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
No comments:
Post a Comment