"When I say to the wicked, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. Yet if you have warned the wicked and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered yourself." (Eze. 3:18-19 NASB)
"Now as for you, son of man, I have appointed you a watchman for the house of Israel; so you will hear a message from My mouth and give them warning from Me. When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you will surely die,' and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require from your hand. But if you on your part warn a wicked man to turn from his way and he does not turn from his way, he will die in his iniquity, but you have delivered your life." (Eze. 33:7-9)
Why do our modern Hardshells not feel the weight of these words? Why do they not tremble at hearing them? Do they warn the wicked? Or, do they only feed the sheep? If they do warn the wicked, of what do they warn them? If they warn them of the final judgment, and of hell fire, then to what purpose? Is it not in order to awaken them from sleep in regard to their soul's danger? Is it not in order that the wicked man might "turn from his way," that is, that he might repent?
Hardshells today admit that they have no message to preach to the wicked who is doomed to die in sin. They believe it is silly to preach to the spiritually dead, as much as preaching to or giving warning to stones. So, they do not warn the wicked. They only warn the righteous, and not in respect of any final judgment upon their souls, but in regard to things pertaining to this life only.
This failure at warning the wicked is not what characterized their forefathers. They believed in warning the spiritually dead, "the wicked," and believed that it was serious business.
So, how did the first Baptist do along this line? Did he not say to the wicked in his day - "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" (Matt.
3:7) That is a real "primitive" Baptist!
Monday, December 18, 2017
Thursday, December 14, 2017
Fate of those who "live ungodly"?
"And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" (I Peter 4:18 kjv)
Questions:
1) Who is denoted by "the ungodly" and by "the sinner"?
2) Who is denoted by "the righteous"?
3) What is the destiny of "the ungodly and the sinner"?
I find it hard to believe that most modern Hardshells will contend
1) that many of "the ungodly and the sinner" will be "saved" along with "the righteous"
2) that many believers in false gods and religions are "saved" and not a part "the ungodly"
3) that eternal salvation or damnation are not under consideration in the text
Nevertheless, the clear teaching of the text is that "the righteous" are not of the class designated as "the ungodly" and "the sinner," and that the one class will be "saved," both now and forever, while the other class will not be saved, but will suffer punishment forever. It is also clear that "unbelievers" are not in the class of "the righteous" and that "believers" are not in the class of "the ungodly and the sinner." This is acknowledged by all, except the Hardshells and Universalists.
Wrote Dr. Gill in his commentary on this verse (emphasis mine):
"where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? the profane sinner, the Christless, impenitent, unbelieving, and unregenerate man; otherwise all men are sinners, in themselves; but here it means such as are destitute of the sanctifying grace of the Spirit, and the justifying righteousness of Christ, and that live and die in their sins: where shall such appear? not in the congregation of the righteous; nor at the right hand of Christ; nor in heaven, into which no defiled sinner shall enter..."
The Ungodly
"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked..." (II Peter 2:4-7 kjv)
"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 1: 4-7)
Notice the clear fate of those who "live ungodly." The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by God in wrath is "an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly," said Peter. Those who live ungodly "are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire," said Jude.
Why do the Hardshells of today teach that many of "those who live ungodly" will not suffer eternal vengeance? Why do they say - "how people live matters not in the matter of salvation"? Why do they call unbelievers "godly"?
Notice these verses that help us to see the character and destiny of those who are, because of having no love and faith in Christ, "ungodly."
"To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." (Jude 1:15 kjv)
"But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." (II Peter 3:7 kjv)
It is clear that the "judgment" that will be executed upon "all that are ungodly" is that which results from the second coming of the Lord and "the day of judgment and perdition."
If one rejects Christ and the gospel, is he not "ungodly"?
"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." (I Cor. 16:22 kjv)
All non Christians, or all those who do not become Christians, are to be declared "anathema" at the second coming of Christ ("maranatha").
Questions:
1) Who is denoted by "the ungodly" and by "the sinner"?
2) Who is denoted by "the righteous"?
3) What is the destiny of "the ungodly and the sinner"?
I find it hard to believe that most modern Hardshells will contend
1) that many of "the ungodly and the sinner" will be "saved" along with "the righteous"
2) that many believers in false gods and religions are "saved" and not a part "the ungodly"
3) that eternal salvation or damnation are not under consideration in the text
Nevertheless, the clear teaching of the text is that "the righteous" are not of the class designated as "the ungodly" and "the sinner," and that the one class will be "saved," both now and forever, while the other class will not be saved, but will suffer punishment forever. It is also clear that "unbelievers" are not in the class of "the righteous" and that "believers" are not in the class of "the ungodly and the sinner." This is acknowledged by all, except the Hardshells and Universalists.
