Reprint from May 2, 2008 in The Baptist Gadfly (see here)
In my recent postings of conversations with Ben Witherington over the question of the kind of "influence" the Holy Spirit exerts on the hearts of all men, and of the elect more particularly, when he saves and regenerates them, when he "draws," and "calls" and "woos" them, Ben gave the common response regarding "loving" God. He argued that for any love to God to be valuable or virtuous, it must be freely given to God, without anything that could be called "coercing" or "forcing" or "compelling" or "manipulating" from God. If God, it is argued, somehow "forces" or "compels" or "causes" the person to love him, then such a love is NOT virtuous or praiseworthy.
There are several things wrong with this proposition.
First, it says that God cannot demand love! For God to command men to love him, according to this view, contradicts the idea that God wants men to love him by their "free will." God is not simply asking for love, as a seeker of love, but he is demanding it.
Second, if love be that which is NOT demanded, then it can be no sin NOT to love God. Is it a sin or an evil for a woman not to choose to be won by a lover's advances? By Ben's definition it would be no sin! Yet, in the bible, men will be condemned for their not choosing to love God!
Third, the same argument that Ben makes about the virtue of love could also be said about faith and any other spiritual grace. Ben's logic and proposition affirms that anything like love, faith, goodness, yea, even virtue itself, is of no value or is not praiseworthy UNLESS it is self produced. If God GIVE love for him to another person, then, by Ben's proposition, it is NOT true love, or a love that is good, beautiful, or praiseworthy. To him, self produced love for God (granting, for the sake of argument, its reality) is of a higher quality than divinely produced love!
Fourth, the scriptures plainly teach that God not only demands love but that he actually gives love, and creates it in the heart of men. Men cannot therefore boast or credit themselves for their love for God, as Ben must do, reductio ad absurdum.
"Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'" (Matthew 23: 7 NIV)
"And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother." ( I John 4:21)
"The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live." (Deuteronomy 30: 6 NIV)
"The LORD appeared to us in the past, saying: "I have loved you with an everlasting love; I have drawn you with loving-kindness." (Jeremiah 31 3 NIV)
"I led them with cords of human kindness, with ties of love; I lifted the yoke from their neck and bent down to feed them." (Hosea 11: 4 NIV)
"But as touching brotherly love ye need not that I write unto you: for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another." (I Thessalonians 4: 9 AV)
"And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works." (Hebrews 10: 24 AV)
"We love him, because he first loved us." (I John 4: 19 KJV)
Certainly all these verses, taken together, teach that God is the author of our love for him. As we "provoke" (incite) love in others, so God does the same, and he does not "violate" any law in doing so.
Throughout history, philosophy and religion speculated much on the phenomenon of love. In the last century, the science of psychology has written a great deal on the subject.
People will often say - "Love is a decision, not just a feeling." Yet, others know that there is a "deterministic character to love" and so people are said to "fall in love," people recognizing that love, at least sometimes, is compulsive and irresistable.
Finally, love is said to be God's gift, as is everthing good in us. (See James 1: 17 & I Corinthians 4: 7)
Also, the uniting of two hearts in love is but one of many types of metaphors used to describe the work of salvation. We cannot exclude them either. Being saved is a time of "falling in love" with Christ, but it is also a time of being born, and of being resurrected from the dead, and of being rescued.
Friday, February 22, 2019
Wednesday, February 20, 2019
Hardshells & Campbellites Run From Their History
Bob L. Ross, author of
-Campbellism Its History and Heresies
-The Trinity and Eternal Sonship of Christ :
A Defense Against "Oneness Pentecostal" Attacks on Historic Christianity
-Restoration Movement
-Acts 2:38
-Hardshellism: Its History and Heresies
and several other good books, has had several debates with those identified as "Church of Christ" and those in the "restoration movement" and has had several private debates with Hardshells.
After a few debates with Ross, the Campbellites began to put a condition on any debates with him. What was it? They wanted him to agree to not mention anything about the history of those in the "Church of Christ" or "Christian Church" or "Disciples of Christ," but to stick only to the scriptures. But, why would they not want to discuss their history? Is it not for the same reason that our Hardshell brothers do not want to discuss their history?
Of course, I think Ross did agree to debate them on the terms they insisted upon. But, it did not help them, for the scriptures are much more against them than is their history! Same with the Hardshells! If the latter do not want to discuss their history, we will gladly restrict it to the scriptures only.
Have the Campbellites and Hardshells not been identified as "twins"? Do they not show so many similarities?
-Campbellism Its History and Heresies
-The Trinity and Eternal Sonship of Christ :
A Defense Against "Oneness Pentecostal" Attacks on Historic Christianity
-Restoration Movement
-Acts 2:38
-Hardshellism: Its History and Heresies
and several other good books, has had several debates with those identified as "Church of Christ" and those in the "restoration movement" and has had several private debates with Hardshells.
After a few debates with Ross, the Campbellites began to put a condition on any debates with him. What was it? They wanted him to agree to not mention anything about the history of those in the "Church of Christ" or "Christian Church" or "Disciples of Christ," but to stick only to the scriptures. But, why would they not want to discuss their history? Is it not for the same reason that our Hardshell brothers do not want to discuss their history?
Of course, I think Ross did agree to debate them on the terms they insisted upon. But, it did not help them, for the scriptures are much more against them than is their history! Same with the Hardshells! If the latter do not want to discuss their history, we will gladly restrict it to the scriptures only.
Have the Campbellites and Hardshells not been identified as "twins"? Do they not show so many similarities?
A Precious Nugget from Flavel
“In nothing does
Providence shine forth more gloriously in this world than in ordering the
occasions, instruments and means of conversion of the people of God. However
skillfully its hand had moulded your bodies, however tenderly it had preserved
them and however bountifully it had provided for them; if it had not also
ordered some means or other for your conversion, all the former favours and
benefits it had done for you had meant little. This, O this, is the most
excellent benefit you ever received from its hand. You are more indebted to it
for this, than for all your other mercies.” (John Flavel, The Mystery of Providence)
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
Cornelius Not A Poster Child
Cornelius is not the poster child for the no means view of salvation that the Primitive Baptists wish him to be. I marvel at how often he is used as an example that one can be saved without ever hearing the gospel, when the simple fact of the matter is that...
He heard the gospel.
One can argue all he wants about whether or not Cornelius was '"already saved" by the time he was visited by Peter. I once read an entire book defending this proposition! But ultimately it matters not. The plain fact of the matter is that he did hear it eventually, didn't he? At very best (although I disagree) Cornelius could only be used as a case study pondering the possible idea that regeneration is immediate and void of means but that gospel conversion will follow at some point later.
To what Bible figure may we turn who was regenerated and NEVER heard the gospel? That is what must be found if the no means view of salvation wants to gain any kind of foothold. This character however is not in the Word of God, but is hypothetically created when conversion is not only divorced from regeneration but removed from the order of eternal salvation altogether.
He heard the gospel.
One can argue all he wants about whether or not Cornelius was '"already saved" by the time he was visited by Peter. I once read an entire book defending this proposition! But ultimately it matters not. The plain fact of the matter is that he did hear it eventually, didn't he? At very best (although I disagree) Cornelius could only be used as a case study pondering the possible idea that regeneration is immediate and void of means but that gospel conversion will follow at some point later.
To what Bible figure may we turn who was regenerated and NEVER heard the gospel? That is what must be found if the no means view of salvation wants to gain any kind of foothold. This character however is not in the Word of God, but is hypothetically created when conversion is not only divorced from regeneration but removed from the order of eternal salvation altogether.
Saturday, February 16, 2019
Hardshell Respass on the Parable
The following is a reprint of an article I wrote over ten years ago here. This parable is so important to understand. Both Campbellites (and other Arminians and Pelagians) and Hardshells of today have gone into error on this parable. I have debated this parable's teachings many times with the Campbellites.
In this posting by Elder Respass, he gives the historic Baptist view on the parable, the view of Cayce and of today's Hardshells is a rare and novel view.
---------------------------------------
Elder J. R. Respass, a late 19th century Hardshell minister, wrote the following on the parable of the Sower and the Seed. I post this article here because it expresses the truth.
Most first generation Hardshells took the standard and traditional Baptist interpretation of the parable, the one that identifies only the "good ground" hearer with the truly born again. By the end of the 19th century, however, this view was being rejected and a new view, promoted by men like Elder Claud Cayce, was being accepted, a view that affirmed that all of the four kinds of hearers were the elect or born again people of God. Elder Respass, however, held to the original view. He also clearly presents the teachings of the parable in these words.
"Brother B.B. Stallings, of Humbolt, Tenn., writes us that some people in his section use this parable to teach the doctrine of "falling from grace;" but to our mind it teaches the opposite doctrine, or rather the absolute necessity of grace in the salvation of sinners. The Jews were well acquainted with sowing wheat and barley. They knew from experience that it was necessary to have the ground broken by the plowshare to raise it; and that, therefore, the Saviour was telling the truth when he taught them that grain sown by the way or road-side would be unfruitful, because men would walk on and tread it down, and the fowls would devour it; and that seed sown on stony, hard and unbroken land would yield nothing; because, though it sprang up quickly, it could take no root, and that when the hot sun necessary to its maturity should shine upon it, that it would be scorched, and soon wither away. They knew, also, that seed sown among thorns, in a briar patch, for instance, would make nothing, because the thorns would choke it. All these things they knew from natural experience as farmers or husbandmen. They knew that the land must be enclosed or fenced, cleared of thorns, bushes and briars, and be broken up before the seed was sown; enclosed from the fowls and the tread of men; cleared of thorns and briars that would choke it; and broken up so as to absorb and retain moisture, and the roots have depth of earth to strike down into the moisture when the hot sun poured down upon it. But, like people now, they did not perceive the truth when applied spiritually. No sensible Jewish farmer would have undertaken to make a crop of wheat otherwise than as taught by the Saviour in this parable. Nor would he have undertaken to break his land until the first or "former rain" was sent by the Lord upon it; because the land, especially in that country, by the dry, hot summer sun grew, like the sinner's heart, very hard, so that it could not be broken until softened by the first rain. But land softened by the rain, broken by the plow, enclosed from the fowls and cleared of thorns, and sown, will be unharmed by the fowls, the feet of men, the cares of the world or the heat of the sun, and will yield thirty, sixty and one hundred fold. Any thing short of this thorough preparation will be fruitless. So in the way-side, stony and thorny ground hearers the Saviour shows the lack of grace, rather than the falling from it. And another thing perhaps he taught, and that is, that the fault was not in the seed sown, or the word preached, but in the sinner's heart. "Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life."--John v. There were many of these kind or hearers in the Saviour's day as well as in this; and doubtless the Saviour spoke the parable for the comfort of his people then and his people now; that they should not be discouraged when they should see many, who had received the word with a temporary joy, turn back for love of the world, its honors or riches, or to escape persecution; that they should know that such professors had not received the word in a contrite and broken heart, and hence they neither understood it nor kept it. He asked his true disciples when many so-called disciples went back and walked no more with him on account of his hard and unpopular doctrine, "Will ye also go away?" but they answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life."--John vi. Thus the hot sun of trials and persecution that withered up the shallow letter hearers, only caused his good-ground hearers to take deeper root in Christ, making them feel more and more the necessity of Christ in their salvation; and thus they brought forth an hundred fold, whilst the others brought nothing to perfection. This briefly, Brother Stallings, is our understanding of Christ's teaching in the parable of the sower." (Written by John R. Respess in the GOSPEL MESSENGER, May 1885)
In this posting by Elder Respass, he gives the historic Baptist view on the parable, the view of Cayce and of today's Hardshells is a rare and novel view.
---------------------------------------
Elder J. R. Respass, a late 19th century Hardshell minister, wrote the following on the parable of the Sower and the Seed. I post this article here because it expresses the truth.
Most first generation Hardshells took the standard and traditional Baptist interpretation of the parable, the one that identifies only the "good ground" hearer with the truly born again. By the end of the 19th century, however, this view was being rejected and a new view, promoted by men like Elder Claud Cayce, was being accepted, a view that affirmed that all of the four kinds of hearers were the elect or born again people of God. Elder Respass, however, held to the original view. He also clearly presents the teachings of the parable in these words.
"Brother B.B. Stallings, of Humbolt, Tenn., writes us that some people in his section use this parable to teach the doctrine of "falling from grace;" but to our mind it teaches the opposite doctrine, or rather the absolute necessity of grace in the salvation of sinners. The Jews were well acquainted with sowing wheat and barley. They knew from experience that it was necessary to have the ground broken by the plowshare to raise it; and that, therefore, the Saviour was telling the truth when he taught them that grain sown by the way or road-side would be unfruitful, because men would walk on and tread it down, and the fowls would devour it; and that seed sown on stony, hard and unbroken land would yield nothing; because, though it sprang up quickly, it could take no root, and that when the hot sun necessary to its maturity should shine upon it, that it would be scorched, and soon wither away. They knew, also, that seed sown among thorns, in a briar patch, for instance, would make nothing, because the thorns would choke it. All these things they knew from natural experience as farmers or husbandmen. They knew that the land must be enclosed or fenced, cleared of thorns, bushes and briars, and be broken up before the seed was sown; enclosed from the fowls and the tread of men; cleared of thorns and briars that would choke it; and broken up so as to absorb and retain moisture, and the roots have depth of earth to strike down into the moisture when the hot sun poured down upon it. But, like people now, they did not perceive the truth when applied spiritually. No sensible Jewish farmer would have undertaken to make a crop of wheat otherwise than as taught by the Saviour in this parable. Nor would he have undertaken to break his land until the first or "former rain" was sent by the Lord upon it; because the land, especially in that country, by the dry, hot summer sun grew, like the sinner's heart, very hard, so that it could not be broken until softened by the first rain. But land softened by the rain, broken by the plow, enclosed from the fowls and cleared of thorns, and sown, will be unharmed by the fowls, the feet of men, the cares of the world or the heat of the sun, and will yield thirty, sixty and one hundred fold. Any thing short of this thorough preparation will be fruitless. So in the way-side, stony and thorny ground hearers the Saviour shows the lack of grace, rather than the falling from it. And another thing perhaps he taught, and that is, that the fault was not in the seed sown, or the word preached, but in the sinner's heart. "Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life."--John v. There were many of these kind or hearers in the Saviour's day as well as in this; and doubtless the Saviour spoke the parable for the comfort of his people then and his people now; that they should not be discouraged when they should see many, who had received the word with a temporary joy, turn back for love of the world, its honors or riches, or to escape persecution; that they should know that such professors had not received the word in a contrite and broken heart, and hence they neither understood it nor kept it. He asked his true disciples when many so-called disciples went back and walked no more with him on account of his hard and unpopular doctrine, "Will ye also go away?" but they answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life."--John vi. Thus the hot sun of trials and persecution that withered up the shallow letter hearers, only caused his good-ground hearers to take deeper root in Christ, making them feel more and more the necessity of Christ in their salvation; and thus they brought forth an hundred fold, whilst the others brought nothing to perfection. This briefly, Brother Stallings, is our understanding of Christ's teaching in the parable of the sower." (Written by John R. Respess in the GOSPEL MESSENGER, May 1885)
Tuesday, February 12, 2019
Do You Agree?
At the web page of "The Christian Universalist Association" we have these words:
"God does not decide to condemn some people to hell because they sinned too much or they chose the wrong religious beliefs." (HERE)
Do you agree with this my Hardshell brethren? Or at least the last part? False religious beliefs are no deciding factor in final and eternal condemnation in the day of judgment? Is this not what you believe, my Hardshell brothers? Don't you teach that a man may be a heathen in faith and still be saved? Are you not then Universalists, or at least, nearly so?
Do you agree with Paul that those who obey not the gospel will suffer "everlasting destruction"? (II Thess. 1: 8,9) Do you agree with John who said that all the "unbelieving" will "have their part in the lake of fire and brimstone"? (Rev. 21: 8)
"God does not decide to condemn some people to hell because they sinned too much or they chose the wrong religious beliefs." (HERE)
Do you agree with this my Hardshell brethren? Or at least the last part? False religious beliefs are no deciding factor in final and eternal condemnation in the day of judgment? Is this not what you believe, my Hardshell brothers? Don't you teach that a man may be a heathen in faith and still be saved? Are you not then Universalists, or at least, nearly so?
Do you agree with Paul that those who obey not the gospel will suffer "everlasting destruction"? (II Thess. 1: 8,9) Do you agree with John who said that all the "unbelieving" will "have their part in the lake of fire and brimstone"? (Rev. 21: 8)
Monday, February 11, 2019
Conversion Is Rebirth (more evidence)
In the "Advocate and Monitor" (Volumes 3-4) from the 1830s, edited by Daniel E. Jewett (see here), one of the three "Primitive" or "Old School" periodicals in that first decade of their existence as a separate denomination, we have much evidence to show what the first Hardshells believed about regeneration, conversion, perseverance, means, predestination, duty faith, addressing the spiritually dead, etc. Over the past many years I have often cited from this periodical.
Note: As a note of interest to some of our readers, we will inform them that after Elder Jewett's death, C. B. Hassell, who was a widower, married Jewett's widow. Mrs. Jewett became step mother to Sylvester and Sylvester in his writings mentions this and of his affiliation with his step brothers.
First, in regard to preaching the gospel to the unregenerate, and of their duty to believe it, we have these words (emphasis mine):
"...which publication must be made by Immanuel's order, "to every creature," or to all men indiscriminately: all of whom are under moral and solemn obligations immediately to extend full credence thereto, when it is announced; not as condition of life, but as a day of life, or upon the same principle upon which they are required to love God..." (pg. 71)
Note what the first "primitive" or "old schoolers" believed and let us ask whether today's Hardshells still believe these things. Do they believe that the gospel is to be preached to those who are unbelievers? Do they believe, like the writer of the above words, that all men are "under moral obligations" to "give credence" (believe) to that "publication" of the good news? Do these words uphold the "duty faith" view or oppose it? "When" is the gospel a "day of life" to the sinner? When it is announced, says the writer.
Next, we find these words:
"We think that God, as the moral Governor of the universe, has his Claims on all intelligent creatures for their immediate, continued and faithful obedience; which is always to be urged upon the principle of moral obligation, and not of moral ability, whether of saints or sinners." (pg. 96-100)
Oh how far away from this truth have our modern PBs strayed! Lost sinners have a "moral obligation" even though they have no "moral ability."
Regeneration Is Not The Birth
In the same periodical we read these words:
"In these remarks you will see, that it is our belief, that the preached Gospel, the power of truth, the influence of motive and the force of argument, all exert a 'converting, but not & regenerating influence. As a principal point of difference which led to the unhappy division of our Church was respecting the work of regeneration, and the extent of human depravity, we wish to express ourselves with particular reference thereto.
Regeneration we understand to be a blessing...without this blessing, no one will ever be "begotten through the Gospel," or "with the word of truth." (ibid)
Do you see how the first PBs believed that regeneration was not the same as the new birth? And, that they believed that gospel conversion, or coming to believe and repent, was being begotten by the gospel?
Note: As a note of interest to some of our readers, we will inform them that after Elder Jewett's death, C. B. Hassell, who was a widower, married Jewett's widow. Mrs. Jewett became step mother to Sylvester and Sylvester in his writings mentions this and of his affiliation with his step brothers.
First, in regard to preaching the gospel to the unregenerate, and of their duty to believe it, we have these words (emphasis mine):
"...which publication must be made by Immanuel's order, "to every creature," or to all men indiscriminately: all of whom are under moral and solemn obligations immediately to extend full credence thereto, when it is announced; not as condition of life, but as a day of life, or upon the same principle upon which they are required to love God..." (pg. 71)
Note what the first "primitive" or "old schoolers" believed and let us ask whether today's Hardshells still believe these things. Do they believe that the gospel is to be preached to those who are unbelievers? Do they believe, like the writer of the above words, that all men are "under moral obligations" to "give credence" (believe) to that "publication" of the good news? Do these words uphold the "duty faith" view or oppose it? "When" is the gospel a "day of life" to the sinner? When it is announced, says the writer.
Next, we find these words:
"We think that God, as the moral Governor of the universe, has his Claims on all intelligent creatures for their immediate, continued and faithful obedience; which is always to be urged upon the principle of moral obligation, and not of moral ability, whether of saints or sinners." (pg. 96-100)
Oh how far away from this truth have our modern PBs strayed! Lost sinners have a "moral obligation" even though they have no "moral ability."
Regeneration Is Not The Birth
In the same periodical we read these words:
"In these remarks you will see, that it is our belief, that the preached Gospel, the power of truth, the influence of motive and the force of argument, all exert a 'converting, but not & regenerating influence. As a principal point of difference which led to the unhappy division of our Church was respecting the work of regeneration, and the extent of human depravity, we wish to express ourselves with particular reference thereto.
Regeneration we understand to be a blessing...without this blessing, no one will ever be "begotten through the Gospel," or "with the word of truth." (ibid)
Do you see how the first PBs believed that regeneration was not the same as the new birth? And, that they believed that gospel conversion, or coming to believe and repent, was being begotten by the gospel?
First Hardshells On Birth & Conversion
In the 1839 issue of "The Primitive Baptist" (see here) we find these words from a writer:
"We read in Matthew 4lh chapter and I5th verse: And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. 19. And he saith unto them, follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. Why did not Jesus Christ call some of the eminent scribes or pharisees to publish his gospel, and not poor unlearned fishermen without credit or authority? Because it was the kingdom of heaven they were to preach, and their teachings were to come from above; besides the conversion of sinners, though it benefited instrumentally by the preaching of the gospel, yet the grand agent in it is the Spirit of God. As the instruments were comparatively mean, and the work which was accomplished by them was grand and glorious, the excellency of the power at once appeared to be of God, and not of man. And thus the glory due alone to his name was secured, and the great operator of all good had the deserved praise." (pg. 92)
Notice what the writer believes about "conversion." The Spirit is the "agent" and the "preaching of the gospel" is the "instrument." Further, there does not seem to be any doubt about the elect being converted.
In the July 23, 1836 (1st) issue, we find these words:
"Dear brethren, permit me to ask a few plain questions, for the express purpose that the missionaries may answer them if they can: Do not all Christians know, that Christ has converted every soul that ever was converted? Do they not know, that he will convert every one that ever will be converted? Do they not know, that he will do it at the very time he has appointed? Do they not know, that men cannot get a soul converted one moment before the than appointed by the shepherd of the flock, nor keep it lick one moment longer? Under such impressions as these what have we to do but to obey?"
God will convert the sinner, make him a Christian, and will not fail in doing so. Is that what today's PBs believe?
The author (MORRIS) continued:
"I know that our enemies are saying, if so why do we preach? for if God intends to save a definite number, it is in vain...I would not preach nor exhort if God had not commanded it. But as he has told me what it is for, that is, this way he intends to bring his people to the knowledge of himself. And not only so it was his "will to create the heaven and earth by his word; and also to bring his people to the knowledge of the truth by the same word; as such, this word is sufficient to do it, and no other. But he has not sent his word to save any other people but his own, and he cannot save them without it; for faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God; and without faith it is impossible lo please him. So I conclude by subscribing myself yours in the best of bonds."
Preaching the gospel is the "way he intends to bring his people to the knowledge of himself"! Notice the importance of the word as an instrument. Knowledge of the truth comes "by the same word" and "this word is sufficient" thereunto. Salvation requires that one have faith, and to have faith, one must hear the gospel.
