Fellowship With God & Salvation (2)

In the previous post on this subject we showed how koinōnia, the word that gives us our word fellowship or communion, involves participation or partaking. Paul spoke of how all members of the body of Christ jointly partake or participate in the blessings of communion with the head of the body. He wrote:

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion (koinōnia) of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion (koinōnia)  of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread." (I Cor. 10: 16-17 nkjv)

Here we see where koinōnia involves "partaking" of "that one bread" which is Christ, the true bread that came down from heaven. In order to "live forever" a person must partake of this bread. (John 6: 51) It is  therefore stunning that our Hardshell brothers say that communion with Christ, or partaking of him as the bread of life, is not essential for obtaining eternal life.

Thus koinōnia may be viewed both vertically and horizontally. Vertically it speaks of the communion of a renewed spirit with God that results from a faith union with God. It may be viewed horizontally when it speaks of a communion between believers in the church community. If a member of the body is in union with the head (Christ), then it will have interaction with the head, or a sharing between them. So too will members of the body have union with one another and a mutual sharing with each other and with the head. Therefore, you cannot separate union from communion as Elder Gowens has done. If my head or brain is not interacting with my heart and lungs, I will die. So koinōnia involves "shared life." 

We could also say that same thing regarding Christ being the "true vine" and professing Christians being the "branches." Jesus said:

"1 I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. 5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing." (John 15: 1-5 nkjv)

A branch is joined to the vine, that speaks of union. A branch receives its life sustaining sap from the vine, and that speaks of communion. Jesus speaks of believers being "in" him and him being "in" the believer. I had a brother ask me years ago how something could be in something while that something is in it. That seemed illogical. If I have a piece of paper in my bible book, how can the book be in the piece of paper? I told him to think of a glass jar in the water and how the glass is in the water and the water is in the glass. 

Think of a baby in the womb of its mother. It is joined to its mother by an umbilical cord. It is impossible to conceive how it could have union without communion. The communion is seen in the fact that the baby is participating in the life of the mother, receiving nourishment from its mother, and this is communion. We must also keep in mind that the root of koinōnia  is the word "common." It was a word that the ancient Greeks used to speak of business partnerships and joint ventures. "Partaking" is the literal, experiential translation of the verb form (koinōneō) or the state of being a partner (koinōnos). So, we have our word "commonwealth," which is a social or political group, such as a nation or other community, and which originally was derived from what was called the "common weal," and the philosophy that what was good for the community was good for the individual. Wrote the apostle Paul:

"That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth (politeia) of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world." (Eph. 2: 12 kjv)

Christians have many things in common, things they share. More on that shortly.

A person who is a believer in Christ is a member of Christ's mystical body, or the church. He may not be a member of any local church, but he is a member of the universal body that contains every believer. By virtue of their new birth and union with Christ Christians are part of the larger Christian community or commonwealth and can participate in the "fellowship of the mystery" (Eph. 3: 9), and in "fellowship in the gospel" (Phil. 1: 5), and can give to other believers the "right hands of fellowship" (Gal. 2: 9), and be involved in "the fellowship of the ministering to the saints" (II Cor. 8: 3-5) by giving financial support to ministers and evangelists, by giving "a certain contribution for the poor" (Rom. 15: 26), where the word "contribution" is from koinōnia. Here the idea of joint partnership is evident. That is horizontal koinōnia resulting from vertical koinōnia.

Partakers of Christ

"That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel." (Eph. 3: 6 kjv)

To be a "partaker" is to be a participant or sharer. To be a sharer in the promise of salvation one must receive Christ or enter into him and for Christ to enter into the believer and to dwell in his heart. This entails both union and communion. To become "fellowheirs" and a member "of the same body" is to be united to Christ and to all other believers. It is also for those only who have "partaken of his promise in Christ." What is that promise? It is the promise of salvation from sin, condemnation, and death, and of an eternal inheritance, of eternal life and immortality. This promise is in Christ and realized "by the gospel," which means by believing in the gospel. This destroys the Hardshell belief that the salvation that comes by the gospel is not an eternal salvation, for eternal salvation is what is described in this text. Wrote the apostle Paul further:

"For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end." (Heb. 3: 14 kjv)

Partaking of Christ brings salvation. It is the way Christ is received. Apart from Christ there is no union or communion. Having Christ is having eternal life. So wrote the apostle John: "He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life." (I John 5: 12 nkjv) Partaking of Christ means the same thing as receiving or sharing in Christ. All the blessings of salvation result from union with Christ. I cannot imagine, as did Gowens, and as do the Hardshell Baptists, partaking of Christ, being in union with Christ, without having communion with him. If Christ is abiding in a person, then that person will enjoy communion with Christ. The word "enthusiasm" originally meant "God within," and if God, Father, Son, and Spirit, are dwelling in you, then you will experience fellowship and communion with him. Further, born again believers are described as being lovers of God and lovers of Christ the Son of God. It is hard to believe that people can love Christ without enjoying communion with him. 

The apostle Paul, who I believe wrote the Book of Hebrews, spoke of those who are "partakers of the Holy Spirit" (Heb. 6: 4). He also wrote about the "fellowship of the Spirit" (Phil. 2: 1) and of "the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit." (II Cor. 13: 14) Again, I cannot conceive of anyone being a partaker of the Spirit and not enjoying blessed communion with him. He is called the "Comforter" because he comforts the people of God. If Gowens is right, that many people have union with the Spirit and yet do not experience communion with him, then they receive no comfort from him, for to comfort would be part of what it means to have communion with him.

The apostle Peter spoke of believers being "partakers of the divine nature" (II Peter 1: 4) That means they participate or share in the divine nature as a result of being "born of God" and becoming his children and that is included in what it means to have been "called into the koinonian" of the Son of God. (I Cor. 1: 9) Therefore it is ludicrous for Gowens and the Hardshells to say that eternal salvation does not involve fellowship or communion or participation with God. 

Things Christians Have In Common (or share)

In koinōnia there is not only union but a sharing of things in common. This is true in vertical koinōnia and in horizontal koinōnia. We have already seen where believers share the divine nature with God. Being the children of God they also share God's likeness and image. Here are some things that believers share in common with each other and with God and which is part of their fellowship with God.

"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (Eph. 4: 4-6 nkjv)

This is what it means to be called into the koinonia of the Son of God. This is what is shared by the people of the koinonia within the body of Christ or of the Christian community. They all participate in the same Spirit, the same Lord, the same God the Father, and partake of the same hope and calling, having the same faith or creed, and experience the same baptism. We read of the "common faith" (Titus 1: 4) and of the "common salvation." (Jude 1: 3) 

Interesting is the fact that the Greek word for "common" in these passages is koinos. It's original meaning denoted what is shared by all, though it came to be associated with the general population, or with the ordinary people, who were often viewed as "commoners," or unclean people, those not of the aristocracy or elite. Koinonia is derived from koinos. To be called into the fellowship of God and the Christian community is to share or partake in common the things itemized above. So we read:

"And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers...And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need." (Acts 2: 42, 44-45 nkjv)

The idea that people can have union with the Father, Son, or Spirit, and yet not have communion with the three divine persons, or the idea that people may be saved without participating, or sharing in, or partaking of the things we have enumerated, is outlandish. It is certainly not an example of "rightly dividing the word of truth"! Any of our Hardshell brothers want to come and show where I am wrong in my rebuttal to what Gowens said?

Fellowship With God & Salvation (1)

"God is faithful, by whom you were 

called into the fellowship of His Son, 

Jesus Christ our Lord." 

