Spirit Reveals "Things To Come"

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." (John 16: 13 kjv)

 All scripture is given by the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit. (II Tim. 3: 16) No one can receive the things of the Spirit of God apart from the Spirit's work. (II Cor. 2: 10-12) No man can know religious or spiritual truth apart from the revelation of the Spirit. He reveals things that are past and present, giving a proper interpretation for the reason of things. But, he also reveals "things to come," via prophets and their prophecies, things about future events and destinies. 

Jesus did guide the disciples into truth and showed them "things to come." But, after his ascension, this work would continue by Christ's vicar, the Holy Spirit. He gave further details concerning "things to come" to the writers of the new testament. The new testament contains much teaching about "things to come," about "eschatology," about end time events, about the ages to come.

How thankful I am for this revelation of things to come! We are not, as Christians, in the dark about the future! It is the Lord who knows the end from the beginning. (Isa. 46: 10) And, praise God, he "reveals his secrets to his servants the prophets." (Amos 3: 7)

Which Hardshell Historian Can Disprove It?

 "My friends, there never was a separate and distinct people such as the Hardshells of this country are until 1832. Never! They then took a new stand. They then took a new name. They then took a new position. They then adopted new tests of fellowship. They are the innovators; not we. Our people are Apostolic." (Potter-Throgmorton Debate - 1887 - see here)

These are powerful and truthful words by Elder Throgmorton! He proved such to be true in his debate with Potter. Any Hardshell want to come and prove otherwise? Want to answer the argumentation and proofs offered by Throgmorton? By me? By many others?

In another posting I wrote this:

From my years of research into the history of the "Primitive Baptist" denomination, I have discovered that Elder E H. Burnam, a "Primitive Baptist" preacher in the latter half of the 19th century, and who was an associate editor with Elder John Clark on the Hardshell paper "Zion's Advocate," was correct when he stated the following in the "Mt. Carmel Church Trial."

"It was left to the last quarter of the 19th century to give birth among the Old Order of Baptists to the notion of regeneration without faith, or that it is not necessary that one should exercise repentance, faith, or any spiritual gift, in order to be saved, a heresy than which none more pernicious was ever put forth by any professing to be followers of Christ." (here)

Any Hardshell want to come and prove Elder Burnam's statement to be false?

Hardshells and their History

 As I have stated before, I do not know another man living who has studied the history of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists more than I have. This blog and my other writings on the Hardshells demonstrate this fact. With this fact in mind, let me take this opportunity to make some observations about today's Hardshells relative to their lack of knowledge about their history and about the history of the Baptists in general. 

1. Very few, if any, of today's "Primitive Baptists," know much about their history.

2. Most preachers today who teach others about their history give false information about their history, a "wish history" as one informed historian called it, and this is because they themselves are ignorant of their real history or else know it and willingly falsify it, what we also style a "revisionist history."

3. Having read all their leading histories, published by their most well informed historians, I can say that most of them have not been honest historians (a fact well substantiated in my writings). Many of them also were not so learned in Baptist history as they thought themselves to be (this fact has been proven many times by better historians debating with them and overthrowing their historical misrepresentations).

These observations make it necessary for me (and others before I) to openly rebuke the leaders of the Hardshell church who teach falsely about their history. They should know their history! Especially in view of the fantastic claims they make about themselves and their history! They need to come clean and be honest with themselves and with those they teach in regard to their history.

