Beliefs about the Afterlife (xxviii)

"Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation 

against the time to come, 

that they may lay hold on eternal life." 

(I Tim. 6: 19 kjv)

"For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building. According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." (I Cor. 3: 9-15 nkjv)

In this chapter we continue our analysis of the above text. Here is what we have already observed. 

1) The exhortation to be careful about what building materials a Christian or a Christian church uses to build upon the foundation of Christ is primarily addressed to everyone who has made Christ the Lord of his or her life but it is also applicable to those who teach the church (those who are already converts).

2) A Christ foundation is laid in the heart of every sinner who believes in Christ and turns to him.

3) Everyone who has this foundation laid begins building upon that foundation by what he has come to believe and subsequently practices, whether he realizes it or not.

4) There is a day of fire appointed to test, try, and judge what the Christian has built upon that foundation.

5) The outcome of "the day" of fire will be that all who have Christ as the foundation will be saved in spite of building imperfectly.

6) A reward awaits those who have built of proper materials while those who built wrongly will lose some degree of reward.

Further, the time of this trial by the day of fire is unlikely to be a day in the life of a believer, as a day of persecution, but is rather a day that is after death, either immediately, or at the day of judgment (bema) for believers, or perhaps both. 

Building Terminology 

In our main text, we see building terms and construction jargon used. Paul speaks of himself as being a "wise master builder," and of "laying foundations," and of building structures on top of foundations. We have also cited other passages where building terms are used to describe the conversion and life of believers individually or corporately as a church. I have been in construction as well as in real estate nearly all my life. I have built (being the overseer or what some call the "general contractor," or a "building superintendent") many buildings. I know about foundations and footings, and about "framing" the skeleton structure with framing materials (wood, metal, steel, and stone). Think about it; a building has many parts to it, many members, all which have been fit together (by nails and pegs, etc.) by the builders. As the building is being built, it is said to be "growing." Let us notice some texts that speak of this.

"In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." (Eph. 2: 21-22 kjv)

Two figures that are used to represent the group known as the "church" (assembly) are houses and physical human bodies. Notice also the words "fitly framed together." In a building construction a builder is simply a person who is assembling the various materials together, and shaping each member of the building. In construction we speak of "framing" carpenters and sub contractors, being the ones who build the skeleton of a building. In framing the temple, it mostly consisted in fitly framing together the quarried and squared stones. So too was the great pyramid building, which was all of "precious stones." 

In applying this to the idea of building our doctrinal and theological structure we should make sure that our various views on the many different bible subjects and texts of scripture fit together, that there be no contradictions to the word of God or illogical in it. It is an ugly structure that is a mix of both superior and inferior materials and workmanship. I have seen buildings that were not properly built on the foundation, where the building was not square with the foundation and created an overhang, not being all on the foundation. Further, as Jesus taught, to see a building half built and deserted is also a sight that provokes mocking. If we see something in the structure we are building, metaphorically speaking, that is not of the right material nor fitted in place properly (poor craftsmanship), then we must change that (repentance and correction) aspect of our building. 

Notice also in the above text how the building is in progress (linear verbs). Each day we live we are building our lives and our characters. As parents we are also trying to lay a good foundation in the hearts and minds of our children. As Christians, we are not only trying to be good masons, good stone foundation layers, for ourselves, but for others too. 

"And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ—from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love." (Eph. 4: 11-16 nkjv)

Many of the same ideas are in these verses as the preceding one. Notice the words "joined and knit together." Further, notice how the building up (edifying) of a physical body, like a physical structure, is connected with be grounded in the truth, which would include all areas of biblical science. A "perfect man," like a perfect building, is a reference to a Christian who is not in error in "doctrine," not tossed about by every wind of doctrine. No one reaches perfection in this life, no, not in his or her understanding of God's revelation. Therefore, no Christian (or saved person) builds a perfect building. When the day comes for each Christian to have his building inspected, no Christian will be found to have made no mistakes in building, either in the material used or craftsmanship. Every Christian has a building that has a mixture of good and bad materials, and of good workmanship and of not so good.

Foundational Truth

So, what are the foundational truths connected with Christ? Christ can only be the foundation if Christ is known. And, how does anyone come to know about Christ and the good news about him and his coming into the world? It is by the word of God, particularly the gospel (written by inspired prophets, apostles, and other chosen messengers). It is the knowledge that Christ is God incarnate, and that he came to live a sinless life, to die as a sacrifice (substitute) for sin and as a martyr for the truth, and that he was raised from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion, and that he ascended into heaven with the promise to return to judge the world and inaugurate a time of peace and joy. (See Rom. 1 ; I Cor. 15: 1-10) It also includes the proclamation that Christ is Lord and Savior, that he is prophet, priest, and king. 

After the gospel's essential propositions and message have been heard and believed, the foundation for life and religious beliefs has been established. Now one can build the floor, then the walls, and then the ceilings. After this he can begin to do the finishing work. After becoming a believer, a believer begins to be "discipled," to be taught the scriptures, and to correctly interpret scripture, and in doing so he will be building his spiritual building, building his character and life, etc. He will begin to study all areas of soteriology, theology, eschatology, etc. He will take views on these things. 

Further, as regards the doctrinal structures Christians build upon the foundation, we get all the varieties of Christian churches and beliefs. Some build a Baptist structure, some a Methodist, etc. There is also disagreement among Christians about what truth is foundational, and necessary to be saved, and what truth is not foundational, but part of the structure built atop the foundation. Many who believe in the Trinity think that all Unitarians, Arians, Sabellians (Jehovah's Witness, Oneness Pentecostals, etc.) are lost because they do not believe foundational truth, and are not built upon Christ, but upon a false Christ. Some Calvinists think that all or many Arminians are lost, and vise versa. I will not go into that question and I am glad I am not the judge of how much error a professing Christian may have in his belief system and still be saved. Needless to say, Paul does distinguish between foundation truth about Christ versus doctrinal truth built upon that foundation.   

Revealed By The Day's Fire?

Somehow fire is associated with "the day." That can hardly describe the day of a believer's death, so my idea that it is fulfilled at death, may not be exactly what Paul seems to have in mind by "the day" that "reveals by fire." Or, could it? Certainly, as many think, the fire is not literal since it is burning up religious beliefs. Thus, if it is a metaphor, it could describe what happens at death. Consider the fact that most theologians believe that "the judgement," in some sense, comes at death ("it is appointed for man to die, but after this the judgment" - Heb. 9: 27). If this judgment occurs immediately upon death, then so too would the burning up of all the false beliefs occur then. I do not think that people go to Heaven with their wrong ideas and must continue to hold those beliefs till the day of judgment. That being said, however, there is a sense in which all inferior construction materials (that are parts of the building we have built) are burned up at "the judgment seat of Christ." So, just what is that? 

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat (Greek "bema") of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." (II Cor. 5: 10)

Bible teachers are not all agreed as to when this particular judgment takes place. The questions discussed are these

1) when is this judgment? when in relation to other future judgments?

2) do all believers "appear" before the judgment seat at the same time?

3) What is the consequence for the bad doing?

4) What is the reward for doing good? 

5) Is this a judgment for only true believers?

It is beyond the scope of this series to answer all these questions. I only cite the passage because it deals with rewards and punishments in the afterlife, or in the eternal state, particularly as it relates to true believers who are building upon the right foundation. It is directly related to our main text in I Cor. 3. 

I rather think that again we may have a dual fulfillment. Who can deny that in some sense a believer gets some reward when he dies and enters into heaven? Likewise, the scriptures do speak of a future day or period of time, at the second coming of Christ, and before his Millennial reign, when the saints will be gathered together to receive their individual rewards. How this will be done exactly, and how much time it will take, I can only speculate. 

