The question is often asked - how much do our saved departed loved ones, who in the intermediate state are in Heaven with the Lord, know about 1) their past lives on earth, 2) what is happening on earth, and 3) what is yet to come to pass.
Some people cannot come to grip with how a saint in Heaven can be happy knowing 1) that certain loved ones are absent, 2) what evils are befalling their loved ones on earth, 3) etc. It seems that the only way for them to be happy is for them to have knowledge of their past erased, and for them to have no knowledge of present life.
I cannot answer all the difficulties involved in such questions, but I do want to offer the following thoughts.
I suppose the first question concerns what the bible teaches about saints knowing and recognizing each other in heaven, knowing them as we have known them on earth. What does it teach? It clearly teaches that saints know each other in Heaven and of the relationship they had to each other while they lived on earth.
I understand that even this truth fact is not without difficulty in comprehending. For it implies that knowledge of former relationships brings sadness for it 1) reminds us of events that evoke feelings of sadness, and 2) reminds us that certain of our loved ones are lost forever in torment.
But the answer perhaps lies in these facts:
1) In our glorified state in Heaven we will be in every respect mature sons of God, having been made like the Son of God, and will therefore see things as he sees them. Thus, as the absence of certain of his natural children does not make God lose his peace and joy, so too with those who have the mind of Christ, or the mind of God
2) We are fully "reconciled" to God in all our thinking and have the attitude "whatever pleases the Lord pleases me" (but, saying this, leads us to say that we will be happy about the condemnation of our loved ones because we will see it as just and right, does it not?)
3) God will "wipe away all tears" and causes of sorrows to the heart and mind, which says that God somehow, in his infinite wisdom, will so comfort us in regard to the thought of lost loved ones that it is nonexistent
So, just how much do the righteous dead know about life on earth? Let me offer a few thoughts on this particular point.
First, consider Revelation 6: 10-11
"And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled." (KJV)
Here the departed saints know about their former lives on earth, and something about those "who dwell on the earth."
Next let us consider Luke 9: 30-31
"And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem." (KJV)
Here again is evidence that departed loved ones know quite a bit about what is occurring, or will occur, on earth.
Next let us consider Luke 15: 7, 10
"I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance...Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth." (KJV)
Here it is said that the inhabitants of heaven, which would include departed Christian love ones, know when a sinner on earth repents.
Said the great Charles Spurgeon in his sermon "A High Day in Heaven" (see here - emphasis mine):
"I have only one more remark to make under this first head, and it is this—our Lord does not say that the angels rejoice over one sinner who repents, but that "there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." Who, then, has the joy? The angels, of course, first. They must be included because the previous parable says that when the Shepherd comes home, "He calls together his friends and neighbors, saying unto them, Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost." The redeemed from among men and the holy angels are the friends and neighbors of Christ—and they all rejoice over every sinner who repents. But, first of all, this joy is the joy of God, Himself. The angels and the redeemed stand in His Presence—they are His courtiers—but He Himself is the center, and Glory, and Lord of All—it is God Himself who rejoices "over one sinner who repents." God the Father rejoices, for has He not found His child whom He had lost, the child whom He loved, before the foundation of the world, with all the love of His infinite heart?"
It thrills me to know that my beloved father, who is now in heaven, rejoices when I repent!
Said Spurgeon:
"One thought I cannot help interjecting just here. I am sure that these holy angels all believe in the Doctrine of the Final Perseverance of the Saints. If they did not, they would be very foolish in rejoicing over repenting sinners. The old proverb bids us not to count our chickens before they are hatched—and if I were an Arminian, I would recommend the angels to not rejoice over a sinner who repents, for he might fall from Grace and perish—and then they would have to ring the bells of Heaven backwards, or to toll them, and to recall their songs, and say, "We rejoiced too soon." But it is not so, for they know that repentance has in it the germ of perfection! Sincere repentance is the commencement of perfect sanctification and God will make it grow to full fruition!"
Well, amen to that!
(Reprint from The Baptist Gadfly for May 22, 2018 - see here)
Sunday, June 30, 2019
Garrett Was A Young "Firebrand"?
Growing older does strange things to one's memory. I have remembered several times over the years the following words of brother Jason Brown to me back at the beginning of our discussion.
Brown wrote:
"Sometimes an abrasive approach incites controversy where the issues broached are not the real or only cause of division. Did Brother Garrett, while among the Primitive Baptists, approach these issues with humility and patience? Or was he as much as a firebrand then as he appears to be on his blog now? As a young Elder among the PB's in the early 80's, did Elder Stephen Garrett intreat the older Elders with the same respect he would his father, as the Scripture commands? I wonder how much of his difficulties were personality rather than doctrine. I appreciate and admire Brother Garrett's intellect and knowledge and I read his blog with interest even where we disagree. I am not arguing ad hominem against Brother Garrett's views here - I'm simply suggesting that Brother Garrett could have been more fruitful with patience. It takes wine time to ferment."
(Pot Calling The Kettle Black?)
Abrasive Approach?
Was I abnormally "abrasive" when I was a young Hardshell elder? Am I now?
That seems to have been the "gossip" or rumor that has been spread about me by the Hardshell eldership, especially since my having left the cult and since combating their numerous errors.
Further, though the Hardshells will likely admit that not all "abrasiveness" in speech and personality ("approach") is unwarranted or bad, yet in this instance it is viewed by Brown as a negative (which it generally is) as it relates to my years with the Hardshells as a twice ordained elder. It is further alleged that I am still "abrasive" in my "approach" towards the Hardshells. It seems that the implication of this is that I would do better apologetically to be gentle and smooth in my "approach" towards the Hardshells.
What is the antonym of "abrasive"? Agreeable? Smooth? Was I never the latter? If I was abrasive at times, and smooth at other times, was I abrasive when I should have been gentle and smooth, and gentle when I should have been abrasive? Is it okay for arresting officers to be abrasive with those resisting arrest or guards with prisoners? Is it okay to be abrasive with abrasive people, a kind of feeding them out of their own spoon, or answering a fool "according to his folly"? Is it okay to be abrasive with stubborn heretics who seek to turn away people from the faith? See my posting Rebuke Them Sharply where I discuss dealing with stubborn heretics.
Of course, there are several judges of this question regarding abrasiveness. God, first. Myself next (I must stand before the judgment seat of Christ to give account of what I have done as a servant and steward). Finally others (particularly among the saints) with whom I converse and associate are my judges. I wrote something on this awhile back in the posting Cockleburs Gadflies & Rubbing The Wrong Way.
I do judge myself and I pay attention to criticism. "For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged." (I Cor. 11:31) I also consider Paul's words as applicable to my being judged by the Hardshells. "But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self." (I Cor. 4:3)
In my response to Brown way back then I said this:
"If Brown will read the chapter on my experiences with the Hardshells he ought to see that it was men like John Robbins and C. M. Mills who were the truly "abrasive" types!"
I was a little abrasive when I attended a deacon ordination service at Pleasant Grove PB Church (Bear Creek) back at the time when the "controversy" with my father over the origin and fall of Satan and the non elect angels was hot here in the Bear Creek Association. This controversy was not started by father, but was started by John Robbins and the Powell's Valley Association making father's view (and mine) a "test of fellowship." John's cohorts, two of which were virtual popes among a large segment of Hardshells, elders Clarence Mills (Bear Creek) and Wiley Sammons (Tenn.), were determined to force all other churches to follow them in their declaration against the view that Satan fell from "the third heaven." Mills and his young sycophants in the Bear Creek were determined to force this issue in the Bear Creek and to make it (and the view that the story of the rich man and Lazarus was literal and told of what happens to people when they die) a test of fellowship.
On the way to the ordinations service, I road in the car with two of my fathers in the ministry, my father in law elder Newell Helms and elder Charles Smith. Both did not believe that these things should be a test of fellowship and they were opposed, as I was, to asking such questions in ordination services by those pushing the edict of the Powell's Valley Association on the issue. We all three agreed that if a question was asked about Satan's fall or the right interpretation of the rich man and Lazarus that we all would then stand up and oppose such questioning and for making the issue a test of orthodoxy. Well, the time came for the questioning. Guess which questions were asked right out of the gate? Bingo!
Well, I looked at Charles and Newell, giving them opportunity to speak first (I being younger), and all they did was shake their heads in disgust. They never rose to say a word! Oh what a disappointment! They showed that they were cowards and that their positions in the Association was more important! I could not go silent! I rose and said that I objected to the line of questioning and the purpose behind it (which was to force the issue on the churches). I asked "What has the correct interpretation of these two topics or scriptures anything to do with whether the ones being ordained as deacons are qualified?"
""Humility and patience"? Are those characteristics of the Hardshells? Anyone who reads the lambastic words of the Hardshells, over the past two hundred years, can see that this is a case of "the pot calling the kettle black." Anyone who knows their history knows that the Hardshells are of a very schismatic spirit and extremely abrasive."
"I could have manifested "more patience"? I was very patient! Letting popes like John Robbins and C. M. Mills run roughshod over me. Men like Elders Benton and McLamb insisted that I agree with them on the rich man and Lazarus in order to be ordained? I put up with a lot of abuse from the Hardshells for many years and exercised lots of patience."
"I am supposed to show love, patience, and humility towards Hardshells but what about their lack of showing such to me? Why does that not get mentioned? I could give numerous examples of the evil spirit that many Hardshells have manifested to both my father and myself. Were the Hardshells who made the origin of Satan a test of fellowship operating from a meek and patient spirit? Were those Hardshells who wanted to declare non-fellowship against any who believed that the story of the rich man and Lazarus taught what happens when people die operating from a spirit of humility and patience?"
Elders who were my counselors (tutors) while a young Hardshell preacher in "boot camp."
Bear Creek
Newell Helms
Charles Smith
Other
Eddie Garrett Sr. (father)
Sonny Pyles
Norvel Mann
Milton Lillard
Paul Trautner
Lasserre Bradley Jr.
Rice Bolender
E.B. Watts
Cecil Darity
Conrad Jarrell
S.T. Tolley
I have memories of all the teaching and counsel I received from these men. Could write a book about that too. "Of the making of books there is no end."
P.S. I wrote most of this post a few months ago and it has been in draft. But, having just made the posting about PB Marines, Green Berets, and Boot Camp, I thought I would publish it now on its heels.
P.S. You want a good example of a Hardshell "firebrand" who became a popular leader among the Hardshells? Lee Hanks! Such fiery denunciations from this firebrand!
P.S. If we are appearing before the Bema now, then let us have a trial on Hardshell beliefs! If the saints are to do the judging, let us present our cases!
Brown wrote:
"Sometimes an abrasive approach incites controversy where the issues broached are not the real or only cause of division. Did Brother Garrett, while among the Primitive Baptists, approach these issues with humility and patience? Or was he as much as a firebrand then as he appears to be on his blog now? As a young Elder among the PB's in the early 80's, did Elder Stephen Garrett intreat the older Elders with the same respect he would his father, as the Scripture commands? I wonder how much of his difficulties were personality rather than doctrine. I appreciate and admire Brother Garrett's intellect and knowledge and I read his blog with interest even where we disagree. I am not arguing ad hominem against Brother Garrett's views here - I'm simply suggesting that Brother Garrett could have been more fruitful with patience. It takes wine time to ferment."
(Pot Calling The Kettle Black?)
Abrasive Approach?
Was I abnormally "abrasive" when I was a young Hardshell elder? Am I now?
That seems to have been the "gossip" or rumor that has been spread about me by the Hardshell eldership, especially since my having left the cult and since combating their numerous errors.
Further, though the Hardshells will likely admit that not all "abrasiveness" in speech and personality ("approach") is unwarranted or bad, yet in this instance it is viewed by Brown as a negative (which it generally is) as it relates to my years with the Hardshells as a twice ordained elder. It is further alleged that I am still "abrasive" in my "approach" towards the Hardshells. It seems that the implication of this is that I would do better apologetically to be gentle and smooth in my "approach" towards the Hardshells.
What is the antonym of "abrasive"? Agreeable? Smooth? Was I never the latter? If I was abrasive at times, and smooth at other times, was I abrasive when I should have been gentle and smooth, and gentle when I should have been abrasive? Is it okay for arresting officers to be abrasive with those resisting arrest or guards with prisoners? Is it okay to be abrasive with abrasive people, a kind of feeding them out of their own spoon, or answering a fool "according to his folly"? Is it okay to be abrasive with stubborn heretics who seek to turn away people from the faith? See my posting Rebuke Them Sharply where I discuss dealing with stubborn heretics.
Of course, there are several judges of this question regarding abrasiveness. God, first. Myself next (I must stand before the judgment seat of Christ to give account of what I have done as a servant and steward). Finally others (particularly among the saints) with whom I converse and associate are my judges. I wrote something on this awhile back in the posting Cockleburs Gadflies & Rubbing The Wrong Way.
I do judge myself and I pay attention to criticism. "For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged." (I Cor. 11:31) I also consider Paul's words as applicable to my being judged by the Hardshells. "But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self." (I Cor. 4:3)
In my response to Brown way back then I said this:
"If Brown will read the chapter on my experiences with the Hardshells he ought to see that it was men like John Robbins and C. M. Mills who were the truly "abrasive" types!"
I was a little abrasive when I attended a deacon ordination service at Pleasant Grove PB Church (Bear Creek) back at the time when the "controversy" with my father over the origin and fall of Satan and the non elect angels was hot here in the Bear Creek Association. This controversy was not started by father, but was started by John Robbins and the Powell's Valley Association making father's view (and mine) a "test of fellowship." John's cohorts, two of which were virtual popes among a large segment of Hardshells, elders Clarence Mills (Bear Creek) and Wiley Sammons (Tenn.), were determined to force all other churches to follow them in their declaration against the view that Satan fell from "the third heaven." Mills and his young sycophants in the Bear Creek were determined to force this issue in the Bear Creek and to make it (and the view that the story of the rich man and Lazarus was literal and told of what happens to people when they die) a test of fellowship.
