Am I sinning when I fail to capitalize divine pronouns? Many Christians, when they write about God, either Father, Son, or Spirit, capitalize pronouns that refer to them. They think God is honored by such a practice. By implication, I am sinning, or failing to give proper reverence, when I do not capitalize those pronouns. I have thought about this a lot. My conclusion? I do not believe I am disrespecting God by my failure to use capitals in divine pronouns.
Do we not realize that the bible is all written in capital letters? So, not only are capitals used for divine pronouns, but also with human. So, what does that show? It shows that the bible writers did not feel like they were exalting men by using capitals in human pronouns nor were they intending to honor God by using capitals.
Some also think that every noun used in reference to God must also be capitalized, as in Lord, Messiah, Christ, Jesus, Lamb, Prince, King, Son, Father, Spirit, Man, etc.
On this subject we find this in wikipedia
Reverential capitalization is the practice of capitalizing words, particularly pronouns, that refer to a deity or divine being, in cases where the words would not otherwise have been capitalized:
and God calleth to the light 'Day,' and to the darkness He hath called 'Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning — day one. -- Genesis 1:5, Young's Literal Translation (1862)
In this example, "God" is in capitals because it is, like "Day" or "Night", a noun which is here a proper name, whereas "He" is an example of reverential capitalization, since while proper names are capitalized universally, reverence for any particular divinity—belief therein implied on the part of the author who capitalizes pronouns in reference to such being—is not universal. In short, when pronouns are capitalized which usually are lowercase, this usually implies that the writer personally reveres and regards as a deity the antecedent of that pronoun.
Nouns, which are not proper names, can also be capitalized out of reverence of the entity they refer to. Such examples include "the Lord", "the Father", "the Creator".
Capitalizing nouns
Capitalization, punctuation, and spelling were not well standardized in early Modern English; for example, the 1611 King James Bible has:
For our heart shall reioyce in him: because we haue trusted in his holy name. -- Psalms 33:21
Capitalizing pronouns
In the 19th century, it became common to capitalize pronouns referring to the Christian God, in order to show respect:
For in Him doth our heart rejoice, For in His holy name we have trusted. -- Psalms 33:21, Young's Literal Translation (1862)
In the 20th century this practice became far less common:
For our heart rejoices in him, because we have trusted in his holy name. -- Psalms 33:21, World English Bible (1997)
HERE is one writer who takes my position.
Bill Mounce's article is also a good defense of my position.
Monday, January 29, 2018
Eschatology Studies (introduction)
How do we, as Christians who look forward to the second coming of Christ, and the end of all things, "see (more and more) the day approaching" (Heb. 10:25)? It can only be by seeing prophesy fulfilled by events, called by Christ and his apostles "signs of the times," or "the times and seasons." (Matt. 16: 3; I Thess. 5: 1)
Everything that is prophesied to occur when Christ returns cannot happen "in the twinkling of an eye." Nor can it happen in 24 hours, or in a single day. The resurrection of saints may take place in an instant, but the resurrection is only one event in the agenda of Christ at his reappearing.
There are two categories of such events or signs. First, there are those events that are specifically said to occur before the coming again of the Christ. Second, there are those events that are said to occur at or as a result of the arrival of the Lord Jesus.
The job of the interpreter of these prophecies is to 1) understand the event prophesied and 2) see how the event is connected, sequentially or otherwise, with other events. Is the prophesy to be literally fulfilled? Does a "sign" denote what is not literal? Does the rapture take place before the judgment of the great tribulation or vise versa? How is the book of Revelation to be interpreted? What is the Millenium? What is the "kingdom of God"?
Over the next several months, and possibly years, if the Lord wills, I will be writing much on eschatology, assembling what I have already written over the years, and building upon it so that I might present what I think is the correct teaching of the Scriptures on the subject.
Not only should we all "see the day approaching" or drawing near, but should all realize, as the apostle said, "now is our salvation nearer than when we first believed." (Rom. 13: 11) If we are true Christians, then we will have a love and longing for his appearing. (II Tim. 4: 8)
Things in our day are happening at fast pace. Change is everywhere. People are in fear of what they perceive is about to come to pass. (Luke 21: 26) Thankfully, in the midst of it all, Christians have a "more sure word of prophesy" that anchors them. (II Peter 1:19)
Everything that is prophesied to occur when Christ returns cannot happen "in the twinkling of an eye." Nor can it happen in 24 hours, or in a single day. The resurrection of saints may take place in an instant, but the resurrection is only one event in the agenda of Christ at his reappearing.
There are two categories of such events or signs. First, there are those events that are specifically said to occur before the coming again of the Christ. Second, there are those events that are said to occur at or as a result of the arrival of the Lord Jesus.
The job of the interpreter of these prophecies is to 1) understand the event prophesied and 2) see how the event is connected, sequentially or otherwise, with other events. Is the prophesy to be literally fulfilled? Does a "sign" denote what is not literal? Does the rapture take place before the judgment of the great tribulation or vise versa? How is the book of Revelation to be interpreted? What is the Millenium? What is the "kingdom of God"?
Over the next several months, and possibly years, if the Lord wills, I will be writing much on eschatology, assembling what I have already written over the years, and building upon it so that I might present what I think is the correct teaching of the Scriptures on the subject.
Not only should we all "see the day approaching" or drawing near, but should all realize, as the apostle said, "now is our salvation nearer than when we first believed." (Rom. 13: 11) If we are true Christians, then we will have a love and longing for his appearing. (II Tim. 4: 8)
Things in our day are happening at fast pace. Change is everywhere. People are in fear of what they perceive is about to come to pass. (Luke 21: 26) Thankfully, in the midst of it all, Christians have a "more sure word of prophesy" that anchors them. (II Peter 1:19)
Tuesday, January 23, 2018
New Book on Landmarkism
In an email from J.C. Settlemoir I learned of his new book on Landmarkism. I hope to put in my order. He writes:
Dear Friends:
Landmarkism Under Fire, Revised Edition, 2018 is now available.
The book is paperback, 424 pages. In it I have considered the best arguments presented in favor of the Mother Daughter position which I have seen.
