Anathema Maranatha

"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." (I Cor. 16: 22)

What shall the destiny be for those who do not love God or Christ? Paul says they shall be "accursed" ('anathema'). Dr. Gill says that "anathema maranatha" means "let him be anathema in the coming of our Lord." He says that it is a reference to "the second coming of Christ to judgment, when all the wicked of the earth shall be accursed by him, and all such that love him not will be bid to depart from him." But, the Hardshells teach that many of the called do not love God, do not know and love Christ, and yet will be finally blessed with salvation.

"Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me." (John 8: 42)

This is another verse that destroys hardshellism, for hardshellism teaches that not all those who are children of God, who have God as their Father, believe in or love Christ. But, Jesus plainly says that if one is a child of God, then he will love Christ. If a man does not love Christ, then he reveals the fact that he is not a child of God. Ask any Hardshell this question - "do all the regenerate love Christ?" They will say "no." But, what does Jesus say? Can a man love one without cognition? Can he love sub-consciously and unknowingly?

(Taken From The Gospel - The Means of Grace XII - here)

Spirit Of Adoption (3)

For the previous two entries in this series see (here and here). For the larger series "Waiting for the Huiothesia" see the archives for this blog and for the Baptist Gadfly blog (Aug-Oct. 2016 in the Old Baptist Test and the final posting here in the Gadfly)

"Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor (school master kjv)...Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child (nepios), does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. Even so we, when we were children (nepios), were in bondage under the elements of the world. But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." (Gal 3: 24-25; 4: 1-7 nkjv)

How long does a male offspring (son) live as "a child" (teknon or nepios)? How long is he deemed a "minor"? Answer "until the time appointed by the father." That "time" is not the time when the child is born a son but rather when he becomes a "man" and a "son" in the fullest sense, and this time will be marked by his "son placement" by his father, at the time when the father deems the child sufficiently grown and educated. The one who is born a son will begin his sonship education while a child. His father will teach him, sometimes directly, but most often by the medium of appointed teachers and guardians. His "adoption" or "son placement" will mark the end of this educational program, his maturation process, which is the time determined by his father, based no doubt on the speed of growth towards manhood, but always past puberty or adolescence.

This father ordained event (huiothesia) is for that one who is already a child, a birth son. But, though a son by birth, he has not yet become a "son," in the highest sense, where he fully imitates his father, is like his father in thinking, manners, and customs. He becomes "son" in full likeness to his father when he becomes a mature full grown perfect "man," conformed to the image and character of his father, when he is made perfect or complete. He is, by his huiothesian rite of passage, (the time appointed by the father) now declared to no longer be a child in custody, but liberated from the slavery of his childhood, being no longer under tutors and guardians, no longer in bondage to the elements of the world, no longer a student. After the son's adoption (growing up ceremony marking the end of his childhood) the child is no longer a minor, but an adult, free to govern himself, to do as he pleases, to enjoy all the privileges of adult status. 

Today we think of how excited adolescents become as they near certain ages. Those nearing sixteen look forward to being able to obtain a license to drive a car. Those nearing the drinking age get excited about being able to drink alcohol! So too do boys who are approaching "that time appointed by the Father" get excited for their graduation ceremony, of becoming men. 

What may we say about the time of childhood, the time before "the time appointed by the father"? A son at that time is a biological child of the father and therefore has "birth rights," or as Paul says, "he is heir of all things." He is the designated "heir" by this birth even though a child. Though named "heir" (because of being begotten by his father) yet he will not obtain possession and authority over his inheritance till that time that the father has ordained. The "time as a child" (or minor) is a time when the father oversees the maturation process of his son by means of "guardians and stewards," by "pedagogues," i.e. school masters, educators, disciplinarians, etc. He is "in bondage under the elements of the world," said Paul. By this phrase most commentators believe Paul is referring to the kind of instruction that children receive, learning their "ABCs," the basic principles or rudiments of secular knowledge, such as learning the alphabet, learning to read and write, to do math, to learn about the physical world, to learn about social life, about right and wrong, about the law, etc. I believe that is correct, and can be applied in any of the three scenarios for interpreting Paul's words. 

Who is the child and who is the full grown son, according to Paul? There are three applications of Paul's teaching.

1. OT believers are likened to children while NT believers are compared to mature sons. 

2. Unconverted sinners are likened to children while converted sinners are compared to mature sons.

3. Born again believers are likened to children in this life but as mature sons in the day of redemption.

I think all of these three are true, though one of them was no doubt foremost in the mind of the apostle.

When Paul says that the law is a school master for children (who are expected to become mature sons), he may allude to the Jews of the OT who had not yet come to maturity (#1), that maturity being evidenced by coming to know and believe in Christ post his coming, death, resurrection, and ascension. Many commentators think the child under tutelage is the lost sinner. I rather think #3 is in the apostle's mind although the metaphor is applicable to all three cases. One reason is because Paul always speaks of "the adoption," or "son placement" as a thing of the future. 

Said bible teacher Warren Wiersbe (as cited here), in support of view #2:

"Paul expands on the analogy of a child’s coming of age (3:24-26), contrasting believers’ lives before salvation (as children and servants), with their lives after salvation (as adults and sons). Both Paul’s Jewish and Gentile readers readily understood this imagery, since the Jews, Greeks, and Romans all had a ceremony to mark a child’s coming of age."

In this case the time spent under tutors and governors, under the school master of the law, learning the basic fundamentals of the world, would be a description of unregenerate sinners, ones not redeemed, ones who have not yet received the spirit of the Son. It is a time of slavery. But, those who receive the spirit are no longer under the tutelage of the world, but under the teaching of the Spirit, being reckoned and placed into the family of God as a son and heir. One still under the school master of the law is one who has not come to Christ, though it is the means thereunto. Wiersbe says further:

"Child (nepios from nê = negative + epos = not able to talk) means literally one that does not talk or not speaking and thus a small child above age of a helpless infant but probably not more than three or four years of age. Figuratively nepios refers to a person who lacks experience, is untried or ignorant or simple-minded. The writer to the Hebrews used it of one spiritually immature (Heb 5:13) as did Paul (1Co 3:1) for they cannot eat solid food (spiritually speaking). Robertson adds that nepios is "That is a minor, an infant, immature intellectually and morally in contrast with τελειοι [teleioi], full grown (1 Cor. 3:1; 14:20; Phil. 3:15; Eph. 4:13)" Wuest on nepios - The idea of immaturity is in the word, and according to the context in which it is found, it could refer to either mental or spiritual immaturity." (Ibid)

The same source cites Utley on nepios saying: 

"This was the Greek term for infant, used in the sense of: (1) spiritual babies; or (2) legal minors. In ancient Mediterranean cultures, the rite of passage from boyhood to manhood occurred at different ages and was a major cultural/religious event: (a) in Jewish culture, it was age 13; (b) in Greek culture, it was age 18; and (c) in Roman culture, it was usually at age 14."

We know the characteristics of being a "minor" in Hebrew culture and law. Paul says that he has no more rights than a slave. He is under tutors and governors, in "protective custody" by his masters and teachers. He is inexperienced, immature, unlearned, unwise. But, we also know what are the characteristics of those who are no longer "minors," who are now mature sons. They are no longer under tutors and guardians, no longer a child in understanding, no longer enjoying childish and youthful things. 

"Before faith came" are words that speak of two time periods, one before faith and one after. Coming to faith is the middle point of demarcation between the two periods. The other time period in the text is discerned by the words "until the time appointed by the father." There "the time" is a dividing point between the time before "the time" and the time after "the time." 

Being a "son" in the bible may simply mean a male offspring, but more often a "son" is one who has matured and grown more into the image and likeness of his father, especially in his thinking and habits. Many bible writers have written much on this and it is well established. One cannot help but see how Paul relates a believer's "sonship" to that of the Lord Jesus, who is in both his divine and human natures, the "Son of God." Paul says that the Father "sent forth his Son" and "sent forth the spirit of his Son," all for the purpose of making believers into the full likeness of their father (or full grown sons). 

Each believer as he lives his life for Christ will more and more become like his father. There is a likeness that comes from birth and there is a likeness that comes from being guided and taught by the father. The sonship of believers is derived from the Father's only begotten Son. Adoption is not, as many assume, son "making" but son "placing." This is a common error. They were sons or children by birth before they were "placed" in the position of full grown and perfected sons. 