On the way to the ordinations service, I road in the car with two of my fathers in the ministry, my father in law elder Newell Helms and elder Charles Smith. Both did not believe that these things should be a test of fellowship and they were opposed, as I was, to asking such questions in ordination services by those pushing the edict of the Powell's Valley Association on the issue. We all three agreed that if a question was asked about Satan's fall or the right interpretation of the rich man and Lazarus that we all would then stand up and oppose such questioning and for making the issue a test of orthodoxy. Well, the time came for the questioning. Guess which questions were asked right out of the gate? Bingo!
Well, I looked at Charles and Newell, giving them opportunity to speak first (I being younger), and all they did was shake their heads in disgust. They never rose to say a word! Oh what a disappointment! They showed that they were cowards and that their positions in the Association was more important! I could not go silent! I rose and said that I objected to the line of questioning and the purpose behind it (which was to force the issue on the churches). I asked "What has the correct interpretation of these two topics or scriptures anything to do with whether the ones being ordained as deacons are qualified?"
""Humility and patience"? Are those characteristics of the Hardshells? Anyone who reads the lambastic words of the Hardshells, over the past two hundred years, can see that this is a case of "the pot calling the kettle black." Anyone who knows their history knows that the Hardshells are of a very schismatic spirit and extremely abrasive."
"I could have manifested "more patience"? I was very patient! Letting popes like John Robbins and C. M. Mills run roughshod over me. Men like Elders Benton and McLamb insisted that I agree with them on the rich man and Lazarus in order to be ordained? I put up with a lot of abuse from the Hardshells for many years and exercised lots of patience."
"I am supposed to show love, patience, and humility towards Hardshells but what about their lack of showing such to me? Why does that not get mentioned? I could give numerous examples of the evil spirit that many Hardshells have manifested to both my father and myself. Were the Hardshells who made the origin of Satan a test of fellowship operating from a meek and patient spirit? Were those Hardshells who wanted to declare non-fellowship against any who believed that the story of the rich man and Lazarus taught what happens when people die operating from a spirit of humility and patience?"
Elders who were my counselors (tutors) while a young Hardshell preacher in "boot camp."
Bear Creek
Newell Helms
Charles Smith
Other
Eddie Garrett Sr. (father)
Sonny Pyles
Norvel Mann
Milton Lillard
Paul Trautner
Lasserre Bradley Jr.
Rice Bolender
E.B. Watts
Cecil Darity
Conrad Jarrell
S.T. Tolley
I have memories of all the teaching and counsel I received from these men. Could write a book about that too. "Of the making of books there is no end."
P.S. I wrote most of this post a few months ago and it has been in draft. But, having just made the posting about PB Marines, Green Berets, and Boot Camp, I thought I would publish it now on its heels.
P.S. You want a good example of a Hardshell "firebrand" who became a popular leader among the Hardshells? Lee Hanks! Such fiery denunciations from this firebrand!
P.S. If we are appearing before the Bema now, then let us have a trial on Hardshell beliefs! If the saints are to do the judging, let us present our cases!
Saturday, June 29, 2019
PB "Boot Camp" & "Green Berets"?
In the sermon by elder Sonny Pyles on the heavenly race of I Corinthians 9, which I have begun critiquing already in my series on the Bema of Christ, brother Sonny got off track in giving a short homily on "young preachers" that arise among the PBs. (listen here) I want to cite what he says and then make some comments and observations thereon. After all, I was once a young Hardshell preacher just as was Sonny himself. Or, just like his son David.
Said Sonny (4530 mark):
"Lots of times a young preacher-one preacher starts out, everybody's encouraging him, he's a little Christian celebrity. Folks hold him up on a pedestal, like this. He starts out trying to preach, he's a little Christian celebrity. He goes off to the big annual meeting and everybody looks around - here is out latest movie star. (laughs) Never heard anybody - I don't treat them that way. And, if the Old Baptists would wake up and put them through boot camp (amen, right), instead of telling them 'you're the greatest,' we would tell the, say, 'son, one of these days you'll get big enough to get some wings and then we'll let you fly.' But, we've got folks among us that want to put them to flying the first day. I don't handle them that way. I don't handle them that way."
"Unless they overall me (his home church in Graham, Texas) any of them we turn out (ordain and send to preach) are going to be PB Marines, PB Green Berets, that know what we teach on any point of doctrine and can systematically defend it. We're going to turn out PB Marines."
I never was quite a "little Christian celebrity" when I was first ordained a Hardshell elder in 1974., though I did go through that Hardshell "boot camp" and can make some personal observations on that.
1. Boy, did I ever have several mean "drill instructors"!
2. And whew! did I ever have some cowardly fellow soldiers!
3. And what about them "squad leaders" among the Hardshells, i.e., hard hearted deacons and preachers with "screwball ideas"? Had to deal with them too!
4. And, oh those "drills"! Crawling to the feet of the local Hardshell popes! Under enemy fire all the time!
5. And, those lessons in warfare! Knowledge of how to avoid or deceive your enemies! Taught by the old "war torn" local generals! A Hardshell "war college"!
6. Able to defend systematically all Hardshell beliefs! All in a "single bound"!
7. The old generals like Pyles, who train the young recruits, and pushes them through boot camp, have medals of all their past victories over the enemy!
8. Was Sonny a young celebrity? If he wasn't when he was young, he certainly became one when he was older (grew wings and could finally fly?).
Pyles admits that many of his brethren "shadow box" in the fight, taking on no real opponent. He said many of them attack other groups in the pulpit, or "straw men," and that this was not really fighting the enemy but was mere "beating the air."
I agree.
Hearing Sonny say these things made me think of these words of mine from an old entry I made right after father died. In that post - My Conversations With Father - I retold words I spoke to father years ago when we were debating hardshellism: "Dad, I eat Hardshells and Campbellites for breakfast."
(Actually I was rephrasing a line from a movie where Swartzeneggar was in a fight with a Green Beret dude and said to him "I eat Green Berets for breakfast")
Well, where are the Hardshell "Marines"? Where are the Hardshell "green berets"? Was not David Pyles first ordained and sent out by Sonny's church? Well, he is surely one of those "Green Berets"!
It is clear to me and others that there are no soldiers with "guts" among today's Hardshells. None who can come forward and defend their aberrant views systematically. Those who can't, by Sonny's criteria, are not Marines nor Green Berets!
Jason Brown was a trainee under Sonny and David. He came forth to fight and defend. We gave him credit for that. But, he has fled the battlefield. Any newcomers?
Said Sonny (4530 mark):
"Lots of times a young preacher-one preacher starts out, everybody's encouraging him, he's a little Christian celebrity. Folks hold him up on a pedestal, like this. He starts out trying to preach, he's a little Christian celebrity. He goes off to the big annual meeting and everybody looks around - here is out latest movie star. (laughs) Never heard anybody - I don't treat them that way. And, if the Old Baptists would wake up and put them through boot camp (amen, right), instead of telling them 'you're the greatest,' we would tell the, say, 'son, one of these days you'll get big enough to get some wings and then we'll let you fly.' But, we've got folks among us that want to put them to flying the first day. I don't handle them that way. I don't handle them that way."
"Unless they overall me (his home church in Graham, Texas) any of them we turn out (ordain and send to preach) are going to be PB Marines, PB Green Berets, that know what we teach on any point of doctrine and can systematically defend it. We're going to turn out PB Marines."
I never was quite a "little Christian celebrity" when I was first ordained a Hardshell elder in 1974., though I did go through that Hardshell "boot camp" and can make some personal observations on that.
1. Boy, did I ever have several mean "drill instructors"!
2. And whew! did I ever have some cowardly fellow soldiers!
3. And what about them "squad leaders" among the Hardshells, i.e., hard hearted deacons and preachers with "screwball ideas"? Had to deal with them too!
4. And, oh those "drills"! Crawling to the feet of the local Hardshell popes! Under enemy fire all the time!
5. And, those lessons in warfare! Knowledge of how to avoid or deceive your enemies! Taught by the old "war torn" local generals! A Hardshell "war college"!
6. Able to defend systematically all Hardshell beliefs! All in a "single bound"!
7. The old generals like Pyles, who train the young recruits, and pushes them through boot camp, have medals of all their past victories over the enemy!
8. Was Sonny a young celebrity? If he wasn't when he was young, he certainly became one when he was older (grew wings and could finally fly?).
Pyles admits that many of his brethren "shadow box" in the fight, taking on no real opponent. He said many of them attack other groups in the pulpit, or "straw men," and that this was not really fighting the enemy but was mere "beating the air."
I agree.
Hearing Sonny say these things made me think of these words of mine from an old entry I made right after father died. In that post - My Conversations With Father - I retold words I spoke to father years ago when we were debating hardshellism: "Dad, I eat Hardshells and Campbellites for breakfast."
(Actually I was rephrasing a line from a movie where Swartzeneggar was in a fight with a Green Beret dude and said to him "I eat Green Berets for breakfast")
Well, where are the Hardshell "Marines"? Where are the Hardshell "green berets"? Was not David Pyles first ordained and sent out by Sonny's church? Well, he is surely one of those "Green Berets"!
It is clear to me and others that there are no soldiers with "guts" among today's Hardshells. None who can come forward and defend their aberrant views systematically. Those who can't, by Sonny's criteria, are not Marines nor Green Berets!
Jason Brown was a trainee under Sonny and David. He came forth to fight and defend. We gave him credit for that. But, he has fled the battlefield. Any newcomers?
Friday, June 28, 2019
Gilbert Beebe vs. John Clark
Elder Gilbert Beebe
(1800-1881)
WHAT IS THE GOSPEL AND TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED
From Signs of the Times -February 15, 1869 (see here)
"...there is no gospel in telling men what they can and must do, or be damned."
But, Jesus and the prophets and apostles did this very thing!
Said Beebe:
"To call on dead sinners to repent and believe the gospel implies ability in them to do so, whereas the gospel proclaims that Christ is exalted to be a Prince and a Savior, to give repentance to Israel and the forgiveness of sins."
That is Pelagianism and totally contrary to what Beebe's forefathers taught!
Said Beebe:
"The gospel which we preach is good tidings to the meek; but if any part of our audience are not meek, it is not gospel, or good tidings to them."
That was one of the propositions of the first Two Seeders! Gospel is only food for those already saved and for no other reason! So contrary to both scripture and old Baptist history!
1804-1882
Wrote Elder John Clark (companion and later opponent of Beebe):
"The theory that we must preach to men according to the power they possess to obey is sublimated Arminianism, and yet; the advocates of it are very afraid of being called Arminians...To preach to men upon the ground that they have power to do what is commanded, or to refuse to preach to them because they have not the power, shows that the confidence is in the flesh and not in God; that they depend upon the will of the flesh and not upon the power God, and that is the very essence, double refined, of Arminianism. The minister of Christ does not preach to any class of men upon the consideration of their ability or inability." (see my posting here for the entire citation)
Elder Watson also stated the same. They represent the truth that their forefathers taught and Beebe's idea is pure Pelagianism. Such "screwball" ideas!
C.B. Hassell On Gospel Means
(1809-1880)
"On the contrary we believe, the gospel is God's system of salvation for ruined man, and that He saves them by grace of His and not by works of theirs. Kehukeeites believe, that the Saviour took the law place and stead of his people, and for them and in their behalf fulfilled it to a punctilio...This they are made to believe by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, and this belief is counted to them for righteousness without the deeds of the law. They are then no longer under the law but under grace--no longer dead in trespasses and sins but alive to holiness,-- having their fruit unto the same and the end thereof everlasting life. This belief in Christ, caused by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, is their creation anew in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that they should walk in; and henceforward they abound in good works to God, begotten by the active principle of grace within them, not from a principle of slavish fear, by which they expect to escape eternal punishment." ("The Primitive Baptist"; March 8, 1845)
Hassell Names Founding Fathers
In Hassell's history, we find these words from the close of the chapter on the nineteenth century.
"Some of our ministers who have passed away during this century are the following: John Leland, John Boggs, Thomas' Fleeson, Gideon Farrell, Daniel E. Jewett, Samuel Trott, Joshua Lawrence, Blount Cooper. William Hyman, Thomas Barton, Ichabod Moore, James Osbourn, Burwell Temple, Gabriel Conkling, D. L. Harding, John Staddler, John W. Stamper, Thomas Briggs, William Whitaker, John H. Daniel, Robert C. Leachman, Philander Hartwell, Joseph L. Purington, Robert D. Hart, G. W. Staton, Wilson Thompson, John M. Watson, Isam Cranfill, J. F. Johnson, Clayton Moore, C. B. Hassell, Gilbert Beebe, Jacob Castlebury. Samuel Danks, R. H. Harass and Russell Tucker. My sketch of my father's life, and Elder Gilbert Beebe's autobiographical sketch, will be found in the Appendix to this volume."
What is highly interesting about this is the fact that Hassell (Sylvester alone, or in conjunction with his father, Cushings?) mentions men who were heretics (a fact that he either slights or refuses to mention throughout his history). Let me mention a few things about some of these men.
First, Daniel Jewett. He was the editor of "The Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor" in the early to mid 1830s. Many founding fathers of the Hardshells wrote to this periodical, such as C.B. Hassell, John Clark, etc. In this periodical we find them affirming a belief in the predestination of all things, regeneration or new birth by means of gospel preaching, the necessity of conversion and perseverance for final salvation. When Jewett died, C.B. Hassell married his widow, thus making Jewett's widow the step mother of Sylvester. How can Hassell claim Jewett as one of his brother PBs when he believed these things?
Next, Samuel Trott. No PB will fellowship this man if he were alive today. He believed in the absolute predestination of all things, in means in rebirth, in eternal vital union, and denied the Trinity. He had other "screwball ideas" too. Knowing all this, how can Hassell claim him as a founding father?
Next, Joshua Lawrence. I have no doubt that Hassell knew that Lawrence believed in means in rebirth, absolute predestination, perseverance, etc. Yet, he claims him as one of his brothers and a founding father.
Next, James Osbourn. Hassell added this information about Osbourn in the same section:
"Elder James Osbourn was an Englishman, who traveled and preached much, and wrote many religious books. Elder Clayton Moore, of Martin Co., N. C, was a profound thinker and instructive speaker; and he, more than any other person, urged my father to undertake and myself to complete this History. Having the published lives and writings of Elders John Leland and Wilson Thompson, I will add some interesting particulars in regard to them."
Have we not shown in postings and citations from Osbourn that he believed exactly as the men just mentioned?