Table of Contents FOREWORD......................................................................1
PREFACE TO REVISED EDITION 2017 ......................3
PREFACE TO 1ST EDITION ...........................................5
CHAPTER 1 .......................................................................7
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 2 .....................................................................12
OLD LANDMARKISM DEFINED ........................................................ 12
CHAPTER 3 .....................................................................25
EMDA DEFINED ................................................................................. 25
CHAPTER 4 .....................................................................36
EMDA AND SCRIPTURE ..................................................................... 36
CHAPTER 5 .....................................................................53
THE MOTHER CHURCH IN EMDA .................................................... 53
CHAPTER 6 .....................................................................74
J. R. GRAVES, OLD LANDMARKISM AND CHURCH CONSTITUTION
CHAPTER 7 .....................................................................91
A CHALLENGE ISSUED AND ACCEPTED ........................................ 91
CHAPTER 8 ...................................................................107
BAPTIST TESTIMONY ON CHURCH CONSTITUTION ................... 107
CHAPTER 9 ...................................................................133
WHAT ACTUALLY CONSTITUTES A CHURCH? ............................. 133
CHAPTER 10 .................................................................149
THE ASSEMBLY OF SCRIPTURE ..................................................... 149
CHAPTER 11 .................................................................162
SAMPLES OF CHURCH CONSTITUTION........................................ 162
CHAPTER 12 .................................................................184
THE GREAT COMMISSION .............................................................. 184
CHAPTER 13 .................................................................204
GRAVES’ THEORY AND PRACTICE ................................................ 204
CHAPTER 14 .................................................................223 ix
MISTAKES-MISREPRESENTATIONS-MISQUOTES OF BROTHER FENISON
CHAPTER 15 .................................................................262
EMDA ON AUTO PILOT .................................................................... 262
CHAPTER 16 .................................................................281
PARANORMAL SILENCE OF EMDA IN BAPTIST HISTORY........... 281
CONCLUSION ..............................................................308
EMDA IS NOT A LANDMARK DOCTRINE ....................................... 308
APPENDIX I ..................................................................313
TERMS DEFINED .............................................................................. 313
APPENDIX II .................................................................326
CHURCH DEFINED BY BAPTISTS ................................................... 326
APPENDIX III ...............................................................336
OBJECTIONS TO DA CONSIDERED ................................................ 336
APPENDIX IV ...............................................................358
DID GRAVES CHANGE FROM DA TO EMDA ................................. 358
APPENDIX V .................................................................362
APPENDIX VI ...............................................................367
FENISON'S REFERENCES COMPARED .......................................... 367
APPENDIX VII ..............................................................389
DYERSBURG, TENNESSEE TO JERUSALEM .................................. 389
APPENDIX VIII ............................................................407
Wayne Camp’s Offer ........................................................................... 407
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..........................................................409
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY .........................................410
INDEXES ........................................................................412
AUTHOR INDEX 412
TEXTUAL INDEX
What others say about this book:
This book contains a feast of biblical and historical truth concerning the raging controversy over the issue of church constitution. The author’s work is both biblical and scholarly. Written in a loving Christian spirit, it should forever put to rest the errors and misrepresentations of those who oppose the Direct Authority view of church constitution. Added bonuses in the book include an exhaustive bibliography and scripture index. Laurence A. Justice, Retired Pastor
Brother Settlemoir has spared no effort in gathering contextual quotes from old Landmark Baptists. Quotes from these giants of the faith prove for the truth-seeking reader that these preachers of the faith once delivered unto the saints believed the Bible taught that churches could be established with two or three scripturally baptized persons without the aid of a "mother church." Moreover, these quotes prove beyond any shadow of doubt that these men believed no preacher was required to constitute a scriptural church. For them, the Lord's promise that where "two or three are gathered together in my name" was sufficient. When two or three baptized disciples purpose to carry out the Lord's commandments and keep the ordinances, they become a church. Is this not a church according to scripture? F. Leon King, Pastor,Hidden Hills Sovereign Grace Baptist Church, Willow, Alaska 99688
The book is free but we request that you send $4.00 for postage. Please include a mailing label or include your mailing address in your email, for this will save us considerable time because we can copy and paste the mailing labels.
J.C. Settlemoir @ jcsettle3@outlook.com
Dear Friends:
Landmarkism Under Fire, Revised Edition, 2018 is now available.
The book is paperback, 424 pages. In it I have considered the best arguments presented in favor of the Mother Daughter position which I have seen.
Table of Contents FOREWORD......................................................................1
PREFACE TO REVISED EDITION 2017 ......................3
PREFACE TO 1ST EDITION ...........................................5
CHAPTER 1 .......................................................................7
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 2 .....................................................................12
OLD LANDMARKISM DEFINED ........................................................ 12
CHAPTER 3 .....................................................................25
EMDA DEFINED ................................................................................. 25
CHAPTER 4 .....................................................................36
EMDA AND SCRIPTURE ..................................................................... 36
CHAPTER 5 .....................................................................53
THE MOTHER CHURCH IN EMDA .................................................... 53
CHAPTER 6 .....................................................................74
J. R. GRAVES, OLD LANDMARKISM AND CHURCH CONSTITUTION
CHAPTER 7 .....................................................................91
A CHALLENGE ISSUED AND ACCEPTED ........................................ 91
CHAPTER 8 ...................................................................107
BAPTIST TESTIMONY ON CHURCH CONSTITUTION ................... 107
CHAPTER 9 ...................................................................133
WHAT ACTUALLY CONSTITUTES A CHURCH? ............................. 133
CHAPTER 10 .................................................................149
THE ASSEMBLY OF SCRIPTURE ..................................................... 149
CHAPTER 11 .................................................................162
SAMPLES OF CHURCH CONSTITUTION........................................ 162
CHAPTER 12 .................................................................184
THE GREAT COMMISSION .............................................................. 184
CHAPTER 13 .................................................................204
GRAVES’ THEORY AND PRACTICE ................................................ 204
CHAPTER 14 .................................................................223 ix
MISTAKES-MISREPRESENTATIONS-MISQUOTES OF BROTHER FENISON
CHAPTER 15 .................................................................262
EMDA ON AUTO PILOT .................................................................... 262
CHAPTER 16 .................................................................281
PARANORMAL SILENCE OF EMDA IN BAPTIST HISTORY........... 281
CONCLUSION ..............................................................308
EMDA IS NOT A LANDMARK DOCTRINE ....................................... 308
APPENDIX I ..................................................................313
TERMS DEFINED .............................................................................. 313
APPENDIX II .................................................................326
CHURCH DEFINED BY BAPTISTS ................................................... 326
APPENDIX III ...............................................................336
OBJECTIONS TO DA CONSIDERED ................................................ 336
APPENDIX IV ...............................................................358
DID GRAVES CHANGE FROM DA TO EMDA ................................. 358
APPENDIX V .................................................................362
APPENDIX VI ...............................................................367
FENISON'S REFERENCES COMPARED .......................................... 367
APPENDIX VII ..............................................................389
DYERSBURG, TENNESSEE TO JERUSALEM .................................. 389
APPENDIX VIII ............................................................407
Wayne Camp’s Offer ........................................................................... 407
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..........................................................409
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY .........................................410
INDEXES ........................................................................412
AUTHOR INDEX 412
TEXTUAL INDEX
What others say about this book:
This book contains a feast of biblical and historical truth concerning the raging controversy over the issue of church constitution. The author’s work is both biblical and scholarly. Written in a loving Christian spirit, it should forever put to rest the errors and misrepresentations of those who oppose the Direct Authority view of church constitution. Added bonuses in the book include an exhaustive bibliography and scripture index. Laurence A. Justice, Retired Pastor
Brother Settlemoir has spared no effort in gathering contextual quotes from old Landmark Baptists. Quotes from these giants of the faith prove for the truth-seeking reader that these preachers of the faith once delivered unto the saints believed the Bible taught that churches could be established with two or three scripturally baptized persons without the aid of a "mother church." Moreover, these quotes prove beyond any shadow of doubt that these men believed no preacher was required to constitute a scriptural church. For them, the Lord's promise that where "two or three are gathered together in my name" was sufficient. When two or three baptized disciples purpose to carry out the Lord's commandments and keep the ordinances, they become a church. Is this not a church according to scripture? F. Leon King, Pastor,Hidden Hills Sovereign Grace Baptist Church, Willow, Alaska 99688
The book is free but we request that you send $4.00 for postage. Please include a mailing label or include your mailing address in your email, for this will save us considerable time because we can copy and paste the mailing labels.
J.C. Settlemoir @ jcsettle3@outlook.com
Witty Remarks From Dr. J.I. Packer
Wrote J. I. Packer:
"...a half-truth presented as the whole truth is a complete untruth." (see here)
He also said:
"An imaginary Christ will not bring a real salvation."
"...a half-truth presented as the whole truth is a complete untruth." (see here)
He also said:
"An imaginary Christ will not bring a real salvation."
Offering Hope to Hypocrites?
"And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matt. 24:51)
Hardshells of today, rather than warning and condemning "hypocrites," give them hope of heaven, just as they do to "unbelievers" (see my posting The Portion Of- Unbelievers), and to those who "live ungodly" (see my posting Fate- Of Those Who Live Ungodly), and to those who are "wretched, blind, bankrupt, and naked," spiritually speaking (see my posting Hardshells Affirm That They Are Saved). But, the "portion" of the hypocrites, like the "portion" of the "unbelievers," is to go to Hell, to the place where there is "weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Look at the following verses (highlighting mine) and see what is the fate of all hypocrites. I cannot offer them the hope of salvation so long as they remain so.