The word “Son” used here reveals so much on how we can more fully experience the Father’s heart and be conformed more into his image. Looking at the life of Jesus there are three words used to describe Him in terms of him being a Son. At Jesus’ circumcision on the eighth day, the Greek word for child is paidion (Luke 2:17). When He appeared in the temple at age 12, the Greek word for child is teknon (Luke 2:48). At His baptism the Father called Him His beloved huios (Son).

Some might think that saying this about Christ and his being called "Son" (after he had matured) is what was taught by those anti Trinitarians who espoused what is called "Adoptionism." The New World Encyclopedia says this about it (See here):

"Adoptionism is a minority Christian belief that Jesus was born merely human and that he became divine—adopted as God's son—later in his life. By these accounts, Jesus earned the title Christ through his sinless devotion to the will of God, rather than by his pre-existent status as the eternally begotten Son of God. Adoptionists typically portray either Jesus' baptism or his resurrection, or both, as the key moment(s) in the process of his divinization. 

 

Adoptionism arose among early Christians seeking to reconcile the claims that Jesus was the Son of God with the radical monotheism of Judaism, in which the concept of a trinity of divine persons in one Godhead was unacceptable. Adoptionism was common before it was first declared heresy at the end of the second century, and persisted for several more centuries and re-emerged at several points in church history. 

 

Some scholars see Adoptionist concepts for example in the Gospel of Mark and in the writings of the Apostle Paul. Adoptionism, however, contradicts the identification of Jesus as the divine Logos, as put forth in the Gospel of John (1:1)."

Adoptionism is an error when it is applied to Christ's divinity, for it denies his being from eternity the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father. Christ is not an adopted divinity. He is Son by an eternal begetting, an eternal generation. Also, the term "begotten" is used to denote likeness of nature and attributes, and the idea of being produced is not entailed in his being begotten of the Father. Again, one cannot be both born and adopted. 

However, some of the features of Adoptionism may be applicable to Christ in his humanity, who in respect to his humanity, or human nature, was begotten by the Spirit and the Father via the virgin birth. Being Son of God in his humanity involved his birth and his adoption. However, by his "adoption" we are not to understand the common understanding of that word, but rather to Christ's experiencing his "son placement" when he had passed out of his state as a child or minor. Thus, the idea that Christ, in his human nature (which was divinely begotten) went from being a child to being an adult son is appropriate. Christ's adoption or son placement had respect to his status as a man.

When the Father, at Christ's baptism, said "This is my beloved Son," he was declaring that his Son had passed out of childhood to manhood and had now the authority as a man to speak for his Father. 

The term "Son of God" as applied to Jesus encompasses both his divinity and his humanity, but chiefly the former. Christ as human is called "Son of Man" like Ezekiel. As the divine Son of God he has always been the Son and his Father has always been the Father. There is no actual "begetting," nor the idea that one God begets another god (as in polytheistic thought). The idea of "begetting" is not a term to denote origin or beginning, but of status and relationship, and likeness of nature. All the similarities of this divine begetting to human begetting cannot be pressed beyond its intended meaning. 

Christ is in this way also called "the firstborn," not in respect to a literal procreation but as to status. The relationship of "The Word" to the divine being (God or theos) is illustrated in the father son relationship. In human begetting and birth a mother is required, but not so as respects the begetting of the Son of God in his divinity. Said Solomon about Wisdom:

"The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth...Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men." (Prov. 8: 22-25; 30-31)

Jesus is "the wisdom of God." (I Cor. 1: 24) Wisdom was "set up" and that "from everlasting." Here "set up," though it normally denotes an event in time, does not denote what occurred in time, but to what was true from eternity. Notice that "wisdom" is not only "set up" from eternity but also "brought forth," that is, was born or begotten. Also, wisdom says "then (in eternity) was I by him, as one brought up with him." That is the language of being begotten and being treated as a son. Notice also how the sonship of divine Wisdom is contrasted with "the sons of men." Christ, the Wisdom of God, was God's "firstborn" from eternity. He did not become the "firstborn," in his divinity, by his being begotten of the virgin, but only as respects his human nature. He has always been the firstborn in his divinity, but not so in his humanity. Notice these words:

"So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." (Heb. 5: 5-9)

These words speak of God the Father's declaration of the identity of Christ, that he is "my Son," who I have this day begotten. In respect to his divine nature, there is not an actual beginning to his status as Son. As the Father has always been "Father," so then has there been always the Son. But, the declaration, as at the baptism of Christ, had more to do with the Father's owning of his human Son, recognizing his attainment to full adulthood. His baptism was his Bar Mitzvah or rite of passage into adulthood. Up until adult status (to that state of "perfection" or full growth), Christ "grew in wisdom and in stature." (Luke 2: 52) He, while growing up, was a birth son, a male, an appointed heir, but he was not yet "Son" in the highest sense (speaking of his human sonship). That is what the writer above means when he speaks of the Son of God being "made perfect" following his obedience. His being made perfect respects his time as a child, as a minor, and alludes to the process of growth that the father (both Joseph and God the Father) has overseen. 

So too are believers now being perfected as they grow up in Christ. This growing up will be followed by a graduation ceremony at the second coming of Christ and the day of full redemption.

In the next posting we will finish our thoughts on this topic.

Sheep Hearing The Voice Of Christ

"To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear (present indicative active) his voice; and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow (present indicative active) him, for they know (present indicative active) his voice. Yet they will by no means follow (active) a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know (present indicative active) the voice of strangers...I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known (present indicative active) by My own...My sheep hear (present indicative active) My voice, and I know them, and they follow (present indicative active) Me. ” (John 10: 3-6, 14, 27)

This is one of the most difficult texts for our modern Hardshell brothers. This is true in spite of the fact that it is often quoted by them (though rarely expounded upon). 

The Problem With Hearing The Voice

The "direct speaking" view of the Hardshells, first formulated by Two Seed Primitive Baptist Gilbert Beebe and his cohorts (via his periodical "Signs of the Times), affirms that the "voice" of the Lord Jesus (John 5: 25-28 and John 10, etc.) that is heard by the dead, or by the lost sheep, is the personal speaking of Jesus to the sinner. They contend that one does not hear the "voice" of Christ except when he personally speaks to them. One does not hear the "voice" of Christ, therefore, in hearing his words orally communicated. One cannot hear the voice of the Lord in reading his word. The only way to hear the voice of the Lord, in Hardshell thinking, is for one to personally hear the sound of his voice. 

When this voice (sound) is first heard, it could not be a voice that is "recognized" from experience, for it has never been heard before. Yet, our Hardshell brothers, think that the sheep "know" the voice of their shepherd the first time they hear it. Also, as we will see, they do not know what is involved in "knowing" the voice of the Shepherd (pun intended). 

Many heard the literal voice of Christ as he preached for three plus years and who did not "hear" it in the way the sheep hear it. This is obvious from the Gospel narratives. Thus, hearing the voice of the Lord in itself is not what saved anyone. The Israelites who were assembled around Mt. Sinai heard the "voice" of God and yet were not saved, were not sheep. The message to these unbelievers (goats, if you will) even after Sinai was "today, if you will hear his voice, do not harden you hearts as in the rebellion." Heb. 3: 7) In this statement "hear" does not mean a simple hearing of the words but a giving attention to those words. But, the text not only speaks about the voice or speaking of the Lord, but also of the speaking of the Spirit.

"Therefore, the Holy Spirit says, today if you will hear..." Notice that not only is the Lord one who "speaks" to the sheep, to the regenerate (to believers), but also the Holy Spirit. "The Holy spirit says." So, if hearing the voice of Christ the Shepherd is a direct speaking (apart from the written or preached word) then so is the speaking of the Spirit. To whom does the Spirit speak? To only the regenerate? The context of these verses will not allow such an interpretation. What the voice of the Lord says, and what the Spirit says, he says to all, even to the lost. The difference is not in the mere hearing of the word of God, but in giving heed to it.

It is also evident that all men who hear the voice of the Lord and the Spirit are obligated to pay attention to it, to heed it. But, this is denied by our Hardshell brethren, and the Strict Baptists, who deny it to be the duty of all men to hear the Lord and his word. 

The verb for the word "says" is present indicative and if taken as a customary present tense, which it most often is, then it is "what the Holy Spirit is continually saying." The context also shows this to be the case, from the words "after so long a time" the Lord still says "if you will hear his voice." 