Next, Wilson Thompson. Hassell knew of Wilson's heresy regarding the Trinity, but he makes excuses for him! He also fails to mention the other heresies and "screwball ideas" of Thompson. Like others (such as the first leaders of the Bear Creek Ass.), Thompson held that Christ's human body preexisted before his incarnation and birth in the womb of the virgin. In spite of all this, Hassell wants to claim him as a founding father! He can fellowship such men but not Arminians?
I had rather fellowship them than some of these "screwball" teachers.
Next, John Watson. Really? So, Hassell claims the means PBs as his brothers? Would our modern PBs do the same?
Next, Gilbert Beebe? Really? What PB today claims him? Absoluters yes. But Hassell? What about the other serious errors of Beebe? (Who believed just as Trott)
Come on, my Hardshell brothers, tell us whether Hassell was correct or not in affirming that these men were of the PB family?
"Some of our ministers who have passed away during this century are the following: John Leland, John Boggs, Thomas' Fleeson, Gideon Farrell, Daniel E. Jewett, Samuel Trott, Joshua Lawrence, Blount Cooper. William Hyman, Thomas Barton, Ichabod Moore, James Osbourn, Burwell Temple, Gabriel Conkling, D. L. Harding, John Staddler, John W. Stamper, Thomas Briggs, William Whitaker, John H. Daniel, Robert C. Leachman, Philander Hartwell, Joseph L. Purington, Robert D. Hart, G. W. Staton, Wilson Thompson, John M. Watson, Isam Cranfill, J. F. Johnson, Clayton Moore, C. B. Hassell, Gilbert Beebe, Jacob Castlebury. Samuel Danks, R. H. Harass and Russell Tucker. My sketch of my father's life, and Elder Gilbert Beebe's autobiographical sketch, will be found in the Appendix to this volume."
What is highly interesting about this is the fact that Hassell (Sylvester alone, or in conjunction with his father, Cushings?) mentions men who were heretics (a fact that he either slights or refuses to mention throughout his history). Let me mention a few things about some of these men.
First, Daniel Jewett. He was the editor of "The Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor" in the early to mid 1830s. Many founding fathers of the Hardshells wrote to this periodical, such as C.B. Hassell, John Clark, etc. In this periodical we find them affirming a belief in the predestination of all things, regeneration or new birth by means of gospel preaching, the necessity of conversion and perseverance for final salvation. When Jewett died, C.B. Hassell married his widow, thus making Jewett's widow the step mother of Sylvester. How can Hassell claim Jewett as one of his brother PBs when he believed these things?
Next, Samuel Trott. No PB will fellowship this man if he were alive today. He believed in the absolute predestination of all things, in means in rebirth, in eternal vital union, and denied the Trinity. He had other "screwball ideas" too. Knowing all this, how can Hassell claim him as a founding father?
Next, Joshua Lawrence. I have no doubt that Hassell knew that Lawrence believed in means in rebirth, absolute predestination, perseverance, etc. Yet, he claims him as one of his brothers and a founding father.
Next, James Osbourn. Hassell added this information about Osbourn in the same section:
"Elder James Osbourn was an Englishman, who traveled and preached much, and wrote many religious books. Elder Clayton Moore, of Martin Co., N. C, was a profound thinker and instructive speaker; and he, more than any other person, urged my father to undertake and myself to complete this History. Having the published lives and writings of Elders John Leland and Wilson Thompson, I will add some interesting particulars in regard to them."
Have we not shown in postings and citations from Osbourn that he believed exactly as the men just mentioned?
Next, Wilson Thompson. Hassell knew of Wilson's heresy regarding the Trinity, but he makes excuses for him! He also fails to mention the other heresies and "screwball ideas" of Thompson. Like others (such as the first leaders of the Bear Creek Ass.), Thompson held that Christ's human body preexisted before his incarnation and birth in the womb of the virgin. In spite of all this, Hassell wants to claim him as a founding father! He can fellowship such men but not Arminians?
I had rather fellowship them than some of these "screwball" teachers.
Next, John Watson. Really? So, Hassell claims the means PBs as his brothers? Would our modern PBs do the same?
Next, Gilbert Beebe? Really? What PB today claims him? Absoluters yes. But Hassell? What about the other serious errors of Beebe? (Who believed just as Trott)
Come on, my Hardshell brothers, tell us whether Hassell was correct or not in affirming that these men were of the PB family?
On "Zion's Advocate"
The following is taken from the primitive Baptist library web page. (see here)
1854 (Vol. 1) - PBL - Complete (bound); PBL (film); Duke (complete)
1855 (Vol. 2) - PBL - May 1,15, Jun 1,15, Jul 1,15, Aug 1,15, Sep 1,15, Oct 1,15, Nov 1,15, Dec 1,
Duke - complete (we made a xerox copy of their entire volume)
Univ Virginia Charlottesville - complete
1856 (Vol. 3) - PBL - (Jan 1 digital), Jan 15, Feb 1,15, Mar 1,15, Apr 1,15, May 1,15, Jun 1,15, Jul 1,15, Aug 1,15, Sep 1,15, Oct, 1,15, Nov 1,15, Dec 1,15 (complete)
Duke - complete
Univ Virginia Charlottesville - complete
1857 (Vol. 4) - PBL - Complete (bound)
1858 (Vol. 5) - PBL - Complete (bound) (two copies)
1859 (Vol. 6) - PBL (orig.) - Jan 1,15, Feb 5, Apr 15, May 21, Dec 15
PBL (film) - complete
1860 (Vol. 7) - PBL (film) - #1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22 (#1 and #2 are mutilated; missing #5, 9, 18, 23, 24)
Duke - complete (we made a xerox copy of their entire volume)
Univ Virginia Charlottesville - complete
1861 (Vol. 8) - PBL (orig) - Jul 6 (#13),
PBL (film) - 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 (missing 2, 5, 9 and 11-24)
Duke - complete (we made a xerox copy of their volume, Nos. 1-10)
Univ Virginia Charlottesville - 1-17, 19-23.
University of Western Ontario is supposed to have Vols. 7 and 8.
1862 (Vol. 9) - Univ Virginia Charlottesville - complete except #1
1863 (Vol. 10) - Univ Virginia Charlottesville - complete except #7 and #24
If Elder Webb's library has had old copies of the periodical under the editorship of Clark, why has he not made this more easily available to the PBs of today? Why have other PBs not wanted to reprint articles from that time period? Could it be because it reveals things about their beliefs of the time that are contrary to today's PBs? Recall that I cited early in my book on "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" from the history of the Mississippi Baptists by Hardshell Griffin (1850s) in which he stated that he wished that he could "hide in oblivion" historical evidence that the Missionaries were the real original Baptists. He could not hide it, however, and so published it.
There are many things in Hardshell history that their leaders would like to "sweep under the rug."
CATALOG OF PRIMITIVE BAPTIST PERIODICALS IN THE COLLECTION OF
The Primitive Baptist Library, 416 Main Street, Carthage, IL 62321
Z I O N ' S A D V O C A T E
(Established in 1854)
(Established in 1854)
The first issue was issued at Front Royal, Virginia, January 1854, by Elder John Clark, who was editor for about thirty years except for the period from 1864-1870. After his death, in 1882, it was published for several years by Elder C. H. Waters (1849-1920) as editor, and Bro. J. G. Wiltshire as publisher. In February 1891 the paper was purchased by Elder T. S. Dalton (1846-1931), who merged it with the Herald of Truth, and served as editor until 1898. Elder John R. Daily (1854-1920) then served as editor for eight years. In May 1906 Dr. C. H. Waters resumed the editorship for several years. Elder R. H. Pittman purchased the paper in May 1919, and in January 1921 purchased The Messenger of Truth from Elder F. P. Branscome. In March 1923, the Gospel Messenger was merged with it.
ELDER JOHN CLARK, FOUNDER AND EDITOR
ELDER JOHN CLARK, FOUNDER AND EDITOR
1854 (Vol. 1) - PBL - Complete (bound); PBL (film); Duke (complete)
1855 (Vol. 2) - PBL - May 1,15, Jun 1,15, Jul 1,15, Aug 1,15, Sep 1,15, Oct 1,15, Nov 1,15, Dec 1,
Duke - complete (we made a xerox copy of their entire volume)
Univ Virginia Charlottesville - complete
1856 (Vol. 3) - PBL - (Jan 1 digital), Jan 15, Feb 1,15, Mar 1,15, Apr 1,15, May 1,15, Jun 1,15, Jul 1,15, Aug 1,15, Sep 1,15, Oct, 1,15, Nov 1,15, Dec 1,15 (complete)
Duke - complete
Univ Virginia Charlottesville - complete
1857 (Vol. 4) - PBL - Complete (bound)
1858 (Vol. 5) - PBL - Complete (bound) (two copies)
1859 (Vol. 6) - PBL (orig.) - Jan 1,15, Feb 5, Apr 15, May 21, Dec 15
PBL (film) - complete
1860 (Vol. 7) - PBL (film) - #1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22 (#1 and #2 are mutilated; missing #5, 9, 18, 23, 24)
Duke - complete (we made a xerox copy of their entire volume)
Univ Virginia Charlottesville - complete
1861 (Vol. 8) - PBL (orig) - Jul 6 (#13),
PBL (film) - 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 (missing 2, 5, 9 and 11-24)
Duke - complete (we made a xerox copy of their volume, Nos. 1-10)
Univ Virginia Charlottesville - 1-17, 19-23.
University of Western Ontario is supposed to have Vols. 7 and 8.
1862 (Vol. 9) - Univ Virginia Charlottesville - complete except #1
1863 (Vol. 10) - Univ Virginia Charlottesville - complete except #7 and #24
If Elder Webb's library has had old copies of the periodical under the editorship of Clark, why has he not made this more easily available to the PBs of today? Why have other PBs not wanted to reprint articles from that time period? Could it be because it reveals things about their beliefs of the time that are contrary to today's PBs? Recall that I cited early in my book on "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" from the history of the Mississippi Baptists by Hardshell Griffin (1850s) in which he stated that he wished that he could "hide in oblivion" historical evidence that the Missionaries were the real original Baptists. He could not hide it, however, and so published it.
There are many things in Hardshell history that their leaders would like to "sweep under the rug."
Thursday, June 27, 2019
Did You Know?
Did you know that the southern "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists in the time leading up to the American Civil War began to vehemently denounce the great Charles Spurgeon because of his opposition to slavery? If one reads the issues of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical during that time he will see many writing in strong denunciation of Spurgeon over this matter. Some said he could not possibly be saved because of his position.
Now, to me, this reveals a lot about the cult.
P.S. Hassell's history quotes Spurgeon often and favorably, but they always call him "Mr." C.H. Spurgeon.
Now, to me, this reveals a lot about the cult.
P.S. Hassell's history quotes Spurgeon often and favorably, but they always call him "Mr." C.H. Spurgeon.
Research At Duke University
For many years I have been trying to locate copies of "Zion's Advocate" that was started by Elder John Clark of Front Royal, Virginia. I have been hoping that the old issues (1854-1882 when Clark was alive and editor) would be made available by Google Books or some other entity. They have not. Over the years I have found that some of these volumes were at various seminary libraries, but they had but a few of them. SBTS and Southeastern have a few. But, Duke has most all of them! I have these old volumes set aside by the Duke library for me to come and read and copy. I plan to do this on Monday. It is about a 2-3 hour drive to Durham and I expect to be there all day. At last! I get to read all those old issues for that time period. What do I expect to find? More historical evidence to uphold the things we have asserted here in relation to Clark and the Old Baptists regarding means in the new birth, predestination, and on the perseverance of the saints.
Pray for us. I am sure we will have a lot to share with our readers in the future on what is contained in those volumes!
Question: Why have Hardshells not preserved these volumes under Clark's editorship? Was it not because they wanted that information "buried in oblivion"?
I also plan to complete my series on Redemption, on the Bema, and on ordination practices.
Pray for us. I am sure we will have a lot to share with our readers in the future on what is contained in those volumes!
Question: Why have Hardshells not preserved these volumes under Clark's editorship? Was it not because they wanted that information "buried in oblivion"?
I also plan to complete my series on Redemption, on the Bema, and on ordination practices.
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
The Judgment Seat Of Christ (6)
Boldness At The Bema
"And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming." (I John 2:28 KJV)
"Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world." (4:17)
These verses uproot one of the leading Hardshell presuppositions (which they take to scripture, rather than obtaining from it). What is that presupposition? That presupposition is contained in the following proposition: "There is no condition for the sinner or saint to meet in order to be finally saved." (It may be stated differently by them, but the essence is the same) It is amazing to me that they can affirm such a proposition when so many scriptures, as the above, refute it.
The first passage says that believers are to "abide in him," which is obviously something they do in response to such exhortations. Why abide in him? To obtain merely temporal good? No, it is "that (Greek "hina"; a purpose clause, meaning "in order that")" believers may:
1) have confidence before Christ when he appears the second time (the positive)
2) not be ashamed (disgraced) before him at his coming (the negative)
Since this is what happens at the second coming of Christ, it therefore cannot be made to refer to what is received now in this life. What Hardshell wants to come and refute it?
What does it mean to lack confidence and to be shamed by Christ at his coming? What did all our Old Baptist forefathers teach on it? Did they all not teach that the verses affirm the necessity of perseverance in order to be finally saved?
Here is what Dr. Gill (a real Old Baptist) said:
"And now, little children, abide in him - The apostle having finished his separate instructions exhortations to the fathers, young men and children, returns to the whole body of the saints in general, whom he addresses, as in ( 1 John 2:1 1 John 2:12 ); under the name of little children; (See Gill on 1 John 2:1); and whom he exhorts to abide in Christ, that is, in the exercise of faith on him, of hope in him, and love to him; and to hold to him the head, and to hold fast his word and Gospel, and abide by his truth and ordinances, and adhere to his cause and interest, and not to be moved away on any consideration."
We ask - is that not what it means to "abide in him"?
Gill comments further:
"we may have confidence; boldness or freedom, as now at the throne of grace, so then at the throne of judgment; where the saints will stand with courage and intrepidity, when the wicked will flee to the rocks and mountains, being filled with amazement, terror, and trembling..."