In the 1858 issue, we have the CIRCULAR of the THE BUTTAHATCHIE (ALA.) ASSOCIATION (page 10 of the pdf - see here) and these words therefrom:
"Our dear neighbors fall out with us very often and call us hard names, because we cannot agree that they can at the appointed times and places make christians, when we are certain that man could just as easily make a world. We can alarm and warn sinners, which is our duty, but to emerge them from nature's night, into the marvellous light and liberty of the Gospel of Christ, not all the saints and angels of Heaven could do it. The most beautiful figure upon that subject is used by our Saviour to Nichodemus, wherein he compares it to a birth. Let us talk plain, and bid that false refinement get behind us - Ye must be born again. Could all the men and women on Earth, affect a birth without complying with the Laws of nature? Must there not be a begetting, a jestation or travail? This so; then there must be a Father. Hear the Apostle speak upou this subject who, says he, (speaking of God) hath begotten us to a lively hope, &c. When Zion travails she brings forth."
Notice the reference to the begetting preceding the travail and the birth. Notice how God is pictured as the Father, in the begetting, and how "Zion" is the mother who "brings forth." Notice also that the "begetting" and the birth "travail" is what makes a person a "Christian." Also, the "light" that is turned "to" is the light of the gospel.
"We read in Matthew 4lh chapter and I5th verse: And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. 19. And he saith unto them, follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. Why did not Jesus Christ call some of the eminent scribes or pharisees to publish his gospel, and not poor unlearned fishermen without credit or authority? Because it was the kingdom of heaven they were to preach, and their teachings were to come from above; besides the conversion of sinners, though it benefited instrumentally by the preaching of the gospel, yet the grand agent in it is the Spirit of God. As the instruments were comparatively mean, and the work which was accomplished by them was grand and glorious, the excellency of the power at once appeared to be of God, and not of man. And thus the glory due alone to his name was secured, and the great operator of all good had the deserved praise." (pg. 92)
Notice what the writer believes about "conversion." The Spirit is the "agent" and the "preaching of the gospel" is the "instrument." Further, there does not seem to be any doubt about the elect being converted.
In the July 23, 1836 (1st) issue, we find these words:
"Dear brethren, permit me to ask a few plain questions, for the express purpose that the missionaries may answer them if they can: Do not all Christians know, that Christ has converted every soul that ever was converted? Do they not know, that he will convert every one that ever will be converted? Do they not know, that he will do it at the very time he has appointed? Do they not know, that men cannot get a soul converted one moment before the than appointed by the shepherd of the flock, nor keep it lick one moment longer? Under such impressions as these what have we to do but to obey?"
God will convert the sinner, make him a Christian, and will not fail in doing so. Is that what today's PBs believe?
The author (MORRIS) continued:
"I know that our enemies are saying, if so why do we preach? for if God intends to save a definite number, it is in vain...I would not preach nor exhort if God had not commanded it. But as he has told me what it is for, that is, this way he intends to bring his people to the knowledge of himself. And not only so it was his "will to create the heaven and earth by his word; and also to bring his people to the knowledge of the truth by the same word; as such, this word is sufficient to do it, and no other. But he has not sent his word to save any other people but his own, and he cannot save them without it; for faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God; and without faith it is impossible lo please him. So I conclude by subscribing myself yours in the best of bonds."
Preaching the gospel is the "way he intends to bring his people to the knowledge of himself"! Notice the importance of the word as an instrument. Knowledge of the truth comes "by the same word" and "this word is sufficient" thereunto. Salvation requires that one have faith, and to have faith, one must hear the gospel.
In the 1858 issue, we have the CIRCULAR of the THE BUTTAHATCHIE (ALA.) ASSOCIATION (page 10 of the pdf - see here) and these words therefrom:
"Our dear neighbors fall out with us very often and call us hard names, because we cannot agree that they can at the appointed times and places make christians, when we are certain that man could just as easily make a world. We can alarm and warn sinners, which is our duty, but to emerge them from nature's night, into the marvellous light and liberty of the Gospel of Christ, not all the saints and angels of Heaven could do it. The most beautiful figure upon that subject is used by our Saviour to Nichodemus, wherein he compares it to a birth. Let us talk plain, and bid that false refinement get behind us - Ye must be born again. Could all the men and women on Earth, affect a birth without complying with the Laws of nature? Must there not be a begetting, a jestation or travail? This so; then there must be a Father. Hear the Apostle speak upou this subject who, says he, (speaking of God) hath begotten us to a lively hope, &c. When Zion travails she brings forth."
Notice the reference to the begetting preceding the travail and the birth. Notice how God is pictured as the Father, in the begetting, and how "Zion" is the mother who "brings forth." Notice also that the "begetting" and the birth "travail" is what makes a person a "Christian." Also, the "light" that is turned "to" is the light of the gospel.
Sunday, February 10, 2019
Whew! What A Change!
The changes or evolution in doctrine that I have discovered throughout my many years of studying the history of the "Two Seed," "Primitive," or "Old School" Baptists, concerns not only the change in views regarding the means and nature of "regeneration" or the "new birth," and the change regarding the certain "perseverance" of the regenerated (changes that I have addressed in voluminous writings), but also the change in the strictness of their idea of perseverance. Let me explain.
Today's Hardshells, for the greater part, deny that the regenerated will and must persevere in grace and holiness, and in the faith of the gospel, believing rather that many of the regenerated will fail to persevere and yet be "preserved" in grace. One can be a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or a believer in any other false or heathen religion, and still be "regenerated" and "preserved" and so be finally saved. It is because of the change in belief about "regeneration" (believing that it does not make one a Christian), divorcing it from evangelical conversion, and about perseverance in the truth (that the new birth does not guarantee perseverance in faith), that led the Hardshells into quasi Universalism.
Yet, when one reads the first several years of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical of the 1830s he discovers how different was the thinking of those first PBs from their followers of today! Those brethren believed that anyone who did not belong to the "one true church" was in Babylon and a part of Antichrist. They were constantly saying "come out of her my people," believing that the truly elect and regenerated would come out of the false churches! They suspected the salvation of all they thought were heretics! This is why they constantly talked about how only few would be saved (as the scriptures also teach). Wow, what a change! Ironic too when one considers how today's PBs are under a delusion that they have not changed in the past two hundred years.
Today's Hardshells, for the greater part, deny that the regenerated will and must persevere in grace and holiness, and in the faith of the gospel, believing rather that many of the regenerated will fail to persevere and yet be "preserved" in grace. One can be a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or a believer in any other false or heathen religion, and still be "regenerated" and "preserved" and so be finally saved. It is because of the change in belief about "regeneration" (believing that it does not make one a Christian), divorcing it from evangelical conversion, and about perseverance in the truth (that the new birth does not guarantee perseverance in faith), that led the Hardshells into quasi Universalism.
Yet, when one reads the first several years of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical of the 1830s he discovers how different was the thinking of those first PBs from their followers of today! Those brethren believed that anyone who did not belong to the "one true church" was in Babylon and a part of Antichrist. They were constantly saying "come out of her my people," believing that the truly elect and regenerated would come out of the false churches! They suspected the salvation of all they thought were heretics! This is why they constantly talked about how only few would be saved (as the scriptures also teach). Wow, what a change! Ironic too when one considers how today's PBs are under a delusion that they have not changed in the past two hundred years.
Dr. John Owen On Mediate Regeneration
As I related in a previous posting, I had a Hardshell tell me that the Puritans believed in regeneration apart from faith and the means of the preached word. I told him to send me the proof of that assertion. I of course did not receive that proof. Here is what the Puritan Owen wrote on the subject (emphasis mine):
"The work of the Spirit of God in regenerating the souls of men is diligently to be inquired into by the preachers of the gospel, and all to whom the word is dispensed. For the former sort, there is a peculiar reason for their attendance unto this duty; for they are used and employed in the work itself by the Spirit of God and are by him made instrumental for the effecting of this birth and life. So the apostle Paul styles himself the father of them who were converted to God or regenerated through the word of his ministry."
Owen, in his “Discourse on the Work of the Holy Spirit” (1674), page 226, in The Works of John Owen (London: Banner of Truth, 1966), III, 121ff., has regularly refuted such insinuations by Samuel Parker, author of “Defence and Continuation of the Ecclesiastical Polity” (1671).
(See here for source)
Very clear, hey? That also has been the historic view of Baptists, excepting the Hardshells of course. Also, note how Owen makes "conversion" to be "regeneration," saying "converted to God or regenerated." Notice further how this conversion or regeneration is accomplished by the Spirit's use of "the word" that is preached.
"The work of the Spirit of God in regenerating the souls of men is diligently to be inquired into by the preachers of the gospel, and all to whom the word is dispensed. For the former sort, there is a peculiar reason for their attendance unto this duty; for they are used and employed in the work itself by the Spirit of God and are by him made instrumental for the effecting of this birth and life. So the apostle Paul styles himself the father of them who were converted to God or regenerated through the word of his ministry."
Owen, in his “Discourse on the Work of the Holy Spirit” (1674), page 226, in The Works of John Owen (London: Banner of Truth, 1966), III, 121ff., has regularly refuted such insinuations by Samuel Parker, author of “Defence and Continuation of the Ecclesiastical Polity” (1671).
(See here for source)
Very clear, hey? That also has been the historic view of Baptists, excepting the Hardshells of course. Also, note how Owen makes "conversion" to be "regeneration," saying "converted to God or regenerated." Notice further how this conversion or regeneration is accomplished by the Spirit's use of "the word" that is preached.
Friday, February 8, 2019
Elder J. C. Denton (1896) Faith Is Necessary
Elder Denton was a frequent writer in PB newspapers, especially in "The Gospel Messenger" and "The Baptist Trumpet." Denton wrote:
"WE KNOW THAT INFANTS are saved without that faith which “cometh by hearing,” but I am of opinion, with Eld. Hassell (C.B.) that they are not saved without faith in Christ. He says: “And as the grace of faith is the gift of God (Eph. i:19; ii:8; Gal. v:22; Phil. i:29; Heb. xii:2) it is as easy for Omnipotence to bestow it upon a dying infant as upon a living adult.” And if God does this, then the infant receives Christ by revelation, and enters heaven an intelligent worshipper of Him, ascribing its glorious redemption to Him!" ("The Baptist Trumpet," Vol.5., No.38, Oct. 1896 - see here)
Notice how Denton insists that no one, not even the dying infant, is saved "without faith in Christ." Is that not we have taught here in the Old Baptist Test blog? Are we not the real Old Baptists? Further, he cites C.B. Hassell's words. Have I not shown how Cushing Biggs held to gospel means? And, that his son Sylvester, in later days, denied means, and thus went against the view of his father and of the first PBs?
"WE KNOW THAT INFANTS are saved without that faith which “cometh by hearing,” but I am of opinion, with Eld. Hassell (C.B.) that they are not saved without faith in Christ. He says: “And as the grace of faith is the gift of God (Eph. i:19; ii:8; Gal. v:22; Phil. i:29; Heb. xii:2) it is as easy for Omnipotence to bestow it upon a dying infant as upon a living adult.” And if God does this, then the infant receives Christ by revelation, and enters heaven an intelligent worshipper of Him, ascribing its glorious redemption to Him!" ("The Baptist Trumpet," Vol.5., No.38, Oct. 1896 - see here)
Notice how Denton insists that no one, not even the dying infant, is saved "without faith in Christ." Is that not we have taught here in the Old Baptist Test blog? Are we not the real Old Baptists? Further, he cites C.B. Hassell's words. Have I not shown how Cushing Biggs held to gospel means? And, that his son Sylvester, in later days, denied means, and thus went against the view of his father and of the first PBs?
Wednesday, February 6, 2019
Elder Moses D. Denman On Means
Elder Moses Denman was born in Georgia but labored mostly in Texas. He had other writings that I have not been able to find on the Internet.
