After All These Years

This month I turned 65. A milestone. 

I have suffered from several maladies since I reached my sixties. The other day I was diagnosed with Pulmonary Fibrosis, an incurable lung disease. My older brother has it (now for several years) and he is going down hill fast. I have smoked a pipe all my life and now it is no doubt the cause of my lung condition. I have given it up. I don't know how much time I have left, but will try to use it in a way that the Lord desires. I do have several writings to complete, the Lord willing. Keep us in your prayers. 

The wife also has been suffering for years and is on oxygen.

As I have grown older and been mostly retired, I have had much time to reflect on many things. In the coming days I will be sharing some of those reflections as it relates to my time both as a "Primitive" (aka "Hardshells") member and minister (or 'elder') and to my time over the past three decades in writing and speaking against the errors of that sect. 

I wonder as I begin to write these thoughts whether they will be read by any significant number of Hardshells or any who are doing research into the sect. Be that as it may, I feel led to at least record some of these reflections. I will thereby give, in some respects, my conclusion to the whole story of my experiences and studies into the historical and doctrinal peculiarities of this sect. I will also be leaving a testimony or confession as it were, a bearing witness. I will also no doubt include some final appeals to my Hardshell brothers, pleas that have been in my heart these past few decades. 

I am thankful to brother Kevin and Kenny for being custodians of this web blog. I am thankful to all who read this blog and for all the words of comfort and encouragement given over the years to us.

Uplifting Spiritual Songs By Singing Echoes

Hymns by the Singing Echoes

Heaven Is My Goal (here)

Beautiful Heaven (here)

Enter In (here)

Come And See Me In My New Home (here)

Look For Me (here)

Lay Your Burdens At The Feet Of Jesus (here)

Happy (here)

When I Get Home (here)

These are my favorites though they sang many good spiritual songs. I hope you enjoy listening. Psallo On!

On The Millenium

The following citation from Dean Alford has often been cited. It gives my views exactly. Amillennialist interpretation of the two resurrections is not tenable. Both the first and second resurrections are literal resurrections of the physical bodies. 

The rest of the dead lived not (again, as above) until the thousand years be completed. This ( αὕτη is not the subject, as De Wette, but the predicate, as in all such cases: the reduction of the proposition to the logical form requiring its inversion) is the first resurrection (remarks on the interpretation of this passage will be found in the Prolegomena, § v. par. 33. It will have been long ago anticipated by the readers of this Commentary, that I cannot consent to distort words from their plain sense and chronological place in the prophecy, on account of any considerations of difficulty, or any risk of abuses which the doctrine of the millennium may bring with it. Those who lived next to the Apostles, and the whole Church for 300 years, understood them in the plain literal sense: and it is a strange sight in these days to see expositors who are among the first in reverence of antiquity, complacently casting aside the most cogent instance of consensus which primitive antiquity presents. As regards the text itself, no legitimate treatment of it will extort what is known as the spiritual interpretation now in fashion. If, in a passage where two resurrections are mentioned, where certain ψυχαὶ ἔζησαν at the first, and the rest of the νεκροὶ ἔζησαν only at the end of a specified period after that first,—if in such a passage the first resurrection may be understood to mean spiritual rising with Christ, while the second means literal rising from the grave;—then there is an end of all significance in language, and Scripture is wiped out as a definite testimony to any thing. If the first resurrection is spiritual, then so is the second, which I suppose none will be hardy enough to maintain: but if the second is literal, then so is the first, which in common with the whole primitive Church and many of the best modern expositors, I do maintain, and receive as an article of faith and hope). (see here)

Ross On I John 5: 1

The following was written several years ago by brother Bob L. Ross. I heartily endorse what he says. I have written on this verse many times over the years in response to the "born again before faith" crowd. For instance see here and here. I give an hearty "amen" to his analysis.

DOES FIRST JOHN 5:1 TEACH AN "ORDER"
TO THE NEW BIRTH, OR REGENERATION? [04/14/04]

It is argued by James White in his books that I John 5:1 teaches that there is "pre-faith" New Birth, or Regeneration, to the effect that the new birth precedes believing. On the other side are Dave Hunt and Norman Geisler with the idea that faith precedes the new birth.

