Hyper Calvinists deny that salvation is offered to all in the Gospel. They think that the fact that God only desires the salvation of the elect precludes any such offer. I want to say a few things about this.
Fuss over the word "offer"
Hyper Calvinists make much of the fact that the KJV English Bible never uses the word "offer" or "invitation," using such a fact to deny that there are any offers of God to men made in the word of God or that he ever invites men. While this is true, it is not to be inferred from this that there are no offers and invitations in the preaching of the Gospel. One word generally used in Scripture to denote an invitation is the word "called." Of course, depending upon the nature of the call, it can either be refused or heeded.
"Called"
To be "called" may mean, as all know, "invited" as well as "summoned." It also of course may mean "named" as in "he shall be called Immanuel." In the New Testament the word "called" (or its forms, such as call, calling) is not uniformly translated from the same Greek word. Thus, each instance of the English word should be checked in the light of its particular Greek word. To assume, as do the deniers of offers and invitations in the Gospel (for salvation), that the word "call" never means invite is an error.
Another word generally used in Scripture to denote an invitation is the word "come."
"Come"
Though this is given in the imperative mood in Scripture, denoting what is demanded or commanded, it nevertheless does not take away from its also being given as an invitation.
"Whosoever will, let him come" (Rev. 22: 17)
Who can deny that these are words of invitation? If I say to a crowd "whoever wants to eat, come and dine," is that not an invitation?
For the word "offer" we can substitute "make available," or "present," or even the word "give," which is often used in Scripture.
"Give"
Who can deny that the word "give" (in the new testament is translated from several different Greek words) may be such a gift that can be either accepted (received) or rejected, and if so, then to give means to present for acceptance or rejection, and this is the nature of an "offer."
Another word that is essentially involved in this debate is the word "receive," again which in the Greek comes from one of several distinct words.
"Receive"
May mean to "take," which of course implies taking what is offered or presented.
It may also simply mean to obtain. Most of the time this word is given in the imperative mood and takes the form of a command. It is also most often in the active voice, and so means to welcome or to willingly take.
"And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." (Heb. 9: 15)
"Called" here is from the Greek word "kaleo" and means, according to Strong, A. to call aloud, utter in a loud voice, and B. to invite.
"Might receive" is from the Greek word "lambano" and means to "take" or to "receive what is offered."
"Bid" (bidding, bidden)
"antikaleĊ" - "to invite in turn"
Luke 14: 12 "bidden to the wedding"
Since the word "bid," like the other words mentioned, may mean "to invite," then how can the Hardshells and Hyper Calvinists deny that all are invited by the Gospel?
Christ "Proffered"
If one reads the old writings of the Puritans and Particular Baptists of the 17th century, he will see how they often spoke of Christ and salvation being "proffered" to men in the preaching of the Gospel. What does "proffer" mean? Webster says the word denotes "to offer or give (something) to someone." Synonyms: extend, give, offer, tender, trot out.
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Monday, October 6, 2014
Review of Thomas Mann's Sermon
In this posting I will review some things that Elder Thomas Mann said in that sermon "Rethinking My Position On Conditional Time Salvation" (SEE HERE). It is that sermon which helped to cause a stir among the Hardshells over the past quarter century.
Mann said (emphasis mine):
"Now whatever else that verse (John 17: 3 - SG) says or implies, it lets us know that belief in Christ and eternal life are married. These two things are married; they are joined together, believing in Christ and eternal life. My simple contention is "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder...I'd like to suggest that the doctrine of conditional time salvation tends to put these things asunder."
Well, amen to that! That is the historic teaching of the Old Baptists. It is also what Elders Pence, Burnam, and others were trying to remind the Hardshells in the battle over means in the 1890s. Regeneration and conversion are inseparable.
Not only does the Hardshell novel doctrine of "conditional time salvation" TEND to sunder what God has joined together, but it actually does so, and is therefore to be rejected as heterodox, heretical, and harmful to Christians.
Mann said:
"...this is so complex a thing. You have to really think to get at where the challenges are in this doctrine."
Well, it really isn't so complex in itself. The Bible is very plain on salvation. It presents premises and propositions in the most unambiguous language. It is written in the language of the common man. What makes this thing so "complex," for today's Hardshells, is due to the fact that what the Bible often plainly says goes against their self made propositions and twisted interpretations. I recall Elder Daily saying, in debate with Throgmorton, that one had to really put his "thinking cap" on when it comes to seeing "regeneration" as the Hardshells see it. The Hardshells can be real "hair splitting" theologians when it comes to dissecting the constituent elements of the salvation experience. The Hardshells think they are the ones who finally came up with the "solution" to traditional and historic Christian battles over the nature, causes, and means of salvation.
We shall see in the next few citations what some of those self made Hardshell propositions are (and which the Scriptures seem to often oppose, and thus causing confusion to the Hardshell mind and bringing one to call this subject "complex").
Mann said:
"First of all, the doctrine of conditional time salvation suggests that no conditional verse in the Bible has any eternal implication."
In these words that self made Hardshell proposition is stated, the one which makes the teaching of the Bible on salvation "complex," or seemingly contradictory, and therefore puzzling, and needing to be "figured out." That Hardshell proposition is stated - "no conditional verse in the Bible has any eternal implication." But, where does the Bible affirm such a proposition? There is no Scriptural support for such a proposition. So, for the Hardshells to accept such a proposition would indeed bewilder them.
