We know that when God created the world in six days that he rested on the seventh day. In other words, his work ended, or was finished, at the end of the sixth day.
Those who are saved are they who are a "new creation" as Paul said:
"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation." (II Cor. 5: 17)
Question - did the Lord finish his work on me when he saved me? Or, is he still working on me? (As the hymn says "he's still working on me")
What answer would our Hardshell brothers give to this question? How important is a right answer?
I am sure that today's Hardshells (the bulk of them anyway) will deny that God is still working in creation upon them, and this is because they forsook the historic view of their forefathers in denying the sure and certain perseverance (which includes continuous sanctification, renewal, transformation, etc.) of the elect, and which doctrine necessitates that one believe that the work of conversion did not end, though it began, God's creative work in us.
"And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ." (Philippians 1: 6)
The Lord did not rest from his saving labors when he saved me almost 50 years ago, but, praise him, he is still recreating me into the image of Jesus. How about you? Is God still working on you? If he is, you will be found working on yourself too.
Thursday, June 25, 2020
Wednesday, June 24, 2020
Potter-Throgmorton Debate Review V
For the previous postings in this series see
(here)
(here)
(here)
(here)
Elder Potter's 4th speech (pg. 137-38)
"He reads a lengthy history of the union of the churches that finally became the Kehukee Association. The general and regular Baptists were united together, and some of them, the regular Baptists at least, were taken in with their doctrine and Baptism; but then he goes on to state that when among them, their labor produced a reformation in those things. That churches were organized anew and adopted the doctrine of grace; and that a renovation finally took place in all the churches among them, until they were ready to adopt the Philadelphia confession of faith, and did do it. That is his own witness. Hence they were established on the same doctrine they believe to day. They were established upon the same confession of faith they have now, the Philadelphia confession of faith. He says they are Hardshells now. Now I just challenge him to tell when they became Hardshells. Give us the date when they turned that somersault. If they were not always Hardshells, he admits that they are Hardshells now. Again, on the subject of conviction and conversion, he says that I denied that the Spirit ever did use means in the conversion of a sinner. I did not say it. I said the Spirit operated or worked independently of means. I did not say, "without means." But I deny that it is limited to them. I want that distinctly understood; that I deny the doctrine that the Spirit never operates only where the Gospel is preached. The missionaries preach that doctrine. No one else does. But if it is not dependent on means, then it is not dependent on the preaching of the Gospel, or the influence of the church, or the Bible. If it is, then salvation is limited to where the Gospel is preached, or the Bible is known. That is his doctrine."
This is an important citation from this famous 1887 debate and anyone who is a student of the history of the "Primitive" or "Old School" (aka "Hardshells") Baptist denomination will recognize its importance, especially as it relates to the change in doctrine that was occurring among the Hardshells in the second half of the 19th century.
The Transition View
Potter in this debate does not deny that the Spirit may sometimes, though not always, convert the sinner by means. Today's Hardshells will deny that God ever uses the means of the Gospel or word of God in converting the sinner.
Potter condemned the view of the Missionaries that the Spirit never converted apart from the means of the Gospel, calling it an extreme. But, he seems clearly to deny the view of today's Hardshells who go to the other extreme in saying that God never uses those means in conversion. (And in this debate Potter is using the term "conversion" and "salvation" in the sense of new birth and eternal salvation) Potter says that he takes the middle ground which says God may sometimes use those means and sometimes not. That seems to me to be a clear "transition view" between the views of Potter's forefathers and associates (who espoused means, men like Watson and Fain) and those of the 20th century.
Taking this view would give support to the anti means wing of the denomination (growing in size in 1887) and yet not completely alienate those who still retained a belief in means. Consider also this supposition. If Potter had taken the extreme view (that God never converts by means) he would have no support from those PBs who still believed in means and would show that he was clearly at odds with Watson, Fain, Clark, etc., men who preceded him by a few years.
This transition view accomplished its purpose of creating a bridge from the PBs of the first half of the 19th century till the beginning of the 20th.
Following the above words of Potter he added these words:
"I quoted his own confession of faith of the Franklin Association yesterday. In that they say that the influence of the Spirit of God is co-extensive with the proclamation of the Gospel. Does he find such sentiments as that among the Philadelphia Association, the Kehukee, Charleston, or any of these associations that he has been reading to us about? Nothing of that sort. Did any of these old brethren believe that the salvation of God was limited to where the Bible was known? The Missionary Baptists preach it, and they preach eternal damnation of all that portion of mankind that never hear the Gospel, or have any knowledge of the Bible."
Why would Potter bring up what those old Associations believed about means? They all taught that the heathen were lost without the gospel.
