Lo and behold, they are not the same!
Notice these two articles from 1808.
7. That God's elect shall be called, converted, and regenerated and sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
8. That the saints shall persevere in grace and never fall finally away.
Now let us notice how those articles, combined into one, read today!
Article 6. We believe that God's elect shall be effectually called, regenerated and sanctified by the Holy Ghost and shall be preserved in grace and never finally fall away.
The rewriting of Articles of Faith is nothing new among the Hardshells. It is something I have written about on several occasions. I wonder if the gatekeepers responsible for the rewrite do the honest thing and tell their flock that they no longer believe as their forefathers did; that either they were wrong and we are right, or vice versa. That it suggests that they can't trace their lineage back to the first century after all. Not even to the 18th century!
Several things are to be noted from this most obvious, embarrassing change among those who claim to have never changed, but rather go all the way back through the Anabaptists, the Lollards, the Donatists, the Novations, etc.
So let us ask some questions at this point.
1) Are the original articles substantially the same as the current?
2) Why did the article originally say God's elect would all be converted?
3) Why has it been omitted today?
4) Why did the article originally say converted, regenerated, and sanctified in that order?
5) Why did the article originally say persevere?
6) Why has it been replaced with preserved?
7) Why has sanctification likewise not been removed since holiness is not necessary for salvation? Or is it?
I know why, and so does my fellow blogger. Of course these questions will not even be confronted, much less addressed. Instead the blind will continue to lead the blind.
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteFirst, the speaker's name is Ben Winslett.
Second, your post is misleading, either through a mistake/error on your part or intentionally. The link is to the Articles of Faith of Marchtozion.com, which, as I explained in the video, was my old home church in Shelby County Alabama. The MTZ articles were adopted in 2003, when I launched my website, still a member of Ebenezer. The granite monument is at Flint River, Madison county, and so the articles are from a different church's statement of faith.
So to compare the link I shared to the granite monument and insinuate that Flint River is changing her articles of faith is misleading. This is not the first example of a misleading post I've read on this blog either. But since you're quoting ME, I can't let it stand without correction. The entire point of your post is built on this faulty premise. You err, sir. I give you the benefit of the doubt that it was a simple mistake, answering a matter before you hear it.
The only word, to my knowledge, that actually HAS been changed in the FR AofF is the word persevere, to preserve. We still believe and teach that saints shall persevere in GRACE. This is why the phrase “shall not finally fall away” is a part of our articles. Any and every PB I know believes that saints stay (persevere) in a state of grace. The reason for the change is twofold:
1. Men such as yourself used the word to teach Lordship salvation, a cruel, hideous, Pharisaical doctrine which yields men over to either bondage or pride.
2. “Preserve” is a more biblical word. Anyone who doubts me can look up both words in a dictionary.
But again, Flint River's Articles are found at flintriverpbc.org.
Marchtozion's Articles are found at marchtozion.com.
Regards,
Ben Winslett
Ben,
ReplyDeleteThanks for visiting and commenting, seriously. My mistake for not knowing that March to Zion was the church. I honestly thought that it was simply the name of your website. I will make a correction.
However, that being said, the elephant in the room still remains. Flint River originally affirmed that the elect would be converted. But what does it believe now? What do you believe now? Second, they did not mean persevere in grace in the way which I think you’re trying to suggest; written in such a way to suggest that holiness is an unnecessary thing. The Kehukee Association in 1777 stated...
We believe that such as are converted, justified and called by His grace, shall persevere in holiness, and never fall away.
Preserved is not a more biblical word. It is only one side of the coin, whereas both preservation and perseverance are taught in scripture.
Since you make the charge that some of our posts are misleading, I would like to know which. Is it our interpretation of scripture, history, or Hardshell doctrine?