Both these views, we believe, are in conflict with our orthodox Confessions of Faith and of course with what we understand is taught in Scripture.

First John 5:1 reads:

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him."

The most evident truth of this verse is that faith and the New Birth are CO-EXISTENT, where there is one there is the other. They are somewhat like life itself: where there is life, there is breath; and where there is breath, there is life.

Since the person who believes in Christ is born of God, or has been born of God, then conversely the person who does not believe is not and has not been born of God.

The believer is born of God.
The unbeliever is not born of God.

There is no "middle ground," no "in-between" state, no "half-dead, half-alive" condition, so far as this passage is concerned. Believing is simply presented here as the "living proof" or evidence that one is, or has been, born of God. Conversely, no faith in Christ equals no new birth. It is just as simple as that.

The verse does not deal at all with an alleged "sequence" or "order" of actions, as is advocated by James White and some others. That is not even the obvious intention of the writer, John, for he is not trying to convince his readers about what some zealous analysts call the "ordo salutis." John, of all the New Testament writers, emphasizes the important necessity of faith in regard to salvation (John 20:31), that one who believes has life and the one who does not believe does not have life.

John does not deal in this verse (5:1) with the matter of the "means," or "how" this faith comes about, or is experienced. From other passages, however, we know that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" (Romans 10:17). Faith presupposes an object of faith, and that is presented thru the Word of God.

We also know that faith not only comes by hearing the Word of God, but that Word is made effectual by the accompanying "power" of the Holy Spirit (1 Thessalonians 1:5). This is why and how faith is created, by the Word and the Spirit, and when faith is born in a person then that person has experienced the New Birth, or regeneration. Until that faith in Christ is existent, the New Birth has not taken place.

Faith is not some type of "gift" that has not object, or that comes via an alleged "direct operation" of the Spirit apart from the accompaniment of the means necessary to create faith.

Whatever preliminary, preparatory, or prevenient work the Holy Spirit may do does not constitute the New Birth. John does not say, "Whoever is convicted is born of God," or "whosoever has been enlightened has been born of God," or "whosoever is concerned is born of God," or "whosoever is sensible of his sins is born of God" -- no, he simply says "whosoever believes is born of God."

James White tries to justify his faulty interpretation by comparing 1 John 5:1 to 1 John 2:29 where John says that "every one that doeth righteousness is born of him."

But James fails to note the fact that the very first act of righteousness that a person does is to believe in Christ. "And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ" (1 John 3:22). This is what Paul told the jailer to do in Acts 16:31. This is the work of God, that you believe on Him whom He hath sent (John
6:29). The very first commandment is summed up as love for God, and faith incorporates that love, for "faith worketh by love" (Galatians 5:6). Love is shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5), and love has as its object the Lord Jesus, and the one who loves is born of God (1 John 4:7).

How could one be "born again" before he has love for and faith in Christ created in him by the power of the Word of God and Holy Spirit?

The idea that James White tries to prove is that in the New Birth there is an order whereby one who HAS NOT YET BELIEVED "has been born of God," and then after being supposedly born of God he is thereby given "ability" to perform the act of faith in Christ. He claims that "birth precedes . . . faith" (The Potter's Freedom, page 288). What kind of "new birth" is it that lacks love for Christ and faith in Christ?

We are nowhere taught in Scripture that such a birth devoid of love and faith precedes faith. Actually, may we not say that faith itself has a "birth," being born by the Word and power of the Holy Spirit? -- Bob L. Ross

Responding to Hardshell Comments

 The following is taken from "The Baptist Gadfly" for Jan. 18, 2007 (here)

Responding to Hardshell Comments

The following are some recent comments to some of the chapters I have published. I wish now to write a response. I do intend to have a final chapter in this book wherein I post some of the correspondence I have had with Hardshells during its composition. First, I will take up these comments from Brother Joe Nettles.

