In
three of my recent postings I have 1) refuted an anti-means article from a
leading Primitive Baptist elder (Here), 2)
shown how this order advocates Pelagianism (Here), and
3) shown how they tolerate contradictory views of faith, as long as
it’s an anti-gospel view (Here).
Each of these were responses to articles in The Banner of Love periodical,
one of the leading publications spreading heresy via snail mail.
Today I
demonstrate a non-sequitur.
Don
Richards, publisher and editor of this same paper, wrote in the latest issue:
"Man
cannot take credit for his, or others, eternal salvation. Neither can
we take credit for our timely salvation of comfort, security and peace which
comes from believers hearing the foolishness of preaching" ("Foolish
things...", April 2015)
While
all the glory and praise certainly redound unto God for a sinner’s eternal
salvation, it simply does not follow what the editor states next. If my
deceived brethren are consistent within their own system (and many times they
are not) they cannot claim that God receives all the credit for what they
call gospel time salvation. To affirm that He does engages
the Conditionalist in the worst of contradictions, denying the
very premises he uses to uphold his heretical notions. To say that God
gets all the credit for this “second unnecessary salvation” which they affirm
does involve the means of the gospel, my Hardshell brethren end up affirming
the following, whether aware or not.
The
Lord receives the credit for that which involves gospel instrumentality.
The
Lord receives the credit for that which involves human instrumentality.
The
Lord receives the credit for that which involves human action.
The Lord receives the credit for that which depends on man.
The Lord receives the credit for that which depends on man.
The
Lord receives the credit for that which is affected by free-will.
The Lord receives the credit for that which He did not ordain.
The
Lord receives the credit for that which He does not do.
NOTE:
Hardshells argue from Acts 2:40 that gospel conversion is where the regenerate
child of God “SAVES HIMSELF”. Yet somehow the Lord receives credit for
that which He does not do??? Laughable!
The
Lord receives credit for that in which he requires "help".
NOTE:
Hardshells claim that preaching is helping God.
These
are the conclusions, a couple of them absurd, which result from an affirmation
that God gets all the credit for a transaction involving means, in
light of the premises that the Conditionalists take in advance
to the scriptures (eisegesis). Yet when these premises are individually considered,
my deceived brethren cry out in bitter opposition. They affirm that
instruments and human action do rob God of the credit! Why, this is one of the
main premises that they use to erect their own anti-means system and distance
themselves from Calvinism and Arminianism!!
So let me try and understand. The editor may affirm that God gets all the credit despite human action…despite
gospel instrumentality…despite human instrumentality. But when a
Calvinist does the same thing in his system, all of a sudden, he’s a
heretic out trying to rob God of His glory!!! I need only refer to a statement made by another elder just a
few issues back in the exact same periodical who asserts that gospel/human
instrumentality DO rob God of the credit:
“It is not the WORD MEANS that I or my
people object to but the unscriptural use which is made of it in dividing the
honor of our salvation and giving credit for something outside the purpose of
God in the salvation of sinners” (Elder Ricky Harcrow, The Banner of Love,
January 2015)
Now these words, in reality an erroneous
conclusion about the gospel means position, do in fact follow from the
Hardshell premises. If it were correct to say that God gets all the
credit only when He operates in what we might call a direct manner,
then it would be true to say that administration through instrumentality
divides it. But if God receives the credit as well when instrumentality
IS involved, as the editor’s words imply, then what's the problem with the gospel means pattern of salvation?
Harcrow's words, though an error, are consistent with his own paradigm. Not so with Richards. One of
two things must be true. He is either unaware that his words
contradict the Hardshells’ belief that means rob God of the
credit, or he simply does not want to admit the conclusion which results
from gospel time salvation. After all, who would want to
openly announce to their readers that since time salvation involves
gospel means, human action/free-will,and works, this means we are robbing God of
His glory and taking credit for our conversion experience.
Better to just tell the deceived audience that though time
salvation requires these things, we nevertheless affirm in
contradiction that all the credit goes to God. But when Calvinists assert
that regeneration is all of grace through the instrumentality of the gospel,
let’s just make sure that we call them all heretics, and that they’re trying to
“help” God save his people and take some credit for it!!!
If God
receives the credit for that which flows through the gospel, then means cannot
be cited as the reason why He would not. To what then must the Hardshells
defer as to why they blast Calvinism if it can no longer be claimed that the
involvement of men and gospel preaching rob God of the credit? What
scheme of salvation must it require for them to continue identifying Calvinists as being
basically the same thing as Arminians, it if isn't their view that the preaching
of the gospel is instrumental in salvation? It would have to be something else
which causes them to see the two as one in the same. There's only one thing which my deceived
friends could possibly say at this point. They could only say that the
Calvinist is referring to eternal salvation, whereas they are
referring to time salvation. In other words, Hardshells
reserve the right to say God gets all the credit given their position on means,
but Calvinists may not do so in their system. It boils down to the following
proposition which they would have to set forth and prove.
God gets all the credit for MEANS
transactions when the matter is of a temporal nature, but He doesn't when the
matter is of an eternal nature.
Is this what my confused friends are
wanting to affirm?
Ridiculous and laughable! It is not
the duration of the consequence which determines whether something is all of
God, but the act itself. Administration through means either robs God of
the credit, or it doesn't. If it does then you can't say this out of one side
of your mouth, only to turn around and utter an obvious non-sequitur in order
to hide the shame of admitting that your beloved time salvation doctrine is
an Arminian system. If administration through means does not rob God of
the credit then quit claiming Calvinists are "helping God" and
desirous of the credit themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment