Athenian Idolaters Born Again?

In debate over Paul's discourse to the Athenian idolaters in Acts 17, the Hardshells have had a tough time showing how they agree with Paul in affirming that the gospel is to be preached to "all men" and that "all men" are commanded to "repent" and "seek the Lord." In the editorial writings of C. H. Cayce, the greatest defender of Hardshellism, Cayce posted a letter from a brother Oliphant who was showing how the Hardshells are against what Paul taught because they do not believe in calling upon all to repent and seek the Lord. Cayce then responded to Oliphant with some comments relative to the passage. (all emphasis mine - SG)

First, let me cite from brother Oliphant's letter.

"The gospel also makes it the duty of 'all nations of men' that 'dwell on all the face of the earth' to seek the Lord. Acts 17: 26: 'And hath made of one blood (Adam) all nations of men (all human creatures), for to dwell on all the face of the earth; and hath determined the times before appointed (when they shoulud each exist), and the bounds of their habitation' (where they should each exist). Verse 27: 'That they (relative pronoun, which has for its antecedent all nations of men) should (duty) seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him, though He be not far from every one of us.' Verse 28; 'For in Him we live, move, and have our being' (existence). Here is accountability in its full force, declared by the Lord in His gospel, or counsel. Since all the human specie is commanded to repent, and seek the Lord, it is each and every one's duty, and God by His gospel requires all duty to be performed; and whatever God requires of His creatures is His 'counsel' to them; and He hath commanded His ministry 'shun not to declare the whole counsel of God." ("The Spirituality Of The Gospel," Editorial Writings, Vol. 1, July 24, 1906, pages 98, 99)

Cayce responded, saying:

"He does not quote all of the 28th verse. That verse, in full, and the 29th and 30th verses read, 'For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent.' Paul is here preaching to a people who are the offspring of God--born of God--a people who have been worshipping God ignorantly, having an altar erected to the unknown God. They are commanded to turn away from their ignorant or idolatrous worship, and all those who are born of God, the offspring of God everywhere, who are engaged in such worship are commanded to repent. There is nothing in this text for the unregenerate. It is to the children of God who are engaging in false worship, and it is the duty of the ministry to admonish all such persons to repent, turn away from it and worship the Lord as directed in His word." (Ibid)

Cayce did a hatchet job on this passage of scripture in order to uphold his false proposition, one that affirms that the unregenerate are never commanded to repent, seek the Lord, or to believe the gospel. It is a classic case of "twisting" the scripture. (II Peter 3: 16), of "handling the word of God deceitfully." (II Cor. 4: 2) It is classic Hyper Calvinism to deny the well meant offer of the gospel to all men. Cayce, in defining "offspring of God" to mean "born of God" has involved himself in several absurdities. His view identifies idol worshippers as "born again" children of God. He argues that the Athenian idolaters, even while in such a state, as "born again." Can anything be more absurd and against plain scripture?

These Athenian idolaters were not "believers" in the true God or in Jesus Christ, and yet Cayce will call them "believers" to whom the gospel should be preached! But, what they believe in is not the one true God, and yet Cayce will call them "believers"!

In his interpretation of Romans 1: 16 (and similar passages), Cayce will say that the gospel is the power of God to those who are "believers," but not the kind of "believer" who believes in the one true God and Jesus Christ! His kind of "believer" is anyone who believes in any kind of "god."

It is no wonder that Hardshells have had many problems with many of their people embracing "universalism" and "no-hellism."

Paul does not believe that all men are the spiritual children of God when he refers to them as the "offspring of God," but that they are all his creation. They are all his natural children. No Baptist forefather, prior to the rise of the Hardshells, interpreted the passage as does Cayce. Actually, Cayce and his Hardshell brethren believe a man can be a follower of AntiChrist and still be born of the Spirit of God! He can be a heathen idolater and still be born of God! Is that not absurd?

Cockleburs, Gadflies, & Rubbing the Wrong Way

I recall Elder Sonny Pyles saying (back in the 70s) that he had been called, in ministry, to not only "comfort" but to be a "cocklebur under the saddle blanket." I heartedly agree. Not all preaching is to be soothing. Some is meant to be provocative, to "ruffle the feathers," so to speak. Some involves "rebuking sharply" (Titus 1: 13), stern warnings, and other harsh addresses.

Looking over my life as a servant of the gospel I can say that I have often had to be a cocklebur under the saddle blanket. I believe in being straightforward, to "call a spade a spade," to use a common figurative expression. It involves being frank and blunt. We should be both lambs and lions. God give us the wisdom to know when to behave more like the one than the other! Too often we are lambs when we ought to be lions and are lions when we ought to be lambs. One of my blogs has the word "gadfly" in it (The Baptist Gadfly), which, as all know, was the word used of Socrates, who was a pest to the Athenian and Greek ignorance and superstition of his day. It is used much the same way today to describe those who confront ignorance and give critical analysis to the various errors and outright falsehoods. Thus a "gadfly," as an adjective applied to people, denotes "a person who stimulates or annoys other people especially by persistent criticism." Generally, "gadfly" has a negative connotation.

Wrote one writer:

Plato in his Apology for the life of Socrates reminds us that all societies need a “gadfly” to sting the “steed” of state into acknowledging its proper duties and obligations:

I am the gadfly of the Athenian people, given to them by God, and they will never have another, if they kill me. And now, Athenians, I am not going to argue for my own sake, as you may think, but for yours, that you may not sin against the God by condemning me, who am his gift to you. For if you kill me you will not easily find a successor to me, who, if I may use such a ludicrous figure of speech, am a sort of gadfly, given to the state by God; and the state is a great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to be stirred into life. I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places am always fastening upon you, arousing and persuading and reproaching you. You will not easily find another like me, and therefore I would advise you to spare me. (see here)

What is the difference between being a gadfly and a goad? Were not the prophets and apostles, and the Lord Jesus himself, cockleburs, gadflies, and goads? Are not the "words of the wise like goads"? (Eccl. 12:11)

Father used to tell how he had been told by some that he "rubbed people the wrong way." He would say that sometimes, in rubbing the cat's fur the wrong way, you need to turn the cat around! I agree that such is the case many times. The fault in people feeling as though they have been rubbed the wrong way via preaching is in the people, and the change that needs to be made is not in the preaching but in the hearts of the people. All this makes me remember elder Pyles saying that people are simply "far too touchy," too sensitive. That is true.

To "provoke" is "to arouse to a feeling or action" or to act as a stimulus. In the NT Greek there are two different words for "provoke," one denoting a stirring of the emotions of jealousy and anger, generally in a bad sense, though sometimes not. To be stirred to hate evil is one thing, and to be stirred to hate good, another. The other Greek word (as in "provoke to love and good works" - Heb. 10:24) carries a more favorable connotation connected with the English word "provoke."

I feel sorry that some people have, over the years, been offended by any harsh or unbecoming language I have used. Yet, my conscience will not let me become overly condemned in this matter for I know that I was not sent to speak smoothly, as did the false prophets (Isa. 30:10), and as do false teachers in the NT (Rom. 16:18), but to sometimes speak harshly, realizing that I am to expect that sinners will be offended by the preaching of the gospel. "It must needs be that offences come," said the Lord. (Matt. 18: 7)

I can at least say that I have provoked thought. I think my theological criticisms have been just.

"Gadfly Of The Hardshells"?

"I am the gadfly of the Athenian people, given to them by God..." - Socrates

Well, have I not been the gadfly of the Hardshells? Would they not like to get rid of me like the Athenian ignorant ones wanted to get rid of that pest Socrates?