Mann said:
"...conditional time salvation would suggest that there is no way that any of those verses could have eternal or heavenly ramifications because you wind up with work salvation, and it's a valid point."
In other words, to the Hardshell mind, any "condition" of salvation is to be equated with works salvation. To them, to say that faith and repentance, or calling upon the name of the Lord, etc., are "conditions" of salvation is to make salvation to be "of works." But, such thinking is entirely against the Scriptures. Even Mann seems not to have come far enough in his thinking on this matter for he says such Hardshell reasoning represents a "valid point." Well, no, it is not a valid point at all. "There is no way"? No way that a conditional salvation verse could be talking about eternal salvation or be a grace salvation rather than a "work salvation"? Is that what Hardshells say about their conversion to Christ? Their coming to repent of their sins and embrace Christ by faith? That is was not of grace? That is was a "work salvation"? Shame on them.
Mann said:
"It suggests that there are actually two salvations taught in the Bible. But there is one salvation for heaven which is all of grace and one salvation for time, that's where we get conditional time salvation; one salvation for time, which is largely dependent upon our works. Again there's some validity to that idea."
Salvation in time "largely dependent upon your works"! There is a statement of Hardshell Arminianism! Have they never read Isaiah 26: 12? "thou also hast wrought all our works in us."
Mann said:
"...it suggests that many of God's people, many saved people, never come to an awareness of their salvation or never come to know Jesus Christ as their Savior or that they never produce fruit in their life but they live essentially in a spiritual, vegetative state all their life... It would suggest that simply because American Indians worship the Great Spirit, that's indication that they're born again."
Mann describes the quasi universalism of today's Hardshells who have so reinvented the experience of "regeneration" or birth of the Spirit that it makes it an experience that even the heathen experience. This is the heresy of Hardshellism.
Mann said:
"I would refute the notion that because a person worships an idol god, that means he’s born again."
Well, good for Mann! Would to God that more of them came to this conclusion and turned away from the heresy of Hardshellism.
Mann said:
"The Bible teaches everywhere that God's Spirit draws a person to Christ and not away from Christ; not toward an idol but to Jesus. So it is not an evidence of grace just because a person worships an idol god. Okay?"
Amen again! Of course, what Mann is combating is the almost universal view of today's Hardshells. I have challenged them to give us the evidence that Baptists held this view prior to the rise of the Hardshells in the nineteenth century. It is a novel view.
Mann said:
"How can you love someone so lovely as Christ and not know it?"
Well, amen to that! Such a simple question and yet it is one that Hardshell apologists will want to avoid as best they can. Such questions keep the Hardshells from engaging others in debate for they fear them and have no apologetic defense for their heretical views.
Mann said:
"Could that infant articulate its love for Christ as an infant? Of course not, but the Bible doesn't spend a lot of time on that. And what I want to try to do in the next weeks, if again the Lord leads in this, is to try to stick with the Scriptures."
Hardshells think the case of the infant proves their whole case. But, we have challenged the Hardshells over the years to answer our questions on infant regeneration. Also, I agree with Mann that the regeneration of infants is not to be made the standard as to how God regenerates adults. Mann reflects the thinking of the Particular Baptists who put forth the 1644 and 1689 London Confessions.
Mann said:
"My point in bringing that up, is that extreme forms of conditional time salvation will tend to say, there are many, many people, in fact most people are saved but never know that they're saved."
Bingo! That is the heresy of Hardshellism! This is a new doctrine among the Baptists. It is the Hyper Calvinism in its rankest form. It was not even the view of the first Hardshells of the 1830s, yet today's Hardshells claim succession through these men!
Mann said:
"...it becomes an Arminian system applied to time."
Exactly. But, Hardshells really admit this. They even say that their time salvation, or conversion to Christ and the Gospel, is a works salvation, not of God or by his grace. Even Arminians don't say this. Old Elder John Clark, one of the founding fathers of the "Primitive Baptist" church, said the same thing.
Mann said:
"No, that's not the way the Bible works. But every hard verse I’d come across, I say, “Oh, that goes in the conditional time salvation bucket. That's just for time, it isn't for eternity."
And what does this say about their hermeneutics? Are they not guilty of taking their premises and propositions to the Scriptures and forcing the Scriptures to agree with them? It is clearly eisegesis.
Mann said:
"There is hell. So we can’t come to the position of the Universalists who says, “Everybody’s pretty much going to heaven”. I've known several Primitive Baptists who believe that. Everybody's going to heaven...I've known several Primitive Baptists who wouldn't go quite that far but would say, “I've never met anybody that wasn't a child of God”."
I have often spoken of the quasi universalism of the Hardshells. Their doctrine allows for it, yea, even leads to it. They believe that the elect are many not few. Many are going to Heaven, few are going to Hell.
Mann said:
"And then there's another term you’ll hear from time to time, and that is the term hyper-Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism. And most of the time Primitive Baptists are identified as hyper-Calvinists and I'm sorry that that's the case."
Notice that Mann does not deny that Hardshells are Hyper Calvinists. He only bemoans the fact. But, how could he, unless he has turned away from a denial of duty faith, the universal call of the Gospel, and the necessity of a faith union with Christ for regeneration life.
Mann said:
"Conditional time salvation. Think about some strengths of this doctrine. The doctrine of conditional time salvation rightly understands that not every time you see the word saved or salvation in the Bible is it referring to heaven. It's true. I can prove it to you. Don't think that every time you see the word saved or salvation in the Bible that it's talking about being saved for heaven. It's not. We must rightly divide the word of truth. An example, if you have your Bibles you may want to look at this one. 1 Timothy 2:15 as an example, shows us that there is salvation in time; deliverance in time that really doesn't have eternal implications, so far as I can tell. 1 Timothy 2:15, speaking of the woman who was deceived in the transgression:
"Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing...[now there you go]...if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”
Now to all the women in the congregation who’ve never borne a child, hell is your home. No. That's not what that text is teaching. To all the women in the congregation whose children have not continued in faith and holiness with sobriety, hell is your home. That’s not what that verse is teaching at all. It's simply speaking about the fact that there is a deliverance in the woman's position of responsibility, authority and honor that comes in childbirth. It's a blessing for a woman to be able to bring forth children into the world and influence them in the faith, in holiness, in sobriety, you see. For the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world."
"So there’s a verse that obviously shows the word saved doesn't always mean eternal salvation." Yet she will be saved through childbearing — if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” 1 Timothy 2:15"
I certainly do agree with the idea that the word save, or deliver, does not always mean eternal salvation. No one disagrees with that. But, to deny that these words, in their primary sense, and in general context of Scripture, denotes eternal salvation, is wrong. Further, just because a verse dealing with salvation is ascribed to conditions or means does not mean that the salvation is not eternal.
Further, Mann is wrong to think that I Timothy 2: 15 is not talking about eternal salvation. On this verse Dr. Gill wrote:
Notwithstanding she shall be saved
Not Eve, though no doubt she is saved; since she had a sense of her sin, and shame for it, a revelation of the Messiah to her, and faith in him; see ( Genesis 3:7 Genesis 3:8 Genesis 3:15 ) ( 4:2 ). But rather any woman, particularly such as profess godliness, who shall be saved
in childbearing;
which is to be understood not of a temporal salvation, or being saved through childbearing, through the perilous time, and be delivered out of it; for though this is generally the case, yet not always, nor always the case of good women. Rachel died in childbed: the Jews say: for three transgressions women die in childbearing; because they do not take care of their menstrues, and of the cake of the firstfruits, and of lighting the lamp (when the sabbath approaches). But spiritual and eternal salvation is here meant; not that bearing children is the cause, condition, or means of salvation; for as this is not God's way of salvation, so it confines the salvation of women to childbearing ones; and which must give an uneasy reflection to maidens, and women that never bore any; but rather the meaning is, that good women shall be saved, notwithstanding their bearing and bringing forth children in pain and sorrow, according to the original curse, in (Genesis 3:16) . And so the words administer some comfort to women, in their present situation of subjection and sorrow; though they may be rendered impersonally thus, "notwithstanding there is salvation through the birth of a son": and the sense is, that notwithstanding the fall of man by the means of the woman, yet there is salvation for both men and women, through the birth of Immanuel, the child born, and Son given; at whose birth, the angels sung peace on earth, good will to men; through the true Messiah, the deed of the woman, through the incarnate Saviour, who was made of a woman, there is salvation for lost sinners: he was born of a woman, and came into the world in order to obtain salvation for them; and he has effected it, and it is in him, for all such who apply to him for it; and with it all true believers, men and women, shall be saved through him,
if they continue in faith and charity, and holiness, with sobriety.
The Vulgate Latin version reads in the singular, "if she continues", &c. but the sense is the same; for the "she", or woman, is to be taken in a collective sense, as it is in the context, for many women; even for such as profess faith and godliness. The Syriac and Ethiopic versions render the words, "she shall be saved by her children", if they continue i.e. she shall be saved by bearing of children, and bringing of them up in a religious way; if they, the children, continue as they were brought up; which is a very strange rendering of the words, and is as strange an interpretation of them; and yet is what many have given into, but needs no confutation. The meaning of the words is, that there is salvation through the incarnate Messiah, for all sorts of persons; for all men and women who believe in him, with that faith which works by love, and shows itself in holiness and sobriety; provided that they continue herein. For there are some that profess these things, that have only a temporary faith, and feigned love, and not true holiness; and these fall away, and are not saved; but such who have these graces in truth, as they do, and shall continue in them, so they shall certainly be saved."
Next, Mann said:
"Another you’re familiar with would be 1 Peter 3:21:
"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us…"
All you unbaptized people in the congregation, you're going to hell. Is that what that verse is teaching? No...There is a deliverance for right now, in baptism...So, conditional time salvation has rightly pointed out that we must be very careful not to think that every time we see the word saved that it means the acquisition of eternal life."
But, again, Mann is still not liberated from his Hardshell tendency to restrict verses dealing with salvation to a mere time salvation. Why would he think that Paul or Peter, in the context of talking about eternal salvation, would suddenly use the term in a different sense and context?
The baptism of Noah in the waters of the flood, and the baptism of the Christian in water, are each figures of that salvation brought by Christ, and that is an eternal salvation.
Overall, Mann is to be applauded for his repentance in doctrine and his desiring to see his Hardshell brethren reformed. We can only hope that many Hardshells will see their errors and turn to the truth.