I see the reward for faithful service, for doing well in living and building our Christian lives, in pleasing God, as being the theme of both texts. I also see how judgment of a believer for doing bad and building poorly upon the Christ foundation, is that he "experiences loss." How Christians are living will determine in some way how they live throughout eternity. Thus, the message is simple; build your life around those things that will last forever. So Jesus said:

"Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.” (John 6: 23 nkjv)

In other words, Christians are to have a "bema seat mindset." We should labor, build, and serve the Lord with a view to being rewarded, either in this life or in the next. Notice these words:

"And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting." (Luke 18: 29-30 kjv) 

A similar message is found in these words of the apostle Paul:

"For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come." (I Tim. 4: 8)

Rewards for labor in the Lord are received in both this life and in the afterlife or in eternity. The greater the labor, and the more correct knowledge, the more the reward. 

Is the desire for reward a proper motive for service? Apparently so. Those who run in a race do it for the prize, for the reward, both for this life and for the life to come in eternity. Yes, salvation is not a reward for service, although it is a reward earned by Christ and given to those who believe. But, rewards in addition to salvation are to be sought, as our main text affirms along with many others. Notice also these words of the apostle:

"Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it. And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown. Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air. But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified." (I Cor. 9: 24-27 nkjv)

Wrote Calvinist John Gill in his commentary (emphasis mine):

"The apostle accommodates or applies the above account to the Christian's course of life, and exhorts to run in it in like manner as racers do in a race. The "stadium", or "race" plot in the which the believer runs, is this world, or this present life; he is only a runner now and here, for no sooner is the time of his departure come, but his course or race is finished; and, as his forerunner Christ, sits down in full rest from all his labours as at a table, with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and on a throne with Christ...The act of "running" is a motion forward, a following on to know the Lord, a going from strength to strength, from one degree of grace to another, a pressing forward toward the mark for the prize; and requires spiritual strength from Christ, and a daily renewal of it; is to be performed with readiness, swiftness, and cheerfulness, in opposition to a slowness of heart to believe, and a slothfulness and sluggishness in the business and service of Christ." 

He writes further:

"...moreover, as they ran in the way that was marked out for them, not turning to the right hand or the left, so should believers run in the way of salvation, which is Christ; in the way of holiness, faith, and truth; and in the path of duty and ordinances, which are all clearly pointed out unto them: once more, as they while running kept their eye upon the mark, so should believers, while running the race set before them, be continually looking to Jesus, the author and finisher of faith: to say no more, as they kept running till they came to the end of their race, so should the saints; there is no time for stopping or looking back; remember Lot's wife. The end of running is to obtain the prize, the incorruptible crown of eternal life; not that this is to be procured in a way of merit by running; for the best services of the saints have no merit in them, they are previously due to God, nor can they be profitable to him; and besides, are done by the assistance of his own grace and strength; nor is there any proportion between the best works of men, and this crown of glory, life, and righteousness; yea, salvation, or eternal life, is expressly denied to be of him that willeth, or of him that runneth, and is always represented as this crown is, to be a free gift: the meaning of the expression is, that believers are to run on in their Christian race, that they may, and when they are come to the end of it they shall, as he that came foremost in the race did, stretch forth their hand, lay hold on, and receive the crown which the righteous Judge will give them; and is the true import of the word made use of here, and the sense the same with ( 1 Timothy 6:12 ) . "Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life", and denotes that the persevering saint shall enjoy the crown."

It includes salvation, but it is not limited to that, but includes all future rewards and crowns for service and victories. 

Wrote Paul further of this laboring for future reward in the afterlife and in eternity:

"8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, 9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: 10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; 11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. 12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. 13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, 14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." (Phil. 3: 8-14 kjv)

Again, we should labor for Christ and his kingdom believing that we shall be rewarded with good in this life and in the life to come in eternity. Though some see these things as contradictory, yet the bible writers seem to speak like Arminians at one time and like Calvinists at another time, like they believe in self determinism on the one hand, and of divine determinism on the other hand. They were Compatibilists, though they did not always feel a need to show how they are consistent. Salvation is a prize that is won, but salvation is also by grace. Explaining how both those things can be true, in a kind of synthesis (dialectic) of both, is left up to others or for each believer. 

Now notice how the apostle joins in the discussion of this line of inquiry, saying:

"8 Look to yourselves, that [c]we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward. 9 Whoever [d]transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds." (II John 8-11 nkjv)

Notice how John, like Paul, was concerned about lost labor, or labor without fruit, or success, and urges all true believers to be likewise concerned. Of course, as previously stated, all labor in Christ in soul winning does not always yield converts, yet it is still rewarded for its own sake. So Solomon says "in all labor there is profit," and that is true in laboring in righteousness and doing good. (Prov. 14: 23) Also, Paul says "your labor is not in vain in the Lord." (I Cor. 15: 58)

Notice how the apostle John connects "abiding in the doctrine of Christ" with "reward." So does our main text. We build our doctrinal structures on the foundational gospel truth about Christ. By "the doctrine of Christ," another Genitive, John may mean either "doctrine concerning Christ" or "doctrinal teachings of Christ." I believe the former is right and therefore connects "the doctrine of Christ" with "the foundation" which is Christ, with foundational gospel knowledge. If a person does not abide in that foundational truth, then he does not have, neither did he ever "have God" or salvation in Christ. However, a Christian may abide in the doctrine of Christ, in foundational gospel truth, and yet not in some of the teachings of Christ, like on marriage and divorce, or in the area of eschatology, etc. Many will have such wrong ideas on such teachings burned up like chaff or like houses made of combustible materials.  

All recognize that in the passage in I Corinthians 3 (our main text under study) that Paul is using, for an illustration or metaphor, the instance when someone's house burns down and yet 1) the occupant of the house escapes, and 2) some parts of the house are not burned to ashes. Many times one can see the remnants of such a fire, and see a brick fireplace still standing along with the stone foundation. Thus, the point of the apostle is that the day of fire destroyed what could be destroyed, leaving only that which is not combustible. A similar metaphor for the same purpose involves what effects are seen as a result of a great shaking, as in an earthquake, is seen in this text: 

"Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain." (Heb. 12: 26-27)

The words "those things which cannot be shaken may remain" corresponds to the words of our main text so that we may similarly say - "those things which cannot be burned up may remain." The burning up of the inferior materials in a believer's character construction and theological building "signifies the removing" of those things that can be burned just as the things removed by shaking "signifies the removing" of chaff and things that cannot be moved by wind. Both metaphors and texts involve the idea of "separation," and is an inherent idea in the word "removing" of something from something. That certainly occurs when a believer in Christ dies. Not only is his spirit separated from his body, but his spirit (or the disembodied person) is separated from errors and character flaws and all moral imperfections, and will not have "spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." (Eph. 5: 27), so far as his soul and spirit are concerned (For his body to become perfect and immortal, as well as spiritual, it must experience the resurrection transformation of the righteous). 

In some sense, it seems that some shaking and burning up occur at the point of death and prior to the believer entering into heaven's glorious state. Yet, it also seems that it also occurs in some sense at the bema judgment of believers in "the day," that is, in the day when Christ returns to judge the living and the dead. But, how can it be both? I may not be able to fully answer that question, but I cannot deny that it must be fulfilled in some sense at death as well as in the judgment at the second coming. I can think of how it could be both, but whether that is the right answer I cannot say for certain. 

I can see the final judgment as ceremonial, a way of giving official awards, rewards, crowns, and other kinds of public recognition for what has already been received in large part, if not in whole. 

In the next posting we will finish our look at I Corinthians 3: 9-15 and of rewards in the eternal state. We will then talk about the kind of joy and pleasures in that blessed immortal state. What will life be like then? We have hundreds of questions about such a state. We will try to address some of them and thus finish this series on the Afterlife.

Wine & Cheese Theologians?

I do not know who first coined the term "wine and cheese theologian," but I first heard it from Adrian Rogers in one of his sermons. I have thought about that expression many times. So, what is a "wine and cheese theologian"? I think it describes some bible students and teachers who are all "academic," perhaps to the point of "ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth." (II Tim. 3: 7) Some preachers have warned Christians against having a mere head knowledge, without the heart, and without actual putting into practice what they have been studying. We might spend all day debating about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but what did we do in good works today, besides read and study? 