Thoughts On Acts 17: 18

"Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seems to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached to them Jesus, and the resurrection." (Acts 17: 18)

Babbler 

(σπερμολόγος) Lit., seed-picker: a bird which picks up seeds in the streets and markets; hence one who picks up and retails scraps of news. (Vincent)

"the word came to be used for an idle good for nothing fellow, and for one that picked up tales and fables, and carried them about for a livelihood. So Demosthenes, in a way of reproach, called Aeschincs by this name; and such an one was the apostle reckoned: or the metaphor is taken from little birds, as the sparrow, &c. that pick up seeds, and live upon them, and are of no value and use. Harpocratian says (d), there is a certain little bird, of the jay or jackdaw kind, which is called "Spermologos" (the word here used), from its picking up of seeds, of which Aristophanes makes mention; and that from this a base and contemptible man, and one that lives by others, is called by this name: from whence we may learn in what a contemptuous manner the apostle was used in this polite city, by these men of learning." (Gill)

Paul was no babbler. This was a false accusation. The Sophists, they were generally the babblers, and were hired for their skill in babbling! I have run into preachers in the church who seemed to be mere babblers.

Setter Forth

"He seemeth to be a setter forth." "Setter forth" is from the Greek word καταγγελεὺς (katangeleus) (1 Occurrence) and means a "proclaimer." 

That is what good teachers of the bible should be! Setter forths! Proclaimers and explainers. Exegetes.

Strange Gods

"A setter forth of strange gods"

On this statement Adam Clark wrote:

"Strange gods - Ξενων δαιμονιων, Of strange or foreign demons. That this was strictly forbidden, both at Rome and Athens, see on Acts 16:21; (note). There was a difference, in the heathen theology, between θεος, god, and δαιμων, demon: the θεοι, were such as were gods by nature: the δαιμονια, were men who were deified. This distinction seems to be in the mind of these philosophers when they said that the apostles seemed to be setters forth of strange demons, because they preached unto them Jesus, whom they showed to be a man, suffering and dying, but afterwards raised to the throne of God. This would appear to them tantamount with the deification of heroes, etc., who had been thus honored for their especial services to mankind." (Commentary)

"Strange demons" is a more correct translation than "strange gods." Who were the demons? They were, as I have shown in other postings (See Who Are The Demons?, and here), summarily described by Campbell when he said: 

"...the term demon, from simply indicating a knowing one, became the title of a human spirit when divested of the appendages of its clay tenement, because of its supposed initiation into the secrets of another world. Thus a separated spirit became a genius, a demigod, a mediator, a divinity of the ancient superstition according to its acquirements in this state of probation." (Campbell, in the second posting above)

In ancient Greek thinking there were beings called "hemitheoi" beings who were "half-gods" or demigods.

Jesus was human and was God and to the pagan Greek mind this would make Jesus a "demon god," a being who was once only human but became immortal and godlike. 

Fate Of The Fruitless

"every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire." (Matt. 3: 10 NIV)

How is it possible for many of our Hardshell brothers to say that good fruit bearing is not necessary for being saved from eternal judgment when this verse clearly affirms otherwise? 

Our real primitive Baptist forefathers taught that all who did not have faith and repentance, and good fruit and good works, were lost. 

Peter Told Jesus To Leave Him Alone?

"And Simon answering said unto him, Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net. And when they had this done, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes: and their net brake. And they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink. When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord." (Luke 5: 5-8)

I recall preaching on this passage many years ago when I pastored Haws Run Primitive Baptist church here in North Carolina, probably around 1980. I focused on the words highlighted above. 

It is a thing worth thinking deeply about. Why in the world would Peter say to Christ, especially after such a display of power and miracle, "depart from me"? 

Surely Peter was not thinking rightly when he uttered these words. (Peter often spoke before he thought, being one of his faults) Peter obviously thought that it would be better for him if Jesus were no longer there with him. But, Christ’s leaving the boat would not have helped Peter. Luke adds this commentary on the words of Peter, words which truly cry out for explanation: "For he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the draught of the fishes which they had taken." In other words, Peter's astonishment led him to speak hastily and to utter what was not right. Peter on another occasion spoke in such a manner. 

On the mount of transfiguration he saw the glory of Christ and the appearing of Moses and Elias and spoke foolishly and his utterance also called for an apology, which was given in these words: "For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid." (Mark 9: 6)

Do we ever, in any way, find the presence of Christ and truth unbearable so that we pray for its departure or seek its riddance? Think upon this deeply and God bless you in doing so.