"He also shall be my salvation: for an hypocrite shall not come before him." (Job 13:16 kjv)
"That the triumphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of the hypocrite but for a moment?" (Job 20: 5)
"For what is the hope of the hypocrite, though he hath gained, when God taketh away his soul?" (Job 27:8)
"For the congregation of hypocrites shall be desolate, and fire shall consume the tabernacles of bribery." (Job 15:34)
"An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbour: but through knowledge shall the just be delivered." (Prov. 11:9)
"Therefore the Lord shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for every one is an hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still." (Isa. 9:17)
"Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye." (Luke 6:42)
"But the hypocrites in heart heap up wrath: they cry not when he bindeth them." (Job 36:13)
"The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?" (Isa. 33:14)
"Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward...And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward." (Matt. 6:2,5)
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation." (Matt. 23:14)
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves." (Matt. 23:15)
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." (Matt. 23:23)
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." (Matt. 23:27)
I rest my case.
Hardshells of today, rather than warning and condemning "hypocrites," give them hope of heaven, just as they do to "unbelievers" (see my posting The Portion Of- Unbelievers), and to those who "live ungodly" (see my posting Fate- Of Those Who Live Ungodly), and to those who are "wretched, blind, bankrupt, and naked," spiritually speaking (see my posting Hardshells Affirm That They Are Saved). But, the "portion" of the hypocrites, like the "portion" of the "unbelievers," is to go to Hell, to the place where there is "weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Look at the following verses (highlighting mine) and see what is the fate of all hypocrites. I cannot offer them the hope of salvation so long as they remain so.
"He also shall be my salvation: for an hypocrite shall not come before him." (Job 13:16 kjv)
"That the triumphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of the hypocrite but for a moment?" (Job 20: 5)
"For what is the hope of the hypocrite, though he hath gained, when God taketh away his soul?" (Job 27:8)
"For the congregation of hypocrites shall be desolate, and fire shall consume the tabernacles of bribery." (Job 15:34)
"An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbour: but through knowledge shall the just be delivered." (Prov. 11:9)
"Therefore the Lord shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for every one is an hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still." (Isa. 9:17)
"Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye." (Luke 6:42)
"But the hypocrites in heart heap up wrath: they cry not when he bindeth them." (Job 36:13)
"The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?" (Isa. 33:14)
"Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward...And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward." (Matt. 6:2,5)
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation." (Matt. 23:14)
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves." (Matt. 23:15)
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." (Matt. 23:23)
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." (Matt. 23:27)
I rest my case.
Monday, January 22, 2018
On The Right Track on Rev. 3:20
In a follow up to the two previous postings on Rev. 3:20 I want to cite from an article by a Progressive Primitive Baptist Church (Georgia) titled "AT THE DOOR – REVELATION 3:20" by Jason Solomon (May 23, 2017 - see here - emphasis mine).
"Call To Action: Listen for Jesus knocking today, and go open the door. Go to His Word, and Go to Him in prayer. Welcome His truth into your life, into your home, and into your work. Sit down with Him and take Him with you. He is your King. He is your Savior."
I am glad that this church saw through all the Hardshell fog on Rev. 3: 20 and saw what action the text is really calling for from those addressed. Why can't the Hardshells preach on the text like brother Solomon?
The web page says this about the church:
"Northside is a Progressive Primitive Baptist congregation. The Primitive Baptists hold to the doctrines held by the original Baptist pilgrims from Europe, primarily England. To this end we hold to the original 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith as summarized in our Articles of Faith below."
If they hold to the 1689 London Confession, then they must believe in the predestination of all things, in regeneration by the means of the gospel, and of the perseverance of the saints.
The hope for the Primitive Baptists is in such churches as this one.
"Call To Action: Listen for Jesus knocking today, and go open the door. Go to His Word, and Go to Him in prayer. Welcome His truth into your life, into your home, and into your work. Sit down with Him and take Him with you. He is your King. He is your Savior."
I am glad that this church saw through all the Hardshell fog on Rev. 3: 20 and saw what action the text is really calling for from those addressed. Why can't the Hardshells preach on the text like brother Solomon?
The web page says this about the church:
"Northside is a Progressive Primitive Baptist congregation. The Primitive Baptists hold to the doctrines held by the original Baptist pilgrims from Europe, primarily England. To this end we hold to the original 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith as summarized in our Articles of Faith below."
If they hold to the 1689 London Confession, then they must believe in the predestination of all things, in regeneration by the means of the gospel, and of the perseverance of the saints.
The hope for the Primitive Baptists is in such churches as this one.
Hardshellism's Sales Pitch
At a Hardshell Internet Web page, the PrimitiveBaptist.Net, we have these words to the reader which give the soteriological views of the cult:
"Primitive Baptist believe that heaven will be populated with thousands of millions from among mankind, (Genesis 24:60, Hebrews 11:12 & Mark 10:45) we know that only a few will find the church and the truth of God in this life and will be able to walk the strait and narrow way which leads to life in the kingdom of God. (Matthew 7:14 & Matthew 22:14)" (see here)
Only a few of the elect millions will "find the church and the truth of God"? Only a few of the regenerated will "be able to walk the strait and narrow way"? The strait and narrow way does not lead to eternal life in the world to come, but only leads to the Hardshell church?
What is the message they want to convey? We believe only a few are going to Hell! Your chances, just based upon numbers, of going to Heaven, are greater than your chances of going to Hell! You can live ungodly, be a heathen in faith, and still go to Heaven!
How can the narrow road apply to an event in life when the narrow road signifies that life as already lived? The "life," like the "destruction" that marks the destiny at the end of the broad road, comes at the end of the journey, at the end of life. How can one miss what is so plain?
Hardshells are so good at offering hope of salvation to unbelievers, to those who live ungodly, to those who have no knowledge of, love for, or faith in the one true God, in either the Father or the Son.
The web page also has these words:
"Primitive Baptist are not attempting to help God populate heaven, we believe Jesus did a prefect work in that regard...Nor are Primitive Baptist attempting to get people to know The Lord, because scripture says in Hebrews 8:11; And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."
It is a common misrepresentation of the Hardshells to say that those who believe that evangelical faith and perseverance in the same are necessary for salvation are "helping God" and that in order to "populate heaven." I don't see how God using prophets and preachers of the word can be interpreted to mean that God needs and is getting help from those means. It is a classic case of what is called in fallacious reasoning a non sequitur. It reminds me of what author Bob Ross said about many Hardshell preachers - "they really need to study the rules of logic and know what constitutes logical fallacies."
I have one simple question for those Hardshells who argue this way - "are you helping God in your efforts to convert others?" You may not be trying to be a means of getting souls saved and to heaven, but you certainly are trying to populate your own cult.
As far as the verse in Hebrews 8:11 upholding Hardshellism and being a condemnation of all soul winners, it actually teaches just the opposite! For my refutation of this misinterpretation of the passage, see my posting Hardshell Proof Texts XII.
"Primitive Baptist believe that heaven will be populated with thousands of millions from among mankind, (Genesis 24:60, Hebrews 11:12 & Mark 10:45) we know that only a few will find the church and the truth of God in this life and will be able to walk the strait and narrow way which leads to life in the kingdom of God. (Matthew 7:14 & Matthew 22:14)" (see here)
Only a few of the elect millions will "find the church and the truth of God"? Only a few of the regenerated will "be able to walk the strait and narrow way"? The strait and narrow way does not lead to eternal life in the world to come, but only leads to the Hardshell church?
What is the message they want to convey? We believe only a few are going to Hell! Your chances, just based upon numbers, of going to Heaven, are greater than your chances of going to Hell! You can live ungodly, be a heathen in faith, and still go to Heaven!
How can the narrow road apply to an event in life when the narrow road signifies that life as already lived? The "life," like the "destruction" that marks the destiny at the end of the broad road, comes at the end of the journey, at the end of life. How can one miss what is so plain?
