The Sign Of The Virgin

I firmly believe that the Zodiac sign or constellation of Virgo was named and drawn by the first prophets of Lord God, based upon the protoevangelium,* and details the basic facts of the gospel of redemption. In Job "Mazzaroth" (the Zodiac or twelve constellations of the circular heavens) is spoken of as being of God and having messages and a story connected with them. (See Job 38:31-32)

*or the first good news promise of a savior and redeemer found in the words of God to the Serpent - “I will put enmity between you and the woman; and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” - Gen. 3:15

The following citations are from my former posting on this subject (here). Under "The Sign Of Virgo" J. A. Seiss wrote:

"I begin with Virgo, which I take to be the first sign in the Zodiac, according to its original intent and reading. The Zodiac of Esne begins with this sign. The story has no right starting-point, continuity, or end except as we commence with this constellation. I also have the statement from the best authorities that the custom was universal among the ancients to reckon from Virgo round to Leo. And in this sign of Virgo, if anywhere among the starry groups, we find the primary idea in the evangelic presentations."

"The initiative sign of the Zodiac is called Virgo, The Virgin. All the traditions, names, and mytholgies connected with it recognize and emphasize the virginity of this woman. Astrea and Athene of Greek story identify with her. 

In Hebrew and Syriac she is Bethulah, the maiden. In Arabic she is Adarah, the pure virgin. In Greek she is Parthenos, the maid of virgin pureness. Nor is there any authority in the world for regarding her as anything but a virgin."

"But the greater wonder is, that motherhood attends this virginity, in the sign the same as in the text..."

"And this maiden in the sign is the holder and bringer of an illustrious Seed; In her hand is the spica, the ear of wheat, the best of seed, and that spica indicated by the brightest star in the whole constellation. He who was to bruise the Serpent's head was to be peculiarly "the Seed of the woman," involving virgin-motherhood, and hence one born of miracle, one begotten of divine power, the Son of God. And such is the exhibit in this first sign of the Zodiac. She is a virgin, and yet she produces and holds forth a Seed contemplated as far greater than herself. That seed of wheat Christ appropriates as a symbol of himself. When certain Greeks came to Philip wishing to see Jesus, He referred to himself as the corn, or seed, of wheat, which needed to fall and die in order to its proper fruitfulness (John 12: 21—24).

Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit."

"Thus, according to the starry sign, as according to the Gospel, out of the seed of wheat, the good seed of the Virgin, the blessed harvest of salvation comes."

"A very significant figure of Christ, much employed by the prophets, was the branch, bough, or sprout of a plant or root. Hence He is described as the Rod from the stem of Jesse and the Branch out of his roots (Isa. 11 : i), the Branch of Righteousness, the Branch 'of the Lord, God's servant The Branch (Isa. 4:2; Jer. 23 : 5 ; Zech. 3:8; 6:12). And so this sign holds forth the Virgin's Seed as The Branch. In addition to the spica in one hand, she bears a branch in the other. The ancient names of the stars in this constellation emphasize this showing, along with that of the Seed. Al Zimach, Al Azal, and Subilon mean the shoot, the branch, the ear of wheat. The language of the prophecies is thus identical with the symbols in this sign."

"It is a doctrine of our religion that without Christ, and the redemption wrought by Him, all humanity is fallen and helpless in sin. There is none other name given among men whereby we can be saved.

Even Mary herself needed the mediatorial achievements of her more glorious Son to lift her up to hope and standing before God. And this, too, is here signified. This woman of the Zodiac lies prostrate. She is fallen, and cannot of herself stand upright. Christ alone can lift up to spiritual life and standing. This woman accordingly holds forth the goodly Seed, the illustrious Branch, as the great embodiment of her hope and trust, the only adequate hope and trust of prostrate and fallen humanity.

And what is thus vividly signified in this constellation is still further expressed and defined by the Decans, or side-pieces, which go along with it."

The great and learned Bullinger wrote:

"The name of this sign in the Hebrew is Bethulah, which means a virgin, and in the Arabic a branch. The two words are connected, as in Latin--Virgo, which means a virgin; and virga, which means a branch (Vulg. Isa 11:1). Another name is Sunbul, Arabic, an ear of corn.

In Genesis 3: 15 she is presented only as a woman; but in later prophecies her nationality is defined as being of the stock of Israel, the seed of Abraham, the line of David; and, further, she is to be a virgin. There are two prominent prophecies of her and her seed..."

"Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
And shall call his name Immanuel." (Isa. 7: 14)

"For unto us a child is born, Unto us a son is given; And the government shall be upon His shoulder; And His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government there shall be no end. Upon the throne of David, and upon His kingdom, To order it, and to establish it With judgment and with justice From henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this." (Isa. 9: 60)

"...the brightest star in VIRGO (a) has an ancient name, handed down to us in all the star-maps, in which the Hebrew word Tsemech is preserved. It is called in Arabic - Al Zimach, which means the branch. This star is in the ear of corn which she holds in her left hand. Hence the star has a modern Latin name, which has almost superseded the ancient one, Spica, which means, an ear of corn. But this hides the great truth revealed by its name Al Zimach. It foretold the coming of Him who should bear this name. The same Divine inspiration has, in the written Word, four times connected it with Him. There are twenty Hebrew words translated "Branch," but only one of them (Tsemech) is used exclusively of the Messiah, and this word only four times (Jer 33:15 being only a repetition of Jer 23:5). Each of these further connects Him with one special account of Him, given in the Gospels."

