"If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee." (Deut. 13: 1-5 KJV)
The presence of false prophets and teachers puts professing Christians to the test by God's design. But, what is proven by such a test? Is it not the proof of profession? Is it not to show who is really joined in heart to the Lord versus who is only a pretender?
Now, notice these words from the New Testament:
"For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." (I Cor. 11: 19 KJV)
The presence of heretics with their false teachings is again viewed as a means for showing who is, and who is not, "approved" by the Lord. The word "that" is from "hina" (a hina clause) and denotes purpose or reason. Why are heresies among the saints? In order that by this means the approved may be "made manifest," which will, of course, also reveal those who God disapproves.
How are you in relation to the various heresies at work today?
"A glimpse of the divine mind is in this. Christians who become upset and discouraged because of schisms, factions and other disorders in the church make a tragic mistake. As God used Satan in the Paradise of Eden to test the progenitors of the human race, he still tests the faith of all Christians. Church difficulties provide an opportunity for Christians to demonstrate that they are genuine followers of the Lord. God never intended that any man should move through life in a constant environment of encouragement and spiritual delight. There is a place in the experience of every Christian where "the rubber meets the road"; and his response to unfavorable, or even tragic, situations will determine whether or not he is "approved" of God. It should always be remembered that "many are called, but few are chosen."" (Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible - emphasis mine)
I look back over my life and see the numerous heresies I have had to confront. I have battled against Arminianism, Hyper Calvinism, Sabellianism, Arianism, Antinomianism, Pelagianism, and a host of other sectarian doctrines and sects. I never gave an inch to any of them but battled against them all. I believe in this that I revealed that I was one in the truth, one approved of God.
How about you?
Thursday, January 30, 2020
"Receiving" Christ & Salvation
When I was a Hardshell I remember the difficulty I experienced in regard to those texts of scriptures that spoke of salvation, Christ, the Spirit, etc., being "received." That word seemed to denote a choice, or act of the will, what was not passive experience. I read where Elder C.H. Cayce confronted this problem in one or more of his debates (he had about 300 debates!). He argued that men may "receive" things passively. I recall him asking his opponent - "what did you do to receive your name?" His point was that some things are "received" passively. That may be true as in relates to the common English word, but in the Greek there are several different words used and translated generally by the word "receive" in the KJV, and each of these words carries different connotations. For an in depth look at these see here. For these several Greek words translators have a range of words in English to choose from in order to bring out the meaning in each text. Some of these English words are obtain, accept, take, welcome, etc.
In the verses that we shall look at, dealing with receiving Christ, the Spirit, or salvation, we will see that in all of them that a passive receiving cannot possibly be meant, but rather that an active receiving is denoted. After that we will look at a possible exception to the rule.
"For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." (Rom. 5:17 kjv)
In this text the word "receive" is from the Greek "lambanontes" and this word is a present tense participle in the active voice, not passive voice. And just what is intended by the active voice?
When verbs are in the active voice it is the subject that is the doer of the action expressed by the verb. Thus, the "receiving" of "abundance of grace" and "the gift of righteousness" (salvation) is that which the receiver actively does, representing his action. It is like receiving gifts where the gift is "accepted" or "received."
"This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?...That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." (Gal. 3:2, 14)
"Received" is from the Greek word "elabete" and is aorist active, and "receive" is from "labÅmen" and is also aorist active. The Spirit and the promise of the Spirit, i.e. salvation, are actively received or accepted.
"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" (I Cor. 4:7)
Here "receive" is from "elabes" and is also aorist active.
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." (John 1:12)
Here "received is from "elabon" and is also aorist active.
"And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." (Rom. 5:11)
Here "receive" is from "elabomen" and is likewise aorist active.
"As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him." (Col. 2:6)
Here "receive" is from "parelabete" and is also aorist active.
"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (I Cor. 2: 12-14 kjv)
In this passage two different Greek words are used for "receive." In the first instance it is the Greek word "elabomen" and is aorist active. The second instance is from "dechetai" and is either middle or passive voice. Since the passive and middle voice are both written alike in Greek, context will determine which it is. It cannot be passive voice because to affirm this would be to affirm that men are passive in their rejection of the things of the Spirit. But, this is wholly untenable. Thus, it must be middle voice, which means not only that the non receiver is actively doing the rejecting, but is doing it for or to himself. The middle voice denotes that the subject is both an agent of an action and somehow concerned with the action.
There is a distinction between lambano and dechomai. In many instances lambano suggests a self-prompted taking, whereas dechomai more frequently indicates "a welcoming or an appropriating reception" (Grimm-Thayer).
Dechomai means to accept with a deliberate and ready reception of what is offered, to receive kindly and so to take to oneself what is presented or brought by another. It means to welcome as a teacher, a friend, or a guest into one's house. Dechomai indicates that the reception was a voluntary and willing act.
Paralambano looks to the content of that which is received, whereas dechomai implies a favorable evaluation of that which is accepted.
Dechomai means to take or receive, to accept with approval, to welcome, and denotes a subjective reception. Paralambano refers to the ear, while dechomai adds the idea of appropriation and in this sense refers to the heart.
Now for a peculiar case of the word "receive."
"Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one." (II Cor. 11:24 kjv)
In this instance "recieve" is from "elabon" and is aorist active. But, it seems that a passive voice would have been more appropriate here. "Receiving" or "accepting" stripes? Surely Paul was passive in "receiving" these stripes, right? Wrong! Paul willingly suffered for Christ! He gladly received those stripes!
Thus, we conclude that the Hardshell notion that one is only passive in receiving salvation is false.
In the verses that we shall look at, dealing with receiving Christ, the Spirit, or salvation, we will see that in all of them that a passive receiving cannot possibly be meant, but rather that an active receiving is denoted. After that we will look at a possible exception to the rule.
"For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." (Rom. 5:17 kjv)
In this text the word "receive" is from the Greek "lambanontes" and this word is a present tense participle in the active voice, not passive voice. And just what is intended by the active voice?
When verbs are in the active voice it is the subject that is the doer of the action expressed by the verb. Thus, the "receiving" of "abundance of grace" and "the gift of righteousness" (salvation) is that which the receiver actively does, representing his action. It is like receiving gifts where the gift is "accepted" or "received."
"This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?...That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." (Gal. 3:2, 14)
"Received" is from the Greek word "elabete" and is aorist active, and "receive" is from "labÅmen" and is also aorist active. The Spirit and the promise of the Spirit, i.e. salvation, are actively received or accepted.
"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" (I Cor. 4:7)
Here "receive" is from "elabes" and is also aorist active.
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." (John 1:12)
Here "received is from "elabon" and is also aorist active.
"And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." (Rom. 5:11)
Here "receive" is from "elabomen" and is likewise aorist active.
"As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him." (Col. 2:6)
Here "receive" is from "parelabete" and is also aorist active.
"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (I Cor. 2: 12-14 kjv)
In this passage two different Greek words are used for "receive." In the first instance it is the Greek word "elabomen" and is aorist active. The second instance is from "dechetai" and is either middle or passive voice. Since the passive and middle voice are both written alike in Greek, context will determine which it is. It cannot be passive voice because to affirm this would be to affirm that men are passive in their rejection of the things of the Spirit. But, this is wholly untenable. Thus, it must be middle voice, which means not only that the non receiver is actively doing the rejecting, but is doing it for or to himself. The middle voice denotes that the subject is both an agent of an action and somehow concerned with the action.
There is a distinction between lambano and dechomai. In many instances lambano suggests a self-prompted taking, whereas dechomai more frequently indicates "a welcoming or an appropriating reception" (Grimm-Thayer).
Dechomai means to accept with a deliberate and ready reception of what is offered, to receive kindly and so to take to oneself what is presented or brought by another. It means to welcome as a teacher, a friend, or a guest into one's house. Dechomai indicates that the reception was a voluntary and willing act.
Paralambano looks to the content of that which is received, whereas dechomai implies a favorable evaluation of that which is accepted.
Dechomai means to take or receive, to accept with approval, to welcome, and denotes a subjective reception. Paralambano refers to the ear, while dechomai adds the idea of appropriation and in this sense refers to the heart.
Now for a peculiar case of the word "receive."
"Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one." (II Cor. 11:24 kjv)
In this instance "recieve" is from "elabon" and is aorist active. But, it seems that a passive voice would have been more appropriate here. "Receiving" or "accepting" stripes? Surely Paul was passive in "receiving" these stripes, right? Wrong! Paul willingly suffered for Christ! He gladly received those stripes!
Thus, we conclude that the Hardshell notion that one is only passive in receiving salvation is false.
Holcombe's History of Alabama Baptists
Hosea Lot Holcombe (1780–1841) was Alabama's first church historian, as noted on his marker in Bessemer, Alabama. He was a Baptist evangelist and missionary, who moved from the Carolinas to Alabama in 1818. He was President of the Alabama Baptist Convention from 1833 to 1838. His book title is:
"A History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists in Alabama: With a Miniature History of the Denomination from the Apostolic Age Down to the Present Time, Interspersed with Anecdotes Original and Selected, and Concluded with an Address to the Baptists of Alabama" (here)
I want to cite from Chapter IV titled "SOME BRIEF SKETCHES, RELATIVE TO THE CONTENTIONS AND DIVISIONS IN THE BAPTIST CHURCHES IN ALABAMA, WITH SOME SPECIMENS OF ANTI-ISM; REMARKS, ETC." In this chapter Holcombe describes the intense hostility manifested by the "antis" in the division over mission and education methods. He begins by saying:
"If the truth is the instrument, which God has ordained to recover men from their apostasy, and prepare them for his kingdom, what apology can Christians offer for a refusal to aid any practicable means of extending the knowledge of the truth? It is especially astonishing, that men who embrace Baptist principles should be hostile to Missions, to Tract Societies, to Theological Seminaries, and to other means of benevolence. Baptists have always contended for free inquiry, for the demolition of all the barriers which laws prejudice, and error oppose to the progress of truth. They have resolutely resisted the interference of the civil power in religious concerns; they have denied the right of government to establish parish lines; they have insisted that Christianity should be taught and maintained by moral means, by the power of argument, and the evidence of truth. Is it for Baptists, then, to oppose Missions, to decry Bible and Tract Societies, to proscribe Colleges and Theological Seminaries? Baptists, of all men in the world, ought to be foremost in these enterprises. Every thing which contributes to spread light among mankind, will hasten the triumph of our principles. It is a source of surprise and sorrow, that there are men who call themselves Baptists, and who are nevertheless opposed to all these exertions. Let them come forth as they are now doing, like the "Kehukee Association," and the "Reformed Churches." The sooner they disclose their true character, the better. Let the line be drawn distinctly between the friends and the enemies of Missions. Let those who choose to withhold their aid stand aside; and with the blessing of God, the great body of the denomination will advance, like an army with banners, to the "help of the Lord against the mighty."
I agree wholeheartedly. It is just bewildering that any man calling himself a Baptist, or Bible believer, would oppose efforts to educate people in the scriptures!
Notice again the evidence that the first name the "antis" chose was "Reformed." Why did they later reject that name for "Primitive" or "Old School"? Actually, seeing they were inventing new doctrines, the title "reformed" was more appropriate.
Holcombe continued:
"The Baptist State Convention of Alabama, was formed in 1823; the objects of the Convention at its organization was, and is yet, Foreign and Domestic Missions, and the education of young men called to the ministry. What the Convention has been instrumental in doing, we have spoken of, in the last chapter. Soon after the Convention was organized, some were opposed to the measure; but several years elapsed before there was much excitement on the subject. Whenever ministerial education was spoken of, it seemed to excite suspicion in the minds of a certain class of our brethren. It was thought that the Baptists were about to raise themselves to an improper height. A number of the ministers who were scattered through the state, became alarmed, under an impression that they were to be put down, hence opposition began to show itself. A number of them were much more concerned, it appears, for fear of being prostrated, or having to descend from their supposed eminence, than they were about studying to show themselves approved unto God."
I think this is true with regard to most of the frontier preachers. Others have said the same. They often opposed theological education, not so much because the scriptures forbade it, but because they felt like their pastoral positions were in jeopardy by a trained ministry.
Holcombe continued:
"We shall here make two or three extracts from the writings of the New Testers, which will show what anti-ism is."
This is what men such as R.B.C. Howell first called the "antis." They were "New Testers," or "New Test Men." They created the breach in the Baptist family by their bringing in a new test of fellowship, a test that was not in existence among their forefathers of previous centuries.
Holcombe continued:
"It has already been remarked, that for several years, the contention relative to doing good has been increasing. Coldness towards brethren has been manifested, and often in their associated capacity, rife contentions, unchaste, unchristian, and severe reflections, cast on brethren. This has been the case in different associations. To undertake to describe a scene which we witnessed in the Flint River Association, would be the most painful; in truth, it beggars description. There were some of the most pious, humble, respectable and intelligent brethren, who most affectionately and earnestly besought their anti-brethren, to suffer them to do as they felt bound in conscience to do, as they would with their own, and not let those things be a bar to Christian fellowship. They entreated, they plead by the mercies of God—by the love of the Saviour, and by the joys of heaven;—they wept—tears flowed—they cried to heaven —heaven smiled!!! But the adamantine hearts of the anti-brethren were not touched; they were apparently as hard as the nether millstone. Notwithstanding all this the missionary party still clave to them, hoping to win them over to the truth; yet it was evident they had no well-grounded hope, for the anties were determined and inflexible. Elder Wm. Crutcher, stood at their head, who appeared to be really sincere."
To any honest heart, the feelings and actions of these first Hardshells cannot be judged as being anything close to the spirit of Christ. The "anties" were "inflexible." Is that not why they are known as "Hardshells"? Stubborn, hardhearted, cantankerous, strifeful, etc. It seems clear to me that the missionary party showed the love of Christ, but got no show of it in return.
Holcombe continued:
"The Alabama Association, which was the largest in the state, made a division in October, 1838, or at least, a number of churches withdrew to form an anti-association, they being in the minority; which was accomplished in December following. We find from their minutes that 17 churches withdrew from the association, and one other united with them, which had not been associated. Their reasons for withdrawing were as follows: "Whereas, we, the Baptist Churches of Christ, in the State of Alabama, having for many years enjoyed peace and harmony, as members of the Alabama Baptist Association, but finding that we cannot now enjoy, nor maintain that harmony which has so long existed among us as a body, and believing that many of the members of said Association, have departed from their former principles by becoming members of the Missionary and other societies tributary thereto: therefore, we the above named churches, believing it to be a duty we owe God, and our posterity, to withdraw from the Alabama Baptist Association; and in order to maintain and keep up the union which has heretofore existed, we therefore, having met for that purpose, (according to previous appointment,) at Fort Dale Church, Butler county," &c.
The circular letter, written by elder Luke Hancy, for the Alabama Association, but rejected by that body, and placed on the minutes of the new anti association, called Ebenezer, was headed as follows, "The Alabama Association to the churches of which she is composed sends greeting." It appears that those brethren were so elated, or rather infatuated—so absorbed in their anti-mission principles—that they never once discovered they were not the Alabama Association. From this letter we give the following extracts,—"And now for a moment let us notice the language of some of the votaries of the new system. They say God complains—my people perish for the lack of knowledge. They also say, that if we urge on the mighty cause of education, Bible and tract distribution, and through missionary effort, we know that the millenial day will soon dawn upon the world. They entreat you to hasten, for if we pause—if we hesitate—people will perish for ever."—"But again, we are told by some, that we need an improved ministry; or, in other words, an educated ministry. As to the education, we know no objection, provided it is received before a call to the ministry; for Paul says,—' Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called." It is also said, that pious men that are called of God to preach his gospel—that they, in their ignorance, will ordain other ignorant men, and in that way a great deal of harm will be done. Oh! What An Insult To Deity, that men should say that God has no power to qualify men for the ministry, after he has called them."