Health Update

I appreciate the prayers for my announced ailment. 

Since I last wrote I have had to go to the emergency room (over three weeks ago) for chest pains. The doctors ruled out cardiac as the cause. Saw my family doctor yesterday. Still having pains in chest (over three weeks now) and we think it is from GERD, rheumatoid arthritis, or some other cause. Am on several medications, including pain med. 

I plan to get back into my writings soon. 

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.

Passion In Preaching

Todd Friel in his video "Dr. Steve Lawson: A plague of passionless preaching" (here on Wretched) gives some excerpts from Lawson's sermon. What Lawson says about passion in preaching, and about how today's exegetical or expository preaching has become stoic and dry, is a point I have made also. See my posting Preaching Has Become Dry As Dust.

I highly recommend that you take a few minutes and listen to Todd's video and the words of Dr. Lawson.

The Modalist God

Is the Father, Word (Son), and Holy Spirit to be thought of as mere "expressions" of the one person God?  Is the Trinity a Trinity of "manifestations," "modes," and "roles" of the one person God?  Modalists are fond of using various words to denote what is meant by Father, Son, and Spirit, but they are opposed to the use of the word "person."  God is "three expressions."  God is "three modes" and "three roles."  However, it is not scripturally apropos for me to think of Father, Son, and Spirit as impersonal entities.  Under Modalistic paradigms, the "Father" is not God but simply one of the several "ways" in which God "appears."  Likewise, the "Son" and the "Spirit" are not God, but simply "reflections" of God. 

Many Modalists think that Father, Son, and Spirit are titles that do not denote persons, but simply "masks" that the one God wears at various times, like a primitive actor in theatre who plays various roles by wearing different clothes and masks.  But, these masks cannot be identified as being de facto the person (actor) himself.  In Modalism, the real actor's personality is hidden behind the various masks and roles.  In Modalism, not even the Father is a person, but is simply one of several ways that God reveals himself. 

It seems to me that Modalism makes God into a "transformer," one who "morphs" himself into various forms.  In Science Fiction, such as Star Wars and Star Trek, certain alien creatures had the ability to "morphe" or "transform" into various shapes and appearances.  Is this the way we are to conceive of the Father, Son, and Spirit?  Is God simply a "holographic image" as in Star Trek?  A "hologram"?  It seems to me that this is exactly the way God is pictured under the Modalist model of God. 

It is foolishness to read of the Father talking to the Son and think that it simply is the same actor talking to himself with different masks on his face.  It is foolishness to think that one holographic image of God can have fellowship with another holographic image of God. 

It is interesting how Paul says that Satan "transforms himself into an angel of light."  (II Cor. 11: 14)  Satan can take many forms, whether a serpent or angel.  He is a "shape shifter."  But, Modalists must say that God also, like Satan, "transforms himself" into Father, Son, and Spirit. 

It is a simple task to refute Modalism.  All one has to do is to show from scripture that the Father is a person and likewise are the Son and Spirit, and that they are clearly not the same person.

Jesus said:

"If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."  (John 14: 23)

Clearly the Father is not Jesus.  This is proven by "my words" and "my Father," which shows that the one designated by "my" (Jesus) is not the same person as the Father.  It is also proven by the use of the plural personal pronouns "we" and "our." 

If Jesus and the Father are the same person, such language would make no sense.  If Jesus and the Father are but "expressions" of God, then Jesus and the Father, as persons, do not dwell in me, but only their "expressions."  How can one have fellowship with an holographic image of God?

