The Greek word "logismos" in the above text is translated as "imaginations" (kjv), "reasonings," and "arguments," and "speculations" in other translations. Anyone who is in the business of "correcting" errors in religion or Christian doctrine, in doing "apologetics" (what the apostle Peter called giving a defense or answer to those who inquire into why you believe the way you do - I Peter 3:15), will be involved in "casting down arguments" that heretics give to support their heresies. One of the things that the "scriptures" do is to "correct" people who hold to religious errors. (II Tim. 3: 16)
In my writings over the past eighteen years via my blogs I have been "casting down arguments" against many false teachers and their teachings and that is certainly true in regard to the errors of the Hyper Calvinists and Hardshell Baptists. I have also written and debated much against Arminianism, such as from those of the "Church of Christ" or the followers of Alexander Campbell. I have refuted all the arguments of the Hyper Calvinists and the Hardshell Primitive Baptists and the Hyper Arminians concerning the doctrine of salvation (soteriology).
I have written rebuttals to Hardshell apologists such as Elders Bernard Gowens, Ben Winslett, Ronnie Loudermilk, Joseph Holder, Gary Harvey, Jason Brown, Michael Ivey, Harold Hunt, Sonny Pyles, David Pyles, and other present day defenders of Hyper Calvinism, as well as recognized Hardshell leaders of the past, such as Elders Sylvester Hassell, Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, Wilson Thompson, Grigg Thompson, Thomas Dudley, S.F. and C.H. Cayce, Lemuel Potter, John R. Daily, R.V. Sarrels, etc.
I have, of course, cited from several first generation "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists who I thought taught the truth and who were at odds with other Hardshellers who were going astray after strange doctrines, such as Two Seedism, men such as Elders John M. Watson, John Clark, James Osbourn, C.B. Hassell, R.W. Fain, J.B. Stephens, J.R. Respass.
One of the errors of Hardshells and Hyper Calvinists says that people are born again or regenerated before faith and repentance, and the error of some of them that say people can be regenerated and never embrace the Christian faith but remain believers in false gods. It is a very serious error to say that regeneration is distinct from evangelical conversion. Another of their errors says that the written word of God, or the preaching of the gospel, is no means in effecting regeneration or in obtaining eternal salvation, another very serious error with perilous consequences. Another Hardshell error says that regenerated people may be kept or preserved from losing salvation but most will not persevere in faith and holiness, or allegiance to Christ.
I have a series titled "The Means of Grace" where I refute the arguments of those who deny that the word of God is a means in regeneration and in eternal salvation and present affirmative arguments for the means view. All are in their own blog (see the link on this page "The Gospel - The Means of Grace" here).
I also have a series titled "Regeneration Before Faith Proof Texts" where I answer the arguments of those Hyper Calvinists who say that people are born again before faith and I have also given arguments for the belief that people are born again by faith. All these articles also are in their own blog titled "Ordo Salutis Debate" (see link on this blog here). In that series I showed that the view that says regeneration precedes faith leads to another error which affirms that regeneration precedes justification. I argue that the historic Protestant doctrine affirms that justification by faith precedes regeneration by faith.
This writing will be another rebuttal to the apologists of Hardshellism, particularly from an Internet treatise titled "Primitive Baptist Church: Bible Basic Doctrines" (See here) authored by Elders Johnson Vernon, Michael Ivy, and Don Watson, compiled by Brother Filden Oroni and found at the web page of Denton Primitive Baptist Church (www.dentonpbc.org). I have written a lengthy rebuttal to Michael Ivey's book "Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptists."
I will begin with the section titled "Relationship Between Belief and New Birth" (pgs. 112-113), where they say (emphasis mine throughout):
"In this essay we will look at the relationship between belief and the new birth.
Most people today are taught and believe that you must hear and believe the gospel
in order to be born again. In a cause/effect relationship, they think that "belief" is the
"cause" and that the "new birth" is the "effect." This concept is to them supported by an
erroneous belief in what John 3:16 teaches. In truth, the "new birth" is the "cause" and
"belief" is the "effect" of the new birth."