"and not be ashamed before him at his coming; they will not be put to shame by him; nor will they be ashamed of their confidence, faith, hope, and expectation; their hope will not make them ashamed, for they will now enjoy what they hoped for; and, notwithstanding all their sins and infirmities, they will not be ashamed, for they will have on the wedding garment, the righteousness of Christ, and will stand before the throne without fault, spot, or blemish; nor will Christ be ashamed of them who have not been ashamed of him and his words, but have confessed him, and have been faithful unto death, and have cleaved to him and his cause with full purpose of heart to the end."
Does that sound like Gill was a Hardshell?
"that we may have boldness in the day of judgment...not of men's judgment, when brought before judges, governors, and kings, for the sake of Christ and the Gospel, and stand at their bar, where saints, who have true love to God and Christ and the brethren, have stood with great courage and intrepidity, and shown much boldness, and used great freedom of speech; nor of judgment in this life, which sometimes begins at the house of God, though the saints often have great boldness and presence of mind, and freedom of expression both to God and man in a day of affliction, as Job had; but of the future judgment, which, though it will be very awful and solemn, Christ the Judge will appear with great majesty and glory, and all men will stand before him, and the books will be opened, and the judgment will proceed with great strictness and justice, and will issue in the everlasting perdition of devils and wicked men, yet the saints will have boldness in it..."
In preaching upon having boldness in the day of judgment, Spurgeon said:
"Sit down, dear reader, if you are as yet unsaved, and take an hour for this solemn exercise: it may prove the turning-point of your history. In a few years you will be one of that vast assembly, and have to answer for every deed and word of your life. Think of it long; picture it vividly; let it work upon your mind. Though at the first it fill you with fear and trembling, it may conduct you to the Savior's feet, and then, looking up to him with penitential faith, you may hear how to "have boldness in the day of judgment." If you fly to Jesus as your Savior you will not fear to face him as your King. It has been well said, "Thou wilt meet the Great Day well if thou get the Great judge to judge thee every day.""
"Are you afraid to think of it? Be much more afraid of enduring it! If even to dream of the Last Day is a terrible event, what must it be then to be there in reality? The prisoner who will not even think of his trial is in his conscience assured of a verdict of condemnation. Would he not be far wiser to seek for a Counselor to plead his cause? Will you not seek One? Jesus, the faithful Counselor, asks no fee. Commit your cause into his hand, and you need not fear the Last Assize." ("Anticipating the Last Judgment"; From the January 1884 Sword and Trowel - see here)
For our Hardshell brothers to tell professing Christians that they can live in sin (not abide in him and his word) and yet have confidence and boldness when Christ appears, and when one stands before his judgment seat, is highly destructive and perilous for them.
"And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming." (I John 2:28 KJV)
"Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world." (4:17)
These verses uproot one of the leading Hardshell presuppositions (which they take to scripture, rather than obtaining from it). What is that presupposition? That presupposition is contained in the following proposition: "There is no condition for the sinner or saint to meet in order to be finally saved." (It may be stated differently by them, but the essence is the same) It is amazing to me that they can affirm such a proposition when so many scriptures, as the above, refute it.
The first passage says that believers are to "abide in him," which is obviously something they do in response to such exhortations. Why abide in him? To obtain merely temporal good? No, it is "that (Greek "hina"; a purpose clause, meaning "in order that")" believers may:
1) have confidence before Christ when he appears the second time (the positive)
2) not be ashamed (disgraced) before him at his coming (the negative)
Since this is what happens at the second coming of Christ, it therefore cannot be made to refer to what is received now in this life. What Hardshell wants to come and refute it?
What does it mean to lack confidence and to be shamed by Christ at his coming? What did all our Old Baptist forefathers teach on it? Did they all not teach that the verses affirm the necessity of perseverance in order to be finally saved?
Here is what Dr. Gill (a real Old Baptist) said:
"And now, little children, abide in him - The apostle having finished his separate instructions exhortations to the fathers, young men and children, returns to the whole body of the saints in general, whom he addresses, as in ( 1 John 2:1 1 John 2:12 ); under the name of little children; (See Gill on 1 John 2:1); and whom he exhorts to abide in Christ, that is, in the exercise of faith on him, of hope in him, and love to him; and to hold to him the head, and to hold fast his word and Gospel, and abide by his truth and ordinances, and adhere to his cause and interest, and not to be moved away on any consideration."
We ask - is that not what it means to "abide in him"?
Gill comments further:
"we may have confidence; boldness or freedom, as now at the throne of grace, so then at the throne of judgment; where the saints will stand with courage and intrepidity, when the wicked will flee to the rocks and mountains, being filled with amazement, terror, and trembling..."
"and not be ashamed before him at his coming; they will not be put to shame by him; nor will they be ashamed of their confidence, faith, hope, and expectation; their hope will not make them ashamed, for they will now enjoy what they hoped for; and, notwithstanding all their sins and infirmities, they will not be ashamed, for they will have on the wedding garment, the righteousness of Christ, and will stand before the throne without fault, spot, or blemish; nor will Christ be ashamed of them who have not been ashamed of him and his words, but have confessed him, and have been faithful unto death, and have cleaved to him and his cause with full purpose of heart to the end."
Does that sound like Gill was a Hardshell?
"that we may have boldness in the day of judgment...not of men's judgment, when brought before judges, governors, and kings, for the sake of Christ and the Gospel, and stand at their bar, where saints, who have true love to God and Christ and the brethren, have stood with great courage and intrepidity, and shown much boldness, and used great freedom of speech; nor of judgment in this life, which sometimes begins at the house of God, though the saints often have great boldness and presence of mind, and freedom of expression both to God and man in a day of affliction, as Job had; but of the future judgment, which, though it will be very awful and solemn, Christ the Judge will appear with great majesty and glory, and all men will stand before him, and the books will be opened, and the judgment will proceed with great strictness and justice, and will issue in the everlasting perdition of devils and wicked men, yet the saints will have boldness in it..."
In preaching upon having boldness in the day of judgment, Spurgeon said:
"Sit down, dear reader, if you are as yet unsaved, and take an hour for this solemn exercise: it may prove the turning-point of your history. In a few years you will be one of that vast assembly, and have to answer for every deed and word of your life. Think of it long; picture it vividly; let it work upon your mind. Though at the first it fill you with fear and trembling, it may conduct you to the Savior's feet, and then, looking up to him with penitential faith, you may hear how to "have boldness in the day of judgment." If you fly to Jesus as your Savior you will not fear to face him as your King. It has been well said, "Thou wilt meet the Great Day well if thou get the Great judge to judge thee every day.""
"Are you afraid to think of it? Be much more afraid of enduring it! If even to dream of the Last Day is a terrible event, what must it be then to be there in reality? The prisoner who will not even think of his trial is in his conscience assured of a verdict of condemnation. Would he not be far wiser to seek for a Counselor to plead his cause? Will you not seek One? Jesus, the faithful Counselor, asks no fee. Commit your cause into his hand, and you need not fear the Last Assize." ("Anticipating the Last Judgment"; From the January 1884 Sword and Trowel - see here)
For our Hardshell brothers to tell professing Christians that they can live in sin (not abide in him and his word) and yet have confidence and boldness when Christ appears, and when one stands before his judgment seat, is highly destructive and perilous for them.
The Judgment Seat Of Christ (5)
Having dealt with the problem of a seeming contradiction, on the topic of coming judgment for believers (where believers are promised not to be judged and condemned, on the one hand, and yet will be judged at the Bema of Christ, on the other hand), I wish now to address some other difficulties on this subject.
Both Judge & Attorney?
How can Christ justly be both the judge of a person and represent him in the same trial? That is not permissible in human courts. Why then is it allowable in the court of heaven? I expect to be judged by the Lord but I also expect him to represent me as my advocate and attorney. Again, is this just?
Surprisingly, I have not been able to find any bible commentator who addressed this difficulty. Thus, I have no help in attempting an answer to this question.
It will be perfectly legitimate, quite fair and just, for Christ to be both judge over the defendant, and also his advocate/attorney. The reason for this is because Christ is righteous and just and will show no bias or partiality in justice. There is no conflict of interest to eliminate, and so no need of requiring a law forbidding acting both as judge and advocate. Among men it is quite necessary to have such a rule because men cannot help having a conflict of interest in such cases. Further, God is subject to no laws. Justice for God is what he says it is.
Further, not only is Jesus the believer's advocate, but so also is the Holy Spirit. So, we can be certain that the Spirit, being the "Spirit of Christ," will be at the side of the believer as he stands before the judge.
Believers Have An Advocate
“My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate (paraklētos) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” (I John 2: 1)
According to Strong, parakletos means "summoned, called to one's side, esp. called to one's aid" and "one who pleads another's cause before a judge, a pleader, counsel for defense, legal assistant, an advocate," or "one who pleads another's cause with one, an intercessor."
Holy Spirit as parakletos ("Comforter" KJV) as in John 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:7) The words "another comforter" identifies both Christ and the Spirit as parakletos.
Further, Christ, as a believer's attorney, does not wait until the trial to prepare his client for it. The believer now has been fully equipped to stand in the judgment and should know in advance how his case will be decided.
Infants At The Bema?
Infants are of course not involved in this judgment nor even in the "Great White Throne" judgment. What are the ramifications of that?
Both the Bema and the great "white throne" judgment (Rev. 20) find that those who are condemned are condemned on the basis of their works (done without faith), which infants (idiots also) have none. Therefore, when Paul says "we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ" he must exclude such characters, so that the statement must be interpreted to mean "all men except those who have no works of any kind."
We have the same difficulty in statements about Christ dying for the "sins" (plural) of all those who are finally saved. But, do infants and idiots have sins? We know they have "original sin," but this is not what the judgment is all about. Men have already been judged and condemned as respects original sin. (John 3: 18; Rom. 5:16-18)
So, I conclude that when Jesus and Paul say that "all" or "everyone" will give account for his deeds that they meant "all adults" or "all who are old enough to do good or evil."
As a side note, this point should give pause to our Arminian brothers who often insist that "all men" means all men without exception.
Righteous Dead Awaiting Judgment?
If people now in heaven are awaiting this Bema appearing, or the great white throne judgment, then how can it be for salvation? Likewise, we may ask; if people now in hell are awaiting judgment, then how can it be for damnation?
It seems that a judgment is made in regard to each soul at the moment the body dies and the spirit is sent to either heaven or hell. So Paul writes - "it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." (Heb. 9:27) On these words wrote Gill in his commentary:
"...the last and general judgment, which will reach to all men, quick and dead, righteous and wicked, and in which Christ will be Judge. There is a particular judgment which is immediately after death; by virtue of which, the souls of men are condemned to their proper state of happiness or woe; and there is an universal judgment, which will be after the resurrection of the dead, and is called eternal judgment, and to come..."
The judgment made at one's death is preliminary, though it is without error, because God does not need to wait till the final trial to know of one's condemnation or justification. Even men make preliminary judgments about guilt and innocence before trials make final determination. A man murders in plain sight of witnesses. He is locked up in "jail" and is guilty even before it is so stated by a judge in court. Though guilty, and in jail, before his trial, who can deny that the trial itself will be "unto damnation"? Therefore, we may reason, that just as the souls of the wicked are initially judged as guilty, and sent to Hell (in spirit) to await trial, so too are the souls of the righteous initially judged as justified, and sent (in spirit) to Heaven (or Paradise) to await trial at the Bema, and which will be "unto salvation."
Paul's words in I Tim. 5:24-25 uphold this apology on the subject. He said:
"The sins of some men are quite evident, going before them to judgment; for others, their sins follow after. Likewise also, deeds that are good are quite evident, and those which are otherwise cannot be concealed." (NASB)
On this text Dr. Gill wrote:
"Some men are such open and notorious sinners, that there is no need of any inquiry about them, or any examination of them; or any witnesses to be called to their character, in order to pass judgment concerning them; they even prevent and supersede any formal process about them."
Though in context Paul is talking about what is true in regard to human judgment, yet the principle he puts forth is applicable to the final judgment.
As the sufferings of the wicked spirits in Hell are not receiving the full complement of their eternal woes, in their "intermediate state," so the joys of those "spirits of just men made perfect" (Heb. 12:23) that are in Heaven are not complete. Not till the judgment and resurrection, at the return of Christ, do saints and sinners receive their complete recompense.
The intermediate state has much mystery surrounding it, but of what I have stated thus far, we can be sure is clear and comprehensible.
Condemned Already?
If sinners are "condemned" already (John 3:18), why the need for a another future judgment?
Men have been already judged and condemned for original sin, for the sin of Adam. (See Rom. 5) But, they have not yet been judged in regard to their works, or in regard to final salvation or damnation.
Justified Already?
Is there not a sense in which believers will be justified at the judgment? I think so. Though Christians are now justified by faith, yet their justification in court yet awaits. Their justification then will involve vindication.
Jesus said:
"He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day." (John 12:48 NASB)
Just as rejecting the word of the Lord results in condemnation at the day of judgment, "at the last day," so too does accepting that word result in justification. The words of Christ will either condemn or clear each person at the judgment.
Bema is much more than a mere "awards ceremony." It is not mere formality nor simply pomp and circumstance.
Both Judge & Attorney?
How can Christ justly be both the judge of a person and represent him in the same trial? That is not permissible in human courts. Why then is it allowable in the court of heaven? I expect to be judged by the Lord but I also expect him to represent me as my advocate and attorney. Again, is this just?
Surprisingly, I have not been able to find any bible commentator who addressed this difficulty. Thus, I have no help in attempting an answer to this question.
It will be perfectly legitimate, quite fair and just, for Christ to be both judge over the defendant, and also his advocate/attorney. The reason for this is because Christ is righteous and just and will show no bias or partiality in justice. There is no conflict of interest to eliminate, and so no need of requiring a law forbidding acting both as judge and advocate. Among men it is quite necessary to have such a rule because men cannot help having a conflict of interest in such cases. Further, God is subject to no laws. Justice for God is what he says it is.
Further, not only is Jesus the believer's advocate, but so also is the Holy Spirit. So, we can be certain that the Spirit, being the "Spirit of Christ," will be at the side of the believer as he stands before the judge.