Hardshells are so good at offering hope of salvation to unbelievers, to those who live ungodly, to those who have no knowledge of, love for, or faith in the one true God, in either the Father or the Son.
The web page also has these words:
"Primitive Baptist are not attempting to help God populate heaven, we believe Jesus did a prefect work in that regard...Nor are Primitive Baptist attempting to get people to know The Lord, because scripture says in Hebrews 8:11; And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."
It is a common misrepresentation of the Hardshells to say that those who believe that evangelical faith and perseverance in the same are necessary for salvation are "helping God" and that in order to "populate heaven." I don't see how God using prophets and preachers of the word can be interpreted to mean that God needs and is getting help from those means. It is a classic case of what is called in fallacious reasoning a non sequitur. It reminds me of what author Bob Ross said about many Hardshell preachers - "they really need to study the rules of logic and know what constitutes logical fallacies."
I have one simple question for those Hardshells who argue this way - "are you helping God in your efforts to convert others?" You may not be trying to be a means of getting souls saved and to heaven, but you certainly are trying to populate your own cult.
As far as the verse in Hebrews 8:11 upholding Hardshellism and being a condemnation of all soul winners, it actually teaches just the opposite! For my refutation of this misinterpretation of the passage, see my posting Hardshell Proof Texts XII.
Friday, January 19, 2018
An Inconspicous Error
Several past issues of The Banner of Love Primitive Baptist periodical can be found online. Just google it. While browsing through one of them, I can across this very simple statement:
Faith is a gift of God. If you believe God and believe in Jesus Christ, this was given to you (Elder Bobby Poe, 'The Ability To Believe')
What the elder states is certainly true. The problem is that it is not consistent with Hardshell soteriology. Most Hardshells would deny that actual faith in Christ is a gift of God. The reason is because faith in Christ is synonymous with evangelical faith, requiring the preaching of the gospel. Paul emphasizes this in Romans 10, the chapter which Hardshells apply to time salvation. So faith in Christ, then, in Hardshellism, is NOT a gift of God because it involves the preaching of the gospel. "Work", as they call it, must be performed in order for someone to receive it.
This is simply an example of widespread confusion among the denomination. Hardshells so juggle the concepts of seed faith, faith in God, faith in any God, the ability to believe, etc. as to what is given in regeneration, that you truly will receive 3 or 4 different explanations as to what the sinner believes, if anything, upon his new birth experience.
I think what is happening here is the same thing which J.I. Packer claimed in his famous introduction to Owen's classic work happens with those who promote universal atonement. When it comes to preaching the gospel they want to magnify the grace of God and the work of Christ, so they feel the way to announce this is by saying that Christ is the Savior, died for all mankind, and paid their sin debt. However, they must immediately retract such well-intended words upon analysis of their doctrine, for in the end Jesus did not really secure the salvation of anyone, unless fallen man contributes to see it through.
With good intentions it may be that Hardshell preachers likewise announce to their congregation that actual faith in Christ is a gift of God. For those with the trained eye, however, who navigated the waters of Hardshellism for many years like myself, we know that this is not what is truly believed. Faith in Christ belongs to the doctrine of time salvation. That means it is optional, coming by the works of the preacher, received weeks, months, years later! And that only by a few of God's elect! That very small number of God's people who get a chance to hear the gospel in this life!
Am I not correct, my former friends? Is it not really true that what you should be telling your regenerated audience is that their seed faith or their faith in some sort of supreme being, for instance, was a gift of God? But if they wanna believe in Jesus Christ, they better get to working! Because we know that if it comes through the gospel and instrumentality...well, that's salvation by works! That's what we do for ourselves, right?
Also, why is the title of the article 'The Ability to Believe' when what is argued (simply read it) is not really the ability to believe, but actual belief itself? Are they one in the same? Is the ability of believe a gift of God? Or believing itself?
More confusion.
Faith is a gift of God. If you believe God and believe in Jesus Christ, this was given to you (Elder Bobby Poe, 'The Ability To Believe')
What the elder states is certainly true. The problem is that it is not consistent with Hardshell soteriology. Most Hardshells would deny that actual faith in Christ is a gift of God. The reason is because faith in Christ is synonymous with evangelical faith, requiring the preaching of the gospel. Paul emphasizes this in Romans 10, the chapter which Hardshells apply to time salvation. So faith in Christ, then, in Hardshellism, is NOT a gift of God because it involves the preaching of the gospel. "Work", as they call it, must be performed in order for someone to receive it.
This is simply an example of widespread confusion among the denomination. Hardshells so juggle the concepts of seed faith, faith in God, faith in any God, the ability to believe, etc. as to what is given in regeneration, that you truly will receive 3 or 4 different explanations as to what the sinner believes, if anything, upon his new birth experience.
I think what is happening here is the same thing which J.I. Packer claimed in his famous introduction to Owen's classic work happens with those who promote universal atonement. When it comes to preaching the gospel they want to magnify the grace of God and the work of Christ, so they feel the way to announce this is by saying that Christ is the Savior, died for all mankind, and paid their sin debt. However, they must immediately retract such well-intended words upon analysis of their doctrine, for in the end Jesus did not really secure the salvation of anyone, unless fallen man contributes to see it through.
With good intentions it may be that Hardshell preachers likewise announce to their congregation that actual faith in Christ is a gift of God. For those with the trained eye, however, who navigated the waters of Hardshellism for many years like myself, we know that this is not what is truly believed. Faith in Christ belongs to the doctrine of time salvation. That means it is optional, coming by the works of the preacher, received weeks, months, years later! And that only by a few of God's elect! That very small number of God's people who get a chance to hear the gospel in this life!
Am I not correct, my former friends? Is it not really true that what you should be telling your regenerated audience is that their seed faith or their faith in some sort of supreme being, for instance, was a gift of God? But if they wanna believe in Jesus Christ, they better get to working! Because we know that if it comes through the gospel and instrumentality...well, that's salvation by works! That's what we do for ourselves, right?
Also, why is the title of the article 'The Ability to Believe' when what is argued (simply read it) is not really the ability to believe, but actual belief itself? Are they one in the same? Is the ability of believe a gift of God? Or believing itself?
More confusion.
Concomitance
I have stated it many, many times. Hardshellism, boiled down, is a dividing
asunder of what God has joined together.
It is taking of those things which God has declared as necessary
in the outworking of salvation, and making them unnecessary. It is taking of that which is certain
to the Lord’s elect, and making them uncertain. Nothing could be more profitable, therefore,
than for a powerful reminder of what the scriptures claim actually happen to
souls upon their regeneration. The
following quote by the learned John Murray reminds me so much of an article that
my colleague and friend Stephen once wrote which emphasized that when sinners
are born again, they are…born unto something.
They are born unto something real that is tangible! They really do begin to experience something
spiritual! They are not born unto a vacuus state of nothingness, possibly living
as spiritual vegetables until the day of the resurrection.
I know it must be hard to accept that some
could be so unlearned as to espouse that regeneration does not produce an
absolute, guaranteed effect, but this is Hardshellism for you. Its sole concern
is to populate heaven so that God wins the numbers game. The “God” it portrays
has little to no interest in rearing up a people in this life who actually
become Christians. Very sad.
Murray rightly records:
"It was the apostle John who recorded for us our Lord's
discourse to Nicodemus. John had learned its lesson well and particularly
the lesson that regeneration is the act of God and of God alone, that men are
born again 'not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man,
but of God' (John 1:13). He has inscribed this teaching indelibly upon
his first epistle, also. Explicit reference to regeneration appears in
that epistle on several occasions (1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1,4,19). The
leading emphasis in these passages is upon the fact that there is an
invariable concomitance or co-ordination of regeneration and other fruits of
grace. In 2:29 it is the concomitance (togetherness) of the divine
begetting and doing righteousness; in 3:9 of the divine begetting,
on the one hand, and not doing sin and incapacity of sin, on the other; in
4:7 of the divine begetting and love; in 5:1 of the divine
begetting and believing that Jesus is the Christ; in 5:4 of the divine
begetting and overcoming the world; in 5:18 of divine begetting and
not sinning and immunity to the touch of the evil one. As we shall
see later, this is a very significant emphasis and warns us against any
view of regeneration which abstracts it from the other elements of the application
of redemption" (John
Murray, "Redemption Accomplished and Applied").