There is nothing wrong with having wine and cheese and discussing the things of God. So, the warning is not against that practice per se. The Baptists in London in the 1600s would frequently meet in the coffee houses and have bible discussions. Nothing is wrong with that. 

What is condemned by the expression is "doting about questions and strifes of words" (I Tim. 6: 4). It is keeping one's "head in the clouds," of being a dreamer, of living in a fantasy world, of being all thought and no action, of not putting into practice what is learned in scripture. 

Many have accused Calvinists, especially Hyper Calvinists, of being lazy in regard to evangelism and soul winning, that they are not emphasizing practice and good works (other than bible study). They are like the servant who buried his lord's money in the ground rather than investing it and making it increase. (See Matt. 25: 14-30) 

What think ye? 

Free Will & Determinism Addendum

The following is what I wrote in The Baptist Gadfly blog back in 2012 (see here). I thought it would be good to put it in this blog for the Archive section where I have written on free will and determinism.

JUL 6, 2012

Free Will Theodicy

Adam had a free will.  Very few would deny this.  Angels have free will.  Again, very few would deny this.  Adam's disobedience to the law of God was an act of his free will.  The sin of the angels was likewise an act of free will.  These things are almost universally believed by Jews, Muslims, and Christians. 

Obviously, having free will offers no guarantee of future eternal security.  So, why is the idea of "free will" so admired and highly valued by philosophers and theologians? 

The only way to insure that a person is eternally secure is to rid him of "free will."  But, if "free will" is so vital to being a responsible person, then this must unchangeably be the state of creatures.  But, if this is so, then there can be no certain security for any creature.  If I have "free will" in glory, then I will never be secure.  If God so fixes my will, however, that it cannot choose to violate the will of God, then how is my will "free"?  Does God not determine the future actions of the will in "glorification"? 

Why do Christians pray for God to conquer, subdue, rule, and control their will if "free will" is a necessary virtue to being?

The will is never free in every respect, but only in relation to specific things.  Only God has free will in its most perfect and absolute sense.  People are either free from or to.  They are "free from" this or that, and are "free to" think, say, or do this or that.  Not only is freedom relative, but it is also limited. 

Beliefs about the Afterlife (xxvii)

Are there degrees of joy and glory in Heaven (and eternity) for the people of God? That is where our focus will be in this chapter. John Gill, in his Body of Practical Divinity and the section on page 446 titled "Of The Final State" (you can read it here) wrote the following (emphasis mine):

"It may be considered, whether there will be any degrees in the final happiness of the saints; or whether one saint will have a greater share of happiness than another. It appears, there will be degrees in the punishment of the wicked in hell; and some think there will be degrees in the happiness of the saints in heaven; and others not: and there are some things advanced on both sides not to be despised. The arguments against degrees in glory are - That all the people of God are loved by him with the same love all chosen together in Christ, equally interested in the same covenant of grace, equally redeemed with the same price, justified by the same righteousness; equally the sons of God, and all kings and priests. The future glory and happiness of the saints, is frequently expressed by words of the singular number; shewing, that though it belongs to more, it is the same to all. It is a question moved by some, whether there will not be an increase of the happiness of the saints in a future state, or some addition made unto it, and improvement of it, by fresh discoveries of the mysteries of grace and of providence, that may be gradually made, which may afford new pleasure and delight. This is not easy to determine; much may be said for the growing happiness of the saints onward in eternity; but the determination of this question, must be left till we come into that state when we shall know even also as we are known."

So, do we venture into those things wherein few feared or hesitated to go? Will we go beyond scripture and accept and believe speculation authoritatively? 

It does seem to me that joy in Heaven and the eternal state will not always be the same but will find times when joy is greater than at other times. If always the same it may tend to monotony and boredom and of taking things for granted. Of course, I am speculating somewhat, but the scriptures do seem to indicate that the joys of heaven will not be always on the same level. I believe there will be times when all the host of Heaven is gathered in corporate worship and that such times will bring increased joy and pleasure. 

Consider also God's description of the new heavens and earth in Isaiah and his words "mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands." (65: 22) I thus picture life in eternity as my involving myself in various hobbies, crafts, arts, music, etc., as well as in doing some particular happy service for the kingdom of God. As all creators and artists know, there is joy in doing a project or work that one delights to do, but there is greater joy that comes from the completion of a project. I will enjoy the work of my hands. So Solomon says "the end (fulfillment, goal) is better than the beginning." (Eccl. 7: 8) 

In spite of what Dr. Gill wrote in the above citation, he said this elsewhere: "...in the ultimate glory, there will be no degrees, but all the saints will share the same happiness."  (Commentary on Mark 10:38) I don't believe that is correct for the reasons given in this chapter. It boils down to really one twofold question: "will the joy of a single saint always be the same and equal to all the saints in glory?" If the joy and glory be increasing, will it increase the same for all at the same time? That there will be in Heaven differing degrees of joy experienced in the next life is seen in Luke 15: 6-7. Said the Lord Jesus: “I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.” 

Those who say that God rewards every saved Christian equally sometimes point to a specific parable of Jesus to make their case, such as in Matthew 20:1-15. 

"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. When he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius (penny kjv) for the day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the market place; and to those he said, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.’ And so they went. Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did the same thing. And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing around; and he said to them, ‘Why have you been standing here idle all day long?’ They said to him, ‘Because no one hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You go into the vineyard too.’ When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last group to the first.’ When those hired about the eleventh hour came, each one received a denarius. When those hired first came, they thought that they would receive more; but each of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they grumbled at the landowner, saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the scorching heat of the day.’ But he answered and said to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is yours and go, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?’"

Does this mean regardless of what we do here on earth, the reward in heaven will be the same for all of us? Or is it possible this parable is really trying to make an entirely different point? For myself I think it is saying that all who have become servants of God, or been converted and saved, will all equally get salvation and the salvation package, which includes immortality and eternal life, equal children in the family of God, equal shares as citizens in the commonwealth of the city of God, etc. One cannot have more immortality than another. 

But, this equality does not exclude some having greater positions of authority in the coming kingdom, and greater recognition and reward therein, and which seemingly would bring greater joy and pleasure. This would all be so in a context where there is no competition but only cooperation (although I would not exclude playing games or such other fun activities). Consider how the gates of the eternal city, New Jerusalem (Rev. 21-22), will have twelve gates and twelve foundations and each has a name of the twelve apostles. (21: 14) That suggests higher honors for the apostles.

In answering such questions, we must be careful at times to distinguish between rewards given and enjoyed in the Millennial reign of Christ and those given for eternity in both the new heavens and the new earth. I think this is the case with the Lord's lesson on the ten servants who were given their Lord's money to securely invest. 

"And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us. And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds. And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds. And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities." (Luke 19: 11-19)

Being a ruler over cities seems not to be a description of life in eternity but in the thousand year reign of Christ on earth (Rev. 20). In the Millennium some saints will rule over ten cities and others over five cities, which shows greater responsibility and greater rewards. Some theologians, such as J.A. Seiss, think that the human race will never cease being a self propagating species, so that there will always be children being born and cities therefore. Nevertheless the above passage does seem to show that rewards will not all be the same. It seems likely that the different levels of employment and reward in the eternal kingdom will be like it will be in the Millennium. Whether there will be cities (plural) in eternity or only one single city, New Jerusalem, is a question beyond the scope of this series.  