Can you believe that Hardshells argue that ministers must get all their education before God calls them and not after? That is just plain nonsense and any reasonable mind knows it.
"A History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists in Alabama: With a Miniature History of the Denomination from the Apostolic Age Down to the Present Time, Interspersed with Anecdotes Original and Selected, and Concluded with an Address to the Baptists of Alabama" (here)
I want to cite from Chapter IV titled "SOME BRIEF SKETCHES, RELATIVE TO THE CONTENTIONS AND DIVISIONS IN THE BAPTIST CHURCHES IN ALABAMA, WITH SOME SPECIMENS OF ANTI-ISM; REMARKS, ETC." In this chapter Holcombe describes the intense hostility manifested by the "antis" in the division over mission and education methods. He begins by saying:
"If the truth is the instrument, which God has ordained to recover men from their apostasy, and prepare them for his kingdom, what apology can Christians offer for a refusal to aid any practicable means of extending the knowledge of the truth? It is especially astonishing, that men who embrace Baptist principles should be hostile to Missions, to Tract Societies, to Theological Seminaries, and to other means of benevolence. Baptists have always contended for free inquiry, for the demolition of all the barriers which laws prejudice, and error oppose to the progress of truth. They have resolutely resisted the interference of the civil power in religious concerns; they have denied the right of government to establish parish lines; they have insisted that Christianity should be taught and maintained by moral means, by the power of argument, and the evidence of truth. Is it for Baptists, then, to oppose Missions, to decry Bible and Tract Societies, to proscribe Colleges and Theological Seminaries? Baptists, of all men in the world, ought to be foremost in these enterprises. Every thing which contributes to spread light among mankind, will hasten the triumph of our principles. It is a source of surprise and sorrow, that there are men who call themselves Baptists, and who are nevertheless opposed to all these exertions. Let them come forth as they are now doing, like the "Kehukee Association," and the "Reformed Churches." The sooner they disclose their true character, the better. Let the line be drawn distinctly between the friends and the enemies of Missions. Let those who choose to withhold their aid stand aside; and with the blessing of God, the great body of the denomination will advance, like an army with banners, to the "help of the Lord against the mighty."
I agree wholeheartedly. It is just bewildering that any man calling himself a Baptist, or Bible believer, would oppose efforts to educate people in the scriptures!
Notice again the evidence that the first name the "antis" chose was "Reformed." Why did they later reject that name for "Primitive" or "Old School"? Actually, seeing they were inventing new doctrines, the title "reformed" was more appropriate.
Holcombe continued:
"The Baptist State Convention of Alabama, was formed in 1823; the objects of the Convention at its organization was, and is yet, Foreign and Domestic Missions, and the education of young men called to the ministry. What the Convention has been instrumental in doing, we have spoken of, in the last chapter. Soon after the Convention was organized, some were opposed to the measure; but several years elapsed before there was much excitement on the subject. Whenever ministerial education was spoken of, it seemed to excite suspicion in the minds of a certain class of our brethren. It was thought that the Baptists were about to raise themselves to an improper height. A number of the ministers who were scattered through the state, became alarmed, under an impression that they were to be put down, hence opposition began to show itself. A number of them were much more concerned, it appears, for fear of being prostrated, or having to descend from their supposed eminence, than they were about studying to show themselves approved unto God."
I think this is true with regard to most of the frontier preachers. Others have said the same. They often opposed theological education, not so much because the scriptures forbade it, but because they felt like their pastoral positions were in jeopardy by a trained ministry.
Holcombe continued:
"We shall here make two or three extracts from the writings of the New Testers, which will show what anti-ism is."
This is what men such as R.B.C. Howell first called the "antis." They were "New Testers," or "New Test Men." They created the breach in the Baptist family by their bringing in a new test of fellowship, a test that was not in existence among their forefathers of previous centuries.
Holcombe continued:
"It has already been remarked, that for several years, the contention relative to doing good has been increasing. Coldness towards brethren has been manifested, and often in their associated capacity, rife contentions, unchaste, unchristian, and severe reflections, cast on brethren. This has been the case in different associations. To undertake to describe a scene which we witnessed in the Flint River Association, would be the most painful; in truth, it beggars description. There were some of the most pious, humble, respectable and intelligent brethren, who most affectionately and earnestly besought their anti-brethren, to suffer them to do as they felt bound in conscience to do, as they would with their own, and not let those things be a bar to Christian fellowship. They entreated, they plead by the mercies of God—by the love of the Saviour, and by the joys of heaven;—they wept—tears flowed—they cried to heaven —heaven smiled!!! But the adamantine hearts of the anti-brethren were not touched; they were apparently as hard as the nether millstone. Notwithstanding all this the missionary party still clave to them, hoping to win them over to the truth; yet it was evident they had no well-grounded hope, for the anties were determined and inflexible. Elder Wm. Crutcher, stood at their head, who appeared to be really sincere."
To any honest heart, the feelings and actions of these first Hardshells cannot be judged as being anything close to the spirit of Christ. The "anties" were "inflexible." Is that not why they are known as "Hardshells"? Stubborn, hardhearted, cantankerous, strifeful, etc. It seems clear to me that the missionary party showed the love of Christ, but got no show of it in return.
Holcombe continued:
"The Alabama Association, which was the largest in the state, made a division in October, 1838, or at least, a number of churches withdrew to form an anti-association, they being in the minority; which was accomplished in December following. We find from their minutes that 17 churches withdrew from the association, and one other united with them, which had not been associated. Their reasons for withdrawing were as follows: "Whereas, we, the Baptist Churches of Christ, in the State of Alabama, having for many years enjoyed peace and harmony, as members of the Alabama Baptist Association, but finding that we cannot now enjoy, nor maintain that harmony which has so long existed among us as a body, and believing that many of the members of said Association, have departed from their former principles by becoming members of the Missionary and other societies tributary thereto: therefore, we the above named churches, believing it to be a duty we owe God, and our posterity, to withdraw from the Alabama Baptist Association; and in order to maintain and keep up the union which has heretofore existed, we therefore, having met for that purpose, (according to previous appointment,) at Fort Dale Church, Butler county," &c.
The circular letter, written by elder Luke Hancy, for the Alabama Association, but rejected by that body, and placed on the minutes of the new anti association, called Ebenezer, was headed as follows, "The Alabama Association to the churches of which she is composed sends greeting." It appears that those brethren were so elated, or rather infatuated—so absorbed in their anti-mission principles—that they never once discovered they were not the Alabama Association. From this letter we give the following extracts,—"And now for a moment let us notice the language of some of the votaries of the new system. They say God complains—my people perish for the lack of knowledge. They also say, that if we urge on the mighty cause of education, Bible and tract distribution, and through missionary effort, we know that the millenial day will soon dawn upon the world. They entreat you to hasten, for if we pause—if we hesitate—people will perish for ever."—"But again, we are told by some, that we need an improved ministry; or, in other words, an educated ministry. As to the education, we know no objection, provided it is received before a call to the ministry; for Paul says,—' Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called." It is also said, that pious men that are called of God to preach his gospel—that they, in their ignorance, will ordain other ignorant men, and in that way a great deal of harm will be done. Oh! What An Insult To Deity, that men should say that God has no power to qualify men for the ministry, after he has called them."
Can you believe that Hardshells argue that ministers must get all their education before God calls them and not after? That is just plain nonsense and any reasonable mind knows it.
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
God Put In Their Hears (Rev. 17:17)
"For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled." (Rev. 17:17 kjv)
I have read many commentaries on this passage of scripture to find where focus was upon God's work of "putting" thoughts and purposes into the minds of his creatures. It seems to me that such a verse enters in strongly into the debate concerning Arminianism vs. Calvinism, concerning the extent of predestination and divine sovereignty, concerning "free will," concerning whether God "causes" men to think and act, whether he "forces" their will and behavior, etc.
In this verse the act of God in "putting in their hearts to fulfill his will" is viewed as being absolutely successful in accomplishing his will in seeing that certain things are done. The ten devilish kings "give their kingdom unto the beast," which is an evil act. Their evil act came about as a result of God's act of putting thoughts into the hearts and minds of these kings.
I do not need to defend God in doing this act. He is sovereign and answers to no one. "Why dost thou strive against him? for he giveth not account of any of his matters." (Job 33:13)
On this verse Dr. Gill wrote:
"he will incline their minds to do the above things, as it will be in the power of their hands to do them; he who has the hearts of all men, and even of kings in his hands, and can turn them as rivers of water, will move them hereunto, Proverbs 21:1 he that turned the hearts of the Egyptians to hate his people Israel, Psalm 105:25 will turn the hearts of these kings to hate the whore, and do unto her as is here predicted;"
Now, if God be able to put into the heart of wicked men the will and purpose to do a certain evil thing, he certainly has the power to put into the hearts of sinners the will to be saved, to come to Christ, and to do good works. What think ye?
Is God putting into your heart a will and desire to serve him? If not, ask him to do so! Call upon him to "work in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure"? (Phil. 2:13) Is your heart turned to hate, or to sin? Only God can turn your heart in a different direction. Call upon him to work in you today!
I have read many commentaries on this passage of scripture to find where focus was upon God's work of "putting" thoughts and purposes into the minds of his creatures. It seems to me that such a verse enters in strongly into the debate concerning Arminianism vs. Calvinism, concerning the extent of predestination and divine sovereignty, concerning "free will," concerning whether God "causes" men to think and act, whether he "forces" their will and behavior, etc.
In this verse the act of God in "putting in their hearts to fulfill his will" is viewed as being absolutely successful in accomplishing his will in seeing that certain things are done. The ten devilish kings "give their kingdom unto the beast," which is an evil act. Their evil act came about as a result of God's act of putting thoughts into the hearts and minds of these kings.
I do not need to defend God in doing this act. He is sovereign and answers to no one. "Why dost thou strive against him? for he giveth not account of any of his matters." (Job 33:13)
On this verse Dr. Gill wrote:
"he will incline their minds to do the above things, as it will be in the power of their hands to do them; he who has the hearts of all men, and even of kings in his hands, and can turn them as rivers of water, will move them hereunto, Proverbs 21:1 he that turned the hearts of the Egyptians to hate his people Israel, Psalm 105:25 will turn the hearts of these kings to hate the whore, and do unto her as is here predicted;"
Now, if God be able to put into the heart of wicked men the will and purpose to do a certain evil thing, he certainly has the power to put into the hearts of sinners the will to be saved, to come to Christ, and to do good works. What think ye?
Is God putting into your heart a will and desire to serve him? If not, ask him to do so! Call upon him to "work in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure"? (Phil. 2:13) Is your heart turned to hate, or to sin? Only God can turn your heart in a different direction. Call upon him to work in you today!
Hassells On Funeral Preaching
In Hassell's history, chapter eleven, page 392 (here) we find this interesting footnote by Sylvester:
"Like some others of our brethren in the ministry, neither of the authors of this volume ever preached funeral sermons. But the most of our ministering brethren do preach on such occasions, and they give as a reason that they feel impressed to preach, not funerals, but the gospel, wherever and whenever an opportunity is presented. Still it should be remembered that Christ and His Apostles never preached on such occasions, so far as the New Testament informs us; and that no minister of Christ ever preached on such occasions until the fourth century, so far as history informs us; and that funeral sermons were the successors of the ancient heathen funeral orations (see Smith and Cheetham’s Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, vol. i., pp. 253 and 704)."
My beloved father, while I was a Hardshell, used to tell me that the reason why PB ministers were frequently called upon to preach funerals, especially of those who gave little or no evidence of being saved, was because Hardshell doctrine, which is almost Universalism, got a whole lot of such people into Heaven, and was the only doctrine that could give hope where there seemed to be none. I, however, view the matter differently.
My only further comment at this time is this; How could the PB church go from shying away from funeral preaching to making it a popular thing to do? I think it has to do with their change in doctrine. What think ye?
"Like some others of our brethren in the ministry, neither of the authors of this volume ever preached funeral sermons. But the most of our ministering brethren do preach on such occasions, and they give as a reason that they feel impressed to preach, not funerals, but the gospel, wherever and whenever an opportunity is presented. Still it should be remembered that Christ and His Apostles never preached on such occasions, so far as the New Testament informs us; and that no minister of Christ ever preached on such occasions until the fourth century, so far as history informs us; and that funeral sermons were the successors of the ancient heathen funeral orations (see Smith and Cheetham’s Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, vol. i., pp. 253 and 704)."
My beloved father, while I was a Hardshell, used to tell me that the reason why PB ministers were frequently called upon to preach funerals, especially of those who gave little or no evidence of being saved, was because Hardshell doctrine, which is almost Universalism, got a whole lot of such people into Heaven, and was the only doctrine that could give hope where there seemed to be none. I, however, view the matter differently.
My only further comment at this time is this; How could the PB church go from shying away from funeral preaching to making it a popular thing to do? I think it has to do with their change in doctrine. What think ye?
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
More On The Three Stage Model Of Birth
"While the doctrine of some Old Regular Baptist would be in harmony with the majority of Primitive Baptist today, others among the Regulars hold to a more modified Calvinism, this difference led to the light is life split that took place in the Union Association. This division soon spread to other associations brought on by requests sent to them from the Union Association, resulting in the isolation of the Mud River Association, and the formation of the Bethel Association, other associations like the New Salem, chose not to divide over this issue, often churches and associations and even Elders are distinguished by which side of this debate they are on, those that hold to the doctrine that an individual is first begotten or quickened into life at the start of their travail, are called the "hard shell side" of Old Regular Baptist or the Old School, [this appears to be the original view of the first Regular Baptist in America] those who hold that life starts at the end of their travail (repentance) are called the "soft shell side". Today the debate is still among the Old Regular Baptist along with when one receives faith, men and women's dress, the receiving of divorced members, the doctrinal differences over hope and knowledge." (See here for the rest of the posting titled "The Original Paradigm")
In this posting, and in others here in this blog, I have shown how this view was the predominate view of the first generation of "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists. This view was later mostly discarded when the anti means heresy took over the denomination. The anti means faction would not in any way make spiritual birth to be accomplished by the communication of the word of God.
This view rejected the idea that some of the "begotten" (regenerated) would fail to come to the "birth," to the deliverance from the guilt of sin experienced while in "travail" in the womb of conviction. God was as much at work in converting (birthing) as he was in regenerating (begetting), in this view. However, the anti means faction could not accept this, and instead taught that though God's work in regenerating was efficacious and irresistible, his work in conversion was not, but depended upon the free will and merit of the regenerated.
Remember too that many of the forefathers of the PBs called themselves "Regular Baptists," such as Elder Lemuel Potter.
In this posting, and in others here in this blog, I have shown how this view was the predominate view of the first generation of "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists. This view was later mostly discarded when the anti means heresy took over the denomination. The anti means faction would not in any way make spiritual birth to be accomplished by the communication of the word of God.
This view rejected the idea that some of the "begotten" (regenerated) would fail to come to the "birth," to the deliverance from the guilt of sin experienced while in "travail" in the womb of conviction. God was as much at work in converting (birthing) as he was in regenerating (begetting), in this view. However, the anti means faction could not accept this, and instead taught that though God's work in regenerating was efficacious and irresistible, his work in conversion was not, but depended upon the free will and merit of the regenerated.
Remember too that many of the forefathers of the PBs called themselves "Regular Baptists," such as Elder Lemuel Potter.