He continues:
"The priority of
regeneration might create the impression that a person could be regenerated and
yet not converted. These passages in 1 John should correct any such
misapprehension. We need to remember again that the leading emphasis in
these passages is the invariable concomitance of regeneration and the other
graces mentioned. 'Everyone who is begotten of God does not do sin, for
his seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God'
(3:9). 'Everyone who is begotten of God overcomes the world; and this is
the victory which has overcome the world, even our faith' (5:4).
'Everyone who is begotten of God does not sin, but he who has been begotten of
God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him' (5:18). When
we put these texts together they expressly state that every regenerate person
has been delivered from the power of sin, overcomes the world by the faith of
Christ, and exercises that self-control by which he is no longer the slave of
sin and of the evil one. That means, when reduced to its simplest terms,
that the regenerate person is converted and exercises faith and repentance. We
must not think of regeneration as something which can be astracted from the
saving exercises which are its effects. Hence we shall have
to conclude that in the other passages (2:29; 4:7; 5:1) the fruits mentioned -
doing righteousness, the love and knowledge of God, believing that Jesus is the
Christ - are just as necessarily the accompaniments of regeneration as are the
fruits mentioned in 3:9, 5:4, 8. This simply means that all of the graces
mentioned in these passages are the consequences of regeneration and not only
consequences which sooner or later follow upon regeneration, but fruits which
are inseparable from regeneration. We
are warned and advised, therefore, that while regeneration is the action of God
and of God alone we must never conceive of his action as separable from the
activities of saving grace on our part which are the necessary and appropriate
effects of God's grace in us."
Much like the Apostle Paul once marveled (Gal. 1:6) I likewise
marvel that a professed Christian could deny this. In short, all that Murray is saying here is
that the cause produces the intended effect. Regeneration does in fact usher in
all the godly habits which characterize a new creature in Christ; and that, for
all the Lord’s chosen! Once one sees
this, which is admittedly an elementary point to most Christians, he begins to
see the error of Hardshellism.
Tuesday, January 16, 2018
Hardshellism & Masonry & The Irony
The way the Hardshells of today explain how "faith" is both essential and not essential for being regenerated or eternally saved is to affirm that
1. the "faith" that is essential, yea "the faith of God's elect" (Titus 1:1), is without belief of any gospel revelation or of the God of Abraham, and
2. that this essential faith is simple faith in some deity and of salvation by such deity, and
3. that this simple faith in deity is the result of "regeneration" and the personal preaching of Christ via the Spirit and without human means
4. that the "faith" that is not essential for regeneration is gospel faith, the kind believers in the NT have, and a belief in one God in trinity.
But, did you know that the "faith" of the Freemasons is like the Hardshell understanding of "the faith of God's elect"? Yes, the faith that every Mason confesses, while on his knees in the center of the Lodge, is "I believe in God" (and this "god" can be any god the confessor wishes). The "faith" of Freemasons is like the "faith" of God's elect? Ironic, is it not?
1. the "faith" that is essential, yea "the faith of God's elect" (Titus 1:1), is without belief of any gospel revelation or of the God of Abraham, and
2. that this essential faith is simple faith in some deity and of salvation by such deity, and
3. that this simple faith in deity is the result of "regeneration" and the personal preaching of Christ via the Spirit and without human means
4. that the "faith" that is not essential for regeneration is gospel faith, the kind believers in the NT have, and a belief in one God in trinity.
But, did you know that the "faith" of the Freemasons is like the Hardshell understanding of "the faith of God's elect"? Yes, the faith that every Mason confesses, while on his knees in the center of the Lodge, is "I believe in God" (and this "god" can be any god the confessor wishes). The "faith" of Freemasons is like the "faith" of God's elect? Ironic, is it not?
Saturday, January 13, 2018
Another Hard Text For Hardshells
"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)
Can we agree that a person who "hath not God" is unregenerate? That such will be eternally lost? There are some Hardshells who, knowing the difficulty that the above verse poses to their views on salvation, will say "hath not God" does not mean "hath not God in relationship" but "hath not God in fellowship." A person therefore who "abides not in the doctrine of Christ" may be, and likely is, a saved person who has God in a salvation or birth relationship, but who does not have the fellowship or enjoyment of God. In response to this interpretation, let me say that such an interpretation:
1. Puts a disjunctive and antagonism between "relationship" and "fellowship" when there is none. The common Greek word for "fellowship" is koinōnia and denotes more than just enjoyable association and intercourse, but denotes a "participation" and a kind of "partnership," and therefore involves both union and communion. In fact, the communion is based upon the union and upon the agreement. The NT writers viewed being "called" as not only a "regeneration" but also a being brought into instant fellowship with Christ and his body, or with God.
Such an interpretation leaves the impression that there are many children of God (i.e. those who "have God") who abide not in the doctrine and who shall be saved anyway. It also leaves the impression that abiding in the doctrine is not so important. Abiding in the doctrine, by this thinking, does not really matter in the end.
2. Rejects the obvious, what is the simplest understanding of the words "has not God." Such words denote absence. God is not present in those who do not abide in the doctrine of Christ. And, to not have God is to not have life and salvation. When Paul said "if any have not the Spirit of Christ, then he is none of his" (Rom. 8:11), he used the idea of possession as denoting salvation. This meaning is so obvious that all Christians, except the Hardshells and Universalists, understand it.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Whosoever transgresseth,....Not the law of God, of which everyone is a transgressors and that daily, in thought, word, or deed; but who passes over the rule and standard of doctrine, the word of God, and will not adhere to that, nor walk according to it, but rejects and despises that rule:
and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ; which he received from his Father, and delivered to his apostles, and of which he is the sum and substance; the doctrine which is concerning his person as the Son of God...
Now, whoever has embraced and professed this doctrine, but errs concerning it, and rejects it, and abides not in it, as Satan abode not in the truth, appears to be of him:
hath not God; for his Father, but the devil, the father of lies; he has no true knowledge of God, for there is none but in Christ, whose doctrine such an one has denied; nor has he, nor can he, have communion with him, nor any interest in him.
He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ; as he hath received and professed it; neither can anything remove him from it, not the arguments of false teachers, nor the reproaches and persecutions of men, or the snares and allurements of the world:
he hath both the Father and the Son; he has an interest in them both, and has knowledge of each of them, and fellowship with them.
Another problem here for our Hardshell brothers is the fact that saved people have fellowship and participation in both the Father and the Son. Those who have God, in salvation, also have the Christ. But, the Hardshell paradigm has millions of people who supposedly have the Father but do not have the Son.
My brothers, think of these things.
Can we agree that a person who "hath not God" is unregenerate? That such will be eternally lost? There are some Hardshells who, knowing the difficulty that the above verse poses to their views on salvation, will say "hath not God" does not mean "hath not God in relationship" but "hath not God in fellowship." A person therefore who "abides not in the doctrine of Christ" may be, and likely is, a saved person who has God in a salvation or birth relationship, but who does not have the fellowship or enjoyment of God. In response to this interpretation, let me say that such an interpretation:
1. Puts a disjunctive and antagonism between "relationship" and "fellowship" when there is none. The common Greek word for "fellowship" is koinōnia and denotes more than just enjoyable association and intercourse, but denotes a "participation" and a kind of "partnership," and therefore involves both union and communion. In fact, the communion is based upon the union and upon the agreement. The NT writers viewed being "called" as not only a "regeneration" but also a being brought into instant fellowship with Christ and his body, or with God.
