Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Elder John Clark On Repentance (3)




Vol. 1, No. 21, Nov. 4th, 1854

"Repentance And Faith Not Law Duties But Gospel Blessings"

"With a view to reconcile apparent discrepancies of sentiment among some of our brethren upon the subject of repentance, especially the mode or method of preaching it, we take occasion to present some additional observations upon that point." 

Comments and Observations

By "some of our brethren" who does he mean? At this time (1854) was he referring to the "Beebe Baptists" or "Two Seeders" or the "ultraist" no means Baptists? By "some," does he mean a small percentage, or a larger? Watson also scolded his brethren over the same issues. He states that they had quit preaching to the lost, believing that the word of God was only food for sheep.

Clark continued:

"We are only interested to have what God has revealed upon the subject presented for the consideration of brethren (Amen to that! - SG), believing that all who are taught of the Lord will receive that testimony, as soon as it is made manifest as his divine will. What is revealed we shall treat as facts established by the witness of God himself, and therefore incontrovertible, however contradictory and inharmonious, with our notions, it may appear. There are two prominent points, or facts, to which we shall call attention in the farther elucidation of the subject. The first is that repentance and faith are both gifts of God; new covenant blessings; and do not arise in the law nor grow out of that relation subsisting between fallen creature man and his creator: that divine rule shows what man was originally, and also what God requires him still to be, but no provision is made in it to bring to pass what is demanded, that the demand is still lawful and righteous, and can never be more or less than it was originally. Here is duty, and the rule of duty: it shows what we owe to God, and also very clearly that we can never pay it. This law is weak through the flesh, and therefore can only work wrath and gender to bondage; but it would be absurd in the extreme to present the blessings revealed in the covenant of grace, and experienced by the saved sinner under the reign of grace, as law duties, and therefore as universal obligation as the demands of the law. Such a view, in our judgment, is only consistent with the theory of universal provision in the atonement, and of universal salvation; but upon the ground of a limited or restricted atonement confined exclusively in its application to the election of grace, how can it be made to appear that it is the duty of those not embraced in that election to experience that repentance which is unto life, and exercise that faith which is the fruit of the spirit? The redeemed sinner not only believes that Jesus died, but says, he died for me; that he is my Saviour, &c., but to require one for whom Christ did not die to believe this, would be requiring him to believe an untruth; and that, indeed, would be a strange law, to require a man to believe what was in itself false!

Comments and Observations

This is what I (along with many others before me) have raised my voice to proclaim to all my PB brothers. The bible is clear on preaching to the dead, and the purpose for doing so. Our Hardshell brothers must sense this or else they would come here and address all these clear statements of scripture on the matter!

Clark states a common argument by those who espouse a universal atonement, though the same argument was being used by the "anti means" Beebe or Two Seed Baptists, which says that limited atonement advocates cannot say to all men "believe that Christ died for you" and this (goes the argument) is what is announced in the gospel. However, though Clark does not directly answer the objection, yet I will. Individual sinners are never told to believe that Christ died for them specifically. Christ died for sinners who become believers. That is what we are called upon to believe.

Clark continued:

"But we take the broad ground, and ask to know how repentance and faith can be law duties, binding upon any of the human family? Such a law would require the sinner to be better and do more, now in his impotency, than the original law claimed, and would be, as some one has said, "to make the grace of God the sinner's duty." And also it would be to condemn him, because God has not given him grace or done something for him. Sin is the transgression of the law, and the sinner is therefore condemned for what he has done--for want of conformity to the holy law of God, and not because God has not given him repentance and faith."

Comments and Observations

Again, Clark finds it difficult to admit that faith and repentance are duties. Therefore, he says that to make them duties, would make them into "law duties." However, that is not true. But, having written on this subject several times previously over the years, and not wishing to detract from the other things Clark is affirming and denying, I will say no more on it here. Except this:

Sinners will be condemned for their hardness and impenitent hearts in the day of judgment. Saying this does not imply that there was no condemnation prior to rejection of the gospel demands. Unbelief and rejection of Christ and the gospel both reveal previous condemnation in Adam and personal sins and a future condemnation for this added unforgivable sin of unbelief. Every sin adds to future condemnation. Certainly this includes the act of casting off faith in Christ, which is indeed sin. Remember too that if lost sinners have no obligation to believe and repent, then it can be no sin to not believe or repent.

Sinners in the bible are commanded to seek God and his grace. They are told to call upon him for any and every good gift. Grace is a gift, like faith and repentance. Clark says a man cannot be condemned for not having grace, faith, and repentance, since they are gifts of God. But, regeneration and circumcision of heart are gifts of God, and yet God tells men to make themselves a new heart, to circumcise their hearts, etc. Can we not say that if they go to Hell for lack of grace, faith, and repentance, that it is "their fault"? They could have asked God for these things at any time and he, according to his promise, would have given those things. Simply put, rejection of Christ is an unpardonable sin.