Joe Nettles said:

”I don't know what flavor of Primitive Baptists you grew up around, but I have been rocked in a cradle of grace and am now trying to preach for them and have never heard an established, sound "hardshell" ever mention praying for the new birth of his seed! I've always prayed (as have all my brethren in like manner to my knowledge) that "if they be thine (already regenerated) then work in them in a special (as opposed to ordinary) and strong way to conviction, fruit, and repentance. But, Lord, as in all things, thy will be done." Just because an old, deceased preacher (bless their hearts!) at one time proclaimed it, doesn't make it automatically scripturally sound. You may continue to degrade and belittle us, but you can't stop us from loving you for Christ's sake and praying for your deliverance from your bitter little agendas!”
Elder Joe Nettles, Vidalia, GA

There are “flavors” now of the “Primitive Baptists”? What “flavor” is Brother Nettles? He is not of the “flavor” of leading Hardshell apologist Elder Grigg Thompson who regularly called upon dead sinners to repent and believe the gospel! I will of course be adding to this topic under chapters dealing with both Elder Grigg Thompson and under chapters titled ”Addresses to the Lost.” He is also not of the "flavor" of Elder John Watson, author of the "Old Baptist Test," and who believed in praying for the lost, believing that the godly prayers of his mother were "means" in his salvation. I think that “flavor” of ”Primitive Baptists,” which refuses to pray for the salvation of their lost children, is a very bitter “flavor” indeed! Elder Grigg Thompson and Elder John Watson were not just common preachers, but leading founding fathers of the Hardshell denomination. Neo-Hardshells may not pray for the elect to be regenerated, sinners saved, but the farther they get back to the year 1832 the more they will see prayers more frequently offered for the lost from the first "Anti-Means" Baptists. Does my friend not also realize that even Grigg's father, Elder Wilson Thompson, also prayed for sinners to be saved from their sins?

Let us ask ourselves this question: Can we find anyone in the Bible praying for the eternal salvation of others? Do the Hardshells really believe such praying is absent from the Bible? Are we reading the same textbook?

”My heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they might be saved.” (Romans 10:1)

“Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” (II Tim. 2:10)

Paul endured, prayed, and did everything in his power towards the salvation of the elect. It is sad that Brother Nettles misses this important truth. It is a great sin not to pray, especially for the salvation of our neighbors. We are to “edify our neighbors,” and certainly to win them to Christ is the optimal way to do that, as Paul taught. Said the Prophet Samuel:

”Moreover as for me, God forbid that I should sin against the LORD in ceasing to pray for you...” (I Samuel 12:23)

Did he not pray for their eternal welfare? It is absolutely absurd to say otherwise.

Brother Nettles then says:

”You may continue to degrade and belittle us, but you can't stop us from loving you for Christ's sake and praying for your deliverance from your bitter little agendas!”

It is more than a little ironic (more like hypocrisy) that the Hardshells, who have historically been the most bitter gainsayers of the historic Baptist faith, as expressed in her beloved confessions of faith, and who have regularly and vehemently denounced the ”Mission Baptists,” would now turn around and charge such things on me who simply am trying to answer all the false accusations made, historically, by the Hardshells! Brother, I could cite volumes of bitter language from your Hardshell forefathers that would make my language look lamb like! You all can ”dish it out but can’t take it”? ”If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” Again, this is more substantiation of what I have said repeatedly about modern Hardshell attack methods. They ”hit and run”! Anyone who attempts to answer all their charges and accusations is branded as Brother Nettles and others have done. Are the Hardshells not ”sweet” and kind?!

My "little agenda"? And just what has been that agenda? Is it not simply to make a reply to all this baloney the Hardshells have been spouting forth now for almost two hundred years without a let up? And, what can we say about the Hardshell “agenda”? Yes, they have one, and if I had a mind now, I would write further about it. At least my agenda has me praying like the Apostle Paul!

Brother Nettles then says:

"you can't stop us from loving you for Christ's sake and praying for your deliverance..."