(Taken from "The Baptist Gadfly" for April 2012 - here)

Calvinist Extremism

My dear friend Bob L. Ross has written extensively in defense of "altar calls" and answered many of the objections offered by many Calvinists against them.  In this posting I want to join brother Ross in defending them and answering the objections made against them.  In an Internet posting titled "The Altar Call" -  "CONVERTS FREQUENTLY MADE IN RELATION TO PUBLIC INVITATIONS" (see here), brother Ross wrote:

"Perhaps the most popular "whipping boy" of the Reformed Hybrid Calvinist camp of theology is the "altar call" or the "public invitation."

I have often read items critical of public invitations and in most cases they were written by persons whose own conversions were related to public invitations. Some, after their "indoctrination" into the Hybrid Calvinism of the Reformed camp, later say they were saved "despite" the invitation.

Oh, well, it is no marvel that it has been observed that a number of the anti-invitation churches fail to evangelize by any method and thus fail to make converts, their memberships dwindled, and some of them have even closed their doors. They didn't seem to have a "better idea" on how to invite lost men and women to come to Christ and confess Him as Lord and Saviour.

I have written several articles in which I think I have just about replied to every conceivable objection to public invitations, and you can find a number of these articles at this link: Select Writings of Bob L. Ross."

I recommend all to go to the above web page and read Bob's writings on this subject. 

The Sinner's Prayer

"And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."  (Luke 18: 13-14)

Bob points out that the great Calvinist evangelist, Charles Spurgeon, had no qualms with calling upon sinners to pray the sinner's prayer for salvation.  For a sinner who is under conviction of sin, and who is seeking salvation, what better advice to give to such than to pray as did the publican?  For the life of me I cannot comprehend why so many Calvinists decry giving sinners this advice.  Jesus said that the publican "went down to his house justified" after having so prayed.  Certainly sinners must be exhorted to pray such a prayer in earnest, but who can doubt that a sinner who does so will enjoy the same result as did the publican? 

Giving one's heart to the Lord

"My son, give me thine heart, and let thine eyes observe my ways."  (Prov. 23: 26)

"And this they did, not as we hoped, but first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God."  (II Cor. 8: 5)

Many times I have heard Calvinists decry others for exhorting sinners to give their hearts to Jesus for salvation.  When I have challenged these extreme Calvinists about this ridiculing I have found that they often take the tactic of saying, especially about the words of Solomon, that they are not addressed to the lost, but to those who are already the saved children of God.  Thus, what they are denouncing is the indiscriminate calling upon sinners to give their hearts and lives to Christ.  They think that such exhortations should only be made to those sinners who appear to already be saved.  But, this is simply Hyper Calvinism at its worst.  Some of these extreme Calvinists will decry such an exhortation by saying - "what does Jesus want with your depraved and corrupt heart?"  But, the fact is, no one will ever be saved who has not given himself wholly unto the Lord.  So what if some do this insincerely?  Such is to be expected.  But, this does not invalidate the exhortation itself. 

Inviting Jesus into your heart

"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."  (Rev. 3: 20)

Extreme Calvinists decry calling upon sinners to "invite Christ into your heart," thinking that to do such promotes Armnianism.  Yet, this is a non sequiter.  These same Hyper Calvinists will even try to defend themselves by saying that the above words of Christ were addressed to those who were already saved and therefore cannot be used as justification for advising lost sinners to do as Christ bids.  But, the ones Jesus addressed are described as being "wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked."  Such could not be a better description of a lost soul.  Why would Calvinists deny that there are many lost and unconverted members of the church? 