(here)
(here)
(here)
(here)
Elder Potter's 4th speech (pg. 137-38)
"He reads a lengthy history of the union of the churches that finally became the Kehukee Association. The general and regular Baptists were united together, and some of them, the regular Baptists at least, were taken in with their doctrine and Baptism; but then he goes on to state that when among them, their labor produced a reformation in those things. That churches were organized anew and adopted the doctrine of grace; and that a renovation finally took place in all the churches among them, until they were ready to adopt the Philadelphia confession of faith, and did do it. That is his own witness. Hence they were established on the same doctrine they believe to day. They were established upon the same confession of faith they have now, the Philadelphia confession of faith. He says they are Hardshells now. Now I just challenge him to tell when they became Hardshells. Give us the date when they turned that somersault. If they were not always Hardshells, he admits that they are Hardshells now. Again, on the subject of conviction and conversion, he says that I denied that the Spirit ever did use means in the conversion of a sinner. I did not say it. I said the Spirit operated or worked independently of means. I did not say, "without means." But I deny that it is limited to them. I want that distinctly understood; that I deny the doctrine that the Spirit never operates only where the Gospel is preached. The missionaries preach that doctrine. No one else does. But if it is not dependent on means, then it is not dependent on the preaching of the Gospel, or the influence of the church, or the Bible. If it is, then salvation is limited to where the Gospel is preached, or the Bible is known. That is his doctrine."
This is an important citation from this famous 1887 debate and anyone who is a student of the history of the "Primitive" or "Old School" (aka "Hardshells") Baptist denomination will recognize its importance, especially as it relates to the change in doctrine that was occurring among the Hardshells in the second half of the 19th century.
The Transition View
Potter in this debate does not deny that the Spirit may sometimes, though not always, convert the sinner by means. Today's Hardshells will deny that God ever uses the means of the Gospel or word of God in converting the sinner.
Potter condemned the view of the Missionaries that the Spirit never converted apart from the means of the Gospel, calling it an extreme. But, he seems clearly to deny the view of today's Hardshells who go to the other extreme in saying that God never uses those means in conversion. (And in this debate Potter is using the term "conversion" and "salvation" in the sense of new birth and eternal salvation) Potter says that he takes the middle ground which says God may sometimes use those means and sometimes not. That seems to me to be a clear "transition view" between the views of Potter's forefathers and associates (who espoused means, men like Watson and Fain) and those of the 20th century.
Taking this view would give support to the anti means wing of the denomination (growing in size in 1887) and yet not completely alienate those who still retained a belief in means. Consider also this supposition. If Potter had taken the extreme view (that God never converts by means) he would have no support from those PBs who still believed in means and would show that he was clearly at odds with Watson, Fain, Clark, etc., men who preceded him by a few years.
This transition view accomplished its purpose of creating a bridge from the PBs of the first half of the 19th century till the beginning of the 20th.
Following the above words of Potter he added these words:
"I quoted his own confession of faith of the Franklin Association yesterday. In that they say that the influence of the Spirit of God is co-extensive with the proclamation of the Gospel. Does he find such sentiments as that among the Philadelphia Association, the Kehukee, Charleston, or any of these associations that he has been reading to us about? Nothing of that sort. Did any of these old brethren believe that the salvation of God was limited to where the Bible was known? The Missionary Baptists preach it, and they preach eternal damnation of all that portion of mankind that never hear the Gospel, or have any knowledge of the Bible."
Why would Potter bring up what those old Associations believed about means? They all taught that the heathen were lost without the gospel.
Baptized "eis" Christ
Romans 6 - Baptized unto Christ
"UNTO Christ"
“And he said unto them, Unto (eis) what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.” (Acts 19:3)
Everything the Christian does, in obedience to Christ, from the first moment of his birth into new spiritual life in Christ, until his final breath on earth, is "UNTO (eis) Christ," and "UNTO (eis) salvation," and "UNTO (eis) forgiveness (pardon)," and "UNTO (eis) sanctification," and "UNTO (eis) justification (righteousness)," and "UNTO (eis) redemption," and "UNTO (eis) adoption," etc.
Thus, when we believe the gospel, we believe "eis" Christ, and "eis salvation," and "eis righteousness," and "eis forgiveness," etc. Likewise, when we repent, and are baptized, and eat the Lord's Supper, and do good works, it is all "eis," or "concerning" Christ and salvation. As these acts are often continuous, so all our spiritual activity is continuously "eis..."
In the New Testament the phrase "eis auton" (unto him) is used frequently.
"And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and is believing on him (eis-unto him), may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:40)
"Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye may be believing on him (eis-unto him) whom He hath sent." (John 6:29)
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that is believing on (eis, unto) Me is having everlasting life. I am that bread of life." (John 6:47-48)
Baptism eis Christ, or "unto" Christ is to be compared with "baptized eis (unto) Moses." If we understand the one we will understand the other.
There is little dispute that being "baptized unto Moses" signified the open allegiance and public identification of the people of God with Moses. Moses was formally recognized as the leader of the covenant people.
Being "baptized unto Moses" did not put people "into" Moses. It is not what introduced them to Moses. It was not a means of their being constituted the people of God. They were the people of God before their baptism unto Moses. Further, prior to this event, of being "baptized unto Moses," the people had already eaten the Passover lamb, already had the blood applied to the benefit of themselves, already out of Egypt, and so the baptism unto Moses was too late an event to be the means of their salvation. Granted, other deliverances followed their initial salvation and redemption, but I am talking about initial application of the blood, or when one is constituted a child of Jehovah.