Here is what Denman wrote (see here), showing his belief in Gospel means, the original view of the first "Primitive Baptists" (emphasis mine):
"LED BY THE CARNAL MIND, some misrepresent Election by supposing two young men trained by the same parents under the same influences; and that one of them is wicked and dies in unbelief cursing God, yet being one of the elect he is seated in heaven. Now this is a very unfair or unscriptural view of Election. For the Bible plainly teaches that “the wicked shall be cast into hell,” and that God has chosen us “that we should be holy.” Thus, you see, none of the elect ever die while unchanged or wicked, for they have been chosen to holiness. Hence, Election or God’s choice includes the New Birth and belief of the truth. II Thess. ii. 13. So instead of the elect dying in unbelief cursing God as unfairly supposed, we here find that God has chosen them to be changed and to walk in good works. Yes, poor, trembling one grieved by sin, though you feel unworthy, God has chosen you to be brought by the Spirit, through sanctification and belief of the truth of salvation. With like unfairness the natural mind supposes that the other boy lives righteously, believes and loves God, and dies praying to the Lord for mercy; and yet not being one of the elect, he is sent to hell. But this as in the other case, contradicts the word of God. For instead of loving, praying believers being sent to hell, the Bible plainly declares that “Every one that believeth is born of God,” I John iv. 7; and “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life,” John iii. 36; and “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Rom. x. 13. Here we see, all who believe and love God and beg Him for mercy have everlasting life, are born of God, and shall be saved in heaven according to the election of grace." (Elder Moses D. Denman, “Election” (late 1800s), published posthumously in Religious Writings of Moses D. Denman (1907)
Here is what Denman wrote (see here), showing his belief in Gospel means, the original view of the first "Primitive Baptists" (emphasis mine):
"LED BY THE CARNAL MIND, some misrepresent Election by supposing two young men trained by the same parents under the same influences; and that one of them is wicked and dies in unbelief cursing God, yet being one of the elect he is seated in heaven. Now this is a very unfair or unscriptural view of Election. For the Bible plainly teaches that “the wicked shall be cast into hell,” and that God has chosen us “that we should be holy.” Thus, you see, none of the elect ever die while unchanged or wicked, for they have been chosen to holiness. Hence, Election or God’s choice includes the New Birth and belief of the truth. II Thess. ii. 13. So instead of the elect dying in unbelief cursing God as unfairly supposed, we here find that God has chosen them to be changed and to walk in good works. Yes, poor, trembling one grieved by sin, though you feel unworthy, God has chosen you to be brought by the Spirit, through sanctification and belief of the truth of salvation. With like unfairness the natural mind supposes that the other boy lives righteously, believes and loves God, and dies praying to the Lord for mercy; and yet not being one of the elect, he is sent to hell. But this as in the other case, contradicts the word of God. For instead of loving, praying believers being sent to hell, the Bible plainly declares that “Every one that believeth is born of God,” I John iv. 7; and “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life,” John iii. 36; and “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Rom. x. 13. Here we see, all who believe and love God and beg Him for mercy have everlasting life, are born of God, and shall be saved in heaven according to the election of grace." (Elder Moses D. Denman, “Election” (late 1800s), published posthumously in Religious Writings of Moses D. Denman (1907)
Tuesday, February 5, 2019
John Leland On Means In Rebirth
I have over the years cited from Elder Leland to show that he believed in means and in perseverance and was therefore an Old Baptist. Here is more proof.
Leland wrote (emphasis mine):
"THE BLOOD OF CHRIST alone removes the guilt of sin,—his holy anointing frees us from its reigning dominion. Yes, the religion that saves the soul from sin, guilt, and condemnation, includes a mediator, who died for our sins, a change of heart, or being born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God, (of his own will he begets us by the word of truth,) not by works of righteousness which we have done, but by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, he works in us, both to will and to do. This spirit of grace, shed abundantly on the soul, causes it to bring forth the fruits of love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance, against which there is no law. This immortal seed, which abides with the saints, not only produces the internal fruits, just mentioned, but is a stronger stimulus to prompt to every good work, both religious and human, than the horrid fear of punishment, and the flattering hope of reward." (Elder John Leland, “A Memorial,” The Writings of Elder John Leland pp. 660-61 (1845)." (see here)
Monday, February 4, 2019
Regeneration Precedes New Birth
The following is taken (believe it or not) from a modern PB web page. But, more on that in a separate posting, perhaps. (see here) It is further proof that shows how the first "Primitive Baptists" saw "regeneration" as preceding the new birth, with the period of "law work" or conviction of sin filling the "gap" in between. They often talked about a sinner "going from Mt. Sinai (where conviction has put him) to Mt. Zion" (conversion by gospel faith). Thus, "regeneration" put the sinner under conviction, but the "new birth" brought "deliverance" by evangelical faith or conversion. I have presented all kinds of evidence to show how predominant this view was among the Hardshell founding fathers.
It shows how far today's Hardshells have departed from the faith in their denial of the necessity of both evangelical conversion and perseverance in the Christian faith, doctrines which their forefathers strongly adhered to. In the circular the highlighting is mine.
From the Columbia Association Circular Letter, as published in Signs of the Times (Nov. 2, 1834).
"REGENERATION BEING THE IMPLANTING of spiritual life in the soul, it will assuredly be followed by spiritual action, and the regenerated soul will be born again as a new creature or new man being created in righteousness and true holiness, the principles of righteousness and heart holiness, will be manifested in the feelings and acts of the person thus quickened."
Do you see? Regeneration will always be followed by conversion.
The circular continued:
"The new man being a creation in righteousness, the individual being once regenerated will immediately have his attention directed to the Law as the standard of right, and will thereby test his acts and thoughts. Finding his works not conformed thereto, he will reject them, and turn from them with loathing, and will manifest a hungering and thirsting after righteousness. Finding the law to be spiritual, and his affections to be carnal, and his heart deceitful, he will lose all confidence in his own self-inspired resolutions, and all satisfaction in the excitement of those affections, and will turn from both with disgust, condemning even his tears and prayers as hypocritical. Feeling the justice of his condemnation as a transgressor, both in heart and in life, he acknowledges before God and men, that he richly deserves everlasting banishment from God, and therefore falls, a wretch undone, at the feet of Sovereign mercy to implore pardon, realizing this to be his last resort, and very much doubting, whether even the mercy of God can extend pardon to a wretch, so guilty and vile as he.
And when by faith he has a view of the efficacy and freeness of the atoning blood and righteousness of Christ (how did he know of the atoning blood apart from hearing the gospel? SG), as being substituted under the law for helpless sinners like him, a hope of being saved springs up in his breast, a sense of pardon flows through his soul, and he rejoices, not only in hope of acceptance with God, but also in the glorious fact, that in this way, everlasting righteousness is brought in, the law is honored, the sinner is justified and saved eternally, as a monument of the riches and glory of Divine Grace. It is this which makes him ever after cling to, and rely alone upon the righteousness of Christ for his acceptance with God. No, brethren, it is not an antinomian principle, but true righteousness of soul, which leads the believer to renounce all creature works as grounds of acceptance, and to trust only in, and plead only that righteousness of Christ for his acceptance."
Notice that conversion, or the new birth, is no "time salvation" but the one converted is "saved eternally."
The circular continued:
"Brethren, is this your experience? If so, you know for yourselves what regeneration is. But, if you know not these things, or if you are of those who ridicule the ideas here advanced as enthusiasm, still be assured, however ignorant others may be of them, we speak what we do know and testify that we have seen, and it still remains good, that no man receiveth our testimony, but as the Holy Ghost maketh him feel the truth of it."
Conversion was not optional, not a mere "time salvation," not something that was only certain for a few of the elect, not something resulting from free will and human effort (as is believed by today's PBs), but was as sure as was regeneration. That is why many of the PBs oldest churches say that they believe that "all the elect will be both regenerated and converted," the latter being the new birth, having the church as the mother.
It shows how far today's Hardshells have departed from the faith in their denial of the necessity of both evangelical conversion and perseverance in the Christian faith, doctrines which their forefathers strongly adhered to. In the circular the highlighting is mine.
From the Columbia Association Circular Letter, as published in Signs of the Times (Nov. 2, 1834).
"REGENERATION BEING THE IMPLANTING of spiritual life in the soul, it will assuredly be followed by spiritual action, and the regenerated soul will be born again as a new creature or new man being created in righteousness and true holiness, the principles of righteousness and heart holiness, will be manifested in the feelings and acts of the person thus quickened."
Do you see? Regeneration will always be followed by conversion.
The circular continued:
"The new man being a creation in righteousness, the individual being once regenerated will immediately have his attention directed to the Law as the standard of right, and will thereby test his acts and thoughts. Finding his works not conformed thereto, he will reject them, and turn from them with loathing, and will manifest a hungering and thirsting after righteousness. Finding the law to be spiritual, and his affections to be carnal, and his heart deceitful, he will lose all confidence in his own self-inspired resolutions, and all satisfaction in the excitement of those affections, and will turn from both with disgust, condemning even his tears and prayers as hypocritical. Feeling the justice of his condemnation as a transgressor, both in heart and in life, he acknowledges before God and men, that he richly deserves everlasting banishment from God, and therefore falls, a wretch undone, at the feet of Sovereign mercy to implore pardon, realizing this to be his last resort, and very much doubting, whether even the mercy of God can extend pardon to a wretch, so guilty and vile as he.
And when by faith he has a view of the efficacy and freeness of the atoning blood and righteousness of Christ (how did he know of the atoning blood apart from hearing the gospel? SG), as being substituted under the law for helpless sinners like him, a hope of being saved springs up in his breast, a sense of pardon flows through his soul, and he rejoices, not only in hope of acceptance with God, but also in the glorious fact, that in this way, everlasting righteousness is brought in, the law is honored, the sinner is justified and saved eternally, as a monument of the riches and glory of Divine Grace. It is this which makes him ever after cling to, and rely alone upon the righteousness of Christ for his acceptance with God. No, brethren, it is not an antinomian principle, but true righteousness of soul, which leads the believer to renounce all creature works as grounds of acceptance, and to trust only in, and plead only that righteousness of Christ for his acceptance."
Notice that conversion, or the new birth, is no "time salvation" but the one converted is "saved eternally."
The circular continued:
"Brethren, is this your experience? If so, you know for yourselves what regeneration is. But, if you know not these things, or if you are of those who ridicule the ideas here advanced as enthusiasm, still be assured, however ignorant others may be of them, we speak what we do know and testify that we have seen, and it still remains good, that no man receiveth our testimony, but as the Holy Ghost maketh him feel the truth of it."
Conversion was not optional, not a mere "time salvation," not something that was only certain for a few of the elect, not something resulting from free will and human effort (as is believed by today's PBs), but was as sure as was regeneration. That is why many of the PBs oldest churches say that they believe that "all the elect will be both regenerated and converted," the latter being the new birth, having the church as the mother.
Sunday, February 3, 2019
S.C. PB Ass. Circulars (1842/58)
CIRCULAR LETTER of the
The South Carolina Primitive Baptist Association
VOL. 7. SATURDAY, JANUARY 8, 1842 (see here)
"We believe, brethren, all those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased in his own appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his word and spirit, out of that state of sin and death which they are in by nature. Christ enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God. Again, Acts, 26: 18 "to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of sat^n unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins." God has said he will take away the heart of stone, and give unto them an heart of flesh. And we believe he renews their wills by his almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them, to Jesus Christ. Yet they are made willing by that grace given them."
Notice that Acts 26: 18 is applied to that experience wherein a soul is delivered "out of that state of sin and death." How do today's Hardshells interpret Acts 26:18? Since Paul's preaching was to be the means in bringing about this salvation, Hardshells deny that it is part of that salvation that is necessary for one to enter Heaven. But, the first PBs did not interpret it as a "time salvation." Don't you see?
The circular continued:
"Here we see grace given in the effectual calling of God, and when God calls one of his elect sheep that he chose in his Son before time began, they are made by grace to hear his voice. This is what we understand to be the effectual and special callings of God's free and special grace alone. We don't believe it was from any thing that was foreseen in mnn, who is altogether passive therein, until being quickened and renewed by the holy spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace this grace offered and conveyed in it. 1 Cor. 2 ch. 14 v. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Here, brethren, is some of that despised doctrine, which carnal professors call a mystery, and for our holding which doctrine cease not to say, we who profess to believe in the doctrine, believe that idiots and infants are forever lost. But we are persuaded if these people, (who profess to be preachers,) were called on for proof of these accusations of theirs, they could give none. Brethren, we would here say to our accusers, we disavow the doctrine they accuse us with; for we believe infants who die in a state of infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the spirit who worketh when and where and how he pleaseth. And thus we believe all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word are saved, viz. they are regenerated and saved by the blood of Christ."
