The sermon preached this past Sunday by Elder Jeremiah Bass of Cincinnati Primitive Baptist Church was on Romans 8: 28 and I give a hearty amen to it. Years ago (June, 2021) I wrote a post titled "Best Sermon Yet From A PB" where I commended a sermon by Elder Bass contending for the doctrine of the sure and certain perseverance of the saints. His recent sermon on Romans 8: 28 is on par with the other one. I have several posts where I have commended sermons and biblical interpretations of this able theologian. Just put "Bass" in the search box and you can find them. In the recent sermon he shows that by "all things" in the words "all things work together for good to those who love God and are called according to his purpose" does not mean "some things," but includes evils, calamities, etc.
The "Primitive Baptists" in their beginning in the early 1830s almost universally taught that "all things" was without exception and often used this text to comfort believers who were in afflictions, sufferings, or experiencing evils of all kinds. I have numerous posts that demonstrate this fact. Both Elder Fralick and I have also written much on this text and examined its implications. Fralick wrote a series on the text and can be read (here, here, here, here, here, here). I have written several also and they can be read in my series titled "Hardshells and Predestination" and my series titled "Divine Justice Issues." (See this one in particular: here)
In one of them I wrote (See here):
The Romans 8: 28 BattlegroundAll the first, and most of the second generation of Hardshells, had no problem with interpreting "all things" in Romans 8: 28 to include the evils in the lives of the people of God. They included their temptations, and both their failures and successes.
Do "all things" work together for evil to those who do not love God? Who can deny that this is so? Of course, the working together "for good" has ultimacy in view, what is the end, final destiny, or final fulfillment of all things. Paul is not affirming that all things work together for the mere temporal good of God's chosen and foreknown. "For (unto) good" is not fulfilled or completely realized in this life, but in the life to come, when the elect are glorified and dwell in their eternal state.
All things will finally work to the detriment (evil) of those who do not love God when they are confined in the eternal prison of Gehenna and Lake of Fire. All their works will be judged as evil, even those that are externally good. This is evident because "whatever is not of faith is sin." (Rom. 14: 23) This is why the great king said - "the plowing of the wicked is sin." (Prov. 21: 4)
Do the sins of the saints produce eternal good? That is the chief question in debate. But, have we not shown that the sins of the wicked produce eternal evil? Have we not shown that all that occurs can only occur if God wills it, permissively or otherwise? Do not both sides agree that the existence of evil is owing to God's willing it? Do not both sides agree that God chose to permit the existence of sin and evil for good reasons? For a good end? To bring some greater good out it by overruling it?
How comforting is it to believe that only a few things work together for the eternal good of the elect? How is it comforting to believe that sin exists without any good purpose? That it's existence is meaningless? That sin is an unforeseen accident?
Further, let it be remembered that God's permitting an event, or suffering its existence, does not necessitate that one believe that God permits evil because evil is the end, that this is what he ultimately takes pleasure in. Sin is a distasteful means. For instance, men choose to suffer the evil of pain, in physical exercise, not because they enjoy the pain, as an end in itself, but because it is a means to a greater good, the good of health.
In another post on Romans 8: 28 (See here) I wrote:
I have also shown how Romans 8: 28 proves that a born again believer cannot fail to persevere and to be finally saved (can't lose salvation). I have also made the same argument in debate on eternal security. The argument I make goes like this: "if a man is called to salvation out of love for the Lord and then loses his salvation, how did all things work together for his good?" One on my opponents said in reply: "this is true as long as you love God, but if you stop loving God, all things will not work together for your good." But, if you could lose your love for God and undo your calling, then all things did not work together for your good and God has spoken a falsehood.
In spite of the fact that I believe this was one of the best sermons from Elder Bass, that does not mean that I did not find myself in disagreement with a couple things. He referred to the case of Job to show how God used evil and calamities to bring forth good and that is correct. He even defended Job and said that Job never cursed God nor charged God foolishly as the biblical record says. In my writings on Job (see the link on this blog) I have defended Job against those theologians who want to find fault with Job, accusing him of sin (as did his miserable counselors whom God chastised for giving wrong advice to Job), and saying that his sufferings were because he sinned. Brother Bass mentioned one of the arguments those theologians use to prove their case by saying that Job repented, and arguing that this means that he had sinned and was the reason why he was suffering the evils the Devil brought upon him by the permission of God. In this post (here) I showed how the repentance of Job was not a repentance from sin, no more than when scripture says that God repented. In that post I wrote the following;
“Wherefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” (Job 42:6 KJV)
Do these words of Job indicate that Job was in error and guilty of sin? And, such sin as to warrant his superlative sufferings? Those commentators and interpreters who are intent on indicting the righteousness, faith, and patience of Job, insist that they do indicate such. It is argued that his "abhorrence" and his "repentance" are proofs of his theological errors and his unrighteous character. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth.
