In an article entitled "THE BLESSED OF THE LORD" in "The Gospel Messenger" (1887) we read that even at that date, "Primitive Baptists" were still contending that "obedience to God" was necessary for being finally saved. This is the paper that Elder Sylvester Hassell was associated with and the citation is from an issue before he took over ownership and editorship.
"Why should such things as these be alleged against the doctrine of reigning grace? Does the fact that God's grace and gift of
the Spirit being the origin of the obedience of the saints lessen the importance of that obedience! Contrariwise, it seems clear to my mind that God's gift of his Spirit fully insures the obedience of the saints and all that follows upon it. After all of their cavil, the quarrel between Predestinarians and Arminians is not as to whether obedience to God is necessary and indispensable in order to salvation, for we as fully affirm the importance of that obedience as they. But the difference lies here: We look to God's predestination and election, together with the gift of his Spirit, as the things in principle which has produced all the obedience we can boast of..." (The Gospel Messenger 1887 - see here)
How far art thou fallen O Hardshell of today who affirms that there is no obedience necessary for final salvation!
Monday, March 26, 2018
Sunday, March 25, 2018
"Them That Are Lost" Are Saved?
Elder Ronnie Loudermilk, pastor of Mt. Paran Primitive Baptist Church, wrote the following on November 30, 2017 ·(here) on the church's web page. It was an answer to a question under the heading "Q and A with Bro. Ronnie" and dealt with 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 which says:
“But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.”
The question was:
Is this referring to:
1. The elect unbelievers?
2. The non-elect unbelievers?
3. All unbelievers, and we only know the elect by the evidence of belief?
In response, Loudermilk wrote:
"Bro ______, Hope and trust that you and yours are well. As concerning your question, I understand the “lost”to be born again children of God who have been plagued by the devil and his devices. Please consider the following: (1) The context!"
What kind of hermeneutics is it to "interpret" the words "them that are lost (or perishing)" as signifying those who "born again children of God"? To affirm that "them that believe not" are "born again children of God"? Anybody who handles the word of God in such a manner and teaches such things is the worst of heretics. He is to be marked and condemned. Anyone who has honesty of heart and the Spirit of the Lord leading him will see how Loudermilk and his Hardshell brethren are outright corrupters and deniers of the plain word of God.
No, the "born again children of God" are not members of that class categorized by the adjectival phrases "those who are perishing" and "those who do not believe." By this same logic we can call "those who believe" and "those who are being saved" as "children of the devil"! Surely they call good evil, and evil good.
Why did not Loudermilk simply say in answer - ""them that are lost or perishing" are the same as "them who do not believe" and these are two descriptions of people who are unregenerate or unsaved. If they die in that condition they show that they were never elect nor called"?
The "context" proves the contention of Loudermilk that "them that are lost" is a reference to "born again children of God"? I do find that the context clearly shows who Paul has in mind by those denominated as "them that are lost" and "them that believe not."
"For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things? For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." (II Cor. 2: 15-17 KJV)
Here "them that perish" is set against "them that are saved." The former group is made up of those who are spiritually "dead" and the latter of those who have "life." But, Loudermilk turns that all around.
Loudermilk proceeded:
"The 4th chapter of 2nd Corinthians is about what we have. Notice (vs1) "we have this ministry"; (vs 7) "we have this treasure"; (vs13) "We having the same spirit of faith", or we believe the same as other children of God in times past as Paul quotes David in Psalms 116:10. In each of these, a temporal context is set forth. The light and treasure we have is the same gospel that is preached, which came from God (Gal 1:11)."
How do any of these remarks prove his contention that "those who are perishing" and "those who believe not" are born again children of God? They were uttered in an attempt to prove his contention, but do they? Can't he see how the pronoun "we" denotes Paul and the believers in Corinth and that the pronoun "them" denotes those who were not believers? When Paul speaks of the elect saved he speaks in the first person, saying "we," but when he speaks of those not of that class of people, he speaks in the third person "them who are perishing" and "them who believe not."
Loudermilk proceeded:
"Notice that it's the "god of this world" who blinds the mind. To say that the devil is blinding a dead sinner would be ridiculous in my humble opinion. The Lord, In Matthew 12:25, makes this abundantly clear. The devil does not fight against the himself, otherwise his kingdom is brought to desolation."
Here Loudermilk makes two non sensible and foolish arguments to prove his contention that "them that are lost" are really "them that are saved." It is his attempt to prove that black is white, and white is black, that words don't really mean what they say, that the words "them that perish" mean just the opposite, etc. Loudermilk here shows that he is one who grossly mishandles the word of God and that he has no qualms about doing it.
"To say that the devil is blinding a dead sinner would be ridiculous"? Really? It is highly ironic that Loudermilk uses the word "ridiculous" right in the midst of his ridiculous attempt to make the word of God say just the opposite of what it does say. This argument is similar to another one that Hardshells of previous decades have used. I wrote about this in Example In Hardshell Logic where I cited these words of Elder G.E. Griffin in his debate with Guy N. Woods:
"I want you to go with me to the gospel according to St. John 12: 39: Jesus said, "They could not believe because He (God) hath blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts." I know God's children can turn their backs and shut their eyes and harden their hearts, but will you tell me how in the world a person with a stony heart can get it any harder? They'd have to turn it into steel or something. For the dead alien sinner has a stony heart. Ezekiel 36: 26. They couldn't harden a stony heart; it's already hard. The only way you can harden a heart is to have a soft one!"
Here was what I said in response to this ridiculous argumentation.
According to Griffin's "logic" Pharoah was a born again child of God! Did not God "harden" Pharoah's heart? According to the "logic" of Griffin, Pharoah had a soft heart, the kind given in regeneration! Who can believe such a thing? Hardshell hermeneutics! Only "children of God" can have their hearts "hardened"! Pharoah a child of God!
How many times did God "harden" Pharoah's heart? Was it not more than once? But, according to Griffin's "logic," such could not be! Griffin's "logic" says that those with hardened hearts cannot harden their hearts repeatedly!
Loudermilk makes the same kind of argument about someone being "blinded." If they are being blinded, then they must be people who were seeing before. And, if seeing, then saved. Thus, if one reads where someone was spiritually "blinded," then he is to conclude that this is evidence that the person is saved. Now, that is really ridiculous! Being blinded is evidence of salvation!
Doesn't Loudermilk understand that blindness, hardness, and ignorance of God are all relative and proportional? That these things grow and increase and are continuous?
In Romans 11: 7 Paul affirms that those not part of the "election of grace" are the ones who are "blinded." Further, scripture teaches that the blinding of Satan is not a one time act but continuous in the life of the unbeliever.
It is "ridiculous" reasoning for Loudermilk to say that for Satan to continuously blind an unregenerate man that he somehow is fighting against himself!
Loudermilk proceeded:
"The word "lost" in this portion of scripture is the Strongs #622, which is translated in our King James Bible into different English terms. In Matthew 8:25, the 622 is translated "perish". The context of Matthew 8:25 is temporal. In Matthew 10:6 it's translated "lost" referring to the "lost sheep", which are without question children of God."
The sheep are lost and perishing, of course, before they are saved by the shepherd! But, once the shepherd has saved them, they are no longer to be denoted as "them who are lost." What is Loudermilk saying? That the term "lost" or "perishing" are not adjectives for the unregenerate and the unsaved? "Lost sheep" is a term denoting the elect in their state before salvation.