Clark continued:

"Concerning the former grace it is said that Christ is exalted to give it to Israel; and, of course, not to all men; and of the latter that he is its author and finisher. These with all other blessings--spiritual blessings--were given us in Christ before the world began, according to election, and it is therefore equally absurd to maintain that the sinner possesses the power to perform the work, or to appropriate these blessings to himself. They are conferred--freely given--and hence all flesh is impotent here; for upon the question of ability in this matter there is no difference between the quick and the dead, the former having no more power in himself than the latter: as sings the poet,

"By nature prone to ill,
Till thine appointed hour
I was as destitute of will
As now I am of power."

And this is sustained by the doctrine and experience of the Apostle: "To will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I find not." Here is an acknowledgment of the existence of will but not the power; and it is in a day of power--God's power--that the sinner is made willing.

Comments and Observations

This is what Clark emphasized in the two articles that he is reviewing in this article.

Clark continued:

"Secondly: The primitive ministers have left us an example in preaching repentance--"Repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ."--which his ministers would do well to follow. This discrepancy of sentiment among us does not appear to be upon the question of what is repentance or faith, but how or in what way the people should be addressed upon the subject, and whether the minister should preach it to the unregenerated, or only to those who are quickened."

Comments and Observations

Well, times have changed with the PBs since 1854! Now, there is "discrepancy of sentiment" from what PBs believe today about what is repentance and faith (what is necessary for salvation) as compared with what their forefathers believed. Now, faith is some mysterious metaphysical substance (like a virus?) in the soul, and repentance is mere sorrow for having done something bad!

The question being discussed by Clark, Watson, Fain, and others, with the Two Seeders, was whether the gospel should be preached directly to the dead in sin. Clark and company represented the historic view of their forefathers, a fact we have proven many times.

Clark continued:

"To those that love God, and who reverence his word we can confidently appeal in support of the stubborn facts selected from that word which we subjoin, showing conclusively and without the shadow of a doubt, that those infallible guides and teachings in the kingdom of Christ, and also Christ himself, as a minister of the circumcision, did preach it indiscriminately to all that attended upon their ministry. The slight shade of difference appearing among us upon this branch of the subject does not include the view of the Arians (Beebe and the Signs - SG), that Christ and his apostles preached only a national repentance, &c., and having already disposed of that in our first article, we will present what we understand to be the difference, and then submit the matter to the arbitrament of the infallible standard of truth. Some suppose that the primitive ministers in saying, Repent, repent ye, and believe the gospel, &c., designed to be understood only as addressing those who had passed from death unto life, as it would have been inconsistent so to address the ungodly and unconverted, as such had no power to repent and believe. Now, while such brethren are so much afraid of Arminianism, they seem not to be aware that their view of the subject has in it that ism very distinctly developed! For as ungodly men should not be addressed in that way, because they have no power to comply and as those who are quickened should be so addressed, it follows, of course, that it is because they have power to obey. But is this so? Will those brethren contend that they possessed the power to repent and believe the gospel, even after they were quickened?--We think not--at all events, we can say, we have not so learned Christ. For the same reason some say that the gospel should not be preached to the world and that they, as ministers, have nothing to say to unbelievers. But, to the law and to the testimony."

Comments and Observations

What a powerful statement! The anti means wing of the Hardshell body had, in their rantings against means, and against preaching to the lost, had come to the point, in Clark's estimation, where "they seem not to be aware that their view of the subject has in it that very ism very distinctly developed"! What a condemnation - they "have nothing to say to unbelievers"!

Clark continued:

"Our position is that Christ and his apostles did not confine themselves in their addresses, in preaching repentance and faith, to the quickened exclusively, but addressed the multitude--those known to be ungodly and enemies to truth; and if we do not sustain it by express scripture, we will abandon it with all cheerfulness. "In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3: 1,2). "But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come. Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance" (7,8) -- There is not the slightest evidence on record that any of those John preached to in the wilderness--and his preaching was "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ" (Mark 1:1) -- were quickened or regenerated, but on the contrary the evidence is conclusive that they were not. Again, "Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel (14,15), -- "And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth two by two, and gave them power over unclean spirits...And they went out and preached that men should repent" (Mark 6: 7-12) "There were present at that season, some that told him of the Gallileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering, said unto them, "Suppose ye that these Gallileans were sinners above all the Gallileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, nay; but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, nay; but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." (Luke 13: 1-5) We cannot mistake the characters addressed here by our Lord--they were not his disciples, were not regenerated or converted, but were charged with being as wicked as those persons named in the two cases cited by him. The address of Peter at Pentecost to those who were pricked in their hearts, saying, "Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ," was in answer to the question propounded by them, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" and therefore may justly be considered as spoken exclusively to them. (Acts 2: 37,38) The case recorded in the 3d chapter of the Acts of the apostles of the preaching of Peter to the multitude after he and John had healed the lame man, does not embrace quickened souls, but only when they saw what was done they "ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's, greatly wondering." They seem only to have bee amazed at what they had seen and yet Peter said unto them, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord" (19v). Peter on another occasion said to Simon, the sorcerer, "Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee," of whom he said, "Thou has neither part or lot in this matter; for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.--For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity" (Acts 8: 21-23). Paul in preaching to the superstitious Athenians, who were wholly given to idolatry, and who ignorantly worshipped the unknown God, said, "And the times of this ignorance God winked at: but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). Again, Paul in relating his experience and call to the ministry, before king Agrippa, says, that in obedience to the heavenly vision, he "Showed first unto them at Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and od works meet for repentance" (Acts 26:20) This was in strict accordance with the instructions given by their great Captain and Leader, "That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 24:47), and by which also he designed to accomplish his purposes of grace, which was to seek and save the lost; to call, not the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