(I Cor. 1: 9 nkjv)

Hardshell Baptists tell us that having fellowship with God is not essential for salvation. In fact, they tell us that many of God's born again people have a relationship to God the Father, Son and Spirit but who do not have fellowship with him, that most of them have union with God but not communion with him. Here is what Elder Michael Gowens, an apologist for the "Primitive," "Old School," or "Hardshell" Baptist church (who I have written much against), said in an article titled "Why I Am A Primitive Baptist" (which you can read here; emphasis mine):

"Second, I am a Primitive Baptist because I agree with the way they interpret Scripture. No one makes sense of the whole Bible like the Primitive Baptists. No other group interprets Scripture with greater consistency than these people who understand the discipline of “rightly dividing the word of truth.” The habit of distinguishing between sonship and discipleship—between unconditional and gospel salvation—between relationship and fellowship—between union with Christ and communion with Him—between regeneration and conversion—between eternity and time—between judicial and parental judgment—between reality and the perception of that reality—is the hallmark that separates Primitive Baptists from virtually every other school of Biblical interpretation."

Here he gives the common belief of the vast majority of those who call themselves "Primitive Baptists," although there are some groups, such as the churches of the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists, who are not connected with the main body of those who go by that church name. After all, there are some who go by that name that are not five point Calvinists. 

According to Gowens, only his group of "Primitive" or Hardshell Baptists "rightly divide the word of truth" on the doctrine of salvation. That is cultist language. According to the above citation, a person can be a son of God but not be a disciple of God or his Son the Messiah. Where is that taught in scripture? Did not Jesus say "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me"? (John 10: 27) Gowens and his Hardshell brethren say that by "sheep" in John chapter ten we are to understand the elect, or those who are the children of God. That being so, Christ says that the sheep, all of them, "follow me." What does it mean to be a disciple? It means to follow another, to follow his teachings and his leadership. The apostle John also disagrees with Gowens and the Hardshells for he wrote:

"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." (II John 1: 9 kjv)

Here the inspired apostle connects sonship with discipleship as did Jesus. It is no wonder that the Hardshells do not want to come and debate such beliefs with me for they know that I will keep such verses up front before their eyes. We also see where on this point the Hardshells do not "rightly divide the word of truth," but have rather distorted the teachings of the bible, and that "to their own destruction." (II Peter 3: 16) 

Next, Gowens says that the Hardshells rightly divide the word of God as no one else because they are able to distinguish between "unconditional and gospel salvation." Hardshells believe eternal salvation is unconditional but "gospel salvation" is conditional. By affirming this proposition, they believe that most of the elect, most born again children of God, though saved with an eternal salvation, are not saved by a gospel salvation, and by this we see how they teach that millions of heathen, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, or Polytheists, are saved from sin but who do not believe the gospel, do not accept Christ as their Lord and Savior, and do not accept the bible as the word of God. This belief is the result of decades of deviation from their sect's original belief, for their founding fathers at the time of their formation in 1827-1832 would not have agreed with this ideology. One of their leaders was Elder Sylvester Hassell, son of Elder C.B. Hassell, co-authors of their "Primitive Baptist" church history, and he wrote the following:

"All the unconditional spiritual promises of God, from the beginning to the end of the Scriptures, engage to work in His people all the conditions of the conditional promises, and thus ensure their salvation (Gen. iii. 15; xii. 3; 2 Sam. xxiii. 5; Psalm cx. 3; Isa. xxvii. 13; xxxv. 10; xlii. 16; xlv. 17; liii.-lv.; Jer. xxxi. 33-37; Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27; xxxvii. 1-14; Zech. xii. 10-14; xiii. 1, 7-9; Matt. i. 21; xxv. 34; John vi. 37-40; x. 15, 27-30; xvii. 2, 3, 24; Acts xiii. 48; Rom. v. 19-21; viii. 28-39; Eph. i.-iii.; 2 Thess. 13, 14; 2 Tim. i. 9, 10; 1 Pet. i., ii.; 1 John v. 11, 12; Rev. i. 5, 6; xxi. 27)."  ("Interpreting the Scriptures-The Error of Conditionalism" by Sylvester Hassell, The Gospel Messenger—September, 1894)

His forefathers of the 1830s accepted both the 1689 London Baptist and the 1742 Philadelphia Baptist Confessions of Faith and those confessions and the authors of them affirm what Hassell said. They taught that the salvation that comes by faith in the gospel (Rom. 1:16; etc.) was eternal salvation and was a necessary condition for it, and yet they also taught that "all the conditions of the conditional promises" are the result of "the unconditional spiritual promises of God." So, faith in Christ and the gospel is a gift of God, and no one will be saved from sin who is not given this faith. 

He also says that Hardshells distinguish "between union with Christ and communion with Him." By that he means that though union with Christ is necessary for eternal salvation, communion with Christ is not. It is impossible to imagine, however, how a person can read the bible and think that a person can be in union with Christ but not have communion with him. Can I love and be joined to my wife in marriage without having communion with her? I trow not, as the old English would say. 

A man who says that a person can be joined to Christ without having communion with him is a theological idiot and shows that he understands very little or nothing about what he is talking about and it is a joke for this man and his Hardshell brothers to tell us that this is an example of how the Hardshells "rightly divide the word of truth"! But, as respecting communion with Christ I will have more to say shortly.

He also says that Hardshells rightly distinguish between "regeneration and conversion," and again the idea is that people can be regenerate but who are not converted, who have not believed the gospel nor repented of their sins. Sadly, Hardshells are not alone in this view for there are many other Calvinists who say that "regeneration precedes faith or conversion." Many of them will say, however, that regeneration is only logically prior to faith and repentance, not chronologically, for they believe that as soon as a sinner is regenerated or born again that he will then instantly believe and repent. But neo-Hardshells don't even believe this, for they believe that most "regenerated" people are never converted to Christ, but remain worshipers of other gods. But, as we have seen, everyone of the sheep follows Christ, or are his disciples, and discipleship includes the idea of being evangelically converted. What did the apostle Peter say about the matter? To sinners he said:

"Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord." (Acts 3: 19 nkjv)

Gowens and his Hardshell brethren do not believe that anyone has to repent and be converted to Christ in order to be pardoned of his sins!

Now let us talk about the claim that only "Primitive Baptists" rightly distinguish between relationship and fellowship. Again, his idea is that a person can have a relationship with Christ as his Father's child or son, without having fellowship or communion with either the Father or with Christ. We have already addressed relationship versus fellowship, which is intimately connected with union versus communion. So, let us dive deeper now into this question.

The text at the heading of this post speaks of Christians who have been "called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord." Hardshells are forced to say that this "calling" is not that calling which is unto salvation, eternal salvation, is not that "calling" of Romans 8: 30, for that text says all who God predestined to salvation are called by God. If the calling of I Cor. 1: 9 is that calling, then all the chosen and foreknown, all the predestined to salvation, will be called into the fellowship or communion of Christ.

Not only that, but this "calling" of the Lord (that is essential for justification and glorification) is stated to be made "by the gospel." I wrote about this in a recent post concerning II Thessalonians 2: 12-13. (See here) In that text the apostle Paul speaks of salvation to which the Philippian Christians had been chosen to from the beginning, and he says that this salvation is effected by "the sanctification of the Spirit and by a belief of the truth," by the gospel truth, for Paul says "whereunto he called you by our gospel." So, the Hardshell Baptists are gravely wrong on two accounts when it comes to this "calling" of God that is for salvation. First, they deny that it is a calling into fellowship and communion with God. Second, they deny that it is a calling of God by the gospel.

They also fail to see what is meant by the "fellowship" and "communion" associated with this divine calling. The word translated "fellowship" in the text at the heading of this post is from the Greek word koinōnia and means, according to Strong, Thayer, and other Greek scholars: partnership, i.e. (literally) participation, or to share in something, (social) intercourse, or (pecuniary) benefaction, communication, intercourse, communion, fellowship, association. The word koinōnia is an ancient Greek noun, derived from the root word koinos (meaning "common" or "shared"). It denotes an active, intimate relationship or partnership rather than a casual social gathering. Koinonia also involves being in agreement with one another, or being united in purpose with another person. This is what Gowens and his Hardshell brethren don't understand.