"Again He designates a certain day, saying in David, “Today,” after such a long time, as it has been said: “Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts." (4: 7)

Men who lived long after Sinai, when the people heard audibly the voice of the Lord, were told to "hear" that very voice. But, how could it be hearing it directly as at Sinai? The idea of the text is that God has continually been uttering his voice to the people and yet they refused to hear and heed it, hardening their hearts to the message. 

What is being spoken and said, by both Christ and the Spirit, are 1) said to all who audibly hear it (and this is not limited to the elect or the regenerate) and 2) is said continually. It is not a case where the people are waiting to hear the word or voice of God but rather God who is waiting upon the people to hear it.

The most important thing is not who simply "hears" the voice of Christ and words of the Spirit but rather who "hears" in the sense of pay attention to, or in the sense of heeding, those words and that voice. Some, said the apostle, heard the word and voice but "hardened their hearts" and were therefore refused entrance into the land of promise. They were also destroyed by the Lord in judgment during the wilderness journey. Now, logically, if merely audibly hearing the voice and words of God denote salvation, then we would find no record of God rejecting any of them who heard it as being unregenerate, nor of any of them rejecting God. But, this is not the case, and thus the premise is false. 

In Hebrews chapters three and four Paul identifies this class (who heard the voice but did not pay attention to it), saying of them what God had said about them in his indictment - "they do always err in their hearts" and "they have not known my ways" (vs. 10). That cannot be a description of regenerate and godly people. The regenerate have the word of God written in their hearts in the work of regeneration as the Lord said - "I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts." (Jer. 31: 33) Thus, those who have not known God's ways have not been regenerated even though they have audibly heard the voice and word of God.

The Greek word for "hear" ("my sheep hear") is "akouo" and means to listen, to heed or pay attention, to hear with comprehension. It is the root of our word "acoustics" having to do with sound. In verse 27 "hear" is from akouosin. Notice how Jesus spoke about two ways of hearing the words of Christ.

"Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: ‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.’ But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear." (Matt. 13: 13-16)

By "hearing" our Lord does not mean simply hearing audibly the voice and words of Christ, but rather hearing them so as to understand and heed them. Jesus defines the kind of "hearing" that is done by the sheep, by those who are regenerate. Is the "hearing but not understanding" the kind of hearing done by the sheep? Yes, according to Hardshellism. That is why they will insist that the people Christ is describing in the above words are regenerate people. Only soft (regenerate) hearts can be hardened, they have said. Thus, those who heard but did not understand and heed were sheep. The ones who did not follow were sheep! Who can believe such nonsense? 

On the words "and hearing they hear not" (καὶ ἀκούοντες οὐκ ἀκούουσιν οὐδὲ συνίουσιν) Dr. John Gill wrote:

"they heard externally, but not internally; they heard the sound of Christ's voice, but did not understand his words, even when he spake in the plainest and most intelligible manner; nor were they concerned to know the meaning of them." (Commentary)

Who can imagine sheep "hearing" their shepherd's voice and not knowing who it is that is speaking to them? Who can imagine that the sheep "hearing" means no more than hearing audibly the words but not knowing what they mean? Hardshell Baptists!

Thus, it is not a subconscious, non cognitive, hearing! Also, "obey" (or one of its forms) is included in what it means to "hear." Jesus even uses the word "follow." The sheep not only audibly hear the voice and word of the Lord but they pay attention to it, obey it, and "follow" the instructions of the shepherd. 

In the explanation of the parable of the sower (from when our text, Matt. 13: 13 is taken), Jesus says to his disciples: “Therefore hear the parable of the sower." (vs. 18) Obviously "hear" in this case does not simply mean to audibly hear, but to hear with understanding. Jesus had just given them the parable of the sower and so they had already heard it. So, when Christ says, in his beginning explanation of the parable (which they did not understand), "hear the parable," he does not mean hear it as they had heard it previously. He meant "hear" in the sense of understand.

We regularly tell people who are hearing our words but not understanding them - "you are not hearing what I am saying." Sometimes we will ask rhetorically "do you hear me?" (as a parent to a child), and the meaning is "do you understand me?" But, our Hardshell brothers will tell us that the ones who "heard" but did not understand, who heard but did not heed or pay attention, were born again children of God! Again, who can believe such nonsense? 

They argue that the words "their eyes they have closed" and "hardened their hearts" are descriptions of born again people! Folks, that is the worst of interpretations! Talk about giving hope to hypocrites and unbelievers! That, as they say, "takes the cake." I have heard Hardshells argue that since such hardened sinners audibly heard the word, and visibly seen the Lord, that they were saved (even though they did not understand or obey what they heard). By that logic, everyone who heard Christ preach was a born again child of God. Again, such nonsense! It is unworthy of any professed teacher of the bible.

The command of the Father, in respect to his Son, is "hear him." (Matt. 17: 5; Mark 9: 7; Luke 9: 35)

This is said to all men, and it is not a mere call to audibly hear the word but to hear it attentively, to heed it. God not only wants people to hear the word read or taught but to hear it with understanding. Further, where in Hardshellism is there room for God to be saying to all "hear my Son"? Obviously, the people had a choice whether to hear it rightly, as God intends, or not to hear it. Our Lord said "Take heed how you hear." (Luke 8: 18) Hearing the word of God without faith and understanding avails nothing, yea, it rather increases the condemnation. This is not the way, the "how," to "hear." Jesus later in this same discourse said:

“Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word...He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.” (John 8: 43, 47)

The ones that Jesus here addressed, even by Hardshell admission, are not regenerate. Their reasoning for this is because Christ says "you cannot hear my word" and "you are not of God." Yet, the Hardshells have failed to see the consequences of this admission. 

This text is often used by them to teach that sinners must be regenerated before they can "hear" the words of God. But, it teaches no such thing. In this interpretation they have interpreted "God's words" to be his preached words (orally or verbally communicated). To them one must first hear the word of God directly spoken to him before he can later hear "God's words" in the preaching of the word of God. But, who gave them the right to so interpret the meaning of hearing God's word (or words) in two different ways in the same text? Notice that Jesus says that these unregenerate folks actually heard his "speech." The Lord's condemnation was not that they had not heard his speech, his audible words, but that they had not "understood" it, nor "listened" to it, nor "hear" it with any depth. They only heard it superficially like most of those who hear it. What they heard did not penetrate into the depth of the soul.  

Jesus is not giving an ordo salutis in these words, as our Hardshell brethren contend. He is not saying that one must first be "of God" (via regeneration or birth) before one can hear the word of God. That would be to contradict what is taught elsewhere in scripture. Further, to put it into Hardshell jargon, we would have it read "whoever is not of God by directly hearing the voice or word of God does not hear God's words as told afterward by others." Do you see how foolish is such a twisting of words? Hearing the word of God means two different things in the same text! But, if hearing God's words ("you therefore hear them not") denotes hearing the word preached then by this they admit that hearing the word of God does not always denote hearing Christ personally preach. 

Rather than giving an ordo salutis that puts being of God before hearing the word of God, our Lord is rather identifying those who are "of God" and those who are not. Will the Hardshells take the implied opposite of Christ's words? So that not only is it true that "whoever is not of God does not hear attentively the words of God," but also that "whosoever is of God attentively hears God's words." If you do not pay attention to God's words, then you show that you are not of God.

Another problem with the Hardshell twist on John 8: 43 & 47 is that it affirms that one must hear the word of God (directly spoken) in order to hear it (indirectly spoken). 

Jesus condemns these unregenerate folks for not hearing his word (in the way it should be heard). But, if they have no duty to do so, then how could he chastise them for not believing? Further, though they affirm that those "not of God" CANNOT hear "God's words" (as spoken by preachers) yet they say (out of the other side of their mouths) that the unregenerate will effectually hear the word that he personally speaks to them and in this hearing they have no choice, for they are passive in this hearing (as Lazarus when spoken to by the Lord when dead). Hearing "God's words" after being "of God" is not irresistible, but hearing the direct speaking is irresistible. Their interpretation takes what is simple to understand and makes it difficult.

Most bible students, when they read about hearing the voice of the Lord, do not divorce this from hearing the Lord speaking to them through the scriptures. The fact that the Hardshells have given to the idea of hearing the voice of the Lord an unusual and novel interpretation is an anomaly. It is not the normal sense of what is intended by hearing the Lord speaking. The Hardshell idea is more akin to mysticism. 

The "if" of this text ('today if you will hear his voice') is a third class conditional clause, indicating the uncertainty as to whether the readers will indeed hear and heed the voice of the Lord. That is, they may hear it (in the sense of attending to it) or they may not hear it. 

What Christ says about his "sheep" is true of all of them. But, those who die in infancy are not under consideration. It is what is true of all adult saved people. Even our Hardshell brethren must admit this. Christ is speaking of his people comprehended as old enough to hear, understand, and follow. Do Hardshells believe that infants who die in infancy hear, heed, and follow the Lord? 

Assuming the Hardshell direct speaking view, we may well ask "in what language does Christ speak when he speaks to a sinner in his regeneration?" What does he say? Does he say anything with the design to communicate ideas or truth facts? Or, is his speaking the same kind that he speaks when he speaks to the wind and the waves? If so, do the wind and waves "hear" his voice as do the sheep? Are the winds and the waves active or passive in hearing the Lord speak in commanding them? Notice these words of the apostle:

"So likewise you, except you utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for you shall speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaks a barbarian, and he that speaks shall be a barbarian unto me." (I Cor. 14: 9-11)

Does Christ "utter words easy to be understood" when he speaks to his sheep? Does he intend that his sheep "understand" what he says to them? Do the sheep "know the meaning of the voice" of the Lord when he speaks to them? Is his voice that of a barbarian to the sheep? Would it not be such if the sheep did not understand the "significance" of that voice? Does the "voice" of the Lord in speaking to the sheep exclude "words"? What words? What is the "signification" of the words that Christ speaks to his sheep? 

What will our Hardshell brothers say in reply to these pertinent questions?

The Problem With The Active Voice & Present Tense

In the text given from John 10 at the heading of this posting I have indicated how the verbs "hear," "know," and "follow" are all in the active voice. Thus, by applying these words to regeneration (as they do) our Hardshell brethren have given up one of their leading tenets which says "the sinner is totally passive in regeneration." But, they are not passive in hearing the voice of the shepherd, but active in hearing and giving attention. 

The other problem is seen in the same verbs being in the present tense and should likely be viewed as linear ongoing action. Thus, it is "my sheep are continually hearing my voice," and "my sheep continually know me," and "my sheep continually follow me." But, this is denied by most Hardshells today. They rather affirm that very few of the sheep continually follow Christ as sheep and disciples. Thus, there is a problem with applying the hearing and following to regeneration alone, and there are problems for the Hardshells in making it apply to the life after regeneration.

Who did Christ die for? "My sheep," said Christ. But, who are the sheep? Are any of them unbelievers? Are any of them worshipers of other gods? Are any believers in salvation outside of Christ? Are some of the sheep non hearers, non followers? Hardshells say yes. They affirm that many who are Muslims, Hindus, etc., are sheep who are hearing and following Jesus! What nonsense!

Another problem for those Hardshells who deny the perseverance of the saints are those words where Christ speaks about the negative action of his sheep (in contrast to the positive actions of hearing, knowing, following), saying "a stranger will they not follow" and "they know not the voice of strangers." I would like to ask our Hardshell brethren whether by "voice" in "voice of strangers" he denotes the direct speaking of strangers? Does it mean mere "voice" as in sound to the exclusion of comprehensible words? Also, again, the not "knowing" is present tense, a customary present, denoting continuous action. Is Christ saying that his sheep do not know the voice of strangers only in the instant of regeneration? Does he exclude the life following regeneration? Hardshells think so but that is foreign to the text. The negative statements about the sheep show that Jesus taught that the sheep would adhere to the faith and not fall away.

Romans & Hardshell Boasting Upon It

When I was a young Hardshell minister I used to hear the Hardshells brag about how their doctrine is clearly taught in the Book of Romans and that anyone who honestly studied it would become a Hardshell. Well, I can find the doctrines of grace in Romans but I cannot find Hardshellism. I cannot find their salvation apart from evangelical faith. I cannot find their denial of the necessity of perseverance for salvation. I cannot find their ideas about the nature and causes of regeneration in it. I cannot find their ideas about conversion in it. 

If any of their brethren want to come here and deny my affirmations and uphold theirs, then they are welcome. 

Said Elder Ronnie Loudermilk (See here)

"The many salvations taught throughout the Bible, but specifically in the book of Romans." 

"Many salvations taught" in the Book of Romans? To anyone who has read and studied the book of Romans such words will bewilder them. Such a view makes the book of Romans a puzzle, where one does not know which salvation is under consideration from verse to verse. Of course, Hardshells can guide you through it and tell you which kind of salvation it is in each verse; And, what they tell you about the kind of salvation in a given text would not be what you would have discovered on your own. You have to have help seeing so many "salvations" in the book of Romans. 

He also said: 

"The person who feels the weight of his or her sins in their conscience is exhibiting a great evidence of the work of grace." 

How he could get that out of the book of Romans is astounding. I rather find where Paul says that a guilty conscience is the result not of grace, but of the law. A guilty condemned conscience is the result of the "working of the law," not the working of grace. If a guilt ridden conscience is an evidence of grace then why does the conscience feel guilty? If the Spirit and word of God is witnessing to a conscience that it is guilty, causing unease, is the Spirit not telling a falsehood? If only the justified regenerate soul suffers conviction by the word and Spirit, and the Spirit is testifying of guilt to such, then a falsehood is being told. 

United Baptists Again?

    It never ceases to amaze me how many different kinds of Baptists there are. It also amazes me at how many Baptist groups share the majority of their doctrines in common, but remain separated because of differing views on the smallest of details. Another amazing fact, is that the predestinarian hardshell faction of Primitive Baptists are actually responsible for fracturing the Baptist family more than any other movement.

   As I've discussed in an earlier article about the Old Regular Baptists, who were once in fellowship with the Primitives, I told about how the Old Regulars declared non fellowship in the 1890's as the new "no means" doctrine became cemented among the Primitives. Another group who declared non fellowship with them are the United Baptists. Let's take a look at their history.

   The name "United Baptist" goes back early in the history of Baptists in America. Initially, it was a name used when the Regular and Separate Baptists agreed to come together, agreeing to be known only as "Baptist" or "United Baptist". This union didn't last very long, for many reasons, and we will discuss that at another time. What I wish to discuss here, are those churches who retained the name "United" or adopted that name after the mission/anti mission split.

   Those who styled themselves United Baptists, held a middle ground between the Missionary Baptists and Primitive Baptists, many staying out of the fight altogether. Most sided with the Primitives about mission societies, but sided with the Missionaries on other issues such as Sunday Schools, music etc. The Uniteds for the most part never adopted Sunday Schools or music, but it was because that is what they preferred, not because they were opposed. They just refused to withdraw fellowship over those issues, and while the majority of them worship much like the Primitives and Old Regulars, there is a sizable minority who do have Sunday Schools and music.  Almost all Uniteds have Vacation Bible Schools and revivals, special singing groups, etc.They have no organizational structure above the local association. They are (or were) the most successful group of Baptists who allowed for differing views on the atonement, and peace reigned among them on this issue. Many SBC associations were once United Baptist who dropped their opposition to missions. Things changed quickly though as the Primitives moved further away from being merely calvinistic to being hyper Calvinist.

   Elder John Sparks, a United Baptist, has written extensively on Baptist history in America. He has a vast collection of association minutes of the Uniteds going back 200 years. When compiling the minutes of the Old Zion Association of United Baptists, he writes the following as a preface.

"The Old Zion Association of United Baptists was organized at Salem Meetinghouse in Wayne County, Virginia (now West Virginia) on the first Saturday in November 1848. Though “given off” as an “arm” of the Paint Union Association of United Baptists of eastern Kentucky, most of the earliest membership of Zion Association actually more or less represented churches and ministers formerly connected with the Teays Valley Baptist Association in what is now West Virginia who were disaffected by both Teay’s Valley Association’s adoption of organized financial support for foreign and domestic missions and the breakaway Pocatalico Primitive Baptist Association’s adoption of extreme Calvinistic predestinarian views. Elder Goodwin Lycans, an ordained minister in the Teay’s Valley Association since 1827, was the primary leader in this United Baptist movement (they were called “Go-Betweeners” in that day and age because they represented a middle ground between the Missionary and Primitive Baptist movements)."