Comments and Observations

Which PB wants to come and answer the arguments from scripture presented by Clark?

Clark continued:

"And the apostles and primitive ministers were no where commanded to confine themselves in their ministry and addresses exclusively to those who had been quickened and made alive in Christ. Paul preached Christ crucified to the Jews and also to the Greeks, and yet owned that it was a stumbling block to the former and foolishness to the latter. It was not with them a question of power or ability. They did not institute an enquiry to know who had power, and who not, to repent,--that was not embraced in their commission and instructions received from the Lord Jesus. "Teaching the to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you," he said, and those commands they could not mistake: "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." The revelation made to John of the angel flying in the midst of heaven having the everlasting gospel to preach, shows to whom it was to be preached and also what he was to preach. He was to preach to every nation and kindred and tongue and people (Rev. 14:6), and the 7th verse shows what he preached, "Saying with a loud voice, fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come; and worship him that made heaven and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters."

In addition to this array of testimony in support of our position, we remark that the resurrection of the dry bones, in Ezekiel 37 furnishes a very striking illustration. The prophet was carried in the Spirit of the Lord into the valley which was full of bones, and which were very dry, and he is first interrogated to know whether these bones could live, and then directed to prophesy upon them and say, "O ye dry bones, hear ye the word of the Lord," following which is a revelation of what God would do; and the prophet declares that he prophesied as he was commanded, and the result was a shaking a shaking among the bones, their coming together, flesh and skin coming upon them, and breath coming into them, so that they stood up an exceeding great army. Now we do not find that the prophet took any exception to this course upon the plea of inability in the bones to hear and obey, but prophesied as he was commanded, and left the consequences and result with God: and his sovereign word, his express command, was his guide in prophesying or preaching to these bones, and not the existence of any supposed power or ability in them." 

Comments and Observations

The Valley of Dry Bones again! Destroy's Hardshell "logic"!

Clark continued:

"This principle of the existence of power in the creature, or thing commanded, in order to establish the consistency and justice of the command, belongs to the Arminian system; whatever men are commanded to do in the law, or exhorted to the performance of in the gospel, they have power to do, or else God is unjust in making such requisitions, according to that creed. Whereas the minister of Christ does not preach the gospel to his fellow men under the belief that they possess the power to repent and believe, as he knows they possess no such power; that they have no more than the dry bones had, but his confidence and hope of success is in him who commanded him to preach unto the people, and who alone is able to clothe the bones with flesh and cause the breath of life to enter into them. In him who said, "The hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live," is his trust, and who has assured him that his word shall never return to him void; and having God's COMMAND, what else does he need? Why should he stop to talk about consistency and propriety, &c., when he has the sure word the express command of God, for his guide? The important question that concerns us, dear brethren, in all our course, in the ministry and otherwise is, has God required it at our hands? or have we a Thus saith the Lord, for our faith and practice? If we have, we need fear no opposition, and dread no consequences, for who is he that will harm you if ye be followers of that which is good?"

Comments and Observations

Why can't we just stick with what is plainly revealed on this subject? I agree with Clark that those who rely on human logic to "figure out" what God is saying, or what he means, so that "consistency" and "propriety" dictate interpretation, will never come to the knowledge of the truth!

Clark continued:

"We have now, beloved brethren, set down in candor and without reserve, what we understand the scriptures to teach upon this subject, not, however, with any design or wish to make the views presented a standard for any, either in preaching or otherwise, as we know that every man in the kingdom has his proper gift of God, but all tending, in beautiful harmony, to the edification of the church; and we will gladly learn of any who will show us the more excellent way, should we have erred in the views given."

Clark was a real Old School or Primitive Baptists on these points and since we agree with him, we are the real Old Baptists.

No comments:

Post a Comment