John Gill, who the Hardshells claim supports their soteriological views, wrote the following in his commentary on our main text at the head of this post:

"into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord; to partake of his grace, and to be heirs of glory with him; to enjoy communion with him in private and public exercises of religion, which is an evidence of being in him, and of union to him; for it is not merely into the fellowship of his saints or churches, but into the fellowship of his Son they are said to be called; and such are members of Christ, of his body, of his flesh, and of his bone; and shall never be lost and perish, but shall be confirmed to the end; be preserved in him blameless, and presented to him faultless, and have everlasting life."

Here we see where Gill rightly divides the word of God in saying that being called into the fellowship of Christ the Lord means to "partake of his grace." We cannot remove the idea of participation from the Greek word. A marriage is a joint participation. That being "called into the fellowship or communion of the Lord Jesus Christ" is essential for salvation is seen in the following texts also. The apostle Paul prayed:

"That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead." (Phil. 3: 10-11 nkjv)

To "know the fellowship of his sufferings" is not a desire to experience the sufferings of Christ but to be accounted as having participated in those sufferings, to be identified with Christ in his sufferings, his death and crucifixion, as well as in his resurrection. It is a prayer to be benefited from the sufferings of Christ. Just as the Christian's suffering for Christ's sake are owned by the Lord as his sufferings (Acts 9: 4-5; Isa. 63: 9), so too are the sufferings of Christ owned by Christians as their own. When Christ died, every believer died because they were "in him," because they were represented by him. So Paul wrote: "For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died." (II Cor. 5: 14 nkjv)

Just as "knowing him," and "knowing the power of his resurrection," and "being made conformable unto his death," and "attaining unto the resurrection of the dead" are aspects of eternal salvation, so too is a participation in the death and sufferings of Christ likewise an aspect of eternal salvation. 

Notice also these words of the same apostle:

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?" (I Cor. 10: 16-18 nkjv)

This text clearly shows that koinōnia involves salvation, and not a mere temporal salvation. What Paul says here about the Lord's Supper is similar to what he says about Christian water baptism. Both these ordinances are symbols of salvation. Salvation is the result of partaking of Christ the Bread of Life, of participating or sharing in his sacrifice. "Partaking" of the blood of Christ, partaking of him as the Bread of Life, partaking of the sacrifice of the altar, is what brings salvation to a believing sinner. Communion with Christ and the Father involves "partaking." Water baptism symbolizes a sinner's mystical entrance into Christ, his inner cleansing of spirit and heart, his participation in the death and resurrection of Christ. So Paul wrote:

"3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. 6: 3-11 n kjv)

Here baptism is shown to be a "likeness" or picture of what happens when a sinner is united to Christ by faith. All the descriptive items highlighted in red show that salvation from sin and death is what is being described. This entering into Christ is what initiates all the aspects of salvation Paul mentions and he avers that it is by being "united" with Christ and his death and resurrection that these saving benefits are received. Union with Christ is a participation or koinōnia or communion.

So too do we see salvation pictorially represented in the Lord's Supper (or Eucharist). As baptism pictures a believer's entrance into Christ so the Supper pictures Christ's entrance into the believer.

In John chapter six Jesus declares that he is the "bread which came down from heaven," being the "true bread," or antitype of the manna. (vss. 32-33) Christ said further:

"47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.” 52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” 53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”

This discourse of our Lord destroys what Gowens has written as the belief of "Primitive Baptists." He will look in vain for any Baptist prior to the "rise of the Hardshells" in the early 19th century who taught what Gowens gives as the belief of Hardshell Baptists. When Paul spoke of what occurs in communion with Christ he is giving the same teaching as given by Christ in John chapter six. In the above words of Jesus he speaks of those who "abide in" him and of those in whom Christ abides. Baptism is a pictorial of a believer's entrance into Christ and the Communion Supper is a pictorial of Christ entering into and "abiding in" the believer. Communion or fellowship with Christ involves partaking of Christ. 

Therefore, for Hardshells to say that communion with Christ is unessential for salvation is diametrically opposed to what the scriptures cited teach, and it is therefore a joke for Gowens to say that communion with Christ is not essential for salvation. It is clearly not "rightly dividing the word of truth." 

In the above discourse of Christ he spoke of "eating" and "drinking" as means of receiving Christ for salvation. I highlighted in red those words in red above. To be saved from sin and death a sinner must receive Christ by faith, and "feed on him." The apostle Paul also says the following in agreement with Christ:

"7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." (I Cor. 5: 7-8 kjv)

By "keeping the feast" he means partaking of the sacrificial lamb by eating it. This is done this way: "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me." (Rev. 3: 20 nkjv) Here is internal koinōnia or communion, the way believers "feed" on Christ, how they eat his flesh and drink his blood. It is in meditating upon the sacrifice of Christ and enjoying that meditation. The apostle John wrote:

"If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (I John 1: 6-7 nkjv)

Here we see that having "fellowship (koinōnia) with him," that is, with Christ, and with his mystical body, the church or body of believers, is a requirement for experiencing cleansing from all sin by the blood of Christ. So, for Hardshells to say that fellowship with Christ, and participation in him and his death and sufferings, is no condition for being eternally saved, is far from "rightly dividing the word of truth" and is a most dangerous heresy. The apostle also wrote:

"That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." (I John 1: 3 kjv)

In these words we can substitute the words "union and communion" for the word "fellowship" or koinōnia and read the text as: "that you also may have union and communion with us, and truly our union and communion is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ." We could also use the word "participation" for koinōnia (which is another way to translate the word) so as to read the text as saying --"that you also may jointly participate with us, and truly our participation is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ."

It is not "rightly dividing the word of truth" for the Hardshells to say that it is not necessary for a person to share, participate, or feed on Christ to be eternally saved. In the above text the apostle John speaks of having fellowship or communion with both the Father and the Son. Jesus said: “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him." (John 14: 23 nkjv) This is koinōnia, the Father and Son making their home in the heart and is what Jesus said in Revelation 3: 20 cited previously. To say that this communion with the Father and Son is not necessary for eternal salvation is an awful perversion of the word of God.

Not only is fellowship or communion with the Father and Son an aspect of salvation, or one of the "things that accompany salvation" (Heb. 6: 9), but so also is fellowship with the third person of the Trinity, with the Holy Spirit. The apostle Paul spoke of the "fellowship of the Spirit" (Phil. 2: 1) and "the communion of the Holy Spirit" (II Cor. 13: 14) and said that one could not have fellowship with God and have "fellowship with demons" (I Cor. 10: 20) at the same time. He also wrote:

"Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?" (II Cor. 6: 14 nkjv)

Here we are given more light on what it means to have koinōnia with the Father, Son, and Spirit. It involves being "yoked together" with God, and with other believers in the body of Christ. So Jesus said: "Take my yoke upon you" (Matt. 11: 29). This yoke involves two entities, which is Christ and the Christian, both being yoked together and this is what it means to be connected to Christ. We also see that koinōnia with the Father, Son, and Spirit entails having communion with the light to the exclusion of communion with the darkness, and having a connection with righteousness rather than with lawlessness. A true Christian who is in union and communion with God can have "no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness" (Eph. 5: 11). 

In the next post I will conclude my treatise on what it means to have fellowship with God.

Answering Donahue on Original Sin

In a recent post titled "Romans 5:12 and "Born in Sin" (here) I responded to an e-mail that Pat Donahue, champion debater for the "Church of Christ," sent to me on that text and tried to prove that Romans chapter five does not teach the doctrine of original sin, that says all Adam's descendants were judged to have sinned in Adam and condemned for his transgression. I showed how his argumentation was false and that he was misinterpreting that chapter. Now he has sent the following on the same subject:

"On the “Born In Sin” issue consider Deut 32:5 “they have corrupted themselves … they are a perverse and crooked generation.” Notice they were "perverse and crooked,” but they weren’t born that way: 

• "corrupted" implies uncorrupted beforehand, right? 