    So here we can see why this United Baptist association was born. They were opposed to organized support for mission boards, while also being opposed to the increasing hyper Calvinism among the Primitives. This is extremely early in the Primitive movement to have shown "extreme Calvinistic predestinarian views". The United Baptists had a high tolerance for varying views of the atonement, yet this United association was born because of extremism among the Primitives. As with most Uniteds, they began to drop tolerance for Calvinism in general. You can clearly see this in the Articles of Faith the Old Zion Association adopted.

      Articles of Faith of Old Zion Association of United Baptists adopted 1848

Article 1.
We believe in the only true living God, the creator of the heavens and earth and the things here in contained.

Article 2.
We believe in Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, who is Head and King of His Church.

Article 3.
 We believe in the Holy Ghost, the Sealer and Applier of the redemption purchased by Christ .

Article 4.
We believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and these three are one.

Article 5.
We believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament of the Authorized King James Version to be the infallible Word of God, taken then for our only rule of faith and practice; and nothing to be added or to be taken from them.

Article 6.
We believe in the free atonement of Jesus Christ and that He tasted death for every man and that salvation is offered to all men upon the terms of the Gospel.

Article 7.
We believe that repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ are necessary previous to baptism and that immersion is the only right way of administering the ordinance.

Article 8.
We believe that Christ has but one true Gospel Church and that it will finally persevere through grace and glory.

Article 9.
We Believe in the communion of the Lord’s Supper, that is, taking of the bread and “fruit of the vine” by the Church of Jesus Christ in commemoration of the death and suffering of the Son of God, until His second coming.

Article 10.
We believe that feet washing is an ordinance of Jesus Christ and ought to be observed and kept by His Church until his Second Coming.

Article 11.
We believe that Jesus Christ is the first resurrection from the dead and that He lives forever.

Article 12.
We believe in the resurrection of the just and unjust.

Article 13.
We believe in the everlasting punishment of the wicked and the eternal happiness of the righteous.

Article 14.
We believe that any Brother who shall come before the Church for the office of a minister or deacon must comply with I Timothy, Chapter 3, and I Corinthians, Chapter 7, verse 39.

    You can see in Article 6 they sent a clear message that they no longer tolerated varying views on the atonement. This association was one of the first United Baptist Associations to declare non fellowship with any holding to limited atonement. They will however fellowship Free Will Baptists, preach in their churches, and accept their baptisms, even though they themselves clearly believe in the perseverance of the saints (eternal security). This just goes to show how liberal they are in working with those whom they disagree on some points. 

   The Pocatalico Primitive Baptist Association ceased to exist in 2005 when one of only 2 churches left closed its doors. Hardshells will close a church without ever asking why the church is empty. The one remaining church of the association has a total of 16 members.

   Please keep in mind that this writing is NOT a theological debate, but a historical one. For those out there who may lament the fact that many Baptist churches refuse to fellowship, work with, or promote the faith with Baptists who hold different views on the atonement, don't direct your anger or disappointment at Baptists who hold a general atonement view...but direct your disappointment squarely at the Hardshell Primitives, because had they not gone off course and adopted heretical doctrines no early Baptist held, then perhaps today,  all who are called "Baptist" would be living, worshiping and working in harmony together proclaiming to the world, that there is a Savior who saves, a people that loves, and churches who stand together to call lost sinners to repentance and faith. If we all could just tell everyone to " 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" as Acts 3:19 says. Is it possible that all Baptists might be called "United" once again?

  May the Father of all those who follow the Lord Jesus remember that the end is ever more near. When the dark powers of this world begin to rule in absoluteness, they will not ask what kind of Baptist or what brand of Christian you are...they will only ask "will you stand with your God or ours?" At that moment our squabbles will not even come to our mind. Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus. Amen

 

Conspiracies & Masterminds

Am I conspiracy theorist? Do I see conspiracies in too many things? Well, who knows? I have not been generally such in the past. However, over the years I have become more discerning in discovering them. I do believe in conspiracies. Who could not? Many conspiracies have been exposed. They were real conspiracies. 

I cannot help but believe that a global conspiracy by the rich ruling infidel elite is now coming to light. Like FDR said, if it happens in politics it was meant to happen. Of course, this is true in other areas other than in politics, for there are conspiracies to murder, to steal, etc. 

One of the greatest conspiracies in the bible is the one foretold about in Psalm 2, a Messianic psalm.

"Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together (conspire together), against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us." (1-3)

The church uttered these words by the Spirit:

"Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done." (Acts 4: 25-28)

In this passage the conspirators are identified as Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles, Israelites. How different the conspirators of the Crucifixion! Yet, how alike and united in their evil intention and conspiracy against the Lord! What they shared in common was their opposition to Christ and so "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" came into operation. Gentiles and Israelites were not generally friends, nor were Pilate and Herod. But, in their hatred for Christ they stand in agreement and conspire to do him injustice and to murder the blessed Son of God. Horrible conspiracy!

There is no doubt that the very last days will find Satan, his angels, and demons at work again along with "the rulers" and "kings of the earth," as in the Crucifixion conspiracy. Those latter day conspiracies will help bring about the time of the beast and his kingdom. I believe that what we now see going on in the world as respects the pandemic, totalitarianism, terrorism, widespread hate and murder, civil strife, ungodly and depraved behavior by the masses, etc., are all foreknown and planned. 

Thank God that his plans and purposes are the "high table" under which Satan and his hordes and sycophants must operate their plans. He has foreseen the Devil's plans and schemes and he is prepared for them. God's purposes will triumph and trump the plans and schemes of wicked men and devils.

Seeing fulfilled prophecy and discerning the signs of the times is a strength and encouragement to our faith. We see that God has foreseen it all and has determined the final outcome of it all. Said our Lord - "when you see these things come to pass, lift up your heads for your redemption draws near." (Luke 21: 28)

Conspirators are they who discourage a belief in conspiracies, and discount or downplay their existence. 

In all conspiracies there is the "mastermind," and Merriam Webster says it means "a person who supplies the directing or creative intelligence for a project." We may say that such a person is one who "masterminded" the scheme, the plot, or the plan of action. Generally it is used in planning evil schemes.

Satan and his cohorts are schemers, con men, deceivers. A "schemer" is "a person who is involved in making secret or underhanded plans."  

"Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices." (II Cor. 2: 11)

The Greek word for "devices" is "noema" and refers to Satan's thinking, to his plans and purposes. Paul says that we should not be ignorant of his plans and schemes, of his conspiracies. We should be looking out for them, on guard against them. And why? So that he does not "get an advantage of us." Knowing of Satan's tactics and schemes, and of what the word of God tells us about him, is quite necessary if we are to escape his traps and snares. Paul also said:

"Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." (Eph. 6: 11)

"Wiles" is from the Greek "methodeia" (method) and means "cunning arts, deceit, craft, trickery." Satan is a trickster. He is sly, and among those who are "inventors of evil things" (Rom. 1: 30) he is the chief, arch typical. He is the true mastermind of evil. Let us heed Peter's words:

"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist steadfast in the faith..." (I Peter 5: 8)

Additional Thoughts on I John 5: 1

This posting will be a follow up to my previous posting - "I John 5: 1 & The Ordo Salutis" (here). Other writings on this text are "Hardshell Proof Texts II" (here) and "White On I John 5: 1" (here).

"Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him." (I John 5: 1)

Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται

Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων = the ones who are continually believing (present active nominative participle)

ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται = out of the God have been begotten (made children of God) (perfect indicative passive)

It cannot be insisted that the Greek tenses for both "believing ones" and "begotten" prove conclusively that the birth precedes the initial act of faith in Christ. Many Greek scholars affirm this (even those who are inclined to believe that the tenses of those two words lend credence to the born again before faith view), acknowledging that this is not necessarily so, not a universal rule. Is it possible that the Greek construction allows for the idea that the birth precedes and causes the believing? Yes, but can it be shown conclusively that this is the case in this text? No. Neither side can rely on the Greek tenses of the participle and verb to determine which of the two (believing and being begotten), if any, precedes the other. Most, from both sides of the debate, agree that faith and birth go together so that one does not exist without the other.

"All the ones believing that Jesus is the Christ" is the subject, a participle (verb functioning as a noun or as a substantive) and "is born of God" is the predicate, containing a statement about the subject. 