Weak Brothers XVII

In chapter XV of this series I began a commentary on Romans 14: 5-6. In chapter XIV I dealt with Romans 14: 1-2, 4. In chapter XIII I dealt with Romans 14:1 and 15: 1. So, I have already given some commentary on this important chapter. The commentary I now write will be an addition to those chapters. I encourage all who are interested in the right interpretation of what Paul writes about the weak and strong brothers to read those chapters, yea even all the chapters I have written.

"Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things" (vs. 1).

First, we must ask what Paul means by "receiving" one who is weak in the faith, a question I addressed in earlier chapters but will now enlarge upon. In order to decide the question one must ascertain who is meant by "one who is weak in the faith." If the weak is a fellow Christian, or fellow member of the church, then "receiving" such would carry a different connotation and ramifications than if the weak was not a Christian. Does it denote officially receiving someone into church membership? If so, then we cannot say that the weak one is already a saved member of the church. Also, if the weakness is of the nature of those weak ones in first Corinthians, then it means that they are very doubtful of the truth that there is only one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, etc. But, how could any church accept into church membership anyone who was not fully assured of those truths? Or, does receiving a weak person simply mean to welcome him in some way? If so, believers may welcome lost sinners just as well as saved sinners. I have already dealt with this question in chapters thirteen through fifteen. Another question that must be ascertained is whether the exhortation is on how one kind of church member is to treat another kind. Are Christian churches by choice composed, or should be composed, of both weak and strong? 

The other thing that must be ascertained is what is meant by receiving weak (or impotent) ones "but not over doubtful things" or "but not to quarrel over opinions," etc.? We will deal with this after we speak of what is involved in "receiving" or "welcoming" those who are weak in the faith, that is, weak in their religious beliefs and in their acceptance of Christian teachings. 

We must first see how the apostle, in the words of the text, implies that the Roman Christians to whom he is speaking to are not the weak. If half the church of Rome were weak and half were strong, then Paul would not be addressing the entire membership as being strong. His exhortation is to all the members of the church in Rome and tells them to welcome religiously impotent people, which implies that the members are not such themselves. If part of the church were strong and part weak, then Paul would have worded his exhortation this way: "you who are strong ones, welcome the ones who are weak in the faith." Is Paul saying that the strong in the church should welcome the weak in the church? But, if the weak are already in the church, what does welcoming them mean? Does it mean "don't shun them"? Paul did say: "Therefore receive one another, just as Christ also received us, to the glory of God." (Rom. 14: 7 nkjv) 

Another question is whether "weak in the faith" means "weak in the church." And, "can those who are  saved receive in any sense one who is unsaved?" And, "can a lost sinner be called weak in the faith?" We saw how the weak brothers in first Corinthians 1) did not embrace the Christian creed, and 2) needed to be "gained" or "saved." If that is true, and if the weak brothers of the Roman epistle are the same people, then they are also unsaved people.

We must also acknowledge that there is nothing in the text to prove conclusively that the weak is either a Christian or non Christian. It may very well be that the weak is a devout religious person who is being discipled in the Christian faith but who has not yet become convinced of it's truthfulness. This is of course my view. If that is true, then Paul is giving Christians (the strong in the faith) exhortation in how they should attempt to convert the polytheist idol worshipers, although the instructions in this regard are also in principle applicable to how Christians who are more learned in the faith should treat those Christians who are not so informed in the Christian faith.

I find that Paul's advice in Corinthians and in Romans concerns how Christians (the strong) are to relate to, or to welcome the weak brother or neighbor, and concerned 1) how to witness to such and how to win them to the Christian faith and 2) how to dissuade pagans from persecuting Christians. In this chapter Paul will have some things to say to each class of religious persons, both to the Christian and to the Pagan. 

In Paul's day religious people were mostly polytheistic idol worshipers. Should Christians speak condescendingly to them? Should they speak to them with utter contempt? Should they use the truth of monotheism and the Christian faith as a club to verbally beat the pagans? Should their discourse towards the pagan be nothing but severe denunciations? Did Paul in his encounters with the pagans speak this way? I believe that he looked upon them as "brothers," religious brothers, and this was part of what it meant to love your neighbors. When Paul was speaking in Athens he noticed all the many altars to the many gods and goddesses worshiped by the Greeks and Romans. To them he said:

"And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.'" (Acts 17: 26-28 nkjv)

In the 1st century CE, the Greco-Roman world saw a diverse range of polytheistic religious fraternities and cults. The members of these fraternities frequently called each other "brother." I don't think that when some of them became Christians that they then quit using that term towards those they used to fellowship in those pagan fraternities. I have already written at length on this point for one of the arguments used to prove that "the weak" (or impotent) were Christians is because Paul refers to them as "brothers." Paul often referred to his unbelieving Jews as "brothers." Someone might argue that he does this because they are part of the nation of Israel and were brothers ethnically. Who can doubt, however, that Paul addresses the Athenian idolaters as brothers when he says "we are all God's offspring"? He even says that everyone, of every ethnicity, comes from "one blood."

In the time of Paul many Christians were once idolaters. He says to the Thessalonian believers: "how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God" (I Thess. 1: 9 nkjv). To the Corinthian believers he said: "You know that you were Gentiles, carried away to these dumb idols, however you were led." (I Cor. 12: 2 nkjv) In such a polytheistic world it was common for idol worshipers to be members of one or more of the religious cult fraternities. Often these pagan religious fraternities had group meetings and festive gatherings where there was feasting, wine drinking, and frolicking. They were a lot like we see in organizations today like the Moose Lodge or in veteran social clubs (VFW); After all many soldiers feel a sense of brotherhood with their fellow soldiers. Let us notice these words from Paul in First Corinthians:

"27 If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience’ sake. 28 But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.” 29 “Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience? 30 But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks? 31 Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, 33 just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved." (I Cor. 10: 27-33 nkjv)

In this narrative the ones who are inviting Christians to dinner are religious people, polytheists who are friends of Christians and who are members of pagan fraternities, the very ones which many Christians were likely once part of. When idolaters became Christians (monotheists) they did not stop being friends with these idolaters nor from calling them "brothers" as before, nor stop loving their neighbors. In the text above it is clear that those giving invitations are unbelievers and unsaved. 

Not only did Paul encourage Christians to accept invitations to go to festive gatherings of the polytheists but he no doubt encouraged them to invite polytheist brothers to dinners of Christians. This is in keeping with the words of Jesus who said:

"Then He also said to him who invited Him, “When you give a dinner or a supper, do not ask your friends, your brothers, your relatives, nor rich neighbors, lest they also invite you back, and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you; for you shall be repaid at the resurrection of the just.” (Luke 14: 12-14 nkjv)

Surely this instruction would include inviting those who are religiously blind, i.e. the pagans. Such gatherings with unbelievers could be the means of sharing the Christian faith with their pagan friends. Though Paul forbade Christians from "eating with" Christians who had been excluded from the church, yet he did not forbid them eating with unsaved false religionists. (I Cor. 5: 11) 

Clearly Paul did not discourage Christians from associating with pagans and other unbelievers. He says it is okay to accept invitations from pagans to festive gatherings; He does however give instructions that circumscribe Christian behavior in their interactions with them at those times. If it was okay for Christians to accept invites from pagans to festive gatherings, then it was not wrong for Christians to invite pagans to their own festive gatherings. Paul saw them as opportunities to share the scriptures and the gospel with them. Paul's message to the Corinthians said: "use such opportunities to save the pagans by using such gatherings to witness to them." He says he seeks to please the pagans, not to offend them, so that he might profit them and "that they might be saved." He tells Christians not to eat meat that has been identified by the pagan as having been offered to the idol god(s) he worships. Why? So that he is not reinforced in his idolatry and so that the Christian does not give the impression that he recognizes such gods. It was in order to 1) safeguard the conscience of the polytheist and to 2) not offend the non Christian religionist.  As Solomon said: "a brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city." (Prove. 18: 19) 

Paul has no objection to Christians eating meat that came from the sacrifices of the pagans because they knew that the idols are no gods at all. In fact he says it is okay to eat such meats when bought in the marketplace. The only time he advises not eating pagan sacrificial meat is when the pagan says to the Christian "this meat was sacrificed to a god (idol)." In itself it would be right to eat such meat. But, seeing it could be interpreted by the pagan as countenancing his god(s) it ought not to be done in the presence of the pagan. The end reason for not eating such meat in those cases is in order not to wound the conscience of the pagan and offend him so as to make it harder for him to be won to Christ. 