We Welcome Elder Kenny Mann
Elder Mann and I have been friends for several years now and he is one who corresponds with me about "Primitive Baptist" history. He is Southern Baptist and though we disagree on certain points of Calvinism, he claiming to be neither Calvinist nor Arminian, yet we agree on much more than we disagree upon. Seeing he has such interest in our Hardshell brothers, and having encouraged me much over the years, and wanting to see that these blog writings are preserved, I have asked him to join Kevin and me as an administrator of this blog.
We expect him to write some good things for us, especially as it relates to the history of the "Primitive Baptist Church."
We expect him to write some good things for us, especially as it relates to the history of the "Primitive Baptist Church."
Curt Wildy's Article on Hardshellism
A few years ago Brother Garrett and I shared a link to an article written by Curt Wildy. It remains to this day one of the most thorough and sound refutations to Hardshell anti-means theology I have ever read. I have been thinking about this article lately, but when I looked for it, I noticed that the site has been changed. Here is the new link below. If any missed this article the first time we shared this, you owe it to yourself to read this very able article written by Brother Wildy. It is in three parts, with a link at the bottom of each page to the next part.
Let us know what you think.
Monday, January 27, 2020
Judas The Antichrist
I agree with others, such as A.W. Pink, that the coming "Antichrist," "Beast," or "Man of Sin," is Judas Iscariot. Here are some things that Pink said about this (read here - emphasis mine):
"As we have seen, in John 17:12 Christ termed Judas "the Son of Perdition", and 2 Thess. 2 :3 we find that the Antichrist is similarly designated- "That Man of Sin be revealed, the Son of Perdition". These are the only two places in all the Bible where his name occurs, and the fact that Judas was termed by Christ not a "son of perdition", but "the Son of Perdition", and the fact that the Man of Sin is so named prove that they are one and the same person. What other conclusion can a simple and unprejudiced reader of the Bible come to?"
"In Rev. 11:7 we have the first reference to "the Beast" in the Apocalypse: "The Beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit". Here the Antichrist is seen issuing forth from the Abyss. What is the Abyss? It is the abode of lost spirits, the place of their incarceration and torment; see Rev. 20:1-3, and Luke 8:31, "deep" is "abyss" and cf. Matt. 9:28. The question naturally arises, How did he get there? and when was he sent there? We answer. When Judas Iscariot died! The Antichrist will be Judas Iscariot reincarnated. In proof of this we appeal to Acts 1 :25 where we are told, "that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place". Of no one else in all the Bible is it said that at death he went "to his own place". Put these two scriptures together: Judas went "to his own place", the Beast ascends out of the Abyss."
Perhaps in the future I will have time to write upon this important subject further.
"As we have seen, in John 17:12 Christ termed Judas "the Son of Perdition", and 2 Thess. 2 :3 we find that the Antichrist is similarly designated- "That Man of Sin be revealed, the Son of Perdition". These are the only two places in all the Bible where his name occurs, and the fact that Judas was termed by Christ not a "son of perdition", but "the Son of Perdition", and the fact that the Man of Sin is so named prove that they are one and the same person. What other conclusion can a simple and unprejudiced reader of the Bible come to?"
"In Rev. 11:7 we have the first reference to "the Beast" in the Apocalypse: "The Beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit". Here the Antichrist is seen issuing forth from the Abyss. What is the Abyss? It is the abode of lost spirits, the place of their incarceration and torment; see Rev. 20:1-3, and Luke 8:31, "deep" is "abyss" and cf. Matt. 9:28. The question naturally arises, How did he get there? and when was he sent there? We answer. When Judas Iscariot died! The Antichrist will be Judas Iscariot reincarnated. In proof of this we appeal to Acts 1 :25 where we are told, "that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place". Of no one else in all the Bible is it said that at death he went "to his own place". Put these two scriptures together: Judas went "to his own place", the Beast ascends out of the Abyss."
Perhaps in the future I will have time to write upon this important subject further.
Gathered Unto His People
"Then Abraham expired, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people." (Genesis 25: 8)
"And Isaac expired, and died, and was gathered to his people, being old and full of days; and his sons Esau and Jacob buried him." (Genesis 35:29)
"And when Jacob finished commanding his sons, he gathered up his feet into the bed, and expired, and was gathered unto his people." (Genesis 49: 33)
"Aaron shall be gathered to his people; for he shall not enter into the land which I have given to the people of Israel, because you rebelled against my word at the water of Meribah." (Numbers 20: 24)
"And (Moses) die in the mount where you go up, and be gathered to your people; as Aaron your brother died in Mount Hor, and was gathered to his people." (Deuteronomy: 32: 50)
The words "and was gathered to his people" is a striking phrase over which the mind muses and lingers in contemplation. What does that mean? It certainly does not refer to the body of Abraham being united in a common burial place, in the family cemetery. The context here, and elsewhere where the same words are used, show that this cannot be what is meant.
The words are meant to cheer the soul over the death of the body. But, there is no cheering thought in being "gathered" with other dead bodies in a family grave! There is no connotation of joyful conscious reunion of family in such a view of the words. The words make us think of "going home," a familiar saying of the saints in regard to their "departures" from the body.
You would think that death would cut one off from his people, not unite him to his people. Irony.
This is one of the most cheering thoughts in all the bible. I think of it often. Going home to be with my people, with Christians, with believers of all ages, with all who have been "born" into the family of God. All these have a kindred spirit and are united in their faith in the word of God.
Just who are your people? The biological members of your earthly family or clan? No. If you are a believer, then you are a member of the family of God. If you are an unbeliever, you are a member of the fallen family of man, a "child of the devil." (See John 8: 44-45)
Paul wrote of "the whole family (of God) in heaven and earth" (Eph. 3: 15). Oh what joy to be a member of that family! What a joy to face death knowing that it is a time of "departure," a time for the Believer to go home and be reunited with his spiritual kin!
Ishmael's Family
"And these are the years of the life of Ishmael, a hundred and thirty seven years; and he expired and died; and was gathered to his people." (Genesis 25: 17)
Was Ishmael a spiritual man? Those who think not see the words "gathered to his people" as denoting not only the reunion and gathering of godly people, but also of the gathering of ungodly people. So Dr. Gill says:
"and he gave up the ghost and died, and was gathered unto his people; some of the same expressions being used of him as of his father, Genesis 25:8, have led some to conclude that he was a penitent and died a good man, and was gathered to the same people; but these phrases are used both of good and bad men." (Commentary)
What family are you part of? The family of God or the family of the devil?
When the beggar Lazarus died, it is said that he "was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom..." (Luke 16: 22 kjv) In other words, he was gathered unto his people.
When I worked as a Phlebotomist in the hospital many years ago, I remember one old woman who, when I came into her room, and spoke to her about Jesus and salvation, I remember her exclaiming how she was going home to be with Jesus! She was so excited about it. Let us all go through the valley of the shadow of death with such realization!
"The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away." (Psa. 90: 10 kjv)
Lazarus the beggar flew away with the angels and is now comforted in glory with his people, with his family, with the saints of all the ages. Glorious thought!
"And Isaac expired, and died, and was gathered to his people, being old and full of days; and his sons Esau and Jacob buried him." (Genesis 35:29)
"And when Jacob finished commanding his sons, he gathered up his feet into the bed, and expired, and was gathered unto his people." (Genesis 49: 33)
"Aaron shall be gathered to his people; for he shall not enter into the land which I have given to the people of Israel, because you rebelled against my word at the water of Meribah." (Numbers 20: 24)
"And (Moses) die in the mount where you go up, and be gathered to your people; as Aaron your brother died in Mount Hor, and was gathered to his people." (Deuteronomy: 32: 50)
The words "and was gathered to his people" is a striking phrase over which the mind muses and lingers in contemplation. What does that mean? It certainly does not refer to the body of Abraham being united in a common burial place, in the family cemetery. The context here, and elsewhere where the same words are used, show that this cannot be what is meant.
The words are meant to cheer the soul over the death of the body. But, there is no cheering thought in being "gathered" with other dead bodies in a family grave! There is no connotation of joyful conscious reunion of family in such a view of the words. The words make us think of "going home," a familiar saying of the saints in regard to their "departures" from the body.
You would think that death would cut one off from his people, not unite him to his people. Irony.
This is one of the most cheering thoughts in all the bible. I think of it often. Going home to be with my people, with Christians, with believers of all ages, with all who have been "born" into the family of God. All these have a kindred spirit and are united in their faith in the word of God.
Just who are your people? The biological members of your earthly family or clan? No. If you are a believer, then you are a member of the family of God. If you are an unbeliever, you are a member of the fallen family of man, a "child of the devil." (See John 8: 44-45)
Paul wrote of "the whole family (of God) in heaven and earth" (Eph. 3: 15). Oh what joy to be a member of that family! What a joy to face death knowing that it is a time of "departure," a time for the Believer to go home and be reunited with his spiritual kin!
Ishmael's Family
"And these are the years of the life of Ishmael, a hundred and thirty seven years; and he expired and died; and was gathered to his people." (Genesis 25: 17)
Was Ishmael a spiritual man? Those who think not see the words "gathered to his people" as denoting not only the reunion and gathering of godly people, but also of the gathering of ungodly people. So Dr. Gill says:
"and he gave up the ghost and died, and was gathered unto his people; some of the same expressions being used of him as of his father, Genesis 25:8, have led some to conclude that he was a penitent and died a good man, and was gathered to the same people; but these phrases are used both of good and bad men." (Commentary)
What family are you part of? The family of God or the family of the devil?
When the beggar Lazarus died, it is said that he "was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom..." (Luke 16: 22 kjv) In other words, he was gathered unto his people.
When I worked as a Phlebotomist in the hospital many years ago, I remember one old woman who, when I came into her room, and spoke to her about Jesus and salvation, I remember her exclaiming how she was going home to be with Jesus! She was so excited about it. Let us all go through the valley of the shadow of death with such realization!
"The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away." (Psa. 90: 10 kjv)
Lazarus the beggar flew away with the angels and is now comforted in glory with his people, with his family, with the saints of all the ages. Glorious thought!
Sunday, January 26, 2020
Elder Joshua Lawrence On Perseverance
If anyone wants to know what the first "Primitive Baptists" believed, no better source is there than the writings of Elder Joshua Lawrence (1778–1843). It is clear that Lawrence believed that the new birth was effected by the Spirit's use of gospel preaching, and that the saints would all persevere in their loyalty to Christ. Elder James Osbourn preached his funeral. We know that Osbourn certainly taught these doctrines.
Here is what Lawrence said about the doctrine of perseverance.
"But those thus foreknown, beloved, elected, called, and justified, shall persevere by the sufficient grace of God given them, through all temptations, trials, and difficulties, and come forth and be glorified in heaven, is clear from all God's absolute promises made sure to them. Such as: He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but have passed from death to life--I give them eternal life and they shall never perish. With a thousand others of like import. The oath of God to these heirs of promise, secures their perseverance to the kingdom prepared for them." (Cited previously by me here)
Those "Primitive Baptists" who today deny perseverance are not in agreement with their forefathers and they cannot rightly be titled to be styled "Primitive" or "Old School."
Here is what Lawrence said about the doctrine of perseverance.
"But those thus foreknown, beloved, elected, called, and justified, shall persevere by the sufficient grace of God given them, through all temptations, trials, and difficulties, and come forth and be glorified in heaven, is clear from all God's absolute promises made sure to them. Such as: He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but have passed from death to life--I give them eternal life and they shall never perish. With a thousand others of like import. The oath of God to these heirs of promise, secures their perseverance to the kingdom prepared for them." (Cited previously by me here)
Those "Primitive Baptists" who today deny perseverance are not in agreement with their forefathers and they cannot rightly be titled to be styled "Primitive" or "Old School."
Saturday, January 25, 2020
Good Words From Piper On Joel's Prophecy
Said Dr. John Piper in "The Locust Horde and the Day of the Lord" (see here - emphasis mine) :
"Second, if our hearts wander from this God, he will fight against us to bring us to repentance. I have seen it in my own life: if I begin to become proud and self-confident and prayer starts to feel unnecessary, God clogs my way. He brings me down. Things will go sour at home. Tensions arise at work. Sleep is not sweet. Depression builds. Everywhere I turn, there is no joy. He boxes me in and clogs my way. He fights against me in my pride. For he is a jealous God and will have our heart's trust 100%. When he says in 2:12, "Return to me with all your heart," it is clear, isn't it, what he is fighting for: all our heart, not a piece on Sunday and a piece at mealtime and a piece at bedtime. If you are his, he will fight you until you give him all your heart all the time...Don't be bitter at God because he clogs your way and frustrates your day. Every divine stroke is the discipline of a loving Father and a blow against our pride, our self-reliance, and our love for the world. Turn and kiss the rod of God, and the Lord will become to you a gentle shepherd."
"Fourth, and finally, let us pray and seek God earnestly for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit promised in 2:28, 29. It is true that at Pentecost Peter said that the coming of the Holy Spirit on Jesus' disciples was a fulfillment of Joel 2:28, 29: "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel" (Acts 2:16). But that was just the beginning of the blessing. We have only tasted the power of the age to come, we have only received the down payment of the Spirit. The prophecy is far from complete. How many of our old men dream dreams of God? How many of our young men see visions of God? Where are the sons and daughters who hear the word of God and bring us prophecies for our guidance? Has the hope of Moses in Numbers 11:29 really been fulfilled: "Would that all the Lord's people were prophets, that the Lord would put his spirit upon all." (a favorite verse of mine!)
"We know it has not yet been fulfilled, not only because the church is so far from ideal but also because the people of Israel persist in unbelief. They have been broken off because of their unbelief, and we Gentiles have been grafted in to the rich root of the covenant and made seed of Abraham and heirs of the promise (Galatians 3:14, 29; Romans 11:17ff.). But Scripture promises that one day Israel will be converted, accept Jesus as the Messiah; and then the prophecy of the Spirit will have its final fulfillment. So let us pray earnestly and call upon God to pour out his Spirit for a great awakening at Bethlehem, and for the conversion of Israel that we may be united in one holy people of God. Then when the day of the Lord comes and all the nations are gathered for judgment in verdict valley, the Lord will be our refuge, and we will confess with unspeakable joy that he alone is God in our midst, and there is none else."
That day is very near! Let us prepare ourselves for it by heeding this good counsel!
"Second, if our hearts wander from this God, he will fight against us to bring us to repentance. I have seen it in my own life: if I begin to become proud and self-confident and prayer starts to feel unnecessary, God clogs my way. He brings me down. Things will go sour at home. Tensions arise at work. Sleep is not sweet. Depression builds. Everywhere I turn, there is no joy. He boxes me in and clogs my way. He fights against me in my pride. For he is a jealous God and will have our heart's trust 100%. When he says in 2:12, "Return to me with all your heart," it is clear, isn't it, what he is fighting for: all our heart, not a piece on Sunday and a piece at mealtime and a piece at bedtime. If you are his, he will fight you until you give him all your heart all the time...Don't be bitter at God because he clogs your way and frustrates your day. Every divine stroke is the discipline of a loving Father and a blow against our pride, our self-reliance, and our love for the world. Turn and kiss the rod of God, and the Lord will become to you a gentle shepherd."
"Fourth, and finally, let us pray and seek God earnestly for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit promised in 2:28, 29. It is true that at Pentecost Peter said that the coming of the Holy Spirit on Jesus' disciples was a fulfillment of Joel 2:28, 29: "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel" (Acts 2:16). But that was just the beginning of the blessing. We have only tasted the power of the age to come, we have only received the down payment of the Spirit. The prophecy is far from complete. How many of our old men dream dreams of God? How many of our young men see visions of God? Where are the sons and daughters who hear the word of God and bring us prophecies for our guidance? Has the hope of Moses in Numbers 11:29 really been fulfilled: "Would that all the Lord's people were prophets, that the Lord would put his spirit upon all." (a favorite verse of mine!)