"Believing" Is Not Initial Believing

Why does John not speak of "believing" in the same tense as "begotten"? He could have said "the ones who have believed have been begotten," in which case the tenses would be the same or perfect tense. Further, had John written it that way it would have been a true statement. But he did not write it that way. Could it not be because John did not want to focus on the initial act of believing but rather upon continual believing? Is it not because John knew about "temporary" believers, those who "believe for a while and then fall away"? (The heretics John has in mind in this epistle fell away and this showed that they were not real believers who continued in the faith, says he) He would not give any assurance to those who believe once but who failed to continue believing and so speaks of those who are continual believers in contrast to shallow or thorny ground believers, who are not such. That is my view, however it is argued by some that "whoever is believing that Jesus is the Christ" does refer to the one time act of faith that begins the life of a believer. I do agree that present tense verbs and participles do not always denote continuous action (linear) and can function like the aorist tense and be functionally punctiliar. However, the idea of action in motion, or linear, is most frequent, as most scholars seem to agree. 

The "believing" of "the believing ones" does not exclusively refer to the first act of faith, to the time when a person initially "becomes" a believer (when the soul receives Christ), but to believing that is continuous or linear, and thus "believing" is set it in contrast to the being "begotten," which is a one time act, not linear, not continuous, though its effects are linear and regular.

Another reason that John does not speak in the past tense about believing ("those who have believed") is because he wants to focus on the life of faith, and not on initial believing. The way to avoid doing this is to speak of "believing" linearly, as ongoing faith, on the practice and habit of believing, and not on the initial act that began the practice of believing. With this in mind we may therefore translate as equivalents these expressions: "the ones who are practicing believers" or "the ones living a life of faith." So, in this case, John is saying that the life of a Christian begins with a birth. But, does it not also in scripture say that the believer's life begins with faith? We can say that the Christian life begins both with a birth and with faith. 

All this is said to show that even if we allow that the grammar affirms that birth precedes continuous believing, for this I allow, this does not equate with saying that the birth preceded the initial act of faith (that brought union with Christ). It likely means that the birth preceded the ongoing life of faith, not initial believing, or when faith is first given or begotten. In agreement with this said Dr. David Allen:

"Furthermore, with respect to 1 John 5:1, contextually the simple initial act of believing is not under consideration by John. John is talking about the ongoing life of faith as a believer. Obviously, the new birth precedes the ongoing life of faith. But that is something altogether different from saying the new birth precedes the initial act of faith." (See here) 

The same is true with I John 2: 29 that says "every one that does righteousness is born of him." It is the same Greek construction as I John 5: 1. "Everyone that does" could also be translated as "everyone who is doing." But, "does" may be alright and preferred, depending upon the kind of present tense/aspect are the words "doing/does" and "believing," for there are several kinds as we will shortly mention. Beginning a life of righteousness is coextensive with being born of God. But, so too does it begin when faith is begotten, as the apostle will speak about in the immediate verses following verse one. "Without faith it is impossible to please God." At the first act of faith righteousness is accounted or reckoned to the guilty sinner, and makes him righteous in the sight of God and his law. 

Again, it is a truth that "everyone who is living righteously has been born of God." But, this is a far cry from supporting the idea that birth precedes faith. Both faith and regeneration, along with the abiding presence of Christ and the Spirit, are required to live righteously. There are causes of faith and there are effects of faith. Is birth or regeneration alone sufficient without faith to please God or live righteously? Faith is everywhere in the bible the instrument of union with Christ, and regeneration follows union. A similar statement about doing righteousness are these words: 

"But in every nation he that fears (present participle) him, and works (present participle) righteousness, is (present) accepted with him." (Acts 10: 35)

Here the same thing is said as in I John 2: 29 except that for "is begotten" Luke has "is accepted." 

So, we grant that the birth precedes doing righteousness. And we grant that birth precedes the life of faith. But, that is not the same as saying that regeneration is not by faith in its beginning. 

The Tense From The Author's Perspective

Dr. Allen said "the timing of the perfect tense ‘have been born’ is relative to John’s writing of the epistle, rather than relative to ‘believes’." 

Tenses for verbs and participles may be chosen by the writer or author to reflect the time aspect of events or happenings from his standpoint (at the time of his writing). The perfect indicative of "begotten" represents an action occurring prior to the time of the author's utterance of the fact. 

There are Christians who persevered in their believing and there are those who fell away in the epistle of John, who did not abide in faith or continue believing. John says something about those who were not of this class of believers, but rather of that class of believers who persisted in their belief of the word of God, of those who habitually believe that Jesus is the Christ. John is observing things from his point in time and the people he wishes to make a predicate statement regarding are people who are characterized in their creed and conduct as believers, and people who do not quit believing and adhering. He says of them as a class that they "have been born of God." What other tense could he possibly use? 

He could have used the present tense for "is begotten" and if viewed linearly then the birth would be seen as a process rather than as a one time act (a view held by many, including Baptists who saw birth as a process from conception to birth). But, this also would have given the idea that maybe such believers were not yet fully born and fail to foster assurance of present salvation. He could have used the aorist present or aorist perfect tense and if the latter, then it would simply be an affirmation that regular believers were born of God without any idea as to the time when it occurred. It would then be only simple statement of fact that it had occurred sometime in the past. But, this too would not be acceptable for the aorist perfect does not allow for effects of that past event to be continuing in the present. The aorist simply states the fact that an action has happened. It gives no information on how long it took, or whether the results are still in effect.

So, the perfect tense for "begotten" is the only possible way of expressing that action, especially as it relates to those who of the believing class. Such a perfect tense verb when used with a gnomic present subjunctive participle does not indicate, in this case, that the action of being born preceded the action of believing. 

The perfect tense of "begotten" indicates a completed action or existing state relative to the time of the speaker or writer. So John is telling his readers that the new birth of all those continually believing that Jesus is the Christ is completed. This serves John’s overall purpose of allowing his readers to know that they have eternal life by providing them tests. Do I have ongoing faith? Yes? That means I was born again at some time in the past.

Gnomic & Universal Present 

"All thinking people (present active) have come to realize (perfect passive) this truth." 

This sentence is structured just as I John 5: 1. Do we mean by the above sentence that realization occurred before and caused the thinking? No; And the reason is that "thinking people" is a gnomic present tense, a universal present. So too in I John 5: 1. So we can say "all thinking people" means "all thinkers of the past, present and future." 

Greek professor Daniel Wallace wrote the following about the "gnomic present":

“The gnomic present is distinct from the customary present in that customary present refers to a regularly recurring action while the gnomic present refers to a general, timeless fact…The gnomic present is generally atemporal.”

That is probably the case with I John 5: 1 and I John 2: 29. Said Wallace further:

"Further, the present participle, especially in such formulaic expression Πᾶς ὁ + present participle and the like, routinely belong here." (Greek Grammar here)

Πᾶς ὁ + present participle is what we have in I John 5: 1 and Wallace says such expression "routinely belongs" to such a gnomic class of present tense. 

The gnomic present is the present tense used to make a statement of a general, timeless fact. It does not say that something is happening, but that something does happen. The action or state continues without time limits. An example of this is in 2 Cor 9: 7 - "God loves [as a general, timeless fact] a cheerful giver." The gnomic present is used to express a universal truth, a maxim, a commonly accepted fact, a state or condition which perpetually exists, and a very widespread practice or custom. 

Wallace (pp. 615-616) continues, “Many substantival participles in the NT are used in generic utterances" and says that "most of these instances involve the present participle." I John 5: 1 is an example of this kind of substantive participle. I John 5: 1 was a maxim in John's day and it has continued to be such since within the Christian community. 

Thus, by "all believing persons" we may interpret as "all who have believed in the past, present, or future have been born of God." And, such a structure does not affirm that the birth occurred prior to and caused the believing. John certainly understood that the believers he was encouraging were not only presently believing but that they had been believing for quite awhile. The universal aspect of the present tense in such gnomic presents would include the idea of a past believing as well as the present continuation of that believing. Thus we may view the words of John as saying "all who have believed and are still believing now have been born of God." In this case there is no precedent in time between believing and being born. 