Loudermilk proceeded:
"In Matthew 10:39 it's translated "lose", referring to the consequences of a child of grace' decisions in this temporal world (not eternal consequence.)"
When Jesus talked about men "losing" their lives or souls, he means not that they are unsaved or that they will suffer eternal torment? How about those hermeneutics! "Lost souls" means "saved souls"!
Loudermilk proceeded:
"The word "lest" is undoubtedly referring to an ability the person under consideration has. If this is referencing the non-elect or un-regenerate we have a countless number of contradictions in scripture. It is the born again, elect who have the ability to receive the “things of the Spirit of God” (1 Corinthians 2:14)."
"The word "lest" is undoubtedly referring to an ability the person under consideration has"? Now, I call that "ridiculous." The word "lest," if it implies anything, implies possibility, not ability. According to most definitions "lest" denotes "intention of preventing something undesirable," which in the case under consideration is Satan blinding in order to prevent something; And that something is the enlightening of the sinner's heart to a saving knowledge of Christ.
Loudermilk says that to interpret the words "them that are lost" as denoting "the non-elect or unregenerate" is to be rejected because it begats "a countless number of contradictions in scripture." Again, the irony! He is talking about supposed contradictions that come from giving to "them that are lost" its normal meaning (unsaved state) when his whole thesis is a most glaring contradiction! His contradiction is - "them that are perishing are them that are saved." Sorry, but the contradictions are all in his Hardshell brain that has been brainwashed.
“But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.”
The question was:
Is this referring to:
1. The elect unbelievers?
2. The non-elect unbelievers?
3. All unbelievers, and we only know the elect by the evidence of belief?
In response, Loudermilk wrote:
"Bro ______, Hope and trust that you and yours are well. As concerning your question, I understand the “lost”to be born again children of God who have been plagued by the devil and his devices. Please consider the following: (1) The context!"
What kind of hermeneutics is it to "interpret" the words "them that are lost (or perishing)" as signifying those who "born again children of God"? To affirm that "them that believe not" are "born again children of God"? Anybody who handles the word of God in such a manner and teaches such things is the worst of heretics. He is to be marked and condemned. Anyone who has honesty of heart and the Spirit of the Lord leading him will see how Loudermilk and his Hardshell brethren are outright corrupters and deniers of the plain word of God.
No, the "born again children of God" are not members of that class categorized by the adjectival phrases "those who are perishing" and "those who do not believe." By this same logic we can call "those who believe" and "those who are being saved" as "children of the devil"! Surely they call good evil, and evil good.
Why did not Loudermilk simply say in answer - ""them that are lost or perishing" are the same as "them who do not believe" and these are two descriptions of people who are unregenerate or unsaved. If they die in that condition they show that they were never elect nor called"?
The "context" proves the contention of Loudermilk that "them that are lost" is a reference to "born again children of God"? I do find that the context clearly shows who Paul has in mind by those denominated as "them that are lost" and "them that believe not."
"For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things? For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." (II Cor. 2: 15-17 KJV)
Here "them that perish" is set against "them that are saved." The former group is made up of those who are spiritually "dead" and the latter of those who have "life." But, Loudermilk turns that all around.
Loudermilk proceeded:
"The 4th chapter of 2nd Corinthians is about what we have. Notice (vs1) "we have this ministry"; (vs 7) "we have this treasure"; (vs13) "We having the same spirit of faith", or we believe the same as other children of God in times past as Paul quotes David in Psalms 116:10. In each of these, a temporal context is set forth. The light and treasure we have is the same gospel that is preached, which came from God (Gal 1:11)."
How do any of these remarks prove his contention that "those who are perishing" and "those who believe not" are born again children of God? They were uttered in an attempt to prove his contention, but do they? Can't he see how the pronoun "we" denotes Paul and the believers in Corinth and that the pronoun "them" denotes those who were not believers? When Paul speaks of the elect saved he speaks in the first person, saying "we," but when he speaks of those not of that class of people, he speaks in the third person "them who are perishing" and "them who believe not."
Loudermilk proceeded:
"Notice that it's the "god of this world" who blinds the mind. To say that the devil is blinding a dead sinner would be ridiculous in my humble opinion. The Lord, In Matthew 12:25, makes this abundantly clear. The devil does not fight against the himself, otherwise his kingdom is brought to desolation."
Here Loudermilk makes two non sensible and foolish arguments to prove his contention that "them that are lost" are really "them that are saved." It is his attempt to prove that black is white, and white is black, that words don't really mean what they say, that the words "them that perish" mean just the opposite, etc. Loudermilk here shows that he is one who grossly mishandles the word of God and that he has no qualms about doing it.
"To say that the devil is blinding a dead sinner would be ridiculous"? Really? It is highly ironic that Loudermilk uses the word "ridiculous" right in the midst of his ridiculous attempt to make the word of God say just the opposite of what it does say. This argument is similar to another one that Hardshells of previous decades have used. I wrote about this in Example In Hardshell Logic where I cited these words of Elder G.E. Griffin in his debate with Guy N. Woods:
"I want you to go with me to the gospel according to St. John 12: 39: Jesus said, "They could not believe because He (God) hath blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts." I know God's children can turn their backs and shut their eyes and harden their hearts, but will you tell me how in the world a person with a stony heart can get it any harder? They'd have to turn it into steel or something. For the dead alien sinner has a stony heart. Ezekiel 36: 26. They couldn't harden a stony heart; it's already hard. The only way you can harden a heart is to have a soft one!"
Here was what I said in response to this ridiculous argumentation.
According to Griffin's "logic" Pharoah was a born again child of God! Did not God "harden" Pharoah's heart? According to the "logic" of Griffin, Pharoah had a soft heart, the kind given in regeneration! Who can believe such a thing? Hardshell hermeneutics! Only "children of God" can have their hearts "hardened"! Pharoah a child of God!
How many times did God "harden" Pharoah's heart? Was it not more than once? But, according to Griffin's "logic," such could not be! Griffin's "logic" says that those with hardened hearts cannot harden their hearts repeatedly!
Loudermilk makes the same kind of argument about someone being "blinded." If they are being blinded, then they must be people who were seeing before. And, if seeing, then saved. Thus, if one reads where someone was spiritually "blinded," then he is to conclude that this is evidence that the person is saved. Now, that is really ridiculous! Being blinded is evidence of salvation!
Doesn't Loudermilk understand that blindness, hardness, and ignorance of God are all relative and proportional? That these things grow and increase and are continuous?
In Romans 11: 7 Paul affirms that those not part of the "election of grace" are the ones who are "blinded." Further, scripture teaches that the blinding of Satan is not a one time act but continuous in the life of the unbeliever.
It is "ridiculous" reasoning for Loudermilk to say that for Satan to continuously blind an unregenerate man that he somehow is fighting against himself!
Loudermilk proceeded:
"The word "lost" in this portion of scripture is the Strongs #622, which is translated in our King James Bible into different English terms. In Matthew 8:25, the 622 is translated "perish". The context of Matthew 8:25 is temporal. In Matthew 10:6 it's translated "lost" referring to the "lost sheep", which are without question children of God."