In Romans chapter fourteen Paul is also concerned about the conscience of the weak, and speaks similarly there as he does in the above text in first Corinthians chapter ten. In the above text it is clear that the ones inviting Christians to dinner are not saved, Paul calling them unbelievers and saying he does all things in order to save such people. The problem is, however, most Bible commentaries want to say the weak ones in Romans chapter fourteen are believers, saved and born again, even though they are impotent in the faith and believe in keeping holy days and having religious diets, and even though the way he addresses them is the same way he addresses the unbelieving polytheist in Corinthians. The words "why is my liberty judged by another man's conscience" is the same in meaning as Paul's words written earlier in Corinthians when he says "if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble." (8: 13 nkjv) They are also the same in meaning with the words of Romans chapter fourteen which exhorted the strong "not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way." (vs. 13)

It is clear to me that the unbelievers who invite Christians to dine with them are the weak ones spoke of in first Corinthians and Romans chapter fourteen and fifteen.

Some bible teachers think that Christians ought not to dine with, or fellowship with, non Christian religious people. One of the verses discussed relative to this question is this:

"If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." (II John 1: 10-11 kjv)

Does this mean that a Christian can attend a dinner by false religious people but cannot invite them to a dinner in your house? That would be incongruous and contradictory. Does it mean that a Christian who has family members who are of a false religion cannot welcome them into his home? Surely not. So, what does the apostle John mean then? From the context I believe that receiving the one "into your house" who has not the doctrine of Christ means "receive him not in your church in order to let him teach false doctrine." That is because the church likely met in the house of "the elect lady and her children" (vs. 1) to whom John wrote this short letter. All the first churches did not have their own meeting houses but met in their houses or perhaps in a rented space. (See Rom. 16: 5; 1 Cor. 16: 19; Col. 4:15; Philemon 1:2) So the apostle is warning the church not to give a platform to teach their anti Christian doctrine in their assemblies. 

Nor is John prohibiting showing Christian hospitality to some random traveler, or to strangers. Recall that Paul wrote: "Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." (Heb. 13: 2 esv) 

“Friendship evangelism,” says bible teachers Dr. Warren Wiersbe, "around the table is a wonderful way to win people to Christ. Christians need to be neighborly and hospitable. The apostle is admonishing us not to receive or encourage false teachers who represent anti-christian groups, people who have left the church and are now trying to seduce others away from the truth. You can be sure that apostates use every opportunity they can to secure the endorsement of true Christians." (in Bible Exposition Commentary - New Testament)

John was not saying only born-again people should enter our houses! Second John 10 does not prohibit Christians from allowing cultists into their home in order to witness to them. Rather it is a prohibition against giving cultists a platform from which to teach false doctrine.

Wrote F.F. Bruce (emphasis mine):

"2 John 10 poses a problem for Scripture readers in that it appears to contradict an important Christian virtue, that of hospitality, not to mention the virtue of love. Is it love not to welcome a person into your house, even if you do not agree with his or her beliefs? Does not hospitality extend even to non-Christians, rather than just the Christians with whom we happen to agree? Furthermore, Christians struggle with knowing how far to take this verse. Does it mean that one may not invite inside the Jehovah’s Witness (or the Mormon) who just knocked at the door? Does it mean that it was wrong to say a polite “good morning” to that person?" (As cited from Precept-Austin commentary)

In both First Corinthians and Romans Paul instructs Christians on how to relate to the polytheists with whom he once associated and who are still neighbors and friends of Christians. Paul also has some exhortations and pleas to give to the weak (I.e. polytheists). That thesis is against those who believe that in addressing the weak brothers of those two epistles Paul is addressing weak Christians, people who are saved but still not fully convinced of certain truths. 

Paul basically in these exhortations to Christians, "the strong ones," deals with how to show forbearance and long-suffering towards idol worshipers, and false religionists, so that they might not be offended and thus reinforced in their paganism and have ill will towards Christianity. 

As we will see in the next chapters, the commentators totally miss the mark in saying that the differences of opinion between the weak and strong of Romans chapter fourteen and fifteen, dealing with observing religious diets and holy days, are not to be debated or discussed, they being "things which the Bible says nothing about." We will also see how these commentators err when they say that verse one means "disputable matters" and thinks that such matters should not be discussed but rather avoided. 

Presumptive Regeneration & Seed Faith

Abraham Kuyper

(1837 - 1920)

Abraham Kuyper is one who promoted the PedoBaptist idea that infants may be presumed to be regenerated and it is an idea that, sadly, infected those who call themselves "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists with few exceptions. When I was a young PB elder and pastor I was taught that many of God's elect were regenerated in infancy and is the reason why many of them speak of having always loved God. This idea of Kuyper is called "Presumptive Regeneration," concerning which Travis Fentiman (here) says the following, citing Curt Daniel (emphasis mine):

"Regarding presuming the regeneracy of Covenant-children, Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), a great popularizer of presumptive regeneration, “taught that God can and often does regenerate his elect as infants” and that “covenant parents are to presume that their covenant children are regenerate until they give prolonged and conscious evidence in their mature years that they are unregenerate.” (Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism (Dallas: Scholarly Reprints, 1993, p. 131)"

Concerning the views of Kuyper regarding regeneration and its similarity to the views of most PBs of the twentieth century and today see my postings in Chapters 111-113 of that series titled - "Mediate or Immediate?" (See here, here, here) In those chapters I give the views of Kuyper and offer critical analysis of them.

Now let me cite from "Regeneration" by Abraham Kuyper (see here) as it relates to this idea of presumptive regeneration of infants. Kuyper wrote (all emphasis mine):

"Before we examine the work of the Holy Spirit in this important matter, we must first define the use of words. The word "regeneration" is used in a limited sense, and in a more extended sense.

It is used in the limited sense when it denotes exclusively God's act of quickening, which is the first divine act whereby God translates us from death into life, from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of His dear Son. In this sense regeneration is the starting-point. God comes to one born in iniquity and dead in trespasses and sins, and plants the principle of a new spiritual life in his soul. Hence he is born again.

But this is not the interpretation of the Confession of Faith, for article 24 reads: "We believe that this true faith, being wrought in man by the hearing of the Word of God and the operation of the Holy Ghost, doth regenerate and make him a new man, causing him to live a new life, and freeing him from the bondage of sin." Here the word "regeneration," used in its wider sense, denotes the entire change by grace effected in our persons, ending in our dying to sin in death and our being born for heaven. While formerly this was the usual sense of the word, we are accustomed now to the limited sense, which we therefore adopt in this discussion.