Further, John Gentry (my debate opponent) insisted that "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6: 3,4; Gal. 3: 27) meant that water baptism put one into Christ. I asked him why "believe into Christ" did not mean the same thing.
Taken from "The Baptist Gadfly" for Aug. 17, 2009 (here)
"UNTO Christ"
“And he said unto them, Unto (eis) what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.” (Acts 19:3)
Everything the Christian does, in obedience to Christ, from the first moment of his birth into new spiritual life in Christ, until his final breath on earth, is "UNTO (eis) Christ," and "UNTO (eis) salvation," and "UNTO (eis) forgiveness (pardon)," and "UNTO (eis) sanctification," and "UNTO (eis) justification (righteousness)," and "UNTO (eis) redemption," and "UNTO (eis) adoption," etc.
Thus, when we believe the gospel, we believe "eis" Christ, and "eis salvation," and "eis righteousness," and "eis forgiveness," etc. Likewise, when we repent, and are baptized, and eat the Lord's Supper, and do good works, it is all "eis," or "concerning" Christ and salvation. As these acts are often continuous, so all our spiritual activity is continuously "eis..."
In the New Testament the phrase "eis auton" (unto him) is used frequently.
"And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and is believing on him (eis-unto him), may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:40)
"Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye may be believing on him (eis-unto him) whom He hath sent." (John 6:29)
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that is believing on (eis, unto) Me is having everlasting life. I am that bread of life." (John 6:47-48)
Baptism eis Christ, or "unto" Christ is to be compared with "baptized eis (unto) Moses." If we understand the one we will understand the other.
There is little dispute that being "baptized unto Moses" signified the open allegiance and public identification of the people of God with Moses. Moses was formally recognized as the leader of the covenant people.
Being "baptized unto Moses" did not put people "into" Moses. It is not what introduced them to Moses. It was not a means of their being constituted the people of God. They were the people of God before their baptism unto Moses. Further, prior to this event, of being "baptized unto Moses," the people had already eaten the Passover lamb, already had the blood applied to the benefit of themselves, already out of Egypt, and so the baptism unto Moses was too late an event to be the means of their salvation. Granted, other deliverances followed their initial salvation and redemption, but I am talking about initial application of the blood, or when one is constituted a child of Jehovah.
Further, John Gentry (my debate opponent) insisted that "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6: 3,4; Gal. 3: 27) meant that water baptism put one into Christ. I asked him why "believe into Christ" did not mean the same thing.
Taken from "The Baptist Gadfly" for Aug. 17, 2009 (here)
Thursday, June 18, 2020
Deceitful Schemes of Crafty Rogues
"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." (Eph. 4:14 kjv)
Synonyms for sleight - artifice, device, dodge, fetch, flimflam, gambit, gimmick, jig, juggle, knack, play, ploy, ruse, scheme, shenanigan, stratagem, trick, wile
Translated we may say "by the sleight of men" or "by the trickery of men."
Commentary from preceptaustin.com (here)
Trickery (2940) (kubeia from kubos ~ gives us our English "cube", dice) literally refers to wicked dice playing or throwing dice and figuratively refers to intentional fraud or sleight of hand in the spiritual sense. Kubeia, the term for dice became synonymous with trickery of any sort. The dice were often “loaded” or otherwise manipulated by professional gamblers to their own advantage which is a perfect picture of men coming into a congregation and manipulating the Word of God to make it say what they want it to say!"
In 50 years of teaching the bible I have had to fight with heretics and perverters of the word and many of them were skilled in Sophistry and argument.
Warren Wiersbe has an insightful comment warning that...
The cultists do not try to win lost souls to Christ. They do not establish rescue missions in the slum areas of our cities, because they have no good news for the man on skid row. Instead, these false teachers try to capture immature Christians, and for this reason, most of the membership of the false cults comes from local churches, particularly churches that do not feed their people the Word of God. (Wiersbe, W: Bible Exposition Commentary. 1989. Victor)
By craftiness in deceitful scheming - This Greek phrase is somewhat difficult to translate clearly into English but in simple terms I have paraphrased it as...
"cunning methods which deceive, delude and lead astray (from the truth)"
The New English Bible has a vivid paraphrase...
“dupes of crafty rogues and their deceitful schemes”
This is an apt description of the many cultists, religious racketeers, charlatans, false prophets and teachers, and manipulative religious leaders who abound in our day. They trap many immature Christians (including many spiritually immature Christians who are chronologically "mature") with their teachings that sound so right and enticing."
Those "crafty rogues" who twist and pervert scripture are to be rebuked sharply.
"Craftiness (3834) (panourgia from pas = all + ergon = work) is literally "all working" or capable of all work. In the NT it takes on a negative meaning and conveys the ideas of trickery involving cunning, cleverness, craftiness or treachery. Panourgia conveys the the idea of clever manipulation of error to make it look like the truth. Someone who practiced panourgia would be willing to do anything to achieve his goals. Panourgia is the unscrupulousness that stops at nothing."
Now notice these verses that reference these crafty rogues:
"But we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (II Cor. 4: 2)
"But I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ." (II Cor. 11: 3)
Do not ever twist the scripture! Be honest with it. Accept it for what it plainly says and allow no one to deceive you into believing that it does not mean what it says.
