Elder Ronnie Loudermilk, pastor of Mt. Paran Primitive Baptist Church, wrote the following on November 30, 2017 ·(here) on the church's web page. It was an answer to a question under the heading "Q and A with Bro. Ronnie" and dealt with 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 which says:
“But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.”
The question was:
Is this referring to:
1. The elect unbelievers?
2. The non-elect unbelievers?
3. All unbelievers, and we only know the elect by the evidence of belief?
In response, Loudermilk wrote:
"Bro ______, Hope and trust that you and yours are well. As concerning your question, I understand the “lost”to be born again children of God who have been plagued by the devil and his devices. Please consider the following: (1) The context!"
What kind of hermeneutics is it to "interpret" the words "them that are lost (or perishing)" as signifying those who "born again children of God"? To affirm that "them that believe not" are "born again children of God"? Anybody who handles the word of God in such a manner and teaches such things is the worst of heretics. He is to be marked and condemned. Anyone who has honesty of heart and the Spirit of the Lord leading him will see how Loudermilk and his Hardshell brethren are outright corrupters and deniers of the plain word of God.
No, the "born again children of God" are not members of that class categorized by the adjectival phrases "those who are perishing" and "those who do not believe." By this same logic we can call "those who believe" and "those who are being saved" as "children of the devil"! Surely they call good evil, and evil good.
Why did not Loudermilk simply say in answer - ""them that are lost or perishing" are the same as "them who do not believe" and these are two descriptions of people who are unregenerate or unsaved. If they die in that condition they show that they were never elect nor called"?
The "context" proves the contention of Loudermilk that "them that are lost" is a reference to "born again children of God"? I do find that the context clearly shows who Paul has in mind by those denominated as "them that are lost" and "them that believe not."
"For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things? For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." (II Cor. 2: 15-17 KJV)
Here "them that perish" is set against "them that are saved." The former group is made up of those who are spiritually "dead" and the latter of those who have "life." But, Loudermilk turns that all around.
Loudermilk proceeded:
"The 4th chapter of 2nd Corinthians is about what we have. Notice (vs1) "we have this ministry"; (vs 7) "we have this treasure"; (vs13) "We having the same spirit of faith", or we believe the same as other children of God in times past as Paul quotes David in Psalms 116:10. In each of these, a temporal context is set forth. The light and treasure we have is the same gospel that is preached, which came from God (Gal 1:11)."
How do any of these remarks prove his contention that "those who are perishing" and "those who believe not" are born again children of God? They were uttered in an attempt to prove his contention, but do they? Can't he see how the pronoun "we" denotes Paul and the believers in Corinth and that the pronoun "them" denotes those who were not believers? When Paul speaks of the elect saved he speaks in the first person, saying "we," but when he speaks of those not of that class of people, he speaks in the third person "them who are perishing" and "them who believe not."
Loudermilk proceeded:
"Notice that it's the "god of this world" who blinds the mind. To say that the devil is blinding a dead sinner would be ridiculous in my humble opinion. The Lord, In Matthew 12:25, makes this abundantly clear. The devil does not fight against the himself, otherwise his kingdom is brought to desolation."
Here Loudermilk makes two non sensible and foolish arguments to prove his contention that "them that are lost" are really "them that are saved." It is his attempt to prove that black is white, and white is black, that words don't really mean what they say, that the words "them that perish" mean just the opposite, etc. Loudermilk here shows that he is one who grossly mishandles the word of God and that he has no qualms about doing it.
"To say that the devil is blinding a dead sinner would be ridiculous"? Really? It is highly ironic that Loudermilk uses the word "ridiculous" right in the midst of his ridiculous attempt to make the word of God say just the opposite of what it does say. This argument is similar to another one that Hardshells of previous decades have used. I wrote about this in Example In Hardshell Logic where I cited these words of Elder G.E. Griffin in his debate with Guy N. Woods:
"I want you to go with me to the gospel according to St. John 12: 39: Jesus said, "They could not believe because He (God) hath blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts." I know God's children can turn their backs and shut their eyes and harden their hearts, but will you tell me how in the world a person with a stony heart can get it any harder? They'd have to turn it into steel or something. For the dead alien sinner has a stony heart. Ezekiel 36: 26. They couldn't harden a stony heart; it's already hard. The only way you can harden a heart is to have a soft one!"