Wrote Dr. Gill in his commentary on this verse (emphasis mine):
"where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? the profane sinner, the Christless, impenitent, unbelieving, and unregenerate man; otherwise all men are sinners, in themselves; but here it means such as are destitute of the sanctifying grace of the Spirit, and the justifying righteousness of Christ, and that live and die in their sins: where shall such appear? not in the congregation of the righteous; nor at the right hand of Christ; nor in heaven, into which no defiled sinner shall enter..."
The Ungodly
"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked..." (II Peter 2:4-7 kjv)
"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 1: 4-7)
Notice the clear fate of those who "live ungodly." The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by God in wrath is "an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly," said Peter. Those who live ungodly "are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire," said Jude.
Why do the Hardshells of today teach that many of "those who live ungodly" will not suffer eternal vengeance? Why do they say - "how people live matters not in the matter of salvation"? Why do they call unbelievers "godly"?
Notice these verses that help us to see the character and destiny of those who are, because of having no love and faith in Christ, "ungodly."
"To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." (Jude 1:15 kjv)
"But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." (II Peter 3:7 kjv)
It is clear that the "judgment" that will be executed upon "all that are ungodly" is that which results from the second coming of the Lord and "the day of judgment and perdition."
If one rejects Christ and the gospel, is he not "ungodly"?
"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." (I Cor. 16:22 kjv)
All non Christians, or all those who do not become Christians, are to be declared "anathema" at the second coming of Christ ("maranatha").
Tuesday, December 12, 2017
Elder Sarber's Excellent Teaching
I recommend that people read and listen to the teachings of brother Jeremy Sarber, now an associate editor and trustee of this blog. Two excellent recent teachings, given in expository sermons, are "What is Ecclesiastes about and what its main message?" (see here) and "What does justification by faith mean? (Romans chapter 3 explained)" (see here).
Sunday, December 3, 2017
Spirit Received By Faith
Over the years I have introduced many statements from scripture that prove that faith (belief) in the God of holy scripture, and in the good news about salvation through Christ the Son of God, is
1. A necessary condition for being finally saved
2. An integral part of what it means to be regenerated, born again, renewed, or to have spiritual and eternal life
Once I quit resisting the truth of those statements of scripture, and stopped twisting and distorting their true meaning, I was amazed at how blind I was, when I was a Hardshell, and how hardened I was against the truth, and how I was in a cult. The following verse of scripture is just one of those verses.
Galatians 3:2 - "This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?"
In looking over the various English translations and studying the Greek text, I found that the Amplified gave a good translation. It reads:
"Let me ask you this one question: Did you receive the [Holy] Spirit as the result of obeying the Law and doing its works, or was it by hearing [the message of the Gospel] and believing [it]? [Was it from observing a law of rituals or from a message of faith?]"
Next, notice these two good translations:
Phillips - "I will ask you one simple question: did you receive the Spirit of God by trying to keep the Law or by believing the message of the Gospel?"
Wuest - "This only am I desiring to learn from you. By means of law works did you receive the Spirit or by means of the message which proclaims faith?"
Paul's Socratic rhetorical assumes that the Galatians knew when they had "received the Spirit." Paul takes it for granted that they knew when and how they had received the Spirit and this fact is presupposed in the question he asks. So, we may read it as follows:
"Since you know when and how you received the Spirit, let me ask you - how and when did you receive the Spirit?"
Paul assumes that they know the answer. If he did not assume this, then why ask the question? Especially since the answer to the question will serve as the major premise in his syllogism?
But, if Paul assumes that they know the answer, then his thinking is unlike our modern anti means and anti faith Hardshells. If the reception of the Spirit denotes regeneration or new birth, then his question shows that the Galatians knew when they were regenerated. But, the Hardshells, most of them, affirm that very few of the regenerated know when they were regenerated or born again. Many of them say that they have always believed since they were small children. Many of them even think that they were "regenerated" when they were in the womb. But, very few of them can tell you when and how.
In Acts 5:32 we have a similar statement - "and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him." The word "obey" is used as a synonym of believe. Believing is obeying for God commands all to believe the gospel.
Wrote Dr. Gill:
received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? This question supposes they had received the Spirit; that is, the Spirit of God, as a spirit of wisdom and knowledge in the revelation of Christ; as a spirit of regeneration and sanctification; as a spirit of faith and adoption; and as the earnest, seal, and pledge of their future glory.
Not only does the question presuppose that the Galatians had indeed "received" the Holy Spirit, and that Paul knew it, but also that the Galatians knew it. They not only knew that they had received the Spirit but knew when and how. Gill says that...