• they corrupted themselves – Adam’s sin didn’t do it 

• this corruption occurred in their lifetime, not before or at birth 

 

Gen 6:12 confirms this point as it reads “God looked upon the earth and it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.” See how they weren’t born corrupt, but instead “corrupted” themselves?

“Born In Sin” doesn’t make any sense anyway. If Adam was born with no depravity and we are his descendants, then we should expect to be born without depravity just like him. And “the fall” would not change that, because we don’t inherit the traits of our parents that develop after they were born. For example, if my Dad loses an arm in an accident, that doesn’t mean I will be born without an arm."

The error of Donahue in this argumentation is that he assumes that when the text he cites says that the Israelites "corrupted themselves" that it means that they were not corrupt before they corrupted themselves in the instance alluded to in the text. Every time the Israelites departed from the Lord they corrupted themselves. Does Donahue think that people cannot corrupt themselves more than once, that is, over and over again? "Corrupting" themselves is like "hardening" their hearts. This may be done over and over, more and more. More than once we are told that Pharaoh "hardened his heart." Did that imply that his heart was soft before? No, all it means is that each time Pharaoh went back on his word he hardened his heart once again. So Moses said to the Israelites after they had corrupted themselves in making a golden calf:

"For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death?" And,

"For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands." (Deut. 31: 27, 29 kjv)

Donahue's logic leads one to say that once a person has corrupted himself that he cannot corrupt himself again or become more corrupt, or "utterly corrupt." However, the above verses show that such reasoning is false. Jude, the Lord's brother, wrote:

"But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves" (Jude 1: 10 kjv)

The words "they corrupt themselves" are from the singular Greek word phtheirontai which is a present indicative verb and denotes linear action, and so it means "they are corrupting themselves continually." 

Just because a person is said to corrupt himself by some sin does not imply that he was not born in corruption. Though believers are born a second time of divine "incorruptible seed" (I Peter 1: 23) yet they are born first of the corruptible seed of Adam. King David said that he had been "shapen in iniquity" in his mother's womb and was "conceived in sin." (Psa. 51: 5) Paul said that all are "by nature the children of wrath" (Eph. 2: 3), and "by nature" he means "by birth" as when Paul speaks of those who are "Jews by nature." (Gal 2: 15) When I debated Pat Donahue back around 1992 on the subject of original sin he said "by nature" meant what becomes nature by long practice, as in something becoming "second nature." However, that is not what Galatians 2: 15 means, obviously. 

He cited Greek scholar Thayer who said "phusis" (nature) may mean "a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature." However, that was the third definition he gave of the word and is rather his interpretation of Ephesians 2:3 rather than a true definition of the word. Here are the four ways that Thayer says the word may be defined (emphasis mine):

a. the nature of things, the force, laws, order, of nature; as opposed to what is monstrous, abnormal, perverse: ὁ, ἡ, τό παρά φύσιν, that which is contrary to nature's laws, against nature, Romans 1:26 (οἱ παρά φύσιν τῇ Ἀφροδιτη χρώμενοι, Athen. 13, p. 605; ὁ παιδεραστής ... τήν παρά φύσιν ἡδονήν διώκει, Philo de spec. legg. i., § 7); as opposed to what has been produced by the art of man: οἱ κατά φύσιν κλάδοι, the natural branches, i. e. branches by the operation of nature, Romans 11:21, 24 (Winer's Grammar, 193 (182)), contrasted with οἱ ἐγκεντρισθεντες παρά φύσιν, contrary to the plan of nature, cf. 24; ἡ κατά φύσιν ἀγριέλαιος, ibid.; as opposed to what is imaginary or fictitious: οἱ μή φύσει ὄντες θεοί, who are gods not by nature, but according to the mistaken opinion of the Gentiles (λεγόμενοι θεοί, 1 Corinthians 8:5), Galatians 4:8; nature, i. e. natural sense, native conviction or knowledge, as opposed to what is learned by instruction and accomplished by training or prescribed by law: ἡ φύσις (i. e. the native sense of propriety) διδάσκει τί, 1 Corinthians 11:14; φύσει ποιεῖν τά τοῦ ναμου, natura magistra, guided by their natural sense of what is right and proper, Romans 2:14.

b. birth, physical origin: ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι, we so far as our origin is considered, i. e. by birth, are Jews, Galatians 2:15 (φύσει νεώτερος, Sophocles O. C. 1295; τῷ μέν φύσει πατρίς, τόν δέ νόμῳ πολίτην ἐπεποιηντο, Isocrates Evagr. 21; φύσει βάρβαροι ὄντες, νόμῳ δέ Ἕλληνες, Plato, Menex., p. 245 d.; cf. Grimm on Wis. 13:1); ἡ ἐκ φύσεως ἀκροβυστία, who by birth is uncircumcised or a Gentile (opposed to one who, although circumcised, has made himself a Gentile by his iniquity and spiritual perversity), Romans 2:27.

c. a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature: ἦμεν φύσει τέκνα ὀργῆς, by (our depraved) nature we were exposed to the wrath of God, Ephesians 2:3 (this meaning is evident from the preceding context, and stands in contrast with the change of heart and life wrought through Christ by the blessing of divine grace; φύσει πρός τάς κολασεις ἐπιεικῶς ἔχουσιν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι, Josephus, Antiquities 13, 10, 6. (Others (see Meyer) would lay more stress here upon the constitution in which this 'habitual course of evil' has its origin, whether that constitution be regarded (with some) as already developed at birth, or (better) as undeveloped; cf. Aristotle, pol. 1, 2, p. 1252{b}, 32f οἷον ἕκαστον ἐστι τῆς γενέσεως τελεσθεισης, ταύτην φαμέν τήν φύσιν εἶναι ἑκάστου, ὥσπερ ἀνθρώπου, etc.; see the examples in Bonitz's index under the word. Cf. Winers Grammar, § 31, 6a.)).

d. the sum of innate properties and powers by which one person differs from others, distinctive native peculiarities, natural characteristics: φύσις θηρίων (the natural strength, ferocity and intractability of beasts (A. V. (every) kind of beasts)), ἡ φύσις ἡ ἀνθρωπίνῃ (the ability, art, skill, of men, the qualities which are proper to their nature and necessarily emanate from it), James 3:7 (cf. Winer's Grammar, § 31, 10); θείας κοινωνοί φύσεως, (the holiness distinctive of the divine nature is specially referred to), 2 Peter 1:4 (Ἀμενωφει ... θείας δοκουντι μετεσχηκεναι φύσεως κατά τέ σοφίαν καί πρόγνωσιν τῶν, ἐσομενων, Josephus, contra Apion 1, 26).

I firmly believe that Thayer in definitions a, b, and d gives the true meaning of the word but in definition c he gives his personal interpretation and speaks as a theologian and not as a Greek scholar or lexicographer. But, even in definition c he acknowledges that other Greek scholars "lay more stress" in Ephesians 2: 3 "upon the constitution in which this habitual course of evil has its origin," that is, "at birth." So, when we say it is the nature of a lion to be carnivorous we mean that this is part of his constitution, what he is from the moment of his creation.

If we look at other places in the new testament where we have "by nature" we will see that it means the nature a person was born with. We have already mentioned where Paul spoke of those who are "Jews by nature." Paul speaks of Gentiles who are "by nature" "uncircumcised" (Rom. 2: 27), meaning men are born this way. Paul speaks of an "olive tree" that is "wild by nature" (Rom. 11: 24) which cannot mean that an olive tree was not originally an olive tree but became so later by practicing to be an olive tree. 

Now let us notice what the apostle Peter wrote. 

"Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." (II Peter 1: 4 kjv)

Two things need to be asked in regard to understanding this verse. How do people become "partakers of the divine nature"? Is it by long practice in righteous deeds? Or, is it by a birth of the Spirit? Second, what is meant by "corruption" existing in the world "through lust"? 

People become partakers of the divine nature by being born of God. Likewise, people become partakers of human nature by being born of Adam. The divine nature is holy, human nature is depraved. 

Corruption exists in the world "through lust," that is, through desiring what is evil. People do not need to learn to lie, steal, etc., or to crave what is forbidden. We see this in little children how it is in their nature to lie and to be selfish. Solomon said: "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of correction will drive it far from him." (Prov. 22: 15 nkjv) This "foolishness" involves doing wrong because it brings "the rod of correction." He also said that "the thought of foolishness is sin." (Prov. 24: 9 nkjv)

As to Donahue's other objection which queries why all descendants of Adam are not born without sin since Adam was originally without sin, I respond by saying that no one is a descendant of pristine Adam. Rather, all his descendants are descended from Adam post his fall into sin and his being cursed. Donahue also reasons that since no one is condemned for what parents do, therefore no one can be punished for what Adam did. However, Adam is a special case, because (1) he was the father of all and all are in scripture said to be "in him," and (2) he was the appointed head of the human race so that what he did they are said to have done.

Consider also that God does "bring the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me." (Deut. 5: 9; etc.) When I debated Donahue on original sin he brought up Ezekiel chapter eighteen where the Lord says that a righteous living son "shall not die for the iniquity of his father" (vs. 17). Lord God says further:

“Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." (vss. 19-20 nkjv)

In this post (here) from my series on "Divine Justice Issues" I wrote on this argumentation from Ezekiel chapter eighteen. In it I showed that the prohibition of this chapter applied to the government of Israel exercising capital punishment. The prohibitions do not apply to God. No human government can visit the iniquity of fathers upon their children, but God reserves his right to do so. I encourage all to read my chapter on Ezekiel chapter eighteen. 

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LXI)

The following citations from the editorials of Elder C.H. Cayce in his paper "The Primitive Baptist" were titled by him as "The Curtain Raised" which was so titled in order to uncover what was transpiring in the first quarter of the twentieth century among "The Primitive Baptists." We will begin with what he wrote under this title for September 5, 1916. Cayce wrote (emphasis mine):

"Our readers are well aware of the fact that a war has been waged in some sections for some time. In Texas the war has been on for quite awhile. One side has been charging the other side with believing what they term the whole man doctrine. Elder J. S. Newman and those who are in line with him, or who affiliate with him, have been charged with believing that doctrine, although he and others have repeatedly denied believing it. For some time there have been some who have been charging the same thing upon us. In our issue of November 16, 1915, we gave our views on the question of regeneration, and hoped that would satisfy those who had been thus charging us; but it seems that it failed to satisfy some. For a good while those who are in line with Elders Webb, Redford & Co., of Texas, would not say whether they endorsed our editorial or not. Finally two of these preachers came out in an article in the Trumpet in reply to our article. We have continued to remain silent and to take no part in this unholy war, trusting or hoping that it might cease, and that these brethren who seem determined to have strife and confusion would tire of their unholy course and stop their unbrotherly thrusts and unholy warfare. But it seems that they are determined not to even hush, and are determined to make us engage in war with them. Some have been saying that we had been working in a secret way; and it has been told to some of the members of our home church that we had something hid, behind the curtain, etc. Now, it seems to be our imperative duty to remain silent no longer."

By "Redford" Cayce means S.N. Redford (1872-1950) and by "Webb" he means J. G. Webb (1849-1927), who was the father of another Hardshell preacher named T.L. Webb Sr. and grandfather of Elder T.L. Webb Jr., also a "Primitive Baptist" minister, and who I met in my younger days. Newman, Redford, and Webb were three leaders of the "Primitive Baptist" church in the state of Texas. Texas is the place where Elder Daniel Parker moved to along with the church he had established and was the first Baptist church in that state, and Texas Hardshell churches had been infected with Two Seedism very early on. In my early days as a young Hardshell minister I was a close friend of Elder Sonny Pyles of Texas and he often spoke of his interactions with the remaining remnants of those old Two Seed Primitive Baptists. He spoke of how he was introduced to the subject of the Devil's origin and the controversy surrounding that question by the Two Seeders he conversed with in Texas. 

It is interesting to note how one of the debatable questions in the Two Seed controversy over regeneration was still a dividing issue among many "Primitive Baptists" well into the twentieth century. Cayce speaks of a "war," an "unholy war," that had been raging on the nature and definition of regeneration. Actually, however, the entire history of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist church is one of "strife and confusion" and "unholy war," with numerous schisms, factions, and declarations of non-fellowship. In the previous chapter I cited from "The History of the Baptists of Tennessee with Particular Attention to the Primitive Baptists of East Tennessee," by Lawrence Edwards (1941). In CHAPTER V, titled "THE TWO-SEED HERESY AND ABSOLUTE PREDESTINATION" Edwards spoke of this divisiveness among them, writing as follows:

"But the Powell Valley seems to feed on division and dissension, for in the early years of the twentieth century it was again torn asunder. This time secret orders caused the trouble. This controversy, however, was not so localized as the one which caused the division in 1889. It swept all Primitive Baptist groups in the South and Midwest and even today calls forth editorials now and then from controversial writers."

What was true of the Powell Valley Association of Primitive Baptists was a microcosm of the whole denomination. I was a witness of such divisiveness in the years I was with them. I wrote about this in a post back in 2012. (See here) In another article I cited from Elder Joe Hildreth (a minister I met when I was a young Hardshell elder and who used to pastor the "Primitive Baptist" church in Chattanooga) wherein Hildreth talked about how the "Primitive Baptist" church had declined so dramatically. I cited these words of Hildreth which gives one of the reasons for this decline:

"(6) Frequent splits and divisions in the early part of the 20th Century were traumatic and dishonoring to the Cause of Christ...These splits and controversies had traumatic effects upon our people. Especially was the absoluter division devastating."

The early 20th century is the time period we are examining now. However, the "splits and divsions" also characterized the 19th century. In chapter two of my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" I also addressed how divisions have characterized the Hardshell sect from their very beginning. (See here)

Cayce wrote further:

"We are also conscious of the fact that when a person goes to an extreme and another person begins to contend against that extreme, it is a very easy matter for him to go to an extreme also, but in the opposite direction." 

I find it highly ironic that Cayce fails to see how he and his Hardshell Baptist brethren did the very thing Cayce is warning against! They went to an extreme themselves in fighting what they thought was an extreme.

Cayce wrote further, citing what Elder R.V. Sarrels and the church he pastored declared non-fellowship for those who he thought held to the "whole man" doctrine. He said:

"Whereas, Elder J. B. Downing has, in our own stand and from the pulpit of his own church, affirmed, contrary to (Galatians 5:17), that it is not the flesh or physical being of man, but the sinful principle in man, that is opposed to God and holiness; and Whereas, He holds that the flesh (which we know to be natural, vile, sinful, unholy, and corrupt) is an essential constituent or part of the now real child of God; and Whereas, There are some among us who hold that there is some kind of change of quality or condition produced on the flesh in regeneration; We, Harmony Church of Christ, believing the above-named things to be heresy, do therefore solemnly declare that we have no fellowship for said heresy; and hence, have no fellowship for its advocates, and will not affiliate with them. Done by order of the church while in conference February 28, 1914." 