Another thing to consider is the fact that even now in the church age there is both equality and inequality among the saints. Though all equally are the children of God, and "sons of God," and equal in the blessings of salvation, yet they are not equal in other respects. Some bring forth "good fruit" thirty fold, some sixty fold, and some a hundred fold. (Matt. 13: 8) Some are more obedient, more godly, more holy, more pleasing to the Lord, yea, even more loved and favored of the Lord. So John was specifically "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (See John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 20); And, some love Christ more than others. There are exhortations in the new testament about increasing in love to God and Christ. Jesus even asked his host which of two people would love him more, the one who had many sins forgiven or little? (Luke 7: 47) Thus, all are not recipients of the same amount of rewards or commendations from Christ for his labors.

Rewards and Status According to Works Accepted

Concerning people experiencing varied degrees of punishment in Hell we have seen that certain scriptures seem to say that the degree of punishment is based on the amount of evil works done in life. The same is true with the degree of reward in heaven, it being based on the amount of good works done in life by faith. One of the leading texts to show that there will be levels and degrees of joy and reward in the eternal state, after the second coming and the inaugural of the eternal kingdom of Christ, is the following text.

"For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building. According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." (I Cor. 3: 9-15 nkjv)

This text is not without its difficulties. Yet, what it teaches is directly related to the subject we are addressing in our study of the afterlife and of life in eternity. It seems to uphold the view that 1) there are degrees of reward for the saints in heaven, and 2) that the determining factor for reward is faithful service in building properly upon the foundation which is Christ, and which is the Gospel. 

Questions To Be Decided

1) who is the person(s) intended by the pronouns in the words "if anyone builds upon" and "let each one," and "each one's work," and "he will suffer loss," and "but he himself will be saved"?

2) what is the significance of the metaphor of laying Christ as a foundation?

3) what is "the day" of the text?

4) how is that day connected with fire?

5) how does that day of fire "reveal," "declare," or make "clear" the kind of works built on top of the foundation? 

6) what is the nature and extent of the loss from the fire?

7) what is the reward for building with noncombustible materials? 

8) is the reward the same for all the saved?

9) what is meant by "yet he himself shall be saved?"

10) what is meant by "yet so as by fire"?

Who Is Meant By "Anyone"?

Some think that the ones who build upon the foundation Paul laid in the hearts and lives of the members of the church of Corinth would be those pastors and ministers who followed Paul and labored in building up the church he founded. They would then interpret Paul as saying that a soul winner is not held responsible for the souls he wins to the Lord. If one of them does not live right (build upon their faith), or believe right, the soul winner will be saved regardless and will not lose his reward as a soul winner. That is certainly true, but I doubt that is what Paul is specifically referring to. 

I rather believe that the one who "builds upon this foundation" is the one who has been converted, and who has received Christ as Lord and Savior and made him the reason and ground for living a joyous life. The one who builds the foundation is the one who communicates the story of Christ, the gospel and word of God, to a lost soul and becomes instrumental in the conversion of sinners. But, beyond that application is the fact that it is actually each converted soul who lays that foundation in his or her own life and spirit. If Paul is the wise master builder who lays the Christ foundation in the heart of a lost sinner, it is as a "building contractor" who has been employed by both God and the one wanting a house built (the converted sinner). 

Whether by the metaphor of house building or by soul winning via evangelism, in either case it requires some wisdom in the things of God and the Spirit. So Solomon said "he who wins souls is wise." (Prov. 11: 30) Christian parents should strive to be wise master builders in laying a Christ foundation in their children. So should all Christians seek to establish Christ deeply in the heart of all by spreading the knowledge of God to the world. 

Therefore the exhortation "but let each one take heed how he builds on it" must be foremost addressed to new converts who are beginning their new lives in Christ by having had a proper foundation laid for it, they being the ones denoted by "let each one." It does not mean "let each pastor who serves new converts build up the church in further teaching." 

Paul does distinguish between the first preacher who brought people to Christ and formed a new church, the "evangelist," and those who came afterward and labored to build up the new converts in the most holy faith, when he wrote to the Corinthians, saying:

"I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour." (I Cor. 3: 6-8)

This metaphor of ministers as crop farmers is similar to the metaphor of them as master builders (masons). Paul "planted" (as a farmer is) equated with Paul "laid the foundation of Christ as a master builder"; And, "another builds upon the foundation laid" is equated with Apollos "watered." So Paul combines both metaphors when introducing this section of his epistle by saying "you are God’s field, you are God’s building." And, the exhortation to each would be similar under each metaphor. We could therefore say 

1) "take heed Apollos how you build upon the foundation laid by your predecessor Paul" or 

2) "take heed Apollos how you water what seeds and plants were planted by your predecessor Paul." 

We could also say "each one (planter or waterer) (foundation builder or top of foundation builder) will receive reward based upon his own labor." I do not doubt that this is true and is a valid application of the principle meaning of the apostle, but I rather think that the language is addressed to every new convert, and is what every old convert should always keep in mind as he or she builds a life well pleasing to the Lord, and one that will last through the fire. 

There are several texts that speak of the soul winner's and bible teacher's rewards, such as this text: “For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of glorying? Are not even you, before our Lord Jesus at his coming?” (1 Thes. 2:19) Every soul winner will be rewarded and given reason for greater joy for having preached the good news to others. So the record says "how beautiful are the feet of them which preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things." (Rom. 10: 15) 

Of course, Paul also was concerned about labor lost. Said he to the Galatians who were turning from the gospel - “I fear for you, that I may have labored over you in vain” (Gal. 4:11; NASB). In any case, "every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor," whether it be the foundation builder, or the superstructure builder, or whether it be the planter or the waterer, "every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor." Further, labor expended in spreading the good news will be rewarded in heaven forever, even when it produces no converts, for it is a good work in itself. The reward will indeed be greater for the evangelist as a result of converts made, up and above reward for labor done for its own sake. 

I believe that the laying of Christ as a foundation has both an individual and corporate fulfillment. There are several scripture texts which show that the conversion experience begins with the sinner's accepting Christ as Lord and Savior, which action is likened to beginning the construction of a building, and the first action is to build the right foundation. Let us notice some of those texts.

"Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation: But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand." (Rom. 15: 20-21)

This text relates to our main text in I Corinthians chapter three. In the above text the foundation layer is the one who makes the first converts and forms them into a church based upon the basics of the gospel message, which is the foundation, which is Christ. The one who builds upon that foundation is the teacher who trains and disciples believers as they live their Christian lives and work in his kingdom. And, many think it is the same in I Cor. 3: 9-15. I agree that the application of that text is as in Rom. 15: 20-21. But, I also think that Paul focuses on the individual responsibility of each Christian to build his life and character upon the foundation of Christ, which includes upon his teachings. 

The text also, as our main text, shows that eternal salvation as well as rewards (over and above common salvation) is connected with our building upon this foundation. Laying the foundation of Christ in the heart is certainly an image of conversion and salvation. Building on top of that foundation is for rewards, yes, but if a man is building only of combustible materials, it shows that he is not rooted and grounded in Christ, and that he is not persevering and growing. But, more on that shortly.

"Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving." (Col. 2: 7)

Though the word "foundation" is not in this text, nor the word "laying," yet the word "built" is in the text along with the words "rooted" and "stablished." Thus, it elaborates on what it means to have Christ laid as a foundation in a person's heart, soul, mind, and spirit, and for a church forming. A person who is saved is one who has Christ and his word made the foundation of all that he is, all he thinks and does (though each does not live up to that aim perfectly). To be rooted in Christ is to be "stablished" and "grounded" ("rooted and grounded" - Eph. 3: 17; "continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast" - Col. 1: 23), in what Christ taught. 

Working On A Building?

A popular Christian song begins with these words:

"If I was a sinner I'll tell you what I would do I'd quit my sinning and I'd work on the building, too I'm working on a building, I'm working on a building I'm working on a building, for my Lord, for my Lord It's a holy ghost building, it's a holy ghost building It's a holy ghost building, for my Lord, for my Lord

The song words above revolve around the idea of working on a building for the Lord, focusing on the construction of a "Holy Ghost building." It may be interpreted as the act of physically constructing a building for religious purposes, but its significant imagery is that of building a life and character that is a fit temple for God. Other Christian hymns and spiritual songs also speak of working on a building for the Lord. Such as one sung by Elvis Presley and others too.