Mann said (emphasis mine):
"Now whatever else that verse (John 17: 3 - SG) says or implies, it lets us know that belief in Christ and eternal life are married. These two things are married; they are joined together, believing in Christ and eternal life. My simple contention is "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder...I'd like to suggest that the doctrine of conditional time salvation tends to put these things asunder."
Well, amen to that! That is the historic teaching of the Old Baptists. It is also what Elders Pence, Burnam, and others were trying to remind the Hardshells in the battle over means in the 1890s. Regeneration and conversion are inseparable.
Not only does the Hardshell novel doctrine of "conditional time salvation" TEND to sunder what God has joined together, but it actually does so, and is therefore to be rejected as heterodox, heretical, and harmful to Christians.
Mann said:
"...this is so complex a thing. You have to really think to get at where the challenges are in this doctrine."
Well, it really isn't so complex in itself. The Bible is very plain on salvation. It presents premises and propositions in the most unambiguous language. It is written in the language of the common man. What makes this thing so "complex," for today's Hardshells, is due to the fact that what the Bible often plainly says goes against their self made propositions and twisted interpretations. I recall Elder Daily saying, in debate with Throgmorton, that one had to really put his "thinking cap" on when it comes to seeing "regeneration" as the Hardshells see it. The Hardshells can be real "hair splitting" theologians when it comes to dissecting the constituent elements of the salvation experience. The Hardshells think they are the ones who finally came up with the "solution" to traditional and historic Christian battles over the nature, causes, and means of salvation.
We shall see in the next few citations what some of those self made Hardshell propositions are (and which the Scriptures seem to often oppose, and thus causing confusion to the Hardshell mind and bringing one to call this subject "complex").
Mann said:
"First of all, the doctrine of conditional time salvation suggests that no conditional verse in the Bible has any eternal implication."
In these words that self made Hardshell proposition is stated, the one which makes the teaching of the Bible on salvation "complex," or seemingly contradictory, and therefore puzzling, and needing to be "figured out." That Hardshell proposition is stated - "no conditional verse in the Bible has any eternal implication." But, where does the Bible affirm such a proposition? There is no Scriptural support for such a proposition. So, for the Hardshells to accept such a proposition would indeed bewilder them.
Mann said:
"...conditional time salvation would suggest that there is no way that any of those verses could have eternal or heavenly ramifications because you wind up with work salvation, and it's a valid point."
In other words, to the Hardshell mind, any "condition" of salvation is to be equated with works salvation. To them, to say that faith and repentance, or calling upon the name of the Lord, etc., are "conditions" of salvation is to make salvation to be "of works." But, such thinking is entirely against the Scriptures. Even Mann seems not to have come far enough in his thinking on this matter for he says such Hardshell reasoning represents a "valid point." Well, no, it is not a valid point at all. "There is no way"? No way that a conditional salvation verse could be talking about eternal salvation or be a grace salvation rather than a "work salvation"? Is that what Hardshells say about their conversion to Christ? Their coming to repent of their sins and embrace Christ by faith? That is was not of grace? That is was a "work salvation"? Shame on them.
Mann said:
"It suggests that there are actually two salvations taught in the Bible. But there is one salvation for heaven which is all of grace and one salvation for time, that's where we get conditional time salvation; one salvation for time, which is largely dependent upon our works. Again there's some validity to that idea."
Salvation in time "largely dependent upon your works"! There is a statement of Hardshell Arminianism! Have they never read Isaiah 26: 12? "thou also hast wrought all our works in us."
Mann said:
"...it suggests that many of God's people, many saved people, never come to an awareness of their salvation or never come to know Jesus Christ as their Savior or that they never produce fruit in their life but they live essentially in a spiritual, vegetative state all their life... It would suggest that simply because American Indians worship the Great Spirit, that's indication that they're born again."
Mann describes the quasi universalism of today's Hardshells who have so reinvented the experience of "regeneration" or birth of the Spirit that it makes it an experience that even the heathen experience. This is the heresy of Hardshellism.
Mann said:
"I would refute the notion that because a person worships an idol god, that means he’s born again."
Well, good for Mann! Would to God that more of them came to this conclusion and turned away from the heresy of Hardshellism.
Mann said:
"The Bible teaches everywhere that God's Spirit draws a person to Christ and not away from Christ; not toward an idol but to Jesus. So it is not an evidence of grace just because a person worships an idol god. Okay?"
Amen again! Of course, what Mann is combating is the almost universal view of today's Hardshells. I have challenged them to give us the evidence that Baptists held this view prior to the rise of the Hardshells in the nineteenth century. It is a novel view.
Mann said:
"How can you love someone so lovely as Christ and not know it?"
Well, amen to that! Such a simple question and yet it is one that Hardshell apologists will want to avoid as best they can. Such questions keep the Hardshells from engaging others in debate for they fear them and have no apologetic defense for their heretical views.
Mann said:
"Could that infant articulate its love for Christ as an infant? Of course not, but the Bible doesn't spend a lot of time on that. And what I want to try to do in the next weeks, if again the Lord leads in this, is to try to stick with the Scriptures."
Hardshells think the case of the infant proves their whole case. But, we have challenged the Hardshells over the years to answer our questions on infant regeneration. Also, I agree with Mann that the regeneration of infants is not to be made the standard as to how God regenerates adults. Mann reflects the thinking of the Particular Baptists who put forth the 1644 and 1689 London Confessions.