ELDER R. V. SARRELS, Mod. H. H. WARREN, Church Clerk

I have cited from Elder Sarrels in my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" because he wrote the only "Systematic Theology" written by a "Primitive" or "Hardshell" Baptist. In his section on "regeneration" he absolutely teaches some heretical notions about it, affirming that a heathen's worship of false deities is evidence of regeneration! I cite in this chapter (here) where he said:

"God has not explained just what he does to the soul of man to fit it for the heavenly state, and it is probable that if he had explained it, we still could not understand it."  (pg. 339)

In this chapter (here) I cited from Sarrels again, where he wrote:

"We here give some attention to a matter mentioned earlier in this chapter: Since we hold, (a) that God, without the use of the gospel as a means, regenerates his loved ones in heathen lands as well as in cultured lands, and, (b) that in all of these lands, both heathen and cultured, the Holy Spirit performs his convicting work, we make the following differential observation: As the innate knowledge of God's existence, or First Truths, may exist in only faintly discernible ideas about the Supreme Being, and may range from this all but dormant and little understood stamp of the Maker to the highest and most enlightened concept of God's existence, so the facts connected with conviction--and conversion--may begin with the faintly dim ideas about sin, righteousness, and judgment, about repentance, faith, and justification, and range from this to the most advanced intellectual concepts concerning these progressive steps in the experience of a believer in gospel lands." (pages 365, 366)

"...in perhaps the vast majority of cases the elements of conversion--repentance, faith, and justification--may be present only embryonically, an analysis of these elements brings us to a fuller appreciation of the conversion experience." (ibid)

"We have the mind of Christ," says Paul (I Cor. 2:16)...However embryonic this mind of Christ may be in one's conscious life, even among civilized people, or however indistinct and distorted this may be in saved people who have no knowledge of Christ in the gospel sense, the mind of Christ is there; as something absolutely native to the new creation, it is there in every person on earth. Paul did not preach ANOTHER God to the men of Athens who had gathered on Mars' Hill; he preached to them the very God WHOM THEY INGNORANTLY WORSHIPPED." (Ibid)

"Not only does this view limit salvation to areas where the gospel is preached; it actually limits salvation to those who believe the gospel and obey it. The Moslems, the Buddhists, the Brahmans, and all other non-Christian adherents, even in gospel lands, are according to the strict sense of this view doomed. Not only this--strictly interpreted and applied, this view would exclude Jews and Unitarians, and, by some, even Catholics, who do not believe what is preached as some religious groups would present the matter. These are hard facts which need to be placed before the world. For reasons which are but briefly alluded to in some parts of the work, but developed more fully in other parts, we hold that God, despite the teachings of man, saves his chosen people all over the world." (page 434)

This is enough to show that Sarrels knows nothing about what the Bible says about being saved, born again, or regenerated. 

In reply to the action of Sarrels and the church he pastored in declaring non-fellowship for the "whole man" doctrine, Cayce wrote:

"The above resolution shows for itself what has been advocated by some who are charging that others are advocating what they call the whole man doctrine. In the first place, this resolution denies that it is the sinful principle in man that is opposed to God and holiness, and sets forth the idea that it is the material body, the body of flesh in the abstract sense, that is opposed to God and holiness."

Sarrels's view shows elements of Gnosticism and Two Seedism. In earlier chapters we addressed this. The Gnostics believed that the material or physical world was evil, the source of all man's woe. Salvation involved being freed from this world. Two Seedism, as we saw, borrowed much from Gnosticism. 

Also, the debate over whether the physical body of a believer is a child of God needs some light from the scriptures. It seems that the error in the reasoning of those who held to the "whole man" doctrine was in their belief that for the body to belong to Christ and be part of what it means to be a "child of God" it had to undergo a regeneration or rebirth just as the soul or spirit. I find that strange because both sides of this debate believed that people are styled "children of God" before they are born again by virtue of their having been elected to become children of God. So when the angel says to Joseph "you shall call his name Jesus for he shall save his people from their sins" (Matt. 1: 21) they all agreed that this was a reference to the elect. The same is true with this text:

"Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad." (John 11: 51-52 nkjv)

So, it was not necessary for the advocates of the whole man doctrine to think that the body needed to experience regeneration in order to become children of God in the sense of election or in the sense of belonging to God. 

The other aspect of the debate, as we see from the above citations, is on whether the "sinful nature" or "principle" or "flesh" includes the physical body. Cayce denies that the physical body is involved in this sinful nature and is therefore "opposed to God and holiness." Both sides, in my view, were wrong in some of their conclusions.

Though the body is decaying and dying as a result of God's curse, this does not mean that it does not belong to the Lord and is a part of the child of God. Second, salvation involves saving the body, which salvation does not occur in this life, but in the coming resurrection of the just. Third, the body, as well as the other parts of man, were purchased by Christ when he redeemed man. I wrote about this in this article (here). 

"Jesus," said the apostle Peter, in his great sermon on the day of Pentecost, "has God made both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2: 36) Lordship involves ownership. Christ is "Lord of all" (Acts 10: 36) and by his redemptive work he purchased all men and all things. Christ is Lord and owner of even those who are not his by a new birth. That is why they will confess that Christ is their Lord in the day of judgment. (Phil. 2: 11) However, believers are Christ's "special possession" (I Peter 2: 9; etc.) by purchase. Recall that in the parable of the treasure hidden in a field that the person seeking to obtain the treasure bought the whole field. (Matt. 13: 44) In the parable of the wheat and tares the "field" was said to be the "world." (Matt. 13: 38) The apostle Peter says that Christ "bought" even those who deny him. (II Peter 2: 1) 

So, just because the body is owned by the Lord, or is his special possession, does not mean that the body is changed when the soul or spirit is regenerated. It belongs to the Lord though its change into an immortal spiritual body will not occur until the resurrection of the righteous. Further, the body of the believer is holy or sanctified. So wrote the apostle Paul:

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." (Rom. 12: 1 kjv)

He also not only spoke of the body as being "holy" but also of Christians having "holy hands."

"I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting." (I Tim. 2: 8 kjv)

Many Two Seeders wrongly thought, however, that since the body and hands of believers are holy that they must have therefore been changed by regeneration as well as the soul or spirit. However, being holy does not mean that there is necessarily a change in the substance or physics of the body. Many utensils in the old testament service were holy, but there was no change in the physics of the utensils. A holy spoon is simply a spoon that had been set aside for use only in the service of the temple and not used for common purposes. There was no change in the spoons. So we read:

"And thou shalt take the anointing oil, and anoint the tabernacle, and all that is therein, and shalt hallow it, and all the vessels thereof: and it shall be holy." (Exo. 40: 9 kjv)

So the body of the believer is sinful in its nature but holy because it is set apart by the renewed spirit and controlled by the Christian. So too are a believer's hands, feet, tongue, etc. holy in this way. So Paul wrote:

"For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness." (Rom. 6: 19b nkjv)

By "members" is meant the members of the body, such as hands and feet. These bodily members were once used for doing what is wrong and immoral but are now to be used for doing righteous deeds and for holiness. 

Cayce continued:

"We know that Old Baptists have always contended that it is the sinful life or nature which man possesses that is opposed to God and holiness, and that this is the teaching of the apostle in (Galatians 5:17). In that text the apostle says, "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would." The apostle could not have meant in this that the material body, the mere lump of flesh, "lusteth against the Spirit." There could not possibly be any such thing as lust in the flesh, the material body, in the absence of life. Hence, he must have meant that the natural life, which the man possesses, lusts against the Spirit. Or, in other words, he meant that the old, sinful, depraved nature we possess lusts against the Spirit."

I agree that often the word "flesh" in scripture denotes not a person's skin, nor his physical body, but often denotes man's depraved nature. So, when the apostle Paul said "I know that in my flesh dwells no good thing" (Rom. 7: 18) he alludes to his sinful nature. In Romans 8: 3 Paul speaks of Christ being made "in the likeness of sinful flesh," which however does not seem to denote a sinful nature but a sinful physical body. How could Christ be made in the likeness of sinful nature? Though "flesh" often denotes the sinful nature, yet that does not mean that sinful inclinations don't arise from man's body or physical being or is excluded from that nature. 