"The star b is called Zavijaveh, which means the gloriously beautiful, as in Isaiah 4: 2. The star e, in the arm bearing the branch, is called Al Mureddin, which means who shall come down (as in Psa 72:8), or who shall have dominion. It is also known as Vindemiatrix, a Chaldee word which means the son, or branch, who cometh."

"The Hebrew word ‘Zerah’ (the alpha star) is the word used to describe Messiah to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:15 and to Abraham in Genesis 15:5...the seed, “zerah” was a direct reference to the coming Messiah."

Other names of stars in the sign, are--

Subilah, who carries. (Isa 46:4)
Al Azal, the Branch. (As in Isa 18:5)
Subilon, a spike of corn. (As in Isa 17:5)

Under "The Desired One (Coma)" Seiss wrote:

"The Gospel in the Stars: Or, Prímeval Astronomy" By Joseph Augustus Seiss (here)

"The prophets are also very emphatic in describing the promised Saviour as the Desired One, "the Desire of women," "the Desire of all nations." So the name of this first Decan of Virgo is Coma, which in Hebrew and Oriental dialects means the desired, the longed-for —the very word which Haggai uses where he speaks of Christ as "the Desire of all nations.-' The ancient Egyptians called it Shes-nu, the desired son. The Greeks knew not how to translate it, and hence took Coma in the sense of their own language, and called it hair— Berenice's Hair. The story is, that that princess gave her hair, the color of gold, as a votive offering for the safety of her brother; which hair disappeared. The matter was explained by the assurance that it was taken to heaven to shine in the constellation of Coma. Hence we have a bundle of woman's hair in the place of " the Desire of all nations." (pg. 77)

So, how old is the gospel message about Jesus the Messiah? Does it not go back to the beginning?

On Topical/Textual Preaching

I have not been one to "jump on the bandwagon" in regards to what is called "expository preaching," calling for this type of preaching to be the exclusive manner of teaching the bible. Of course, I first object (like others) to how "expository preaching" is defined. I have in previous writings already objected to some false definitions.

(see here, here, here, here)

Actually, what I have written, together with other possible additions, could make a small introductory book on the subject.

First, let me say that I like textual and topical preaching. I think also that this type of preaching has been the most loved by the saints, has produced the greatest results, and has much to commend it. The greatest preachers have been primarily textual and topical preachers. Think of Spurgeon, the great "prince of preachers." Among my PB brothers, their greatest preachers have been textual and topical, such as Lasserre Bradley and Sonny Pyles. My beloved father was a textual preacher.

Further, topical and textual preaching involves exegeses or exposition.

From gotquestions.org (here) there is a  good writing on this subject.

Question: "What is topical preaching? Should a pastor preach topically?"

Answer: As the name suggests, topical preaching is centered on a topic. Most pastors will preach at least some topical sermons, while some focus almost exclusively on them. Whether this model is good or bad probably has more to do with how it is used than anything else. Topical preaching can be quite effective, but there are inherent limitations that must be understood if it is to be used properly.

Sermons can be generally grouped in four types: textual, topical, textual-topical, and expository. A.W. Blackwood observed, “Needless to say, these labels fit poorly. Sometimes these overlap and cause confusion.” A textual sermon follows the structure of the text of Scripture, allowing the word flow to provide the sermon points. A topical sermon is organized around a thought, with the sermon points developed by the speaker and supported by proof texts. A topical-textual sermon merges the two, allowing the sermon points to flow either from the text or the thoughts of the speaker. An expository sermon follows the text of Scripture, and then seeks to draw out the full meaning of it. The goal of each type of sermon is to apply the Word of God to the lives of the hearers.

In topical preaching, the speaker has the freedom to address issues being faced by his hearers. If the need is a better understanding of sin, a series can be presented to address various aspects and results of sin. When done well, this type of preaching will give a broad-spectrum view of what the Bible says on a given topic. By focusing on issues in this way, people can develop a biblical understanding of any subject matter. Another benefit of topical preaching is unity of thought. People are able to follow the logical progression of thought, which often helps them remember what they have heard. This method lends itself well to the natural talents of a speaker, because the thoughts come from his own heart.

While topical preaching allows the speaker to develop quality sermons, it also has a number of dangers. If it is the only method used, the speaker can easily get trapped in the rut of only preaching on those topics that are of interest to him or those which are easily developed in a message. Likewise, the audience can become acclimated to “comfortable” or “exciting” messages, turning away from teaching that doesn't fit that model. A strict adherence to topical preaching will result in a stunted understanding of the whole counsel of God, even though certain subjects will be well understood. In some cases, a speaker may be tempted to think more of his own ideas than “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).

For these reasons, many pastors alternate between topical and textual or expository messages. The topical messages allow them to address current issues in society or the life of the church, while the textual and expository messages build on the “big picture” of whole books in the Bible. Both are essential in encouraging balanced growth in the Christian life. How a sermon is organized isn't nearly as important as making it biblical and applicable. A topical message can be just as scriptural as an expository one, and an expository message can be just as interesting as a topical one. Warren Wiersbe, in his book Preaching and Teaching with Imagination, relates the exasperation of a pastor who said, “My preaching sounds like a commentary! I'm dull! I have all the biblical facts but there's no life! What should I do?” This pastor, who had the biblical information right, needed help learning how to communicate it to people. According to Wiersbe, “People think in pictures and respond with their hearts as well as their heads.”