If the above words indicate Job's theological and moral errors, then the testimony of God himself must be set aside, who both, at the beginning and at the end, testify to Job's righteous character and conduct and of his theological correctness.
Wrote one interpreter:
"Verse six is actually very difficult to translate into English. The Hebrew can be translated in two distinct ways, and there is no clue from the text itself how the author intended it to be understood. It can be understood as a confession of one’s sin and one’s inferiority to God: “I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes” (the traditional translation). But the Hebrew verb translated “I despise myself” can also be translated “I hate” or “I reject” (cf. Jer. 31:37; 33:26). And the Hebrew verb, nikhamti, can just as well be translated “rue” or “regret” as it can be translated “repent” (cf. Gen. 6:7; I Sam. 15:11; Jer. 4:28; 18:3). Therefore, the passage can be as legitimately translated “I reject and regret dust and ashes” as it can be translated “I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes”.
I cited others who said:
"The verb "reject" normally requires an object. Ancient manuscripts smudged easily, so accidental erasure is one possibility. A daydreaming copyist is another. At 34:33 and 36:5, "reject" is used without an object but the usage in those verses is pretty clearly not applicable here, though the coincidence of three abnormal usages in a row like that does give pause.
Also, the Hebrew for "am sorry for / am comforted concerning" is a standard verb-preposition compound. The King James reading is still possible, but Job would have to put a definite break between the verb and the preposition to get his non-standard meaning across, and he would end up sounding awkward and a little pompous: "I reject [something] and I repent --pause-- upon the dust and ashes."
"I despise" must have an object, and the nearest one is "dust and ashes." The preposition "al (upon), following upon the verb nhm, "I repent" or "I am comforted," introduces the object of the repentance or the subject of the comfort. "Dust and ashes," then, does double duty as the accusative of both "I despise" ('em' as) and "I repent" (nhmty)." (pg. 376, "In turns of tempest: a reading of Job, with a translation," By Edwin Marshall Good)
There are more citations which help to prove that the repenting that Job did denoted his change of mind about his situation and from his choice to sit in dust and ashes.
I also one to make a comment upon brother Bass's mentioning of I Cor. 2: 14 which says that "the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit" (paraphrase). He seemed to suggest the typical Hardshell view that says the text means -- "the unregenerate man cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God nor can he know them." If that is what the text means, then it does lead to the belief that the gospel or things of the Spirit cannot be a means in regeneration.
I have written on this text much also. Use the search engine to find those articles. What it means is this: no one can receive spiritual teachings apart from the Spirit's revealing them to that person. No one can be saved apart from the revelation of God, apart from the word or Spirit of God. General revelation in nature nor scientific searching will bring one to find God. The "natural man" is the man who is without or rejects revelation, the man who is under the influence of carnal wisdom. The knowledge that brings salvation is not discoverable by human wisdom. This fits the context of first Corinthians 1: 1 through 2: 14. This shows that the heathen who have not God's word and revelation cannot be saved. The text is saying that a man cannot be saved who tries to be saved by his own understanding, by his own reasonings apart from the revelation of God. As long as a lost sinner is listening to his sensual or carnal nature he will never be saved.
The verse is not saying that the "natural man" lacks the physical ability or faculties to understand and believe the things of the Spirit, but that he lacks the moral or spiritual ability. I have also written much on this point too, citing from other and greater theologians than I, such as Jonathan Edwards. Even Elder J.H. Oliphant of Hardshell fame agreed with this.
What Paul is saying is that the unregenerate man, so long as he is leaning upon his worldly wisdom, and not God's revelation, cannot receive, embrace, or welcome that revelation. This agrees with the commentary of John Gill who said:
"...but an unregenerate man, that has no knowledge at all of such things; not an unregenerate man only, who is openly and notoriously profane, abandoned to sensual lusts and pleasures; though such a man being sensual, and not having the Spirit, must be a natural man; but rather the wise philosopher, the Scribe, the disputer of this world; the rationalist, the man of the highest attainments in nature, in whom reason is wrought up to its highest pitch; the man of the greatest natural parts and abilities, yet without the Spirit and grace of God, mentioned 1 Corinthians 1:20 and who all along, both in that chapter and in this, quite down to this passage, is had in view..."
Is not eternal life a thing of the Spirit? Yes. That being the case, is the text saying "the unregenerate or spiritually dead man cannot receive eternal life"? If so, then no one can be saved. Don't you see? Do not the spiritually dead receive eternal life when they hear and obey the voice of the Son of God?
No comments:
Post a Comment