ASA BELL, Moderator, John L. Simpson, Clerk (here)
Is this not all in keeping with the 1689 London Confession?
CIRCULAR LETTER of The South Carolina Primitive Baptist Association (1858)
"Beloved Brethren: Your attention is invited to the consideration of the new birth, presented by our Lord and Saviour to Nicodemus, in the interesting conversation between them, as recorded in the third chapter of Christ's gospel by St. John, and at the 7th verse: Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again. In this conversation Jesus said unto this teacher of the Jews, ye must be born again. The mysterious and imperishable operation of the word and spirit of God upon the heart of man, were not a matter of great surprise and astonishment to Nicodemus only; they have been regarded in the same light in all ages of the world, by those who know not God."
Notice how this new birth is an operation of "the word and spirit of God." That is in keeping with the 1689 Confession also. But, it is what is denied by today's PBs.
The Circular continued:
"The person to whom our Saviour addressed himself with so much earnestness on the necessity of being born again, was a man of intelligence and distinction amongst the Jews. He probably sat in Moses' seat, he was an expounder of the law and the prophets, a teacher of religion. But alas! when tried by the standard of eternal truth, low lamentably deficient was he found, in the first principle of ihe religion he pretended to teach. Hence the just inference is, that a man may attain to a great degree in things that pertain to religion, and yet be sadly deficient in those things that are spiritual, and that which pertain to the kingdom of God. To prevent mistakes on a subject of such vast importance, our minds should be directed on the present occasion to the consideration of the new birth, and our efforts employed in attempting to explain what is meant by the Saviour's expressions, ye must be born again.
First, what are we to understand by being born again? It surely cannot mean, a mere external reformation from gross immorality; nor a change from one system of religion to another; nor even from heathen idolatry to the Christian faith; nor in submission to the ordinance of Baptism; nor yet in firm persuasion that we are the children of God; zealously doing the work of our heavenly Father. The memorable instance of Simon Magus and Saul of Tarsus illustrates these remarks; the former believed historically, but the latter by the power of the word and spirit of God, working on the dark powers of the soul and diffusing life divine. Then the expression born again, and all other parable phrases found in the word of God, are two (sic) strong and distinct to admit of any consistent meaning, less than a radical change in the disposition of the soul.
We say a change or renewal in the disposition of the soul, because no new faculties are imparted to man in the new birth, none were lost by the fall and none are given in regeneration; the carnal mind or disposition of sinful man is enmity against God, in the new birth. A spiritual mind or disposition is given to man under the power and influence of the spirit of God, in which the powers and faculties of the soul receives a new and spiritual direction; the moral image of God was defaced in man by his apostacy, this image is restored in the new birth, by the word and spirit of God. This change or renewal is radical, it reaches to the thoughts and dispositions; the aims and ends of the new born soul is to glorify God, in the gift of his grace and spirit. All this is effected by the same mighty power and energy of God, which first give life and form to man; and which alone can rectify and restore that part of man, which was lost and disordered. Hence those who were the children of wrath, have now become the children of God by ihe blood of the covenant, and adopted heir of Christ into the grace of life, and are said to be born again, or translated from darkness to light, and from the power of sin and satan into the kingdom of Christ.
For it is the office of the spirit to illuminate the dark faculties of the soul, and to give it that faith which works by love and purifies the heart. And so wonderfully develops itself in the new born soul, that it shows it all the beauty and graces of Jesus, and enables the creature to receive the Saviour as their prophet, priest, and king. This is to be born again. There the regenerated soul is said to be God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained, that we should walk in them. As such old things are done away, behold all things become new.
What is it to be "born again"? It is "to receive the Saviour." Is that not clear? PBs who deny this today are not "Primitive," or "Old School," but are a new sect on the block.
The circular continued:
"But again, how or what is the effect on the sinner's heart? when brought to a knowledge of sin, the dead soul is quickened and made alive to feel and see its lost and ruined state, and to feel the condemning power of God's holy law and the justice of God in damning or banishing it from his presence for ever. And thus the soul or sinner is brought to mourn on account of his sin, and to dread the terrors of God's wrath, while God by his spirit sends his word into the heart as a sharp two-edged sword, piercing or dividing asunder of body and spirit; that spirit which defaced the glorious image of God, and put enmity between God and the sinner. And now he is brought to a knowledge of his sin by the power of the law, the sinner is now converted, convinced, and convicted, and sees himself a just monument of God's wrath, while the thunders of Mount Sinai rolls against the guilty soul, and it is the schoolmaster the Law takes the sinner and brings him to Christ. And here, brethren is the last blow the ox or the Law gives the sinner, it fells him and lays him at the foot of the cross, where that glorious fountain runs down. There is the time and place that Jesus comes with pardon, and applies his atoning blood. And now the sinner is enabled to look up to Jesus by faith, and see the streaming blood; this is the time of agonising with soul, there the time of godly sorrow, that worketh repentance, unto salvation, not to he repented of. And then is the time that Jesus applies the water, or the washing of water by the word and the sanctifying graces of his spirit; and there it is that the soul is regenerated and born again."
Do you see how these first PBs identified gospel faith and conversion with the new birth?
The Circular continued:
"Jesus is formed in the soul the hope of glory, then it is mercy and truth meet together in the soul; then it is that righteousness and peace kiss each other in the soul; and then the sinner is justified and reconciled to God through the faith of Christ, and the soul filled with that joy that is unspeakable and full of glory; then it is that a new song is put into the mouth, even praise to God. And may God add his blessings on and to his word, and keep us by his mighty power, and rule us by his glorious spirit. Amen."
That was what the forefathers of today's PBs (who deny gospel means) believed. Today's PBs are not primitive on this important doctrine
The South Carolina Primitive Baptist Association
VOL. 7. SATURDAY, JANUARY 8, 1842 (see here)
"We believe, brethren, all those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased in his own appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his word and spirit, out of that state of sin and death which they are in by nature. Christ enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God. Again, Acts, 26: 18 "to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of sat^n unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins." God has said he will take away the heart of stone, and give unto them an heart of flesh. And we believe he renews their wills by his almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them, to Jesus Christ. Yet they are made willing by that grace given them."
Notice that Acts 26: 18 is applied to that experience wherein a soul is delivered "out of that state of sin and death." How do today's Hardshells interpret Acts 26:18? Since Paul's preaching was to be the means in bringing about this salvation, Hardshells deny that it is part of that salvation that is necessary for one to enter Heaven. But, the first PBs did not interpret it as a "time salvation." Don't you see?
The circular continued:
"Here we see grace given in the effectual calling of God, and when God calls one of his elect sheep that he chose in his Son before time began, they are made by grace to hear his voice. This is what we understand to be the effectual and special callings of God's free and special grace alone. We don't believe it was from any thing that was foreseen in mnn, who is altogether passive therein, until being quickened and renewed by the holy spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace this grace offered and conveyed in it. 1 Cor. 2 ch. 14 v. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Here, brethren, is some of that despised doctrine, which carnal professors call a mystery, and for our holding which doctrine cease not to say, we who profess to believe in the doctrine, believe that idiots and infants are forever lost. But we are persuaded if these people, (who profess to be preachers,) were called on for proof of these accusations of theirs, they could give none. Brethren, we would here say to our accusers, we disavow the doctrine they accuse us with; for we believe infants who die in a state of infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the spirit who worketh when and where and how he pleaseth. And thus we believe all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word are saved, viz. they are regenerated and saved by the blood of Christ."
ASA BELL, Moderator, John L. Simpson, Clerk (here)
Is this not all in keeping with the 1689 London Confession?
CIRCULAR LETTER of The South Carolina Primitive Baptist Association (1858)
"Beloved Brethren: Your attention is invited to the consideration of the new birth, presented by our Lord and Saviour to Nicodemus, in the interesting conversation between them, as recorded in the third chapter of Christ's gospel by St. John, and at the 7th verse: Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again. In this conversation Jesus said unto this teacher of the Jews, ye must be born again. The mysterious and imperishable operation of the word and spirit of God upon the heart of man, were not a matter of great surprise and astonishment to Nicodemus only; they have been regarded in the same light in all ages of the world, by those who know not God."
Notice how this new birth is an operation of "the word and spirit of God." That is in keeping with the 1689 Confession also. But, it is what is denied by today's PBs.
The Circular continued:
"The person to whom our Saviour addressed himself with so much earnestness on the necessity of being born again, was a man of intelligence and distinction amongst the Jews. He probably sat in Moses' seat, he was an expounder of the law and the prophets, a teacher of religion. But alas! when tried by the standard of eternal truth, low lamentably deficient was he found, in the first principle of ihe religion he pretended to teach. Hence the just inference is, that a man may attain to a great degree in things that pertain to religion, and yet be sadly deficient in those things that are spiritual, and that which pertain to the kingdom of God. To prevent mistakes on a subject of such vast importance, our minds should be directed on the present occasion to the consideration of the new birth, and our efforts employed in attempting to explain what is meant by the Saviour's expressions, ye must be born again.
First, what are we to understand by being born again? It surely cannot mean, a mere external reformation from gross immorality; nor a change from one system of religion to another; nor even from heathen idolatry to the Christian faith; nor in submission to the ordinance of Baptism; nor yet in firm persuasion that we are the children of God; zealously doing the work of our heavenly Father. The memorable instance of Simon Magus and Saul of Tarsus illustrates these remarks; the former believed historically, but the latter by the power of the word and spirit of God, working on the dark powers of the soul and diffusing life divine. Then the expression born again, and all other parable phrases found in the word of God, are two (sic) strong and distinct to admit of any consistent meaning, less than a radical change in the disposition of the soul.
We say a change or renewal in the disposition of the soul, because no new faculties are imparted to man in the new birth, none were lost by the fall and none are given in regeneration; the carnal mind or disposition of sinful man is enmity against God, in the new birth. A spiritual mind or disposition is given to man under the power and influence of the spirit of God, in which the powers and faculties of the soul receives a new and spiritual direction; the moral image of God was defaced in man by his apostacy, this image is restored in the new birth, by the word and spirit of God. This change or renewal is radical, it reaches to the thoughts and dispositions; the aims and ends of the new born soul is to glorify God, in the gift of his grace and spirit. All this is effected by the same mighty power and energy of God, which first give life and form to man; and which alone can rectify and restore that part of man, which was lost and disordered. Hence those who were the children of wrath, have now become the children of God by ihe blood of the covenant, and adopted heir of Christ into the grace of life, and are said to be born again, or translated from darkness to light, and from the power of sin and satan into the kingdom of Christ.
For it is the office of the spirit to illuminate the dark faculties of the soul, and to give it that faith which works by love and purifies the heart. And so wonderfully develops itself in the new born soul, that it shows it all the beauty and graces of Jesus, and enables the creature to receive the Saviour as their prophet, priest, and king. This is to be born again. There the regenerated soul is said to be God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained, that we should walk in them. As such old things are done away, behold all things become new.
What is it to be "born again"? It is "to receive the Saviour." Is that not clear? PBs who deny this today are not "Primitive," or "Old School," but are a new sect on the block.
The circular continued:
"But again, how or what is the effect on the sinner's heart? when brought to a knowledge of sin, the dead soul is quickened and made alive to feel and see its lost and ruined state, and to feel the condemning power of God's holy law and the justice of God in damning or banishing it from his presence for ever. And thus the soul or sinner is brought to mourn on account of his sin, and to dread the terrors of God's wrath, while God by his spirit sends his word into the heart as a sharp two-edged sword, piercing or dividing asunder of body and spirit; that spirit which defaced the glorious image of God, and put enmity between God and the sinner. And now he is brought to a knowledge of his sin by the power of the law, the sinner is now converted, convinced, and convicted, and sees himself a just monument of God's wrath, while the thunders of Mount Sinai rolls against the guilty soul, and it is the schoolmaster the Law takes the sinner and brings him to Christ. And here, brethren is the last blow the ox or the Law gives the sinner, it fells him and lays him at the foot of the cross, where that glorious fountain runs down. There is the time and place that Jesus comes with pardon, and applies his atoning blood. And now the sinner is enabled to look up to Jesus by faith, and see the streaming blood; this is the time of agonising with soul, there the time of godly sorrow, that worketh repentance, unto salvation, not to he repented of. And then is the time that Jesus applies the water, or the washing of water by the word and the sanctifying graces of his spirit; and there it is that the soul is regenerated and born again."