Regardless of the type of message, if it is firmly grounded in Scripture and applied to life with vivid word pictures, it will accomplish the goal and draw people to follow Christ more closely.

These are some remarks on this subject that I endorse. Textual and topical preaching have their place in the ministries of preachers and good textual preaching will include exegeses. Let us not "throw the baby out with the bath water" in promoting "expository preaching." Exposition may just as well be done in topical preaching as in verse by verse, book by book, preaching. I think topically. I like to read books on topics. I also certainly like topical sermons. Topical sermons will include lots of texts, and lots of exegeses.

Elder Newell Helms

JANUARY 28, 1932 – NOVEMBER 21, 2019

The obituary for Elder Helms has been posted here and gives funeral details.

As I stated in my announcement of Newell's passing, Newell and I were good friends. In my twenties, while married to his oldest daughter, he was a second father to me. We spent a lot of time together talking scripture. He counseled me much in those days about religious matters.

I was glad to hear brother Helms tell me in one of our visits at the Bear Creek Association (last decade) that he did not believe that unbelievers were saved and that he said this recently in a sermon. I said to him - "I am happy to hear you say this."

Newell loved Spurgeon and was regularly reading his sermons. I was happy about that fact also.

Newell was a good father, husband, and brother. He was gentle, patient, and was always ready to visit the sick in the hospital. Many times I went to Charlotte with him to visit them. Pastoring churches was more than just preaching to him.

He is happy now. Let us celebrate the Lord who gave this man such a rich full life.

Will All The Elect Believe?

"If Jesus himself reveals himself, and preaches the Gospel to his elect, then how can it be affirmed that many will be in Heaven who did not hear and know?"

A question I asked of my Hardshell brothers in the posting "Redford's Hardshell Apology" (here) and which is one worth repeating, don't you think?

I plan to write more on this in the future, the Lord willing. I already have a draft posting or two in the works on it.

Elder Newell Helms Has Passed

Elder Newell Helms, my ex father in law, has passed away at his home on last evening, here in Monroe, NC.

The Lord blessed him with long life and good days. Let us celebrate his life and keep the family in prayers.

I have not heard any of the funeral arrangements as yet.

Elder Helms and I were good friends. I use to visit him in his retirement years by going to the Bear Creek Association a few times. Those visits and conversations are etched in my memory.

A good sermon by Elder Helms preached in 1990 can been seen and heard here.

Baptist Watchman Citations (III)

Dr. R. W. Fain in an article titled "Faith," for the Dec. 5th, 1871 issue of the Baptist Watchman, wrote (highlighting mine, caps not):

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10:17)

"To effect this great object, "GOD HAS PROVIDED MEANS THAT HIS BANISHED BE NOT EXPELLED FROM HIM." Christ has been crucified, the Holy Spirit has come, and the gospel in the name of Christ has been preached. All these are means by and through which God's purpose in our behalf are carried out. It is said that "whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord, shall be saved." But again, it is said that "no man can say that Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Ghost." 

"His word whispered by the Holy Spirit into the ear of the understanding is heard. His word preached and extended by divine power to the same is heard, and God calls His ministers who proclaim pardon through Christ, and when the spirit makes the application, the sinner hears and believes, and "so faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." 

That is Old Baptist doctrine!

Dr. Piper On Job

I found the following posting by Dr. John Piper disheartening, especially in view of the fact that I find Dr. Piper "spot on" on most of his bible interpretations. His posting is a transcript of a sermon titled "How Should I Read the Book of Job?" (here) Some may know that years ago I wrote a series of chapters on the Theology of Job, primarily for the purpose of defending this righteous prophet from the character assassination that he has received from many biblical commentators. Piper clearly does not see Job as innocent and righteous as does the Lord. 

Let me cite the portions of Piper's remarks that I intend to dispute, giving enough context to prevent misinterpretation. (highlighting mine)

"Job has about 29 chapters of misapplied theology in the middle. It's very hard to navigate your way through those chapters and determine what is true and what is not, because these guys are mixing up truth and falsehood all over the place. (True! - SG) I think you're supposed to get the big picture that God was not happy with these three friends, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. (Yes, but was he happy with Job and Elihu? - SG)

And when Elihu shows up, he, I believe, begins to set it right. (But, was not Job already setting things right? - SG) Finally God speaks and he sets it completely right.

Then there is the last chapter that puts the closure on the whole thing. There it says that God brought all of this upon Job; and Job proves in the end to be a better man than these other men, even though Job himself sinned and had to repent in dust and ashes.

How important is it for us to note that Job's calamities had absolutely no connection with his character?

I don't think that's exactly right to say. I think "absolutely" is an overstatement, because when you get to the end, it says,

Then Job answered the LORD and said:

“I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.

‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’ Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.'

‘Hear, and I will speak... (Job 42:1-4)

And then Job repents in dust and ashes, verse 6:

"Therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes."

In other words, here's the way I would say it: He was called an upright and blameless man, and yet that doesn't mean that he was a sinlessly perfect man.

I picture Job as a beaker of water. Job had been so worked upon by the grace of God that his life was pure. You could see right through the water. People looked at him and they saw a pure man. (Did not God see him as a pure man?! - SG) But there was a sediment of self-reliance and pride at the bottom. (Really? Where is the proof of that? - SG) It wasn't huge and it wasn't damning, but it was there.