Respecting the difference between the two--formerly the work of grace was generally represented as the soul consciously observed it; while now the work itself is described apart from the consciousness."

Kuyper states what has been stated by others about how the use of the word "regeneration" has changed since the days of Calvin and the Reformation. At first the Calvinists defined regeneration broadly as including conversion (faith and repentance). 

Bob Ross, citing Berkhof, wrote:

"Berkhof taught that "new life is often implanted in the hearts of children long before they are able to hear the call of the gospel," and that they may receive the "seed of regeneration long before they come to years of discretion," and therefore this rules out the Holy Spirit's use of the Gospel as a means (pages 471, 472)." (See here)

Bob Ross also writes in further detail to show that the first Calvinists and Reformers, and the first Confessions of faith, spoke only of regeneration broadly defined and I cite from him extensively in this blog posting (here). Kuyper is simply agreeing that the first Calvinists spoke only of regeneration that included evangelical conversion, this being the only kind the bible spoke about. For instance, here is some of what is posted in that entry:

W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, pages 492-494, attributes the distinction between "regeneration" and "conversion" to Turretin, and Shedd adopted this approach. He says:

"The divines of the seventeenth century [Puritans] very generally do not distinguish between regeneration and conversion, but employ the two as synonyms. Owen does this continually: On the Spirit, III. v. And Charnocke likewise: Attributes, Practical Atheism. The Westminster [Confession] does not use the term regeneration. In stead of it, it employs the term vocation, or effectual calling. This comprises the entire work of the Holy Spirit in the application of redemption. . . ." Shedd then alleges: "But this wide use of the term regeneration led to confusion of ideas and views. As there are two distinct words in the language, regeneration and conversion, there are also two distinct notions denoted by them. Consequently, there arose gradually a stricter use of the term regeneration, and its discrimination from conversion. Turrettin (XV. iv. 13) defines two kinds of conversion, as the term was employed in his day. . . . After thus defining, Turrettin remarks that the first kind of conversion is better denominated 'regeneration,' because it has reference to the new birth by which man is renewed in the image of his Maker; and the second kind of conversion is better denominated 'conversion,' because it includes the operation and agency of man himself. . . ."

Then Shedd says: "We shall adopt this distinction [by Turretin] between regeneration and conversion. . . . Regeneration is a cause; conversion is an effect."

J. I. Packer also contends that the theory arose in "later Reformed theology:" Packer says:

"Many seventeenth century Reformed theologians equated regeneration with effectual calling and conversion with regeneration . . . LATER REFORMED THEOLOGY has defined regeneration more narrowly, as the implanting of the 'seed' from which faith and repentance spring (I John 3:9) in the course of effectual calling."

Louis Berkhof:

Berkhof likewise acknowledged that the theory had post-Creedal development:

"It is true that some Reformed authors have occasionally used the term 'regeneration' as including even sanctification, but that was in the days when the ORDO SALUTIS was not as fully developed as it is today" (Systematic Theology, page 468).

So, the question is whether Kuyper and others who restricted the original meaning were rightly fine tuning the teaching of scripture or obscuring it?

That infants who die in infancy are regenerated at some point before they enter heaven I do not question, yet the scriptures do not address this in any detail. But, that is not the question in the present discussion. The question is whether many adults who have been converted to Christ were previously regenerated when they were infants, which if true, might lend support to the idea that regeneration is distinct from conversion, and may exist apart from evangelical knowledge, faith, and repentance. 

Kuyper continued:

"But this subjective representation, more or less incomplete, can not satisfy us now. It was to be expected that the supporters of "free will" would abuse it, by inferring that the origin and first activities of the work of salvation spring from man himself. A sinner, hearing the Word, is deeply impressed; persuaded by its threats and promises, he repents, arises, and accepts the Savior. Hence there is nothing more than a mere moral persuasion, obscuring the glorious origin of the new life. To resist this repulsive deforming of the truth, Maccovius, already in the days of the Synod of Dort, abandoned this more or less critical method to make regeneration the starting-point. He followed this order: "Knowledge of sin, redemption in Christ, regeneration, and only then faith." And this was consistent with the development of the Reformed doctrine. For as soon as the subjective method was abandoned, it became necessary in answer to the question, "What has God wrought in the soul?" to return to the first implanting of life. And then it became evident that God did not begin by leading the sinner to repentance, for repentance must be preceded by conviction of sin; nor by bringing him under the hearing of the word, for this requires an opened ear. Hence the first conscious and comparatively cooperative act of man is always preceded by the original act of God, planting in him the first principle of a new life, under which act man is wholly passive and unconscious."

Again, Kuyper admits that the old original Calvinist and Reformed view that saw regeneration and conversion as the same thing was unacceptable to him and later Calvinists and so they spoke of two kinds of regeneration, one which excluded conversion, and one which included it. We have shown where men like Gill and Charles Hodge admit that the bible defines it in terms of conversion, or broadly.

Kuyper continued:

"This led to the distinction of the first and second grace. The former denoted God's work in the sinner, creating a new life without his knowledge; while the latter denoted the work wrought in regenerate man with his full knowledge and consent.

The first grace was naturally called regeneration. And yet there was no perfect unanimity in this respect. Some Scottish theologians put it in this way: "God began the work of grace with the implanting of the faith-faculty (fides potentialis), followed by the new grace of the faith-exercise (fides actualis), and of the faith power (fides habitualis). Yet it is only an apparent difference. Whether I call the first activity of grace, the implanting of the "faith-faculty," or the "new principle of life," in both instances it means that the work of grace does not begin with faith or with repentance or contrition, but that these are preceded by God's act of giving power to the powerless, hearing to the deaf, and life to the dead."

So, not only did later Calvinists redefine regeneration but they also began to redefine "faith." The Hardshells did the same thing. They too began to speak of "seed faith," a faith that did not believe anything, or know anything, a faith that was non cognitive, a faith that was "dormant" in the regenerated infant, imbecile, or heathen idolater. They also, like Hardshell apologist Zack Guess, defined faith as "the ability to believe." Of course, the bible knows nothing of these altered definitions. (See our posting on this here) Also, the bible does not define regeneration or initial salvation as occurring when God first begins to work on the heart of a sinner for it speaks of prevenient grace or preparatory work towards regeneration. We have several postings where we show that the first Calvinists saw conviction of sin as a preparation towards regeneration and not an effect of it (as the Hardshells believe). We have also shown how the bible and Calvinists such as Jonathan Edwards and Archibald Alexander said that regeneration cannot be defined alone by what causes it but also by what is effected by it. (See our postings here and here) In those postings here is what Edwards and Alexander said:

Jonathan Edwards wrote and I commented as follows:

"If we compare one Scripture with another, it will be sufficiently manifest, that by regeneration, or being begotten, or born again, the same change in the state of the mind is signified with that which the Scripture speaks of as effected in true repentance and conversion. I put repentance and conversion together, because the Scripture puts them together, Acts iii. 19, and because they plainh signify much the same thing."

"This inward change, called regeneration and circumcision of the heart, which is wrought in repentance and conversion, is the same with that spiritual resurrection so often spoken of, and represented as a dying unto sin, and living, unto righteousness."  (THE WORKS of PRESIDENT EDWARDS," pg. 213, Chapter II)

Edwards defines "regeneration" by the effect, by the actual "change" of heart.  Again, it is just pure nonsense to say that a man is changed (act of God, or cause alone) before he is actually changed.  But, that is the foolish consequence of defining regeneration by cause alone.