"We know it has not yet been fulfilled, not only because the church is so far from ideal but also because the people of Israel persist in unbelief. They have been broken off because of their unbelief, and we Gentiles have been grafted in to the rich root of the covenant and made seed of Abraham and heirs of the promise (Galatians 3:14, 29; Romans 11:17ff.). But Scripture promises that one day Israel will be converted, accept Jesus as the Messiah; and then the prophecy of the Spirit will have its final fulfillment. So let us pray earnestly and call upon God to pour out his Spirit for a great awakening at Bethlehem, and for the conversion of Israel that we may be united in one holy people of God. Then when the day of the Lord comes and all the nations are gathered for judgment in verdict valley, the Lord will be our refuge, and we will confess with unspeakable joy that he alone is God in our midst, and there is none else."
That day is very near! Let us prepare ourselves for it by heeding this good counsel!
Hardshell Evolution in Doctrine II
For the first posting of this series, see Hardshell Evolution In Doctrine I.
The year 1846 is an important date.
In this year was the famous trial dealing with the question of means that occurred in the White Water Association in Indiana, which division was led by Elder John Sparks on the means side and Elder Wilson Thompson on the anti means side. This trial (By George C. Clark) can be read on the Internet (see here). In this trial Thompson said (emphasis mine):
"There can be no means used until they are brought to life. As soon as life is in them, then means may be used; God never appointed any means, scriptures or any thing else, until they are made alive; one vital spark of life is sufficient to make alive from sin. The scriptures and the word are intended for living men alone. The Bible and the preached word are the means by which God works on men after they are made alive."
This was the view of one of the founding fathers of Hardshellism. He and Gilbert Beebe were in league on this point. The latter, as I have shown in several writings, taught that the "birth" was not the beginning of the child, or the time when the child is made alive. That occurred months prior to the birth (generally nine months) when the "seed" germinated and produced life. "Regeneration" was viewed as occurring apart from means, apart from conversion, apart from evangelical faith and repentance, and was viewed as the beginning of "life," the beginning of existence of a spiritual man. But, they did not believe that this "regeneration" was the same as the "birth," or the "bringing forth" in spiritual delivery. They believed that evangelical conversion was that birth and delivery, and that it was as much necessary for eternal salvation as was the "regeneration" or "implanting" of the seed of divine life.
In the citation from Thompson's writings, anterior to the 1832 split, he believes that the gospel is the means of "begetting" children of God. The question is this; does he still believe this in 1846 for the trial in question? If so, the trial should have focused on that point. The question that should have been asked, then, would be "do you believe that the birth that follows regeneration is accomplished by means and is necessary for eternal salvation?" If Thompson still held to the three stage view of spiritual birth, like most of his brethren, he would have answered yes.
However, the trial debate seems to make regeneration and birth to be the same. So, the means side holds to the view that regeneration or new birth occurs by God's use of means. They also affirm that this is the stated view of their historic confessions and articles of faith. On this point, they were right and had all the evidence (same as in the later Mt. Carmel Church trial).
Wrote editor Clark:
"A witness for the means side, a Mr. Hackleman testified that the view propounded by Thompson was then a new doctrine, saying:
"The second point which I intend to enforce is, that the Means party have put that construction on their articles of faith authorized by the views of Baptist writers and commentators. Their doctrine, I think, I shall be able to show, completely harmonizes with the sentiments of the old Baptist writers, commentators, and confessions of faith, and that, in reality, the Anti-Means party hold new doctrines and sentiments. I shall, as a matter of policy, commence with the writings of the Rev. Wilson Thompson. I say as a matter of policy, for he is the leader, the Ajax, of the opposition, and if I can swamp them by quotations from his writings, it will hardly be necessary to proceed to the investigation of more respectable and learned authors. Once upon a time he wrote a work called "Simple Truth." It was printed at Lebanon, O., in 1821."
The idea that regeneration was without means but birth was by means was not new among the Baptists, a point I have shown in my writings. However, all Baptists had previously taught that the new birth was accomplished by means of producing evangelical faith. The denial of this truth was what indeed was new and novel among the Old Baptists.
Hackleman continued:
"It would hardly be fair to hold the reverend gentleman and his followers in the "anti-means" doctrines responsible for what is contained in the preface of "Simple Truth," where he says in speaking of salvation, "We should therefore make use of every laudable exertion to propagate and explain it, to the weakest capacity of human beings. But from a sense of the importance of the work, and my own inadequacy, I have hitherto deferred the undertaking," &c. The importance of what work, Mr. Thompson? The propagation and explanation of the gospel plan of salvation. But at page 07, in speaking of the gospel he says, "Wherein Sarah and her son were figures of the gospel, and those under it, first, she was a figure of the gospel in her name Sarah, which signifies lady, princess, princess of the multitude; and this name was given to her because the blessing of God was upon her, and nations of people should come to her, to denote that the gospel was to go amongst all nations, with the blessings of God attending it, and bring forth children in different nations, who are to be born again of an incorruptible seed by the word of God, which by the gospel is preached unto you." It occurs to me, this is pretty strong "means" doctrine. Much credit is given to the gospel and to the word of God in the bringing forth of christian children in different nations. Such a statement may be a "simple truth," but nevertheless it is an important truth, and one which bears directly on the present controversy. But I have not much time to devote to "Simple Truth," as the "Triumphs of Truth," by the same author, furnishes further evidence of the correctness of the Means doctrine."
This shows that Thompson first held to the traditional Baptist view in regard to means, but sometime after, when he joined the anti mission movement, he began to teach differently. However, it is possible that even in 1821 Thompson believed that regeneration was without means but that the birth was by means.
Hackleman also said:
"I might make other quotations in the same connection from the "Triumphs of Truth," but this copious extract is amply sufficient. The great apostle of anti-means, twenty-two years ago, advocated precisely the same doctrine which is still advocated by those whom he so bitterly denounces. In 1821, the gospel was an efficient means, according to "Simple Truth," in bringing forth children in different nations, for the blessings of God attended it. These children then were born again of an incorruptible seed by the word of God, which was preached. In 1824 it was sound Baptist doctrine to insist that the people were pricked to the heart by or under Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost, and that a model of a church was where the members were prepared by first gladly receiving the word; secondly, by being baptized; and thirdly, by being added to the church. But in 1846, it is heresy to maintain such propositions!"
It is interesting how 1846 was not only the date when Elder Wilson Thompson formally asserted the no means view of regeneration in the above trial, but is also the date when Elder Gilbert Beebe, a close associate of Thompson, also first asserted the view. In an article titled "Means" (see here), Beebe wrote (Dec. 15, 1846):
"...for the words used by the means party, as defined by himself, show that they believe that God speaks the word of life in quickening dead sinners through good men and through bad men, through his preachers, and through the devil’s ministers, thus using them as means or instruments in performing the work of regeneration, while every syllable of this is denied in the most unequivocal manner by the advocates of truth, called the anti-means party."
He also wrote:
"...in the quickening of the dead, there are neither means nor instrumentalities used."
But, though he taught this in relation to "regeneration" or "quickening," he did not teach it in relation to being "born again."
It is interesting that the means side won their case in court. Why is this interesting? Because the means side lost in the Mt. Carmel trial that occurred many years later and the Hardshells have used this fact to argue that such a victory proves that they were right historically on the point. But, that logic flies back on them when we consider that the anti means side lost in the 1846 trial! In that trial the evidence presented showed that the means side were the ones still teaching the historic Baptist view on the point.
The year 1846 is an important date.
In this year was the famous trial dealing with the question of means that occurred in the White Water Association in Indiana, which division was led by Elder John Sparks on the means side and Elder Wilson Thompson on the anti means side. This trial (By George C. Clark) can be read on the Internet (see here). In this trial Thompson said (emphasis mine):
"There can be no means used until they are brought to life. As soon as life is in them, then means may be used; God never appointed any means, scriptures or any thing else, until they are made alive; one vital spark of life is sufficient to make alive from sin. The scriptures and the word are intended for living men alone. The Bible and the preached word are the means by which God works on men after they are made alive."
This was the view of one of the founding fathers of Hardshellism. He and Gilbert Beebe were in league on this point. The latter, as I have shown in several writings, taught that the "birth" was not the beginning of the child, or the time when the child is made alive. That occurred months prior to the birth (generally nine months) when the "seed" germinated and produced life. "Regeneration" was viewed as occurring apart from means, apart from conversion, apart from evangelical faith and repentance, and was viewed as the beginning of "life," the beginning of existence of a spiritual man. But, they did not believe that this "regeneration" was the same as the "birth," or the "bringing forth" in spiritual delivery. They believed that evangelical conversion was that birth and delivery, and that it was as much necessary for eternal salvation as was the "regeneration" or "implanting" of the seed of divine life.
In the citation from Thompson's writings, anterior to the 1832 split, he believes that the gospel is the means of "begetting" children of God. The question is this; does he still believe this in 1846 for the trial in question? If so, the trial should have focused on that point. The question that should have been asked, then, would be "do you believe that the birth that follows regeneration is accomplished by means and is necessary for eternal salvation?" If Thompson still held to the three stage view of spiritual birth, like most of his brethren, he would have answered yes.
However, the trial debate seems to make regeneration and birth to be the same. So, the means side holds to the view that regeneration or new birth occurs by God's use of means. They also affirm that this is the stated view of their historic confessions and articles of faith. On this point, they were right and had all the evidence (same as in the later Mt. Carmel Church trial).
Wrote editor Clark:
"A witness for the means side, a Mr. Hackleman testified that the view propounded by Thompson was then a new doctrine, saying:
"The second point which I intend to enforce is, that the Means party have put that construction on their articles of faith authorized by the views of Baptist writers and commentators. Their doctrine, I think, I shall be able to show, completely harmonizes with the sentiments of the old Baptist writers, commentators, and confessions of faith, and that, in reality, the Anti-Means party hold new doctrines and sentiments. I shall, as a matter of policy, commence with the writings of the Rev. Wilson Thompson. I say as a matter of policy, for he is the leader, the Ajax, of the opposition, and if I can swamp them by quotations from his writings, it will hardly be necessary to proceed to the investigation of more respectable and learned authors. Once upon a time he wrote a work called "Simple Truth." It was printed at Lebanon, O., in 1821."
The idea that regeneration was without means but birth was by means was not new among the Baptists, a point I have shown in my writings. However, all Baptists had previously taught that the new birth was accomplished by means of producing evangelical faith. The denial of this truth was what indeed was new and novel among the Old Baptists.
Hackleman continued:
"It would hardly be fair to hold the reverend gentleman and his followers in the "anti-means" doctrines responsible for what is contained in the preface of "Simple Truth," where he says in speaking of salvation, "We should therefore make use of every laudable exertion to propagate and explain it, to the weakest capacity of human beings. But from a sense of the importance of the work, and my own inadequacy, I have hitherto deferred the undertaking," &c. The importance of what work, Mr. Thompson? The propagation and explanation of the gospel plan of salvation. But at page 07, in speaking of the gospel he says, "Wherein Sarah and her son were figures of the gospel, and those under it, first, she was a figure of the gospel in her name Sarah, which signifies lady, princess, princess of the multitude; and this name was given to her because the blessing of God was upon her, and nations of people should come to her, to denote that the gospel was to go amongst all nations, with the blessings of God attending it, and bring forth children in different nations, who are to be born again of an incorruptible seed by the word of God, which by the gospel is preached unto you." It occurs to me, this is pretty strong "means" doctrine. Much credit is given to the gospel and to the word of God in the bringing forth of christian children in different nations. Such a statement may be a "simple truth," but nevertheless it is an important truth, and one which bears directly on the present controversy. But I have not much time to devote to "Simple Truth," as the "Triumphs of Truth," by the same author, furnishes further evidence of the correctness of the Means doctrine."
This shows that Thompson first held to the traditional Baptist view in regard to means, but sometime after, when he joined the anti mission movement, he began to teach differently. However, it is possible that even in 1821 Thompson believed that regeneration was without means but that the birth was by means.
Hackleman also said:
"I might make other quotations in the same connection from the "Triumphs of Truth," but this copious extract is amply sufficient. The great apostle of anti-means, twenty-two years ago, advocated precisely the same doctrine which is still advocated by those whom he so bitterly denounces. In 1821, the gospel was an efficient means, according to "Simple Truth," in bringing forth children in different nations, for the blessings of God attended it. These children then were born again of an incorruptible seed by the word of God, which was preached. In 1824 it was sound Baptist doctrine to insist that the people were pricked to the heart by or under Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost, and that a model of a church was where the members were prepared by first gladly receiving the word; secondly, by being baptized; and thirdly, by being added to the church. But in 1846, it is heresy to maintain such propositions!"
It is interesting how 1846 was not only the date when Elder Wilson Thompson formally asserted the no means view of regeneration in the above trial, but is also the date when Elder Gilbert Beebe, a close associate of Thompson, also first asserted the view. In an article titled "Means" (see here), Beebe wrote (Dec. 15, 1846):
"...for the words used by the means party, as defined by himself, show that they believe that God speaks the word of life in quickening dead sinners through good men and through bad men, through his preachers, and through the devil’s ministers, thus using them as means or instruments in performing the work of regeneration, while every syllable of this is denied in the most unequivocal manner by the advocates of truth, called the anti-means party."
He also wrote:
"...in the quickening of the dead, there are neither means nor instrumentalities used."
But, though he taught this in relation to "regeneration" or "quickening," he did not teach it in relation to being "born again."
It is interesting that the means side won their case in court. Why is this interesting? Because the means side lost in the Mt. Carmel trial that occurred many years later and the Hardshells have used this fact to argue that such a victory proves that they were right historically on the point. But, that logic flies back on them when we consider that the anti means side lost in the 1846 trial! In that trial the evidence presented showed that the means side were the ones still teaching the historic Baptist view on the point.
Thursday, January 23, 2020
“Life Because Of Righteousness”
One of the issues that I have studied extensively over the years is the ordo salutis, particularly as it relates to the logical and chronological order of
1) regeneration (or rebirth) to faith (and conversion) and of
2) regeneration to justification (or imputation of righteousness).
I have fought hard to convince others of the error of putting rebirth before conversion and of the error of putting regeneration before justification.
There are many reasons why justification must precede regeneration, but there are two verses that to my view clearly affirm this proposition. They are both in Romans.
Romans 5: 18 speaks of "justification of life" (kjv), or better translated, "justification that brings life." Thus, justification or imputation, at the point of faith and union with Christ, precedes regeneration (giving of life).
The other passage is in Romans 8:10.
"And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness."
Hendriksen said: “But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the Spirit is life because of your justification.”
This says life (or regeneration) is because of, or follows, justification.
Wuest translates as follows: "But, assuming that Christ is in you, on the one hand the body is dead on account of sin, but on the other hand the [human] spirit is alive on account of righteousness."
Again, alive spiritually in regeneration "on account of" having been made righteous, or justified.
NLT translates: "Since Christ lives within you, even though your body will die because of sin, your spirit is alive because you have been made right with God."
Those who teach that justification comes after regeneration would have to change the text to say "you are right with God because your spirit is alive."
Meyer's NT Commentary says these truthful things on this text:
"He is eternally alive, and that Ύιᜰ ΎικαιοÏÏΜηΜ, on account of righteousness; for the eternal ζÏή (life) is based on the justification that has taken place for Christ’s sake and is appropriated by faith.