Is that what Elder Jeff Patterson felt and communicated in his recent correspondence with me? No, he wished my absence from the church, my eternal damnation! Oh what love that is, hey? Elder Jeff Patterson did not want to win me back to Hardshellism. Is Brother Nettles in disagreement with Elder Patterson?

Here is another comment I got from a Brother and which I will take time to respond.


John Crowley said:

”Like yourself, I am unaware of any author who states a purely anti-instrumental view of regeneration prior to the 19th century. However, it does appear that Dr. Gill in his Body of Doctrinal Divinity, Book VI, Chapter XI, under the fourth head, the instrumental cause of regeneration, does seem to anticipate the anti-instrumentalist view, while not denying the "... ministry of the word is the vehicle in which the Spirit of God conveys himself and his grace into the hearts of men...." You seem to hold Dr. Gill in respect, but I think that if your thinking follows its natural tendency you will have to discard him as you have Beebe and Trott. He may not have been what you are pleased to call a "hardshell," but he is the ground from which they grew.

I have followed your writing here with great interest. I have the pleasure to be a hearer among several small Primtive Baptist Churches in Southeastern Georgia which happily lost fellowship with the mainline PBs during the period 1860-1927, and thus enjoyed a degree of preservation from some of the principal errors of which you complain. The majority of our ministers believe in gospel instrumentality and that it is the duty of gospel ministers to "Warn poor careless sinners" of their awful state by nature. They have also of late resolved that candidates for membership who have been previously baptized in other professions will be received on a case by case basis, chiefly determined by the prospective members own conviction of whether he or she was truly converted at the time of their original baptism. Where there are enough interested parties, we also have Bible studies. In all other regards we are traditional "hardshells", our preachers suck wind, our meetinghouses would make good barns, and we sing slowly from the "Primitive Hymns" to fine, dolorous doric melodies.”

"I am unaware of any author who states a purely anti-instrumental view of regeneration prior to the 19th century."

Now, that is a wonderful admission, isn't it? Maybe there is hope for some honest Hardshells, hey? Why do not other honest Hardshells come up and "shell down the corn" and admit that they are not "Primitive" nor "Original" Baptists after all!

Yet, one can sense that Brother Crowley makes this admission reluctantly and sadly. So, what does he do? He clings to the belief that men like John Gill, later in life became more of an "anti-means" Hardshell. Now, I have addressed this already somewhat, showing, as has Brother Ross, that John Gill did not believe the "anti-means" position, not in his Commentaries nor in his Body of Divinity. I will have a later chapter on Gill and seek to enlarge upon what both Brother Ross and I have already written upon this subject. Yes, I admit that Gill had Hyper-Calvinistic tendencies, but they were kept in check and he never embraced what he merely speculated upon.

He does admit, however, that Gill was "not denying the '... ministry of the word is the vehicle in which the Spirit of God conveys himself and his grace into the hearts of men....'" Wonderful admission!

He says next:

"You seem to hold Dr. Gill in respect." Yes, and so did the first Baptists in America! The Philadelphia Baptist Association, the oldest and mother of all the others, recommended, early in its history, that all Baptist ministers read and study Gill's Commentaries and it became a test of orthodoxy in that association as to whether one was in agreement with him on essential doctrine. As far as the teachings of Gill having tendencies towards Hardshellism, I will have more to say in later chapters, as I said.

He next says:

Gill "is the ground from which they grew." Well, yes, but the Hardshells took Gill's speculations and "went to seed" with it, taking his speculations much farther than he himself wanted to go. Hardshells have gone way beyond Gill!

He then says:

"I have followed your writing here with great interest."

I hope my brother will continue to follow them and also the writings of Brother Ross. He then speaks of a group of "Primitive Baptists" that he is associated with (and I assume, from his other remarks, that he is with that "flavor" of PB's known as "Progressives" ) where the majority believe in gospel means, have Bible studies, etc. That is good news. It is to be hoped that they will all agree and not be split on this issue. It is also good news to know that some of his "flavor" of PB's are rejecting the tenets of Landmarkism and not rejecting all alien baptisms. It is also good news to hear that some Hardshells are addressing sinners about their depravity and need of salvation.