There are also what are called "Broad-Band Presents," where the present tense is used to describe an action that, begun in the past, continues in the present, though the emphasis is on the present time. Luke 15: 29 - "I have served you (present) for these many years." Here the present tense includes the past tense. There is also the "Iterative Present," where the present tense may be used to describe an event that repeatedly happens. There is also the "customary" or general present which denotes lifestyle, what is customary. The customary present is used to signal either (1) an action that regularly occurs or (2) an ongoing state. The action is usually iterative, or repeated, but not without interruption. Luke 18:12 I [customarily] fast twice a week. 1 John 3: 6 "No one who lives in him keeps on sinning [as a lifestyle]." There is also what is called the "Durative Present" and is an action or a state of being which began in the past and is described as continuing until the present. Again, that may very well be the kind of present in I John 5: 1.

If "whosoever is believing" is a gnomic present participle or a durative present, then we should view the words in this manner - "whoever has in the past believed and continues to believe has been born of God." "Whoever is believing" therefore does not exclude the idea of past believing. We cannot construe John to be saying "whoever is now believing (but not in the past) has been born of God." 

Also, John's intention is not to say that birth produces faith (for this would be to contradict what he elsewhere taught in agreement with other apostle's teachings). 

The structure of John's maxim, as well as John's intent, was not to show that the birth produced the faith but to show that both are coterminous. Where there is ongoing faith there is begotten status, and where there is begotten status there is faith. This is because they are inseparably joined and so we say that whoever has faith has experienced new birth and whoever has experienced the birth has faith. In other words, where there is no faith there is no birth, and where there is no birth there is no faith.

Paul says we are "sons of God by faith in Christ." (Gal. 3: 26) They are sons by birth, but the birth that makes sons is by faith. 

John said "to as many as received him to them gave he the right to become the children of God." (John 1: 12) Here clearly birth follows believing and receiving, that is to say, it follows union with Christ."Becoming children" (tekna denoting one begotten) of God follows receiving Christ. It must be so because faith is the medium of union with Christ.  

A similar present active participle are the words "ho baptizon" = "the baptizing one" or "the Baptist." But, that is what may be said at any time, even at times when John was not presently baptizing. It would include his practice of baptizing, whether in the past or present, or future. So we may view the present participle of I John 5: 1 similarly and say "the believing ones" and this would not exclude their past believing. 

The conclusion of all this leads us to say that if we allow that the present tense nominative active participle, a substantive, "the ones believing" (ὁ πιστεύων) includes past believing, then the argument for the past tense of "begotten" (have been begotten) becomes null and void.

Born Through The Preached Word

"Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever...Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you." (I Peter 1: 22,23,25)

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth." (James 1: 18)

The apostles taught that being born of God, being born of the Spirit, is by means of the word of God preached, by the word of truth, or as Paul says "begotten through the gospel" (I Cor. 4: 15). John taught the same truth, not eliminating hearing the word of God as the instrument of their birth. This being so we may read I John 5: 1 as follows: "Whoever is believing has been born of God through the word of truth and God." It is all the same Greek structure. Born "of" God but "by" or "through" the word (logos or discourse or preaching). The source of the new birth is God and his Spirit and the instrument of it is the word, especially the word preached. 

But, how through the word? Apart from believing the word? Are unbelievers also begotten through the word preached? If anyone is begotten by the word he is begotten because he believes it. Many hear the word of the gospel and who do not believe it. They were not born again by the word of God heard by them. This being true, I John 5: 1 cannot contradict it, which is what the born again before faith view affirms in their insistence that the birth precedes the faith in that passage. This is why many of them are forced into affirming that the word of God is not a means in the new birth but is only a means after birth for post birth salvation.

Faith Is Born Of God

"For whatever is born of God overcomes the world: and this is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcomes the world, but he that believes that Jesus is the Son of God?" (vs 4-5)

In these verses which follow our main text (I John 5: 1) are some pertinent things to observe in regard to how to interpret verse one. We notice how what is said about being "born of God" is also said about "faith." Victory and overcoming are ascribed to both the new birth and to faith. Also, both persons and their faith are "born or begotten of God." Were the people begotten before faith was begotten? If so, would that not be two births rather than one? Would it not be better to say that the people themselves, in their souls and spirits, were born of God at the same time that faith was born in them? 

Again, I Am Befuddled

I have been writing for many years and have a voluminous amount of writings on many subjects and many texts of the bible. Writing is laborious. It is a calling. I work harder as a writer and researcher than when I was a pastor and concerned with the Sunday sermon. I write and research nearly every day. I share the results of my research with all who are led of the Lord to read of those results. I write a lot apologetically, defending a particular view, and opposing what I have deemed as erroneous. I do this not because I love debate, but rather because I love to share my thoughts and reasoning on biblical subjects. 

I do not think that my attack upon erroneous interpretations is wrangling. I try to avoid all logomachies and disputes over tertiary issues. What I am trying to do with erring brethren is to persuade them. I am also at the same time testing my interpretations. We are called of the Lord to "correct" those who are in error, especially about fundamental doctrine. Correcting is a delicate business. People don't like to be corrected. I used to often correct the grammar of others and I found most of them do not like it, although some don't mind at all, especially those who want to speak correctly. People don't like to be told that they are wrong. Many take a challenge to their ideas and interpretations as a personal attack. 

But, my writings are not only attacks upon heresies and cults, but are also defenses against attacks. Many of my writings are bible studies as in "My Daily Bread" (see link). Many are just plain teaching without an attack spirit or tone. I also write a lot on Baptist history and have had to correct historical errors of groups like the Hardshell Baptists.

What has often befuddled or perplexed me has been which articles have gotten the most attention and which have been scarcely noticed. Many that I thought would be popular were not, and vise versa. A lot of this has to do with my regular readers and their interests (Baptists and Believers in general). However, many popular articles are popular because of Internet readers from all sects and denominations. 

I am also somewhat puzzled by the lack of comments through the years (in all my blogs). This is true in spite of the number of page views. I would like to think that a lot of this is due to most either agreeing with what is written (and yet fail to leave a comment saying so) or don't know what to say, and yet others who may disagree but can't leave a refutation in the comment box. 

The number of page views for my blogs have grown over the years and all of them together now get about 10,000 page views per month. I wish it were more. But, this is not bad considering that I have no organizational support. 

My writings are my heritage, my legacy, my confession of faith. If God blesses them to help anyone to be edified by them, I give him the glory for it. 

I have always been willing to change my viewpoint if shown my error. I have had many debates, both orally and in writing. I have in fact changed my views over the years, and refined them in some other subjects. But, I have thought that other believers should have this same mindset, that they be willing to test their interpretations by bouncing them off other believers, to invite fair criticism. 

 Penny for your thoughts?

Global Civil War Is Coming

Under the rider on the red horse (Rev. 6) there is civil war on both a global and community scale. It is not war between countries so much, but civil war in all nations and ethnicities.  

Those who do not keep up with world affairs will not know that civil war is beginning not only in the United States but in many countries around the world, especially during the Covid pandemic. This conflict has two sides, the globalists and the nationalists. The former want a world government and totalitarian rule by one world leader and one world political and economic system. The nationalists oppose this, wanting to keep their nation's sovereignty, and local community self rule. 

The world via the Antichrist will have a one world global government. But, so will the Lord Jesus Christ when he comes and sets up his kingdom. Then "the government (of the planet) will be upon his shoulder." (Isa. 9: 6) Then "the kingdoms (sovereignties) of this world" (Rev. 11: 15) will become "the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ." The government of "the beast," the "man of lawlessness," will be destroyed by Christ when he comes and he will "sweep away" the beast and his rule and inaugurate a new age of peace, joy, and safety, when every man will "sit under his own vine and fig tree and none will make them afraid." (Micah 4: 4; Zech. 3: 10)

"A prudent man foresees evil and hides himself, But the simple pass on and are punished." (Prov. 22: 3)

Believers who know their bibles and its prophecies, and see what state the world is now in, must need prepare for that day and "hide" themselves. First, they need to hide themselves in the cleft of the rock, that is, in Christ. Second, they need to seek out places to flee in the coming persecution.

Are the present global civil wars the beginning of the red horse rider's work? If so, it is going to get worse. When neighbor begins to kill neighbor in large numbers around the world, we may well say that the red horse and his judgments are here and soon will follow famine and more pestilence (pandemics) so that one fourth of the world's population will be killed.

Justification By Faith Precedes Rebirth

The following contains citations from my entry from 2009 titled "Haldane - Justification to Life" (here). Haldane wrote a wonderful commentary on Romans and in it he clearly affirms that justification logically precedes, and is the ground for, regeneration and sanctification. 