Mann said:
"My point in bringing that up, is that extreme forms of conditional time salvation will tend to say, there are many, many people, in fact most people are saved but never know that they're saved."
Bingo! That is the heresy of Hardshellism! This is a new doctrine among the Baptists. It is the Hyper Calvinism in its rankest form. It was not even the view of the first Hardshells of the 1830s, yet today's Hardshells claim succession through these men!
Mann said:
"...it becomes an Arminian system applied to time."
Exactly. But, Hardshells really admit this. They even say that their time salvation, or conversion to Christ and the Gospel, is a works salvation, not of God or by his grace. Even Arminians don't say this. Old Elder John Clark, one of the founding fathers of the "Primitive Baptist" church, said the same thing.
Mann said:
"No, that's not the way the Bible works. But every hard verse I’d come across, I say, “Oh, that goes in the conditional time salvation bucket. That's just for time, it isn't for eternity."
And what does this say about their hermeneutics? Are they not guilty of taking their premises and propositions to the Scriptures and forcing the Scriptures to agree with them? It is clearly eisegesis.
Mann said:
"There is hell. So we can’t come to the position of the Universalists who says, “Everybody’s pretty much going to heaven”. I've known several Primitive Baptists who believe that. Everybody's going to heaven...I've known several Primitive Baptists who wouldn't go quite that far but would say, “I've never met anybody that wasn't a child of God”."
I have often spoken of the quasi universalism of the Hardshells. Their doctrine allows for it, yea, even leads to it. They believe that the elect are many not few. Many are going to Heaven, few are going to Hell.
Mann said:
"And then there's another term you’ll hear from time to time, and that is the term hyper-Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism. And most of the time Primitive Baptists are identified as hyper-Calvinists and I'm sorry that that's the case."
Notice that Mann does not deny that Hardshells are Hyper Calvinists. He only bemoans the fact. But, how could he, unless he has turned away from a denial of duty faith, the universal call of the Gospel, and the necessity of a faith union with Christ for regeneration life.
Mann said:
"Conditional time salvation. Think about some strengths of this doctrine. The doctrine of conditional time salvation rightly understands that not every time you see the word saved or salvation in the Bible is it referring to heaven. It's true. I can prove it to you. Don't think that every time you see the word saved or salvation in the Bible that it's talking about being saved for heaven. It's not. We must rightly divide the word of truth. An example, if you have your Bibles you may want to look at this one. 1 Timothy 2:15 as an example, shows us that there is salvation in time; deliverance in time that really doesn't have eternal implications, so far as I can tell. 1 Timothy 2:15, speaking of the woman who was deceived in the transgression:
"Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing...[now there you go]...if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”
Now to all the women in the congregation who’ve never borne a child, hell is your home. No. That's not what that text is teaching. To all the women in the congregation whose children have not continued in faith and holiness with sobriety, hell is your home. That’s not what that verse is teaching at all. It's simply speaking about the fact that there is a deliverance in the woman's position of responsibility, authority and honor that comes in childbirth. It's a blessing for a woman to be able to bring forth children into the world and influence them in the faith, in holiness, in sobriety, you see. For the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world."
"So there’s a verse that obviously shows the word saved doesn't always mean eternal salvation." Yet she will be saved through childbearing — if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” 1 Timothy 2:15"
I certainly do agree with the idea that the word save, or deliver, does not always mean eternal salvation. No one disagrees with that. But, to deny that these words, in their primary sense, and in general context of Scripture, denotes eternal salvation, is wrong. Further, just because a verse dealing with salvation is ascribed to conditions or means does not mean that the salvation is not eternal.
Further, Mann is wrong to think that I Timothy 2: 15 is not talking about eternal salvation. On this verse Dr. Gill wrote:
Notwithstanding she shall be saved
Not Eve, though no doubt she is saved; since she had a sense of her sin, and shame for it, a revelation of the Messiah to her, and faith in him; see ( Genesis 3:7 Genesis 3:8 Genesis 3:15 ) ( 4:2 ). But rather any woman, particularly such as profess godliness, who shall be saved
in childbearing;
which is to be understood not of a temporal salvation, or being saved through childbearing, through the perilous time, and be delivered out of it; for though this is generally the case, yet not always, nor always the case of good women. Rachel died in childbed: the Jews say: for three transgressions women die in childbearing; because they do not take care of their menstrues, and of the cake of the firstfruits, and of lighting the lamp (when the sabbath approaches). But spiritual and eternal salvation is here meant; not that bearing children is the cause, condition, or means of salvation; for as this is not God's way of salvation, so it confines the salvation of women to childbearing ones; and which must give an uneasy reflection to maidens, and women that never bore any; but rather the meaning is, that good women shall be saved, notwithstanding their bearing and bringing forth children in pain and sorrow, according to the original curse, in (Genesis 3:16) . And so the words administer some comfort to women, in their present situation of subjection and sorrow; though they may be rendered impersonally thus, "notwithstanding there is salvation through the birth of a son": and the sense is, that notwithstanding the fall of man by the means of the woman, yet there is salvation for both men and women, through the birth of Immanuel, the child born, and Son given; at whose birth, the angels sung peace on earth, good will to men; through the true Messiah, the deed of the woman, through the incarnate Saviour, who was made of a woman, there is salvation for lost sinners: he was born of a woman, and came into the world in order to obtain salvation for them; and he has effected it, and it is in him, for all such who apply to him for it; and with it all true believers, men and women, shall be saved through him,
if they continue in faith and charity, and holiness, with sobriety.