When God shook Job, the sediment colored the water, and you find Job saying some terrible things about God in this book. (This is an incredible statement to say of one whom God said was righteous and spoke of him correctly! - SG) God knew that it was there, and he knew that in shaking this godly, blameless man there would arise some imperfection into his life, and that it would need to be purged. So the last thing is, therefore, "I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes."

God is so pleased with Job (I thought he wasn't? - SG) that he makes the three friends go and ask Job to pray for them instead of them praying for themselves. God loves this man Job.

So, we may rephrase the question, "How important is it that we see that Job's suffering was not directly connected to any evil deed?" That is true.

We should be able to say to people, "I'm not looking for a specific sin in your life that God is punishing you for or chastising you for. God may be permitting this calamity to come into your life just to refine very beautiful faith. Your faith is like gold, but it does have straw in it, and God loves you so much that he is now going to burn out a little more straw."

All I can do at this time in response is to refer the reader to my writings titled "Theology of Job" (here).

Here are the chapters written thus far (I may add to it in the future):

Job's Righteous Character - Chapter One
Job The Prophet - Chapter Two
Job The Accused - Chapter Three
Job's Apology - Chapter Four
Job's Character Assassination - Chapter Five
Job's Repentance - Chapter Six

Here are some excerpts from those chapters:

Chapter One

"Our view of him ought to be the same as that of God."

Chapter Two

"... these words of James prove that Job was a prophet of God, one who spoke in the name of the Lord."

"These words should settle all debate about the correctness of Job's theology, about the truthfulness of what he said about the nature and workings of God in his dialogues with his "friends."" 

Chapter Three

"Strikingly, however, Job is never accused of any evil by God. He only blesses and approves of Job's character and teachings."

"In fact, many commentators on the Book of Job invariably end up being just as accusatory and critical against Job's character and theology as were Job's "friends," the very ones God condemned in the Epilogue for sin and heresy!" 

 Chapter Four

"Job Maintains his Righteousness and Integrity." "Here Job again maintains his righteousness and innocence. Job does not believe he has erred theologically or morally. He also claims that his friends have failed to demonstrate his error." 

Chapter Five

"Job being "righteous" did not beget pride, presumption, or arrogance in him. Though righteous, he was nevertheless humble, dependent, and unworthy."

"Job confesses that he does not "have all the answers." He confesses his "confusion" regarding the "why" of his circumstances." "Is it not a great sin to speak evil of the prophet Job? As much so as to speak evil of Moses, David, Isaiah, or one of the apostles?"

"It thus appears that the early Christians did not share the same view of Job as later commentators and interpreters."

"Elihu is not immune, as some have wrongly imagined, to errors concerning the character and theology of Job. He too thinks Job is self-righteous and given to self-justification. But, Elihu is wrong. Job did not trust in his own righteousness for salvation, but in his "Redeemer" and in his God. He did believe that he was innocent of the sins charged against him." 

Chapter Six

"Therefore, the passage can be as legitimately translated “I reject and regret dust and ashes” as it can be translated “I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes”."

""Naham" can be translated "repent" but only in the loosest possible sense and a potentially misleading sense in this context."

""Repent, a verb that is often used to indicate a change of mind on the Lord's part (Exodus 32: 14; Jeremiah 18: 8, 10). Here it does not mean repentance for sin (see vv. 7-8, where Job is said to have spoken what is right)."

Sins of Job (supposed)

1. Pride and arrogance (presumption)
2. Self righteousness (self justification)
3. Hypocrisy and idolatry
4. Cowardness (too much complaining)
5. Selfishness and greed
6. Impenitence (refusal to confess sin)
7. Impatience (complains too much)
8. Unbelief (refusal to trust God)
9. Unfaithfulness and disloyalty
10. False Teacher (bad theology)
11. Respecter of persons (envious)
12. Murderer (for being suicidal)

I experience "righteous indignation" when I hear Job's character maligned. If you are interested in the Book of Job (the oldest in the bible), then I recommend you take some time and read the chapters I have written on this important subject.

Buffalo Association of Primitive Baptists

The 1897 minutes of the Buffalo Association of Primitive Baptists (download here) of Arkansas has these notes, which show that even up till the end of the 19th century there were still PBs who believed in means.

8. On motion the Association appointed a committee to meet in a convention at Crooked Creek Church Saturday before the third Sunday in Nov. 1897, to see whether there can be a union effected between the Buffalo Association of Regular Primitive Baptists and the Buffalo Association of Regular United Baptists and chose from the different churches..."

"On motion the Association adds to her abstract of principles an article declaring "that we believe the preaching of the Gospel of the Son of God to be one of God's ordained means of doing good to humanity."

Was The Soothsayer Speaking Sarcastically?

"And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation. And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour." (Acts 16: 16-18 kjv)

Why would the apostle Paul be grieved over someone constantly affirming that the apostles were God's servants who show men the way of salvation? Further, why would a possessor of demonic spirits say such a truth? Difficult questions, huh?

My own view is that the reason Paul silenced the woman by divine power was because she was saying the words sarcastically. If we add punctuation (which was originally absent from the text, and which was later added by translators to help give the meaning of the text, and regarding punctuation translators have disagreed concerning a particular text) in order to bring out this sarcastic meaning of the words uttered by the soothsayer, we would have these examples:

"These men are servants of the most high God?" (connotation: that is laughable! An instance of sarcasm)

Just by adding the question mark one sees the sarcasm.