The sheep are lost and perishing, of course, before they are saved by the shepherd! But, once the shepherd has saved them, they are no longer to be denoted as "them who are lost." What is Loudermilk saying? That the term "lost" or "perishing" are not adjectives for the unregenerate and the unsaved? "Lost sheep" is a term denoting the elect in their state before salvation.
Loudermilk proceeded:
"In Matthew 10:39 it's translated "lose", referring to the consequences of a child of grace' decisions in this temporal world (not eternal consequence.)"
When Jesus talked about men "losing" their lives or souls, he means not that they are unsaved or that they will suffer eternal torment? How about those hermeneutics! "Lost souls" means "saved souls"!
Loudermilk proceeded:
"The word "lest" is undoubtedly referring to an ability the person under consideration has. If this is referencing the non-elect or un-regenerate we have a countless number of contradictions in scripture. It is the born again, elect who have the ability to receive the “things of the Spirit of God” (1 Corinthians 2:14)."
"The word "lest" is undoubtedly referring to an ability the person under consideration has"? Now, I call that "ridiculous." The word "lest," if it implies anything, implies possibility, not ability. According to most definitions "lest" denotes "intention of preventing something undesirable," which in the case under consideration is Satan blinding in order to prevent something; And that something is the enlightening of the sinner's heart to a saving knowledge of Christ.
Loudermilk says that to interpret the words "them that are lost" as denoting "the non-elect or unregenerate" is to be rejected because it begats "a countless number of contradictions in scripture." Again, the irony! He is talking about supposed contradictions that come from giving to "them that are lost" its normal meaning (unsaved state) when his whole thesis is a most glaring contradiction! His contradiction is - "them that are perishing are them that are saved." Sorry, but the contradictions are all in his Hardshell brain that has been brainwashed.
Unbelievers Lost Say First Hardshells
In an 1852 issue of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical, in an article titled "The Covenant" (pg. 98 - see here), we read of how the Hardshells at that time believed that those who do not believe the Gospel were lost. This, however, is denied by today's "Primitive Baptists." How can they be "primitive" however, when they disagree with their forefathers who begat them?
Wrote the author (emphasis mine):
"A short plan of the Covenant plan of Salvation--not to stir up strife, but for a different motive; believing that the most of christians agree in the essential points, when kindly set out by each; for all agree, that it is through the merits of our Savior that they are saved, if they believe on him, whilst those who do not nor will not believe, are to be lost."
Unbelievers lost! That is what the first Hardshells taught!
The author continued:
"You say, mine is a hard doctrine, and or some say that it is unfair, because I have excluded all the rest of the world except the church. The Good Book does the same; I have only said that those who do not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ with a saving knowledge, is to be lost. Now, if you can shew me one promise of salvation to the unbeliever, I will acknowledge my error: but if you cannot, do not blame me for contending for the truth."
Why did the Hardshells depart from this clear Bible teaching?
The author continued:
"And — again: you say, all can be saved if they will. Now, admit it is so, would that change the controversy? I think not; for you must admit, that all who live and die in their unbelief, must be lost — although in the atonement made by our Savior, there is a plenteous redemption to save a thousand such worlds as this, and all the inhabitants thereof that would believe on him; but unless they do believe on him, they cannot be saved. — But of what benefit will it be to any of Adam's race, unless applied to the washing away their sins? They cannot enter into rest unless they are clothed with the Robe of righteousness, wrought out by our Savior: the garment must be washed in his Blood before it will give admittance to the Weary into the world of bliss. Hence, it is unnecessary to cavil about whether they can, or cannot, if they will, or will not. The only thing for us to know, is, that we are adopted into the family of Jesus. If so, all is well — if not, all is lost — and they cannot enjoy the benefits of the covenant. Therefore, it behooves every one to seek, and try themselves whether there has been an application of the righteousness of our Saviour to the cleansing his or her soul, and that they have been adopted into the heavenly family. If so, there is no more caviling necessary. And I will say to all those who have been cleansed, go on! I care not what denomination you are called, you are one of God's elect, and is entitled to the benefits of the covenant; and, although you may be evilly spoken of here, (falsely,) rejoice that you are counted worthy to suffer for his sake, who died, that you might live: for in heaven you shall reap the reward of your suffering here: Jesus has said, As I live, ye shall live also. Which promise is sure and steadfast, and will last so long as eternity endures..."
Now, what do such citations show? They show that today's Hardshells who deny what is taught in the above citations are not "primitive" as they claim, but proponents of a new theology.
Wrote the author (emphasis mine):
"A short plan of the Covenant plan of Salvation--not to stir up strife, but for a different motive; believing that the most of christians agree in the essential points, when kindly set out by each; for all agree, that it is through the merits of our Savior that they are saved, if they believe on him, whilst those who do not nor will not believe, are to be lost."
Unbelievers lost! That is what the first Hardshells taught!
The author continued:
"You say, mine is a hard doctrine, and or some say that it is unfair, because I have excluded all the rest of the world except the church. The Good Book does the same; I have only said that those who do not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ with a saving knowledge, is to be lost. Now, if you can shew me one promise of salvation to the unbeliever, I will acknowledge my error: but if you cannot, do not blame me for contending for the truth."
Why did the Hardshells depart from this clear Bible teaching?
The author continued:
"And — again: you say, all can be saved if they will. Now, admit it is so, would that change the controversy? I think not; for you must admit, that all who live and die in their unbelief, must be lost — although in the atonement made by our Savior, there is a plenteous redemption to save a thousand such worlds as this, and all the inhabitants thereof that would believe on him; but unless they do believe on him, they cannot be saved. — But of what benefit will it be to any of Adam's race, unless applied to the washing away their sins? They cannot enter into rest unless they are clothed with the Robe of righteousness, wrought out by our Savior: the garment must be washed in his Blood before it will give admittance to the Weary into the world of bliss. Hence, it is unnecessary to cavil about whether they can, or cannot, if they will, or will not. The only thing for us to know, is, that we are adopted into the family of Jesus. If so, all is well — if not, all is lost — and they cannot enjoy the benefits of the covenant. Therefore, it behooves every one to seek, and try themselves whether there has been an application of the righteousness of our Saviour to the cleansing his or her soul, and that they have been adopted into the heavenly family. If so, there is no more caviling necessary. And I will say to all those who have been cleansed, go on! I care not what denomination you are called, you are one of God's elect, and is entitled to the benefits of the covenant; and, although you may be evilly spoken of here, (falsely,) rejoice that you are counted worthy to suffer for his sake, who died, that you might live: for in heaven you shall reap the reward of your suffering here: Jesus has said, As I live, ye shall live also. Which promise is sure and steadfast, and will last so long as eternity endures..."
Now, what do such citations show? They show that today's Hardshells who deny what is taught in the above citations are not "primitive" as they claim, but proponents of a new theology.
Thursday, March 22, 2018
An Example of Hardshell Pelagianism
Elder Ronnie Loudermilk in a sermon titled "Seven Signs of the Gospel of John" (see here) cited Ephesians 5: 17 and the command "be not unwise but understanding what the will of the Lord is." He then says:
"By that text alone I'm able to conclude that I can follow the will of God."
Here Loudermilk spouts the old Pelagian tenet that says "a command implies ability to obey the command."
When Loudermilk reads where Jesus commanded a man with a paralyzed limb to "stretch forth your hand," does he "conclude" that the man could do that? that the man had the power to do that?