Believers Have An Advocate
“My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate (paraklētos) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” (I John 2: 1)
According to Strong, parakletos means "summoned, called to one's side, esp. called to one's aid" and "one who pleads another's cause before a judge, a pleader, counsel for defense, legal assistant, an advocate," or "one who pleads another's cause with one, an intercessor."
Holy Spirit as parakletos ("Comforter" KJV) as in John 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:7) The words "another comforter" identifies both Christ and the Spirit as parakletos.
Further, Christ, as a believer's attorney, does not wait until the trial to prepare his client for it. The believer now has been fully equipped to stand in the judgment and should know in advance how his case will be decided.
Infants At The Bema?
Infants are of course not involved in this judgment nor even in the "Great White Throne" judgment. What are the ramifications of that?
Both the Bema and the great "white throne" judgment (Rev. 20) find that those who are condemned are condemned on the basis of their works (done without faith), which infants (idiots also) have none. Therefore, when Paul says "we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ" he must exclude such characters, so that the statement must be interpreted to mean "all men except those who have no works of any kind."
We have the same difficulty in statements about Christ dying for the "sins" (plural) of all those who are finally saved. But, do infants and idiots have sins? We know they have "original sin," but this is not what the judgment is all about. Men have already been judged and condemned as respects original sin. (John 3: 18; Rom. 5:16-18)
So, I conclude that when Jesus and Paul say that "all" or "everyone" will give account for his deeds that they meant "all adults" or "all who are old enough to do good or evil."
As a side note, this point should give pause to our Arminian brothers who often insist that "all men" means all men without exception.
Righteous Dead Awaiting Judgment?
If people now in heaven are awaiting this Bema appearing, or the great white throne judgment, then how can it be for salvation? Likewise, we may ask; if people now in hell are awaiting judgment, then how can it be for damnation?
It seems that a judgment is made in regard to each soul at the moment the body dies and the spirit is sent to either heaven or hell. So Paul writes - "it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." (Heb. 9:27) On these words wrote Gill in his commentary:
"...the last and general judgment, which will reach to all men, quick and dead, righteous and wicked, and in which Christ will be Judge. There is a particular judgment which is immediately after death; by virtue of which, the souls of men are condemned to their proper state of happiness or woe; and there is an universal judgment, which will be after the resurrection of the dead, and is called eternal judgment, and to come..."
The judgment made at one's death is preliminary, though it is without error, because God does not need to wait till the final trial to know of one's condemnation or justification. Even men make preliminary judgments about guilt and innocence before trials make final determination. A man murders in plain sight of witnesses. He is locked up in "jail" and is guilty even before it is so stated by a judge in court. Though guilty, and in jail, before his trial, who can deny that the trial itself will be "unto damnation"? Therefore, we may reason, that just as the souls of the wicked are initially judged as guilty, and sent to Hell (in spirit) to await trial, so too are the souls of the righteous initially judged as justified, and sent (in spirit) to Heaven (or Paradise) to await trial at the Bema, and which will be "unto salvation."
Paul's words in I Tim. 5:24-25 uphold this apology on the subject. He said:
"The sins of some men are quite evident, going before them to judgment; for others, their sins follow after. Likewise also, deeds that are good are quite evident, and those which are otherwise cannot be concealed." (NASB)
On this text Dr. Gill wrote:
"Some men are such open and notorious sinners, that there is no need of any inquiry about them, or any examination of them; or any witnesses to be called to their character, in order to pass judgment concerning them; they even prevent and supersede any formal process about them."
Though in context Paul is talking about what is true in regard to human judgment, yet the principle he puts forth is applicable to the final judgment.
As the sufferings of the wicked spirits in Hell are not receiving the full complement of their eternal woes, in their "intermediate state," so the joys of those "spirits of just men made perfect" (Heb. 12:23) that are in Heaven are not complete. Not till the judgment and resurrection, at the return of Christ, do saints and sinners receive their complete recompense.
The intermediate state has much mystery surrounding it, but of what I have stated thus far, we can be sure is clear and comprehensible.
Condemned Already?
If sinners are "condemned" already (John 3:18), why the need for a another future judgment?
Men have been already judged and condemned for original sin, for the sin of Adam. (See Rom. 5) But, they have not yet been judged in regard to their works, or in regard to final salvation or damnation.
Justified Already?
Is there not a sense in which believers will be justified at the judgment? I think so. Though Christians are now justified by faith, yet their justification in court yet awaits. Their justification then will involve vindication.
Jesus said:
"He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day." (John 12:48 NASB)
Just as rejecting the word of the Lord results in condemnation at the day of judgment, "at the last day," so too does accepting that word result in justification. The words of Christ will either condemn or clear each person at the judgment.
Bema is much more than a mere "awards ceremony." It is not mere formality nor simply pomp and circumstance.
Elder John Clark On Means
1804-1882
"In the first volume of Zion’s Advocate Clark wrote:
“...the gospel ‘is a means made use of by God in quickening dead sinners, enlightening blind eyes, unstopping deaf ears, softening hard hearts, and making of enemies friends’ (Vol. VIII. p. 437)
(comments upon Romans 1: 16. For more citations as the above, see my posting Elder John Clark On Means.
Same volume; page 339, upon Acts XXVI, 18, he says:
"Now, though this is all the work of the spirit, by whom only the eyes of the understanding are enlightened; yet this is ascribed to the apostle, not as the efficient cause, but as the instrument and means, through preaching of the gospel, which the spirit of God would, and did, make use of.’”
Clark also wrote:
"The people of God were in Christ before the world was, according to that choice, and they are in him in time by faith – become children of God by faith in Christ; and hence, some are in Christ, in this sense, before others, as the apostle stated on a particular occasion. (Rom. 16:7.)"
(Taken from my posting Was Elder John Clark a neo Hardshell?)
Clark states what was the original view of the founding fathers of the "Primitive Baptist" denomination. We are the true primitive or old Baptists here. The above is proof of it.
Sunday, June 23, 2019
Pyles On Old Baptist Forefathers
In Elder Sonny Pyles' sermon on I Cor. 9 (running the race) (here - highlighting mine), Sonny said:
"Listen to me real carefully...In my years of circulating among God's people, several times a year I'll meet somebody that's got a contrary strange idea on "Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated" (Rom. 9:13) that's totally contrary to what the standards among the Old Baptists have taught for centuries. And I want to say to you this morning in all kindness, if you're ever studying the scriptures and your tempted to get an idea on a scripture that's contrary to what the standards among our people will have taught for centuries, then you be very very careful and study it out very carefully before you advocate it. Somebody says - Well, we're not following those standards, we are following the bible. Just a minute. I did not say your local ministers. I did not say the ministers of my day. I said you get an idea on, uh, you got a position on a scripture out of the top of your head, you reach back and begin to study it and see if the standards among God's people taught that a hundred years ago, see it they taught it a hundred fifty years ago. See if they taught it three hundred years ago. See if they taught it five hundred years ago. What I'm saying to you this morning, I have been in sections of the country all over the USA, where the local ministers have screwball ideas. Somebody says - that's a strange word to use in the pulpit. You got the idea didn't you? What I'm talking about is when we go back and study what our brethren believed fifty years, a hundred years ago, a hundred fifty years ago, two hundred years ago, or a few hundred years ago, somebody says - we're not following men, we're following the bible. That's right. But men read the bible and God gives them the ability to explain what it means to God's people. I want you to consider this, this morning."
"I have a serious question for you this morning. How can a church be the pillar and ground of the truth and be consistently wrong? (long pause) Now then, there have been times, if a man says "I can study church history and I can go back to the days of the apostles and I can find a straight line that men have travelled and preaching straight consistent truth to the present hour, if you're going to advocate that, all you have told me is that you haven't studied church history as much as I have. What you'll find is this; here's the pattern set by Christ and his apostles. You'll find the church from time to time, there will be men in a particular day, or a particular location, they'll vary to the right a little, or they'll vary to the left, then God will raise up a generation of sound men that will take the bible and pull them right back to the middle. They'll move down the middle line a while. Then folks will vary for a little while to the left, they'll vary a little to the right, then God raised up sound men, give them the rule book and pull them right back to the center."
I find it ironic that Sonny can't see how the PBs of today cannot find that their forefathers centuries ago believed what they do! Where is the no means view taught by our forefathers centuries ago? Where can we find where they taught that conversion was unnecessary for final salvation? Where can we find where they denied the predestination of all things? Where can they find where the perseverance of the saints was denied?
He also repeats this line - "church cannot be the pillar and ground of the truth and be consistently wrong."
So, the PBs have been consistent in the truth over the past two centuries? Have we not proved otherwise?
On predestination Pyles said that the PBs "fought Absolutism so hard that they're almost Arminian."
Well, amen to that!
How does that fit in with PB Landmarker views? When the church strayed to the right or to the left, were the baptisms, ordinations, etc., then invalid? When the church came back to the middle, did it rebaptize all those who were baptized when the church was not in the middle?
Has God not raised up me to pull the PBs back? Kevin also? Jeremy also? Others too that I could mention?
The errors of today's PBs on the points just enumerated show that they have not been "consistent in the truth" and have rather had "screwball ideas."
There are other things in this sermon that I hope to review in the near future, the Lord willing. Pray for us.
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
The Judgment Seat Of Christ (4)
"Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." (Heb. 6: 1-2 KJV)
What is "the doctrine of eternal judgment"? According to the above inspired words, it is part of that body of divinity styled "the principles of the doctrine of Christ."
One cannot teach about Christ without teaching about repentance, faith, cleansing, gifts, resurrection, and about the coming day of judgment. The "doctrine of eternal judgment," of everlasting condemnation, etc., is part of the "doctrine of Christ." It is also part of "the gospel." It is part of preaching the gospel to warn men of this coming day and to exhort them to prepare for it. Wrote Paul: "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." (Rom. 2:16)
Commented Albert Barnes:
"of eternal judgment...This is the sixth element or principle of religion. It is, that there will be a judgment whose consequences will be eternal. It does not mean, of course, that the process of the judgment will be eternal, or that the judgment day will continue forever; but that the results or consequences of the decision of that day will continue for ever. There will be no appeal from the sentence, nor will there be any reversal of the judgment then pronounced. What is decided then will be determined forever. The approval of the righteous will fix their state eternally in heaven, and in like manner the condemnation of the wicked will fix their doom forever in hell. This doctrine was one of the earliest that was taught by the Saviour and his apostles, and is inculcated in the New Testament perhaps with more frequency than any other; see Acts 17:31. That the consequences or results of the judgment will be “eternal,” is abundantly affirmed; see Matthew 25:46; John 5:29;; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; Mark 9:45, Mark 9:48."
Sobering words! Men may scoff at the idea of eternal judgment, condemnation, and punishment, but the scriptures are quite clear in their affirmation of it.
The Promise For Believers
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." (John 5: 24 KJV)
"Shall not come into condemnation (εἰς κρίσιν οὐκ ἔρχεται)" obviously does not mean that believers will not be judged in the day of judgment. What it does mean is that he will not be found guilty and condemned. The Greek word for "condemnation" in this passage is "krisin" (from which we get our word "crisis") and simply denotes judgment, and is sometimes used in reference to the final judgment. It also may denote the adverse result of such judgment, that is, punishment or penalty. Said Dr. Gill in his commentary: "though he may come into judgment, yet not into condemnation: he shall stand in judgment, and be acquitted by the righteousness of Christ, which he, by faith, receives as his justifying righteousness." Expositor's Greek Testament says:
"Literally this means “he does not come to trial”; but has it not the fuller meaning “come under condemnation”? Meyer says “yes”: Godet says “no”. Meyer is right. This clause is the direct negative of the former: to come to judgment is to come under condemnation."
I have not read all Godet said on this passage, but I find that he did say this, which seems to contradict what was said above about his views.
Godet - "The all is prefixed to remind us that no one will escape from that judge. It is well said, no doubt, John 5:24, that the believer “shall not come into judgment;” but that does not mean that he shall not appear before the tribunal (2 Cor. 5:10). Only he will appear there to be owned as one who has already voluntarily judged himself by the light of Christ’s word and under the discipline of His Spirit."
Another verse on this part of our subject is Romans 8: 1.
"Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (KJV)
In this passage the Greek word is different than in John 5: 24, being from the Greek word κατάκριμα (katakrima). This word is used only three times in the NT, two in Romans 5 and the other here. In both passages in Romans 5, "judgment" precedes "condemnation." They say "judgment (krima) was by one to condemnation (katakrima)" (5:16) and "judgment came upon all men to condemnation" (5:18).
Judgment (krima from kríno = to judge; suffix –ma indicates result of judging) denotes the result of the action signified by verb krino and thus is a judicial sentence from the magistrate. It is the sentence pronounced, the verdict, the act of judging. Krima signifies judgment carried out. Strong says it is "an adverse sentence (the verdict):—condemnation." Thayer says it is a "damnatory sentence, condemnation." Barnes writes that krima means...
The sentence; the declared penalty. The word expresses, properly, the sentence which is passed by a judge. Here it means the sentence which God passed, as a judge, on Adam for the one offence, involving himself and his posterity in ruin, Ge 2:17; Ge 3:17-19. (Commentary)
In Greek katá, meaning "down, according to," intensifies kríma and means "the results of judgment." It denotes the sentence of condemnation handed down after due process has established guilt. The idea is of judgment coming down on someone. And, of course, condemnation is essentially the opposite of justification.
Katakrima means to judge someone as definitely guilty and thus subject to punishment, which accounts for the literal translation of "adverse judgment and resultant punishment." It is a legal technical term for the result of judging, including both the sentence and the execution or the sentence followed by a suggested punishment. Katakrima is always an adverse verdict. Stated another way, katakrima (condemnation) relates to the sentencing for a crime, but its primary focus is not so much on the verdict as on the penalty that the verdict demands.
A believer should know that he is safe from condemnation. He carries his pardon in his hand. The Christian's confidence comes from the very Judge himself who sits upon the throne.
What is "the doctrine of eternal judgment"? According to the above inspired words, it is part of that body of divinity styled "the principles of the doctrine of Christ."