"These men...show unto us the way of salvation?" (the intended meaning is that the thing is absurd. Again, another instance of sarcasm, I believe)

Implied Meaning in the Sarcasm

These men cannot possibly be servants of God! Look at them! The thought is laughable! These men show "us," the wise ones, the way of salvation? Yea, right!

I think this sarcasm represents what the soothsayer was intending to convey. The damsel did not really believe that Paul was a servant of God and was really showing the way of salvation. She intends to convey the idea that anyone who wants to know God and the way of salvation should consult the wise ones, and those who have the spirits of the gods within them, as she professed to have, rather than some little unknown Jew! Her words were not only a case of sarcasm but of mockery. The damsel was shouting these words in a mocking way, similar to the way the soldiers spoke the words "Hail! King of the Jews!"

That is my interpretation in any case. What think ye?

Baptist Watchman Citations (II)

In the April 10th, 1875 issue of the "Baptist Watchman," Elder (Dr.) R. (Richard) W. Fain, in his written debate with Duncan (published in "The Baptist, edited by Dr. J.R. Graves, and in Fain's paper), said that the Somerset Confession of 1656 stated the historic views of the Primitive or Old School Baptists. Well, here is part of that confession (cited by Fain):

XIX. THAT the Spirit is administered by or through the word of faith preached (Gal. 3:2) which word was first declared by the Lord himself, and was confirmed by them that heard him (Heb. 2:3.), which word is called the gospel of God's grace (Acts 20:24.), the word of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19.), the sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6:17.), the weapon of a Christian (2 Cor. 10:4.); a faithful (Rev. 22:6.), quick, powerful (Heb. 4:12.), plain (Prov. 8: 9.), comfortable (Rom. 15:4.), pure (Ps. 12:6.), right, true (Ps. 33:4.), sound (Tit. 2:8.), and wholesome word (I Tim. 6:3.).

XX. THAT this spirit of Christ, being administer'd by the word of faith, worketh in us faith in Christ (John 3: 5; I Pet. 1:22 Acts 16:14; Gal. 5:22.) by virtue of which we come to receive our sonship (John 1:12; Gal. 3:26.), and is further administer'd unto us through faith in the promises of God (Eph. 1:13; Acts 2:38, 39; Acts 1:4.), waiting on him in those ways and means that he hath appointed in his word (John 14:15, 16, 17; Luke 11:9, 13.), this faith being the ground of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen (Heb. 11:1.).

XXI. THAT justification is God's accounting and declaring that man justified from the guilt and condemnation of all his sin, who hath received Jesus Christ and doth believe in him (in truth and power) according to the record given of him by God in scripture (Rom. 4: 5; I John 5:10, 11; Joh. 3:36.).

XXII. THAT justification from the guilt and condemnation of sin is only obtained through faith in that man Jesus Christ, crucified at Jerusalem, and by God raised from the dead (Rom. 5:1, 9; Acts 13:38, 39; Rom. 4:25; 10:9.). And that those who bring in any other way of justification, do therein make void, and acquit themselves of having any interest in the gospel and grace of Christ (Gal. 2:21; 5:4.).

XXIII. THAT this faith being wrought in truth and power, it doth not only interest us in our justification, sonship, and glory, but it produceth as effects and fruits, a conformity, in a measure, to the Lord Jesus, in his will, graces and virtues (Rom. 5:3, 4; I John 3:23, 24; 2 Pet. 1:5, 6, 7; Gal. 5:6; Acts 26:18; I Thess 1:3.).

Did you see how those articles are mostly denied by today's "Primitive Baptists"? Is there any hint of an anti means sentiment?

Baptist Watchman Citations (I)

In a follow up to "Means Still Taught In 1875" (here) I will begin to make available certain citations from the "Baptist Watchman" that deal with doctrinal issues, revealing what were the beliefs and practices of those known as "Primitive" or "Old School" before and after the American Civil War, and what controversies they experienced as a denomination. We will call this series of citations (with commentary) "Baptist Watchman Citations."

March 20, 1875 (Vol. 6)
By W. A. Bowden
Lone Cedar, Ky

"But I had rather say the spirit of the soul, or mind. This is when regeneration takes place preparatory to being born again. Not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, even this true God, and eternal life, which liveth and abideth forever. Here God has begun a good work, and he will perfect it; for he has seen of the travail of his soul, and he is true and cannot lie; and as sure as he brings to the birth, that sure he will cause to be delivered. 

What do these words say about the belief of the PBs on regeneration or being born again? Do they not show that the view - that regeneration (implanting of seed) was not the same as being born again (evangelical conversion) - was not only taught before and after the 1832 split, but was still believed in 1875? Notice that the PBs believed that "regeneration takes place preparatory to being born again." Both were viewed as being necessary for complete or final salvation, and both viewed as the work of God.

Bowden continued:

"When the poor dead sinner is thus quickened, he begins to work, but he still quite ignorant of the true God. He believes that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and now he begins to reform his life, believing that he must get better, or God will never have mercy. But as he increases in the knowledge of the true God, of his holiness, of his justice, and of his Divine perfection, he learns more of his own lost and helpless condition, until finally he comes to the end of his own strength. He sees and feels that the law is holy, just and good; that he is carnal, sold to sin. Like a crane or a swallow, he is made to chatter; like a lonesome dove, he is made to mourn, saying my day of grace is gone; I am forever lost, and it is just Lord, undertake for me. O, if possible, have mercy upon me, a sinner."