It is good to know that a large segment of this brother's group of Hardshells agree with much of what I have written here! Can we get Elder Bradley and the liberal brothers to "come around" on these things? They seem to be getting closer.


Another commenter, Mike McInnis said:

"Greetings Steve, you are indeed a slayer of "Hardshells" if nowhere else but in your own mind. I am not a fan of labels and especially when they are applied as epithets and not for the edification of the brethren. Your exposure to "hardshells" seems to be limited to those who are often called "conditionalists" by those who have a more "absolute" view of GOD's purpose. This conditional teaching has almost been the death knell of Primitive Baptists as to their historical theology and has probably done more to confuse the issues that you raise than any other error that ever crept in among them. Though Bradley and Gowens are indeed spokesmen for large numbers of those who call themselves Primitive Baptists (which you lovingly refer to as Hardshells) I can assure you that they do not speak for the historical position of the Primitive Baptists in general. Like all denominations, the PB's have strayed from their moorings but their errors are no greater than those of the great "missionary" endeavors. I am not formally associated with the PB's but have a great deal of respect for many who have walked in faith among them and have ably contended for truth when others have been swept away in the religious practices of the world. I would not at this time comment on your "theological" leanings but would point out that your arrogant attitude is exactly the spirit that brought about the division among the "hardshells" and the "missionarys" to start with. You boast of desiring to debate "a leading Hardshell" rather than some of the "ignorant and unlearned" ones. It is interesting that you use this choice of words since it was used to describe some of the apostles. It is a very common mistake that is often made by the "learned" that the things of GOD can be understood by such "learning". The Pharisees were quite convinced and satisfied in their "learning" but nonetheless were bankrupt of spiritual understanding. You boast that "they probably wouldn't want to touch us with a ten foot pole" and in this you are probably correct. To answer a fool in his folly is generally a waste of time. I hope that you will examine your attitude as closely as you do your great "theological learning." I remain one of the ignorant and unlearned, a sinner in search of that better country through the merits of CHRIST alone."

I think a better "label" than "Hardshell slayer" would be "Hardshell mouth stopper." I wrote a recent article upon this, citing the words of Paul, in regard to the false teachers, "whose mouths must be stopped." Apparently I am doing a fairly good job as I have not heard much from the mouths of the Hardshells.

Brother McInnis next says:

"Your exposure to "hardshells" seems to be limited to those who are often called "conditionalists" by those who have a more "absolute" view of GOD's purpose."

My membership was originally with those who are called Conditionalists" but I embraced the historic confessions relative to the "Absolute Predestination of all things" and so would probably be in league with Brother McInnis on that point. But, the "Absoluters" are in league with the Hardshells in their view that regeneration is without means of truth being conveyed to the mind, or by the gospel. Perhaps Brother McInnis will enjoy the later chapter on "The Hardshells and Predestination"!

He says further:

"...the PB's have strayed from their moorings..." Well, that is all I have been trying to show in this book! So, why take offence? He then says:

"I am not formally associated with the PB's"! Well, what does that say? I am not formally associated with them. Today I am with a group who are truly Primitive Baptists, not with a group who erroneously and arrogantly say that of themselves when they have no evidence to the contrary to prove they are "Original"!

He then says:

"You boast of desiring to debate "a leading Hardshell" rather than some of the "ignorant and unlearned" ones. It is interesting that you use this choice of words since it was used to describe some of the apostles."

Yes, I know that some viewed the apostles as "ignorant and unlearned men," but they were not what they were perceived to be! I will not debate a Hardshell who is not a leading apologist for their faith. I spent too many years with this group and they have a large number of ignorant and arrogant preachers, who cannot even speak correct English. The apostles spoke proper grammar. There are times when we are to "answer the fool" and there are times when he ought to be ignored. I think this brother is judging my heart without proper evidence or authority to do so. I think I have already alluded to much of the kind of ignorance I am talking about. My dad and others, for many years now, have publicly decried the kind of ignorance I am talking about.