One cannot teach about Christ without teaching about repentance, faith, cleansing, gifts, resurrection, and about the coming day of judgment. The "doctrine of eternal judgment," of everlasting condemnation, etc., is part of the "doctrine of Christ." It is also part of "the gospel." It is part of preaching the gospel to warn men of this coming day and to exhort them to prepare for it. Wrote Paul: "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." (Rom. 2:16)
Commented Albert Barnes:
"of eternal judgment...This is the sixth element or principle of religion. It is, that there will be a judgment whose consequences will be eternal. It does not mean, of course, that the process of the judgment will be eternal, or that the judgment day will continue forever; but that the results or consequences of the decision of that day will continue for ever. There will be no appeal from the sentence, nor will there be any reversal of the judgment then pronounced. What is decided then will be determined forever. The approval of the righteous will fix their state eternally in heaven, and in like manner the condemnation of the wicked will fix their doom forever in hell. This doctrine was one of the earliest that was taught by the Saviour and his apostles, and is inculcated in the New Testament perhaps with more frequency than any other; see Acts 17:31. That the consequences or results of the judgment will be “eternal,” is abundantly affirmed; see Matthew 25:46; John 5:29;; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; Mark 9:45, Mark 9:48."
Sobering words! Men may scoff at the idea of eternal judgment, condemnation, and punishment, but the scriptures are quite clear in their affirmation of it.
The Promise For Believers
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." (John 5: 24 KJV)
"Shall not come into condemnation (εἰς κρίσιν οὐκ ἔρχεται)" obviously does not mean that believers will not be judged in the day of judgment. What it does mean is that he will not be found guilty and condemned. The Greek word for "condemnation" in this passage is "krisin" (from which we get our word "crisis") and simply denotes judgment, and is sometimes used in reference to the final judgment. It also may denote the adverse result of such judgment, that is, punishment or penalty. Said Dr. Gill in his commentary: "though he may come into judgment, yet not into condemnation: he shall stand in judgment, and be acquitted by the righteousness of Christ, which he, by faith, receives as his justifying righteousness." Expositor's Greek Testament says:
I have not read all Godet said on this passage, but I find that he did say this, which seems to contradict what was said above about his views.
Godet - "The all is prefixed to remind us that no one will escape from that judge. It is well said, no doubt, John 5:24, that the believer “shall not come into judgment;” but that does not mean that he shall not appear before the tribunal (2 Cor. 5:10). Only he will appear there to be owned as one who has already voluntarily judged himself by the light of Christ’s word and under the discipline of His Spirit."
"Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (KJV)
In this passage the Greek word is different than in John 5: 24, being from the Greek word κατάκριμα (katakrima). This word is used only three times in the NT, two in Romans 5 and the other here. In both passages in Romans 5, "judgment" precedes "condemnation." They say "judgment (krima) was by one to condemnation (katakrima)" (5:16) and "judgment came upon all men to condemnation" (5:18).
Judgment (krima from kríno = to judge; suffix –ma indicates result of judging) denotes the result of the action signified by verb krino and thus is a judicial sentence from the magistrate. It is the sentence pronounced, the verdict, the act of judging. Krima signifies judgment carried out. Strong says it is "an adverse sentence (the verdict):—condemnation." Thayer says it is a "damnatory sentence, condemnation." Barnes writes that krima means...
The sentence; the declared penalty. The word expresses, properly, the sentence which is passed by a judge. Here it means the sentence which God passed, as a judge, on Adam for the one offence, involving himself and his posterity in ruin, Ge 2:17; Ge 3:17-19. (Commentary)
In Greek katá, meaning "down, according to," intensifies kríma and means "the results of judgment." It denotes the sentence of condemnation handed down after due process has established guilt. The idea is of judgment coming down on someone. And, of course, condemnation is essentially the opposite of justification.
Katakrima means to judge someone as definitely guilty and thus subject to punishment, which accounts for the literal translation of "adverse judgment and resultant punishment." It is a legal technical term for the result of judging, including both the sentence and the execution or the sentence followed by a suggested punishment. Katakrima is always an adverse verdict. Stated another way, katakrima (condemnation) relates to the sentencing for a crime, but its primary focus is not so much on the verdict as on the penalty that the verdict demands.
A believer should know that he is safe from condemnation. He carries his pardon in his hand. The Christian's confidence comes from the very Judge himself who sits upon the throne.
Sunday, June 16, 2019
Baptist Ordination Practices Examined (I)
1834-1892
Ordination and Religious Titles
Sword and Trowel Volume 4, 1874 pages 111-117 - see here
"Whence comes the whole paraphernalia of ordination as observed among some Dissenters? Since there is no special gift to bestow, why in any case the laying on of empty hands? Since we cannot pretend that mystic succession so vaunted by Ritualists, why are men styled "regularly ordained ministers"? A man who has preached for years is Mr. Brown, but after his ordination or recognition he develops into the Reverend Mr. Brown; what important change has he undergone? This comes before us in the form of addresses upon letters "Reverend Titus Smith, Mr. Spurgeon's College," or sometimes, "Reverend Timothy Jones, Spurgeon's Tabernacle." Rather odd, this! Here are reverend students of an unreverend preacher, the title being given to the one out of courtesy, and withheld from the other for the same reason. The Reverend Titus has met with a church which will insist upon an ordination, and he is ordained; but the President of his College, having never undergone such a process, nor even that imitation of it called a recognition, remains an unordained, unrecognized person to this day, and has not yet discovered the peculiar loss which he has sustained. We do not object to a recognition of the choice of the church by its neighbors and their ministers, on the contrary, we believe it to be a fraternal act, sanctioned by the very spirit of Christianity; but where it is supposed to be essential, is regarded as a ceremony, and is thought to be the crowning feature of the settlement, we demur."
Good questions!
Continued Spurgeon:
""The Reverend Theophilus Robinson offered up the ordination prayer" has a Babylonish sound in our ears, and it is not much improved when it takes the form of "the recognition prayer." Is there, then, a ritual? Are we as much bound by an unwritten extempore liturgy as others by the Common Prayer? Must there always be "usual questions"? And why "usual"? Is there some legendary rule for the address to the church and the address to the pastor? Mark well, that we do not object to any one of these things, but we do question the propriety of stereotyping them, and speaking of the whole affair as if it were a matter to be gone about according to a certain pattern seen in the holy mount, or an order given forth in trust to the saints. We see germs of evil in the usual parlance, and therefore meet it with a Quo Warranto? Is not the divine call the real ordination to preach, and the call of the church the only ordination to the pastorate?` The church is competent under the guidance or the Holy Spirit her own work, and if she calls in her sister churches, let her tell them what she has done, in such terms that they will never infer that they are called upon to complete the work. The ordination prayer should be prayed in the church meeting, and there and then the work should be done; for other churches to recognize the act is well and fitting, but not if it be viewed as needful to the completion of the act itself. We have noticed many signs of an error in this direction."
Amen to that!
Continued Spurgeon:
"The small matter which we have mentioned leads on to another which is by no means small, namely, the notion in some churches that only an ordained or recognized minister should preside at the Lord's table. Small is our patience with this unmitigated Popery, and yet it is by no means uncommon. Pulpits which are most efficiently supplied on other Sundays by men who are without pastoral charge must be vacated by them on the first Sunday of the month because the friends like a stated minister to administer the sacrament. This may not always be the language employed, but it often is and it is an unsanctified jargon, revealing the influence of priestcraft. Whence comes it? By what scripture can it be justified? "Breaking bread from house to house" does not read very like it. We suppose that the idea of a deacon leading the communion would horrify a great many, but why? If the church should request a venerable brother to conduct the service, a brother of eminent grace and prayerfulness, would the ordinance be any the less instructive or consoling because he was not in the ministry? Naturally enough the pastor, when there is one, leads the way by the respectful consent of all; but would fellowship with Jesus be more difficult, if he were out of the way, and an elder or deacon occupied his place? Our experience has never led us to bemoan, on the account of our people, that the communion was a maimed rite when a beloved deacon or elder has filled our chair. We love to have our brethren sitting with us at the table, breaking the bread as much as we do, and giving thanks aloud as we do, because we hope that by this visible sign men will see that "one is our Master, even Christ, and all we are brethren." Are we the less respected by our church officers for this? Do they take upon themselves lordly airs? Far from it. A more beloved and loving set of men never surrounded a pastor. We magnify our office in the best manner when we do not magnify it beyond the teaching of the Lord."
These are my sentiments fully. I was "ordained" twice by two separate Hardshell "presbyteries." As I have studied this subject over the years I have seen how the whole practice of Baptist having presbyteries being the "ordaining" body smacks too much of both popery and Presbyterianism.
More to come. Spurgeon's words on this issue are a good introduction.
The Judgment Seat Of Christ (3)
In the previous two postings in this series I have combated three errors, one of them major, it coming from our modern Hardshells.
The Hardshell error is to come to the several texts that speak of a future judgment (in which all men, including the elect, will stand trial) with a presupposition. That presupposition says that nothing any of the elect do in this life will matter in the day of judgment. How one lives, what one believes, will not matter in the day of judgment, according to neo Hardshellism. Because of this presupposition and hermeneutic practice the Hardshell is forced to say that all the scriptures that speak of the elect having to give account for their thoughts, words, and deeds in the day of judgment cannot be taken literally and must be twisted to refer to a present judgment with no eternal consequences.
The other two errors combated concern
1) limiting the appearance before the Bema to saved people alone, and
2) limiting the judgment to rewards unconnected with salvation.
Let us enlarge upon these points and introduce some new information.
Standing Before - Recompensing - Giving Account
"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." (Matt. 12: 36 KJV)
"But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." (Rom. 14:10-12)
"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." (II Cor. 5:10)
"Stand before" (παραστησόμεθα) is future indicative middle and cannot therefore be interpreted to denote a present continuous "standing before" (involving judgment and recompense). Future tense shows that believers were not standing before this judgment daily in their lives on earth. Middle voice indicates that people will be standing for themselves.
Further, "the day of judgment" is by uniform biblical usage referring to that time period set aside for all men to be judged following the presence of Christ at his return. There is simply no way that one can legitimately make the judgment to be presently ongoing in the life of the Christian as many Hardshells now affirm.
If the present daily discipline of the Lord is what Jesus and Paul are referring to, then they obviously are speaking metaphorically and not literally. This is obvious for no Christian is daily and literally appearing before this judgment seat. Hardshells who teach such nonsense are unworthy of any attention as regards bible interpretation. One who handles the word of God in such a manner is to be condemned by all now, and he will certainly have to answer for such mishandling at the Bema.
A person will stand before the Bema in his resurrected body, and he will speak for himself and only about himself. This is evident from the use of the middle voice for "stand before." This signifies that the person speaking as a defendant is doing the speaking (no attorney speaking for him) and doing it on behalf of himself. Further, the words περὶ ἑαυτοῦ (peri heautou) or "concerning himself" make this clear. He will stand and speak concerning his own life. This judgment shows that each person will have to answer for himself, and shows how all are responsible for their own actions.
The words "give account" involve giving a verbal defense or reckoning. "Account" is from logon (accusative form of the noun 'logos') and denotes the discourse one would render in such a place. Jesus spoke of the day of judgment as a time when stewards of heavenly things must "give an account of thy stewardship" (Luke 16:2) and Peter speaks of elders and teachers having to "give account" when "the chief shepherd appears" and receiving their reward for services rendered. (see also Heb. 13: 17)
In the passage in Corinthians, the words "may receive" (of the deeds done in the body) are better rendered "be recompensed" (Greek "komisetai”). It is aorist tense and in the middle voice. Again, all this shows just how personal is the judgment. Though it is a public trial, each personally and individually stands before the judgment seat of Christ, as in single file and thus receives his own recompense. It is an action that each defendant does, and does for himself, and not for another. No proxies here.
"And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just." (Luke 14:4 KJV)
This recompensing of the righteous, for the good done in the body, is "at the resurrection of the just." It is not an ongoing recompensing in this life. That would be to totally corrupt the text. Of course, in the day of judgment, there will be those who "suffer loss" and who are recompensed in a bad way, receiving their punishment.
Someone who thinks of "judgment day" as denoting a twenty four period will find it difficult to envision how millions, perhaps billions, of people could each be given a trial in that time period. But, we know from scripture that the judgment "day" takes in a long period of time. We know that the time of "the great tribulation" (probably spanning seven years) is a time or day of judgment. We know that the scriptures affirm that the righteous will be both first raised and first judged. We also know that the saints will "judge the world," and "judge angels," things that do not pertain to this life, but to the time after Christ returns. (See I Cor. 6: 1-4) It is proper therefore that those who are to be made judges in the world to come should themselves first be judged. Further, many contend with much good reason that the entire 1000 year reign of Christ on earth with his people is included in the time period denoted by the words "the day of judgment." Judging billions of men and angels certainly will take some time.
A Literal Bema
The Bema literally refers to the place of trial, to the place where the judge was seated, which was elevated from the place where defendants stood for trial and adjudication. Thus, to "appear" or "stand before" this seat is to be "put on trial." In most NT uses it refers to a platform that requires steps to ascend.
The Bema was also the stand on which the judges stood to observe and evaluate the actions of athletes in the Olympic contests and to reward the victors.
If any athlete broke a rule, one or more of the judges (referees or umpires) would point to him and cry, “Adokimos!" (“Disqualified!”) And thus he missed the prize (which was the victor’s "stephanos" or "crown" or "laurel wreath") regardless of the place he finished in the race or contest. When an event was completed the contestants stood before the Bema to hear the announcement of the results, and to receive such reward as might properly be theirs.
Luke used this same verb to describe Paul's pending appearance before Caesar "'Do not be afraid, Paul; "you must stand before Caesar..."
Which is more fearful? Standing before the Bema of Caesar or God? When the apostle Paul gave testimony to Felix and "reasoned" with him about "righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled." (Acts 24:25 KJV) Who does not fear this judgment to come? Any sane man would. But, depraved sinners are not sane in things pertaining to sin and salvation.
Spurgeon in "The Great Assize" (HERE) wrote:
"...who is it, or who ARE THEY THAT WILL HAVE APPEAR BEFORE THE THRONE OF JUDGMENT? The answer is plain; it admits of no exemption: "We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ." This is very decisive, if there were no other text. We must all appear; that is to say, every one of the human race. We must all appear. And that the godly will not be exempted from this appearance is very clear, for the apostle here is speaking to Christians. He says, "We walk by faith, not by sight. We are confident. We labour" and so on; and then he puts it, "We must all appear." So that, beyond all others, it is certain that all Christians must appear there. The text is quite conclusive upon that point.