Do you see how these first PBs identified gospel faith and conversion with the new birth?
The Circular continued:
"Jesus is formed in the soul the hope of glory, then it is mercy and truth meet together in the soul; then it is that righteousness and peace kiss each other in the soul; and then the sinner is justified and reconciled to God through the faith of Christ, and the soul filled with that joy that is unspeakable and full of glory; then it is that a new song is put into the mouth, even praise to God. And may God add his blessings on and to his word, and keep us by his mighty power, and rule us by his glorious spirit. Amen."
That was what the forefathers of today's PBs (who deny gospel means) believed. Today's PBs are not primitive on this important doctrine
Winslett On Receiving The Spirit
In this final posting regarding Elder Ben Winslett I will combat what he said about the connection, if any, between "receiving the Spirit" and being "born again."
Ben cited these words of mine from my first entry:
3) Winslet said that the gift of the Spirit does not occur in the new birth!
Ben responded to this with these words:
"You are correct. This is what sound theologians teach. There is a difference in being born of The Spirit and receiving the Spirit as our Comforter, as taught in the Upper Room Discourse. Please note the words of John Gill on Acts 2:38:
"...And ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost: not the grace of the Spirit, as a regenerator and sanctifier; for that they had already; and is necessary, as previous to baptism...but rather the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, particularly the gift of speaking with tongues, which Christ had received from the Father, and had now shed on his apostles;" [emphasis mine]
Questions In Retort
1) Who determines what is a "sound" theologian?
2) Was Gill a "sound theologian"?
3) Did Gill deny that the Spirit was given and received in regeneration?
4) Did Gill apply the work of the Parakletos to the work of regeneration?
5) What sound theologian denied that the Spirit was given and received in rebirth?
6) What Jesus said about the coming of the Spirit is not applicable to the new birth?
7) Is the work of a "comforter" (parakletos) only to comfort or console?
8) Are you denying that the Spirit is given and received in regeneration?
9) Are you denying that there is any "comforting" of the Spirit in the new birth?
10) Are you saying that one can be born of the Spirit but not be comforted by the Spirit?
Gill, though he believed the words "gift of the Holy Ghost" denoted a post regeneration and post conversion experience in this particular text, yet does not preclude his belief that "receiving of the Spirit" was what effected regeneration, conversion, sanctification, etc. Gill believed that regeneration consisted in the Lord giving, and the sinner receiving, the Holy Spirit. This we will see shortly. Not only that, but all "sound theologians" that I know about would agree with Gill.
I disagree with the view of Gill on the meaning of "gift of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 2: 38. I believe it means the same thing as it means in several other key places where the same or similar wording is used, as we will see. My view is probably the more common view. This view sees "the gift of the Holy Spirit" as denoting that the Spirit is the gift being given. In other words, they would receive the Holy Spirit as a gift. The words are the translation of a Genitive, of which the new testament is replete. There are many kinds of Genitive and it is the context that must guide us in discerning which kind it is. What kind of Genitive is it in Acts 2: 38?
The genitive case, in English or in Greek, is commonly referred to as the possessive case. Genitives generally serve as adjectives. (See my posting God's Faith II for a more detailed discussion of Genitives). Many times a Genitive will be translated into English from Greek by the use of the preposition "of," as in our text and the words "the gift of the Spirit." But, what are we to understand by the use of "of" in such cases?
Often it denotes ownership, as in "the life of Steve," i.e., that life which belongs to Steve. Sometimes "of" denotes source, and in this sense it is used interchangeably with "from." Thus, if I say "the words of Steve" I mean "the words coming from Steve."
However, if I say "the land of Egypt," do I mean "land that belongs to Egypt"? Do I mean "the land that is from Egypt"? Or, do they mean "the land that is Egypt"? No doubt the latter.
Likewise, when we say "the gift of the Spirit" we mean "the gift that is the Spirit." We see a similar Genitive in the words "the temple of his body," which obviously means "the temple which is his body" (John 2:21).
Here are the reasons why I cannot believe that the words "the gift of the Holy Spirit" denote a gift that comes from the Spirit, but affirming rather that "the gift of the Spirit" means "the gift that is the Spirit."
1) The text says that penitents who put their faith in Christ will receive "the gift" (singular) and yet when Gill interprets it he has "the gifts" (plural).
2) The words "gift of the Holy Spirit" are a genitive, and there are many kinds. It is the job of the interpreter to determine the kind in a particular case. Gill sees it as "gifts coming from the Spirit" (an "ablative genitive" of source). I see it, as do others, as "the gift that is the Spirit" (what is given is the Spirit). A.T. Robertson says - "The gift consists ( Acts 8:17 ) in the Holy Spirit (genitive of identification)." It is also called the "Genitive of Apposition" or "Epexigetical Genitive."
3) Gill seems to be led to think of "the gift" as being connected with the "baptism of the Spirit" and to the charismatic gifts that attend that experience. But, this it cannot mean. Many since the first century have believed, repented, and been baptized who did not obtain these charismatic gifts! That cannot therefore be the right interpretation. The gift of the Spirit is being given and received today by those who repent and who do not receive charismatic gifts. Everyone who has truly believed and repented will receive the Spirit himself as a gift from the Lord Jesus and the Father.
4) All through the NT the Spirit is said to be "given to them who believe" (John 7: 39, Acts 5: 32, etc.) Therefore, for Peter to affirm that those who repent will be given the Spirit is in keeping with such verses. "Repent and...you will receive the gift that is the Holy Spirit."
5) Peter does not link Baptism as a condition for either remission of sins or for receiving the Spirit. Many fail to realize that the words "and each one of you be baptized" is a parenthetical statement and does not, according to the Greek, stand as a condition of remission and for obtaining the Spirit. (See my posting Acts 2: 38 and Exegeting Acts 2: 38 and Baptism For Remission for a fuller development of this)
Winslet continued:
"Theologians distinguish between being born of the Spirit and later receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Garrett must know this. He's free to disagree, but to act as if this is some new doctrine is absurd."
Please let me see the theologians who excluded receiving the Spirit (as a gift from the Father and Son) from the experience of being born again! It is a new doctrine to affirm that the sinner does not receive and come into the possession of the Holy Spirit in being born again! In fact, I can't believe that we are even having such a disagreement! The new birth or regeneration is connected with a sinner receiving the Spirit of God. That is my thesis.
Scriptures Supporting The Thesis
From the OT
"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." (Eze 36:26-27)
Surely these words prove that one comes into possession of God's "spirit" when his heart is renewed.
From the NT
(Apostle Paul)
"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" (I Cor. 3: 16)
"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." (Rom. 8: 9 KJV)
"For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." (Romans 8: 15 KJV)
"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God." (I Cor. 2:12)
"made partakers of the Holy Ghost" (Heb. 6:4)
"This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (Gal. 3: 2)
(Apostle Jude)
"These be they who separate themselves, sensual (natural), having not the Spirit." (Jude 1:19)
(Apostle John)
"And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us." (I John 3:24)
"Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit." (I John 4:13)
Wrote Gill on Galatians 3: 2
"received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? This question supposes they had received the Spirit; that is, the Spirit of God, as a spirit of wisdom and knowledge in the revelation of Christ; as a spirit of regeneration and sanctification; as a spirit of faith and adoption; and as the earnest, seal, and pledge of their future glory."
Gill continued:
"though by the law is the knowledge of sin, yet this leaves nothing but a sense of wrath and damnation in the conscience; it is the killing letter, and a ministration of condemnation and death, and not of the Spirit, and of life; this belongs to the Gospel, "or the hearing of faith"; for by "faith", is meant the Gospel, and particularly the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ's righteousness; and by "the hearing" of it, the preaching of it, the report of it, ( Isaiah 53:1 ) which, in the Hebrew text, is (wntemv), "our hearing", that by which the Gospel is heard and understood. Now in this way the Spirit of God is received; while the Gospel is preaching he falls on them that hear it, conveys himself into their hearts, and begets them again by the word of truth: and in this way the Galatians came by the Spirit, and which is another aggravation of their folly, that they should enjoy so great an advantage by the Gospel, and yet be so easily removed from it."
"That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." (vs. 14)
On II Cor. 11: 4 Gill wrote:
"or if ye receive another spirit which ye have not received; a better spirit than the Spirit of God, which they had received through the preaching of the Gospel by the apostles; either for graces, for they had received him as a spirit of regeneration and conversion, of sanctification and faith, of adoption and liberty, of peace and joy, and comfort; or for gifts, both ordinary and extraordinary, which could not possibly be; the spirit which the contrary ministers brought with it, and tended to not generate in them, must be the reverse of this, even a spirit of bondage again to fear...the Spirit is received as such from the Father and the Son into the hearts of believers, by the means of the Gospel..."
What Genitive Type?
“Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a deposit.” (2 Corinthians 1:21)
“Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.” (2 Corinthians 5:5)
Here is the KJV
"Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." (II Cor. 1:22 KJV)
"Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit." (II Cor. 5:5 KJV)
Again, do the words "earnest of the Spirit" denote that the "earnest" (deposit, guarantee) is the Spirit or something that the Spirit gives?
I believe as many that it is the Spirit himself who is the earnest.
Ben cited these words of mine from my first entry:
3) Winslet said that the gift of the Spirit does not occur in the new birth!
Ben responded to this with these words:
"You are correct. This is what sound theologians teach. There is a difference in being born of The Spirit and receiving the Spirit as our Comforter, as taught in the Upper Room Discourse. Please note the words of John Gill on Acts 2:38:
"...And ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost: not the grace of the Spirit, as a regenerator and sanctifier; for that they had already; and is necessary, as previous to baptism...but rather the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, particularly the gift of speaking with tongues, which Christ had received from the Father, and had now shed on his apostles;" [emphasis mine]
Questions In Retort
1) Who determines what is a "sound" theologian?
2) Was Gill a "sound theologian"?
3) Did Gill deny that the Spirit was given and received in regeneration?
4) Did Gill apply the work of the Parakletos to the work of regeneration?
5) What sound theologian denied that the Spirit was given and received in rebirth?
6) What Jesus said about the coming of the Spirit is not applicable to the new birth?
7) Is the work of a "comforter" (parakletos) only to comfort or console?
8) Are you denying that the Spirit is given and received in regeneration?
9) Are you denying that there is any "comforting" of the Spirit in the new birth?
10) Are you saying that one can be born of the Spirit but not be comforted by the Spirit?
Gill, though he believed the words "gift of the Holy Ghost" denoted a post regeneration and post conversion experience in this particular text, yet does not preclude his belief that "receiving of the Spirit" was what effected regeneration, conversion, sanctification, etc. Gill believed that regeneration consisted in the Lord giving, and the sinner receiving, the Holy Spirit. This we will see shortly. Not only that, but all "sound theologians" that I know about would agree with Gill.
I disagree with the view of Gill on the meaning of "gift of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 2: 38. I believe it means the same thing as it means in several other key places where the same or similar wording is used, as we will see. My view is probably the more common view. This view sees "the gift of the Holy Spirit" as denoting that the Spirit is the gift being given. In other words, they would receive the Holy Spirit as a gift. The words are the translation of a Genitive, of which the new testament is replete. There are many kinds of Genitive and it is the context that must guide us in discerning which kind it is. What kind of Genitive is it in Acts 2: 38?
The genitive case, in English or in Greek, is commonly referred to as the possessive case. Genitives generally serve as adjectives. (See my posting God's Faith II for a more detailed discussion of Genitives). Many times a Genitive will be translated into English from Greek by the use of the preposition "of," as in our text and the words "the gift of the Spirit." But, what are we to understand by the use of "of" in such cases?