Alexander wrote:

"Curious inquiries respecting the way in which the word is instrumental in the production of this change are not for edification. Sometimes regeneration is considered distinctly from the acts and exercises of the mind which proceed from it, but in the Holy Scriptures the cause and effect are included; and we shall therefore treat the subject in this practical and popular form. The instrumentality of the word can never derogate from the efficient agency of the Spirit in this work. The Spirit operates by and through the word. The word derives all its power and penetrating energy from the Spirit. Without the omnipotence of God the word would be as inefficient as clay and spittle, to restore sight to the blind."

Alexander pinpoints the error of those Hyper Calvinists who restrict the definition of regeneration to include only the "cause."  He correctly states that the scriptures include what is effected in the definition.  A man cannot then be said to have been "regenerated" who lacked the "effects," or constituent elements of regeneration.  In other words, a man cannot be said to have been "saved" who lacks the "things which accompany salvation."  Thus, to say a man is regenerated before he believes and repents is to define regeneration strictly by the cause to the exclusion of the effect.

Kuyper continued:

"For a correct idea of the entire work of grace in its different phases let us notice the following successive stages or milestones: 

 

1. The implanting of the new life principle, commonly called regeneration in the limited sense, or the implanting of the faith-faculty. This divine act is wrought in man at different ages; when, no one can tell. We know from the instance of John the Baptist that it can be wrought even in the mother's womb. And the salvation of deceased infants constrains us, with Voetius and all profound theologians, to believe that this original act may occur very early in life. 

 

This view is very close to that view of the first Hardshells that saw the new birth as much like physical birth, where there are three stages, first the implanting of the seed, then the time of formation in the womb, then the time of emergence or delivery from the womb. But, the bible knows nothing of such a thing and such a view creates lots of theological problems.

And, as far as John the Baptist is concerned, even if we allow that his being filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb was his regeneration, it was not divorced from cognitive faith and knowledge. His regeneration was not unconnected from conversion. His faith was not dormant but active in "leaping for joy." Further, his experience ought to be viewed as the exception and not the rule. 

Kuyper continued:

2. The keeping of the implanted principle of life, while the sinner still continues in sin, so far as his consciousness is concerned. Persons who received the life-principle early in life are no more dead, but live. Dying before actual conversion, they are not lost, but saved. In early life they often manifest holy inclinations; sometimes truly marvelous. However, they have no conscious faith, nor knowledge of the treasure possessed. The new life is present, but dormant; kept not by the recipient, but by the Giver--like seed-grain in the ground in winter; like the spark glowing under the ashes, but not kindling the wood; like a subterranean stream coming at last to the surface. 

 

Before their conversion they are not lost? That is hyper Hyper Calvinism, or neo Hardshellism. However, the bible says that all unconverted people are lost. Again, the Hardshell notion of dormant "seed faith" is a pedobaptist idea stemming from their view about "covenant children." 

Kuyper continued:

3. The call by the Word and the Spirit, internal and external. Even this is a divine act, commonly performed through the service of the Church. It addresses itself not to the deaf but to the hearing, not to the dead but to the living, altho still slumbering. It proceeds from the Word and the Spirit, because not only the faith-faculty, but faith itself--i.e., the power and exercise of the faculty--are gifts of grace. The faith-faculty can not exercise faith of itself. It avails us no more than the faculty of breathing when air and the power to breathe are withheld. Hence the preaching of the Word and the inward working of the Holy Spirit are divine, correspondent operations. Under the preaching of the Word the Spirit energizes the faith-faculty, and thus the call becomes effectual, for the sleeper arises. 

 

Again, this is Hardshellism in a nutshell. The gospel does not address itself to the spiritually dead? The bible does not teach such a thing. Jesus himself addressed his gospel message to people who he identified as spiritually dead. 

Kuyper continued:

4. This call of God produces conviction of sin and justification, two acts of the same exercise of faith. In this, God's work may be represented again either subjectively or objectively. Subjectively, it seems to the saint that conviction of sin and heart-brokenness came first, and that then he obtained the sense of being justified by faith. Objectively, this is not so. The realization of his lost condition was already a bold act of faith. And by every subsequent act of faith he becomes more deeply convinced of his misery and receives more abundantly from the fulness which is in Christ, his Surety. Concerning the question, whether conviction of sin must not precede faith, there need be no difference. Both representations amount to the same thing. When a man can say for the first time in his life "I believe," he is at the same moment completely lost and completely saved, being justified in his Lord. 

 

No, conviction of sin is not an evidence of regeneration or salvation! (See my posting here, which posting gives links to several other postings on this question). In those postings I cite from Hardshell founding father Wilson Thompson who did not believe conviction of sin by itself was evidence of regeneration. Notice these words from him and others:

Elder Wilson Thompson wrote:

"We shall now proceed to show what men may experience and not be under the work of the spirit of grace. He may feel all that weight of guilt which the law of God charges upon him; and yet not be a subject of the spirits operation, for the law is the ministration of condemnation and death."

Stephen Charnock wrote:

"The soul must be beaten down by conviction before it be raised up by regeneration..."

John Owen (1616-1683) addresses the subject in the third volume of his Works in a section entitled, "Works of the Holy Spirit Preparatory Unto Regeneration." Owen writes:

"Ordinarily there are certain previous and preparatory works, or workings in and upon the souls of men, that are antecedent and dispositive unto it [i.e. regeneration]. But yet regeneration doth not consist in them, nor can it be educed out of them."

Wrote Thomas Boston  (emphasis mine): (here)

"A person may have sharp soul-exercises and pangs, and yet die in the birth. Many "have been in pain," that have but, "as it were, brought forth wind." There may be sore pangs of conscience, which turn to nothing at last. Pharaoh and Simon Magus had such convictions, as made them to desire the prayers of others for them. Judas repented: and, under terrors of conscience, gave back his ill-gotten pieces of silver. All is not gold that glitters. Trees may blossom fairly in the spring, on which no fruit is to be found in the harvest: and some have sharp soul-exercises, which are nothing but foretastes of hell."

Again, this is the teaching of Scripture and of the old Baptists and Calvinists. Boston also wrote:

"Some have sharp convictions for a while: but these go off, and they become as careless about their salvation, and as profane as ever, and usually worse than ever; "their last state is worse than their first," Matt. 12:45. They get awakening grace—but not converting grace; and that goes off by degrees, as the light of the declining day, until it issues in midnight darkness."

He also wrote:

"There may be a wonderful moving of the affections in souls that are not at all touched with regenerating grace. When there is no grace, there may, notwithstanding, be a flood of tears, as in Esau, who "found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears," Heb. 12:17. There may be great flashes of joy; as in the hearers of the word, represented in the parable of the stony ground, who "with joy receive it," Matt. 13:20. There may be also great desires after good things, and great delight in them too; as in those hypocrites described in Isa. 58:2, "Yet they seek me daily, and delight to know my ways – they take delight in approaching to God."

I have also pointed out how the affirmation that those under conviction of sin (and not yet converted) are nevertheless regenerate makes the Spirit of God a liar (See here, here). 

Kuyper continued:

5. This exercise of faith results in conversion; at this stage in the way of grace the child of God becomes clearly conscious of the implanted life. When a man says and feels "I believe," and does not recall it, but God confirms it, faith is at once followed by conversion. The implanting of the new life precedes the first act of faith, but conversion follows it.

Again this is Hyper Calvinism, or Hardshellism. The idea that men may be regenerated without being converted is foreign to the scriptures. There is no such thing as a regenerated unbeliever.