He next says:

"I hope that you will examine your attitude as closely as you do your great "theological learning."

The more learned readers of this book will notice the various faulty arguments in my brother's comments. He puts forth a clear ad hominem argument in the above. What I teach is wrong because I have a "bad attitude." Also, where is the evidence, from my writings, that I am "arrogant"? Does my learned brother know what the word means? I certainly would not want to debate someone who accuses me of such things without giving evidence to the contrary.

My brother next says:

"I remain one of the ignorant and unlearned..."

Well, I don't see anything in the word of God to provoke us to be ignorant and unlearned. The Apostles, as I said, were not so, even though they were perceived as being so by the "worldly wiseman."

I guess Brother McInnis and I will not be debating Hardshellism, seeing he confesses he is "ignorant and unlearned." Perhaps if he keeps reading our writings he will become "wise unto salvation," for that is truly my prayer.

Black Horse Of The Apocalypse VII

"To execute upon them the judgment written"

(Psalm 149: 9)
"the hour of testing to come upon the whole world" 
"to test those who dwell on the earth."

(Rev. 3: 10)

"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage. But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts." (Jude 1: 14-18 KJV)

In the previous chapter we ended with showing how the judgments of the red and black horse riders (pale horse rider also, yet to be looked at in next series) were intended by God to give one final lesson (test or exam, we might say) to either learn God's lessons and be saved, or not learn them and be damned.

We ended by discussing those Apocalyptic "Hard Lessons For The Evil World" and "God's Lesson To Omega Man." One of those lessons is to teach men that God is Lord and Sovereign and that all the good man has is from him, they being gifts of grace, love, and kindness during this time of God's forbearance and longsuffering. In other words, it was designed so that, by the awful judgments of the four horsemen, men might learn that they "live not by bread alone but by every word of God." Let us now enlarge upon this before proceeding to other considerations of the prophecy.

In the prophecy of Enoch the subject of which he speaks is the coming of the Lord, chiefly his second coming. This coming is "with ten thousands (myriads) of his saints (or 'sanctified ones')" and so helps to show that the coming of the Lord is his second and not his first.

The purpose of the coming is to bring about trial and judgment, a "final test" for mankind. It is to "execute judgment" upon "the ungodly." Involved in this execution of judgment is the purpose "to convince all" the ungodly in regard to their sins. Teaching involves unteaching. The Lord will, via his coming Apocalyptic judgments, attack the false beliefs and false science of the world of ungodly men. He will attack "their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him" and "their great swelling words" which "their mouth speaketh," being "mockers in the last time who should walk after their own ungodly lusts." ("After their lusts" meaning in accordance with their hedonistic and narcissistic beliefs about life and pleasure). 

God will be speaking to the ungodly world through these judgments, prosecuting and witnessing to them, all the while attacking what they are saying through their words and actions. It will be a test, a final test, a time of trial and examination such as the world has only seen once before (in the Deluge, and that was but a type or prefigurement of the final deluge of fire and manifold judgment).

In the long ago the Lord by the prophet testified:

"Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations. I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not." (Isa. 66: 3-4)

This language is fully applicable to the times of the four horsemen. The Omega generation will be ungodly (the number of the elect, or godly, being few), a people who have "chosen their own ways" and who "delight in their abominations," and the Lord will bring upon them specified calamities, namely "delusions" and the objects of "their fears." It is because men did not answer God when he called them (via his prophets, Christ, and the apostles), did not "hear," or heed what God "spake" to them. They "did evil before mine eyes," that is, they acted brazenly as rebels against the rule of God and heaven, and for all this God promises to send judgment.