Such an interpretation leaves the impression that there are many children of God (i.e. those who "have God") who abide not in the doctrine and who shall be saved anyway. It also leaves the impression that abiding in the doctrine is not so important. Abiding in the doctrine, by this thinking, does not really matter in the end.
2. Rejects the obvious, what is the simplest understanding of the words "has not God." Such words denote absence. God is not present in those who do not abide in the doctrine of Christ. And, to not have God is to not have life and salvation. When Paul said "if any have not the Spirit of Christ, then he is none of his" (Rom. 8:11), he used the idea of possession as denoting salvation. This meaning is so obvious that all Christians, except the Hardshells and Universalists, understand it.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Whosoever transgresseth,....Not the law of God, of which everyone is a transgressors and that daily, in thought, word, or deed; but who passes over the rule and standard of doctrine, the word of God, and will not adhere to that, nor walk according to it, but rejects and despises that rule:
and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ; which he received from his Father, and delivered to his apostles, and of which he is the sum and substance; the doctrine which is concerning his person as the Son of God...
Now, whoever has embraced and professed this doctrine, but errs concerning it, and rejects it, and abides not in it, as Satan abode not in the truth, appears to be of him:
hath not God; for his Father, but the devil, the father of lies; he has no true knowledge of God, for there is none but in Christ, whose doctrine such an one has denied; nor has he, nor can he, have communion with him, nor any interest in him.
He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ; as he hath received and professed it; neither can anything remove him from it, not the arguments of false teachers, nor the reproaches and persecutions of men, or the snares and allurements of the world:
he hath both the Father and the Son; he has an interest in them both, and has knowledge of each of them, and fellowship with them.
Another problem here for our Hardshell brothers is the fact that saved people have fellowship and participation in both the Father and the Son. Those who have God, in salvation, also have the Christ. But, the Hardshell paradigm has millions of people who supposedly have the Father but do not have the Son.
My brothers, think of these things.
Friday, January 12, 2018
Dr. Piper on Cornelius
Wrote Dr. Piper:
"Anybody who uses the story of Cornelius to say there’s a lot of saved people out among the nations that don’t need to hear the gospel are turning the story exactly upside down." (See Do Non-Christians Ever Please God?)
That is surely a message that my Hardshell brothers need to heed! I recommend all to read the full article. I agree with it 100%. You can see my postings Hardshells On Cornelius and Chapter 88 Hardshell Proof Texts X.
"Anybody who uses the story of Cornelius to say there’s a lot of saved people out among the nations that don’t need to hear the gospel are turning the story exactly upside down." (See Do Non-Christians Ever Please God?)
That is surely a message that my Hardshell brothers need to heed! I recommend all to read the full article. I agree with it 100%. You can see my postings Hardshells On Cornelius and Chapter 88 Hardshell Proof Texts X.
Tuesday, January 9, 2018
Further Thoughts On Rev. 3:17-22
"Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches." (Rev. 3: 17-22)
Our Hardshell brothers have a hard time with this text. If you hear them explain the verses, you will hear them merely pick at what they think is the error in interpretation of all others. They think that they are the only ones who properly understand and explain it. They spend more time telling us what it does not mean rather than what it does mean.
What It Does Not Mean (to the Hardshells)
1. It does not mean that Christ knocks at the door of the heart of the individual (but only of the church as a group)
2. It does not mean that Christ knocks at the door of the heart of the lost sinner (the ones being addressed are regenerated people)
What It Does Mean (to the Hardshells)
1. It means that a church of regenerated members had excluded Christ from the church
2. It means that Christ is knocking at the door of the congregation, desiring entrance
3. The state of these members (individually or as a group) is that of a disobedient child of God, the description being not one of a lost depraved state
In my previous posting on this text, I think I was able to show that the description cannot possibly be made of any truly born again person. Saved people are not blind, naked, and bankrupt, nor wretched, spiritually speaking.
What is the "door" that receives the knocking of the Lord? If it is not the door of the heart, but only of the church, then just what does that mean? How does he knock at the door of the church? Does the knocking not imply that a choice is called for by those who have authority to open the door?
The fact is, the knocking is not on the door of the church (whatever that means). Notice how the text is clearly addressed to individuals. Jesus says "if any man" open the door. The text says "if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."
The call to "hear the voice" of Christ, and to "open the door," is addressed to the individual within the professing church. How can one individual open the door of the church?
Jesus says "I will come into him," into the individual who opens the door of his heart and soul, and the result is that Christ enters into the individual and there abides and sups with the person. But, if Christ were already abiding in the heart of such, then why knock for entrance?
What is the further result of Christ being given entrance into the individual? He says that the one "who overcomes" (by letting Christ into the soul and having him rule there) will be given a position with Christ on his throne. How is that not salvation in the fullest sense?
Our Hardshell brothers have a hard time with this text. If you hear them explain the verses, you will hear them merely pick at what they think is the error in interpretation of all others. They think that they are the only ones who properly understand and explain it. They spend more time telling us what it does not mean rather than what it does mean.
What It Does Not Mean (to the Hardshells)
1. It does not mean that Christ knocks at the door of the heart of the individual (but only of the church as a group)
2. It does not mean that Christ knocks at the door of the heart of the lost sinner (the ones being addressed are regenerated people)
What It Does Mean (to the Hardshells)
1. It means that a church of regenerated members had excluded Christ from the church
2. It means that Christ is knocking at the door of the congregation, desiring entrance
3. The state of these members (individually or as a group) is that of a disobedient child of God, the description being not one of a lost depraved state
In my previous posting on this text, I think I was able to show that the description cannot possibly be made of any truly born again person. Saved people are not blind, naked, and bankrupt, nor wretched, spiritually speaking.
What is the "door" that receives the knocking of the Lord? If it is not the door of the heart, but only of the church, then just what does that mean? How does he knock at the door of the church? Does the knocking not imply that a choice is called for by those who have authority to open the door?
The fact is, the knocking is not on the door of the church (whatever that means). Notice how the text is clearly addressed to individuals. Jesus says "if any man" open the door. The text says "if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."
The call to "hear the voice" of Christ, and to "open the door," is addressed to the individual within the professing church. How can one individual open the door of the church?
Jesus says "I will come into him," into the individual who opens the door of his heart and soul, and the result is that Christ enters into the individual and there abides and sups with the person. But, if Christ were already abiding in the heart of such, then why knock for entrance?
What is the further result of Christ being given entrance into the individual? He says that the one "who overcomes" (by letting Christ into the soul and having him rule there) will be given a position with Christ on his throne. How is that not salvation in the fullest sense?
Monday, January 8, 2018
Brother Kenny Talks To Hardshell Elder
Brother Kenny Mann has continued to do research into the history of the "Primitive Baptist." He has had several interviews over the past several months with some Hardshells. Just recently he told me about a conversation he has had with a Hardshell elder. I want to cite several things he said to me about this conversation. He said:
"I reached out to him because the articles of faith of his church is claimed to not have changed since 1808. I was particularly interested in the line which states
"We believe that God's elect shall be called, converted, regenerated, and sanctified by the Holy Ghost."
"I wanted to ask what was meant, because this statement implies they believe the elect will be converted in this life. Sadly, they don't believe this. They are hard shells in this aspect..."
In regard to the old articles which say that all the elect will be both regenerated and converted, I have already written much. (See my chapter Regenerated and Converted) So, in denying that all the elect will be converted, they are not "primitive."
Brother Kenny said - "he readily admitted that many pb's originally believed in means."
Is that not an admission that they are not "primitive" and have departed from the faith?
"I reached out to him because the articles of faith of his church is claimed to not have changed since 1808. I was particularly interested in the line which states
"We believe that God's elect shall be called, converted, regenerated, and sanctified by the Holy Ghost."
"I wanted to ask what was meant, because this statement implies they believe the elect will be converted in this life. Sadly, they don't believe this. They are hard shells in this aspect..."