Synonyms for sleight - artifice, device, dodge, fetch, flimflam, gambit, gimmick, jig, juggle, knack, play, ploy, ruse, scheme, shenanigan, stratagem, trick, wile
Translated we may say "by the sleight of men" or "by the trickery of men."
Commentary from preceptaustin.com (here)
Trickery (2940) (kubeia from kubos ~ gives us our English "cube", dice) literally refers to wicked dice playing or throwing dice and figuratively refers to intentional fraud or sleight of hand in the spiritual sense. Kubeia, the term for dice became synonymous with trickery of any sort. The dice were often “loaded” or otherwise manipulated by professional gamblers to their own advantage which is a perfect picture of men coming into a congregation and manipulating the Word of God to make it say what they want it to say!"
In 50 years of teaching the bible I have had to fight with heretics and perverters of the word and many of them were skilled in Sophistry and argument.
Warren Wiersbe has an insightful comment warning that...
The cultists do not try to win lost souls to Christ. They do not establish rescue missions in the slum areas of our cities, because they have no good news for the man on skid row. Instead, these false teachers try to capture immature Christians, and for this reason, most of the membership of the false cults comes from local churches, particularly churches that do not feed their people the Word of God. (Wiersbe, W: Bible Exposition Commentary. 1989. Victor)
By craftiness in deceitful scheming - This Greek phrase is somewhat difficult to translate clearly into English but in simple terms I have paraphrased it as...
"cunning methods which deceive, delude and lead astray (from the truth)"
The New English Bible has a vivid paraphrase...
“dupes of crafty rogues and their deceitful schemes”
This is an apt description of the many cultists, religious racketeers, charlatans, false prophets and teachers, and manipulative religious leaders who abound in our day. They trap many immature Christians (including many spiritually immature Christians who are chronologically "mature") with their teachings that sound so right and enticing."
Those "crafty rogues" who twist and pervert scripture are to be rebuked sharply.
"Craftiness (3834) (panourgia from pas = all + ergon = work) is literally "all working" or capable of all work. In the NT it takes on a negative meaning and conveys the ideas of trickery involving cunning, cleverness, craftiness or treachery. Panourgia conveys the the idea of clever manipulation of error to make it look like the truth. Someone who practiced panourgia would be willing to do anything to achieve his goals. Panourgia is the unscrupulousness that stops at nothing."
Now notice these verses that reference these crafty rogues:
"But we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (II Cor. 4: 2)
"But I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ." (II Cor. 11: 3)
Do not ever twist the scripture! Be honest with it. Accept it for what it plainly says and allow no one to deceive you into believing that it does not mean what it says.
Wednesday, June 17, 2020
Elder John Daily On Two Key Texts
In this posting I want to examine what Elder John R. Daily said in explaining two passages of holy scripture, namely II Thess. 1: 8 and Rom. 2:6-9. Daily was one of the leaders of the late 19th and early 20th century who helped to change "Primitive Baptist" beliefs and to mold it into the heretical cult group that it is today. He, like his colleague, Elder C. H. Cayce, introduced and promoted the heretical "no means" view of the new birth, changing the historic view of their forefathers for a novel view on what is the nature and causes of regeneration and of the historic doctrine of the perseverance of the sanctified. He was one of their leading debaters along with Cayce.
In an article titled "Certain Passages Considered" (Zion's Advocate, Vol. 45, No. 4, April 1906 - here) Daily said (emphasis mine):
"In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." II. Thessalonians 1: 8.
The apostle had expressed gratitude to God for the growth of the saint's faith and charity and patience in all their persecutions and tribulations. he calls all these things a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that they might be counted worthy of the kingdom of God for which they were called upon to suffer. He showed it to be a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to those who troubled them, and to give them rest, "when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel."
It is certain, therefore, that the persecutors of the saints are meant, who are ignorant of God and opposed in their hearts to the gospel of Christ. "Obey" is translated from the Greek word hupakouos, which is derived from akouos, the signification of which is to hear, to hearken, to understand. Hence the term "obey not" has reference to the hatred and opposition to the gospel by the persecutors of the saints. The eyes of their understanding had not been enlightened. Ephesians 1:18. Their understanding was darkened, "being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart." Ephesians 4:18. They did not obey the gospel. Moreover they could not do so, because of their hatred of it. Being in the flesh, they could not please God. Romans 8: 8.
Comments & Observations
1. Daily does not attempt to make the "everlasting punishment" to be a mere "time salvation." This is probably because to make it a temporal punishment would have gone against what had been the accepted interpretation of Daily's PB forefathers.
2. Yet, he had to come up with an interpretation of the text that overthrew the idea that the text taught that believing or obeying the gospel, and knowing God, were required for obtaining eternal life, for the new Hardshell view was fast becoming, in Daily's time, the predominant view, which view affirmed that many of the Lord's people are regenerated and finally saved who never heard, believed, or obeyed the gospel.