Notice how the quickening or regeneration does not bring one to know God! To know God, he must have a conversion experience! Of course, I see the fallacies in such a view. But, my point in this is to show that the PBs still, in the 1870s believed that evangelical conversion was the new birth.

Bowden continued:

"Now, the way that was ordained to life, the poor sinner finds is death; for we must die to sin before we can possess eternal life and live unto holiness. And now, in the process of regeneration, or pro-creation in Christ Jesus, the sinner is taught to know God truly as his Savior, and that all his former views while in nature's night were wrong, and that he was ignorant of the character of the true God. But, now, when it pleased God to reveal himself in the forgiveness of his sins, altogether lovely and the chief among ten thousand, how easy it was to die, that it was all for Jesus' sake. And now the sinner can discover that of this true God, Jesus is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. Here is one now prepared to glory in the Lord.

In this way God's people are made acquainted with the true God and are possessors of eternal life."

Regeneration a "process"? What PB today would affirm this? I have no problem with it. Nor would the real Old Particular Baptists. Still, this citation shows what the first generation of PBs believed about regeneration, conversion, and the new birth.

The no means view was a new "innovation" made by some extremists in the mid to late 19th century and sadly, by devilish and cult tactics, took over the denomination and pushed the believers in the historic doctrine of means out of it. Their no means view of the new birth was not the "primitive" view of their fathers and therefore their calling themselves "primitive" is a joke.

Elder Sonny Pyles said that this view of regeneration and the new birth was not the view of his forefathers, and yet we have shown just the opposite. See the posting "Sonny Pyles vs. P.D. Gold" (here).

Means Still Taught In 1875

The following was written in the Baptist Watchman for Feb. 6, 1875. Elders R. W. Fain and J. B. Stephens, both medical doctors and leaders of the Primitive Baptists at the time, were editors. In the issues for this year (1875) that I have read so far, I notice that elder W. P. Throgmorton was a subscriber and that Elder Lemuel Potter is mentioned. The latter fact is significant but I cannot go into why now for the time is short.

The following citation shows that the orthodox view of the first PBs was a belief in means for salvation but it also shows that there were still some of the anti means side promoting a heterodox view, connected with the views of the "Two Seeders" or "ultraists" (like we saw in Zion's Advocate for the 1850s), being the no means view. I say that this is more evidence that the means view was still the leading view of the Primitive Baptist church as late as 1875.

In the following citation, the highlighting is mine. It is a letter to the editor by a Wm. L Stegall from Henderson Station, Tenn. Dec. 1874.

To the Editors of the Baptist Watchman

I am pained, also, to see some differences among some of the Primitive Baptist, on doctrinal points. Some (a minority or majority? - SG) holding what is called "eternal children doctrine," (associated with "Two Seedism" - SG) which I cannot see that the scriptures justify. I believe the church stood complete in the purpose of God in Christ from the beginning of time in the covenant between the Father and the Son, for he spoke of things that were not as though they were. Again, some (a minority or majority? - SG) say he works without means. I just as well say that Jesus did not open the eyes of the blind man without the clay and spittle, or that the fish was not used to carry Jonah to land, or a Jonah to preach to the Ninevites; or that God did not use Ezekiel and the wind in resurrecting the dry bones of the valley. To say that he does not use man to speak to man, and his purposes not carried out by it, is strange to me indeed. The Apostle said he was not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, because it is the power of God unto salvation (not the power after salvation) to every one that believe. If then it is the power of God, we ought not to limit it. The book says, "We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord and ourselves your servants for Jesus sake." (Feb. 6, 1875 Issue)

Obviously this writer and the supporters of the Baptist Watchman believed that God used means in executing his eternal and saving purposes.

Another thing that Stegall said in this letter that is interesting is this:

"The "Old Baptist Test," a book written by our lamented Dr. Watson corresponds with Osburns writings. The editorials of the Watchman also contain the doctrinal principles, etc., of Osburn; also, many of the correspondents of the Watchman write the same things. Osburn was regarded as foremost among the best preachers of his day."  

By "Osburn" he means James Osbourn, who we have cited many times in this blog. We have surely shown how he believed in means in the eternal salvation of the elect, as did the Kehukeeites that he had great influence over in the 1832 split and thereafter. He wrote many works. I have read several.

Old Baptist & Medical Hemp (1874)

In the weekly periodical "The Baptist Watchman," edited by elders R.W. Fain and J.B. Stephens, both doctors in the Nashville area, there are advertisers on the last pages (as other Old School papers of the time). Not only has it been interesting to read the old periodicals for their doctrinal writings, but also sometimes to see the advertisements for products and services.

In the issues I am reading (mid 1870s) I found this advertisement for "East India Hemp" and the words "What We Know About It" under the title.

"Instead of devoting a column to the merits of this strange and wonderful plant, we remain silent and let it speak for itself through other lips than ours, believing that those who have suffered most can better tell the story. We will here quote word for word from letters received, simply adding out testimony to the rest in saying, that when this plant is properly prepared, we know that it positively cures consumption, and will break up a fresh cold in twenty-four hours. 

St. Mary's Church, Allegheny City, Pa. November 10, 1874.

The East India Hemp has been taken by Rev. Matthias Binder, O S B, and Rev. Sebastian Arnold, O S B, both assistant pastors of this church, and so far has given relief to both. They suffered from affections of the lungs and bronchial organs. We have recommended, through charity to sufferers, the Cannabis Indica to different persons, and continue the same in good conscience, knowing the effects by experience. Please find inclosed (sic) check for twelve bottles of syrup, pills and lintment (sic). We shall inform you in due time further success the medicines shall meet with. 