I'm working on a building, it's the true foundation; I'm holding up the blood-stained banner for my Lord. Well, I never get tired, tired, tired of working on the building; I'm goin up to Heaven, Oh Lord, to get my reward.

Sometimes this building construction language is stated passively (we are being built by someone else) and at other times actively, we ourselves doing the building. In Freemason symbolism this is quite apparent. Each member is viewed as in the process of being made into a perfect stone in the temple of God, but also each member is to work building his own singular temple. When he first begins this work he is compared to a "rough ashlar" piece of stone, which then must be sculptured by using the tools of a stone mason, such as his trowel, mortar board, compass, square, etc. There are also tools for chipping away the stone and this is interpreting as our chipping away at the bad things in our lives and characters. Wrote one Masonic source (See here emphasis mine):

"When we first enter the fraternity, we learn through ritual to try and apply the lessons of Masonry to our lives to grow, mature, and receive more light. Quickly we are introduced to the concept of the “rough ashlar,” a symbol for visualizing the moral and behavioral improvements we seek to make in ourselves. When we become a Freemason, we become the rough ashlar, the stone in need of shaping and polishing."

"In our ritual, the ashlar symbolizes the change a man goes through as he journeys through the craft. The rough ashlar represents a Freemason before he is initiated, coarse and waiting to be crafted into a useful stone. As a Mason works on his craft, shapes himself into a man of service and integrity, he is smoothed into a perfect ashlar...A Freemason becomes a perfect ashlar through hard work, education, and a diligent effort to live an upstanding life." 

I find no problem with the metaphor of being a stone worker, or stone layer, with the new testament imagery of Christians building their characters and lives after the pattern, which is Christ, and according to the word of God. Some might think that this imagery makes salvation to be of works, but not really. Both God and the Christian are declared to be doers of the same building project. God is building the character of his people and his people are building their own character. Notice these texts:

"So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit." (Eph. 2: 19-22 ESV)

"You yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (I Peter 2: 5 ESV)

This spiritual or metaphysical temple of the above texts is the same corporate or social body we call the "church." This temple is not made of bricks (as was Nimrod's kingdom of Babel) but of stones. Further, there are stones in both the foundation and in the walls, floors, and roofs built upon the foundation. These stones are not unquarried stones but quarried. They were cut out of the quarry and shaped by the stone masons. So was Solomon's temple and every other temple of the Hebrews. So too were the temples of the Greeks and other Pagans. The stones are of different shapes and sizes also and have their predetermined place assigned in the temple. Commenting upon the construction of Israel's first temple, built by Solomon with material provided by king David, the record states:

"The house, while it was being built, was built of stone prepared at the quarry, and there was neither hammer nor axe nor any iron tool heard in the house while it was being built." (I Kings 6: 7 NASB)

In an excellent article titled "The Stones of the Heavenly Temple Prepared on Earth,"  William Bacon Stevens wrote (emphasis mine - see here):

"In looking then at this Christian temple, let us observe: first, the stones of which it is composed; secondly, the preparation of them; and thirdly, their destination."

"But believers having been hewn out from the quarry of humanity by the electing grace of God, are termed living stones; not inert masses of rock, not senseless blocks of marble — but full of life, feeling, action; and they are thus designated because Christ, as the tried corner stone, the sure foundation, is called a living stone, and diffuses his own life through all parts of the spiritual temple which rests on him...But when the tree is thus felled, when the stone is thus quarried out — is it immediately fitted for its destined place in Heaven? In most cases we answer, no. Though at conversion the child of God is a marked man, though he is justified freely by the grace that is in Christ Jesus — yet how much spiritual trimming and dressing, how much hewing and squaring does he need to fashion him aright for the position which the Divine Architect intends he shall occupy hereafter! There are sharp angles of character to be rounded off — unsightly protuberances of conduct to be chipped away — many roughnesses of temper to be smoothed down — many flaws and cracks of mind and heart to be chiseled out! And then, when the general form of the stone is prepared, how much severe friction is required to give it the right polish, and bring out all its beauties — so that its smooth surface may fling back the rays of the Sun of Righteousness!"

"Let the Christian, then, who is passing through fiery and discouraging trials and afflictions, remember that God is thus hewing and squaring him here, that as a well-prepared and living stone, he may by and by be built up into the living temple not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."

"The preparing process may be severe; the strokes frequent and heavy; the hewing into shape — painful to the flesh; the polishing into beauty — rasping to the spirit; yet every blow aids to bring it into form; and every tool of iron, though it cuts deep — leaves behind some chiseled beauty; and every grating file of sorrow that rasps the sensitive fibers of the heart — only gives it a higher polish, and makes it reflect a brighter glory. And who will complain of such severe dealings — when such blissful ends are attained by it? Who will murmur at the roughness of a road — which leads to such eternal joys? Who will repine at any chastenings, and not rather esteem them as light afflictions which are but for a moment, when his Heavenly Father assures him that they shall work out for him a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory?"

Jesus also spoke of how being saved and converted begins with having Christ laid as the foundation. 

"25 Now great multitudes went with Him. And He turned and said to them, 26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. 27 And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. 28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it— 29 lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30 saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish’? 31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace. 33 So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14: 25-33)

Here we see that becoming a disciple of Jesus begins with a decision to build a life for Christ by having him and his word be the foundation of it. Thus we say we are working on a building, or that we are running a marathon, or that we are waging war as good soldiers of Christ, etc. 

Jesus also said:

"Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock. “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.” (Matt. 7: 24-27 nkjv)

“Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you? Everyone who comes to me and hears my words and does them, I will show you what he is like: he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when a flood arose, the stream broke against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built. But the one who hears and does not do them is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. When the stream broke against it, immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great.” (Luke 6: 46-49 ESV)

These texts emphasize the need to build our lives and our characters on the right foundation and the right foundation is one that is on solid ground, and where the foundation goes deep into the soil or bedrock. 

For these reasons I see the exhortation to be addressed not simply to pastors who teach new disciples about how to build a Christian life, character, family, etc., but to every new convert who has had Christ become the foundation and footing for who he/she is and for what each one will do in life. Every Christian is a builder and is a part of the building which is the assembly of saints. 

Jesus condemned many leaders in the community who he also called "builders." In fact, he is called "the stone which the builders rejected." (See Matt. 21: 42; Mark 12: 10; Luke 20: 17; Acts 4: 11; I Peter 2: 7) 

Each believer is involved in building up on top of Christ the foundation. All commentators think that the primary reference is to what I will call our "doctrinal house." What heresies (combustible materials) are part of our doctrinal or theological house? What is the framework of our house of religious beliefs? What correct doctrines (noncombustible materials) is our house made of? 

What Day?

"The day will declare it," and the means of declaring or revealing the kind of materials that were used is stated to be "fire," the apostle saying "it shall be revealed by fire for the fire will test every person's work of what kind it is." 

What day does Paul have in mind? Some commentators say it is the day of trial and persecution, that the terms “day” and “fire” refer to the refining process of persecution (cf. 1 Pet. 4:12).Though there is some truth in this view I do not doubt. However, I doubt that the fires of persecution always demonstrate what wrong views versus right views a martyr had in his doctrinal house.

Others think the day of Christ' return, the day of judgment, is referred to. I think that is likely. However, it very well could be that Paul has not a single day of testing in mind and therefore the day of trial and testing could be fulfilled in more than one way. I think that it is certainly in some sense fulfilled at the time a Christian departs this world in death. This has led some to suggest that by "the day" Paul simply means the same thing as when people say "time will tell." Consider the fact that it is eminently scriptural to say that no saint, when he or she dies, goes to heaven with wrong ideas and heresies. Death will burn up all the errors we have held and we will hold only correct views on what is taught in scripture. Notice this text along this line:

"And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them." (Rev. 14: 13 kjv)

The Greek words akoloutheo and meta translated above as "follow" means to "go with," or to "accompany."