Is this what his forefathers believed? Listen to the great Hardshell leader Elder John Clark, founder and editor of the periodical "Zion's Advocate":
"But some object and say, Why preach repentance to dead sinners? They can neither hear, see nor understand. That is true; that they hear not, see not, understand not, so far as the preacher is concerned or is able to effect them; but why did the prophet call upon the dry bones to hear the word of the Lord? He answered, “And I prophesied as I was commanded.” That was authority then for all who feared God, and it is still the authority for all such. This objection, however, will lie against all the exhortations and admonitions to the saints as it does against addresses to the ungodly, for the Christian has no more power than the unbeliever. The difference between them is not in the power, but in the will; as it written: "To will is present with me, but to perform that which is good I find not.”"
The theory that we must preach to men according to the power they possess to obey is sublimated Arminianism, and yet; the advocates of it are very fraid of being called Arminians. Christians know, however, by the word of his grace, and by the revelation of that word in their hearts, when it comes in power and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance, that Christ’s word is true which says, “Without me you can do nothing.” The Spirit takes the word of Christ and shows it to his people, and thus it is verified in the experience.
To preach to men upon the ground that they have power to do what is commanded, or to refuse to preach to them because they have not the power, shows that the confidence is in the flesh and not in God; that they depend upon the will of the flesh and not upon the power God, and that is the very essence, double refined, of Arminianism.
The minister of Christ does not preach to any class of men upon the consideration of their ability or inability. He has the sentence of death in himself, and therefore cannot trust in himself; and he has no confidence in the flesh of any other, but his confidence, his faith and hope, is in God, from whence alone are his expectations."
("What To Preach and How To Preach" Written by John Clark in Zion's Advocate--August 1875)
Obviously Clark did not believe that any command in scripture, be it to saint or sinner, implies ability! Loudermilk and his Hardshell brothers do what Clark said that the minister of Christ does not do! He preaches to men "upon consideration of their ability or inability."
Further, the great Hardshell historian and apologist, Elder Sylvester Hassell, was in agreement with Clark and against Loudermilk and his Hardshell anti means sect. He wrote:
"Ability is not the limit of obligation. If it were, no human being would be under any obligation to God; for no human being in the present state can spiritually and perfectly fulfill any commandment of God. All men should be told, as Christ told His hearers, that "unless they repent they will perish." (Luke 13:3-5)." (Questions and Answers-Part 10 - for the full citation see here - emphasis mine)
Bob Ross wrote the following in his book "History and Heresies of Hardshellism" on "Hardshell Pelagianism" (see here - emphasis mine):
"Pelagianism: What Is It?
What was to develop in the Anti-Mission movement, after the 1827 Kehukee Declaration and the 1832 Black Rock Address, was the subtle use of an old philosophy known as "PELAGIANISM." [For a study of Pelagianism, see B. B. Warfield's Two Studies in the History of Doctrine and Augustine's Anti-Pelagian Writings in the fifth volume of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series, Eerdmans' edition].
Pelagianism held that God bestowed on man the "capacity for his will and work" and that man's capacity, or ability, "come from God alone." This "capacity" was "implanted in us by God," according to Pelagius, a fifth century British monk after whom this school of thought is named. While Hardshellism is certainly not Pelagian on the matter of man's nature in relation to the effect of the Fall of Man, it has adorned the old Pelagian concept of "command implies ability" in a new garb, format, for "package." What Pelagianism says of man in his natural state, Hardshellism merely shifts to man in a supposed "regenerated" state, before faith.
CAMPBELLISM, the "twin" of the Hardshells, in essence also holds to Pelagianism and is more in line with pure Pelagianism on the natural state of man, as Campbellism denies inherited depravity. But Campbellism holds, in common with Hardshellism, the basic, practical theory of Pelagianism that "command implies ability."
In Pelagianism and Campbellism, man naturally has the capacity and ability from the Creator to do whatever is commanded, the fall of Adam notwithstanding. In Hardshellism, man is similarly endowed by God, but not naturally; according to Hardshellism, this ability is imparted in what they regard as "regeneration."
The practical application made by Hardshells of various commands, such as repentance and faith, is consistent with the Pelagian theory that the command implies the ability to fulfill the command."
Amen! And the words of Loudermilk reveal his Pelagian error.
Ross continued:
"Logically, then, according to Hardshellism, the "dead alien sinner" is so disabled that he must have "life" implanted in him so as to capacitate the sinner with the ability to obey the commands. This is their rationale for denying that the Gospel is to be addressed to "dead alien sinners."
Hardshellism defends its theory on the grounds of carnal "logic" (see Sarrels' Systematic Theology, page 328). And on the grounds of purely physical logic, without a consideration for Divine Revelation, who can deny their "logic" that the "dead" must be made alive BEFORE they can give any evidence of life? Who denies that you won't get a "dead fish" to bite the bait?
This is perhaps the chief error of the Hardshells. They rely on their own carnal reasoning to arrive at conclusions and propositions and upon these they place their trust.
Ross continued:
"But -- if we incorporate Divine Revelation, as given in the Scriptures, are we shut up to the Hardshell version of Pelagianism? We trow not, for there are numerous instances of commands which do not imply ability. Also, command often is simply indicative of responsibility and divine purpose, and does not necessarily imply ability."
Exactly! Scripture refutes the Hardshell logical conclusions!
Ross continued:
"The case of Ezekiel's "dry bones" in chapter 37 does not imply the ability of the bones to hear and respond to the preaching Ezekiel. Rather, the design of this scene is to focus on God's power resting upon or accompanying His Word.
The case of Lazarus' being commanded to "Come forth" from the dead did not imply ability in Lazarus (John 11). This case demonstrates that God's Word, accompanied by His efficient power, can raise the dead thru His command.
The case of the man with the withered hand being told to "stretch forth thine hand" did not imply ability on his part (Matt. 12:13). This again shows that God's power rests upon His Word and has creative results."
Here is evidence from scripture that denies the idea that "commands imply ability."
Ross continued:
"The case of the Law as defining man's moral responsibility does not imply man's moral and spiritual ability to comply. Though man is fallen and is under the influence of his depravity, he is nonetheless responsible to be righteous."
The bible commands all men, saint and sinner, to "keep the whole law." Does this imply ability to do so? Loudermilk would say yes but his forefathers said no.
Ross continued:
"The exhortation for believers to "be perfect" as the Father in Heaven is perfect (Matt. 5:48) is a statement of our "standard," not a statement of ability."
Why cannot Loudermilk and my Hardshell brothers understand this simple truth? Hassell and Clark understood it. Where did the Hardshells of today get off track on this?
Ross continued:
"Illustrations such as this could be multiplied. They are contradictory to the Hardshell "logic" which is applied to Gospel-related commands. Based on numerous Scriptures which assert the "connection" between the Holy Spirit and the Word, the Gospel, and the Truth, the Power of God is upon His Revelation and it brings to pass His purpose (Isa. 55:11). God's commands become God's enablings under His own efficient power."
Amen to that!
When Loudermilk reads the command "be ye perfect as I am perfect" or "be ye holy as I am holy," does he respond by saying "I'm able to conclude that I can"?
For more detailed information on this issue see these postings:
Hardshell Pelagianism I
Hardshell Pelagianism II
Hardshell Pelagianism III
Hardshell Pelagianism IV
Hardshell Pelagianism V
"By that text alone I'm able to conclude that I can follow the will of God."