Yours truly,
Rev. Ferdinand Wolf, O S B
87 Washington Street

China Grove, Rowan Co, N C, Oct. 21, 1874

Send one dozen Ointment and one of Cannabis Indica. When Mr. J. W. Fisher brought his wife to me for examination, I found her in the incipient stage of tuberculous consumption. Then it was I concluded to make a fair trial of Indian Hemp, and now there is a general demand for those remedies. The Ointment excels everything and anything of its kind I ever saw or tried; in many cases it acts like a charm. 

Fraternally yours,
P A Sifford, MD

A Sample of others on the use of medical hemp

"Inclosed is $10 for more of the Indian Hemp. I can truly say that this medicine has done me more good than all the doctors and I had several of the best in the country. My cough is a great deal better and my chills and night sweats are gone. You may look for several orders soon, as many have seen the effect of this medicine on me."

"Your treatment for consumption has so improved my condition that the inquiry comes every day from my friends, What are you taking? Several are talking of sending for some of your medicine, and James Huff desires me to order for him $9 worth of the Hemp."

Is this not interesting in light of the "medical marijuana" issue of today? And of the debate about the uses of Hemp?

I publish this because I thought others might like to know this fact. Historians often find such things in their research. What think ye? We know that pastors today must give counsel on the use of Hemp, right?

New PB Research

It takes a lot of effort to do historical research. It also costs money as well as time. Over the past year I was able to spend a day at Duke University doing research on the writings of Zion's Advocate for the 1850s -1870s. It produced much good documentary research.

I have ordered from Southern Baptist historical library in Nashville copies of several old periodicals that are on microfilm. Like issues of Zion's Advocate, these periodicals are hard to find in libraries. None are available on the Internet (as old issues of "The Primitive Baptist" of NC are now). So, I have to either drive long distances to these libraries or order them as I am now doing.

I am getting issues of these periodicals

The Old Baptist Banner (Jan. 20, 1838-April 1839) Murfreesboro/Nashville, TN
The Correspondent (May 1839-April 1840) Murfreesboro, TN
The Baptist Watchman (1871,1873-1875, 1879) Murfreesboro/Nashville, TN

Elder John Watson was one of the supporters and backers, and writer and editor, of the Old Baptist Banner and The Correspondent. Elder R.W. Fain, a medical doctor like Watson, and one who wrote the Preface for "The Old Baptist Test," edited The Baptist Watchman. The time period for these issues should reveal the battle with the "ultraists" brothers. More to come, the Lord willing.

Baptist Ordination Practices Examined (VII)

Under "BY WHOM IS ORDINATION?" Hiscox wrote:

"Admitting that, for the sake of order, ceremonial ordination should be continued, where resides the right and the power to set men apart to this service? Is it in a Church, or in a Council or Presbytery?"

The ordaining of men into ministry by presbyteries is really only "ceremonial ordination," not real ordination. I was therefore not "ordained" by the two presbyteries who performed this  "ceremonial ordination" by "laying on of hands" of "the presbytery." Rather, each time I accepted a call to pastor a church, either as leading pastor or associate, I was really "ordained" by NT standards. By the latter reckoning I have been ordained four times. Of course, as far as being ordained by God to preach and to serve, I was ordained only once!

Hiscox continued:

"The answer is brief, and should be conclusive. The right of ordination is inherent in the Church; and in no other body of men whatever. This conclusion is inevitable to those who hold to Church independency, and repudiate sacramental ordination and hierarchical assumptions, as Baptists do." 

Well, amen to that! Would to God many of our Presbyterian Baptists would see this!

Hiscox continued:

"The contrary claim, that the right inheres in a Council or Presbytery, and that the ceremony must be performed by those who have had hands laid on them, in order to be valid, is so preposterous, that no man should make it unless he be prepared to defend holy orders by Episcopal hands as a sacrament, with an uninterrupted apostolical succession. For to that he must be finally driven."

Again, amen! This is what our Baptist forefathers who wrote the first and second London Confessions also taught. How did so many Baptists get away from the purity of the original teaching?

Hiscox continued:

"That the right of ordination resides in the local, visible Church though ministers may be called upon to advise in the matter, and to perform the public services will be evident from the following considerations:

1. Because all ecclesiastical authority resides in the local Church. This is the only organic form of Christian life divinely appointed. Christ instituted no society but the Church, and to it He committed authority to administer His laws. This is the Baptist doctrine, held, taught and defended, always and everywhere." 

Yes, "all ecclesiastical authority resides in the local Church." And, amen to "this is the Baptist doctrine, held, taught and defended, always and everywhere."

Hiscox continued:

"Councils and Presbyteries, as organized bodies, are of human, not of divine origin or authority, and cannot be essential to, much less supersede, the Church in the performance of any ecclesiastical functions."

I am sure that my stubborn Hardshell brothers will be very much against the idea that they have anything about them religiously that is "of human" rather than "of divine origin or authority," but they suffer under a delusion in this regard. Are not their associations of human origin?

Hiscox continued:

"A Council is created by the Church which convenes it. Now to suppose that a Church has not power to ordain, while a Council has, is to suppose that the body created has more power than that which created it. Moreover, the Council has no inherent power, and possesses only what the Church which called it has conferred upon it. It is, therefore absurd to suppose the Council can do more than the Church."

Again, this is simply logical and what the bible teaches.