In regard to the old articles which say that all the elect will be both regenerated and converted, I have already written much. (See my chapter Regenerated and Converted) So, in denying that all the elect will be converted, they are not "primitive."
Brother Kenny said - "he readily admitted that many pb's originally believed in means."
Is that not an admission that they are not "primitive" and have departed from the faith?
Sunday, January 7, 2018
Where's The Proof? Why The Silence?
I want our Hardshell brothers to come forward and give us the evidence for their claims to have remained unchanged in doctrine over the centuries. I want the proof that their forefathers, the ones who founded them as the "Primitive" or "Old School" church, or the ones who preceded them (their Black Rock forefathers), taught their views on salvation. I have been calling on them to step forward and simply give us the proof. "Where's the beef?" It has been many years now and not one person has stepped forward with the proof. What does that say?
What are we to think of them for this? How can they continually make the claim that they are unchanged when the evidence to the contrary is so abundant and clear?
I have produced numerous proofs from their own founding fathers that show that they do not believe what their forefathers believed about salvation. I have called upon them to review the evidence and to give a reply and still there is total silence. Why? What does it say? Does it not show that they are not honest seekers of truth? That they "shut their eyes" to the evidence and believe what they believe dishonestly? If a man came along and claimed that George Washington was not the first US president, would it not be incumbent on such to give proof to that claim and to explain all the evidence that shows that he was president?
I just have to wonder what such willful ignorance says about these people. Does it not indicate that they are a cult?
The first Hardshells of the early 19th century all believed that
1. All the elect would be both regenerated and converted
2. The new birth was accomplished by the means of the preached word
3. Belief in Christ and the gospel was essential for being saved in heaven
4. All the elect, being converted to Christ, would persevere in that faith to salvation
But, most of today's Hardshells deny these truths. They are therefore not entitled to the name "Primitive" or "Original" Baptists. If they want right to the title then they should show us the proof that their views are "the historic view of the Baptists." If they can do this, then why don't they do it? Their silence speaks volumes.
What are we to think of them for this? How can they continually make the claim that they are unchanged when the evidence to the contrary is so abundant and clear?
I have produced numerous proofs from their own founding fathers that show that they do not believe what their forefathers believed about salvation. I have called upon them to review the evidence and to give a reply and still there is total silence. Why? What does it say? Does it not show that they are not honest seekers of truth? That they "shut their eyes" to the evidence and believe what they believe dishonestly? If a man came along and claimed that George Washington was not the first US president, would it not be incumbent on such to give proof to that claim and to explain all the evidence that shows that he was president?
I just have to wonder what such willful ignorance says about these people. Does it not indicate that they are a cult?
The first Hardshells of the early 19th century all believed that
1. All the elect would be both regenerated and converted
2. The new birth was accomplished by the means of the preached word
3. Belief in Christ and the gospel was essential for being saved in heaven
4. All the elect, being converted to Christ, would persevere in that faith to salvation
But, most of today's Hardshells deny these truths. They are therefore not entitled to the name "Primitive" or "Original" Baptists. If they want right to the title then they should show us the proof that their views are "the historic view of the Baptists." If they can do this, then why don't they do it? Their silence speaks volumes.
Saturday, January 6, 2018
A.W. Pink on Hyper Calvinism
The great Baptist author wrote (emphasis mine):
"In his unregenerate state, fallen and depraved man is so completely the slave of sin and the captive of Satan, that he is altogether unable to deliver himself or take one step toward that deliverance...Now if we resort to human reasoning it will logically follow that it is quite useless to exhort the unregenerate to turn unto God or come unto Christ; yes, to exhort those who are utterly incompetent to respond, will appear to be most inconsistent and the height of absurdity. But, my reader, the things of God cannot be encompassed by human reason, and the moment we attempt to measure them by the line of our “logic,” we open the door for Satan to deceive by his subtleties...we must turn from the vain reasonings of the hyper-Calvinist, and while holding fast to the total depravity and the spiritual inability of the natural man — we must also believe in his moral responsibility and accountability to God." (see here)
Over the years I have argued the same way with the Hyper Calvinists and Hardshells. For instance, see my debate with Hardshell Jason Brown (see the post Does David Pyles Agree?). Years ago, in 1993, when I did the videos with Bob Ross on the Hardshell cult, Bob and I would often talk about how the Hardshells rely on logic and reasoning for their views rather than upon the plain statements of scripture. I agree with Pink that "we must turn from the vain reasonings of the hyper-Calvinist." See also my posting Demolishing Hardshell Reasoning.
"In his unregenerate state, fallen and depraved man is so completely the slave of sin and the captive of Satan, that he is altogether unable to deliver himself or take one step toward that deliverance...Now if we resort to human reasoning it will logically follow that it is quite useless to exhort the unregenerate to turn unto God or come unto Christ; yes, to exhort those who are utterly incompetent to respond, will appear to be most inconsistent and the height of absurdity. But, my reader, the things of God cannot be encompassed by human reason, and the moment we attempt to measure them by the line of our “logic,” we open the door for Satan to deceive by his subtleties...we must turn from the vain reasonings of the hyper-Calvinist, and while holding fast to the total depravity and the spiritual inability of the natural man — we must also believe in his moral responsibility and accountability to God." (see here)
Over the years I have argued the same way with the Hyper Calvinists and Hardshells. For instance, see my debate with Hardshell Jason Brown (see the post Does David Pyles Agree?). Years ago, in 1993, when I did the videos with Bob Ross on the Hardshell cult, Bob and I would often talk about how the Hardshells rely on logic and reasoning for their views rather than upon the plain statements of scripture. I agree with Pink that "we must turn from the vain reasonings of the hyper-Calvinist." See also my posting Demolishing Hardshell Reasoning.
Thursday, January 4, 2018
Great Questions God Asks Of All
"Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? Or what can one give in exchange for his life? For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father’s glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct.” (Mat. 16: 24-27 NASB)
In considering the above words of the Lord Jesus Christ, let us ask (especially of our Hardshell brothers):
1.What does it mean to "lose (or forfeit) one's life (or soul)" in the above words of Jesus?
2. What does it mean to "save" or to "find life" in the above words of Jesus?
All bible commentators, and nearly all Christians, believe that salvation and damnation are under consideration in this passage. In other words, to lose one's soul or life is to be eternally lost and to gain one's soul or life is to be eternally saved. But, there are a few who resist this teaching, such as the Hardshells and the Universalists. Why do they resist acknowledging the obvious teaching of the passage?
They resist it because it goes against their presupposition that affirms that final salvation is unconditional, that there is nothing a man does to be saved. If he gains life, it is not because of anything he did. It is not because he believed or repented or persevered. It is not because he made a choice to follow Christ and actually did so. However, the text is clear that gaining one's soul is the result of a man following Christ. The text says "whoever wishes to save his life" (eternally speaking) "finds it," that is, is saved, both now and forever, as a result of his "losing his life for my sake," of his choice and action in following Christ.
Further, they reject the idea that the questions asked of Christ are to ever be addressed to lost sinners. They think it foolish to put such questions to the spiritually dead.
Two great questions!
"For (1) what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or (2) what will a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Matthew 16:26 NASB)
Why are these two questions great?
First, because they are asked by the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Savior of the world, yea, from God himself.
Second, because the nature of the questions are of the highest importance for every thinking human being to ponder and are in fact addressed to every thinking person.
How one answers these questions determines a person's eternal destiny.
Calling All
God, through Christ, is externally calling all his thinking creatures, yea, all those who have a human "soul," to give their mental attention to the questions posed.
This call is universal. It cannot be limited to the elect or to the regenerated.
Christ was on this occasion personally calling out to his hearers to give their attention to his great questions. He also surely desired that they
1) be able to correctly answer the questions themselves, and
2) be able to repeat the questions to others and be able to help them to answer the questions correctly.