Kuyper continued:

"Conversion does not become a fact so long as the sinner only sees his lost condition, but when he acts upon this principle; for then the old man begins to die and the new man begins to rise, and these are the two parts of all real conversion. In principle man is converted but once, viz., the moment of yielding himself to Immanuel. After that he converts himself daily, i.e., as often as he discovers conflict between his will and that of the Holy Spirit. And even this is not man's work, but the work of God in him. "Turn Thou me, O Lord, and I shall be turned." There is this difference, however, that in regeneration and faith's first exercise he was passive, while in conversion grace enabled him to be active. One is converted and one converts himself; the one is incomplete without the other." 

 

So, according to Kuyper's paradigm, a soul who is convicted of his lost condition is regenerated (and not really lost) but is not converted. So, it is evident that the separating of conversion from regeneration logically led to its being separated chronologically. Yea, it even led to the heresy that unconverted heathen who worship false gods are saved and regenerated. 

Kuyper continued:

6. Hence conversion merges itself in sanctification. This is also a divine act, and not human; not a growing toward Christ, but an absorbing of His life through the roots of faith. In children of twelve or thirteen deceased soon after conversion, sanctification does not appear. Yet they partake of it just as much as adults. Sanctification has a twofold meaning: first, sanctification which as Christ's finished work is given and imputed to all the elect; and second, sanctification which from Christ is gradually wrought in the converted and manifested according to times and circumstances. These are not two sanctifications, but one; just as we speak sometimes of the rain that accumulates in the clouds above and then comes down in drops on the thirsty fields below. 

 

There is no such thing as a person who is regenerated and converted and who has not been sanctified. Yes, sanctification is progressive, but it is begun in conversion, when he becomes a saint, when he is "sanctified by faith" in Christ Jesus. (Acts 26: 18; Etc.)

Kuyper continued:

7. Sanctification is finished and closed in the complete redemption at the time of death. In the severing of body and soul divine grace completes the dying to sin. Hence in death a work of grace is performed which imparts to the work of regeneration its fullest unfolding. If until then, considering ourselves out of Christ, we are still lost in ourselves and lying in the midst of death, the article of death ends all this. Then faith is turned into sight, sin's excitement is disarmed, and we are forever beyond its reach. 

If one is completely sanctified at death, why can we not say the same of those who die in infancy? I.e., that they were regenerated, converted, and sanctified in death? They certainly do not go to heaven as infants or idiots, right? Don't they transition to adulthood immediately and miraculously?

Kuyper continued:

"The work of grace must begin with quickening the dead. Once implanted, the still slumbering life must be awakened by the call. Thus awakened, man finds himself in a new life, i.e., he knows himself justified. Being justified, he lets the new life result in conversion. Conversion flows into sanctification. Sanctification receives its keystone through the severing of sin in death. And in the last day, glorification completes the work of divine grace in our entire person."

Why must the work of grace begin with quickening? Kuyper has already spoken of preparatory work that God does before he quickens. What about the quickening of the dry dead bones in Ezekiel? Was there not much movement and coming together of bones and sinew, etc, before coming to life? The idea that infants have spiritual life but it is "slumbering" or "dormant" is ridiculous. Again, however, this is the language of hardshellism. In their minds many of the elect are regenerated in infancy and such is not known until that life is awakened by preaching. Thus, in their minds, many Muslims, Hindoos, and other idolaters fit this description. They would say that this was the case with the Athenian idolaters of Acts 17, affirming that many of them were regenerated (though believers in false gods) and not converted, and that the preaching of Paul "brought to light" those who were previously alive by regeneration. Such nonsense!

Kuyper continued:

"From the preceding it is evident that preparatory grace is different in different persons; and that distinction must be made between the many regenerated in the first days of life, and the few born again at a more advanced age."

Again, he speaks of "preparatory grace" but in essence he does not believe in it (since he has said that regeneration is the first thing). Further, though there is indeed a difference in the amount of grace at work in the elect before their salvation as opposed to the non elect, still common or prevenient grace was operative in both. Notice also how Kuyper believes that many of the elect are born again in infancy and that only a minority of them are regenerated as adults. This is what many Hardshells also believe. 

Kuyper continued:

"Of course, we refer only to the elect. In the non-elect saving grace does not operate; hence preparatory grace is altogether out of the question. The former are born, with few exceptions, in the Church. They do not enter the covenant of grace later on in life, but they belong to it from the first moment of their existence. They spring from the seed of the Church, and in turn contain in themselves the seed of the future Church. And for this reason, the first germ of the new life is imparted to the seed of the Church (which is, alas! always mixed with much chaff) oftenest either before or soon after birth."

Again, all this is an invention and not what is affirmed in scripture. It is also the belief of the Hardshells. It shows again that their doctrine came not only from the Two Seeders but also from the pedobaptists. We showed how Spilsbury debated pedobaptist Bakewell on this very point back in the 17th century. (See my posting on this debate here)

Kuyper continued:

"The Reformed Church was so firmly settled in this doctrine that she dared establish it as the prevailing rule, believing that the seed of the Church (not the chaff of course} received the germ of life even before Baptism; wherefore it is actually sanctified in Christ already; and receives in Baptism the seal not upon something that is yet to come, but upon that which is already present. Hence the liturgical question to the parents: "Do you acknowledge that, altho your children are conceived and born in sin, and therefore are subject to condemnation itself, yet that they are sanctified in Christ, and therefore as members of His Church ought to be baptized?"

Here he speaks of infants who are sanctified when they are regenerated and yet earlier he spoke of young people being converted but dying before being sanctified. That is a contradiction. 

This is not Baptist doctrine, nor is it Bible doctrine. All this is the result of divorcing conversion from regeneration, a thing the scriptures do not do.

Was Herod Saved my Hardshell Brothers?

"For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly." (Mark 6: 20)

"He was a burning and a shining light: and ye (lost Pharisees) were willing for a season to rejoice in his light." (John 5: 35)

I have pointed out many times over the years how the Hardshells of today have become quasi Universalists. To them only a few are going to Hell and most are going to Heaven. You do not have to be Christian to be saved according to today's "Primitive Baptists." Because of such heretical ideas, they have often taught that the following characters were really saved people: Balaam, Esau, Nadab, Abihu, Lot's wife, Simon the Sorcerer, Demas, Athenian idolaters, etc.

Based upon what they consider to be the evidences of regeneration or new birth, to show some happiness when the gospel is preached is a sure proof of it, like conviction of sin, or a guilty conscience. Well, by that reasoning, we would have to say that Judas and the wicked Christ rejecting Pharisees were born again, for they heard the gospel "gladly" and were "willing to rejoice" in it.

The shallow ground hearer in the parable of the soils also "received the word with joy" but it was a shallow and temporary joy of nominal and hypocritical believers.

Was Herod saved my Hardshell brothers? By your present beliefs about the nature of regeneration, will you not have to say that he was indeed saved? Was Herod's hearing John gladly a proof or regeneration?

Death Covenant & Refuge in Lies (iii)

"For the living know that they will die; But the dead know nothing, 

And they have no more reward, For the memory of them is forgotten." 

(Eccl. 9: 5)

"What man can live and not see death? 

Can he deliver his soul from the power of Sheol? Selah." 

(Psa. 89: 48)

Choosing an image to place at the head of a posting is sometimes time consuming. If I did not think they were of any benefit to the reader, I would not do it. I chose this image because it's statement about which coping mechanism we choose is something I have been addressing so far in this series. In this posting we will continue to look at the ways people mentally deal with the realization that they will die and compare it with the counsel the bible gives.

Keep in mind that we are expanding on the text in Isaiah 28 about many in Israel making a covenant or pact with death and Sheol and taking refuge in lies and falsehoods. For now however, let us go back to our text at the head of our last chapter posting. 

"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." (Heb 2: 14-15)

Let us first note that "render powerless" is a better translation than "destroy" since the former helps explain how the devil "had the power of death" ("power" being in both parts). The text with its key Greek words read as follows: 

"Through (dia) death (thanatos) He might render powerless (katargeo) him who had the power (kratos) of death (thanatos) , that is, the devil (diabolos)." 

Also the word "power" is not from the Greek word dynamis but from kratos. "Power (kratos) means strength or might, especially manifested power, the power to rule or control or dominion (power to rule, supreme authority, sovereignty, the right to govern or rule or determine). Krátos denotes the presence and significance of force or strength rather than its exercise. It is the ability to exhibit or express resident strength."

"Render powerless (katargeo from kata = intensifies meaning + argeo = be idle from argos = ineffective, idle, inactive from a = without + érgon = work) literally means to reduce to inactivity. The idea is to make the power or force of something ineffective and so to render powerless, reduce to inactivity. To do away with. To put out of use. To cause to be idle or useless. To render entirely idle, inoperative or ineffective. Cause something to come to an end or cause it to cease to happen. To abolish or cause not to function. To free or release from an earlier obligation or relationship. To no longer take place. Katargeo always denotes a nonphysical destruction by means of a superior force coming in to replace the force previously in effect, as e.g. light destroys darkness." (Ibid)

Writing to Timothy Paul used the same words saying that Christ "abolished (katargeo) death, and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel." (II Tim. 1:10) So, both texts affirm the same idea. 

In what sense did the devil have "the power of death"? How and when did he (or will he) lose this power? How was he destroyed or rendered powerless in regard to death? 

Commentators are not all agreed on the answers to these questions. For me to answer those questions sufficiently would take up much time and would be a little off the main subject of this short series. But, let me add these thoughts at least.

The Devil is the one who put to death our race by getting Eve, and then Adam, the head, to sin. This is what the scriptures teach. In that sense he exercised the power of death. He is still killing people, especially in his keeping souls away from salvation and insuring their "second death," their death in every way, morally, spiritually, etc. (See Revelation 2:11, 20:6, 20:14, and 21:8) Keeping people from coming to God, who is life, keeps the people dead and dying. He inspires many suicides. 

Further, I think the words allude back to the Genesis story of the fall of man by the temptation of the Serpent, who we know is "the devil." The Greek word for "devil" is "diabolos" and means an accuser. I think that as the human race's chief accuser before heaven's court Satan, "the accuser of the brotherhood" (Rev. 12: 10), also has had the power of death for his being able to justly accuse all who have sinned. However, for those who have been benefited by the atoning death of Christ, he can no longer justly accuse. So Paul asks - "who will bring an accusation against the elect of God? God is the one justifying. Who is the one condemning"? (Rom. 8: 33-34)

The protoevangelium promises that the "seed of the woman" would destroy the Serpent and his seed, undo the death and destruction he was a cause, or responsible person, to bring salvation and undo the ills of his crime for many people. This is all signified in the woman's seed (who came to be known as "the coming one" and "the desired one") stomping the head of the Serpent and killing him. In this first gospel revelation the promised Deliverer, though destroying the Serpent, is wounded to death in this fight and victory. He is wounded in his heel. 

The Serpent, however, being Satan or the Devil (see Rev. 12: 9), is also called the Destroyer (Apollyon or Abaddon - Rev. 9: 11) because he is the one who brought death into our world. Christ no doubt had him chiefly in mind when he said "the thief comes only to steal, and to kill, and to destroy." (John 10:10) Though God may allow him to physically kill people (as in Job's children through the Sabeans, from lightning, and from tornado - Job 1: 13-21), yet this is not the main thing intended by him being the one who had the power of death. Sin is what is killing and Satan is the one who has taught and induced men to sin.

Wrote one author on this subject:

"Kenneth Wuest explains that "Satan was not annihilated at the Cross. His power was broken. Spiritual death cannot hold the person who puts his faith in the Saviour. Physical death cannot keep his body in the grave. The resurrection of the Lord Jesus provides the believer with eternal life, and his body with glorification at the Rapture. Thus, Jesus conquered death, and brought to naught the Devil. Satan had the power of death, not in the sense that he had power over death, but that he had the sovereignty or dominion of death. He had a sovereignty of which death is the realm. The word for “power” in the Greek text here is kratos, which means “power in the sense of dominion.” His dominion over the human race was in the form of death. That dominion is now broken." (As cited here)

Yes, Satan does not have power in the sense of right authority. He does not have a legal just authority over the power of death. This belongs to God and to Christ. He does, by divine permission, have some power to accuse and to exercise sway.

"We read that "the Son of God was manifested that he might destroy (literally, 'loosen' or 'untie') the works of the devil." Thus he came, not only to untie and undo all that Satan had fastened and done by traversing, as it were, the whole ground, from the first entrance of sin and death, and, by a course of holy and meritorious obedience, repair the wreck and ruin produced by the primary author of all disobedience, but, as the final stroke, to destroy and put down the disobedient and rebellious prince of darkness himself. (J. C. Philpot. Daily Words for Zion's Wayfarers) (Ibid)

The undoing of the work of the Serpent in the garden is the work of the "seed of the woman," of the promised Deliverer, Christ Jesus. We call that redemption and restoration as well. 

I think too that Satan uses man's fear of death against him. He makes men to believe many things about death, promising help, but which actually help none, and rather condemn and harm them. Every tyrant and despot (rulers who were not of God's choosing, his servants) has used the fear of death to enslave people, to make them subjects of the tyrants and dictators. Satan has no problem with people seeing him as the "grim reaper." In many ways he is typified in the Red Horse Rider of the Apocalypse, having power of death, the power to cause men to kill one another. The bible does speak of a death angel, or angel of death. In Exodus 12: 23 he is called "the destroyer." Of course, the angel of death can only take the life of those whose life God has decided to take. So, though the text above ascribes death to the angel destroyer, yet other verses ascribe it to God. (See Exo.12: 29) As stated before, Satan was behind the death of Job's children, though he could only do it as God suffered it to be. So, not only does the Red Horse Rider resemble Satan but so does the Pale Rider for it is recorded: “And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell (Hades) followed with him." 

Refuge In Lies

"For we have made lies our refuge, And under falsehood we have hidden ourselves."

These people are the ones who have made a pact with death, with both the grave (receptacle of the bodies which have died) and with Sheol (receptacle of the souls or spirits which have departed the bodies), which Hebrew word denotes what in the Greek New Testament refers to as Hades. They have made a covenant with the Egyptian goddess Mut, and therefore they would be safe from disaster, both in the present and in the afterlife. But, it also holds true for all who make such covenants with other gods, or who make mental pacts with the knowledge of coming death and judgment. 

I recall reading "On Death and Dying" by Mary K. Ross back in the 70s. It has become a highly read and cited book, a classic. She spoke on the stages of grief. 

So, what are some of the more common ways that mortal humans deal with the knowledge that they will one day die? What mental refuges do they create in the minds and imaginations for that distressing knowledge? 

Some have hardened themselves against death and try to show a brazen courage against the face of death, being hardened against fear. This is why many flirt with death as an Evel Knievel. They conceive that they are fighting death by being fearless in the face of danger. These are constantly saying to the death angel - "I am not afraid of you." These know that death will get the ultimate victory, but they refuse to let the enemy death defeat them in life by ruining their peace and joy. We might call this having a "fleshly bravado" against the idea of death. These type people may have tattoos of skulls and bones.