3. He seems to imply that the threatened punishment was limited to only those who are unregenerate and who were persecutors of Christians, saying "the persecutors of the saints are meant, who are ignorant of God and opposed in their hearts to the gospel of Christ." Is he affirming that those who, though not persecutors of Christians, yet still disbelieve the Christian gospel, are excluded from the threatened punishment? He seems to be affirming this. I suspect that Daily is still clinging somewhat to the doctrine of perseverance (which doctrine was being challenged by the new "no means" view) in saying that once one is born again and hears the gospel, then he will believe and follow it.
4. The text very clearly teaches that all those who reject the gospel, whether they persecute Christians or not, are all destined to suffer everlasting destruction. This was the view that Daily's forefathers taught.
"God will render to every man according to his deeds: to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: but unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile." Romans 2:6-9.
In the chapter that follows this one, the apostle collects a number of passages that teach the depravity of the human race, and deduces the conclusion that "there is no difference, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Since there is no difference, all Jews and all Gentiles are exactly alike. This is true of them in their natural standing. Now if we apply this passage to them in that state, and represent it as teaching that such only as continue patiently in well doing, and seek for glory and honor and immortality, receive eternal life because of having done so, we prove by it that none will ever have eternal life. Since there is no difference, "there is none righteous, no, not one: there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God; they are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no not one." The conclusion is unavoidable, that if the condition of receiving eternal life should be a patient continuance in well doing, and seeking for glory and honor and immortality, none will receive eternal life. This is the perplexity into which Arminians are plunged in trying to apply this text to favor conditionalism, and from it there is no escape for them."
Huh? The passage says God will "render eternal life" to those who patiently continue in well doing and he will "render wrath, etc." to those who continue doing wrong (obeying unrighteousness, or "not doing well"); So, how can Daily say that the text clearly says just the opposite? i.e. that receiving eternal life is not conditioned upon perseverance in well doing? An unbiased person reads the text and "concludes" that those who obtain eternal life are they who persevered and they who did not persevere obtained eternal wrath. It takes a professional scripture twister to make the verse say just the opposite of what is plain to all the unbiased! The scriptures speak of those who "resist the truth" (II Tim. 3: 8) and here is another glaring instance of it on the part of our Hardshell brothers.
Daily continued:
"The apostle is not looking forward and proposing conditions to alien sinners to be complied with by them in order to obtain eternal life. He takes his stand at the "great day of wrath and revelation of the righteousness judgment of God," and retrospectively surveys the race of mankind. In that survey he sees two classes, one of which have borne the fruits of being born of God and of having been made to differ from the others as the "workmanship of God, created in Christ Jesus unto good works." These had received eternal life in the soul, for Jesus declared, "He that heareth my words, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life." It is the resurrection of the body into the same eternal life that the apostle refers to here. The others, who were as corrupt trees that had never been made good, and had therefore borne the corrupt fruits of unrighteousness, receive indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish. He thus "renders to every man according to his deeds," his deeds being the fruits of his character as a good or bad tree. If he has borne the good fruits mentioned, it is because he was first made to be a good tree, which was entirely the Lord's work, for the preparations of the heart in man are from the Lord. Proverbs 16:1. In the sense that he treats Jews and Gentiles alike there is no respect of persons with God. He does not respect one man's person because he is a Jew. National distinctions are not regarded by him."
Again, Daily's explanation is simple - "the text means just the opposite of what you think it says."
Daily evades the force of the text on perseverance. Though "continuing" is not a condition for eternal life in initial conversion, obviously, it is still a condition for those who have professed faith in Christ. Many conditions for obtaining eternal life in the day of judgment and resurrection are pressed upon the converted for their perseverance unto eternal life.
What think ye?
In an article titled "Certain Passages Considered" (Zion's Advocate, Vol. 45, No. 4, April 1906 - here) Daily said (emphasis mine):
"In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." II. Thessalonians 1: 8.
The apostle had expressed gratitude to God for the growth of the saint's faith and charity and patience in all their persecutions and tribulations. he calls all these things a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that they might be counted worthy of the kingdom of God for which they were called upon to suffer. He showed it to be a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to those who troubled them, and to give them rest, "when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel."
It is certain, therefore, that the persecutors of the saints are meant, who are ignorant of God and opposed in their hearts to the gospel of Christ. "Obey" is translated from the Greek word hupakouos, which is derived from akouos, the signification of which is to hear, to hearken, to understand. Hence the term "obey not" has reference to the hatred and opposition to the gospel by the persecutors of the saints. The eyes of their understanding had not been enlightened. Ephesians 1:18. Their understanding was darkened, "being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart." Ephesians 4:18. They did not obey the gospel. Moreover they could not do so, because of their hatred of it. Being in the flesh, they could not please God. Romans 8: 8.
Comments & Observations
1. Daily does not attempt to make the "everlasting punishment" to be a mere "time salvation." This is probably because to make it a temporal punishment would have gone against what had been the accepted interpretation of Daily's PB forefathers.
2. Yet, he had to come up with an interpretation of the text that overthrew the idea that the text taught that believing or obeying the gospel, and knowing God, were required for obtaining eternal life, for the new Hardshell view was fast becoming, in Daily's time, the predominant view, which view affirmed that many of the Lord's people are regenerated and finally saved who never heard, believed, or obeyed the gospel.