Here Loudermilk spouts the old Pelagian tenet that says "a command implies ability to obey the command."
When Loudermilk reads where Jesus commanded a man with a paralyzed limb to "stretch forth your hand," does he "conclude" that the man could do that? that the man had the power to do that?
Is this what his forefathers believed? Listen to the great Hardshell leader Elder John Clark, founder and editor of the periodical "Zion's Advocate":
"But some object and say, Why preach repentance to dead sinners? They can neither hear, see nor understand. That is true; that they hear not, see not, understand not, so far as the preacher is concerned or is able to effect them; but why did the prophet call upon the dry bones to hear the word of the Lord? He answered, “And I prophesied as I was commanded.” That was authority then for all who feared God, and it is still the authority for all such. This objection, however, will lie against all the exhortations and admonitions to the saints as it does against addresses to the ungodly, for the Christian has no more power than the unbeliever. The difference between them is not in the power, but in the will; as it written: "To will is present with me, but to perform that which is good I find not.”"
The theory that we must preach to men according to the power they possess to obey is sublimated Arminianism, and yet; the advocates of it are very fraid of being called Arminians. Christians know, however, by the word of his grace, and by the revelation of that word in their hearts, when it comes in power and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance, that Christ’s word is true which says, “Without me you can do nothing.” The Spirit takes the word of Christ and shows it to his people, and thus it is verified in the experience.
To preach to men upon the ground that they have power to do what is commanded, or to refuse to preach to them because they have not the power, shows that the confidence is in the flesh and not in God; that they depend upon the will of the flesh and not upon the power God, and that is the very essence, double refined, of Arminianism.
The minister of Christ does not preach to any class of men upon the consideration of their ability or inability. He has the sentence of death in himself, and therefore cannot trust in himself; and he has no confidence in the flesh of any other, but his confidence, his faith and hope, is in God, from whence alone are his expectations."
("What To Preach and How To Preach" Written by John Clark in Zion's Advocate--August 1875)
Obviously Clark did not believe that any command in scripture, be it to saint or sinner, implies ability! Loudermilk and his Hardshell brothers do what Clark said that the minister of Christ does not do! He preaches to men "upon consideration of their ability or inability."
Further, the great Hardshell historian and apologist, Elder Sylvester Hassell, was in agreement with Clark and against Loudermilk and his Hardshell anti means sect. He wrote:
"Ability is not the limit of obligation. If it were, no human being would be under any obligation to God; for no human being in the present state can spiritually and perfectly fulfill any commandment of God. All men should be told, as Christ told His hearers, that "unless they repent they will perish." (Luke 13:3-5)." (Questions and Answers-Part 10 - for the full citation see here - emphasis mine)
Bob Ross wrote the following in his book "History and Heresies of Hardshellism" on "Hardshell Pelagianism" (see here - emphasis mine):
"Pelagianism: What Is It?
What was to develop in the Anti-Mission movement, after the 1827 Kehukee Declaration and the 1832 Black Rock Address, was the subtle use of an old philosophy known as "PELAGIANISM." [For a study of Pelagianism, see B. B. Warfield's Two Studies in the History of Doctrine and Augustine's Anti-Pelagian Writings in the fifth volume of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series, Eerdmans' edition].
Pelagianism held that God bestowed on man the "capacity for his will and work" and that man's capacity, or ability, "come from God alone." This "capacity" was "implanted in us by God," according to Pelagius, a fifth century British monk after whom this school of thought is named. While Hardshellism is certainly not Pelagian on the matter of man's nature in relation to the effect of the Fall of Man, it has adorned the old Pelagian concept of "command implies ability" in a new garb, format, for "package." What Pelagianism says of man in his natural state, Hardshellism merely shifts to man in a supposed "regenerated" state, before faith.
CAMPBELLISM, the "twin" of the Hardshells, in essence also holds to Pelagianism and is more in line with pure Pelagianism on the natural state of man, as Campbellism denies inherited depravity. But Campbellism holds, in common with Hardshellism, the basic, practical theory of Pelagianism that "command implies ability."
In Pelagianism and Campbellism, man naturally has the capacity and ability from the Creator to do whatever is commanded, the fall of Adam notwithstanding. In Hardshellism, man is similarly endowed by God, but not naturally; according to Hardshellism, this ability is imparted in what they regard as "regeneration."
The practical application made by Hardshells of various commands, such as repentance and faith, is consistent with the Pelagian theory that the command implies the ability to fulfill the command."
Amen! And the words of Loudermilk reveal his Pelagian error.
Ross continued:
"Logically, then, according to Hardshellism, the "dead alien sinner" is so disabled that he must have "life" implanted in him so as to capacitate the sinner with the ability to obey the commands. This is their rationale for denying that the Gospel is to be addressed to "dead alien sinners."
Hardshellism defends its theory on the grounds of carnal "logic" (see Sarrels' Systematic Theology, page 328). And on the grounds of purely physical logic, without a consideration for Divine Revelation, who can deny their "logic" that the "dead" must be made alive BEFORE they can give any evidence of life? Who denies that you won't get a "dead fish" to bite the bait?
This is perhaps the chief error of the Hardshells. They rely on their own carnal reasoning to arrive at conclusions and propositions and upon these they place their trust.
Ross continued:
"But -- if we incorporate Divine Revelation, as given in the Scriptures, are we shut up to the Hardshell version of Pelagianism? We trow not, for there are numerous instances of commands which do not imply ability. Also, command often is simply indicative of responsibility and divine purpose, and does not necessarily imply ability."
Exactly! Scripture refutes the Hardshell logical conclusions!
Ross continued:
"The case of Ezekiel's "dry bones" in chapter 37 does not imply the ability of the bones to hear and respond to the preaching Ezekiel. Rather, the design of this scene is to focus on God's power resting upon or accompanying His Word.
The case of Lazarus' being commanded to "Come forth" from the dead did not imply ability in Lazarus (John 11). This case demonstrates that God's Word, accompanied by His efficient power, can raise the dead thru His command.
The case of the man with the withered hand being told to "stretch forth thine hand" did not imply ability on his part (Matt. 12:13). This again shows that God's power rests upon His Word and has creative results."
Here is evidence from scripture that denies the idea that "commands imply ability."
Ross continued:
"The case of the Law as defining man's moral responsibility does not imply man's moral and spiritual ability to comply. Though man is fallen and is under the influence of his depravity, he is nonetheless responsible to be righteous."
The bible commands all men, saint and sinner, to "keep the whole law." Does this imply ability to do so? Loudermilk would say yes but his forefathers said no.
Ross continued:
"The exhortation for believers to "be perfect" as the Father in Heaven is perfect (Matt. 5:48) is a statement of our "standard," not a statement of ability."
Why cannot Loudermilk and my Hardshell brothers understand this simple truth? Hassell and Clark understood it. Where did the Hardshells of today get off track on this?
Ross continued:
"Illustrations such as this could be multiplied. They are contradictory to the Hardshell "logic" which is applied to Gospel-related commands. Based on numerous Scriptures which assert the "connection" between the Holy Spirit and the Word, the Gospel, and the Truth, the Power of God is upon His Revelation and it brings to pass His purpose (Isa. 55:11). God's commands become God's enablings under His own efficient power."
Amen to that!
When Loudermilk reads the command "be ye perfect as I am perfect" or "be ye holy as I am holy," does he respond by saying "I'm able to conclude that I can"?