The Vulgate Latin version reads in the singular, "if she continues", &c. but the sense is the same; for the "she", or woman, is to be taken in a collective sense, as it is in the context, for many women; even for such as profess faith and godliness. The Syriac and Ethiopic versions render the words, "she shall be saved by her children", if they continue i.e. she shall be saved by bearing of children, and bringing of them up in a religious way; if they, the children, continue as they were brought up; which is a very strange rendering of the words, and is as strange an interpretation of them; and yet is what many have given into, but needs no confutation. The meaning of the words is, that there is salvation through the incarnate Messiah, for all sorts of persons; for all men and women who believe in him, with that faith which works by love, and shows itself in holiness and sobriety; provided that they continue herein. For there are some that profess these things, that have only a temporary faith, and feigned love, and not true holiness; and these fall away, and are not saved; but such who have these graces in truth, as they do, and shall continue in them, so they shall certainly be saved."
Next, Mann said:
"Another you’re familiar with would be 1 Peter 3:21:
"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us…"
All you unbaptized people in the congregation, you're going to hell. Is that what that verse is teaching? No...There is a deliverance for right now, in baptism...So, conditional time salvation has rightly pointed out that we must be very careful not to think that every time we see the word saved that it means the acquisition of eternal life."
But, again, Mann is still not liberated from his Hardshell tendency to restrict verses dealing with salvation to a mere time salvation. Why would he think that Paul or Peter, in the context of talking about eternal salvation, would suddenly use the term in a different sense and context?
The baptism of Noah in the waters of the flood, and the baptism of the Christian in water, are each figures of that salvation brought by Christ, and that is an eternal salvation.
Overall, Mann is to be applauded for his repentance in doctrine and his desiring to see his Hardshell brethren reformed. We can only hope that many Hardshells will see their errors and turn to the truth.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Elder Sylvester Hassell on Translations
Hassell wrote:
"Nowhere in the Bible does God promise to inspire or make infallible translators or transscribers or printers; but the men of God who first wrote the Sciptures were, as they claim, and as is abundantly demonstrated, inspired of God; and He has not allowed these variations of others to affect a single doctrine or practice of His Written Word." (The Gospel Messenger, 1914, page 45 - see here)
It is obvious that Hassell, who lived many years before many of our modern Hardshells became even more cultic in embracing "king James onlyism," did not subscribe to the basic tenets of Hardshell KJV onlyism.
Those today who have embraced the idea that the King James Version is without errors, or is perfect as God is perfect, must believe that God inspired the KJV translators. But, the learned Hassell rejects such a view, as have Hassell's great Baptist forefathers, such as John Gill. But, today's Hardshells in embracing KJV onlyism think they are wiser than their fathers. Hassell did not believe that the KJV was inspired, that it always gave the best translation of the original. Of course, Hassell was right.
"Nowhere in the Bible does God promise to inspire or make infallible translators or transscribers or printers; but the men of God who first wrote the Sciptures were, as they claim, and as is abundantly demonstrated, inspired of God; and He has not allowed these variations of others to affect a single doctrine or practice of His Written Word." (The Gospel Messenger, 1914, page 45 - see here)
It is obvious that Hassell, who lived many years before many of our modern Hardshells became even more cultic in embracing "king James onlyism," did not subscribe to the basic tenets of Hardshell KJV onlyism.
Those today who have embraced the idea that the King James Version is without errors, or is perfect as God is perfect, must believe that God inspired the KJV translators. But, the learned Hassell rejects such a view, as have Hassell's great Baptist forefathers, such as John Gill. But, today's Hardshells in embracing KJV onlyism think they are wiser than their fathers. Hassell did not believe that the KJV was inspired, that it always gave the best translation of the original. Of course, Hassell was right.
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Philippine Brother Confronts Hardshellism
A brother in the Philippines (a place where some Hardshells have carried their cult teaching) wrote a blog post titled "My Encounter with PBs in Antipolo" (SEE HERE). This same brother left the following comment on my blog posting of Chapter 7 - "Time Salvation - A Novel Idea" (SEE HERE):
"I appreciate this BLOG against PB heresy very much. It lessened the time I had to be with them to know what I should before I oppose."
We appreciate this comment very much and lets us again know that our writings are helping some who confront this cult.
On his blog, this brother wrote:
"I attended a conference of Pastors of the Old Line Primitive Baptists in Luzon, and saw their demeanor, beheld their doctrine, and asked them questions."
Boy, would I love to have been there and asked a few questions also! Actually, no Hardshell wants to answer apologetically to such questions!
The brother continued:
"This is to see for myself and hear for myself what they have to say regarding our doctrines, and what they really teach in agreement with each other."
In that encounter, they teach that we Sovereign Grace Landmark Baptists preach a tainted gospel because they insist that all of us do not believe in spirit regeneration."