"A. John 1:11-13...to them that believe on his name: which were born...of God."
For the sake of brevity we didn't quote all the above passage, but please note "believe" is
in the present tense, while "were born" is in the past tense. Grammatically, therefore, the
birth must precede the belief; i.e., they were born of God prior to believing."
My Response
Why not "quote all the above passage" from John 1? They say it was "for the sake of brevity"! Who can believe that? Is it not because the part left out refutes their argument about the grammar supposedly proving that the birth precedes receiving Christ? Let us cite all the verses.
"11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (nkjv)
The word "received" is an aorist past tense or action, meaning "it happened." Likewise, "were born" is an aorist past tense. So, to say that the birth occurred before the receiving is false. It is true that the participle "the ones believing" is a linear present tense. The participle is simply a declaratory statement identifying the ones who savingly "received" Jesus as Christ. John may have given this explanatory comment about the receivers of Christ in order to let readers know that John does not include those who simply invited Christ into their homes or gave him a hearing. Simon the Pharisee is one such person. We read about him in Luke 7: 36-50. He invited, welcomed, or received Christ into his home. Yet, the story shows that he was not a true believer in Christ. Let us give the story.
"36 Then one of the Pharisees asked Him to eat with him. 37 And behold, a woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at the table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of fragrant oil, 38 and stood at His feet behind Him weeping; and she began to wash His feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head; and she kissed His feet and anointed them with the fragrant oil. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he spoke to himself, saying, “This Man, if He were a prophet, would know who and what manner of woman this is who is touching Him, for she is a sinner.”
Jesus says to Simon,
“44 Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has washed My feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head. 45 You gave Me no kiss, but this woman has not ceased to kiss My feet since the time I came in. 46 You did not anoint My head with oil, but this woman has anointed My feet with fragrant oil. 47 Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much."
Notice that Simon "asked" or "invited" Christ to enter into his house. But, he did not believe in Christ, not even believing he was a prophet of God. He also did not believe he was a sin sick sinner in need of repentance and forgiveness. Christ also described how Simon did not show him the loving kindness that the sinner woman did who was washing his feet. Christ said to Simon that her sins, though many, were forgiven, implying that Simon's sins were not forgiven. He "received" Christ into his house but not into his heart and did not become a believer. Perhaps John says those who "received" Christ are they who are believing and trusting in Christ.
So, did the birth occur when the receiving and believing occurred? The argument by our Hardshell apologists says that the birth preceded both the receiving and the believing. Why? Because, say they, the tense for the participle "the believing ones" is present tense while the tense for the verb "born" is, say they, "past tense." Actually, however, "born" is an aorist past tense just as is the word "received." So, their argument is invalid. The birth occurred when they received Christ and this receiving of Christ was by faith, by believing in him. What the text is saying is that those who are the believing ones are they who have previously received Christ and been born of God.
Our Hardshell "scholars" want to try to make John contradict himself in the text. John clearly says that receiving Christ preceding obtaining the privilege of becoming the children of God. Why would he then say that they were born children of God before they received him? When did they become children of God? When they 1) received Christ and 2) were born of God. So we have the order thus: 1) received Christ by believing in him, 2) born of God, 3) become children of God.
Also, the Greek word for "children" is from "teknon" and denotes a birthed child. Becoming a birth child follows receiving Christ.
To say that John is affirming that those who received Christ and believed in him were born again children of God before they received and believed is to affirm that receiving Christ is not the way people receive spiritual life and all the blessings of redemption. To say people are born again before they receive Christ is to say that they were children of God and spiritually alive while separated from Christ. Yet, the Bible is very clear that spiritual life comes by being united to Christ who is Life.
In the next chapter we will look at more of the arguments for the Hardshell ideas about how to be saved and on whether regeneration or rebirth occurs apart from faith in Christ.\
No comments:
Post a Comment