Hiscox continued:

"And further, Christ gave to the churches pastors and teachers. But if Councils hold the right to ordain, the churches cannot enjoy these most important gifts of ministerial service divinely bestowed, without the consent of a Council, a body of men for which the great Head of the Church made no provision.

2. Because a Church is a body complete in itself as to authority, though without officers." 

How did so many Baptists get away from this basic truth?

Hiscox continued:

"It has power to create officers out of its own members, and set them apart to the service for which they may be chosen, by any form or ceremony it may choose, or without any ceremony, at its option. The right to choose and enjoy the ministry of its own religious teachers, without let or hindrance from any, is one of the primary rights with which Christ has invested His churches.

3. Because that in the primitive churches, though there was an apostleship and a discipleship, there was no such division into clergy and laity as afterward sprang up and now prevails. There was no official caste or class, save as the Holy Spirit, working in each, developed certain gracious capabilities, which the churches used for the edification of the body. It was neither cleric nor laic, but a common discipleship. All alike constituted a holy priesthood, ordained to offer spiritual sacrifices unto God. And the churches selected and elected teachers and leaders, as the fitting qualifications were developed which commended the individuals."

Authority is in Christ and his word and he has invested this authority in individuals and in independent assemblies. I got my authority to teach, preach, baptize, eat the Lord's Supper, etc., from Christ and from his word. Why do I need to get it anywhere else? Is that not what Gill and Spurgeon said, as we have observed?

Hiscox continued:

"It is indisputable that after the primitive age the common discipleship was divided by this class-distinction into clergy and laity. Then developed the hierarchical tendency to wrest ecclesiastical authority from the churches and vest it in an ambitious clergy. Especially did this tendency show itself in the claim that the right of ordination belonged exclusively to the clergy. For in no other way could they so effectually dominate the churches as by holding in their own hands the exclusive right to consecrate and invest their pastors. This right conceded, the churches were powerless in the grasp of their despotic spiritual rulers. The demand now for an exclusive clerical ordination has this same hierarchical tendency for its germ and life."

Churches ought not to ever concede their authority that they have from Christ. We must beware of the dangers of the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes.

Hiscox continued:

Dr. Wm. B. Johnson said:

"The sole power of ordaining to the pastorate or bishopric is lodged with the churches." Gospel Developed, pp. 133, 144-

Dr. Strong says:

"It is always to be remembered, however, that the power to ordain rests with the Church; and that the Church may proceed without a Council, or even against the decisions of a Council. Such ordination, of course, would give authority only within the bounds of the individual Church." Systematic Theology, p. 5/4.

Hiscox cites others, but these are sufficient to the point.

Hiscox continued:

4. Because the claim made by some, that while a Church may have the right to ordain or set apart a minister for themselves, ordination by a Council makes one a minister for the whole denomination, is false, illogical and absurd. A Church cannot, in deed, make a man a minister to any but themselves. The fact that they had chosen him and approved his ministry, would to that extent give him credit with other churches. Nor yet can a Council do any more than give a man the credit of their approval and commendation. They cannot make him a minister for any Church save that one which asked their advice and cooperation in his ordination."

I think the Hardshells look at ordination by presbyteries as a kind of denominational ordination.

Hiscox continued:

"It is preposterous to claim that a Council can assure the confidence and fellowship of the entire denomination to any man on whom they may lay their hands. What is the denomination? It is not an organic entity; it has no corporate existence; it is not an ecclesiastical body; it has neither organization, laws nor officers, and has no means of expressing approval or dissent. It is a mere conception of the aggregate of all the churches. The ministers who lead and direct its activities are not the denomination; the journals that speak to and for it are not the denomination; and in the sense in which it is so often appealed to, or spoken for, it is a fiction.

When, therefore, did the denomination authorize a Council or Presbytery to ordain a man into its ministry, or give him the credit of its fellowship throughout the land? What havoc it makes with our theory of Church life, to claim that a Council sitting in Maine or Vermont can make a man an accredited minister for all the churches in Mississippi or Texas or Montana; or that a Presbytery acting in New York can give a man the fellowship of the churches in Chicago, St. Louis or San Francisco, and elsewhere and everywhere.

This question then remains, Is it right and proper for an unordained man to administer the ordinances? The prevailing opinion is, that he has no such right until the hands of the Presbytery have been laid on him an opinion that finds no warrant in the New Testament.

Any of the "royal priesthood" of the discipleship could baptize converts, and break the loaf and fill the cup at the Supper; preaching the Gospel was a higher function.

[Hiscox, E. T. The New Directory for Baptist Churches. Grand Rapids, Michigan: 1970, Kregel Publications: Pg. 345. (Now published under the title Principles & Practices for Baptist Churches)]

Everyone interested in this important subject should read the full writing of Hiscox on this subject. In our next posting we will look at some of the issues involved and at some historical incidents in Baptist history where the subject was discussed and debated.

Elder Sonny Pyles Has Passed

At the site of Mt. Carmel PB church, I just read this notice (see here):

"Elder Sonny Pyles went Home to be with The Lord this morning around 11 a.m. Please hold up his family and loved ones in prayer."

There is a write up by his granddaughter that describes his last hours. He passed away Sunday morning it seems.

Pray for the family.

My daughter also called me a few days ago and told me Elder Newell Helms (her grandfather) was in the hospital with kidney failure. His heart is also weak. The doctor thought he only had a short time left, maybe a few months at best. Pray for him also.