small, they were but babes or little children. They could then eat “milk,” but not strong spiritual food. These little children had had their sins forgiven; they were but recently converted. This seems to be a very common way of speaking of different periods of the new Christian life. How could there possibly be consistency in the use of such terms unless we grant that the beginning of this new life is called a birth? Could an embryo be called a babe, a young man? Will our friends who hold that conversion is never called a birth, and that there is no second birth till the resurrection, tell us how the sacred writers could use language this way without the grossest inconsistency? An ordinary writer would not be so inconsistent with himself as to speak of persons as babes, little children, strong young men, to be fed with milk or strong meat, while they had not yet been born, but were living a mere fetal life. Such a position would shock all our ideas of consistency. When we admit that Bible writers speak of different stages of the Christian life by such terms, we must admit that the beginning of that life would be necessarily called a birth, to make their use of language consistent throughout. Is not an outpouring of the Spirit of God upon the heart, purifying and transforming it through the agonizing powers of repentance and the power of the grace of God, bringing into being a new mind, a new creature, with new motives, new aims and new strength, an event of sufficient importance to be called a birth? It is an event over which angels rejoice and all Heaven is interested. It is a matter involving eternal considerations, an event of the greatest possible importance. It is really a new creature wrought by the direct power of God. It is something man cannot do for himself or for another. Divine power must do this work. It really is a new life. There is a striking similarity in many particulars in a good, old-fashioned, genuine conversion and a physical birth. The pains and sorrows of heartfelt repentance changing to the joy and rejoicing of pardoning love, as the touch of divine power imparting its life-giving animation is felt, bringing new thoughts, new aspirations, and a new life, strikingly suggest the pains of maternity and the joy experienced when a “man child is born into the world.” Perhaps one reason why some fail to see any resemblance between the two in this day is because of the superficial character of most modern conversions. But take such a case as Paul’s, John Bunyan’s, and thousands of others which have occurred, and the similarity is very apparent. We are free to admit we have fallen into sad days, when the line dividing between most Christians and the world is almost obliterated, and it is hard to tell in most cases whether people are worldlings or Christians. Not so in the apostles’ times. There was usually a plainly marked point where the new life commenced, and the effect of the transforming power of the Spirit was manifest. It was worthy of being called a birth. It changed the whole man. It was plainly marked. This birth Christ evidently refers to in his conversation with Nicodemus. John 3:3–12: “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again [or, from above, margin], he cannot see the kingdom of God. . . . Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, or whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things?” We are aware there are many who claim this language refers to the time when a nation will be born in a day, viz., the resurrection. But we cannot so believe. The subject of the general resurrection seems not to be once referred to in the conversation. Nicodemus understood it to refer to some personal experience in this life when asking how it could be possible for a new birth to take place when he was already old. He, with the other leading men among the Jews, believed in a resurrection, for we have no evidence he was a Sadducee. He would not have wondered thus had he understood Christ to refer to that event. Christ shows in his reply that he was speaking of something to occur in this life, when, speaking of this new birth, he says, “If I have told you of earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things?” Had he meant to say the new birth was the resurrection, his principal theme was heavenly things rather than earthly, and thus he said very little of earthly things. But this remark plainly shows that his discourse concerned things in this life, with which, as a master in Israel, Nicodemus ought to be well acquainted. Christ himself states that his testimony was of things we have seen, that is, of things in the past, which would be hardly correct if he was speaking of a future resurrection. This new birth seems to be set before Nicodemus as a condition in this life necessary to his obtaining that future life in the kingdom of God through the future resurrection of the righteous. The condition is in this life manifestly. This was a matter of vital importance for Nicodemus to know then and there, a matter of present importance. Jesus was not trying in this discourse to make Nicodemus believe in a final resurrection, a truth of which he was, no doubt, already convinced. Christ’s reference to being born of the water and the Spirit must naturally refer to these two elements so often referred to in scriptures we have quoted as being connected in conversion. It would be difficult to tell what water has to do with the resurrection or any other birth but conversion. It is often mentioned in different scriptures as an important agent, connected with conversion, and nearly all Christians use it in this connection, baptism being associated with repentance, faith, and the work of the Spirit of God. He does not say he must be born once of the water, and then born again of the Spirit, but the new birth must be of both agencies, “of the water and of the Spirit,” and no one will dispute that these are usually associated by the Scriptures in conversion. But they surely are not in the resurrection. Again, almost the same words are used by Christ concerning conversion in Matt. 18:3, as in this scripture concerning being born again: “Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.” And here he says, “Except a man be born of the water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven.” From the similarity of this language, it seems almost certain he must refer to one and the same thing by conversion and the new birth. He illustrates the effect of the Spirit of God upon the human mind, by the wind, which “bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth.” As one beautifully said, whom S. D. Adventists regard with some respect, “It is heard among the branches of the trees and rustling the leaves and flowers, yet it is invisible to the eye, and from whence it comes or whither it goeth no man knoweth. So is every one who is born of the Spirit. The mind is an invisible agent of God to produce tangible results. Its influence is powerful, and governs the actions of men. If purified from all evil it is the motive power of good. The regenerating Spirit of God taking possession of the mind transforms the life; wicked thoughts are put away, evil deeds are renounced, love, peace, and humility, take the place of anger, envy, and strife. That power no human eye can see has created a new being in the image of God. The heart must be cleansed from its natural defilement by the Spirit of God before it can be fit for the kingdom of Heaven. Christ made no reference here to the resurrection of the body from the grave where a nation shall be born in a day, but he was speaking in regard to the inward work of grace upon the unregenerate heart. Human nature is vile, and man’s character must be changed before it can harmonize with the pure and holy in God’s immortal kingdom. This transformation is the new birth.” With these good words we heartily agree, and hence we claim this important testimony of our Saviour to Nicodemus becomes a mighty evidence of the truthfulness of our position. We commend the above Scriptures to all our brethren and sisters, and ask for them a careful consideration. This is a question which has occasioned much perplexity. We offer these thoughts hoping they may receive a candid consideration. We believe this subject has an important practical bearing. If conversion is compared by the Spirit of God to a birth, it certainly is a very important matter. It is like the entering of a new life. We fear there are many who are living a life of mere, cold, formal service, who never have experienced the transforming influence of God’s Holy Spirit upon their heart. They see no need of any radical change of heart, and hence never seek for it, and thus never obtain it. They take such superficial views of the work of conversion that they think outward service is all they need to perform. They are in about the same condition that Nicodemus was in when these startling words of Christ came to him,—“Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” His Pharisaical composure was disturbed, and he began to have some sense of his lost condition; and we may hope he experienced a spiritual transformation which will at last result in his salvation. There are thousands to-day, who are living moral lives outwardly, men of judgment, wealth, and influence, who are in fearful danger of eternal death for the lack of this spiritual experience. Make them believe they must know, their own selves, such a change, that their cold and formal hearts must be broken down in tenderness before God, and that this new life, this new creature, must come into being, and then they will be near the kingdom of God, with a good prospect of entering it. This new birth must be wrought by the Spirit of God. May God give us all this experience, if we never have had it.