Surely only the good works and correct views of scripture, the parts of the building made of gold, silver, and precious stones (non combustible materials), follow the Christian to Heaven. Therefore, it seems that there is a destruction of all that is false in the believer when he dies and when he enters heaven. He does not take his theological building to heaven and must wait till the judgment day to have his false beliefs removed. This all leads me to say that there is a fulfillment of the text in a believer's death. I do not deny that there is also an eschatological fulfillment, in "the day" when all is "revealed" and "tried" by "fire." But, more on that shortly. For now, let us consider whether the building of the structure on the foundation refers solely to building our doctrinal and biblical views, or whether it includes building our characters, building our lives, and doing good works other than bible study. Said Dr. John Piper (See here emphasis mine):

"I think that suggests that even though the main focus of 1 Corinthians 3 is not generally works of believers, but true and false teaching, it does imply that application. In other words, there’s an implication here that the lives of Christians in general are also instructed. Paul says, for example, in Ephesians 6:8, “Knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord.” Everything, every good is going to get its reward. It isn’t just teachers who need to be vigilant over what they teach, but all Christians need to be vigilant over what they do, or what they do with what they are taught — whether they themselves build themselves up in their most holy faith with what they hear (Jude 20)."

I agree. 

I must say that I have thought about my theological house, whether it has errors in it (symbolized by wood, hay, and stubble), or whether it is mostly constructed of noncombustible materials as gold, silver, and precious stones. I also have studied how much my character has been conformed to that of Christ, and how much the life I have lived (built) has been of inferior quality and which of superior craftsmanship. How do you appraise your building work? 

In the next chapter we will finish our look at I Corinthians 3 text along with others dealing with rewards in the life we will live in eternity in the eternal kingdom.

A.W. Pink's Books

Over the years I have had people ask me about my "books" on "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" and other titles to various writing series. None of these are a "book" by the common definition. At one time a "book" meant a scroll or series of scrolls. Later, "book" meant a printed book, either hardback or soft. Now we have "e-books" and digital books. Now, I have written hundreds of series on hundreds of texts and bible subjects and these each could be called a "book." I am not alone in this. The great Baptist Calvinistic writer, Arthur W. Pink, also did not write any "books" and yet he has many books now published. So, how can that be? 

His monthly journal, Studies in the Scriptures, was published without interruption from 1922 to 1953, the remaining writings being printed after his death. Each issue of the Studies normally included six to eight expository articles.

Said the folks at awpink.org (See here):

"After 1922, almost all of Pink’s books were drawn from specific series from his periodical, Studies in the Scriptures. The years listed then are when these series appeared in the Studies. This list is largely based upon Iain Murray’s work, with a few modifications by the archive’s curators."

So, if anyone wants to publish my various doctrinal series in a "book" after the common fashion, God speed to them. As of now, people can read my writings for free! My writings are available in several blogs and I hope they will be preserved. 

If one wants to visit the above Pink web page he will see all Pink's writings from year to year. I have read many of them. I read his commentary on the Gospel of John and the Book of Hebrews when a very young man. Also his book on the "Sovereignty of God" is very good. I disagree with Pink on some things, but consider him very sound generally. 

Elder Leland's Unusual Lord's Supper View

John Leland

1754-1841

Many years ago I read where John Leland had found little joy in observing the Lord's Supper. I had forgotten where I had read that and looked to find it but with no success, until today. The following gives the information on this unusual belief and attitude of Leland. I remember how I felt sympathy for his view for I have often had similar feelings about it. Some Baptists partake of Communion once per month, some once every two months, some every three months, some every quarter, some twice per year, some once per year. The "Church of Christ" folks and others do it every Sunday. Most Baptists take the view that there is no scripture that tells how often it should be observed and argue that the words of Paul "as often as you do it" (I Cor. 11: 25) show that it would be left up to each church (or I might add, to each person). 

In an Internet article titled "Theology Thursday: Profound Lessons From an Itinerant Baptist Minister" by Dr. Jacob Hicks (See here) we have these words and citations (emphasis mine):

"In this instance, Leland is an example of what not to believe and to do. In his church in Cheshire, Massachusetts, he stopped administering the Lord’s supper and did not serve it for years because he never saw anyone saved from practicing it.2 This was in clear disobedience to Jesus’ and Paul’s commands for churches to observe the Lord’s Supper (Lk. 22:14-20; 1 Cor. 11:17-34.) A few concerned members of his church and even sister churches in his association tried to convince him to submit to scripture and the common practice of all Baptist churches, but he would not budge. His association even kicked him and his church out of it."

 

2 - 2 Smith, E. C. (2022). John Leland: A Jeffersonian Baptist in Early America. New York: Oxford University Press.

I see that the churches were wrong to so treat Leland and the church he pastored over the issue and that they behaved contrary to Baptist church belief and practice. Would not submit to the "common practice of all Baptist churches"? I guess we could say that Leland was a "non conformist" as many of our ancient Baptist forefathers! These same accusers professed to believe in the supremacy of the local church! Further, where did Leland violate the command of Christ and Paul regarding the Lord's Supper? If there is no text that says how often to eat it, then if Leland and his church wanted to do it every five years, or ten years, etc., why could they not do that? 

Hicks writes further:

"Leland could be a cowboy sometimes when he felt like something rubbed his conscience the wrong way. God does not leave it to us to be spiritual cowboys and cowgirls. We are to submit to the authority of scripture and our churches. Like all of us in some areas of our lives, Leland’s ecclesiology fell woefully short, but praise the Lord, God used Leland despite his ecclesiological views, and he can use us for his glory as well."

Submit to the authority of "our churches"? Sounds like popery and Episcopalianism to me. Sadly, many Baptist groups, including the Hardshells, have let associations lord it over the churches. This is what Landmarkers do also. The church that Leland pastored had the right to partake of the Supper as often as it wanted. 

Further, what does it say about the evangelistic views of Leland when he says that the Lord's Supper was never instrumental in saving a soul? It shows that evangelism is what was highly important to Leland. Let us imitate him in this regard as Calvinists.

The Kehukee Declaration Against Begging Money

 I ran across an article today about the Soldier Creek Primitive Baptist Church. Their meeting house is in bad disrepair and they only have $52.50 in church funds. They desperately want to restore the church. It is sagging on its foundation, needs a new roof, and needs to be scraped and painted. They are "asking" the community" for funds to help restore the church. They don't want new windows, they want to restore the old ones, even tho new ones would be half the cost. I guess the church of Christ and its gospel are better with old windows huh? They were founded in 1820. See the article here https://www.tribunecourier.com/news/soldier-creek-church-seeks-to-preserve-church-building/article_a2c1c1ff-c33f-5cdb-9296-2d093813498b.html. Notice also in the article it says how in the old days they gathered under the oak tree to discuss the Bible before being called to the meeting of worship. Doesn't sound too much differently than the Missionaries who first had "Sunday School" under the trees before worship. But I suppose a "discussion" is permissible, whereas a "study" is not?

 I find this somewhat ironic, that a Primitive Baptist church, which began by denouncing begging money from the public for spreading the Gospel, now begs for money to restore their building. And who are they begging? They aren't begging other hardshells, but begging from those who are not of them. They love to spout "love for the brethren", but where is that love now? Are there no "brethren" to come to the rescue? Perhaps there aren't enough hardshells left to beg, and what few there are seem to be in a similar situation. So what did the original PB's say about begging for money?