For more detailed information on this issue see these postings:
Hardshell Pelagianism I
Hardshell Pelagianism II
Hardshell Pelagianism III
Hardshell Pelagianism IV
Hardshell Pelagianism V
Was Saul One Of The Elect?
Elder Ronnie Loudermilk is a young Hardshell preacher who seems to be headed for greatness in the Hardshell cult, taking the place of former popular leaders such as Sonny Pyles and Lasserre Bradley. Union Grove church here in Monroe, N.C. has recently called him to be the pastor and he has accepted. Perhaps this young elder would like to visit me sometime and find out about the real old Baptist faith?
In a sermon titled "Seven Signs of the Gospel of John" (see here) Loudermilk said:
"David enquired of the Lord."
"And Saul was certainly not a man that followed the will of God. He was a self driven, self centered, man of pride. Someone asks - was he a child of God? I believe he was. I can show the evidence but he was not a man that followed the will of God. He was a man that destroyed his own life to the extent that he was visiting a witch at Endor for destruction."
It is not surprising to me that Loudermilk believes that Saul was a saved and "regenerate" man, one of the elect, seeing that he and the neo Hardshells for whom he speaks are quasi universalists (see my posting Hardshell Quasi Universalism). They not only designate wicked living Saul as a saved man but they also do the same with others of like character, men such as the false prophet Baalim, the Jews who sinned and died in the wilderness, Demas, Simon the Sorcerer, etc. Even Judas!
A man who can say such a thing (as in the above words of Loudermilk) about what it means to be "saved" or "regenerated" shows that he does not have the foggiest idea about the definition of those terms. Who, other than Hardshell heretics, would say that a man who is "self driven, self centered," and a "man of pride," was "a child of God"? It is shockingly absurd. Every such sinner has just been given hope of salvation by these words of Loudermilk! (see my posting Offering Hope To Hypocrites) If I were a lost sinner, sitting in the congregation hearing Loudermilk, I would be comforted in my sins, and think that my chances of going to Heaven, in spite of my lack of conversion, are good. I would be encouraged in my sins.
Rather than being "self driven" and "self centered," a saved man, born of the Spirit, will have "self" crucified, put to death, and will have Christ in the "center" (heart or core of being). He will have "ego" dethroned and Christ enthroned instead. Further, rather than being a "man of pride," those who are the born again children of God are "humble people"; And, "humble" is not a mere meaningless adjective but a description of character and habit, of what is generally true of the persons.
About the evidence that Loudermilk says that he has that proves that Saul, in spite of the above description, was nevertheless saved and born again, he did not present it. But, I know the arguments even without him giving them in this sermon. And, those supposed proofs do not annul the description that Loudermilk has given of Saul (which was a correct description).
Saul, admits Loudermilk, was not only serving self, having self as god, and a man of pride, but he did not, throughout his life, "follow the will of God." But, Loudermilk assures us that men who do not follow the will of God will be saved anyway. Is that what he believes the Scriptures to teach? If it teaches just the opposite, then is he not the worst of heretics? I tell you, if I were a person who was not following the will of God, I would be comforted and encouraged in my sin and rebellion. Thus you see the evil in Hardshellism.
Arguing against Saul’s salvation is his record of jealousy, hatred, and murder. Saul’s rule as king was characterized by failure and rebellion. He directly disobeyed God (1 Samuel 15:1–35) and broke God’s law by offering a sacrifice that only priests were to offer (1 Samuel 13:1–14). Saul was visited by evil spirits on several occasions (1 Samuel 16:14; 18:10; 19:9). Saul spent much time and energy trying to murder David (1 Samuel 18:10; 19:10; 23:14); he even tried to murder his son Jonathan once (1 Samuel 20:33). Incredibly, King Saul ordered the slaughter of eighty-five innocent priests and their families (1 Samuel 22:18–19). He consulted a witch and asked her to conjure Samuel up from the dead—another direct violation of God’s Law (1 Samuel 28:1–20). Saul ended his life by committing suicide (1 Samuel 31:4).
How Are The Saved Described?
They are described by their faith and conduct.
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Rom. 8:1 KJV)
"Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." (John 14: 23 KJV)
"For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother." (Mark 3:35 KJV)
"We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." (I John 5:18 KJV)
How a person can read such verses as these and conclude that saved people are people who do not generally keep themselves, nor do the will of God, nor walk after the Spirit, nor keep the words of Jesus is bewildering. It shows how men can stubbornly hold to unscriptural ideas and twist scripture to conform it to them.
It is amazing to me how Loudermilk begins this sermon by speaking of David who, unlike Saul, "enquired of the Lord." Why can't he see how David is a picture of saved people and Saul a picture of hypocrites and lost souls?
I don't see how the preaching of Loudermilk is going to help save a single sinner. Sadly, it will be the reason why sinners will continue to remain unconverted. If I were Loudermilk, I would fear the judgment of God.
In a sermon titled "Seven Signs of the Gospel of John" (see here) Loudermilk said:
"David enquired of the Lord."
"And Saul was certainly not a man that followed the will of God. He was a self driven, self centered, man of pride. Someone asks - was he a child of God? I believe he was. I can show the evidence but he was not a man that followed the will of God. He was a man that destroyed his own life to the extent that he was visiting a witch at Endor for destruction."
It is not surprising to me that Loudermilk believes that Saul was a saved and "regenerate" man, one of the elect, seeing that he and the neo Hardshells for whom he speaks are quasi universalists (see my posting Hardshell Quasi Universalism). They not only designate wicked living Saul as a saved man but they also do the same with others of like character, men such as the false prophet Baalim, the Jews who sinned and died in the wilderness, Demas, Simon the Sorcerer, etc. Even Judas!
A man who can say such a thing (as in the above words of Loudermilk) about what it means to be "saved" or "regenerated" shows that he does not have the foggiest idea about the definition of those terms. Who, other than Hardshell heretics, would say that a man who is "self driven, self centered," and a "man of pride," was "a child of God"? It is shockingly absurd. Every such sinner has just been given hope of salvation by these words of Loudermilk! (see my posting Offering Hope To Hypocrites) If I were a lost sinner, sitting in the congregation hearing Loudermilk, I would be comforted in my sins, and think that my chances of going to Heaven, in spite of my lack of conversion, are good. I would be encouraged in my sins.
Rather than being "self driven" and "self centered," a saved man, born of the Spirit, will have "self" crucified, put to death, and will have Christ in the "center" (heart or core of being). He will have "ego" dethroned and Christ enthroned instead. Further, rather than being a "man of pride," those who are the born again children of God are "humble people"; And, "humble" is not a mere meaningless adjective but a description of character and habit, of what is generally true of the persons.
About the evidence that Loudermilk says that he has that proves that Saul, in spite of the above description, was nevertheless saved and born again, he did not present it. But, I know the arguments even without him giving them in this sermon. And, those supposed proofs do not annul the description that Loudermilk has given of Saul (which was a correct description).
Saul, admits Loudermilk, was not only serving self, having self as god, and a man of pride, but he did not, throughout his life, "follow the will of God." But, Loudermilk assures us that men who do not follow the will of God will be saved anyway. Is that what he believes the Scriptures to teach? If it teaches just the opposite, then is he not the worst of heretics? I tell you, if I were a person who was not following the will of God, I would be comforted and encouraged in my sin and rebellion. Thus you see the evil in Hardshellism.