3. He seems to imply that the threatened punishment was limited to only those who are unregenerate and who were persecutors of Christians, saying "the persecutors of the saints are meant, who are ignorant of God and opposed in their hearts to the gospel of Christ." Is he affirming that those who, though not persecutors of Christians, yet still disbelieve the Christian gospel, are excluded from the threatened punishment? He seems to be affirming this. I suspect that Daily is still clinging somewhat to the doctrine of perseverance (which doctrine was being challenged by the new "no means" view) in saying that once one is born again and hears the gospel, then he will believe and follow it.
4. The text very clearly teaches that all those who reject the gospel, whether they persecute Christians or not, are all destined to suffer everlasting destruction. This was the view that Daily's forefathers taught.
"God will render to every man according to his deeds: to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: but unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile." Romans 2:6-9.
In the chapter that follows this one, the apostle collects a number of passages that teach the depravity of the human race, and deduces the conclusion that "there is no difference, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Since there is no difference, all Jews and all Gentiles are exactly alike. This is true of them in their natural standing. Now if we apply this passage to them in that state, and represent it as teaching that such only as continue patiently in well doing, and seek for glory and honor and immortality, receive eternal life because of having done so, we prove by it that none will ever have eternal life. Since there is no difference, "there is none righteous, no, not one: there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God; they are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no not one." The conclusion is unavoidable, that if the condition of receiving eternal life should be a patient continuance in well doing, and seeking for glory and honor and immortality, none will receive eternal life. This is the perplexity into which Arminians are plunged in trying to apply this text to favor conditionalism, and from it there is no escape for them."
Huh? The passage says God will "render eternal life" to those who patiently continue in well doing and he will "render wrath, etc." to those who continue doing wrong (obeying unrighteousness, or "not doing well"); So, how can Daily say that the text clearly says just the opposite? i.e. that receiving eternal life is not conditioned upon perseverance in well doing? An unbiased person reads the text and "concludes" that those who obtain eternal life are they who persevered and they who did not persevere obtained eternal wrath. It takes a professional scripture twister to make the verse say just the opposite of what is plain to all the unbiased! The scriptures speak of those who "resist the truth" (II Tim. 3: 8) and here is another glaring instance of it on the part of our Hardshell brothers.
Daily continued:
"The apostle is not looking forward and proposing conditions to alien sinners to be complied with by them in order to obtain eternal life. He takes his stand at the "great day of wrath and revelation of the righteousness judgment of God," and retrospectively surveys the race of mankind. In that survey he sees two classes, one of which have borne the fruits of being born of God and of having been made to differ from the others as the "workmanship of God, created in Christ Jesus unto good works." These had received eternal life in the soul, for Jesus declared, "He that heareth my words, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life." It is the resurrection of the body into the same eternal life that the apostle refers to here. The others, who were as corrupt trees that had never been made good, and had therefore borne the corrupt fruits of unrighteousness, receive indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish. He thus "renders to every man according to his deeds," his deeds being the fruits of his character as a good or bad tree. If he has borne the good fruits mentioned, it is because he was first made to be a good tree, which was entirely the Lord's work, for the preparations of the heart in man are from the Lord. Proverbs 16:1. In the sense that he treats Jews and Gentiles alike there is no respect of persons with God. He does not respect one man's person because he is a Jew. National distinctions are not regarded by him."
Again, Daily's explanation is simple - "the text means just the opposite of what you think it says."
Daily evades the force of the text on perseverance. Though "continuing" is not a condition for eternal life in initial conversion, obviously, it is still a condition for those who have professed faith in Christ. Many conditions for obtaining eternal life in the day of judgment and resurrection are pressed upon the converted for their perseverance unto eternal life.
What think ye?
Tuesday, June 16, 2020
Who Is The Wise, Strong & High Born?
The following is taken from my series titled "Weak Brethren" (see here).
In first Corinthians chapter one Paul addresses the Sophistic criteria for judging between the "wise" and "foolish," between the "strong" (powerful) and the "weak."
"For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." (26-31)
"Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." (vs. 24)
This is Paul's criteria for who is wise and strong versus who is foolish and weak. Does a man have Christ? If yes, then he has wisdom and power and is himself wise and strong. He is so in the eyes of God, although not so in the eyes of the Greek and Roman world, or world at large. If a man, therefore, is judged as wise and strong by the Greek (worldly) standard, then those who have Christ (Christians) are foolish and weak. Paul attacks the worldly standard and focuses on three standards, power, wisdom, birth status (nobility).
To the world the Christian is weak. Christians are weak-minded and weak because they extol pacifism, mercy, forgiveness, meekness, humility, lowliness of mind, etc., and because they do not prize ambition, pride (hubris), financial success, social status, etc. Christianity is also viewed as antagonistic to manliness and courage and is a belief system that leads to low self esteem and lack of success.
All this was true of the Corinthians. The first adult converts to Christ in Corinth had a lot of philosophical and theological "baggage" from which to divorce themselves. Paul was sent by God to these Greek converts to help them get rid of this baggage. In order to do this, he begins by taking up Greek concepts about wisdom, power, nobility, and elect status. In the next chapter, these ideas will be enlarged upon as the context of the first epistle to the Corinthians is more particularly investigated.