Often it denotes ownership, as in "the life of Steve," i.e., that life which belongs to Steve. Sometimes "of" denotes source, and in this sense it is used interchangeably with "from." Thus, if I say "the words of Steve" I mean "the words coming from Steve."
However, if I say "the land of Egypt," do I mean "land that belongs to Egypt"? Do I mean "the land that is from Egypt"? Or, do they mean "the land that is Egypt"? No doubt the latter.
Likewise, when we say "the gift of the Spirit" we mean "the gift that is the Spirit." We see a similar Genitive in the words "the temple of his body," which obviously means "the temple which is his body" (John 2:21).
Here are the reasons why I cannot believe that the words "the gift of the Holy Spirit" denote a gift that comes from the Spirit, but affirming rather that "the gift of the Spirit" means "the gift that is the Spirit."
1) The text says that penitents who put their faith in Christ will receive "the gift" (singular) and yet when Gill interprets it he has "the gifts" (plural).
2) The words "gift of the Holy Spirit" are a genitive, and there are many kinds. It is the job of the interpreter to determine the kind in a particular case. Gill sees it as "gifts coming from the Spirit" (an "ablative genitive" of source). I see it, as do others, as "the gift that is the Spirit" (what is given is the Spirit). A.T. Robertson says - "The gift consists ( Acts 8:17 ) in the Holy Spirit (genitive of identification)." It is also called the "Genitive of Apposition" or "Epexigetical Genitive."
3) Gill seems to be led to think of "the gift" as being connected with the "baptism of the Spirit" and to the charismatic gifts that attend that experience. But, this it cannot mean. Many since the first century have believed, repented, and been baptized who did not obtain these charismatic gifts! That cannot therefore be the right interpretation. The gift of the Spirit is being given and received today by those who repent and who do not receive charismatic gifts. Everyone who has truly believed and repented will receive the Spirit himself as a gift from the Lord Jesus and the Father.
4) All through the NT the Spirit is said to be "given to them who believe" (John 7: 39, Acts 5: 32, etc.) Therefore, for Peter to affirm that those who repent will be given the Spirit is in keeping with such verses. "Repent and...you will receive the gift that is the Holy Spirit."
5) Peter does not link Baptism as a condition for either remission of sins or for receiving the Spirit. Many fail to realize that the words "and each one of you be baptized" is a parenthetical statement and does not, according to the Greek, stand as a condition of remission and for obtaining the Spirit. (See my posting Acts 2: 38 and Exegeting Acts 2: 38 and Baptism For Remission for a fuller development of this)
Winslet continued:
"Theologians distinguish between being born of the Spirit and later receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Garrett must know this. He's free to disagree, but to act as if this is some new doctrine is absurd."
Please let me see the theologians who excluded receiving the Spirit (as a gift from the Father and Son) from the experience of being born again! It is a new doctrine to affirm that the sinner does not receive and come into the possession of the Holy Spirit in being born again! In fact, I can't believe that we are even having such a disagreement! The new birth or regeneration is connected with a sinner receiving the Spirit of God. That is my thesis.
Scriptures Supporting The Thesis
From the OT
"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." (Eze 36:26-27)
Surely these words prove that one comes into possession of God's "spirit" when his heart is renewed.
From the NT
(Apostle Paul)
"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" (I Cor. 3: 16)
"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." (Rom. 8: 9 KJV)
"For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." (Romans 8: 15 KJV)
"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God." (I Cor. 2:12)
"made partakers of the Holy Ghost" (Heb. 6:4)
"This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (Gal. 3: 2)
(Apostle Jude)
"These be they who separate themselves, sensual (natural), having not the Spirit." (Jude 1:19)
(Apostle John)
"And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us." (I John 3:24)
"Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit." (I John 4:13)
Wrote Gill on Galatians 3: 2
"received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? This question supposes they had received the Spirit; that is, the Spirit of God, as a spirit of wisdom and knowledge in the revelation of Christ; as a spirit of regeneration and sanctification; as a spirit of faith and adoption; and as the earnest, seal, and pledge of their future glory."
Gill continued:
"though by the law is the knowledge of sin, yet this leaves nothing but a sense of wrath and damnation in the conscience; it is the killing letter, and a ministration of condemnation and death, and not of the Spirit, and of life; this belongs to the Gospel, "or the hearing of faith"; for by "faith", is meant the Gospel, and particularly the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ's righteousness; and by "the hearing" of it, the preaching of it, the report of it, ( Isaiah 53:1 ) which, in the Hebrew text, is (wntemv), "our hearing", that by which the Gospel is heard and understood. Now in this way the Spirit of God is received; while the Gospel is preaching he falls on them that hear it, conveys himself into their hearts, and begets them again by the word of truth: and in this way the Galatians came by the Spirit, and which is another aggravation of their folly, that they should enjoy so great an advantage by the Gospel, and yet be so easily removed from it."
"That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." (vs. 14)
On II Cor. 11: 4 Gill wrote:
"or if ye receive another spirit which ye have not received; a better spirit than the Spirit of God, which they had received through the preaching of the Gospel by the apostles; either for graces, for they had received him as a spirit of regeneration and conversion, of sanctification and faith, of adoption and liberty, of peace and joy, and comfort; or for gifts, both ordinary and extraordinary, which could not possibly be; the spirit which the contrary ministers brought with it, and tended to not generate in them, must be the reverse of this, even a spirit of bondage again to fear...the Spirit is received as such from the Father and the Son into the hearts of believers, by the means of the Gospel..."
What Genitive Type?
“Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a deposit.” (2 Corinthians 1:21)
“Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.” (2 Corinthians 5:5)
Here is the KJV
"Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." (II Cor. 1:22 KJV)
"Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit." (II Cor. 5:5 KJV)
I believe as many that it is the Spirit himself who is the earnest.
Friday, February 1, 2019
My Journey With The Ordo Salutis
In my latest posting I shared with everyone a bit of my past, especially the great struggle I endured as the Lord delivered me from pernicious error to glorious truth. When I look back, that which held my greatest attention in God’s Word were passages which concerned the new birth. Or perhaps I should rather say, they appeared to concern the new birth. I say it like that for a reason. You see, the rest of the Christian community reads Acts 26:18, Romans 1:16, the 10th chapter of Romans, James 1:18, and 1 Peter 1:23 basically the same. They do not hesitate one bit in affirming that these passages teach that sinners reach the point of initial salvation upon hearing the gospel. There is no deliberation in the mind to consider an alternative because there is no pre-existing bias to look for one. With me, however, that was not the case, and it is not the case currently with those to whom I once belonged.
Probably the very first lesson the Lord taught me was that my views were unusual. They may have been true, that’s for sure. But I must at least admit that they were unusual. I had books from other authors galore (Matthew Henry, John Gill, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon, A.W. Pink, Robert Louis Dabney, a few of the Puritans) and I could not find a single one who interpreted these pivotal passages in the way that I did. Of course the temptation existed to simply blanket them all with the label of ‘Calvinists’ as the reason. However, notwithstanding their theological bent, I recognized that they were very gifted. Brilliant! So genius that I seldom could understand them. Colossal giants of the ministry, some of which our Lord thrust into the great epochs of history. How could these towering figures of church history not see the distinction which I saw? Was it really true that the truth of God’s Word was held by a small, apparently insignificant group of folks, mostly residing in the southeastern U.S., of which I was a part, while the rest of the Christian world was wrong on the very basic concept of evangelism? But I had an answer for this. The ‘remnant’, ‘the few’, the ‘little flock’ which the Bible speaks of is talking about us. We were the ‘few’ while the rest of the world, albeit saved, is temporally lost. I could also argue the point another way. Since they were ‘wise’, they were the ones from whom things were hid (Matt. 11:25), and we were the ones to whom these truths were revealed. The only ones.
Ah, you must forgive me. It’s so easy for me to regurgitate my former heretical notions. But you see how I could still argue that side if needed.
Anyway, back to our thought.
I cannot remember exactly how it happened. When the Lord is dealing with someone, lots of things can be pondered by your mind. Sometimes it can get kind of foggy. The best I can remember was that the Lord guided me to 1 Peter 1:23 as the initial text for me to examine. It was here where I started to contemplate just how far one could carry the analogy between natural and spiritual birth. I began to ponder regeneration as a process containing a ‘conception’ stage and a ‘deliverance’ stage. The learned reader knows that this is something that not a few have contemplated before. I began to wonder if God initially touches a person, void of any instrumentality, in order to enable them to believe the report of the gospel (i.e. conception). Then, when the gospel comes….BOOM, they hear and believe, and regeneration is complete (i.e. deliverance)! I cannot overstate the excitement I felt at this point. After comparing scripture with scripture, looking at Greek words with my Strong’s concordance, I had figured out the mystery! To top it all off I read A.W. Pink’s The Holy Spirit and found in a couple of chapters where he had advanced the same sort of thing.
During this trial of mine though I can remember sharing my theory with a notable Primitive Baptist minister who was sympathetic to what I was going through. He related that he knew of one other minister who had shared this view. However, he simply felt that most of God’s elect were ‘spiritually conceived’ but remained in the spiritual darkness of the womb, and never got ‘delivered’. On another occasion I shared this in person with a few other elders. Knowing my company I made sure to preface it with ‘Hey, I don’t necessarily believe this. I’m just pondering things. Trying the spirits, you know?” They replied that they knew some ministers (in Georgia I believe) who had started teaching this, but they were quickly silenced. Not surprising.
It was at this point that the Lord used a very special place to help me in all of my struggles. Yet it started in an apparently insignificant way or ‘accident’, which I now know as divine providence. One day my roommate at the time came home with a book by one of the Puritans. On the back cover was listed the place from where it came from: Mount Zion Bible Church Library in Pensacola, FL. I decided to check it out. Here’s the thing. It was only about 2 miles from where I work. Glorious providence!
So one day I walked in during my lunch hour and before me lined rows and rows of books, tracts, pamphlets, some of which were free for the taking. As I drooled over the goldmine I had discovered, the associate pastor walked over and we began speaking. I began to tell him about the struggles I was having regarding the happenings around the new birth, and I was looking for material on this subject. He started nodding his head as I was explaining. “Ordo salutis”, he said.
And so it was that I heard this phrase meaning ‘the order of salvation’ for the very first time in my life. I figured that men had already contemplated what I currently was, but I did not know that it had become a focal point of systematic theology denoted by a fancy Latin phrase. I should not have been surprised however to know that others had already toiled over this subject and went way beyond my own research, for I had experienced something like this before. When I first began to exercise in the church long ago, or “introduce services” as it is referred to, I did not know there was such a thing as ‘the five points of Calvinism’. I of course knew the doctrines of grace but I did not know that other great men of the past had wrapped them up into a scheme called TULIP. Rather in my own studies the Lord blessed me at an early convert to notice that there were five major doctrines in the Bible that make up salvation.
The reason for these episodes of “Hey, somebody else in the world believes this too!” is all very simple. Exposure to the rest of the Christian community is generally limited within the Primitive Baptists as the people listen to only their preachers and read only their material. Their mindset is conditioned to view themselves as the only ones believing in the doctrines of grace, and that everyone else is an ‘Arminian’. John Gill, J.C. Philpot, and Arthur W. Pink are probably the only other men I knew anything about.
As I began to put the new birth more and more under the microscope I went through all the expected theories which others have proposed.
1) Men are regenerated apart from the gospel. They then spend some time in spiritual darkness before they are converted by the gospel. Just like a babe in the womb. But were they converted five seconds later, 1 day later, 1 week later, or 10 years later were some of the questions I would ask myself.
2) Men are regenerated without the gospel but without any passage of time they are converted by the gospel. There is a logical order but not a temporal one.
3) Men are regenerated with the gospel, because regeneration includes conversion.
These are the three positions which I think a man may believe, and I count it a blessing that the Lord led me to ponder each of them over the years. Coming from a position which held that the gospel has nothing to do with salvation at all, it was a slow but sure way of bringing me to the sound position that I occupy today. I feel somewhat like the blind man who in his gradual healing first saw men as trees walking but then saw every man clearly, the Lord holding his hand along the way (Mark 8:24-25).