Arguing against Saul’s salvation is his record of jealousy, hatred, and murder. Saul’s rule as king was characterized by failure and rebellion. He directly disobeyed God (1 Samuel 15:1–35) and broke God’s law by offering a sacrifice that only priests were to offer (1 Samuel 13:1–14). Saul was visited by evil spirits on several occasions (1 Samuel 16:14; 18:10; 19:9). Saul spent much time and energy trying to murder David (1 Samuel 18:10; 19:10; 23:14); he even tried to murder his son Jonathan once (1 Samuel 20:33). Incredibly, King Saul ordered the slaughter of eighty-five innocent priests and their families (1 Samuel 22:18–19). He consulted a witch and asked her to conjure Samuel up from the dead—another direct violation of God’s Law (1 Samuel 28:1–20). Saul ended his life by committing suicide (1 Samuel 31:4).
How Are The Saved Described?
They are described by their faith and conduct.
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Rom. 8:1 KJV)
"Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." (John 14: 23 KJV)
"For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother." (Mark 3:35 KJV)
"We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." (I John 5:18 KJV)
How a person can read such verses as these and conclude that saved people are people who do not generally keep themselves, nor do the will of God, nor walk after the Spirit, nor keep the words of Jesus is bewildering. It shows how men can stubbornly hold to unscriptural ideas and twist scripture to conform it to them.
It is amazing to me how Loudermilk begins this sermon by speaking of David who, unlike Saul, "enquired of the Lord." Why can't he see how David is a picture of saved people and Saul a picture of hypocrites and lost souls?
I don't see how the preaching of Loudermilk is going to help save a single sinner. Sadly, it will be the reason why sinners will continue to remain unconverted. If I were Loudermilk, I would fear the judgment of God.
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
PB Singing
I have spent some time listening to "Primitive Baptist Singing" at a web page that has a list of songs sung by PB groups (see here) and want to share with you some of the songs I particularly enjoy and recommend to you. Underneath some of the songs I have added some comments. Songs with an asterisk * are songs I particularly recommend.
We'll Understand It Better By And By (see here)*
I was so happy to find this song since I used to have it on cassette (from the 70s). It is a song sung by elders Paul Trautner and Lasserre Bradley Jr. along with Ron Prather, deacon at Cincinnati PB church. People do not generally know that Bradley is a good singer. He sings bass in the above song. I lost the cassette to that song they sang and was glad to find it on this web page.
I find that some of these songs do not fit well with modern Hardshell beliefs. Many of the old liners would probably not want to sing a lot of these songs, judging that they are too "missionary." Further, the special choral and quartet singing done in some of these songs would not be allowed to occur in the church service. They are okay it seems if they are performed at a church "singing school."
Oh Thou Blessed Rock Of Ages (see here)*
Jesus Is All The World To Me (see here)
Jesus Savior Pilot Me (see here)
Just A Little Talk With Jesus (see here) (and here)*
Lo He Comes With Clouds Descending (see here)*
Mansion Robe and Crown (see here)*
Over on The Hills of Glory Land (see here)
Peace Like Like A River (see here)
Rock of Ages Keep My Soul (see here)*
Sail Away Home (see here) *
Be Thou My Vision 3 (see here)*
Heavens Gonna Shine (see here)*
Mansions Over The Hilltop 2 (see here)*
A Wonderful Saviour 3 (see here)
Abide with Me 4 (see here)
All The Way My Savior Leads Me 2 (see here)*
Down in the River to Pray (see here)*
Hallelujah What a Savior 2 (see here)
He Set Me Free (see here)
Home of The Soul (see here)
I am Going There By and By (see here)
I Am Safely Hiding in My Saviors Love (see here)
We'll Understand It Better By And By (see here)*
I was so happy to find this song since I used to have it on cassette (from the 70s). It is a song sung by elders Paul Trautner and Lasserre Bradley Jr. along with Ron Prather, deacon at Cincinnati PB church. People do not generally know that Bradley is a good singer. He sings bass in the above song. I lost the cassette to that song they sang and was glad to find it on this web page.
I find that some of these songs do not fit well with modern Hardshell beliefs. Many of the old liners would probably not want to sing a lot of these songs, judging that they are too "missionary." Further, the special choral and quartet singing done in some of these songs would not be allowed to occur in the church service. They are okay it seems if they are performed at a church "singing school."
Oh Thou Blessed Rock Of Ages (see here)*
Jesus Is All The World To Me (see here)
Jesus Savior Pilot Me (see here)
Just A Little Talk With Jesus (see here) (and here)*
Lo He Comes With Clouds Descending (see here)*
Mansion Robe and Crown (see here)*
Over on The Hills of Glory Land (see here)
Peace Like Like A River (see here)
Rock of Ages Keep My Soul (see here)*
Sail Away Home (see here) *
Be Thou My Vision 3 (see here)*
Heavens Gonna Shine (see here)*
Mansions Over The Hilltop 2 (see here)*
A Wonderful Saviour 3 (see here)
Abide with Me 4 (see here)
All The Way My Savior Leads Me 2 (see here)*
Down in the River to Pray (see here)*
Hallelujah What a Savior 2 (see here)
He Set Me Free (see here)
Home of The Soul (see here)
I am Going There By and By (see here)
I Am Safely Hiding in My Saviors Love (see here)
Dr. Trader on Conviction Preceding Regeneration
I recommend all to read Dr. Richard Trader's excellent short article "The Spirit's Preparatory Work" (here). He gives the view of the old Baptists. Some citations from this article are:
"Owen understood that the Spirit's preparatory work precedes regeneration...John Owen understood the Spirit's preparatory work precedes regeneration and conversion. He observed the logical order in the Spirit's work. Illumination and conviction are preparatory to regeneration and conversion."
"Owen understood that the Spirit's preparatory work precedes regeneration...John Owen understood the Spirit's preparatory work precedes regeneration and conversion. He observed the logical order in the Spirit's work. Illumination and conviction are preparatory to regeneration and conversion."
Saturday, March 3, 2018
Awakened Sinners III
In this posting I will begin finishing my series on "Awakened Sinners." For the two previous chapters see these postings:
Awakened Sinners I (HERE)
Awakened Sinners II (HERE)
Also, I would recommend that one read these chapters from my book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult":
Regeneration Evidence (chpt. 53) (HERE)
Chpt. 54 - On Conviction I (SEE HERE)
Chpt. 55 - On Conviction II (HERE)
Chpt. 56 - On Conviction III (HERE)
These chapters on regeneration and conviction are intimately connected with the subject of "awakened sinners."
From Chapter 54 I wrote:
"the great Calvinist leaders, both Baptists and otherwise, have viewed the experience of "conviction of sin" as most generally that which goes before the regeneration experience, and not after. It is not generally viewed as an evidence of spiritual life, though it be an evidence of the awakenings of conscience. Such awakenings of conscience are often experienced by unregenerated men. Men are "seekers" before they become "finders." Salvation is in the finding, not in the seeking alone."
Stephen Charnock wrote:
"The soul must be beaten down by conviction before it be raised up by regeneration..."
That is very clear and yet it is against modern Hardshell notions.
Elder Wilson Thompson wrote:
"We shall now proceed to show what men may experience and not be under the work of the spirit of grace. He may feel all that weight of guilt which the law of God charges upon him; and yet not be a subject of the spirits operation, for the law is the ministration of condemnation and death."