And if the objection should be raised, "We thought that the sins of the righteous being pardoned, and for ever blotted out, they could never come into judgment," we have only to remind you, beloved, that if they are so pardoned and blotted out, as they undoubtedly are, the righteous have no reason to fear coming into judgment. They are the persons who covet the judgment, and will be able to stand there to receive a public acquittal from the mouth of the great Judge. Who, among us, wishes, as it were, to be smuggled into heaven unlawfully? Who desires to have it said by the damned in hell, "You were never tried, or else you might have been condemned as we were." No, brethren, we have a hope that we can stand the trial. The way of righteousness by Christ Jesus enables us to submit ourselves to the most tremendous tests which even that burning day can bring forth. We are not afraid to be put into the balances. We even desire that day when our faith in Jesus Christ is strong and firm; for we say, "who is he that condemneth?" We can challenge the day of judgment. Who is he that shall lay anything to our charge in that day, or at any other, since Christ hath died and hath risen again? It is needful that the righteous should be there that there may not be any partiality in the matter whatever; that the thing may be all clear and straight, and that the rewards of the righteous may be seen to be, though of grace, yet without any violation of the most rigorous justice."
"Now the third point is, WHAT WILL BE RULE OF JUDGEMENT? The text says that "every one may receive the things done in his body according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." Then it would appear that our actions will be taken in evidence at the last. Not our profession, not our boastings, but our actions will be taken in evidence at the last, and every man shall receive according to what he hath done in the body. That implies that everything done by us in this body will be known. It is all recorded; it will be all brought to light. Hence, in that day every secret sin will be published. What was done in the chamber, what was hidden by the darkness, shall be published as upon the housetop—every secret thing. With great care you have concealed it, most dexterously you have covered it up; but it shall be brought out to your own astonishment to form a part of your judgment. There, hypocritical actions as well as secret sins will be laid bare.
Our motives, our heart sins, especially, our hatred of Christ, our neglect of the gospel, our unbelief—all of these shall be read aloud and published unreservedly. "Well," saith one, "who then can be saved?" Ah! indeed, who then can be saved? Let me tell you who will be. There will come forward those who have believed in Jesus, and albeit they have many sins to which they might well plead guilty, they will be able to say, "Great God, thou didst provide for us a substitute, and thou didst say that if we would accept him he should be a substitute for us and take our sins upon himself, and we did accept him and our sins were laid upon him, and we have now no sins; they have been transferred from us to the great Saviour, substitute and sacrifice." And in that day there will be none who can put in a demurrer to that plea: it will hold good; for God has said, "Whosoever believeth on Christ Jesus shall never be condemned." Then will the actions of the righteous, the gracious actions, be brought forth to prove that they had faith. For that faith which never evidences itself by good works is a dead faith and a faith that will never save a soul."
"Now the last point is this: What is the object of this judgment? Will sentence of acquittal and condemnation be given, and then the whole thing be over? Far from it. The judgment is with a view to the thereafter—"That every man may receive the things done in his body." The Lord will grant unto his people an abundant reward for all that they have done. Not that they deserve any reward, but that God first gave them grace to do good works, then took their good works as evidence of a renewed heart, and then gave them a reward for what they had done. Oh, what a bliss it will be to hear it said, "Well done, good and faithful servant,"—and to find that you have worked for Christ when nobody knew it, to find that Christ took stock of it all."
Amen!
In the next posting we will try to conclude our thoughts on this subject.
The Hardshell error is to come to the several texts that speak of a future judgment (in which all men, including the elect, will stand trial) with a presupposition. That presupposition says that nothing any of the elect do in this life will matter in the day of judgment. How one lives, what one believes, will not matter in the day of judgment, according to neo Hardshellism. Because of this presupposition and hermeneutic practice the Hardshell is forced to say that all the scriptures that speak of the elect having to give account for their thoughts, words, and deeds in the day of judgment cannot be taken literally and must be twisted to refer to a present judgment with no eternal consequences.
The other two errors combated concern
1) limiting the appearance before the Bema to saved people alone, and
2) limiting the judgment to rewards unconnected with salvation.
Let us enlarge upon these points and introduce some new information.
Standing Before - Recompensing - Giving Account
"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." (Matt. 12: 36 KJV)
"But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." (Rom. 14:10-12)
"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." (II Cor. 5:10)
"Stand before" (παραστησόμεθα) is future indicative middle and cannot therefore be interpreted to denote a present continuous "standing before" (involving judgment and recompense). Future tense shows that believers were not standing before this judgment daily in their lives on earth. Middle voice indicates that people will be standing for themselves.
Further, "the day of judgment" is by uniform biblical usage referring to that time period set aside for all men to be judged following the presence of Christ at his return. There is simply no way that one can legitimately make the judgment to be presently ongoing in the life of the Christian as many Hardshells now affirm.
If the present daily discipline of the Lord is what Jesus and Paul are referring to, then they obviously are speaking metaphorically and not literally. This is obvious for no Christian is daily and literally appearing before this judgment seat. Hardshells who teach such nonsense are unworthy of any attention as regards bible interpretation. One who handles the word of God in such a manner is to be condemned by all now, and he will certainly have to answer for such mishandling at the Bema.
A person will stand before the Bema in his resurrected body, and he will speak for himself and only about himself. This is evident from the use of the middle voice for "stand before." This signifies that the person speaking as a defendant is doing the speaking (no attorney speaking for him) and doing it on behalf of himself. Further, the words περὶ ἑαυτοῦ (peri heautou) or "concerning himself" make this clear. He will stand and speak concerning his own life. This judgment shows that each person will have to answer for himself, and shows how all are responsible for their own actions.
The words "give account" involve giving a verbal defense or reckoning. "Account" is from logon (accusative form of the noun 'logos') and denotes the discourse one would render in such a place. Jesus spoke of the day of judgment as a time when stewards of heavenly things must "give an account of thy stewardship" (Luke 16:2) and Peter speaks of elders and teachers having to "give account" when "the chief shepherd appears" and receiving their reward for services rendered. (see also Heb. 13: 17)
In the passage in Corinthians, the words "may receive" (of the deeds done in the body) are better rendered "be recompensed" (Greek "komisetai”). It is aorist tense and in the middle voice. Again, all this shows just how personal is the judgment. Though it is a public trial, each personally and individually stands before the judgment seat of Christ, as in single file and thus receives his own recompense. It is an action that each defendant does, and does for himself, and not for another. No proxies here.
"And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just." (Luke 14:4 KJV)
This recompensing of the righteous, for the good done in the body, is "at the resurrection of the just." It is not an ongoing recompensing in this life. That would be to totally corrupt the text. Of course, in the day of judgment, there will be those who "suffer loss" and who are recompensed in a bad way, receiving their punishment.
Someone who thinks of "judgment day" as denoting a twenty four period will find it difficult to envision how millions, perhaps billions, of people could each be given a trial in that time period. But, we know from scripture that the judgment "day" takes in a long period of time. We know that the time of "the great tribulation" (probably spanning seven years) is a time or day of judgment. We know that the scriptures affirm that the righteous will be both first raised and first judged. We also know that the saints will "judge the world," and "judge angels," things that do not pertain to this life, but to the time after Christ returns. (See I Cor. 6: 1-4) It is proper therefore that those who are to be made judges in the world to come should themselves first be judged. Further, many contend with much good reason that the entire 1000 year reign of Christ on earth with his people is included in the time period denoted by the words "the day of judgment." Judging billions of men and angels certainly will take some time.
A Literal Bema
The Bema was also the stand on which the judges stood to observe and evaluate the actions of athletes in the Olympic contests and to reward the victors.
If any athlete broke a rule, one or more of the judges (referees or umpires) would point to him and cry, “Adokimos!" (“Disqualified!”) And thus he missed the prize (which was the victor’s "stephanos" or "crown" or "laurel wreath") regardless of the place he finished in the race or contest. When an event was completed the contestants stood before the Bema to hear the announcement of the results, and to receive such reward as might properly be theirs.
Luke used this same verb to describe Paul's pending appearance before Caesar "'Do not be afraid, Paul; "you must stand before Caesar..."
Which is more fearful? Standing before the Bema of Caesar or God? When the apostle Paul gave testimony to Felix and "reasoned" with him about "righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled." (Acts 24:25 KJV) Who does not fear this judgment to come? Any sane man would. But, depraved sinners are not sane in things pertaining to sin and salvation.
Spurgeon in "The Great Assize" (HERE) wrote:
"...who is it, or who ARE THEY THAT WILL HAVE APPEAR BEFORE THE THRONE OF JUDGMENT? The answer is plain; it admits of no exemption: "We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ." This is very decisive, if there were no other text. We must all appear; that is to say, every one of the human race. We must all appear. And that the godly will not be exempted from this appearance is very clear, for the apostle here is speaking to Christians. He says, "We walk by faith, not by sight. We are confident. We labour" and so on; and then he puts it, "We must all appear." So that, beyond all others, it is certain that all Christians must appear there. The text is quite conclusive upon that point.
And if the objection should be raised, "We thought that the sins of the righteous being pardoned, and for ever blotted out, they could never come into judgment," we have only to remind you, beloved, that if they are so pardoned and blotted out, as they undoubtedly are, the righteous have no reason to fear coming into judgment. They are the persons who covet the judgment, and will be able to stand there to receive a public acquittal from the mouth of the great Judge. Who, among us, wishes, as it were, to be smuggled into heaven unlawfully? Who desires to have it said by the damned in hell, "You were never tried, or else you might have been condemned as we were." No, brethren, we have a hope that we can stand the trial. The way of righteousness by Christ Jesus enables us to submit ourselves to the most tremendous tests which even that burning day can bring forth. We are not afraid to be put into the balances. We even desire that day when our faith in Jesus Christ is strong and firm; for we say, "who is he that condemneth?" We can challenge the day of judgment. Who is he that shall lay anything to our charge in that day, or at any other, since Christ hath died and hath risen again? It is needful that the righteous should be there that there may not be any partiality in the matter whatever; that the thing may be all clear and straight, and that the rewards of the righteous may be seen to be, though of grace, yet without any violation of the most rigorous justice."
"Now the third point is, WHAT WILL BE RULE OF JUDGEMENT? The text says that "every one may receive the things done in his body according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." Then it would appear that our actions will be taken in evidence at the last. Not our profession, not our boastings, but our actions will be taken in evidence at the last, and every man shall receive according to what he hath done in the body. That implies that everything done by us in this body will be known. It is all recorded; it will be all brought to light. Hence, in that day every secret sin will be published. What was done in the chamber, what was hidden by the darkness, shall be published as upon the housetop—every secret thing. With great care you have concealed it, most dexterously you have covered it up; but it shall be brought out to your own astonishment to form a part of your judgment. There, hypocritical actions as well as secret sins will be laid bare.
Our motives, our heart sins, especially, our hatred of Christ, our neglect of the gospel, our unbelief—all of these shall be read aloud and published unreservedly. "Well," saith one, "who then can be saved?" Ah! indeed, who then can be saved? Let me tell you who will be. There will come forward those who have believed in Jesus, and albeit they have many sins to which they might well plead guilty, they will be able to say, "Great God, thou didst provide for us a substitute, and thou didst say that if we would accept him he should be a substitute for us and take our sins upon himself, and we did accept him and our sins were laid upon him, and we have now no sins; they have been transferred from us to the great Saviour, substitute and sacrifice." And in that day there will be none who can put in a demurrer to that plea: it will hold good; for God has said, "Whosoever believeth on Christ Jesus shall never be condemned." Then will the actions of the righteous, the gracious actions, be brought forth to prove that they had faith. For that faith which never evidences itself by good works is a dead faith and a faith that will never save a soul."
"Now the last point is this: What is the object of this judgment? Will sentence of acquittal and condemnation be given, and then the whole thing be over? Far from it. The judgment is with a view to the thereafter—"That every man may receive the things done in his body." The Lord will grant unto his people an abundant reward for all that they have done. Not that they deserve any reward, but that God first gave them grace to do good works, then took their good works as evidence of a renewed heart, and then gave them a reward for what they had done. Oh, what a bliss it will be to hear it said, "Well done, good and faithful servant,"—and to find that you have worked for Christ when nobody knew it, to find that Christ took stock of it all."
Amen!
In the next posting we will try to conclude our thoughts on this subject.
Friday, June 14, 2019
The Judgment Seat of Christ (2)
"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ."
Said Albert Barnes:
Appear - ( φανερωθῆναι phanerōthēnai). This word properly means, to make apparent, manifest, known; to show openly, etc. Here it means that we must be manifest, or openly shown; that is, we must be seen there, and be publicly tried. We must not only stand there, but our character will be seen, our desert will be known, our trial will be public.
Vincent's Word Studies says this about "Appear" (φανερωθῆναι):
"Rev., better, be made manifest. Appear is not strong enough, since it implies only presence at the judgment-seat. The important fact is our being revealed as we are."
Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary says:
"must be made manifest (not merely ‘appear’ = παραστῆναι [which is a most unfortunate rendering of the E. V., giving to the reader merely the idea of “appearing before” as when summoned to a magistrate], but ‘appear in our true light,’ appear as we have never done before, as in reff., where the word is used of our Lord Himself: see also 1 Corinthians 4:5."
That revelation of our characters, together with all our thoughts, words, and deeds, will all be revealed in open court before the literal "judgment seat" of the Lord Jesus. He is the one who is appointed Judge by the three in one God. This cannot be said now of any present judgment upon either the individual Christian or the church as a group. Therefore, the "appearing" before the judgment seat yet awaits fulfillment, no matter what Hardshell heretics say.
The "day of judgment" is connected with "the Lord's day," the day of Christ's return, the "day of redemption" and the "resurrection day," and especially is it a day of "revelation" and "light." Remember that "whatever makes manifest is light." (Eph. 5:13) It is the day of Christ's own epiphany and personal presence, when he is manifest to all eyes, but it is also a day for "the manifestation of the sons of God." (Rom. 8:19) It is also a day when the light of it discloses all that was previously dark and hidden. Recall the words of Paul:
"Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God." (1 Corinthians 4:5)
Paul here condemns 1) all premature, rash, or precipitate judging or condemning, and 2) certainly the judging of things outside our authority from Christ and his word. He asserts that the return of the Lord Jesus Christ will be a day when all is revealed, when all the thoughts, words, and deeds of every man is laid bare, yea, "the counsels of the hearts." Men will receive either praise or blame at the day of judgment for activities done while in the body.