But, clearly, in this paradigm of "two classes," sometimes designated as wise verses foolish, or strong versus weak, or high born versus low born, Paul makes use of this paradigm, though he advocates a different criteria. Who does Paul think is wise and strong? Is it not the Christian who is in Christ? Does Paul not think that those who are not Christians are the ones who are foolish and weak? So, this is further evidence that Paul is not describing two kinds of saved people, two kinds of Christians, but of the two kinds of people in the world, the saved and the lost. The weak need to be saved and won (gained) to Christ. The strong are they who have been saved and won.
This whole series is worth reading seeing most bible teachers are wrong on the state of those who are described as being "without strength."
In first Corinthians chapter one Paul addresses the Sophistic criteria for judging between the "wise" and "foolish," between the "strong" (powerful) and the "weak."
"For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." (26-31)
"Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." (vs. 24)
This is Paul's criteria for who is wise and strong versus who is foolish and weak. Does a man have Christ? If yes, then he has wisdom and power and is himself wise and strong. He is so in the eyes of God, although not so in the eyes of the Greek and Roman world, or world at large. If a man, therefore, is judged as wise and strong by the Greek (worldly) standard, then those who have Christ (Christians) are foolish and weak. Paul attacks the worldly standard and focuses on three standards, power, wisdom, birth status (nobility).
To the world the Christian is weak. Christians are weak-minded and weak because they extol pacifism, mercy, forgiveness, meekness, humility, lowliness of mind, etc., and because they do not prize ambition, pride (hubris), financial success, social status, etc. Christianity is also viewed as antagonistic to manliness and courage and is a belief system that leads to low self esteem and lack of success.
All this was true of the Corinthians. The first adult converts to Christ in Corinth had a lot of philosophical and theological "baggage" from which to divorce themselves. Paul was sent by God to these Greek converts to help them get rid of this baggage. In order to do this, he begins by taking up Greek concepts about wisdom, power, nobility, and elect status. In the next chapter, these ideas will be enlarged upon as the context of the first epistle to the Corinthians is more particularly investigated.
But, clearly, in this paradigm of "two classes," sometimes designated as wise verses foolish, or strong versus weak, or high born versus low born, Paul makes use of this paradigm, though he advocates a different criteria. Who does Paul think is wise and strong? Is it not the Christian who is in Christ? Does Paul not think that those who are not Christians are the ones who are foolish and weak? So, this is further evidence that Paul is not describing two kinds of saved people, two kinds of Christians, but of the two kinds of people in the world, the saved and the lost. The weak need to be saved and won (gained) to Christ. The strong are they who have been saved and won.
This whole series is worth reading seeing most bible teachers are wrong on the state of those who are described as being "without strength."
Wednesday, June 10, 2020
Spurgeon On Duty Faith
1834-1892
"Faith and Regeneration"
(1871 - see here)
Inasmuch as the gospel command, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved," is addressed by divine authority to every creature, it is the duty of every man so to do. What saith John: "This is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ," and our Lord himself assures us, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God." I know there are some who will deny this, and deny it upon the ground that man has not the spiritual ability to believe in Jesus, to which I reply that it is altogether an error to imagine that the measure of the sinners moral ability is the measure of his duty. There are many things which men ought to do which they have now lost the moral and spiritual, though not the physical, power to do. A man ought to be chaste, but if he has been so long immoral that he cannot restrain his passions, he is not thereby free from the obligation. It is the duty of a debtor to pay his debts, but if he has been such a spendthrift that he has brought himself into hopeless poverty, he is not exonerated from his debts thereby. Every man ought to believe that which is true, but if his mind has become so depraved that he loves a lie and will not receive the truth, is he thereby excused? If the law of God is to be lowered according to the moral condition of sinners, you would have a law graduated upon a sliding- scale to suit the degrees of human sinfulness; in fact, the worst man would be under the least law, and become consequently the least guilty. God's requirements would be a variable quantity, and, in truth, we should be under no rule at all. The command of Christ stands good however bad men may be, and when he commands all men everywhere to repent, they are bound to repent, whether their sinfulness renders it impossible for them to be willing to so or not. In every case it is man's duty to do what God bids him."
This has always been the predominant view of Baptists. Unbelief must be preached as guilt.
Thursday, June 4, 2020
Angelic Preaching In The Last Days
"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." (Rev. 14: 6-7 KJV)
There is so much exciting and somewhat mysterious information about coming events in these words of the Apocalypse. Not only that, but contemplating their significance brings one to think about several other important ideas dealing with theology, especially with issues relative to God's providence and to soteriological questions.
Wonderful and Spectacular
An angel preaching from the skies with a voice that is heard by every person on the planet? Is that not wonderful and spectacular? Selah. What a way to preach the gospel! No missionaries needed! No preachers needed! All are hearing God speak from heaven (through the angel) just as miraculously as the Israelites heard the voice of God at Mt. Sinai. Surely this all makes one think of the words of Jesus who prophesied of his second coming saying "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come." (Matt. 24:14) Though we have looked for the fulfillment of this in the preaching of the gospel by human agents, we cannot exclude it being finally fulfilled in the text under consideration.