In other words, because a church doesn't believe in the Hardshell idea of "immediate regeneration" (anti-means, or anti evangelical faith) or "Spirit alone" regeneration, it is not a legitimate church and therefore all it does is to be rejected, including its baptisms. Ironically, the ancestors of the Hardshells, including all the leading founders of the "Old School" or "Primitive" Baptist cult, believed in means, that evangelical faith was necessary for being eternally saved.
What this brother is seeing, though he does not expressly say it, is that the Hardshells are a cult.
The brother continued:
"Because of this tainted gospel, according to them, we are not saved, in a temporal sense (they can not say who really is saved eternally) and because of this we have false authority and therefore we are false churches and have to be rebaptized by their line of churches."
Only those who embrace Hardshellism are members of the church of Christ and enjoy temporal salvation. Again, a cult characteristic.
The brother continued:
"It is good to discern, study, go deep, but when a man or a church would consider churches of God as unchurched, unsaved, based solely on the strictest definitions of doctrine, I believe they are dividing and dissecting the doctrines too much and are forming conclusions which will never end divisions and confusions."
All I can say is "amen"! I thank God that this brother was able by grace and the work of the word and Spirit to see the cult status and heresies of those who boast that they are the "only ones," the Lord's favorites.
The brother continued:
"In my analysis, when American teachers of the PB kind divide and separate from each other, Filipino PBs also follow suit."
He was able to see how the Hardshells are schismatic, strifeful, and full of rivalry. He sees how such actions betray the Spirit of Christ.
The brother continued:
"I must therefore warn our brethren about hearing their teachings. (We also brother at the Old Baptist Blog!) Many are good teachings but some go to the extreme of telling you, you are not in the right church, come to our church and be baptized by us and you would be right with God."
Again, he simply describes the Hardshell spirit and their cult mentality.
One person commented:
"Know their history and you can destroy their foundation."
Boy, is that not the truth?! I have been putting out information on their history for years and all I can say, after all these years, is that no Hardshell has had the courage to step up and give an "apologia" for their beliefs and practices, and deal with their false historical claims.
"I appreciate this BLOG against PB heresy very much. It lessened the time I had to be with them to know what I should before I oppose."
We appreciate this comment very much and lets us again know that our writings are helping some who confront this cult.
On his blog, this brother wrote:
"I attended a conference of Pastors of the Old Line Primitive Baptists in Luzon, and saw their demeanor, beheld their doctrine, and asked them questions."
Boy, would I love to have been there and asked a few questions also! Actually, no Hardshell wants to answer apologetically to such questions!
The brother continued:
"This is to see for myself and hear for myself what they have to say regarding our doctrines, and what they really teach in agreement with each other."
In that encounter, they teach that we Sovereign Grace Landmark Baptists preach a tainted gospel because they insist that all of us do not believe in spirit regeneration."
In other words, because a church doesn't believe in the Hardshell idea of "immediate regeneration" (anti-means, or anti evangelical faith) or "Spirit alone" regeneration, it is not a legitimate church and therefore all it does is to be rejected, including its baptisms. Ironically, the ancestors of the Hardshells, including all the leading founders of the "Old School" or "Primitive" Baptist cult, believed in means, that evangelical faith was necessary for being eternally saved.
What this brother is seeing, though he does not expressly say it, is that the Hardshells are a cult.
The brother continued:
"Because of this tainted gospel, according to them, we are not saved, in a temporal sense (they can not say who really is saved eternally) and because of this we have false authority and therefore we are false churches and have to be rebaptized by their line of churches."
Only those who embrace Hardshellism are members of the church of Christ and enjoy temporal salvation. Again, a cult characteristic.
The brother continued:
"It is good to discern, study, go deep, but when a man or a church would consider churches of God as unchurched, unsaved, based solely on the strictest definitions of doctrine, I believe they are dividing and dissecting the doctrines too much and are forming conclusions which will never end divisions and confusions."
All I can say is "amen"! I thank God that this brother was able by grace and the work of the word and Spirit to see the cult status and heresies of those who boast that they are the "only ones," the Lord's favorites.
The brother continued:
"In my analysis, when American teachers of the PB kind divide and separate from each other, Filipino PBs also follow suit."
He was able to see how the Hardshells are schismatic, strifeful, and full of rivalry. He sees how such actions betray the Spirit of Christ.
The brother continued:
"I must therefore warn our brethren about hearing their teachings. (We also brother at the Old Baptist Blog!) Many are good teachings but some go to the extreme of telling you, you are not in the right church, come to our church and be baptized by us and you would be right with God."
Again, he simply describes the Hardshell spirit and their cult mentality.
One person commented:
"Know their history and you can destroy their foundation."
Boy, is that not the truth?! I have been putting out information on their history for years and all I can say, after all these years, is that no Hardshell has had the courage to step up and give an "apologia" for their beliefs and practices, and deal with their false historical claims.
Friday, September 19, 2014
Hardshell Antinomianism IV
Chapter 178
It has been shown, or will be shown, that
1. Hardshells have historically been characterized as antinomian.
2. Hardshells admit to being in some sense antinomian.
3. Hardshells are antinomian in denying that it is the duty of all to believe the word of God.
4. Hardshells are antinomian as a result of their Pelagianism.
5. Hardshells are antinomian as a result of their Hyper-Calvinism.
6. Hardshells are antinomian for denying that men are responsible for their soul's destiny.
7. Hardshells are antinomian for denying that all disciples are under obligation to fulfill the Great Commission.
9. Hardshells are antinomian in avowing "non-lordship salvation."
10. Hardshells are antinomian in denying that perseverance and spiritual growth (or progressive sanctification) are necessary works of God, and what certainly follows a genuine new birth.