 The Kehukee Association declared in 1827 " it was agreed that we discard all Missionary Societies, Bible Societies and Theological Seminaries, and the practices heretofore resorted to for their support, in begging money from the public;" The same association also declared "Those brethren contending for the ancient landmarks of Zion were denounced by their fashionable brethren of the New School party as being old-fashioned, ignorant people, who would all soon die out and give place to the younger, fashionable, educated men, who expected soon to occupy the whole land, and gather in their tithes without any murmuring or complaint on the part of those who were being fleeced." I suppose there were "prophets" among the Primitives as this statement did indeed come to pass. The hardshell PB's have died out, they have been displaced by educated men,the whole land has been occupied by Missionary Baptists, and they do "gather in the tithes" willingly given by those who desire to see the Gospel preached to everyone. Do some leaders "fleece" the people? Probably. However, if one gives a portion of what God has given them for the expenses of the church and preaching of the Gospel, God is sovereign enough to bless that giving so that it does not return void. Kehukee also said "And they (new School Baptists) declared wherever they went (supposing no doubt it would be so) that the Old Party would soon become extinct – out of the way entirely, and give them no further trouble." Is this not now the case? Once again the PB prophets hit the nail on the head! They are almost extinct.

 Their "prophets" soon declared false prophecies as well. They predicted the Missionary Baptists would become "afflicted" while the Primitives would prosper, and that the Missionaries would eventually return. Return from what? They never left! The Kehukee Association of PB's said "It is likely their affliction will increase as the prosperity of Zion becomes more and more manifest, and the well established among themselves forsake them and go where they rightfully belong, to the citizenship of the saints and the household of God." This of course, never came to pass. It is not the Missionaries who had their "afflictions" increased, but the Primitives. The Missionaries' citizenship never left the household of God, but they did increase the number of citizens in that household.

 Oh how far the hardshell has fallen!  The very thing they railed against, they now practice by begging money to survive! Oh if only they were more concerned about the salvation of lost souls, than they are their "historic" building with a congregation of 20 people! When you are more concerned with the salvation of a building than you are about the salvation of people, you are no church of Christ!

ROLL TIDE!

 

Several thousand students gathered a few days ago for a planned worship event at Auburn University. The event expected about 2000 students to come, but twice that many came. Pastor Jonathan Pokluda of Harris Springs Baptist Church gave the main message and hundreds responded. At the end of the service, one young man expressed a desire to be baptized after having placed his faith in the Lord Jesus. A small commotion began, and at first the leaders did not know what was happening. As it became clear that the students were asking for a way to baptize this young man, they began to search for a place on campus that had enough water for an immersion. They then went to the Red Barn venue near by that had a lake. This was very late in the evening. Around 2000 students rushed to the lake, and after the young man was baptized, hundreds more began to request baptism. Pastor Jonathan quickly gathered the leaders together and instructed them to speak with each student who requested baptism, to ensure  that they truly had understood the Gospel, believed, and intended to follow Christ. What followed next was over 200 baptisms by Pastor Poklunda, assisted by the schools coaches, around midnight at the lake. Glory To God!

To see a thing such as this happen at a secular university is miraculous! I have always had an affinity for the University of Alabama (roll tide!), second only to the Georgia Bulldogs, and I always "pray" for the Crimson Tide to prevail.  Since this event happened at Auburn University, it does indeed show that God can show up anywhere, even Auburn lol! Maybe just maybe, when I have "prayed" for the Crimson Tide to prevail, God laughed and said "Of course it will". So on that night, the Crimson Tide of the blood of Jesus rolled into Auburn University, and prevailed. Satan lost at least 200 young people that night, the final score was Crimson Tide 200, Hell 0. ROLL TIDE!

"For Jesus shed his precious blood
rich blessings to bestow;
plunge now into the crimson flood
that washes bright as snow.                                                                                                                   (Only Trust Him, hymn)

 

C.S. Lewis a Hardshell Baptist?

The following are the words of C.S. Lewis, Christian apologist, and is posted on an LDS web page (see here). It addresses the question of the salvation of those who die without ever hearing the word of God, or the gospel, or of salvation through Christ. It was this question, along with the ordo salutis question (which comes first, regeneration and rebirth, or faith?), that produced the Hyper Calvinists and the Hardshell Baptists, yea, even the Universalists. I dealt with this question in many posts through the years, but see these two:

"Couldn't Answer A Simple Question" (See here)

"R.B.C. Howell on Hardshellism" (See here)

Howell wrote:

"We will explain with very great pleasure, and thank brother Carney for the suggestion. In the place referred to we were exposing the absurdity of old school doctrines. They maintain that all the heathen will not be lost, because they are perfectly ignorant on the whole subject of religion. Then, we said, if they are not lost they are saved, and if our old school friends are right, they are saved by their ignorance. This they profess to believe, not we. But it is evident, with us, that those who are saved on the Bible plan, are saved by the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ. This we know is true; and assuming the doctrine of "the hardsides" to be true also, then some are saved by the ignorance of God and some by the knowledge of God. We laid down these grounds and then, to show the absurdity, of antism stated, if this be true, ignorance and knowledge are equally beneficial. We believe that no one will be saved but through the blood, and righteousness of Jesus Christ, and that all who have arrived to years of maturity, heathen or not, who do not repent and believe in Christ will be lost."

That is my view and the one taught in scripture and the one the Baptists who put forth the 1689 London Confession also believed. It is the debate about "exclusivism" versus "inclusivism." If you believe that only bible believers will be saved, only believers in God's Messiah, then you are an exclusivist. If you believe that people in other religions (Muslim, Hindu, Pagan, etc.) are also saved, then you are an inclusivist. 

The above citation from Dr. Howell (SBC president from 1851-58) is my view. However, C.S. Lewis, like Dr. Flowers, and like our Hardshell brothers, believe that many who die without faith in the God of the bible and in Jesus Christ, the Son of God and savior of the world, will nevertheless be saved. That is not biblical.

Said the LDS editor (emphasis mine):

"Although there is no way of knowing exactly how many people died without ever hearing about Israel or the church, it seems safe to conclude that the vast majority of human beings who have ever lived fall into this category. 

 

In terms of sheer numbers, then, an inquiry into the salvation of the unevangelized is of immense interest. What may be said about the destiny of countless billions who have lived and died apart from any understanding of the divine grace manifested in Jesus? [1]

Said the LDS editor:

"Christian apologist C. S. Lewis found himself puzzled by this dilemma. On one occasion he remarked:

 

“Here is [a matter] that used to puzzle me. Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life [in Christ] should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.” [2]

Here are the sources for the citations:

[1] John Sanders, ed., What About Those Who Have Never Heard? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 7–9; see also Clark Pinnock and Delwin Brown, Theological Crossfire (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990), 227. 

[2] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Touchstone, 1996), 65.

The Hardshells sometimes will cite words from the late Dr. Billy Graham concerning the heathen, and he seemed to reflect similar views to Lewis, and to Flowers. They see it as an inconsistency in their theology, and I agree. If I were still a Hardshell fighting those who were exclusivists, I would fire off citations from men like Graham, Lewis, and Flowers and say "see there, even they admit that you don't have to hear and believe the gospel (or in Jesus) to be saved. So, they are wrong to tell people that they must believe in Jesus to be saved eternally." 

I will have to disagree with Lewis when he says that the bible does not affirm that only true believers in the one true God and in his Son the Messiah will be saved. Those last statements in bold red above would receive many amens from the Hardshells. They too would say that people can be saved "through" Christ apart from knowing and believing in him. 

Clarence Darrow: Determinism & Responsibility

Leopold and Loeb trial of 1924, 

attorney Clarence Darrow

In this posting I will address how the debate over free will, determinism, and responsibility was the focus of one of the most watched criminal trials in history. In the above photo is a picture of Clarence Darrow seated in the forefront, famous attorney of the early twentieth century, along with his two teenage clients who were charged with murder. The speech that Darrow gave at the close of the trial was designed not to prove their innocence of doing the crime, but their not being so guilty as to deserve the death penalty, and he does this by arguing from the deterministic standpoint, which is the basis of nearly all modern sociological and psychological science. He argued that the boys were not guilty because they could not help doing what they did due to sociological and other factors. This is an example where "the rubber meets the road" so far as theories about responsibility and free will go. I majored in Sociology for one reason. My adviser (who had both a juris doctorate and a phd.) advised this when I asked him "what would be a good major for me as a pre-law student, and wanting to go to law school?"). I see why. Lawyers argue about free will and responsibility all the time. Those who represent the criminal will often plead for leniency, if not innocence, because of some sociological, psychological, or economic reason. The prosecutors, however, will always retort by saying "others have experienced the same circumstances and yet did not commit the crimes of the accused. Thus, it was their choice and are therefore guilty." 