Lord, I see clearly now! Praise his Holy Name!
It was during all of this mental juggling that my church took notice that I was starting to see things a bit differently, and I was eventually charged with teaching gospel regeneration. In the days leading up to the called conference, I had all this knowledge stored up in my mind that I had accumulated. I had writings from 19th century Primitive Baptists. I had a copy of the Old Baptist Test by Elder John Watson. I had articles of faith from churches during that time. I had citations from the trial of Mt. Carmel. More importantly, I could tell them about the ordo salutis and that a distinction could be made between regeneration and conversion. And I could use the Greek language to prove it! Almost immediately my joy turned to sadness. For reasons stated above I knew that if I proceeded along this line the people whom I would address would not have the foggiest idea what I was talking about.
“For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.” (Ecclesiastes 1:18)
What if you’re about to address a group of folks who you feel have been destroyed for lack of knowledge? And you know you’ll be given ten, maybe 15 minutes to respond before you are ostracized? Grief and sorrow. I hear ya Solomon.
My heart goes out to those elders who came to see that the primary error of the Primitive Baptists lies not in “making a distinction between regeneration and conversion” for others have done the same. Rather they saw that the error was in divorcing the two and making conversion optional. I can at present think of a handful of men, some of whom I’ve spoken with on the phone or read their writings. Hungry for knowledge they laid their tradition to the side, dug their heels into both scripture and history, grew in the knowledge of the truth, and were ultimately ostracized for it. Very, very sad.
After my departure from my former friends I was still not settled in the exact happenings of the new birth. Is the gospel the means not of regeneration, but of a conversion that was certain to occur? Do they occur at the same time, or is there a millisecond between them? Or what if the gospel is the means of the initial spark of regeneration, and I am trying to rely on logic to avoid that conclusion? What if this whole thing is a mystery into which men are not meant to gaze?
Anyone who has spent anytime whatsoever in systematic theology knows that these are common questions that great men of the past have tried to elucidate. And let me tell you, it will give you a headache.
Over time I became discouraged from this pursuit and came to see that we only have a rudimentary grasp of the Holy Spirit, especially in this area. So I simply defer to plain scripture statements which God has chosen to reveal to us. Probably the most powerful text in all of scripture, in my opinion, which speaks to this subject is Ephesians 2:8.
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.” (Ephesians 2:8)
We know that this wonderful passage which captures the hearts of all God’s people is treating of regeneration. The key expression is ‘saved through faith’, but what do we learn from it specifically? We learn that it is something which is not complete until faith has been imparted. If you are saved “through” faith, then the saving under consideration is not done or finalized until the faith component has been put in place. Otherwise, it would read ‘saved in order to faith’. Do you see?
And I am content with that.
I thank the Lord for this journey. It was a tough one with lots of tears, fears, sorrows, and joys.
But He held my hand along the way.
Probably the very first lesson the Lord taught me was that my views were unusual. They may have been true, that’s for sure. But I must at least admit that they were unusual. I had books from other authors galore (Matthew Henry, John Gill, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon, A.W. Pink, Robert Louis Dabney, a few of the Puritans) and I could not find a single one who interpreted these pivotal passages in the way that I did. Of course the temptation existed to simply blanket them all with the label of ‘Calvinists’ as the reason. However, notwithstanding their theological bent, I recognized that they were very gifted. Brilliant! So genius that I seldom could understand them. Colossal giants of the ministry, some of which our Lord thrust into the great epochs of history. How could these towering figures of church history not see the distinction which I saw? Was it really true that the truth of God’s Word was held by a small, apparently insignificant group of folks, mostly residing in the southeastern U.S., of which I was a part, while the rest of the Christian world was wrong on the very basic concept of evangelism? But I had an answer for this. The ‘remnant’, ‘the few’, the ‘little flock’ which the Bible speaks of is talking about us. We were the ‘few’ while the rest of the world, albeit saved, is temporally lost. I could also argue the point another way. Since they were ‘wise’, they were the ones from whom things were hid (Matt. 11:25), and we were the ones to whom these truths were revealed. The only ones.
Ah, you must forgive me. It’s so easy for me to regurgitate my former heretical notions. But you see how I could still argue that side if needed.
Anyway, back to our thought.
I cannot remember exactly how it happened. When the Lord is dealing with someone, lots of things can be pondered by your mind. Sometimes it can get kind of foggy. The best I can remember was that the Lord guided me to 1 Peter 1:23 as the initial text for me to examine. It was here where I started to contemplate just how far one could carry the analogy between natural and spiritual birth. I began to ponder regeneration as a process containing a ‘conception’ stage and a ‘deliverance’ stage. The learned reader knows that this is something that not a few have contemplated before. I began to wonder if God initially touches a person, void of any instrumentality, in order to enable them to believe the report of the gospel (i.e. conception). Then, when the gospel comes….BOOM, they hear and believe, and regeneration is complete (i.e. deliverance)! I cannot overstate the excitement I felt at this point. After comparing scripture with scripture, looking at Greek words with my Strong’s concordance, I had figured out the mystery! To top it all off I read A.W. Pink’s The Holy Spirit and found in a couple of chapters where he had advanced the same sort of thing.
During this trial of mine though I can remember sharing my theory with a notable Primitive Baptist minister who was sympathetic to what I was going through. He related that he knew of one other minister who had shared this view. However, he simply felt that most of God’s elect were ‘spiritually conceived’ but remained in the spiritual darkness of the womb, and never got ‘delivered’. On another occasion I shared this in person with a few other elders. Knowing my company I made sure to preface it with ‘Hey, I don’t necessarily believe this. I’m just pondering things. Trying the spirits, you know?” They replied that they knew some ministers (in Georgia I believe) who had started teaching this, but they were quickly silenced. Not surprising.
It was at this point that the Lord used a very special place to help me in all of my struggles. Yet it started in an apparently insignificant way or ‘accident’, which I now know as divine providence. One day my roommate at the time came home with a book by one of the Puritans. On the back cover was listed the place from where it came from: Mount Zion Bible Church Library in Pensacola, FL. I decided to check it out. Here’s the thing. It was only about 2 miles from where I work. Glorious providence!
So one day I walked in during my lunch hour and before me lined rows and rows of books, tracts, pamphlets, some of which were free for the taking. As I drooled over the goldmine I had discovered, the associate pastor walked over and we began speaking. I began to tell him about the struggles I was having regarding the happenings around the new birth, and I was looking for material on this subject. He started nodding his head as I was explaining. “Ordo salutis”, he said.
And so it was that I heard this phrase meaning ‘the order of salvation’ for the very first time in my life. I figured that men had already contemplated what I currently was, but I did not know that it had become a focal point of systematic theology denoted by a fancy Latin phrase. I should not have been surprised however to know that others had already toiled over this subject and went way beyond my own research, for I had experienced something like this before. When I first began to exercise in the church long ago, or “introduce services” as it is referred to, I did not know there was such a thing as ‘the five points of Calvinism’. I of course knew the doctrines of grace but I did not know that other great men of the past had wrapped them up into a scheme called TULIP. Rather in my own studies the Lord blessed me at an early convert to notice that there were five major doctrines in the Bible that make up salvation.
The reason for these episodes of “Hey, somebody else in the world believes this too!” is all very simple. Exposure to the rest of the Christian community is generally limited within the Primitive Baptists as the people listen to only their preachers and read only their material. Their mindset is conditioned to view themselves as the only ones believing in the doctrines of grace, and that everyone else is an ‘Arminian’. John Gill, J.C. Philpot, and Arthur W. Pink are probably the only other men I knew anything about.
As I began to put the new birth more and more under the microscope I went through all the expected theories which others have proposed.
1) Men are regenerated apart from the gospel. They then spend some time in spiritual darkness before they are converted by the gospel. Just like a babe in the womb. But were they converted five seconds later, 1 day later, 1 week later, or 10 years later were some of the questions I would ask myself.
2) Men are regenerated without the gospel but without any passage of time they are converted by the gospel. There is a logical order but not a temporal one.
3) Men are regenerated with the gospel, because regeneration includes conversion.
These are the three positions which I think a man may believe, and I count it a blessing that the Lord led me to ponder each of them over the years. Coming from a position which held that the gospel has nothing to do with salvation at all, it was a slow but sure way of bringing me to the sound position that I occupy today. I feel somewhat like the blind man who in his gradual healing first saw men as trees walking but then saw every man clearly, the Lord holding his hand along the way (Mark 8:24-25).
Lord, I see clearly now! Praise his Holy Name!
It was during all of this mental juggling that my church took notice that I was starting to see things a bit differently, and I was eventually charged with teaching gospel regeneration. In the days leading up to the called conference, I had all this knowledge stored up in my mind that I had accumulated. I had writings from 19th century Primitive Baptists. I had a copy of the Old Baptist Test by Elder John Watson. I had articles of faith from churches during that time. I had citations from the trial of Mt. Carmel. More importantly, I could tell them about the ordo salutis and that a distinction could be made between regeneration and conversion. And I could use the Greek language to prove it! Almost immediately my joy turned to sadness. For reasons stated above I knew that if I proceeded along this line the people whom I would address would not have the foggiest idea what I was talking about.
“For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.” (Ecclesiastes 1:18)
What if you’re about to address a group of folks who you feel have been destroyed for lack of knowledge? And you know you’ll be given ten, maybe 15 minutes to respond before you are ostracized? Grief and sorrow. I hear ya Solomon.
My heart goes out to those elders who came to see that the primary error of the Primitive Baptists lies not in “making a distinction between regeneration and conversion” for others have done the same. Rather they saw that the error was in divorcing the two and making conversion optional. I can at present think of a handful of men, some of whom I’ve spoken with on the phone or read their writings. Hungry for knowledge they laid their tradition to the side, dug their heels into both scripture and history, grew in the knowledge of the truth, and were ultimately ostracized for it. Very, very sad.
After my departure from my former friends I was still not settled in the exact happenings of the new birth. Is the gospel the means not of regeneration, but of a conversion that was certain to occur? Do they occur at the same time, or is there a millisecond between them? Or what if the gospel is the means of the initial spark of regeneration, and I am trying to rely on logic to avoid that conclusion? What if this whole thing is a mystery into which men are not meant to gaze?
Anyone who has spent anytime whatsoever in systematic theology knows that these are common questions that great men of the past have tried to elucidate. And let me tell you, it will give you a headache.
Over time I became discouraged from this pursuit and came to see that we only have a rudimentary grasp of the Holy Spirit, especially in this area. So I simply defer to plain scripture statements which God has chosen to reveal to us. Probably the most powerful text in all of scripture, in my opinion, which speaks to this subject is Ephesians 2:8.
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.” (Ephesians 2:8)
We know that this wonderful passage which captures the hearts of all God’s people is treating of regeneration. The key expression is ‘saved through faith’, but what do we learn from it specifically? We learn that it is something which is not complete until faith has been imparted. If you are saved “through” faith, then the saving under consideration is not done or finalized until the faith component has been put in place. Otherwise, it would read ‘saved in order to faith’. Do you see?
And I am content with that.
I thank the Lord for this journey. It was a tough one with lots of tears, fears, sorrows, and joys.
But He held my hand along the way.
Conversion Is New Birth
In one of the very first issues of "The Primitive Baptist," Elder Joshua Lawrence, leader of the Kehukee Association, and of the anti missionaries, wrote the following under the title of "Froggery." It shows that the first Hardshells, as I have affirmed in my discussion with Winslett, viewed being born again with gospel conversion. Notice what Lawrence says.
"And it is the business and work of God's Spirit in the great and good work of conversion or being born again, to cast out all these unclean spirits and set the sinner free from their captivity and domineering leading power over him, and infuse in his heart the pure principles of God's spirit in opposition to them." (July 1836 - see here)
"And it is the business and work of God's Spirit in the great and good work of conversion or being born again, to cast out all these unclean spirits and set the sinner free from their captivity and domineering leading power over him, and infuse in his heart the pure principles of God's spirit in opposition to them." (July 1836 - see here)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)