It is moreover to be noted, that as ÎÎÊŒ áŒÎÎΡ΀. does not refer to one’s own individual sin (on the contrary, see on áŒÎŠÊŒ ៯ Î ÎÎ΀ÎÏ áŒÎÎΡ΀ÎÎ, Romans 5:12), so neither does ÎÎ៺ ÎÎÎÎÎÎΣÎÎÎÎ refer to one’s own righteousness."
If, however, Ύιᜰ ΎικαιοÏÏΜηΜ be rendered: for the sake of righteousness, “in order that the latter may continue and rule” (Ewald, comp. van Hengel), it would yield no contrast answering to the correct interpretation of ΜεκÏ᜞Μ Ύιʌ áŒÎŒ. It is moreover to be noted, that as Ύιʌ áŒ΄Î±ÏÏ. does not refer to one’s own individual sin (on the contrary, see on áŒÏÊŒ ៧ ÏάΜÏÎµÏ áŒ¥΄Î±ÏÏοΜ, Romans 5:12), so neither does Ύιᜰ ΎικαιοÏÏΜηΜ refer to one’s own righteousness."
This is an important issue for all to study and come to understand, especially ministers of the gospel.
1) regeneration (or rebirth) to faith (and conversion) and of
2) regeneration to justification (or imputation of righteousness).
I have fought hard to convince others of the error of putting rebirth before conversion and of the error of putting regeneration before justification.
There are many reasons why justification must precede regeneration, but there are two verses that to my view clearly affirm this proposition. They are both in Romans.
Romans 5: 18 speaks of "justification of life" (kjv), or better translated, "justification that brings life." Thus, justification or imputation, at the point of faith and union with Christ, precedes regeneration (giving of life).
The other passage is in Romans 8:10.
"And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness."
Hendriksen said: “But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the Spirit is life because of your justification.”
This says life (or regeneration) is because of, or follows, justification.
Wuest translates as follows: "But, assuming that Christ is in you, on the one hand the body is dead on account of sin, but on the other hand the [human] spirit is alive on account of righteousness."
Again, alive spiritually in regeneration "on account of" having been made righteous, or justified.
NLT translates: "Since Christ lives within you, even though your body will die because of sin, your spirit is alive because you have been made right with God."
Those who teach that justification comes after regeneration would have to change the text to say "you are right with God because your spirit is alive."
Meyer's NT Commentary says these truthful things on this text:
"He is eternally alive, and that Ύιᜰ ΎικαιοÏÏΜηΜ, on account of righteousness; for the eternal ζÏή (life) is based on the justification that has taken place for Christ’s sake and is appropriated by faith.
It is moreover to be noted, that as ÎÎÊŒ áŒÎÎΡ΀. does not refer to one’s own individual sin (on the contrary, see on áŒÎŠÊŒ ៯ Î ÎÎ΀ÎÏ áŒÎÎΡ΀ÎÎ, Romans 5:12), so neither does ÎÎ៺ ÎÎÎÎÎÎΣÎÎÎÎ refer to one’s own righteousness."
If, however, Ύιᜰ ΎικαιοÏÏΜηΜ be rendered: for the sake of righteousness, “in order that the latter may continue and rule” (Ewald, comp. van Hengel), it would yield no contrast answering to the correct interpretation of ΜεκÏ᜞Μ Ύιʌ áŒÎŒ. It is moreover to be noted, that as Ύιʌ áŒ΄Î±ÏÏ. does not refer to one’s own individual sin (on the contrary, see on áŒÏÊŒ ៧ ÏάΜÏÎµÏ áŒ¥΄Î±ÏÏοΜ, Romans 5:12), so neither does Ύιᜰ ΎικαιοÏÏΜηΜ refer to one’s own righteousness."
This is an important issue for all to study and come to understand, especially ministers of the gospel.
The Hassells on The London Confession
Elder Sylvester Hassell
(1842 - 1928)
(1842 - 1928)
Elder Cushing Biggs Hassell
(1808 - 1880)
In an article by the younger Hassell titled "THE OLD PATHS" (see here) there are some things that are said by both father and son about the London Confession of Faith that I would like to quote and then make some observations as it pertains to most of today's "Primitive Baptist" and how they have gone farther and farther away from "the old paths" since their origin in the 1830s.
Wrote Sylvester (emphasis mine):
"Next to the first century of the Christian era, I believe that the sixteenth century on the continent of Europe, but in England the seventeenth century was the most intellectual and the most spiritual period in human history. Certainly, in the firmament of the English-speaking world, never before or since has there shone such a galaxy of brilliant minds as those of Shakespeare, Milton, Cromwell, Bacon, Newton, Locke, Owen, and Bunyan, who lived in the seventeenth century; and I believe that never, since the death of the apostles, have there existed men more fully, thoroughly and truly acquainted with the Scriptures than the translators of the King James or Authorized version of the Bible of 1611, and the authors of the Westminster (Presbyterian) Confession of 1647, the Savoy (Independent) Declaration of 1658, and the old London (Baptist) Confession of Faith of 1689, all of which Confessions teach the same system of doctrine in reference to God, Man, Salvation, and the Last Things. Much of the seventeenth century was a time of great persecution of the believers of the truth; and, as always in such periods, it was therefore a time of the great outpouring of Divine grace upon the people of God. I have no sort of an idea, either from history or from Scripture, that the people of the nineteenth century have either more sense or more grace than the people of the seventeenth century."
Notice that last statement about the nineteenth century. It was the century that saw the formation of the Hardshell cult. Also, it condemns those 19th century Hardshells who toward the end of the century were coming up with all kinds of new doctrines and interpretations of scripture.
Wrote Sylvester:
"The old London Confession of Faith of 1689 (given in full, with all the Scripture proofs, in the Church History, pages 663 to 695), "the ancient landmark" set by the (Baptist) fathers, in accordance with the word of God, was the same in doctrine as the English Baptist Confessions of 1643, 1644, 1656, 1677 and 1688 (see pages 524, 525 and 664 of the Church History), and was reaffirmed in the eighteenth century by all the oldest Baptist Associations and churches in America, including the Philadelphia Association (which embraced the Old School Baptist churches of Welsh Tract, Hopewell, Kingwood, Southampton, Warwick, Cow Marsh, London Tract, Bryn Zion and Wilmington), and the Kehukee, the oldest Primitive Baptist Association (which, at its formation in 1765, embraced the churches of Kehukee, Toisnot--now called Wilson--Falls of Tar River, Fishing Creek, Sandy Creek, Sandy Run and a church in Camden county). The same substance of doctrine was in 1777 again re-affirmed by the Kehukee Association, but more briefly in seventeen Articles of Faith (given on the 699th and 700th pages of the Church History), which are to-day the Articles of Faith of most of the Primitive Baptist churches in North Carolina with which I am acquainted."
This proves that only those PBs who still adhere to the teachings of the Confession are truly "primitive" or "old school."
Wrote Sylvester:
"On the 837th page of the Church History, father remarks: "Primitive Baptists stand by their Articles; they read them, they believe them to be true, and they preach the doctrine contained in them; and hope that themselves and their successors will continue to do so, even to the end of the world. And this they do with great pleasure, though well aware that such a course is disapproved by nearly all other professed Christians in America. While some denominations have creeds more or less orthodox, yet it is lamentably true that they are almost universally disregarded by the ministers and members of nearly all the religious sects and societies in the land. In this awful day of degeneracy, Baptists should adhere more steadfastly to the apostles' doctrine, which induces to fellowship in Christ, to communion and prayers; in order that the distinction between the church and the world might appear greater than ever before, if possible."
Father believed, and I believe, that the old London Confession taught the apostles' doctrine more accurately, comprehensively and thoroughly than any other uninspired production; and therefore it is that I deeply regret the increasing tendency in our midst to ignore and to deny its teachings."
Hassell hoped that the "successors" of the "Primitive Baptists" would continue to stand upon the "doctrine" contained in the old Confession. How sad he would be were he alive today to see how this hope has not been realized.
Notice also that Hassell speaks of the "increasing tendency" among the PBs of Hassell's day (latter half of the 19th century) to "ignore and to deny its teachings." If so, how can today's PBs legitimately claim to be "original"?
Wrote Sylvester:
"The London Confession of Faith is, to be sure, not inspired nor infallible; but no other document that I have ever read, so fully and impartially summarizes, in my judgment, "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Those Scriptures are, of course, the only infallible and authoritative standard of faith and practice. I endorse the London Confession only because it seems to me to follow the Scriptures, and to follow them more fully, faithfully and wisely than does any other uninspired enunciation of religious truth. And I am satisfied that the highest benefit would redound to the believers of the present day if, in deep humility, and an earnest desire to know the pure and entire truth, and in sincere dependence upon the Spirit of God, they would study the old London Confession, and especially the Scriptures to which it refers, and compare these teachings with those of all the other Scriptures."
I agree! I have often thought the same about this, how today's PBs would do well to walk their churches through the confession, studying the doctrines it contains and the scriptures given as supporting those doctrinal points.
Wrote Sylvester:
"Let God be true, but every man a liar."-Rom. iii. 4. The difficulty with some of our brethren, and that which tends to confusion and division among us, seems to me to be their habitual tendency to dwell upon one class of Scriptures to the exclusion of others, and either to unduly exaggerate or to untruly explain away (they call it spiritualizing) their meaning, so as to make them plainly conflict with other Scriptures. One class of Scriptures must not be continually dwelt upon to the exclusion and contradiction of others; {1Sa 3:9; 2Ti 3:16-17} and while the true spiritual meaning of Scripture is more important than the literal meaning, a so-called spiritualizing that denies the literal truth of Scripture, or that makes one Scripture deny another, is false spiritualizing, and proceeds from a false spirit--1Jo 4:1; 2Ti 2:13."
Again, this is good historical evidence of the drift of the Hardshells into further errors as they developed in the end of the 19th century.
Wrote Sylvester:
Notice the sarcasm that Hassell spews on those PBs who were styled as "ultraist" and "modern innovators" by Elder John Watson in his "Old Baptist Test." Yes, "religious novelties" are characteristic of the Hardshell cult
Wrote Sylvester in "THE OLD PATHS AGAIN" (The Gospel Messenger--June 1890):
"Some of my brethren, whom I love and esteem as much abler and better than myself, seem to infer that I have in my article on ``The Old Paths'' set the old London Baptist Confession of Faith above the Scriptures. If I used in that article expressions at all justifying such an inference, I certainly did not mean so to do; and I take this occasion to beg my fair-minded and intelligent brethren and sister to read carefully the 5th, 7th, 13th, 14th and 15th pages of ``The Old Paths,'' and pages iii, iv., vii., viii., 659, 660, 663, and 664 of the Church history, and then to decide whether, with such sentiments as I have there expressed. I could never prefer any human document to the only inspired and infallible standard of Divine truth, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Incomparably do I prefer the Scriptures, not only to all human Confessions of Faith, but even to all the original and brilliant speculations and theories of my own brethren of the present century. My only reason why I prefer the London Confession to these modern speculations and to other uninspired enunciations of religious views, is because the London Confession seems to me to follow the Scriptures more fully, faithfully, and wisely than any other uninspired production; and, in ``The Old Paths,'' I have urged my brethren ``especially to study the Scriptures cited in the London Confession and to compare their teachings with those of all the other Scriptures,'' and I have added, ``Let God be true, but every man a liar.'' {Ro 3:4} In the preface of the Church History, pp. vii. and viii., I have said: ``The best of the interpretations of the Bible are but the interpretations of fallible men."
However unsound or heretical these brethren may think me to be, I repeat with emphasis, what I said in ``The Old Paths,'' that I think more scriptural, and therefore I prefer, the Old London Baptist Confession of Faith-the Confession adopted by all the oldest Baptist Associations in the world, including my own Association, the Kehukee, and the same in substance of doctrine as the Articles of Faith, today, of my own Church, Skewarkey, and of the most of other Primitive Baptist Churches-that I prefer, as more scriptural, this old Baptist Confession to all the fine-spun speculations of my brethren of the nineteenth century upon the Trinity, Predestination, the Law, Regeneration, the Resurrection, and the General Judgment."
Notice Hassell's further use of sarcasm against his brethren who were coming up with new doctrinal novelties in interpretation!
Wrote Sylvester:
"We want no change whatever in our old Articles of Faith; if changes are ever begun to be made, there will be no end to them, and we shall be imitating the religious societies of the world, and like them may plunge into infidelity."
Such a statement certainly condemns the Hardshell change in those articles via the "Fulton Convention" and Confessional revision. (Hassell was against the Fulton Convention and Confession)
Saturday, January 18, 2020
C.H. Cayce's Theological Blunder
Here is what Elder Claud Cayce wrote in May 22, 1906 concerning his views on John 11:39 (emphasis mine):
"The sinner is not commanded to take the stony heart away, or to take the stony heart out of his flesh. In (Ezekiel 11:19-20), the Lord says, “And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh; that they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.” Here we have the positive promise of the Lord, the God that cannot lie, that He will take away the stony heart and that He will give a heart of flesh. He does not tell us to do what He has promised to do for us, and He does not promise to do for us what He commands us to do. Having the stony heart taken away, and a heart of flesh given, is equivalent to being born again, and sinners are no where commanded in God's word to be born again. This taking away of the stony heart and giving of a heart of flesh is something the Lord will do “that they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them.” Then the stony heart must be taken away in order that acceptable obedience be rendered to the Lord. If the stony heart must he removed in order that acceptable obedience be rendered to the Lord, then the stony heart must be removed before the sinner obeys. So, if the Lord commands the sinner to remove the stony heart, and the sinner cannot render acceptable obedience until the stony heart is removed, and the Lord cannot or will not save the sinner until the stony heart is removed, it looks to us as though there is no hope for the poor sinner. They do get it somewhat mixed, sure enough. But the Lord takes away the stony heart and gives them a heart of flesh and puts a new spirit within them. The Lord thereby qualifies them for His service."
The first thing wrong with Cayce's commentary is the fact that he is wrong when he says that the sinner is "not commanded to" change his heart. Surely he must have known that Ezekiel also wrote:
"Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" (Eze. 18: 31)
See my posting Make You A New Heart for more on this point. So, Cayce is flat out wrong to aver that the sinner is not under obligation to change his corrupt heart.
Cayce's next error is in affirming this proposition:
"He does not tell us to do what He has promised to do for us, and He does not promise to do for us what He commands us to do."
As we know, the Hardshells are infamous for coming up with such unscriptural propositions, and claiming inspiration for them, and making all textual interpretations to square with them. Another proposition that they take to the Bible is this one:
"When salvation is mentioned in connection with the acts of men; or man is to perform some action to bring about a better situation for himself, they know it is to be to the child of God (one freed from the guilt of sin), and refers to a timely deliverance, or something that is for man's benefit while he lives here in the world." (See here for my refutation of it)
But, as we know, the Bible absolutely refutes these man made propositions.
"The sinner is not commanded to take the stony heart away, or to take the stony heart out of his flesh. In (Ezekiel 11:19-20), the Lord says, “And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh; that they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.” Here we have the positive promise of the Lord, the God that cannot lie, that He will take away the stony heart and that He will give a heart of flesh. He does not tell us to do what He has promised to do for us, and He does not promise to do for us what He commands us to do. Having the stony heart taken away, and a heart of flesh given, is equivalent to being born again, and sinners are no where commanded in God's word to be born again. This taking away of the stony heart and giving of a heart of flesh is something the Lord will do “that they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them.” Then the stony heart must be taken away in order that acceptable obedience be rendered to the Lord. If the stony heart must he removed in order that acceptable obedience be rendered to the Lord, then the stony heart must be removed before the sinner obeys. So, if the Lord commands the sinner to remove the stony heart, and the sinner cannot render acceptable obedience until the stony heart is removed, and the Lord cannot or will not save the sinner until the stony heart is removed, it looks to us as though there is no hope for the poor sinner. They do get it somewhat mixed, sure enough. But the Lord takes away the stony heart and gives them a heart of flesh and puts a new spirit within them. The Lord thereby qualifies them for His service."