Do men not fear the possibility of final judgment? The Apocalypse? Do they not fear violence and the absence of civil peace? Do they not fear death and famine? Do they not fear pestilence and suffering? Do they not fear the very things described under the coming of the four horsemen? Yea, of all the judgments of the Apocalypse? We have already seen how the red horse rider's "taking peace from the earth" so that men are "killing one another" involves the world being under a delusion sent by God as a judgment trial, a kind of insanity or madness. Certainly the famine and death of the black horse rider and the pestilence, suffering, and death of the pale horse rider, are cases where God is bringing the fears of the world upon them.

Wrote the Psalmist:

"He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure." (Psa. 2: 4-5)

God is speaking to the final generation through the judgments of the Apocalypse and the four horsemen represent the beginning of sorrows. This is God's language for the time of judgment. His message is to be read in these judgments. 

""He shall speak" - not in articulate words, not by a voice from heaven, not even by a commissioned messenger, but by accomplished facts." (Pulpit Commentary)

"shall at last speak out unto them, not in his word, but in his providences; and not in love, as to his own people, when he chastises them, but in great wrath, inflicting severe and just punishment." (Gill)

"Heb. He shall tell them, viz. a piece of his mind, to their small comfort." (John Trapp Complete Commentary)

"Shall he speak to them in his wrath; he shall severely rebuke them, not so much verbally as really, by dreadful judgments. For God’s speaking is oft put for his actions; and so here it is explained by vexing in the next branch. Or, he shall pronounce a terrible sentence against them." (Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible)

Notice that he will not only speak to them in wrath but will "vex" them in sore displeasure. "Vex" is from the Hebrew bahal means "to disturb, alarm, terrify, hurry, be disturbed, be anxious, be afraid, be hurried, be nervous." He will terrify the last ungodly generation with terrors of death and destruction.

Wrote the Psalmist:

"To execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye the LORD." (Psa. 149: 9)

The words "to execute upon them the judgment written" is similar to the words of Enoch "to execute judgment upon all."

The difference is in the added word "written." He will execute judgment, "the written judgment." Where is this writing? The reference is surely to the general testimony of the law and prophets concerning the ultimate judgement of the nations, or of the world at the time of the last generation. It is that what is written in the law in general as what is threatened to wicked men, particularly in those scriptures (writings) of the Old Testament that preceded the time of the writing of the 149th Psalm. 

The various judgments connected with the Apocalypse (including the four horsemen) are exactly what is foretold in the Old Testament, being elaborated upon by the later prophets who wrote after the time when Psalm 149 was written. As we have seen God promised the very judgments that we see occurring under the four horsemen, such as the shooting of God's arrows of judgment, his sending civil war and terrible violence, famine and disease, and death by the beasts of the earth. 

There is much dispute about the implications of Psalm 149. This is because the prophetic verse, if taken out of context, has been used by some to justify the righteous in killing or slaughtering the ungodly peoples. The verse says that the judgment, though it is God's judgment, coming from him, is executed by the saints. 

"Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand; To execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; To execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye the Lord." (6-9)

It is the saints, who have God's "high praises" in their mouths, who with a "a two-edged sword in their hand" and "fetters of iron" (prepared for binding the criminals of heaven) capture, arrest, and "execute" the judgment of heaven's court. The time for this is not now, for "the weapons of our warfare are not carnal" but spiritual. (II Cor. 10: 4) It was true at times in the Old Testament when the Lord told Israel to slay the ungodly heathen, but it is not true now for Christians. The time for the fulfillment of this prophecy is in the time of the Apocalypse and second coming.

When the Lord delivered his people from slavery in Egypt, God said - "against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD." (Exo. 12: 12) Notice again the word "execute." God executes and he does this through judgments, through the agencies of angels and sanctified believers in Jesus. In Psalm 49 we have the words "to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people" (vs. 7) and in Micah we have God's promise: "And I will execute vengeance in anger and fury upon the heathen, such as they have not heard." (5: 15)

Thus, in the second and third horsemen, we have sword and famine and they are seen as parts of the promised written judgment. The intent of these varied and foreordained judgments and calamities is to convince all of God's sovereignty and the lordship of Christ, the incarnate and glorified Son of God. He will teach men by demonstrating the judgment lessons with power.