Some extreme Calvinists will argue the Christ is not knocking on the door of the alien sinner's heart, but on the door of the church, who had locked out Christ.  But, this is not tenable.  First, the exhortation is not to the church as a body but to individuals.  It is to "any man" and "to him."  The singular pronouns "him" and "he" show this to be the case.  Second, the door cannot be the door of the church, but to the door of the individual sinner's heart.  Christ is speaking to the individual sinner, knocking on the door of the sinner's heart.  It is the individual sinner who hears the voice of Christ and opens the door to Christ.  Third, it is not a promise of communion with the church as a group, but with the individual.  "I will come in to him" and "I will sup with him."  Fourth, Christ is viewed as being on the outside, not of the church, but of the sinner's heart and inner being.  Fifth, no individual sinner in the church at Laodicea can open the door of the whole church by obeying the words of Christ.  Christ does not say "if any man will hear my voice and open the door then I will come in to them (the church)," but "in to him."  The focus is on Christ entering the heart of the individual, not his entering into the corporate entity of the church.  I can see no harm in telling sinners who are hearing the voice of Christ and who sense that he is knocking on the door of their hearts, to open their hearts to him with the promise that he will indeed come and dwell in them.

Accepting Christ

"Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed."  (I Peter 2: 7-8)

"As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him."  (Col. 2: 6)

I hear extreme Calvinists decrying the practice of calling upon sinners to "accept Christ" for salvation.  There is no essential difference between "receiving" Christ and "accepting" Christ.  In the words of Peter there is the use of the word "disallowed."  To disallow means to reject.  Those who reject Christ are they who do not "allow" him, do not receive him, do not accept him.  On the other hand, those who receive Christ are they who accept and allow Christ.  Disallowing Christ is to disbelieve him, while to allow Christ is to believe him.  Doing the former brings damnation, while doing the latter brings salvation.  Again, there is no denying that this must be done sincerely, but this is no reason to be against calling upon sinners to accept Christ and be saved. 

Easy Believism

"And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."  (Acts 16: 30-31)

If some of my Calvinist brethren had been present on this occasion, they would have accused the Apostle Paul of practicing what they call "easy believism."  If it makes my Calvinist brothers feel better, let them always insist that the sinner do this sincerely and with the heart.  If it makes them feel better, let them warn the sinner that such a believing is more than simple mental assent, that it must be done with full conviction.  Still, nothing is wrong with simply telling sinners that they can be saved by simply believing and trusting in Christ alone for salvation.

It is argued that these kinds of invitations or altar calls are "Arminian," and therefore cannot be acceptable.  It is argued that these kinds of invitations lead to many false professions.  But, are Calvinistic churches free of false professions?  Certainly not.  Has it not been the claim that the success of the preaching of the Gospel depends upon the work of the Spirit making such invitations successful?  Why should we worry about the matter?  The parable of the sower and the seed shows that we should expect there to be fase conversions.  Even the preaching of the Apostles produced such false conversions.  So, no matter how we try to give the invitation, there will always be such.

"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."  (Rev. 22: 17)

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord."  (Acts 3: 19)  

"But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."  (Rom. 10: 8-13)

Here are some examples of how we may invite and call sinners to salvation.  We should tell them that Christ and the church says to them "come."  That is an invitation as well as a command.  We should exhort them that they can be saved "if" they but confess and acknowledge Christ as Lord and Savior.  Our preaching should be filled with such exhortations and no church is going to grow which does not have preaching that is full of them.  We should constantly be calling upon sinners to "repent," and to "convert," and to "call upon the name of the Lord," and to "come" to Jesus for salvation.  Such is not "Arminianism," but if it is, then count me one!

(Taken from "The Baptist Gadfly" for Jan. 22, 2013 - here)

Black Horse Of The Apocalypse VI

"they shall eat bread by weight, and with care"
(Eze 4: 16)
"I will destroy your food supply"

(Lev. 26: 26)

"Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, behold, I will break the staff of bread in Jerusalem: and they shall eat bread by weight, and with care; and they shall drink water by measure, and with astonishment: That they may want (lack) bread and water, and be astonied one with another, and consume away for their iniquity." (Eze 4: 16-17)

Commented Dr. Gill on these verses:

"behold, I will break the staff of bread in Jerusalem: that is, take away bread, which is the staff of life, the support of it, and which strengthens man's heart; and also the nourishing virtue and efficacy from what they had. The sense is, that the Lord would both deprive them of a sufficiency of bread, the nourishment of man; and not suffer the little they had to be nourishing to them; what they ate would not satisfy them, nor do them much good; see (Leviticus 26:26 ) (Isaiah 3:1 ); and they shall eat bread by weight, and with care; that they might not eat too much at a time, but have something for tomorrow;

and consume away for their iniquity; their flesh upon them black through famine, putrid and noisome; and they wasting, pining, and consuming; reduced to skin and bones; and disagreeable to look upon; and all because of their sins and iniquities." (Commentary)

Though the famine mentioned by Ezekiel concerned "Jerusalem" and her citizens yet it describes the famine that is coming under the black horse rider of the Apocalypse. Under the black horse rider we see wheat and barley, "bread," being carefully weighed.

At this point in our look at the black horse rider and his judgment, we plan to address the following questions.

Questions

1. What food is scarce? What crops?
2. What "harm" or "damage" is done to these food sources and supplies?
3. What food stuffs are particularly mentioned?
4. What about the food stuffs not particularly mentioned?
5. Why the command to "damage not the olive oil and the wine"?
6. What earthly power is controlling food distribution (or the scales)?
7. What effect will the famine have on the previous murdering under the red horse?
8. How long will the bloodshed and famine last?
9. How many will die by the famine and sword?
10. Will the righteous suffer as the wicked?

Assumptions

1. People will still be working for a day's supply is given for a day's wage.
2. Commerce, buying and selling, will still be occurring.
3. Some authority is in control of rationing food.
4. All food crops harmed except for grapes and olives.

In the first chapter in this series on the black horse rider, I cited from Seiss. Recall his words:

"The arrival of things at such a pass, accordingly argues a severity of hard times, distress, and want, almost beyond the power of imagination to depict. Yet, it is but the natural result of the state of things under the red horse. The two are closely connected as cause and effect. Take away peace from the earth, and inaugurate universal wars, civil strifes, and bloody feuds, and terrible scarcity of the means of subsistence must follow."

As has been pointed out previously, it seems more natural for the famine to precede the civil strife and manslaughter. But, with the four horsemen, the strife precedes the famine, a thing Seiss addressed, saying that the famine is "the natural result of the state of things under the red horse." We also observed, however, that Seiss has also been cited as affirming that the first four seals are opened rapidly, each seal being opened immediately upon the opening of the others, so that the effect is that the four horsemen may be said to appear together.

We also observed how it is likely that the judgment of each horse rider continues along with the others. In other words, the bloodshed and absence of peace does not stop when the black horse rider comes, but rather the red horse rider keeps right on riding but this time accompanied by the black horse rider.

No doubt but that the famine will in some cases increase the mutual manslaughter, people killing to steal another's supply of wheat and barley. On the other hand, when people get weak from malnutrition, they are not as able to kill another, and so there will rather be a decrease in the manslaughter.

One wonders also how the populous can still keep working, receiving their "day's wage," when they become weak and ill. One wonders about the elderly, the disabled. Will they be denied a day's supply of food because they are not working? Will it be a case of "lifeboat ethics"? More on that later.

It seems clear that the coming of the white, red, and black horse riders, with their judgments, acts like "Dominoes," and/or a "Slippery Slope,"  where things go "spiraling" out of control. There is, in the coming judgments of the Apocalypse, beginning with the four horsemen, a chain of events that, once initiated, cannot be halted.

The Food Supply

The foods specifically mentioned are wheat, barley, wine, and oil (probably olive oil). There is no mention of meat nor of fruits and vegetables other than grapes and olives. No other grains are mentioned, such as oats, rice, sorghum, millet, rye, etc.

It seems unlikely that it is only wheat and barley that are harmed or damaged by the judgment of the black horse rider. The words "harm not the wine and oil" imply that all other crops are harmed. Everything is harmed except the vine and olive tree. If wheat and barley are in scant supplies, then so it is likely other grains, fruits and vegetables, will also be "harmed" or "damaged."

