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.
4 comments:
If Elder Pyles is correct that truth must have historical warrant, then how can those apologists be correct who are now starting to say that Hardshellism is the result of perfection of doctrine via controversy? You can't have it both ways. A truth is either "old", being taught of old by our forefathers, or it is "new" due to refinement or further reveleation! At best, these new apologists could only argue that PBs were "generally" correct in the past. But the same must be said of Calvinists!
Those PBs who argue that God has granted further revelation to them, I feel, are forced into this position, for or a simple scan of history reveals that their current doctrine has not a leg to stand on!
Amen. Would to God our PB brothers would quit resisting the truth and humbly submit to it. Our writings have sought to bring back the PBs to the center. In doing this we have fulfilled our commission in regard to our work with the PBs. Many of today's Hardshells want to keep moving their denomination further to the left or right.
Once a person has been witnessed to in regard to an error, the burden is then on the errorist and to the Lord he must answer.
Blessings,
Stephen
hmm the "pillar of truth" argument is EXACTLY the argument the roman catholic church uses to say they are infallible in doctrine. this verse when applied incorrectly,and then saying that we should look at "history" to determine correct belief would mean the catholics are right. could we not go back further than the 300 yrs mentioned by Pyles, and see where the "church" (roman) taught the same heresies she teaches today?
this simply boils down to accepting "tradition" as a standard for truth. the Church is the pillar of truth only so long as she believes that which was "once delivered to the saints"....and the truth is not dependent on whether or not anyoe believes it..it is still the truth! should the world be without any true believers for centuries, and someone began to read the Word of God, the church would reconstitute itself anew. altho I do believe there have always been faithful believers,and thus a Church of Christ, and in this sense id believe in "perpetuity", still it remains, that truth is not deendent on us, we are dependent on the truth!
Amen Kenny. The great Armitage said the same in his history!
Thanks for the comment.
Stephen
Post a Comment