Here is a write up for this trial (see here emphasis mine).

In the Leopold and Loeb trial of 1924, attorney Clarence Darrow achieved what many thought impossible. He saved the lives of two cold-blooded child-killers with the power of a speech.

Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb were teenagers living in a wealthy Chicago suburb when they were arrested for murder. Loeb had recently graduated, at 17 years old, from the University of Michigan, and planned to begin law school in the fall. He was obsessed with the idea of the perfect crime. His neighbor, a brilliant young man, Nathan Leopold, was a law student and a believer in Frederick Nietzsche's concept of the "superman" — the idea that it is possible to rise above good and evil.

The two boys seemed an odd match. "Dickie" Loeb charmed everyone with his good looks and cool manner. Awkward-looking Nathan Leopold tended to hide in his friend's shadow. But the two young men formed a powerful bond. Nathan was in love with Richard and would do anything he wanted for sexual favors. He later wrote, "Loeb's friendship was necessary to me — terribly necessary." His motive for the murder, he said, "was to please Dick."

Inspired by this odd mix of nihilistic philosophy, detective fiction, and misguided love, Leopold and Loeb hatched a plan to commit the "perfect crime." It was not so much the idea of murder that attracted them, but the idea of getting away with murder.

On May 21, 1924, Leopold and Loeb lured a young neighbor boy, 14-year-old Bobby Frank, into their car. They killed him with a chisel, and stuffed his body in a culvert. The next morning the Frank family received a special delivery letter — a ransom note demanding $10,000 in unmarked bills for the return of the boy.

Before Mr. Frank could pay the ransom, police discovered the child's body. There was nothing linking the criminals to the crime except for a single pair of glasses. Police traced the glasses to a Chicago optometrist who had prescribed them for Nathan Leopold. If he hadn't lost his glasses, Leopold and his friend Loeb might have indeed gotten away with murder.

Leopold's and Loeb's parents hired the best, and most expensive, criminal attorney they could find — Clarence Darrow. Darrow knew his clients would be convicted. His goal, as always, was to save them from the death penalty.

Americans read every detail of the Leopold and Loeb trial with fascination and repulsion. By 1924, automobiles like Ford's popular Model T were increasing criminal mobility; rising fears about crime would ultimately cause citizens to support a national police force. Chicago's WGN radio considered broadcasting the trial live, but decided it wasn't appropriate "entertainment" to send to families in their living rooms.

The trial reached its climax with Clarence Darrow's closing argument, delivered over twelve hours in a sweltering courtroom. Darrow admitted the guilt of his clients but argued that forces beyond their control influenced their actions. Law professor Phillip Johnson describes Darrow's argument this way: "Nature made them do it, evolution made them do it, Nietzsche made them do it. So they should not be sentenced to death for it." Darrow convinced the judge to spare his clients. Leopold and Loeb received life in prison.

The following year, Clarence Darrow played a leading role in another "trial of the century." He defended John Scopes for teaching evolution in violation of a Tennessee law. WGN radio did send their microphones to Dayton, Tennessee. It seemed a much better idea to cover a trial over ideas than to broadcast a sensational murder.

In 1936 Richard Loeb was killed in a prison fight with another inmate. In 1958, after thirty-four years behind bars, Nathan Leopold was released from prison. He died in 1971.

Said one author on Clarence Darrow's famous defense of two teenagers accused of murder (here emphasis mine):

"When teenagers Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb went to trial after killing an acquaintance "for the thrill of it," their lawyer, Clarence Darrow, delivered a twelve hour summation over three days to save his clients from the hangman's noose. Darrow used three strategies of transformation to invert prevailing concepts of justice and crime. Through such reversals, he deflected criminal culpability from his clients to their upbringing, the prosecutors, and the legal system itself."

In another write up, "Crime and Criminals: Address to the Prisoners in the Chicago Jail" (1902) (see here) we have these words of Darrow to the criminals in Jail (emphasis mine).

"If I looked at jails and crimes and prisoners in the way the ordinary person does, I should not speak on this subject to you. The reason I talk to you on the question of crime, its cause and cure, is because I really do not in the least believe in crime. There is no such thing as a crime as the word is generally understood. I do not believe there is any sort of distinction between the real moral condition of the people in and out of jail. One is just as good as the other. The people here can no more help being here than the people outside can avoid being outside. I do not believe that people are in jail because they deserve to be. They are in jail simply because they cannot avoid it on account of circumstances which are entirely beyond their control and for which they are in no way responsible."

This philosophy regarding crime and punishment was a minor view of a few in 1924, but now 99 years later, it is the philosophy of the Liberals today and is behind the idea of being sympathetic to lawbreakers, as seen in the "no bail" policy of many municipalities, and of allowing felons to go back to the streets after arrest, and of giving mere slaps on the wrist for many crimes (in California, it is no crime to steal anything less than roughly a thousand dollars, and thus we now have mobs robbing stores). But, more on all this shortly.

Darrow also said:

"I suppose a great many people on the outside would say I was doing you harm if they should hear what I say to you this afternoon, but you cannot be hurt a great deal anyway, so it will not matter. Good people outside would say that I was really teaching you things that were calculated to injure society, but it’s worth while now and then to hear something different from what you ordinarily get from preachers and the like. These will tell you that you should be good and then you will get rich and be happy. Of course we know that people do not get rich by being good, and that is the reason why so many of you people try to get rich some other way, only you do not understand how to do it quite as well as the fellow outside."

Believe it or not, I was taught this very thing in some of my Sociology classes in a conservative university founded by Baptists and supported by a large endowment from a Presbyterian. I took a class in "Deviant Behavior." It had a black liberal professor and we only had about 6-8 students. Deviants or criminals are only such because a powerful group decided to call a certain behavior deviant or criminal. This is typical of Marxists, who see that many labels and definitions are created by the power elite and forced on the poor working class. Is adultery deviant behavior? It was once illegal, as was homosexuality. If we define "deviant" or "criminal" as that which is against how the majority has defined them, then adultery and homosexuality are no longer deviant or criminal because the majority no longer judges or defines them so. We are more and more calling law abiding citizens the deviants, and those who do not support drag shows in churches and schools, including grammar schools. Paul called them "despisers of those who are good." (II Tim. 3: 3) The moral (godly or righteous) are becoming a small minority and are being made the criminal!   

Darrow also said:

"There are people who think that everything in this world is an accident. But really there is no such thing as an accident. A great many folks admit that many of the people in jail ought not to be there, and many who are outside ought to be in. I think none of them ought to be here. There ought to be no jails, and if it were not for the fact that the people on the outside are so grasping and heartless in their dealings with the people on the inside, there would be no such institution as jails."

This is where Determinism presents dangers if not properly taught and handled. It leads people to say that no one can be blamed for anything. No one is responsible. But, that is why I subscribe to "free will" to some extent and am a Compatibilist. There are causes to the choices we make. That is why in our striving to make the right choices we must understand what influences are operating upon our wills. Further, we are responsible for what we choose and do, even though the reasons or causes of our choosing and doing are not known and cannot be shown to be of such a nature as to take away liability or responsibility. The two young teenagers defended by Darrow were guilty of a heinous murder. They chose to do the crime. Yes, there were causes or reasons behind their choice, but not such as could excuse or justify them. It may however often lead to a smaller sentence and leniency.