"this belongs to the Gospel, "or the hearing of faith"; for by "faith", is meant the Gospel, and particularly the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ's righteousness; and by "the hearing" of it, the preaching of it, the report of it, ( Isaiah 53:1 ) which, in the Hebrew text, is (wntemv) , "our hearing", that by which the Gospel is heard and understood. Now in this way the Spirit of God is received; while the Gospel is preaching he falls on them that hear it, conveys himself into their hearts, and begets them again by the word of truth: and in this way the Galatians came by the Spirit, and which is another aggravation of their folly, that they should enjoy so great an advantage by the Gospel, and yet be so easily removed from it." (emphasis mine)
How any Hardshell can continue to claim that Dr. Gill taught the Hardshell anti means view in the light of such comments is astounding. Notice how clear is his statement that the Lord "begets them again by the word of truth." Is that not what Paul was teaching or did the great doctor miss it? Why is it that nearly the whole Christian world so understands the teaching of Paul in the text and yet Hardshells resist seeing it?
How can the Hardshells "get around" the clear teaching of the text? The only way is to get creative with the text, to take liberties with it and say (perhaps) that the receiving of the Holy Spirit is not regeneration. But, this is wholly untenable for the Galatian context and the context of the entire new testament forbids it.
1. A necessary condition for being finally saved
2. An integral part of what it means to be regenerated, born again, renewed, or to have spiritual and eternal life
Once I quit resisting the truth of those statements of scripture, and stopped twisting and distorting their true meaning, I was amazed at how blind I was, when I was a Hardshell, and how hardened I was against the truth, and how I was in a cult. The following verse of scripture is just one of those verses.
Galatians 3:2 - "This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?"
In looking over the various English translations and studying the Greek text, I found that the Amplified gave a good translation. It reads:
"Let me ask you this one question: Did you receive the [Holy] Spirit as the result of obeying the Law and doing its works, or was it by hearing [the message of the Gospel] and believing [it]? [Was it from observing a law of rituals or from a message of faith?]"
Next, notice these two good translations:
Phillips - "I will ask you one simple question: did you receive the Spirit of God by trying to keep the Law or by believing the message of the Gospel?"
Wuest - "This only am I desiring to learn from you. By means of law works did you receive the Spirit or by means of the message which proclaims faith?"
Paul's Socratic rhetorical assumes that the Galatians knew when they had "received the Spirit." Paul takes it for granted that they knew when and how they had received the Spirit and this fact is presupposed in the question he asks. So, we may read it as follows:
"Since you know when and how you received the Spirit, let me ask you - how and when did you receive the Spirit?"
Paul assumes that they know the answer. If he did not assume this, then why ask the question? Especially since the answer to the question will serve as the major premise in his syllogism?
But, if Paul assumes that they know the answer, then his thinking is unlike our modern anti means and anti faith Hardshells. If the reception of the Spirit denotes regeneration or new birth, then his question shows that the Galatians knew when they were regenerated. But, the Hardshells, most of them, affirm that very few of the regenerated know when they were regenerated or born again. Many of them say that they have always believed since they were small children. Many of them even think that they were "regenerated" when they were in the womb. But, very few of them can tell you when and how.
In Acts 5:32 we have a similar statement - "and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him." The word "obey" is used as a synonym of believe. Believing is obeying for God commands all to believe the gospel.
Wrote Dr. Gill:
received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? This question supposes they had received the Spirit; that is, the Spirit of God, as a spirit of wisdom and knowledge in the revelation of Christ; as a spirit of regeneration and sanctification; as a spirit of faith and adoption; and as the earnest, seal, and pledge of their future glory.
Not only does the question presuppose that the Galatians had indeed "received" the Holy Spirit, and that Paul knew it, but also that the Galatians knew it. They not only knew that they had received the Spirit but knew when and how. Gill says that...
"this belongs to the Gospel, "or the hearing of faith"; for by "faith", is meant the Gospel, and particularly the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ's righteousness; and by "the hearing" of it, the preaching of it, the report of it, ( Isaiah 53:1 ) which, in the Hebrew text, is (wntemv) , "our hearing", that by which the Gospel is heard and understood. Now in this way the Spirit of God is received; while the Gospel is preaching he falls on them that hear it, conveys himself into their hearts, and begets them again by the word of truth: and in this way the Galatians came by the Spirit, and which is another aggravation of their folly, that they should enjoy so great an advantage by the Gospel, and yet be so easily removed from it." (emphasis mine)
How any Hardshell can continue to claim that Dr. Gill taught the Hardshell anti means view in the light of such comments is astounding. Notice how clear is his statement that the Lord "begets them again by the word of truth." Is that not what Paul was teaching or did the great doctor miss it? Why is it that nearly the whole Christian world so understands the teaching of Paul in the text and yet Hardshells resist seeing it?
How can the Hardshells "get around" the clear teaching of the text? The only way is to get creative with the text, to take liberties with it and say (perhaps) that the receiving of the Holy Spirit is not regeneration. But, this is wholly untenable for the Galatian context and the context of the entire new testament forbids it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)