In Romans 6: 6 he speaks of "the body of sin" and to me this refers to man's physical body. In verse twelve we read: "Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts." Here "mortal body" clearly refers to the human physical body. "Sin" is in it and actually "reigns" over the body in most people. "Lusts" also originate in the physical body. Christians are exhorted to not let sin "reign" in their bodies, to not let bodily urges control them, but for them to rather control their bodily desires. The body is the physical vessel through which the inclinations of the depraved mind and will are carried out in the physical world. But, sinful urges may also originate from the physical body, for the brain is part of the physical body. Paul wrote:

"For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live." (Rom. 8: 13 nkjv)

Here we have the words "flesh" and "body." By "body" does the apostle mean "flesh" or does he mean physical body? Some say "body" and "flesh" are the same in this text, and that may well be the case. People who are controlled by their bodily cravings are acting like animals. In Romans 7: 24 Paul queries: "who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" In that instance I think Paul alludes to an ancient form of punishment where a murderer had a dead body tied to his back so that he had to carry around that rotting corpse. Though "flesh" (Grk. "sarx") may mean "sinful nature," yet "body" (Grk. "soma") in the above text is not a synonym for "sinful nature" but does indicate that the physical body has a sinful nature also.

Some say the body is morally neutral, including some Calvinists. Is that true? If that is true, then does it not show that depravity is not "total"? If, however, depravity be total, infecting every aspect of man's nature and being, then of course his body would be depraved. Though "flesh" often refers to the sinful nature, and not to the human body, yet the sinful nature encompasses the body. 

Further, the same apostle spoke of the "carnal mind" and the sinful mind. We know that the "heart" is said to be the place where thoughts originate, even evil thoughts. (Matt. 15: 19; Prov. 23: 7) Paul also spoke of how it is the "spirit" within a person that thinks and knows. (I Cor. 2: 11) So, does "mind" exclude the physical brain?

Also, if the body were not sinful then it would not die. In fact, in I Corinthians chapter fifteen, where Paul is speaking of the resurrection from death of physical bodies, he wrote: "The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law." (vs. 56 nkjv) The body dies because the body is sinful. Notice these words of the same apostle:

"13 Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods, but God will destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God both raised up the Lord and will also raise us up by His power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not!--18 Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? 20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s." (I Cor. 6: 13-15; 18-20 nkjv)

Clearly "body" in these words means the physical body. In these words we see that the body may engage in "sexual immorality" or in sinful deeds. In Romans 6: 12 we have already seen where the apostle speaks of the "lusts" of the "mortal body." Yet, though the bodies of believers remain sinful after they have been initially regenerated in their hearts, minds, or spirits, they nevertheless "belong" to the Lord, so Paul says "your bodies are members of Christ." How members of Christ? Not by regeneration, but by having been purchased by Christ to become his special possession or treasure. So Paul says your body and soul belong to the Lord for this reason -- "for you were bought with a price," and not "for your bodies have been regenerated as has your soul or spirit." 

What does Paul mean when he says "every sin that a man does is outside the body"? Commentators are all over the place in interpreting that expression. Many translations will add the word "other" to the text and translate it as "every other sin." However, some of them will italicize the word "other" to let the reader know that it is not in the Greek text. Is Paul saying that the only sin in which the body participates is sexual sin? What about gluttony? Or those people whose "god is their belly"? (Phil. 3: 19) Are there not numerous texts that speak of the bodily members as sinful or engaged in sin, such as the tongue. (James 3: 2-12) James calls the tongue "a world of iniquity" (vs. 6), "an unruly evil" (vs. 8), that "defiles" the "whole body." (vs. 7) He says the tongue, as well as the whole body, needs to be "tamed." He also says that "a perfect man" is one who is "able also to bridle the whole body" so as to make it obey us. 

I could add many more texts which show that the physical body is sinful, that it has its own lusts. Further, it does not have to be changed in this life for it to belong to the Lord. It will be changed in the resurrection of the just.

Wrote Cayce further:

"...the term flesh in verse 17 does not have reference to the material body but to the sinful life or nature which we possess. The child of God has two natures. So this text teaches. Old Baptists have always said that this text teaches that the child of God has two natures--one sinful and corrupt, and the other holy and divine. The sinful and corrupt nature is received in the natural birth, and the divine nature is received in the new birth, or in regeneration. In regeneration it is the man, the sinner of Adam's race, that receives the divine nature. That divine nature is implanted in the soul or spirit of the man by the direct and immediate operation of the Holy Spirit, and the man then possesses two natures--the sinful nature and the divine nature. These two natures are opposite to each other. They spring from opposite sources. They are contrary to each other." 

So, is Cayce denying that the material body has a sinful nature? He says "the sinful and corrupt nature is received in the natural birth." Would the body be excluded from this corrupt nature? David said that he "was shapen in iniquity" and "conceived in sin." (Psa. 51: 5) Shapen and conceived seem to include the body. Was his body not conceived in sin? 

If the new divine nature is "implanted in the soul or spirit" and "cannot sin" (as Cayce believes), then where does the sinful nature reside? If Cayce does not believe that the sinful nature or principle no longer resides in the regenerated spirit, but is still present in the regenerated person, then where does it reside?

Wrote Cayce further:

"According to that declaration, it is down-right heresy to say that the body "is an essential constituent or part of the now real child of God." There you are! If the body is no part of the now real child of God, then real children of God are spirits only, and the bodies are children of wrath, or children of the devil, as you may be pleased to term it. Then if the spirit only is the child of God, and the body is no part of the child of God, then the child of God lives in the Adam man, or in the child of wrath, until the Adam man dies; and the Adam man dies and goes to the grave a child of wrath. If he is raised in the last day, he will be raised a child of wrath, or else he will be changed some time between death and the resurrection."

The error Cayce is attacking is one that says that since the body is a "part of the child of God" it must therefore have been born again or regenerated along with the soul or spirit.

Wrote Cayce further:

"A denial that the body is a part of the child of God is eternal Two-Seedism. That is precisely what the eternal Two-Seeders would say. If we have to say that the body is no part of the child of God in order to be an Old Baptist, we have never been one. But we do not have to say that in order to be an Old Baptist, for the Old Baptists have never believed any such heresy."

The body is a part of the child of God, but it is not because it has been reborn of the Spirit but because it has been purchased by the Lord to be his special possession. It is true that those who are children of God by election from the foundation of the world do not actually become children of God until they have been begotten of God. It is also true that though the bodies of the saints belong to the Lord they will not experience redemption until the resurrection, what Paul called "the redemption of the body." (Rom. 8: 23)

Resisting the Truth

The apostle Paul spoke of those who "resist the truth" (II Tim. 3: 8) and who "suppress the truth." (Rom. 1: 18) He also in the above text spoke of those who will "turn away their ears from the truth" and who rather "turn aside to myths." Though these texts describe unsaved people, yet it is also the case that even saved people can be seen resisting the truth. I did that myself for several years when I was a Hardshell Baptist preacher. I would read Bible texts which contradicted Hardshell beliefs (which I had accepted as true). I would resist accepting those texts and would begin to try to see if I could make those texts say something different so as to conform to my Hardshell premises and propositions. 