The first thing wrong with Cayce's commentary is the fact that he is wrong when he says that the sinner is "not commanded to" change his heart. Surely he must have known that Ezekiel also wrote:
"Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" (Eze. 18: 31)
See my posting Make You A New Heart for more on this point. So, Cayce is flat out wrong to aver that the sinner is not under obligation to change his corrupt heart.
Cayce's next error is in affirming this proposition:
"He does not tell us to do what He has promised to do for us, and He does not promise to do for us what He commands us to do."
As we know, the Hardshells are infamous for coming up with such unscriptural propositions, and claiming inspiration for them, and making all textual interpretations to square with them. Another proposition that they take to the Bible is this one:
"When salvation is mentioned in connection with the acts of men; or man is to perform some action to bring about a better situation for himself, they know it is to be to the child of God (one freed from the guilt of sin), and refers to a timely deliverance, or something that is for man's benefit while he lives here in the world." (See here for my refutation of it)
But, as we know, the Bible absolutely refutes these man made propositions.
Friday, January 17, 2020
More Theological Nonsense From Loudermilk
At the web page for Union Grove Primitive Baptist church here in Monroe, N.C., there is the following posting for January 12, 2020, in which Elder Ronnie Loudermilk (here) wrote some horrendous things, theologically speaking. Here is his posting with my comments following (highlighting mine):
"Romans 2:14-15, For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)…”
It would be difficult, to say the least, for all of us who live in the year 2020 and are members of the New Testament Church of the Lord Jesus Christ to imagine a time when the Gentiles lived in darkness without the knowledge of the information of God. But there was such a time when the nations of the world did not have, or have access to the oracles and commandments of the Lord as the Jews. Paul, In Romans 3:1-2 teaches us that one of the advantages of the Jews (national Israel) was that “unto them were committed the oracles of God.” Yet, according to Paul in our study verses, the Lord had a people among the Gentiles who were born again. When we read, “the work of the law written in their hearts”, it is referring to the finger of God writing His laws on their hearts in Regeneration, or the New Birth. In 2 Corinthians 3:3 we read, “Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.” In this verse the Apostle Paul is referring to the same. When the elect child of God is born again, the Holy Spirit writes the Laws of God on the new heart which is given to them by His direct life giving work. You may ask, I wonder if this has happened to me? If you feel guilty for your sins and the wrong doings of your life, it is good evidence that this efficacious work has been accomplished in you by God’s grace (2 Timothy 1:9). The Gentiles in our study verse manifested that this work had been done to them before they received the information of God’s commandments, “having not the law…”
When we consider these two verses in God’s Holy Word, we are able to come to a few theological conclusions. (1) God has had, and does have a people in every kindred, tongue, people and nation (Revelation 5:9), not just where the gospel is or has been preached. (2) God’s eternal grace and salvation is without the knowledge and information of God’s word, or the gospel. (3) Those who are eternally saved are able to show forth the work of salvation without the knowledge and information of the word of God, or the gospel. (4) The knowledge and information of God’s word is for them who are already born again, to teach them that they may be comforted in the salvation they have and be informed of a better way to love to please the One Who saved them by His grace. And so, finally, we are able to conclude that life precedes believing the information of life. Amen!"
I answered this nonsense on this text in this posting here. I dare say that such a misinterpretation of this passage is cultic and a clear example of twisting the scriptures. Those who are guilty of such will reap destruction. (II Peter 3:16) It is cult teaching because it is new and novel. Loudermilk and his brothers who share his view cannot find where anyone, including his own Baptist forefathers, who taught this nonsense regarding this passage. They certainly would not say that worshipers of other gods show evidence of having been "born again"!
There is so much contradiction in these words of Loudermilk. Perhaps Loudermilk will want to come here to this blog and discuss his interpretation? Perhaps some at Union Grove would like to hear a discussion of this most important issue?
The view of Loudermilk on the above passage leads him right into Universalism! I wonder, does Loudermilk believe that any go to Hell? Has he ever preached on Hell? Have sinners ever been awakened to their danger by his preaching on it?
"Romans 2:14-15, For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)…”
It would be difficult, to say the least, for all of us who live in the year 2020 and are members of the New Testament Church of the Lord Jesus Christ to imagine a time when the Gentiles lived in darkness without the knowledge of the information of God. But there was such a time when the nations of the world did not have, or have access to the oracles and commandments of the Lord as the Jews. Paul, In Romans 3:1-2 teaches us that one of the advantages of the Jews (national Israel) was that “unto them were committed the oracles of God.” Yet, according to Paul in our study verses, the Lord had a people among the Gentiles who were born again. When we read, “the work of the law written in their hearts”, it is referring to the finger of God writing His laws on their hearts in Regeneration, or the New Birth. In 2 Corinthians 3:3 we read, “Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.” In this verse the Apostle Paul is referring to the same. When the elect child of God is born again, the Holy Spirit writes the Laws of God on the new heart which is given to them by His direct life giving work. You may ask, I wonder if this has happened to me? If you feel guilty for your sins and the wrong doings of your life, it is good evidence that this efficacious work has been accomplished in you by God’s grace (2 Timothy 1:9). The Gentiles in our study verse manifested that this work had been done to them before they received the information of God’s commandments, “having not the law…”
When we consider these two verses in God’s Holy Word, we are able to come to a few theological conclusions. (1) God has had, and does have a people in every kindred, tongue, people and nation (Revelation 5:9), not just where the gospel is or has been preached. (2) God’s eternal grace and salvation is without the knowledge and information of God’s word, or the gospel. (3) Those who are eternally saved are able to show forth the work of salvation without the knowledge and information of the word of God, or the gospel. (4) The knowledge and information of God’s word is for them who are already born again, to teach them that they may be comforted in the salvation they have and be informed of a better way to love to please the One Who saved them by His grace. And so, finally, we are able to conclude that life precedes believing the information of life. Amen!"
I answered this nonsense on this text in this posting here. I dare say that such a misinterpretation of this passage is cultic and a clear example of twisting the scriptures. Those who are guilty of such will reap destruction. (II Peter 3:16) It is cult teaching because it is new and novel. Loudermilk and his brothers who share his view cannot find where anyone, including his own Baptist forefathers, who taught this nonsense regarding this passage. They certainly would not say that worshipers of other gods show evidence of having been "born again"!
There is so much contradiction in these words of Loudermilk. Perhaps Loudermilk will want to come here to this blog and discuss his interpretation? Perhaps some at Union Grove would like to hear a discussion of this most important issue?
The view of Loudermilk on the above passage leads him right into Universalism! I wonder, does Loudermilk believe that any go to Hell? Has he ever preached on Hell? Have sinners ever been awakened to their danger by his preaching on it?
Elder James Osbourn On Gospel Means
In the "Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor," edited by Daniel E. Jewett (See here), we have this communication from Elder James Osbourn (highlighting mine):
"Now the law is a ministration of condemnation and death, and is heavily charged with the wrath of a highly provoked God; and all who live and die under it, must suffer the vengeance of eternal fire; for here the Lord can by no means clear the guilty, nor pass by iniquities, nor justify the ungodly. And this law is out against, and in search, after, every impenitent sinner on earth; nor can he elude it, but by flying to the proper and legal Remedy ordained by the holy Three in the ancient settlement of eternity: and this remedy is the gospel with all its blessed appurtenances and divine glories. And this gospel is a ministration of life and peace, and is fraught with all the sure mercies of David; and all who go out of this world under its power and influence, will arise and dwell with him in whose presence there is fulness of joy, and at whose right hand are pleasures for evermore." (pg. 13)
"And in reference to what, the Lord designed to affect by the means of the gospel, I presume we may venture to conclude, that in the ordination and promulgation of it, the Lord had someone specific object in view; and that this very identical object will be accomplished by the means of, or in a way compatible with it. And also, if the eternal salvation of all men indiscriminately, was that sole object, we likewise may venture to conclude, that that particular object will necessarily be the result of that glorious gospel which the great Jehovah from everlasting, and in time promulgated. But if indeed we have sufficient authority to believe that some men die and perish in their sins and errors; of course we then cannot venture to conclude, that the Lord's specific object in ordaining and promulgating the gospel, was the eternal salvation of all men indiscriminately. For, to suppose and to believe, an almighty and infinitely wise Being, should by means of the gospel, make an effort to accomplish a special object, and yet fail in the attainment, would be a derision on that gospel—a reproach on divine power, and an outrage on the wisdom of God. So I write, and so you believe."
"But if so be that the specific object which the Deity had in view, and designed to accomplish by means of, or in a way compatible with the gospel which he ordained and promulgated, was the eternal salvation of the bride, the Lamb's wife, Rev. 21; 9; we then of course may safely conclude, that that specific object must and will be accomplished, just in that way and manner as infinite wisdom may have dictated. And lo, this is what we do believe and rejoice in; and in the gospel we also believe, every necessary arrangement and provision is made and permanently settled for the effecting the salvation of that church which was the object of God's everlasting love and delight, and which he gave to his Son before time began."
"Thus having premised a few things in reference to what was, and to what was not, the specific object God had in view, and designed to accomplish by means of, or in a way compatible with that blessed gospel which he ordained from everlasting, and promulgated in time;—together with what the gospel system is, in and of itself considered, and as it stands connected with the salvation of the church and the glory of God;—we undertake to allege,
That God ordained the GOSPEL, and promulgated the same, with a settled purpose to save sinners thereby; and hence in this his gospel he says, "I will give them an heart to know me, that 1 am the Lord; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God : for they shall return unto me with, their whole heart." And again says the Lord, 'Zaccheus make haste and come down, for to day I must abide at thy house.' And again it is said, 'As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.' And we are told that the Lord works in men to will and to do of his own good pleasure; and that Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost; Jer. 24, 7; Luke, 19, 5; Acts, 11, 48; Phil. 2, 13; Luke 19, 10." (pages 12-18)
That was the "primitive" or "old school" Baptist position and those today who deny what Osbourn affirms are not primitive, but a new sect. What say ye?
"Now the law is a ministration of condemnation and death, and is heavily charged with the wrath of a highly provoked God; and all who live and die under it, must suffer the vengeance of eternal fire; for here the Lord can by no means clear the guilty, nor pass by iniquities, nor justify the ungodly. And this law is out against, and in search, after, every impenitent sinner on earth; nor can he elude it, but by flying to the proper and legal Remedy ordained by the holy Three in the ancient settlement of eternity: and this remedy is the gospel with all its blessed appurtenances and divine glories. And this gospel is a ministration of life and peace, and is fraught with all the sure mercies of David; and all who go out of this world under its power and influence, will arise and dwell with him in whose presence there is fulness of joy, and at whose right hand are pleasures for evermore." (pg. 13)
"And in reference to what, the Lord designed to affect by the means of the gospel, I presume we may venture to conclude, that in the ordination and promulgation of it, the Lord had someone specific object in view; and that this very identical object will be accomplished by the means of, or in a way compatible with it. And also, if the eternal salvation of all men indiscriminately, was that sole object, we likewise may venture to conclude, that that particular object will necessarily be the result of that glorious gospel which the great Jehovah from everlasting, and in time promulgated. But if indeed we have sufficient authority to believe that some men die and perish in their sins and errors; of course we then cannot venture to conclude, that the Lord's specific object in ordaining and promulgating the gospel, was the eternal salvation of all men indiscriminately. For, to suppose and to believe, an almighty and infinitely wise Being, should by means of the gospel, make an effort to accomplish a special object, and yet fail in the attainment, would be a derision on that gospel—a reproach on divine power, and an outrage on the wisdom of God. So I write, and so you believe."
"But if so be that the specific object which the Deity had in view, and designed to accomplish by means of, or in a way compatible with the gospel which he ordained and promulgated, was the eternal salvation of the bride, the Lamb's wife, Rev. 21; 9; we then of course may safely conclude, that that specific object must and will be accomplished, just in that way and manner as infinite wisdom may have dictated. And lo, this is what we do believe and rejoice in; and in the gospel we also believe, every necessary arrangement and provision is made and permanently settled for the effecting the salvation of that church which was the object of God's everlasting love and delight, and which he gave to his Son before time began."
"Thus having premised a few things in reference to what was, and to what was not, the specific object God had in view, and designed to accomplish by means of, or in a way compatible with that blessed gospel which he ordained from everlasting, and promulgated in time;—together with what the gospel system is, in and of itself considered, and as it stands connected with the salvation of the church and the glory of God;—we undertake to allege,
That God ordained the GOSPEL, and promulgated the same, with a settled purpose to save sinners thereby; and hence in this his gospel he says, "I will give them an heart to know me, that 1 am the Lord; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God : for they shall return unto me with, their whole heart." And again says the Lord, 'Zaccheus make haste and come down, for to day I must abide at thy house.' And again it is said, 'As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.' And we are told that the Lord works in men to will and to do of his own good pleasure; and that Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost; Jer. 24, 7; Luke, 19, 5; Acts, 11, 48; Phil. 2, 13; Luke 19, 10." (pages 12-18)
That was the "primitive" or "old school" Baptist position and those today who deny what Osbourn affirms are not primitive, but a new sect. What say ye?
Wednesday, January 15, 2020
Favorite Verses
Verses that I have repeated to myself many times in life, and in many circumstances. These words of the Lord are written in my heart.
"Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him." (Job 13:15a)
"Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." (Psa. 127:1)
"It is of the Lord's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not. They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness." (Lam. 3: 22-23)
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (I John 1:9)
"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." (Rom. 8:18)
"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." (Rom. 8:28)
"For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory." (II Cor. 4:17)
"But I am poor and needy; yet the Lord thinketh upon me: thou art my help and my deliverer; make no tarrying, O my God." (Psa. 40: 17)
"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me...Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever." (Psa. 23: 4,6)
"Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him." (Job 13:15a)
"Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." (Psa. 127:1)
"It is of the Lord's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not. They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness." (Lam. 3: 22-23)
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (I John 1:9)
"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." (Rom. 8:18)
"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." (Rom. 8:28)
"For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory." (II Cor. 4:17)
"But I am poor and needy; yet the Lord thinketh upon me: thou art my help and my deliverer; make no tarrying, O my God." (Psa. 40: 17)
"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me...Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever." (Psa. 23: 4,6)
Wednesday, January 8, 2020
Redemption (xvii)
Many bible scholars and systematic theologians consider regeneration, rebirth, conversion, and sanctification, to be "effects of redemption," or the "application of redemption," rather than seeing how they are themselves redemptive experiences. As I have shown, this is wrong thinking.
In this series I have established that a slave is "redeemed" at various times and in different ways. It has been shown that "redemption" sometimes alludes to that commercial transaction where a buyer purchases a slave from a seller (owner). This immediately secures legal emancipation. However, actual release of prisoners or slaves is not realized until they have "walked free." In regards to the liberation of the soul and spirit, it has been shown how this actually occurs in conversion, the time when a sinner is "set free." Barclay writes that "apolutrosis" conveys "In every case the conception (of) the delivering of a man from a situation from which he was powerless to liberate himself or from a penalty which he himself could never have paid."
There is both the legal aspect of redemption and the subjective aspect, or actual physical release of the freed slave. Those redeemed by Christ via the atonement and conversion have their "freedom papers." These were carried by freed slaves (also called "protection papers") and were used to show that they were freemen in the case where they were stopped by officials or slave catchers. They also called them "free papers" because they certified their non-slave status.