Questions raised
1) Seeing God is able to preach the gospel to all in such a manner, why has he not done this before, thus not leaving any to die without hearing?
2) Will the angel preaching in the day of judgment have better effect in bringing about repentance than that of the prophets and apostles?
Our text also makes me think of the words of the Apostle Paul who wrote:
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:8 KJV)
But, we can be sure that the angel of Rev. 14: 6-7 will preach the same gospel!
What think ye?
There is so much exciting and somewhat mysterious information about coming events in these words of the Apocalypse. Not only that, but contemplating their significance brings one to think about several other important ideas dealing with theology, especially with issues relative to God's providence and to soteriological questions.
Wonderful and Spectacular
An angel preaching from the skies with a voice that is heard by every person on the planet? Is that not wonderful and spectacular? Selah. What a way to preach the gospel! No missionaries needed! No preachers needed! All are hearing God speak from heaven (through the angel) just as miraculously as the Israelites heard the voice of God at Mt. Sinai. Surely this all makes one think of the words of Jesus who prophesied of his second coming saying "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come." (Matt. 24:14) Though we have looked for the fulfillment of this in the preaching of the gospel by human agents, we cannot exclude it being finally fulfilled in the text under consideration.
Questions raised
1) Seeing God is able to preach the gospel to all in such a manner, why has he not done this before, thus not leaving any to die without hearing?
2) Will the angel preaching in the day of judgment have better effect in bringing about repentance than that of the prophets and apostles?
Our text also makes me think of the words of the Apostle Paul who wrote:
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:8 KJV)
But, we can be sure that the angel of Rev. 14: 6-7 will preach the same gospel!
What think ye?
Wednesday, June 3, 2020
Martin Lloyd-Jones on "Doing Nothing"
“If our understanding of doctrine has the effect of paralyzing
us, or making us do nothing, or making us feel that it’s no use being anxious
about your loved ones who are unsaved, or if it says that you need never pray
about them, that there’s no purpose in doing so, or never speak to them or
preach to them…well then, there’s only one thing to say, and that is, that you’ve
misunderstood the doctrine. Instead of
following the doctrine of the scripture, you’ve been following your own little
logic and your own little confined cramped reason, and you found yourself in a
position in which a Christian should never be.
It’s a most important lesson, this relationship between
doctrine and practice. And we’re always
wrong if our understanding of doctrine paralyzes us, makes us feel that there’s
no point in doing anything, and leads to the terrible result in which we actually
do nothing.” (Martin Lloyd-Jones)
Tuesday, June 2, 2020
Unbelief Is Sin
Unbelief must be preached as sin which brings guilt and condemnation. But, sadly, our Hardshell brothers do not believe that unbelief is a sin. They do not believe that the unregenerate are duty bound to believe the truth of God. The rejection of the gospel and the truth of the word of God is because of unbelief, but our PB brothers do not believe the unregenerate have any command of God to believe the truth of God, and therefore their unbelief of the truth is no sin.
Said John Gill:
"Though such is the condition of man by the fall, that he cannot believe in Christ without the powerful influence of that divine grace which God is not obliged to communicate, yet it is not the withholding of that influence, or denying of that grace, which lays him under the necessity of not believing, but it is the corruption of his nature that lays and holds him in the chains of unbelief, and therefore his unbelief is not to be imputed to the want of this powerful influence, which God is not obliged to give, but to the enmity and wickedness of his heart, on which account he is justly blameworthy." (As cited by me here)
In my post titled "James Wells On Duty Faith" (here) I cited these words of Wells (who denied duty faith):
"Infidels may ridicule the Bible, but they never have been and never will be able to refute it. Now their argument, then, is this-that if faith be not a duty, unbelief is no sin. That is a very powerful declaration, and that is the stronghold of that doctrine; and I must hold with it, because it is a piece of logic as correct as possible; no man can deny it."
I have several other good articles on the subject of "duty faith." Just type those words into the search engine for this blog to find them.
Said John Gill:
"Though such is the condition of man by the fall, that he cannot believe in Christ without the powerful influence of that divine grace which God is not obliged to communicate, yet it is not the withholding of that influence, or denying of that grace, which lays him under the necessity of not believing, but it is the corruption of his nature that lays and holds him in the chains of unbelief, and therefore his unbelief is not to be imputed to the want of this powerful influence, which God is not obliged to give, but to the enmity and wickedness of his heart, on which account he is justly blameworthy." (As cited by me here)
In my post titled "James Wells On Duty Faith" (here) I cited these words of Wells (who denied duty faith):
"Infidels may ridicule the Bible, but they never have been and never will be able to refute it. Now their argument, then, is this-that if faith be not a duty, unbelief is no sin. That is a very powerful declaration, and that is the stronghold of that doctrine; and I must hold with it, because it is a piece of logic as correct as possible; no man can deny it."
I have several other good articles on the subject of "duty faith." Just type those words into the search engine for this blog to find them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)