Now, I am sure that this was the original position of the "Primitive" or "Hardshell" Baptists. Conviction of sin, says this founding father of the denomination, is no proof of a new birth. Yet, this is denied by today's Hardshells.
Said George Whitefield:
"Conviction will always precede spiritual conversion. You may be convicted without being converted, but you cannot be converted without being convicted." ("Repentance and Conversion" - SEE HERE)
Keep in mind that Whitefield, like all the old Calvinistic writers, believed that "conversion" was regeneration or the new birth.
The Error of "Preparationalism"
John Owen (1616-1683) addresses the subject in the third volume of his Works in a section entitled, "Works of the Holy Spirit Preparatory Unto Regeneration." Owen writes:
"Ordinarily there are certain previous and preparatory works, or workings in and upon the souls of men, that are antecedent and dispositive unto it [i.e. regeneration]. But yet regeneration doth not consist in them, nor can it be educed out of them."
Again, it must be said. The oldest Calvinists and Puritans did not see either an "awakening" or "conviction" experience as being an effect of "regeneration" or of the new birth. They were not Hardshells in this matter. In fact, I have not been able to find any old writer who taught that a mere awakening of conscience or conviction of sin was a proof of rebirth.
Wrote Thomas Boston (emphasis mine): (here)
"A person may have sharp soul-exercises and pangs, and yet die in the birth. Many "have been in pain," that have but, "as it were, brought forth wind." There may be sore pangs of conscience, which turn to nothing at last. Pharaoh and Simon Magus had such convictions, as made them to desire the prayers of others for them. Judas repented: and, under terrors of conscience, gave back his ill-gotten pieces of silver. All is not gold that glitters. Trees may blossom fairly in the spring, on which no fruit is to be found in the harvest: and some have sharp soul-exercises, which are nothing but foretastes of hell."
Again, this is the teaching of Scripture and of the old Baptists and Calvinists. Boston also wrote:
"Some have sharp convictions for a while: but these go off, and they become as careless about their salvation, and as profane as ever, and usually worse than ever; "their last state is worse than their first," Matt. 12:45. They get awakening grace—but not converting grace; and that goes off by degrees, as the light of the declining day, until it issues in midnight darkness."
He also wrote:
"There may be a wonderful moving of the affections in souls that are not at all touched with regenerating grace. When there is no grace, there may, notwithstanding, be a flood of tears, as in Esau, who "found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears," Heb. 12:17. There may be great flashes of joy; as in the hearers of the word, represented in the parable of the stony ground, who "with joy receive it," Matt. 13:20. There may be also great desires after good things, and great delight in them too; as in those hypocrites described in Isa. 58:2, "Yet they seek me daily, and delight to know my ways – they take delight in approaching to God."
"Common operations of the divine Spirit, like a land-flood, make a strange turning of things upside down: but when they are over, all runs again in the ordinary channel. All these things may be, where the sanctifying Spirit of Christ never rests upon the soul—but the stony heart still remains; and in that case these affections cannot but wither, because they have no root."
Awakened Sinners I (HERE)
Awakened Sinners II (HERE)
Also, I would recommend that one read these chapters from my book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult":
Regeneration Evidence (chpt. 53) (HERE)
Chpt. 54 - On Conviction I (SEE HERE)
Chpt. 55 - On Conviction II (HERE)
Chpt. 56 - On Conviction III (HERE)
These chapters on regeneration and conviction are intimately connected with the subject of "awakened sinners."
From Chapter 54 I wrote:
"the great Calvinist leaders, both Baptists and otherwise, have viewed the experience of "conviction of sin" as most generally that which goes before the regeneration experience, and not after. It is not generally viewed as an evidence of spiritual life, though it be an evidence of the awakenings of conscience. Such awakenings of conscience are often experienced by unregenerated men. Men are "seekers" before they become "finders." Salvation is in the finding, not in the seeking alone."
Stephen Charnock wrote:
"The soul must be beaten down by conviction before it be raised up by regeneration..."
That is very clear and yet it is against modern Hardshell notions.
Elder Wilson Thompson wrote:
"We shall now proceed to show what men may experience and not be under the work of the spirit of grace. He may feel all that weight of guilt which the law of God charges upon him; and yet not be a subject of the spirits operation, for the law is the ministration of condemnation and death."
Now, I am sure that this was the original position of the "Primitive" or "Hardshell" Baptists. Conviction of sin, says this founding father of the denomination, is no proof of a new birth. Yet, this is denied by today's Hardshells.
Said George Whitefield:
"Conviction will always precede spiritual conversion. You may be convicted without being converted, but you cannot be converted without being convicted." ("Repentance and Conversion" - SEE HERE)
Keep in mind that Whitefield, like all the old Calvinistic writers, believed that "conversion" was regeneration or the new birth.
The Error of "Preparationalism"
John Owen (1616-1683) addresses the subject in the third volume of his Works in a section entitled, "Works of the Holy Spirit Preparatory Unto Regeneration." Owen writes:
"Ordinarily there are certain previous and preparatory works, or workings in and upon the souls of men, that are antecedent and dispositive unto it [i.e. regeneration]. But yet regeneration doth not consist in them, nor can it be educed out of them."
Again, it must be said. The oldest Calvinists and Puritans did not see either an "awakening" or "conviction" experience as being an effect of "regeneration" or of the new birth. They were not Hardshells in this matter. In fact, I have not been able to find any old writer who taught that a mere awakening of conscience or conviction of sin was a proof of rebirth.
Wrote Thomas Boston (emphasis mine): (here)
"A person may have sharp soul-exercises and pangs, and yet die in the birth. Many "have been in pain," that have but, "as it were, brought forth wind." There may be sore pangs of conscience, which turn to nothing at last. Pharaoh and Simon Magus had such convictions, as made them to desire the prayers of others for them. Judas repented: and, under terrors of conscience, gave back his ill-gotten pieces of silver. All is not gold that glitters. Trees may blossom fairly in the spring, on which no fruit is to be found in the harvest: and some have sharp soul-exercises, which are nothing but foretastes of hell."
Again, this is the teaching of Scripture and of the old Baptists and Calvinists. Boston also wrote:
"Some have sharp convictions for a while: but these go off, and they become as careless about their salvation, and as profane as ever, and usually worse than ever; "their last state is worse than their first," Matt. 12:45. They get awakening grace—but not converting grace; and that goes off by degrees, as the light of the declining day, until it issues in midnight darkness."
He also wrote:
"There may be a wonderful moving of the affections in souls that are not at all touched with regenerating grace. When there is no grace, there may, notwithstanding, be a flood of tears, as in Esau, who "found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears," Heb. 12:17. There may be great flashes of joy; as in the hearers of the word, represented in the parable of the stony ground, who "with joy receive it," Matt. 13:20. There may be also great desires after good things, and great delight in them too; as in those hypocrites described in Isa. 58:2, "Yet they seek me daily, and delight to know my ways – they take delight in approaching to God."
"Common operations of the divine Spirit, like a land-flood, make a strange turning of things upside down: but when they are over, all runs again in the ordinary channel. All these things may be, where the sanctifying Spirit of Christ never rests upon the soul—but the stony heart still remains; and in that case these affections cannot but wither, because they have no root."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)