Other Scriptures On This Judgment
"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." (Matt. 12:36)
“The Son of Man is going to come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and will then recompense every person according to his deeds.” (Matthew 16:27)
"God hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world by that man whom he hath ordained." (Acts 17:31)
"We shall all stand before the judgment seat of God." (Romans 14:10)
"It is appointed unto men once to die, and after this, judgment." (Hebrews 9:27)
“Behold, I am coming quickly, and my reward is with me, to render to every person according to what he has done.” (Revelation 22:12)
"Clearly" the way you live is not unimportant and has consequences beyond the grave.
So, why should we limit the judgment of II Cor. 5:10 to believers only?
When Paul says "we must all appear" he could mean
1) "all we believers must appear" or
2) "all we humans must appear."
Based upon the words of Jesus just cited, why would we exempt non-believers from the bema judgment?
Further, if Paul had intended that only believers be understood as the ones to be judged, then why did he say "knowing this" (the divine "terror" associated with the day of judgment) we persuade men" instead of "knowing this we persuade believers"? If this judgment respects only believers, then why say that this coming terrible judgment is impetus for persuading men in general?
Not only does it seem quite clear to me that the judgment seat of Christ is not, as many suppose, a judgment for believers only, but I also do not believe that the judgment is for mere rewards (above and beyond a common salvation) and that salvation is unconnected or not at issue in the judgment. Dr. John Piper (see here) in answer to the question "What Is the Aim of This Judgment?" said (highlighting mine):
"Now the more difficult question: Why is it important? Why are the deeds done in the body the evidence in this courtroom? Is the aim of this judgment to declare who is lost and who is saved, according to the works done in the body? Or is the aim of this judgment to declare the measure of your reward in the age to come according to the works done in the body?
I think the answer of the New Testament is both. Our deeds will reveal who enters the age to come, and our deeds will reveal the measure of our reward in the age to come. I will show you in just a moment why I think this, but let me mention the biggest problem for many Christians in saying this. It sounds to many like a contradiction of salvation by grace through faith.
Ephesians 2:8–9 says, “By grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God — not of works lest anyone should boast.” Salvation is not “of works.” That is, works do not earn salvation. Works do not put God in our debt so that he must pay wages. That would contradict grace. “The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 6:23). Grace gives salvation as a free gift to be received by faith, not earned by works.
How then can I say that the judgment of believers will not only be the public declaration of the measure of our reward in the kingdom of God according to our deeds, but will also be the public declaration of our salvation — our entering the kingdom — according to our deeds?
The answer in a couple sentences is that our deeds will be the public evidence brought forth in Christ’s courtroom to demonstrate that our faith is real. (If we are put on trial for being Christian, will there be enough evidence to convict us? We will see - SG) And our deeds will be the public evidence brought forth to demonstrate the varying measures of our obedience of faith (see Romans 12:3; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:11). In other words, salvation is by faith, and rewards are by faith, but the evidence of invisible faith in the judgment hall of Christ will be a transformed life. Our deeds are not the basis of our salvation, they are the evidence of our salvation. They are not foundation, they are demonstration.
In Paul’s Writings For example, in 1 Corinthians 3:8 Paul says, “He who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor.” And in Ephesians 6:8 Paul says, “Whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord.” The Parable of the Talents And most of us remember the parable of the talents (or pounds) in Luke 19:12–27. Jesus compares his going to heaven and returning to a nobleman who went away and gave to ten of his servants one pound each with the command to trade with them so that his estate would be advanced in his absence. When he returns, one had traded so as to turn his pound into ten. And the nobleman says that his reward will be to have authority over ten cities. Another had turned his pound into five. And the nobleman said that his reward would be to have authority over five cities. Another had just kept the pound and done nothing with it. To this one the nobleman said, “I will condemn you from your own mouth.” And he took the one pound from him.
Now what this parable teaches is the same thing Paul taught, namely, that there are varying degrees of reward for the faithfulness of our lives. But it also moves beyond that and also teaches that there is a loss not only of reward but of eternity for those who claim to be faithful but do nothing to show that they prize God’s gifts and love the Giver.
That’s the point of the third servant who did nothing with his gift. He did not just lose his reward, he lost his life. Jesus says in Matthew 25:30, “Cast out that slave into outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Salvation Demonstrated by Deeds
That leads us to the second purpose of the judgment. The first was that the judgment makes a public demonstration of the varying degrees of reward that Christians receive for the exercise of their faith in obedience. The second purpose of the judgment is to declare openly the reality of the faith and the salvation of God’s people by the evidence of their deeds. Salvation is owned by faith. Salvation is shown by deeds. So when Paul says (in verse 10) we “will be recompensed . . . according to what we have done,” he not only means that our rewards will accord with our deeds, but also our salvation will accord with our deeds. Why do I think this?
Romans
There are numerous texts that point in this direction. One is in Paul’s letter to the Romans (2:5–7) where he refers to “The revelation of the righteous judgment of God,” and then says (in verses 6–8), “[God] will render to every man according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality [he will render] eternal life; but to those who . . . do not obey the truth . . . [he will render] wrath and indignation.” In other words, just as our text says, the judgment is “according to what a person has done.” But here the issue is eternal life versus wrath.
“Faith Without Works Is Dead”
Several times Paul listed certain kinds of deeds and said, “those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:21; 1 Corinthians 6:9–10). In other words, when these deeds are exposed at the judgment as a person’s way of life, they will be the evidence that their faith is dead and they will not be saved. As James said in James 2:26, “Faith without works is dead.” That is what will be shown at the judgment.
Jesus’s Words
Jesus put it like this — and he used exactly the same words for good and evil deeds that we have here in 2 Corinthians 5:10. He said in John 5:28–29, “An hour is coming in which all who are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.” In other words, the way one lived will be the evidence whether one passes through judgment to life or whether one experiences judgment as condemnation."
I agree completely with Piper.
In the next posting we will try to conclude this short series on this most important subject.
Said Albert Barnes:
Appear - ( φανερωθῆναι phanerōthēnai). This word properly means, to make apparent, manifest, known; to show openly, etc. Here it means that we must be manifest, or openly shown; that is, we must be seen there, and be publicly tried. We must not only stand there, but our character will be seen, our desert will be known, our trial will be public.
Vincent's Word Studies says this about "Appear" (φανερωθῆναι):
"Rev., better, be made manifest. Appear is not strong enough, since it implies only presence at the judgment-seat. The important fact is our being revealed as we are."
Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary says:
"must be made manifest (not merely ‘appear’ = παραστῆναι [which is a most unfortunate rendering of the E. V., giving to the reader merely the idea of “appearing before” as when summoned to a magistrate], but ‘appear in our true light,’ appear as we have never done before, as in reff., where the word is used of our Lord Himself: see also 1 Corinthians 4:5."
That revelation of our characters, together with all our thoughts, words, and deeds, will all be revealed in open court before the literal "judgment seat" of the Lord Jesus. He is the one who is appointed Judge by the three in one God. This cannot be said now of any present judgment upon either the individual Christian or the church as a group. Therefore, the "appearing" before the judgment seat yet awaits fulfillment, no matter what Hardshell heretics say.
The "day of judgment" is connected with "the Lord's day," the day of Christ's return, the "day of redemption" and the "resurrection day," and especially is it a day of "revelation" and "light." Remember that "whatever makes manifest is light." (Eph. 5:13) It is the day of Christ's own epiphany and personal presence, when he is manifest to all eyes, but it is also a day for "the manifestation of the sons of God." (Rom. 8:19) It is also a day when the light of it discloses all that was previously dark and hidden. Recall the words of Paul:
"Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God." (1 Corinthians 4:5)
Paul here condemns 1) all premature, rash, or precipitate judging or condemning, and 2) certainly the judging of things outside our authority from Christ and his word. He asserts that the return of the Lord Jesus Christ will be a day when all is revealed, when all the thoughts, words, and deeds of every man is laid bare, yea, "the counsels of the hearts." Men will receive either praise or blame at the day of judgment for activities done while in the body.
Other Scriptures On This Judgment
"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." (Matt. 12:36)
“The Son of Man is going to come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and will then recompense every person according to his deeds.” (Matthew 16:27)
"God hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world by that man whom he hath ordained." (Acts 17:31)
"We shall all stand before the judgment seat of God." (Romans 14:10)
"It is appointed unto men once to die, and after this, judgment." (Hebrews 9:27)
“Behold, I am coming quickly, and my reward is with me, to render to every person according to what he has done.” (Revelation 22:12)
"Clearly" the way you live is not unimportant and has consequences beyond the grave.
So, why should we limit the judgment of II Cor. 5:10 to believers only?
When Paul says "we must all appear" he could mean
1) "all we believers must appear" or
2) "all we humans must appear."
Based upon the words of Jesus just cited, why would we exempt non-believers from the bema judgment?
Further, if Paul had intended that only believers be understood as the ones to be judged, then why did he say "knowing this" (the divine "terror" associated with the day of judgment) we persuade men" instead of "knowing this we persuade believers"? If this judgment respects only believers, then why say that this coming terrible judgment is impetus for persuading men in general?
Not only does it seem quite clear to me that the judgment seat of Christ is not, as many suppose, a judgment for believers only, but I also do not believe that the judgment is for mere rewards (above and beyond a common salvation) and that salvation is unconnected or not at issue in the judgment. Dr. John Piper (see here) in answer to the question "What Is the Aim of This Judgment?" said (highlighting mine):
"Now the more difficult question: Why is it important? Why are the deeds done in the body the evidence in this courtroom? Is the aim of this judgment to declare who is lost and who is saved, according to the works done in the body? Or is the aim of this judgment to declare the measure of your reward in the age to come according to the works done in the body?
I think the answer of the New Testament is both. Our deeds will reveal who enters the age to come, and our deeds will reveal the measure of our reward in the age to come. I will show you in just a moment why I think this, but let me mention the biggest problem for many Christians in saying this. It sounds to many like a contradiction of salvation by grace through faith.
Ephesians 2:8–9 says, “By grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God — not of works lest anyone should boast.” Salvation is not “of works.” That is, works do not earn salvation. Works do not put God in our debt so that he must pay wages. That would contradict grace. “The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 6:23). Grace gives salvation as a free gift to be received by faith, not earned by works.
How then can I say that the judgment of believers will not only be the public declaration of the measure of our reward in the kingdom of God according to our deeds, but will also be the public declaration of our salvation — our entering the kingdom — according to our deeds?
The answer in a couple sentences is that our deeds will be the public evidence brought forth in Christ’s courtroom to demonstrate that our faith is real. (If we are put on trial for being Christian, will there be enough evidence to convict us? We will see - SG) And our deeds will be the public evidence brought forth to demonstrate the varying measures of our obedience of faith (see Romans 12:3; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:11). In other words, salvation is by faith, and rewards are by faith, but the evidence of invisible faith in the judgment hall of Christ will be a transformed life. Our deeds are not the basis of our salvation, they are the evidence of our salvation. They are not foundation, they are demonstration.
In Paul’s Writings For example, in 1 Corinthians 3:8 Paul says, “He who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor.” And in Ephesians 6:8 Paul says, “Whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord.” The Parable of the Talents And most of us remember the parable of the talents (or pounds) in Luke 19:12–27. Jesus compares his going to heaven and returning to a nobleman who went away and gave to ten of his servants one pound each with the command to trade with them so that his estate would be advanced in his absence. When he returns, one had traded so as to turn his pound into ten. And the nobleman says that his reward will be to have authority over ten cities. Another had turned his pound into five. And the nobleman said that his reward would be to have authority over five cities. Another had just kept the pound and done nothing with it. To this one the nobleman said, “I will condemn you from your own mouth.” And he took the one pound from him.
Now what this parable teaches is the same thing Paul taught, namely, that there are varying degrees of reward for the faithfulness of our lives. But it also moves beyond that and also teaches that there is a loss not only of reward but of eternity for those who claim to be faithful but do nothing to show that they prize God’s gifts and love the Giver.
That’s the point of the third servant who did nothing with his gift. He did not just lose his reward, he lost his life. Jesus says in Matthew 25:30, “Cast out that slave into outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Salvation Demonstrated by Deeds
That leads us to the second purpose of the judgment. The first was that the judgment makes a public demonstration of the varying degrees of reward that Christians receive for the exercise of their faith in obedience. The second purpose of the judgment is to declare openly the reality of the faith and the salvation of God’s people by the evidence of their deeds. Salvation is owned by faith. Salvation is shown by deeds. So when Paul says (in verse 10) we “will be recompensed . . . according to what we have done,” he not only means that our rewards will accord with our deeds, but also our salvation will accord with our deeds. Why do I think this?
Romans
There are numerous texts that point in this direction. One is in Paul’s letter to the Romans (2:5–7) where he refers to “The revelation of the righteous judgment of God,” and then says (in verses 6–8), “[God] will render to every man according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality [he will render] eternal life; but to those who . . . do not obey the truth . . . [he will render] wrath and indignation.” In other words, just as our text says, the judgment is “according to what a person has done.” But here the issue is eternal life versus wrath.
“Faith Without Works Is Dead”
Several times Paul listed certain kinds of deeds and said, “those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:21; 1 Corinthians 6:9–10). In other words, when these deeds are exposed at the judgment as a person’s way of life, they will be the evidence that their faith is dead and they will not be saved. As James said in James 2:26, “Faith without works is dead.” That is what will be shown at the judgment.
Jesus’s Words
Jesus put it like this — and he used exactly the same words for good and evil deeds that we have here in 2 Corinthians 5:10. He said in John 5:28–29, “An hour is coming in which all who are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.” In other words, the way one lived will be the evidence whether one passes through judgment to life or whether one experiences judgment as condemnation."
I agree completely with Piper.
In the next posting we will try to conclude this short series on this most important subject.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)