Here was what I said in response to this ridiculous argumentation.
According to Griffin's "logic" Pharoah was a born again child of God! Did not God "harden" Pharoah's heart? According to the "logic" of Griffin, Pharoah had a soft heart, the kind given in regeneration! Who can believe such a thing? Hardshell hermeneutics! Only "children of God" can have their hearts "hardened"! Pharoah a child of God!
How many times did God "harden" Pharoah's heart? Was it not more than once? But, according to Griffin's "logic," such could not be! Griffin's "logic" says that those with hardened hearts cannot harden their hearts repeatedly!
Loudermilk makes the same kind of argument about someone being "blinded." If they are being blinded, then they must be people who were seeing before. And, if seeing, then saved. Thus, if one reads where someone was spiritually "blinded," then he is to conclude that this is evidence that the person is saved. Now, that is really ridiculous! Being blinded is evidence of salvation!
Doesn't Loudermilk understand that blindness, hardness, and ignorance of God are all relative and proportional? That these things grow and increase and are continuous?
In Romans 11: 7 Paul affirms that those not part of the "election of grace" are the ones who are "blinded." Further, scripture teaches that the blinding of Satan is not a one time act but continuous in the life of the unbeliever.
It is "ridiculous" reasoning for Loudermilk to say that for Satan to continuously blind an unregenerate man that he somehow is fighting against himself!
Loudermilk proceeded:
"The word "lost" in this portion of scripture is the Strongs #622, which is translated in our King James Bible into different English terms. In Matthew 8:25, the 622 is translated "perish". The context of Matthew 8:25 is temporal. In Matthew 10:6 it's translated "lost" referring to the "lost sheep", which are without question children of God."
The sheep are lost and perishing, of course, before they are saved by the shepherd! But, once the shepherd has saved them, they are no longer to be denoted as "them who are lost." What is Loudermilk saying? That the term "lost" or "perishing" are not adjectives for the unregenerate and the unsaved? "Lost sheep" is a term denoting the elect in their state before salvation.
Loudermilk proceeded:
"In Matthew 10:39 it's translated "lose", referring to the consequences of a child of grace' decisions in this temporal world (not eternal consequence.)"
When Jesus talked about men "losing" their lives or souls, he means not that they are unsaved or that they will suffer eternal torment? How about those hermeneutics! "Lost souls" means "saved souls"!
Loudermilk proceeded:
"The word "lest" is undoubtedly referring to an ability the person under consideration has. If this is referencing the non-elect or un-regenerate we have a countless number of contradictions in scripture. It is the born again, elect who have the ability to receive the “things of the Spirit of God” (1 Corinthians 2:14)."
"The word "lest" is undoubtedly referring to an ability the person under consideration has"? Now, I call that "ridiculous." The word "lest," if it implies anything, implies possibility, not ability. According to most definitions "lest" denotes "intention of preventing something undesirable," which in the case under consideration is Satan blinding in order to prevent something; And that something is the enlightening of the sinner's heart to a saving knowledge of Christ.
Loudermilk says that to interpret the words "them that are lost" as denoting "the non-elect or unregenerate" is to be rejected because it begats "a countless number of contradictions in scripture." Again, the irony! He is talking about supposed contradictions that come from giving to "them that are lost" its normal meaning (unsaved state) when his whole thesis is a most glaring contradiction! His contradiction is - "them that are perishing are them that are saved." Sorry, but the contradictions are all in his Hardshell brain that has been brainwashed.
No comments:
Post a Comment