Many Christians are in churches or cults or sects that teach false doctrine and when someone confronts them and shows them how the Bible teaches against their false beliefs or how they are twisting the meaning of scripture, we see how most resist the truth, stubbornly holding to their false beliefs, even though the new information presented to them produces cognitive dissonance. Solomon said: "He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him." (Prov. 18: 17 kjv) 

The truth is the truth even if no one believes it. A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. We must be on guard against becoming unwilling to be examined in our beliefs, against close-mindedness. I thank God for others who have helped me to "see the way of the Lord more perfectly" (Acts 18: 26) and have shown me my errors in biblical interpretation. We must be as the noble Bereans, of whom it is written:

"Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so." (Acts 17: 11 nasb)

What they examined was what Paul and Silas had preached to them, and even apostles are to be examined in what they teach. They are to be examined and judged by "the scriptures" and not by any councils of men. This is what the Lord commanded and advised long ago when he said via the prophet Isaiah: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isa. 8: 20 kjv)

I have become frustrated in trying to convince fellow Christians of their errors for most of them resist the truth and hold to their errors tenaciously. I have seen this with my Hardshell brothers over the past thirty years or so when giving them proof that their beliefs were against scripture. I have also seen such resistance with Campbellites (those of the "Church of Christ") when I have had debates with them. Of course, they think I am the one who is resisting the truth and being stubborn. However, at least the Campbellites will debate their differences. The Hardshells of today, however, run from any discussion of their beliefs with anyone who they think can expose them. At least their forefathers, though wrong, did debate with their opponents.

"If You Continue In The Faith"

"And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister." (Col. 1: 20-23 kjv)

Those known as "Primitive Baptists" at one time believed in what is called "the perseverance of the saints." But, as they went astray in denying that evangelical faith and repentance were requirements for being eternally saved, they then began to throw out this article of their faith and to put in its stead "the preservation of the saints" towards the end of the 19th century, as if the latter excluded the former, which it does not. I wrote at length upon this in my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" in chapters 92 - 97 dealing with this question of perseverance. They are in this blog's archives for September 2011 and in the blog that gives all the chapters in "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" series. (See here) I cited from Elder J. H. Purifoy (1837-1908) where he wrote the following in his article titled "God's Saving Power Made Manifest In The Everlasting Preservation of the Saints," under sub-section titled "The Power of God Unto Eternal Salvation" (See here; emphasis mine):

"To my mind, everlasting preservation is a more thoroughly Scriptural expression than the 'final perseverance' of the saints. If our eternal salvation at last depends on our 'final perseverance,' what are we to persevere in? Are we to persevere in grace, or faithfulness to God, His cause and each other, or persevere in obedience to God?

I have failed in it so often myself, and have seen so much of it on every hand that I would like to see the expression 'final perseverance of the saints,' completely stricken out of our articles of faith, and instead say we believe in the EVERLASTING PRESERVATION of the saints, for our eternal salvation does depend on that, if we are what we profess to be." 

By this statement he acknowledges the doctrine of perseverance to be what his Baptist predecessors believed and confessed in their articles of faith. It is certainly what is taught in both the Philadelphia Baptist Confession (1742) and in the second London Baptist Confession (1689) and it is these confessions that the first "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists accepted as a statement of their faith. However, as the 19th century neared its end many "Primitive Baptists" began to believe as Purifoy. Why? And, how can they claim to be "primitive" or "original" Baptists if they have changed their views?

So, why did the Hardshells decide to change their beliefs on the perseverance of the saints? Answer: It was the natural result from their going into error on the necessity of evangelical faith and repentance for salvation, and of their error in denying the necessity of hearing the word of God in order to repent and believe for salvation, which errors were also not what their forefathers taught and expressed in their articles of faith. So, it is highly ironic for them to claim to be "primitive" or "original" Baptists.

In the Mt. Carmel Church trial (1909) this was a major issue and one can see from the testimony given in that trial, from both sides, that this is clearly true. Elder E.H. Burnam, an associate editor of Zion's Advocate and a close friend of Elder John Clark its editor, was a believer in means and in perseverance and he said the following in that court trial:

"It was left to the last quarter of the 19th century to give birth among the Old Order of Baptists to the notion of regeneration without faith, or that it is not necessary that one should exercise repentance, faith, or any spiritual gift, in order to be saved, a heresy than which none more pernicious was ever put forth by any professing to be followers of Christ."

In the Mt. Carmel church trial, Elder Burnam was questioned as follows:

Q. Has there ever been any departure on the part of any considerable body of the membership of the church from the doctrine, which you have stated, from the deed of 1849, and as treated of in the books which you have cited, and if so, when and under what circumstances did that occur. Speak with especial reference to any such division in the Mount Carmel Church at Luray?

A. Since I was here there has been put forth the idea that a man could be saved, if regenerate, without faith. The faith of Mount Carmel Church, as the faith of all the Baptists of our connection, Old School Regular Baptists, has been by the grace of God through faith. There has been a departure from that in the putting forth of the idea that men could be saved without faith.

Q. By whom has that departure been made?

A. That was made by what we call the Anti-Means Baptists, in 1891, by Dr. Waters, editor of Zion’s Advocate.

Q. Now state if there was any further departure from the faith as laid down in the deed of 1849, especially with reference to the words “final perseverance of the saints to glory, etc.?”

A. This book---this same paper---Zion’s Advocate and Herald of the Truth, of the same date, June, 1891, contains this as one of its articles, on the second page of the cover, and numbered seven, seventh article: “The final preservation and eternal happiness of all the elect of God by grace.” Now the faith of the Old School Baptists or Regular Baptists, as they used to be called and are still called by us, was salvation by grace through faith, and the perseverance of the saints in grace to glory. The perseverance! The word perseverance instead of preservation. A clear distinction must be drawn between the two words. Preservation does not necessarily include faith, but perseverance could not exist without it. None persevere unto eternal life except through a God-given faith. Therefore, we hold that there has been a clear departure from the original faith on these two points that I have named. We hold to the ancient faith, just as it was, and expect to do so while life lasts, as the truth of God.

Q. You have drawn a distinction between perseverance and preservation?

A. I have.

You can find the above in these two posts (here and here)

There are many texts that we could cite to show how the bible promises final salvation to those who persevere, who abide in Christ, who keep themselves in the love of God. In fact I did cite many of them in those six chapters dealing with perseverance in "The Hardshell Baptist Cult." You can read them (here, here, here, here, here, here). However, the text at the head of this post is one of the clearest proofs that unequivocally says that a person is reconciled if he continues in the faith grounded and settled and does not move away from the hope of the Gospel. 

The Hardshell tactic in dealing with such texts, or any text that puts a condition upon obtaining salvation, is to say that they all concern a mere timely or temporal salvation and which is not necessary for eternal salvation. That becomes impossible to do, however, for so many of those texts, like the one above, show that it is eternal salvation that is the subject. In such cases the deniers of the necessity of perseverance must find another explanation that would not contradict their view that affirms that perseverance is not a necessity for eternal salvation. 

The text is clearly talking about eternal salvation because it speaks of it consisting in Christ "having made peace through the blood of his cross" and being "reconciled" to God so that the believers Paul is addressing are no longer "alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works" and are therefore being prepared for Christ to "present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight."

Therefore, it is necessary that believers "continue in the faith grounded and settled" so as not to be "moved away from the hope of the gospel." So wrote the apostle John: 

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." (I John 2: 19 kjv) John also wrote:

"For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith. Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?...We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him." (I John 5: 4-5, 18 nkjv)

This every true believer will do as a result of God's working in him or her to preserve them. God's preservation of them is what results in their perseverance. Jesus prays for every truly born again child of his, as he did for Peter, that their "faith fail not." (Luke 22: 32)

God keeps (preserves) his born again people but the means is God given and sustained faith. So wrote the apostle: "Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation" (I Peter 1: 5 kjv). Hardshell Baptists leave out the "through faith" part of the verse. It therefore does not help them much to contend for preservation to the exclusion of perseverance, for even preservation is by faith. So also wrote Jude the Lord's brother:

"But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life." (Jude 1: 20-21 nkjv)

If God is keeping or preserving you then you will be found preserving yourself and persevering. As faith is God's gift, so too is perseverance his gift.

The apostle John also wrote:

"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." (II john 1: 9 kjv)

I think that is very clear that continuance in the faith is necessary for salvation.