Others try to make friends with death and what they assume are the powers of death and Hell (as mentioned above in regard to fascination with death and of death cults). Satan has a significant interest in making the wicked feel that death and Hell are their friends. After all, as Satan said (per Milton in "Paradise Lost") - “The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven..” There in Hell Satan, said Milton, "raised Pandemonium," a palace of demons. 

Many don't fear going to Hell, to the place where wicked people go, and actually know and confess that they are going there, and even boast of it. Many movies have a line in them where one says to another "see you in Hell." They believe that Hell will not be as bad as some think and even look forward to "raising Hell" in Hell. 

Some put their trust in magic, in ceremonial ritual, and in appealing to one of the gods, particularly the gods of the "underworld," or of Hell. This would include first the fear of oneself dying, fear of the dying process, fear of the instant of death, fear of the unknown, fear of what may await one in the afterlife, fear of dead people's ghosts, etc. This was the case with those in Isaiah 28 who had made a covenant with death and Sheol via the goddess of the afterlife, with Mut.

Ignoring The Thought

Many try to deal with the thought of dying by ignoring it, by what is called "suppression." Psychology Today defines it this way (See here):

"When we suppress thoughts and emotions, we push them out of conscious awareness. When we do this, we hope that the thoughts and emotions will go away and no longer affect us in any way. Unfortunately, the human brain doesn’t work like that. Instead, suppression may actually amplify our negative emotions."

This is a common "coping" or "defense" mechanism. Ignore it and refuse to think about it. Suppress it. Push it to the subconscious level. But, that is not the way to cope with the realization of death and mortality, or of the fear of a judgment by God in the afterlife. To ignore it by suppression indeed "may actually amplify" the harms that such realization brings to many. I like what this writer said relative to this:

"We need to face up to death, not in light of popular myths and euphemisms that try to sanitise it, but in the cold clear light of what God has to say." (In "Facing Up To Death" here).

Optimistic View of Death

"For a more complete and optimistic view of death for the philosopher, consider Plato's dialogue, Phaedo. Reading like a play script, Phaedo describes the last conversations of Socrates and his friends before the great philosopher carried out a death sentence by drinking poisoned wine." (Ibid here)

The way in which Socrates faced his death is held up as the way to face death, the kind of faith and hope that one should have. However, as noble as Socrates was in his dying, it does not compare with the way the saints have died, or as Christ died. The Christian martyrs, like the OT saints, faced awful tortures and death for their faith and hope in a way that is far more marvelous. 

I recall reading "The Phaedo" in college and being impressed with the reasoned hope that Socrates gave for his having no fear of death. I do not doubt that many today, especially among the educated, and among those who know philosophy and religious belief systems, cling to the same hope as Socrates. So, what belief system brought Socrates salvation from thanatophobia? 

Said one source (here):

"The Phaedo is one of the most widely read dialogues written by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato. It claims to recount the events and conversations that occurred on the day that Plato’s teacher, Socrates (469-399 B.C.E.), was put to death by the state of Athens. It is the final episode in the series of dialogues recounting Socrates’ trial and death. The earlier Euthyphro dialogue portrayed Socrates in discussion outside the court where he was to be prosecuted on charges of impiety and corrupting the youth; the Apology described his defense before the Athenian jury; and the Crito described a conversation during his subsequent imprisonment. The Phaedo now brings things to a close by describing the moments in the prison cell leading up to Socrates’ death from poisoning by use of hemlock."

Socrates was convinced of the fact that man had a soul or spirit and that it was capable of living apart from the body. He believed firmly in the immortality of the soul. Believing this, he was not afraid to die, and even looked upon death as a blessing. He does not believe that he will suffer or be worse off after death. He believed that no good man had any reason to fear the afterlife, and he believed he was a good man. If he believed in any suffering for bad men after death, he believed it would be remedial and therefore temporary. With such a firm "refuge" for his fear of death, he faced his death with dignity.

"Philosophy itself is, in fact, a kind of “training for dying” (67e), a purification of the philosopher’s soul from its bodily attachment. Thus, Socrates concludes, it would be unreasonable for a philosopher to fear death, since upon dying he is most likely to obtain the wisdom which he has been seeking his whole life. Both the philosopher’s courage in the face of death and his moderation with respect to bodily pleasures which result from the pursuit of wisdom stand in stark contrast to the courage and moderation practiced by ordinary people." 

This makes me think of the words of Paul who said "I die daily." (I Cor. 15: 31) He also said: "For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh." (II Cor. 4: 11)

Again, the same writer wrote:

"The issue of the immortality of the soul, Socrates says, has considerable implications for morality. If the soul is immortal, then we must worry about our souls not just in this life but for all time; if it is not, then there are no lasting consequences for those who are wicked. But in fact, the soul is immortal, as the previous arguments have shown, and Socrates now begins to describe what happens when it journeys to the underworld after the death of the body."

Live In Pleasure

“Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we may die.” (Isa. 22: 13; I Cor. 15: 32)

This is one popular coping mechanism for dealing with the thought of death. But, it is a refuge of lies. In opposition to this thinking Paul said of such people - "But she who lives in pleasure is dead while she lives." (I Tim. 5: 6) 

Many turn to drugs and alcohol in order to deal with the thought of dying. They are described in scripture in these words:

"Woe to those who rise early in the morning that they may pursue strong drink, Who stay up late in the evening that wine may inflame them!" (Isa. 5: 11)

"...having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousing, drinking parties and abominable idolatries." (I Peter 4: 3)

Those who deal with the thought of death and the afterlife by being "lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God" (II Tim. 3: 4) are taking refuge in lies. 

The Fight With Death

“Death is swallowed up in victory.” O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?” (I Cor. 15: 54-55)

As do a lot of people, Christians are able to look at death as an enemy, but in a different way. There are those who war with death and the thought of death, and though knowing that they will likely lose, nevertheless fight bravely any way, believing that they can win a few battles even if they lose the war. Thus, every cure for an illness is viewed as a win in the battle with death. When people do not let the fear of death paralyze them emotionally and mentally they are winning a battle with enemy death, even though it is but temporary. 

Christians can face death boldly because they know that death has already been defeated by Jesus Christ and that he has death's cure. For this reason they sorrow not as others do over the fact of death. Said the apostle:

"But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope." (I Thess. 4: 13)

The gospel message is not a refuge of lies, but a true refuge. Again, the apostle Paul wrote:

"...that we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us. This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters the Presence behind the veil, where the forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus, having become High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." (Heb. 6: 18-20)

I favor the word "expectation" rather than the word "hope." In our day and time "hope" is connected more with a mere wish. The hope of the Christian however is not a mere wish, a fancy, or dream, but is a confident and firm expectation. If our expectation is not grounded in the truth of God's word, then it is a false expectation and one is taking mental refuge in a lie, in a falsehood, as God said through Isaiah.

Notice the word "refuge" in the words of Paul. Compare the "refuge of lies" of Isaiah with the strong refuge and consolation that comes from knowing that Christ has conquered death. "The hope of the hypocrite," like those who embrace false ideas and beliefs about death and the afterlife, will "perish." (Job 8: 13) 

To make a covenant with death and hell is indeed something connected with occultism. If Satan or the Devil be identified with either Hell or Death, then making a covenant with him, as do all witches and others of such ilk, is a making a deal with, or pact, with the Devil. It may be viewed as a making friends with Satan and the demons. Instead of making a covenant with death and Hell, why not make a covenant with Christ?

"So teach us to number our days, 

That we may present to You a heart of wisdom." 

(Psa. 90: 20)