We know that there are several causes for the famine. In one sense, it is the sin of the world. In another sense, it is the judgment act of God. But, what second causes are there? What means does the Lord use to damage the food supply? Drought? Civil chaos?

The food supply has often been an object of God's wrath when punishing sinners. In the long ago the Lord warned the Israelites:

“And if, in spite of all this, you still disobey me, I will punish you seven times over for your sins. 19 I will break your proud spirit by making the skies as unyielding as iron and the earth as hard as bronze. 20 All your work will be for nothing, for your land will yield no crops, and your trees will bear no fruit. 21 “If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey me, I will inflict disaster on you seven times over for your sins. 22 I will send wild animals that will rob you of your children and destroy your livestock. Your numbers will dwindle, and your roads will be deserted. 23 “And if you fail to learn the lesson and continue your hostility toward me, 24 then I myself will be hostile toward you. I will personally strike you with calamity seven times over for your sins. 25 I will send armies against you to carry out the curse of the covenant you have broken. When you run to your towns for safety, I will send a plague to destroy you there, and you will be handed over to your enemies. 26 I will destroy your food supply, so that ten women will need only one oven to bake bread for their families. They will ration your food by weight, and though you have food to eat, you will not be satisfied. 27 “If in spite of all this you still refuse to listen and still remain hostile toward me, 28 then I will give full vent to my hostility. I myself will punish you seven times over for your sins. 29 Then you will eat the flesh of your own sons and daughters. 30 I will destroy your pagan shrines and knock down your places of worship. I will leave your lifeless corpses piled on top of your lifeless idols,[a] and I will despise you. 31 I will make your cities desolate and destroy your places of pagan worship." (Lev. 26: 20-31 NLT)

Though these curses and punishments are threatened against Israel for her disobedience to the Sinai Covenant yet they are applicable to all men in that all men have covenant obligations to render faith and allegiance to their Creator. In this description of God's judgment he threatens the "food supply." It is the same kind of judgment upon the food supply that is coming at the time of the black horse rider.

Notice that more than once, due to the increased disobedience of the people (or as the Lord says, "for your sins") and for their continued refusal to repent, the Lord promises to increase the severity of the judgments "seven times over." 

The Lord says that he will be "hostile" (or furious) towards the rebellious Israelites, to "give full vent to my hostility (fury)" This is in keeping with what we observed in previous chapters about God being cruel, terrible, severe, etc.

The Lord will employ "armies" who will "carry out" or execute "the curse," which curse includes devastation to the food supply. Recall that we have already referred to the various locust "armies" sent by God to destroy the crops, via the prophecy of Joel. Further, as we have observed, the white horse rider refers to the coming of Christ in judgment, and so the red, black, and pale horses are but agents of the judgments determined and executed by Christ, and each of these three calvary riders may be viewed as generals who are in charge of other heavenly angels who will help to bring about the calamities described.

Hard Lessons For The Evil World

"Yea, in the way of thy judgments, O Lord, have we waited for thee; the desire of our soul is to thy name, and to the remembrance of thee.  With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early: when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness." (Isa. 26: 8-9)

What are the judgments of the four horsemen designed to teach the Omega wicked generation? What lessons does the Lord want the inhabitants of the earth to "learn" by these awful judgments of the Apocalypse? Further, do they accept the teaching God is giving them? Or, do they rebel against it?