I believe that Robert Haldane wrote one of the best commentaries on the Book of Romans. I believe he got it right, as a Calvinist, in not putting regeneration before either faith or justification. Those who put regeneration before justification err.

In the following excerpts from Haldane on Romans chapter six, and on what is meant to be "dead to sin," it is clear that Haldane, like all the great original "Reformers," put union with Christ prior to justification, and justification prior to regeneration and sanctification, and they always taught that actual union with Christ in time is "by faith." Thus, their "ordo" is election, faith, union with Christ, justification, regeneration and sanctification.

Haldane wrote: (emphasis mine - SG)

"We that are dead to sin. — The meaning of this expression is very generally misunderstood, and extended to include death to the power of sin, to which it has not the smallest reference. It exclusively indicates the justification of believers, and their freedom from the guilt of sin, having no allusion to their sanctification (or regeneration - SG), which, however, as the Apostle immediately proceeds to prove, necessarily follows. It was indispensable, in the view of obviating the objection proposed, distinctly to characterize both the persons, and their state of justification, to whom the answer he was about to give applied."

And:

"Their justification he expresses by the term dead to sin, which, though only a part of justification, implies all that it includes. No other designation could have been so well adapted to introduce the development of their state, and its inseparable consequences, as contained in the following verses. This term, then, is most appropriately employed."

And:

"Formerly, the persons spoken of were dead in sin, but now they were dead to it, as it is said in the 7th verse, they are justified from it. In the seventh chapter, it is affirmed that believers are dead to the law. They are therefore dead to sin, for the strength of sin is the law; and consequently sin has lost its power to condemn them, their connection with it, in respect to its guilt, being for ever broken. In the 10th verse, it is said that Christ died unto sin, and liveth to God; and in the same way believers have died to sin, and are alive to God, (i.e. justification before regeneration - SG) to serve Him in newness of life."

And:

"It has indeed been argued, that if the expression dead to sin does not comprehend death to the power of sin, it does not contain an answer to the objection urged in the preceding verse. Even, however, though the power of sin were included, it could not be considered as an answer by which the objection was removed, but simply a denial of its validity. But it is not intended as an answer, though it clearly infers that union with Jesus Christ which is immediately after exhibited as the complete answer. Without this union we cannot be dead to sin; but, being united to Him, believers are not only dead to it, but also, by necessary consequence, risen with Him to walk in newness of life(i.e. regeneration or life resulting from justification - SG). Nothing could be more conclusive than in this manner to show that, so far from the doctrine of justification leading to the evil supposed, on the contrary, it provides full security against it. Paul accordingly presents that very aspect of this doctrine, namely, death to sin, which peculiarly bears on the point and this for the purpose of introducing that union by which it takes place, which is at once the cause both of justification and sanctification. So far, therefore, from these being contrary the one to the other, or of the first being in the smallest degree opposed to the last, they are in separable; and thus the possibility of those who are justified continuing in sin, that grace may abound, is absolutely precluded."

And:

"But when the expression is understood as exclusively signifying dead to the GUILT of sin, it may and must be taken in the full sense of what death imparts, being nothing less than absolute, total, and final deliverance from its guilt. To suppose, then, that in these words there is the smallest reference to the character or conduct of believers — to their freedom from the love or power of sin — to conjoin these in any respect or in any degree with their freedom from its guilt, — in other words, with their justified state, — is not merely to misapprehend the meaning of the Apostle, but to represent him as stating that to be a fact which has no existence; while it deprives the passage of the consolation to believers which, when properly understood, it is so eminently calculated to impart."

And:

"In proof of the correctness of this view of the subject, let it be remembered that the Apostle’s refutation, in the following verses, of the supposed objection, does not rest on the supposition that sin is mortified in himself and those whom he is addressing, or that they are released from any propensity to it, but on the fact of their being one with Jesus Christ. They are united to Him in His death, and consequently in His life (i.e. justification then life - SG), which was communicated to them by Him who is a ‘quickening Spirit;’ and thus their walking with Him in newness of life, as well as their resurrection with Him, are secured. These ideas are exhibited in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th verses. In the 7th verse, the reason of the whole is summed up, — ’For he who is dead (with Christ) is justified from sin;’ and in the 8th verse, that which will afterwards follow our being justified from sin is stated, — ’If we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him."

And:

"Finally, in the 9th and 10th verses, the Apostle declares the consequence of Christ’s dying to sin to be, that He liveth unto God. The same effect in respect to the members must follow as to the Head with whom believers are one; and therefore he immediately proceeds to assure them, in the 14th verse, that sin shall not have dominion over them. The result, then, of the doctrine of justification by grace is the very reverse of giving not merely license, but even place, to continue in sin. On the contrary, according to that doctrine, the power of God is engaged to secure to those who are dead to sin — i.e., justified — a life of holiness, corresponding with that state into which, by their union with His Son, He has brought them."

In another posting I cited from Richard Watson's Theological Institutes. (See here)

Watson - Justification precedes Regeneration

"We have, however, seen that regeneration does not precede justification; that till justification man is under bondage, and that he does not "walk after the Spirit," until he is so "in Christ Jesus;" that to him "there is now no condemnation;" yet faith, all acknowledge, must precede justification, and it cannot, therefore, presuppose a regenerate state of mind. The truth, then, is, that faith does not produce obedience by any virtue there is in it, per se; nor as it supposes a previous renewal of heart; but as it unites to Christ, gives us a personal interest in the covenant of God's mercy, and obtains for us, as an accomplished condition, our justification, from which flow the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the regeneration of our nature. The strength of faith lies not, then, in what it is in itself but in what it interests us in; it necessarily leads to good works, because it necessarily leads to justification, on which immediately follows our new creation in Christ Jesus to good works, that we may walk in are yet a few theories on the subject of justification to be stated and examined, which, however, the principles already established will enable us briefly to dismiss."

"That of the Romish Church, which confounds sanctification with justification, has been already noticed. The influence of this theory may be traced in the writings of some leading divines of the English Church, who were not fully imbued with the doctrines of the reformers on this great point, such as Bishop Taylor, Achbishop Tillotson, and others, who make regeneration necessary to justification; and also in many divines of the Calvinistic nonconformist class, who make regeneration, also, to precede justification, though not like the former, as a condition of it."

"In the established order in which God effects this mighty renovation of a nature previously corrupt, in answer to prayers directed to him, with confidence in his promises to that effect in Christ Jesus, there must be a previous process, which divines have called by the expressive names of "awakening," and "conviction;" that is, the sleep of indifference to spiritual concerns is removed, and conviction of the sad facts of the case of a man who has hitherto lived in sin, and under the sole dominion of a carnal and earthly mind, is fixed in the judgment and the conscience. From this arises an altered and a corrected view of things; apprehension of danger; desire of deliverance; abhorrence of the evils of the heart and the life; strong efforts for freedom, resisted however by the bondage of established habits and innate corruptions; and a still deeper sense, in consequence, of the need not only of pardon, but of that almighty and renewing influence which alone can effect the desired change. It is in this state of mind, that the prayer becomes at once heartfelt and appropriate, "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me." But all this is not regeneration; it is rather the effect of the full and painful discovery of the want of it; nor will "fruits meet for repentance," the effects of an alarmed conscience, and of a corrected judgment; the efforts to be right, however imperfect; which are the signs, we also grant, of sincerity, prove more than that the preparatory process is going on under the influence of the Holy Spirit."

"If regeneration, in the sense in which it is used in Scripture, and not loosely and vaguely, as by many divines, both ancient and modern, is then a concomitant of justification, it cannot be a condition of it; and as we have shown, that all the changes which repentance implies, fall short of regeneration, repentance is not an evidence of a regenerate state; and thus the theory of justification by regeneration is untenable." (pg. 253)

As faith precedes justification, so does it precede regeneration, rebirth, renewal, sanctification. In the near future I hope to look at other scriptures that put justification before sanctification (which includes regeneration). I have already written much upon this subject in my Baptist Gadfly blog. The two postings mentioned above are among several others. You can use the search function on that blog to find more articles. Just put in "justification regeneration."

What I have taught is that faith is the thing that unites the soul to Christ. Union with Christ, or being in Christ, takes precedence over all other facets of salvation. Once the soul believes in Christ, when the soul receives Christ and the Spirit, that soul is then justified and forgiven of all sins, and on this basis God begins to dispense the other aspects of salvation, such as regeneration, renewal, sanctification, etc.