The doctrine of total depravity does not forbid us from posing the questions to those who are spiritually dead. If people have both a "a darkened understanding" (being alienated from the life of God) and an "internal ignorance" (because of the blindness of their heart), as Paul describes (Eph. 4:18), it still does not alleviate the Christian duty to put such questions to the lost nor the duty of the lost to consider them.
In considering the above words of the Lord Jesus Christ, let us ask (especially of our Hardshell brothers):
1.What does it mean to "lose (or forfeit) one's life (or soul)" in the above words of Jesus?
2. What does it mean to "save" or to "find life" in the above words of Jesus?
All bible commentators, and nearly all Christians, believe that salvation and damnation are under consideration in this passage. In other words, to lose one's soul or life is to be eternally lost and to gain one's soul or life is to be eternally saved. But, there are a few who resist this teaching, such as the Hardshells and the Universalists. Why do they resist acknowledging the obvious teaching of the passage?
They resist it because it goes against their presupposition that affirms that final salvation is unconditional, that there is nothing a man does to be saved. If he gains life, it is not because of anything he did. It is not because he believed or repented or persevered. It is not because he made a choice to follow Christ and actually did so. However, the text is clear that gaining one's soul is the result of a man following Christ. The text says "whoever wishes to save his life" (eternally speaking) "finds it," that is, is saved, both now and forever, as a result of his "losing his life for my sake," of his choice and action in following Christ.
Further, they reject the idea that the questions asked of Christ are to ever be addressed to lost sinners. They think it foolish to put such questions to the spiritually dead.
Two great questions!
"For (1) what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or (2) what will a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Matthew 16:26 NASB)
Why are these two questions great?
First, because they are asked by the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Savior of the world, yea, from God himself.
Second, because the nature of the questions are of the highest importance for every thinking human being to ponder and are in fact addressed to every thinking person.
How one answers these questions determines a person's eternal destiny.
Calling All
God, through Christ, is externally calling all his thinking creatures, yea, all those who have a human "soul," to give their mental attention to the questions posed.
This call is universal. It cannot be limited to the elect or to the regenerated.
Christ was on this occasion personally calling out to his hearers to give their attention to his great questions. He also surely desired that they
1) be able to correctly answer the questions themselves, and
2) be able to repeat the questions to others and be able to help them to answer the questions correctly.
The doctrine of total depravity does not forbid us from posing the questions to those who are spiritually dead. If people have both a "a darkened understanding" (being alienated from the life of God) and an "internal ignorance" (because of the blindness of their heart), as Paul describes (Eph. 4:18), it still does not alleviate the Christian duty to put such questions to the lost nor the duty of the lost to consider them.
Soul Winner's Joy at Christ's Coming
"Do all things without murmurings and disputings: That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world; Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain." (Phil. 2:14-16 KJV)
Questions
1. What is the "day of Christ"?
2. Is the reason for Paul's future rejoicing the eternal salvation of the Philippians? Or of their mere time salvation?
The idea that saints will be able to rejoice "in the day of Christ" for having been instrumental in the salvation of others is repugnant to a neo Hardshell. His evolved soteriology (extreme Hyper Calvinism) seems to undermine his peculiar cult presuppositions. (See my elaboration of this in Hardshell Presuppositions) He believes, and rightly so, that such an idea would support the means position and thus overthrow his anti means dogma.
He presumes, based upon his presuppositions (which he takes to the bible and uses to interpret it), that Paul could not
1) possibly be teaching that he could take credit (as a means in salvation) so as to rejoice in such a fact in the eternal day, and therefore
2) it could only be talking about being happy about a mere temporal salvation in time
But, the rejoicing is clearly not about a mere temporal salvation.
In the day of Christ Paul believes that he will be happy about his past labors while on earth and that in regard to
1. whether one has "run" either "in vain" or with "success."
2. whether one has "labored" either "in vain" or with "success."
Paul voiced a similar thought in other letters. To the Corinthian saints Paul wrote:
"...we are your boast as you also are ours, on the day of [our] Lord Jesus." (II Cor. 1: 14 NASB)
To the saints in Thessalonica he wrote:
"For what is our hope or joy or crown to boast of in the presence of our Lord Jesus at his coming if not you yourselves?" (I Th 2:19)
I affirm that these verses affirm that soul winners will be elated at the second coming of Christ over the souls they have been instrumental in winning to the Lord and that this fact is against the Hardshell teaching of anti means. I don't think any Hardshell today will want to affirm that these verses really talk about the Lord's second coming. How can they?
Questions
1. What is the "day of Christ"?
2. Is the reason for Paul's future rejoicing the eternal salvation of the Philippians? Or of their mere time salvation?
The idea that saints will be able to rejoice "in the day of Christ" for having been instrumental in the salvation of others is repugnant to a neo Hardshell. His evolved soteriology (extreme Hyper Calvinism) seems to undermine his peculiar cult presuppositions. (See my elaboration of this in Hardshell Presuppositions) He believes, and rightly so, that such an idea would support the means position and thus overthrow his anti means dogma.
He presumes, based upon his presuppositions (which he takes to the bible and uses to interpret it), that Paul could not
1) possibly be teaching that he could take credit (as a means in salvation) so as to rejoice in such a fact in the eternal day, and therefore
2) it could only be talking about being happy about a mere temporal salvation in time
But, the rejoicing is clearly not about a mere temporal salvation.
In the day of Christ Paul believes that he will be happy about his past labors while on earth and that in regard to
1. whether one has "run" either "in vain" or with "success."
2. whether one has "labored" either "in vain" or with "success."
Paul voiced a similar thought in other letters. To the Corinthian saints Paul wrote:
"...we are your boast as you also are ours, on the day of [our] Lord Jesus." (II Cor. 1: 14 NASB)
To the saints in Thessalonica he wrote:
"For what is our hope or joy or crown to boast of in the presence of our Lord Jesus at his coming if not you yourselves?" (I Th 2:19)
I affirm that these verses affirm that soul winners will be elated at the second coming of Christ over the souls they have been instrumental in winning to the Lord and that this fact is against the Hardshell teaching of anti means. I don't think any Hardshell today will want to affirm that these verses really talk about the Lord's second coming. How can they?
Wednesday, January 3, 2018
Hardshells Affirm That They Are Saved!
"Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches." (Rev. 3: 17-22)
Did you know that the Hardshells of today believe that the Laodicean church members described in these words are "regenerated" or "born again"? When I think about this fact, I am astonished.
Are "saved" people "poor" or are they "rich" (in Christ)?
Are they "blind" or do they "see"?
Are they "naked," i.e. not "clothed" (in righteousness or "white raiment"?)
Is Christ in their hearts or is he rather absent?
They thought they had "need of nothing," and the irony is that they had need of everything!
The fact that Hardshells today claim that the Laodicean Christians were really saved people is really no surprise, seeing they are quasi Universalists (see my posting Hardshell Quasi Universalism), and often affirm that such people as Baalim, Judas, and the antichrists of John's first epistle, etc., likewise are disobedient yet "regenerated" people.
It saddens me to know that they teach such things and do much harm thereby.
Did you know that the Hardshells of today believe that the Laodicean church members described in these words are "regenerated" or "born again"? When I think about this fact, I am astonished.
Are "saved" people "poor" or are they "rich" (in Christ)?
Are they "blind" or do they "see"?
Are they "naked," i.e. not "clothed" (in righteousness or "white raiment"?)
Is Christ in their hearts or is he rather absent?
They thought they had "need of nothing," and the irony is that they had need of everything!
The fact that Hardshells today claim that the Laodicean Christians were really saved people is really no surprise, seeing they are quasi Universalists (see my posting Hardshell Quasi Universalism), and often affirm that such people as Baalim, Judas, and the antichrists of John's first epistle, etc., likewise are disobedient yet "regenerated" people.
It saddens me to know that they teach such things and do much harm thereby.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)