Herman Bavinck wrote the following in "Sanctification and Perseverance" (REFORMED DOGMATICS: Volume 4: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation - see here) under the sub heading "Holiness as Gift and Reward" (emphasis mine):
"Since the redemption that God grants and works out in Christ is meant to accomplish complete deliverance from sin and all its consequences, it includes sanctification and glorification from the very beginning, along with Justification...Just as in the case of the forgiveness of sins, sanctification would be his work and his gift."
I wholeheartedly agree with Bavinck. Redemption "includes sanctification and glorification." This being so, we say not only that "we have been (past tense) redeemed," but say "we are being (present tense) redeemed" in daily renewal and sanctification. Having already addressed past redemption, in the decree of God in eternity past, in the death of Christ, and in first conversion, our present focus is on how "sanctification" (which involves daily renewal and transformation) is an experience of redemption.
As previously observed, redemption is accomplished (a "done deal"), in regard to the decree of God the Father, and in regard to the work of Christ the incarnate Son (redemption via atonement). In regard to past (fulfilled) redemption the focus has been mostly on the activity of the Father and Son. It was only when we came to see conversion (regeneration and rebirth) as redemptive did the focus become directed to the work of the Holy Spirit.
Remember too how it has been emphasized how God's purpose in creation is directly related to his purpose in redemption. Surely the "new creation" of which the scriptures speak, especially of the new testament, is linked intimately with redemption. When we were "created in Christ Jesus" (See Eph. 2: 9-10) when coming to Christ in conversion, this was the fulfilling of redemption. Certainly, as we will see as we come to study redemption in its final realization in the "day of redemption" and resurrection, there is the restoration (or re-creation) connected with redemption. (Romans 8) This leads us to consider what one has called
The Scope Of Redemption
In "Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview," author Albert M. Wolters (see here) wrote (emphasis mine):
"We have seen how the concept of creation must be taken much more broadly than Christians ordinarily take it, and how mankind's fall into sin effects the entire range of that broadly conceived creation. All of this has been preparation for making the basic point that the redemption achieved by Jesus Christ is cosmic in the sense that it restores the whole creation."
This has been emphasized throughout this series, and it will yet be enlarged upon when we see the finalization of the scheme of redemption.
Wolters continued:
"This fundamental confession has two distinct parts. The first is that redemption means restoration--that is, the return to the goodness of an originally unscathed creation and not merely the addition of something supracreational. The second is that this restoration affects the whole of creation life and not merely some limited area within it." (pg. 69)
I fully agree, and yet, as Wolters observes
"Of course, redemption as restoration of the whole creation does not involve the idea of universal salvation."
"Salvation as Restoration"
It is quite striking that practically all of the basic words describing salvation in the Bible imply a return to an original good state. Redemption is a good example. To redeem is to "buy free."
In "A theology of the “re-“ prefix" by Dr. Laniak (here), are these good words:
"I often found myself as a seminary professor explaining “what the Bible is all about.” There are many ways to go about this, but one helpful rubric is to describe the overall narrative in terms of creation and redemption. This is a grand scheme that covers the whole Bible with God’s redemptive work most visible in the work of Christ on the cross and a picture of eternal restoration provided in the book of Revelation. This pattern also serves as a micro scheme that explains a repeating cycle throughout the Bible. God creates. People fail and suffer the consequences. Then God restores and recreates. The cycle is impossible to miss in the books of Judges and Kings. An attentive reader can find it most anywhere."
You can’t read the Old Testament carefully without noticing the amazing redundancy of words around this theme. Words such as revive, renew, recreate, restore, reform, refresh, return, repent, redeem, repair, and rebuild. I call this the Bible’s “theology of the re- prefix.”
Redemption In Daily Renewal
We are being "renewed day by day" (II Cor. 4: 16).
"Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day." (NIV)
"And have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator." (Colossians 3: 10 NIV)
The process of inner renewal parallels the ongoing process of external bodily decay. Both the wasting away of the body and the renewing of the spirit is present tense linear, ongoing. It is a description of resurrection taking place within a decaying corpse!
The word "renewed" is from the Greek word "anakainoo" and means to make new (in quality) again. It is to cause something to become new and better or superior. It is in the passive voice.
The noun form of anakainoo is used by Paul in Romans to exhort the believers not to be continually conformed (present imperative) to this world, but be transformed (present imperative) by the renewing (anakainosis - qualitatively and so a renewal which makes one's mind different than it was in the past) of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. (Rom. 12:2)
"He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing (anakainosis) by the Holy Spirit." (Titus 4:5)
Some interpret anakainosis in this passage as a reference to the one time event of the new birth, others favor this as indicating a continual renewing by the Holy Spirit, similar to the renewal in 2Cor 4:16. Trench says that anakainosis refers to "the gradual (progressive, lifelong) conforming of the man more and more to that new spiritual world into which he has been introduced, and in which he now lives and moves; the restoration of the divine image." W E Vine says that anakainosis in Titus 3:5 refers to "the adjustment of the moral and spiritual vision and thinking to the mind of God, which is designed to have a transforming effect upon the life."
Paul alludes to the process of renewal of the inner man in II Cor 3:18.
"we all, with unveiled face (perfect tense = describes our permanent state, one that had its inception the day we believed [veil was lifted] and were born again, Jn 3:3, 5) beholding (middle voice = signifies that we initiate this action and participate in the benefits therefrom; present tense = a continual process) as in a mirror the glory of the Lord (His glory is shone in the heavens Ps 19:1, but this refers to His glory as shown in His Word, cp Jas 1:23, 24, Jas 1:25), are being transformed (being = passive voice = effect exerted by the Spirit on our inner man as we behold the "mirror" of God's Word; transformed = present tense = a continual process) into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit."
In Ephesians Paul exhorts the saints at Ephesus to "lay aside the old and to be renewed in the spirit of your mind." (Ep 4: 23) Renewed is in the passive voice indicating the effect is from an external source (the Spirit) and the present tense indicating that this renewal is an ongoing or continual process (cp, progressive sanctification, growth in Christlikeness, growth in holiness).
Sealed For Redemption
"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory...And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, by whom you are sealed unto the day of redemption." (Eph. 1:14-15; 4: 30)
"Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." (II Cor. 1: 21, 22)
There are four things that the apostle says that God was doing, or had done, to the Corinthian believers. They are anointing, sealing, pledging, and stablishing.
He first mentions the stablishing of believers. That work was still going on in the life of those believers, for it is in the present tense. The Greek word for "stablisheth" means "confirmation of a bargain." Paul is looking at the salvation of the believer under the typology of contracts and covenants. God has made a promise and given a pledge.
"Stablish" is also translated "confirm." To confirm something means "to support or establish the certainty or validity of; verify." And the word "establish" means "to place or settle in a secure position or condition," to "install." It also means "to make firm or secure." It also means "to introduce and put into force," and "to prove the validity or truth of something." It literally means to "certify."
Paul pictures God as continuously confirming his covenant with believers. So we read in Dan. 9: 27 - "he shall confirm the covenant." "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto...And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." (Gal. 3: 15, 17)
"...the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." (I Cor. 1: 6-8)
The way the Lord confirms believers is by confirming the testimony in them. Now, the word confirmed, bebaioÅ in Greek, is the same word translated "stablish" and is a legal term used in a courtroom context. It means to authenticate, or to make reliable, to clearly show that something is true, to put beyond doubt or dispute. It involves the providing of a guarantee, a certifying. Making an oath is one way that a thing may be established in law. Wrote Paul:
"For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us." (Heb. 6: 16-18)
God made promise to believers before the world began but he also confirms his promise when he saves them. And, to confirm that promise, he swears to them, makes an oath to them. Salvation involves a legal transaction. God enters into covenant or makes a deal with us based upon the work of Christ. How the Lord confirms his promises to the believer is by the witness of his word and Spirit in their hearts and consciences. Paul says that the purpose of God's oath, of his confirming and establishing of believers, is to "put an end to all strife," to put an end to all doubt and uncertainty, to all conflict.
The stablishing or confirming of the believer, which results from God's anointing and sealing the believer, has for its purpose the removing of doubt, and removing legal objections, and also for giving a "strong consolation" and "refuge," or place of safety, to the believer, for strengthening hope and expectation.
This work of confirming and establishing the believer is an ongoing work in the lives of believers. Not only does Paul say that God is presently stablishing believers but says that this is the result of his having previously "anointed" the believer. This anointing takes place when one is saved, born again, or regenerated. John wrote of this when he wrote:
"But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things." (I John 2: 20)
"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." (vs. 27)
The word unction means to anoint, a ceremony for consecrating one into office, such as priests and kings experienced when being inaugurated. In the Old Testament this anointing was done with oil and oil is a symbol for the Holy Spirit. This oil was mixed with spices, spices which are symbols of the gifts and graces of God. We read of how God "anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power." Further, to be anointed implies a prior choice. God anoints those who he chooses. Thus, we read in scripture of king Cyrus who was anointed and chosen by God for performing a mission service for the Lord. (Isa. 45: 1) But, not only are people anointed, but so are things. Thus, in scripture we read of monuments being anointed and of God anointing the most holy place.
This anointing or unction signifies that the believer is gifted with the indwelling Spirit of God and is what brings saving faith and understanding. It is the reason why believers "know all things." Not, that they literally know everything, but they know the reason or purpose of all things, which is the glory of God through Christ. God's people are priests and kings and as such they are anointed.
Paul says that this anointing or giving of the Spirit is an "earnest," a downpayment or pledge, a way of gauranteeing the fulfillment of his promise and contractual obligations. By the use of the word "earnest" there is allusion to real estate or mercantile agreements.
Are the words stablish, anoint, and pledge somehow connected? God anointed us with the oil of the Spirit and in doing so gave us a pledge of a future inheritance. Are these terms not all related to the idea of a covenant or contract, to a legal transaction? Lawyers speak of legal establishment, or to establish something in law. The anointing and pledging were the means for the stablishing. But, not only is the legal nature of the work of salvation in a believer demonstrated by the terms anointing, pledging, and stablishing, but also by the word "sealed."
Legal documents are always affixed with a seal. In deeds the word "seal" is now placed beside the line where one puts his signature. Sealing is not restricted to legal transactions, but they are an integral part of them. Certainly justification is a strictly legal term and Paul no doubt has justification in mind when he speaks of the believer being established in law. When the Lord saves his people he at the same time justifies them and makes promises to them, and enters into covenant with them. He makes an oath to them. And this oath and promise has God's own seal affixed to it. Redemption is also a legal term. Before we talk more fully about this sealing, let us notice a couple other passages where Paul speaks of this divine sealing. Further, even the idea of anointing cannot be divorced from a legal context seeing that installing men in governmental office is a legal ceremony.
"sealed unto the day of redemption." (Eph. 4: 30)
Paul says that this sealing is with a view to "the day of redemption." In both Corinthians and Ephesians sealing is connected with redemption, and with receiving the earnest or pledge of the promised inheritance.
What is meant by the Ephesian believers being "sealed with that holy Spirit of promise"? On the nature and purpose of "seals" and "signets" we observe that "sphragis" (seal) and "sphragizÅ" (sealed) literally means "to set a seal upon, mark with a seal, to seal." Kings often wore their seals on rings and would use them for sealing documents. Throughout the O.T. we read of "the engravings of a signet." Believers are marked with the signet of God; And of course not in their bodies but in their souls, minds, and spirits.
A signet is a seal or personal mark of identification and ownership. Cattle ranchers call their seals "brands." Each cattle owner had his own brand, his own symbol, his own mark, his own seal. Believers are sealed and branded in their renewed spirits when they are taken possession of by the Lord in conversion.
Letters and documents are sealed. Regeneration is described as being the work of God in writing a letter on the heart of believers.
"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people." (Jer. 31: 33)
God says that he will write his covenant in the hearts of his people. Paul also speaks of this.
"Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." (II Cor. 3: 3)
To this writing upon the heart God affixes his seal. He attests the writing. Confirms it. Authenticates and certifies it. All agreements in Israel were to be attested by a signature and a seal. This is true of redemption and marriage agreements. When believers enter into a marriage covenant with the Lord, the covenant is written in the heart and sealed with the signature of the Lord.
Is this "sealing" progressive and linear, or, like regeneration, an instantaneous once for all action? Is this sealing a part of regeneration or an experience that comes after regeneration has been completed?
In Eph. 1: 14 - "Ye were sealed" - First aorist passive indicative of spragizw, old verb, to set a seal on one as a mark or stamp. "After you heard" is from a Greek aorist participle. akouÅ = heard.
Since the main verb “you were sealed” (esphragisthÄte) is the aorist passive of sphragizÅ (“to seal”), we should understand that the sealing is simultaneous with the hearing and believing.
Both the ESV and the NRSV translate this “when” not “after.” Therefore, the sealing of the believer by the Holy Spirit occurs simultaneously with hearing the gospel and believing.
When the bridegroom in the Song of Solomon expresses to his beloved his desire that she give her love to him alone, he uses the figure of a seal of ownership. He asks that she put him “like a seal over your heart, Like a seal on your arm” (Song 8:6 NASB). He mentions love and jealousy as the reason for his request. She is to be sealed exclusively to him. Thus, sealing serves the purpose of confirming ownership.
PROTECTION
Sealing also refers to the protection of property in the Scriptures. Sealing protects items from tampering, and makes them safe and secure.
"So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch." (Matt. 27: 66)
When the Lord saves his people and the Spirit takes possession of them, he seals their hearts and sets a watch upon their souls.
"And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords; that the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel." (Dan. 6: 17)
"And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season." (Rev. 20: 3)
"He suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, he reproved kings for their sakes; Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm." (Psa. 105: 14, 15)
AUTHENTICATION & Certification
The seal also serves as proof of identity. It is put with a signature or in place of it in letters, agreements and private or public instructions. As such, circumcision, as a seal, authenticates, certifies, and attests to the veracity of the inward faith that Abraham possessed and believers possess (Rom 4:11).
The image of sealing also refers to God’s approval (John 3:33; 6:27; 1 Cor. 9:2). Thus we speak of a product or document having a "Seal of approval."
"Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his." (II Tim. 2: 19)
"He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true." (John 3: 33)
AUTHORIZATION
Since seals served as proof of identity and ownership, they also convey the authorization of the seal owner. This custom is well attested in Scripture. Therefore, sealing also conveys the authority of the owner of the seal.
Goods were sealed as a guarantee indicating not only ownership but also the correctness of the contents.
In the Hellenistic world, a man’s seal, a carved insignia pressed in wax, had legal significance. Stamped on possessions the seal indicated ownership and served as a ward against theft. On a document, the seal authenticated the message it contained, and symbolized the full authority of the person who sent it. Further, a sealed document could be opened only by the one to whom it was addressed.
"Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples." (Isa. 8: 16)
"He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true." (John 3: 33)
Authenticate it. Confirm it. Certify it. Attest to it. Impress it upon my disciples.
"Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed." (John 6: 27)
Making Impression
Seals make impressions on the paper and God's seal makes an impression upon the heart of the believer.
Conclusion
Salvation is having the image of Christ stamped upon the heart, soul, and mind.
In this series I have established that a slave is "redeemed" at various times and in different ways. It has been shown that "redemption" sometimes alludes to that commercial transaction where a buyer purchases a slave from a seller (owner). This immediately secures legal emancipation. However, actual release of prisoners or slaves is not realized until they have "walked free." In regards to the liberation of the soul and spirit, it has been shown how this actually occurs in conversion, the time when a sinner is "set free." Barclay writes that "apolutrosis" conveys "In every case the conception (of) the delivering of a man from a situation from which he was powerless to liberate himself or from a penalty which he himself could never have paid."