On the above words of the prophet, Barnes said:

"the punishments which he inflicted were intended to lead people to learn righteousness...Learn righteousness - The design is to warn, to restrain, and to reform them." (Commentary)

Wrote John Calvin:

"The inhabitants of the earth will learn righteousness. We must observe the reason assigned, when he says that “the inhabitants of the earth learn righteousness from the judgments of God,” meaning that by chastisements men are taught to fear God.  In prosperity they forget him, and their eyes are as it were blinded by fatness; they grow wanton and petulant, and do not submit to be under authority; and therefore the Lord restrains their insolence, and teaches them to obey. In short, the Prophet confesses that he and others were trained, by God’s chastisements, to yield submission to his authority, and to intrust themselves to his guardianship; because if God do not, with uplifted arm, claim his right to rule, no man of his own accord yields obedience." (Commentary)

These comments are in keeping with what we have observed about the wicked prosperity of the very last days and of the judgments that shall come upon it. The prophet's words tell us, in so many words, that "God’s judgments are the best schoolmasters." (John Trapp commentary) But, as we will see, the Omega generation will be most hardened in their sins and enmity against God and his Christ, and rather than reforming or repenting of their wicked behavior, they rather curse and blaspheme God who they finally recognize is sending these awful calamities of judgment.

Wrote another:

"For when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness: and good reason it is that we should thus desire and seek thee in the way of thy judgments, because this is the very design of thy judgments, that men should thereby be awakened to learn and return to their duty; and this is a common effect of them, that those who have been careless in prosperity, are made wiser and better by afflictions." (Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible)

But why does God visit us with judgments? Not that He delights in the miseries of His creatures. “He afflicteth not willingly, nor grieveth the children of men.” He would rather “draw them by the cords of love”; and “by His goodness lead them to repentance.”

It is, as we have observed, it is in order that God uproot unrighteousness and in justice judge the world.

God's Lesson To Omega Man

"Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” (Matt. 4: 4)

This is one lesson the Lord intends to teach the Omega generation!

The bible teaches that it is God "who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food." (2 Corinthians 9:10 NIV) It teaches that "he gives to all life, and breath, and all things." (Acts 17: 25)

The Lord warned by Moses:

"But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth." (Duet. 8: 18)

John the Baptist taught similarly, saying:

"A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven." (John 3: 27)

But, this is a truth that man has forgotten. For, like Israel, the creature has "forgotten his Maker" (Hosea 8: 14) Not only is he not thankful to his Creator, he actually is at war with him. This is why fallen man is called a "rebel" in scripture. Yet, the Lord warns:

"If you are willing and obedient, you will eat the good things of the land; but if you resist and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword.” For the mouth of the LORD has spoken." (Isa. 1: 19-20)

When the red and black horse riders appear, then masses around the world will be "devoured by the sword" and will not any longer "eat the good things of the land." And why? Because the world will be full of "rebels" who "resist" God, who are unwilling and disobedient.

The World's Reaction

"And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk: Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts." (Rev. 9: 20-21)

Throughout the varied judgments of the coming Apocalypse we are sometimes told of the reaction that these judgments are having upon the wicked inhabitants of the earth. The above is the first. Though it is mentioned only in chapter nine, yet it truly characterizes the reaction of the people up to that time and must include the reaction of the earth's peoples under the calamities of the four horsemen. Notice that it is repeated that they did not "repent." They kept right on doing those things that were the cause of the judgments. Though the judgments are designed to teach the people their errors and to teach them the way of salvation and righteousness, yet the people are bad students, failing to get the lesson. They do not react as the Ninevites, who repented in sackcloth over the announced doom that the prophet brought to them from the Lord.

"And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory...And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds...And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great." (Rev. 16: 9, 11, 21)

Notice that this is said in chapter 16 when many more awful judgments have come on the earth. Have the people finally learned their lesson and repented? No, they rather become more hardened in their sin and rebellion against the Lord.

Notice these other statements by the sufferers of the judgments:

"And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven." (Rev.11: 13)

"Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest." (Rev. 15: 4)

The first verse gives us some hope that some of the earth's wicked inhabitants will begin to "get the lesson," or "get the point," recognize the judgment as coming from God, and rather than blaspheming God, as others, "give glory to the God of heaven."

Several times the Lord said (Lev. 26) "if you fail to learn the lesson." It seems that the Omega generation will indeed "fail to learn the lesson."