There is both the legal aspect of redemption and the subjective aspect, or actual physical release of the freed slave. Those redeemed by Christ via the atonement and conversion have their "freedom papers." These were carried by freed slaves (also called "protection papers") and were used to show that they were freemen in the case where they were stopped by officials or slave catchers. They also called them "free papers" because they certified their non-slave status.
Herman Bavinck wrote the following in "Sanctification and Perseverance" (REFORMED DOGMATICS: Volume 4: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation - see here) under the sub heading "Holiness as Gift and Reward" (emphasis mine):
"Since the redemption that God grants and works out in Christ is meant to accomplish complete deliverance from sin and all its consequences, it includes sanctification and glorification from the very beginning, along with Justification...Just as in the case of the forgiveness of sins, sanctification would be his work and his gift."
I wholeheartedly agree with Bavinck. Redemption "includes sanctification and glorification." This being so, we say not only that "we have been (past tense) redeemed," but say "we are being (present tense) redeemed" in daily renewal and sanctification. Having already addressed past redemption, in the decree of God in eternity past, in the death of Christ, and in first conversion, our present focus is on how "sanctification" (which involves daily renewal and transformation) is an experience of redemption.
As previously observed, redemption is accomplished (a "done deal"), in regard to the decree of God the Father, and in regard to the work of Christ the incarnate Son (redemption via atonement). In regard to past (fulfilled) redemption the focus has been mostly on the activity of the Father and Son. It was only when we came to see conversion (regeneration and rebirth) as redemptive did the focus become directed to the work of the Holy Spirit.
Remember too how it has been emphasized how God's purpose in creation is directly related to his purpose in redemption. Surely the "new creation" of which the scriptures speak, especially of the new testament, is linked intimately with redemption. When we were "created in Christ Jesus" (See Eph. 2: 9-10) when coming to Christ in conversion, this was the fulfilling of redemption. Certainly, as we will see as we come to study redemption in its final realization in the "day of redemption" and resurrection, there is the restoration (or re-creation) connected with redemption. (Romans 8) This leads us to consider what one has called
The Scope Of Redemption
In "Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview," author Albert M. Wolters (see here) wrote (emphasis mine):
"We have seen how the concept of creation must be taken much more broadly than Christians ordinarily take it, and how mankind's fall into sin effects the entire range of that broadly conceived creation. All of this has been preparation for making the basic point that the redemption achieved by Jesus Christ is cosmic in the sense that it restores the whole creation."
This has been emphasized throughout this series, and it will yet be enlarged upon when we see the finalization of the scheme of redemption.
Wolters continued:
"This fundamental confession has two distinct parts. The first is that redemption means restoration--that is, the return to the goodness of an originally unscathed creation and not merely the addition of something supracreational. The second is that this restoration affects the whole of creation life and not merely some limited area within it." (pg. 69)
I fully agree, and yet, as Wolters observes
"Of course, redemption as restoration of the whole creation does not involve the idea of universal salvation."
"Salvation as Restoration"
It is quite striking that practically all of the basic words describing salvation in the Bible imply a return to an original good state. Redemption is a good example. To redeem is to "buy free."
In "A theology of the “re-“ prefix" by Dr. Laniak (here), are these good words:
"I often found myself as a seminary professor explaining “what the Bible is all about.” There are many ways to go about this, but one helpful rubric is to describe the overall narrative in terms of creation and redemption. This is a grand scheme that covers the whole Bible with God’s redemptive work most visible in the work of Christ on the cross and a picture of eternal restoration provided in the book of Revelation. This pattern also serves as a micro scheme that explains a repeating cycle throughout the Bible. God creates. People fail and suffer the consequences. Then God restores and recreates. The cycle is impossible to miss in the books of Judges and Kings. An attentive reader can find it most anywhere."
You can’t read the Old Testament carefully without noticing the amazing redundancy of words around this theme. Words such as revive, renew, recreate, restore, reform, refresh, return, repent, redeem, repair, and rebuild. I call this the Bible’s “theology of the re- prefix.”
Redemption In Daily Renewal
We are being "renewed day by day" (II Cor. 4: 16).
"Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day." (NIV)
"And have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator." (Colossians 3: 10 NIV)
The process of inner renewal parallels the ongoing process of external bodily decay. Both the wasting away of the body and the renewing of the spirit is present tense linear, ongoing. It is a description of resurrection taking place within a decaying corpse!
The word "renewed" is from the Greek word "anakainoo" and means to make new (in quality) again. It is to cause something to become new and better or superior. It is in the passive voice.
The noun form of anakainoo is used by Paul in Romans to exhort the believers not to be continually conformed (present imperative) to this world, but be transformed (present imperative) by the renewing (anakainosis - qualitatively and so a renewal which makes one's mind different than it was in the past) of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. (Rom. 12:2)
"He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing (anakainosis) by the Holy Spirit." (Titus 4:5)
Some interpret anakainosis in this passage as a reference to the one time event of the new birth, others favor this as indicating a continual renewing by the Holy Spirit, similar to the renewal in 2Cor 4:16. Trench says that anakainosis refers to "the gradual (progressive, lifelong) conforming of the man more and more to that new spiritual world into which he has been introduced, and in which he now lives and moves; the restoration of the divine image." W E Vine says that anakainosis in Titus 3:5 refers to "the adjustment of the moral and spiritual vision and thinking to the mind of God, which is designed to have a transforming effect upon the life."
Paul alludes to the process of renewal of the inner man in II Cor 3:18.
"we all, with unveiled face (perfect tense = describes our permanent state, one that had its inception the day we believed [veil was lifted] and were born again, Jn 3:3, 5) beholding (middle voice = signifies that we initiate this action and participate in the benefits therefrom; present tense = a continual process) as in a mirror the glory of the Lord (His glory is shone in the heavens Ps 19:1, but this refers to His glory as shown in His Word, cp Jas 1:23, 24, Jas 1:25), are being transformed (being = passive voice = effect exerted by the Spirit on our inner man as we behold the "mirror" of God's Word; transformed = present tense = a continual process) into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit."
In Ephesians Paul exhorts the saints at Ephesus to "lay aside the old and to be renewed in the spirit of your mind." (Ep 4: 23) Renewed is in the passive voice indicating the effect is from an external source (the Spirit) and the present tense indicating that this renewal is an ongoing or continual process (cp, progressive sanctification, growth in Christlikeness, growth in holiness).
Sealed For Redemption
"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory...And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, by whom you are sealed unto the day of redemption." (Eph. 1:14-15; 4: 30)
"Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." (II Cor. 1: 21, 22)
There are four things that the apostle says that God was doing, or had done, to the Corinthian believers. They are anointing, sealing, pledging, and stablishing.
He first mentions the stablishing of believers. That work was still going on in the life of those believers, for it is in the present tense. The Greek word for "stablisheth" means "confirmation of a bargain." Paul is looking at the salvation of the believer under the typology of contracts and covenants. God has made a promise and given a pledge.
"Stablish" is also translated "confirm." To confirm something means "to support or establish the certainty or validity of; verify." And the word "establish" means "to place or settle in a secure position or condition," to "install." It also means "to make firm or secure." It also means "to introduce and put into force," and "to prove the validity or truth of something." It literally means to "certify."
Paul pictures God as continuously confirming his covenant with believers. So we read in Dan. 9: 27 - "he shall confirm the covenant." "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto...And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." (Gal. 3: 15, 17)
"...the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." (I Cor. 1: 6-8)
The way the Lord confirms believers is by confirming the testimony in them. Now, the word confirmed, bebaioÅ in Greek, is the same word translated "stablish" and is a legal term used in a courtroom context. It means to authenticate, or to make reliable, to clearly show that something is true, to put beyond doubt or dispute. It involves the providing of a guarantee, a certifying. Making an oath is one way that a thing may be established in law. Wrote Paul:
"For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us." (Heb. 6: 16-18)
God made promise to believers before the world began but he also confirms his promise when he saves them. And, to confirm that promise, he swears to them, makes an oath to them. Salvation involves a legal transaction. God enters into covenant or makes a deal with us based upon the work of Christ. How the Lord confirms his promises to the believer is by the witness of his word and Spirit in their hearts and consciences. Paul says that the purpose of God's oath, of his confirming and establishing of believers, is to "put an end to all strife," to put an end to all doubt and uncertainty, to all conflict.
The stablishing or confirming of the believer, which results from God's anointing and sealing the believer, has for its purpose the removing of doubt, and removing legal objections, and also for giving a "strong consolation" and "refuge," or place of safety, to the believer, for strengthening hope and expectation.
This work of confirming and establishing the believer is an ongoing work in the lives of believers. Not only does Paul say that God is presently stablishing believers but says that this is the result of his having previously "anointed" the believer. This anointing takes place when one is saved, born again, or regenerated. John wrote of this when he wrote:
"But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things." (I John 2: 20)
"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." (vs. 27)
The word unction means to anoint, a ceremony for consecrating one into office, such as priests and kings experienced when being inaugurated. In the Old Testament this anointing was done with oil and oil is a symbol for the Holy Spirit. This oil was mixed with spices, spices which are symbols of the gifts and graces of God. We read of how God "anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power." Further, to be anointed implies a prior choice. God anoints those who he chooses. Thus, we read in scripture of king Cyrus who was anointed and chosen by God for performing a mission service for the Lord. (Isa. 45: 1) But, not only are people anointed, but so are things. Thus, in scripture we read of monuments being anointed and of God anointing the most holy place.
This anointing or unction signifies that the believer is gifted with the indwelling Spirit of God and is what brings saving faith and understanding. It is the reason why believers "know all things." Not, that they literally know everything, but they know the reason or purpose of all things, which is the glory of God through Christ. God's people are priests and kings and as such they are anointed.
Paul says that this anointing or giving of the Spirit is an "earnest," a downpayment or pledge, a way of gauranteeing the fulfillment of his promise and contractual obligations. By the use of the word "earnest" there is allusion to real estate or mercantile agreements.
Are the words stablish, anoint, and pledge somehow connected? God anointed us with the oil of the Spirit and in doing so gave us a pledge of a future inheritance. Are these terms not all related to the idea of a covenant or contract, to a legal transaction? Lawyers speak of legal establishment, or to establish something in law. The anointing and pledging were the means for the stablishing. But, not only is the legal nature of the work of salvation in a believer demonstrated by the terms anointing, pledging, and stablishing, but also by the word "sealed."
Legal documents are always affixed with a seal. In deeds the word "seal" is now placed beside the line where one puts his signature. Sealing is not restricted to legal transactions, but they are an integral part of them. Certainly justification is a strictly legal term and Paul no doubt has justification in mind when he speaks of the believer being established in law. When the Lord saves his people he at the same time justifies them and makes promises to them, and enters into covenant with them. He makes an oath to them. And this oath and promise has God's own seal affixed to it. Redemption is also a legal term. Before we talk more fully about this sealing, let us notice a couple other passages where Paul speaks of this divine sealing. Further, even the idea of anointing cannot be divorced from a legal context seeing that installing men in governmental office is a legal ceremony.
"sealed unto the day of redemption." (Eph. 4: 30)
Paul says that this sealing is with a view to "the day of redemption." In both Corinthians and Ephesians sealing is connected with redemption, and with receiving the earnest or pledge of the promised inheritance.
What is meant by the Ephesian believers being "sealed with that holy Spirit of promise"? On the nature and purpose of "seals" and "signets" we observe that "sphragis" (seal) and "sphragizÅ" (sealed) literally means "to set a seal upon, mark with a seal, to seal." Kings often wore their seals on rings and would use them for sealing documents. Throughout the O.T. we read of "the engravings of a signet." Believers are marked with the signet of God; And of course not in their bodies but in their souls, minds, and spirits.
A signet is a seal or personal mark of identification and ownership. Cattle ranchers call their seals "brands." Each cattle owner had his own brand, his own symbol, his own mark, his own seal. Believers are sealed and branded in their renewed spirits when they are taken possession of by the Lord in conversion.
Letters and documents are sealed. Regeneration is described as being the work of God in writing a letter on the heart of believers.
"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people." (Jer. 31: 33)
God says that he will write his covenant in the hearts of his people. Paul also speaks of this.
"Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." (II Cor. 3: 3)
To this writing upon the heart God affixes his seal. He attests the writing. Confirms it. Authenticates and certifies it. All agreements in Israel were to be attested by a signature and a seal. This is true of redemption and marriage agreements. When believers enter into a marriage covenant with the Lord, the covenant is written in the heart and sealed with the signature of the Lord.
Is this "sealing" progressive and linear, or, like regeneration, an instantaneous once for all action? Is this sealing a part of regeneration or an experience that comes after regeneration has been completed?
In Eph. 1: 14 - "Ye were sealed" - First aorist passive indicative of spragizw, old verb, to set a seal on one as a mark or stamp. "After you heard" is from a Greek aorist participle. akouÅ = heard.
Since the main verb “you were sealed” (esphragisthÄte) is the aorist passive of sphragizÅ (“to seal”), we should understand that the sealing is simultaneous with the hearing and believing.
Both the ESV and the NRSV translate this “when” not “after.” Therefore, the sealing of the believer by the Holy Spirit occurs simultaneously with hearing the gospel and believing.
When the bridegroom in the Song of Solomon expresses to his beloved his desire that she give her love to him alone, he uses the figure of a seal of ownership. He asks that she put him “like a seal over your heart, Like a seal on your arm” (Song 8:6 NASB). He mentions love and jealousy as the reason for his request. She is to be sealed exclusively to him. Thus, sealing serves the purpose of confirming ownership.
PROTECTION
Sealing also refers to the protection of property in the Scriptures. Sealing protects items from tampering, and makes them safe and secure.
"So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch." (Matt. 27: 66)
When the Lord saves his people and the Spirit takes possession of them, he seals their hearts and sets a watch upon their souls.
"And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords; that the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel." (Dan. 6: 17)
"And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season." (Rev. 20: 3)
"He suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, he reproved kings for their sakes; Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm." (Psa. 105: 14, 15)
AUTHENTICATION & Certification
The seal also serves as proof of identity. It is put with a signature or in place of it in letters, agreements and private or public instructions. As such, circumcision, as a seal, authenticates, certifies, and attests to the veracity of the inward faith that Abraham possessed and believers possess (Rom 4:11).
The image of sealing also refers to God’s approval (John 3:33; 6:27; 1 Cor. 9:2). Thus we speak of a product or document having a "Seal of approval."
"Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his." (II Tim. 2: 19)
"He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true." (John 3: 33)
AUTHORIZATION
Since seals served as proof of identity and ownership, they also convey the authorization of the seal owner. This custom is well attested in Scripture. Therefore, sealing also conveys the authority of the owner of the seal.
Goods were sealed as a guarantee indicating not only ownership but also the correctness of the contents.
In the Hellenistic world, a man’s seal, a carved insignia pressed in wax, had legal significance. Stamped on possessions the seal indicated ownership and served as a ward against theft. On a document, the seal authenticated the message it contained, and symbolized the full authority of the person who sent it. Further, a sealed document could be opened only by the one to whom it was addressed.
"Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples." (Isa. 8: 16)
"He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true." (John 3: 33)
Authenticate it. Confirm it. Certify it. Attest to it. Impress it upon my disciples.
"Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed." (John 6: 27)
Making Impression
Seals make impressions on the paper and God's seal makes an impression upon the heart of the believer.
Conclusion
Salvation is having the image of Christ stamped upon the heart, soul, and mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)