11. Hardshells are antinomian for denying that all men are duty bound to repent and seek God.
12. Hardshells are antinomian in practice, being known as "anti-effort" or "do-nothings."
Questions For Hardshells
1. Is every believer under obligation to tell others the good news? If it is, and you tell believers that they are not under such a duty, then are you not antinomian?
2. Is it the duty of all men to "repent" and "seek God"? If it is, and you tell others that there is no such duty binding on them, then are you not antinomian?
3. If professing Christians are commanded to persevere in order to be finally saved, and you tell them they are not under any such obligation, then are you not antinomian?
4. Is it the duty of all men to honor the Son of God?
5. Is it sin to not fear God, or seek God, or love God, or believe and obey God?
Hardshell Antinomianism Excuses Sin
How? In denying that men are under a moral duty to fear, seek, love, believe, or obey God, they cannot condemn unregenerate men for not doing so. Thus, such things are not sins for the unregenerate. That is the conclusion that they must face. The only way for them to free themselves of such an absurd falsehood is to repent of their error and quit denying "duty faith and repentance" as they do today.
Is It The Duty Of All To Honor The Son?
Jesus said:
"The Father hath committed all judgment unto the Son, that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him." (John 5:23)
Notice "all men" are duty bound to "honor the Son." But, how can one honor Christ in rejecting him? Is not rejecting Christ and his word a dishonoring of him? I perceive that this is but another instance where the average Hardshell will not be willing to face the music. In teaching that all men are not under duty to honor the Son, by believing on him, they are antinomian.
All men are commanded to:
1. Love God with the heart
2. Worship God (includes praise and prayer)
3. Seek God
4. Please God
5. Serve and obey God
6. Fear God
7. Believe God
8. Turn to God in repentance
If we did not have any Scriptures that plainly commanded all men to repent, believe, and confess, there would still be support for the fact because it is a necessary deduction from the fact that all are commanded to love God, fear God, honor God, etc. Does not the command to love God necessarily involve believing God?
Is It Sin? - Are They Responsible?
"What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one...There is no fear of God before their eyes." (Rom. 3: 9-12, 18)
This is a well known and oft cited passage of the Hardshells. They use it to prove "total depravity," and once they prove this, they then use this to argue that since men cannot believe, repent, or do any spiritually good thing, therefore such cannot be necessary for regeneration or final salvation. They argue that such things as being righteous, understanding, seeking God, doing good, and fearing God, cannot possibly be requirements for salvation since men cannot do them in their lost condition. I have responded to this argumentation in my series on "Hardshell Proof Texts." For instance, see this chapter HERE. But, my point here is to argue that this passage destroys their antinomianism. Here's how.
Notice that Paul's language makes it clear that he views being unrighteous as sin, and if it is sin (see I John 5: 17 - "all unrighteousness is sin"), then men must be under duty to be righteous. Further, if not understanding is sin, then it is obligatory on men to understand, and their inability is no excuse nor proves that they are not under obligation to understand. The same could be said about seeking God, fearing God, and doing good. Yes, men are not morally able to do this apart from God's grace, but they are still under obligation to do so, and their not doing so is a violation of moral law.
Notice how Paul seeks to prove that all men are "under sin," or "under law," that is, under obligation and duty, to be righteous, to love, fear, and seek God, and to believe all he has revealed, and to turn to him. In verse 19, Paul gives this summation:
"Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."
Does not being "under law" mean that the law directs them to love God, fear God, trust God, obey God, etc.? And the fact that none do these things (apart from God's grace and power) renders "all the world" to be "guilty." And, what are they guilty of if it does not include the sins specifically mentioned, such as not being righteous, not doing good, not seeking and fearing God, etc.? But, once a Hardshell admits that such things are sins, then he must admit that men are obligated to such things. It is a very difficult dilemma for them.
Is Unbelief Sin?
Paul, in describing his lost condition, prior to being regenerated and converted on the Damascus road, said that he sinned through "ignorance and unbelief" (I Tim. 1: 13) Was his ignorance and unbelief sin? If so, then why say that Paul was under no moral duty to be wise and believing while unregenerate? Is unbelief not sin? Is sin not the "transgression of the law"? (I John 3: 4)
Here is more proof that unbelief, by "the world," is sin.
"And when he (the Comforter) is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me" (John 16: 9)
Notice that the Holy Spirit will "reprove," that is, "convict" or "convince," men, yea, "the world," "of sin." And this sin specifically involves the fact that "they believe not on me." Is it sin for the world, or for any man, to "believe not"? If Hardshells say yes, then they cannot consistently affirm that men are not morally obligated to believe. If they say no, then they are antinomian and cannot condemn men for their unbelief.
Consider also these words of the Apostle John:
"...he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son." (I John 5: 10)
Is this a warning to only professing Christians? To only those who are born again? Is it not rather a warning to all men, including the unregenerate? If a Christian believes not, it is sin and involves making God a liar. But, if an unregenerate man believes not, it is not sin, according to those who deny duty faith. Consider also these verses:
"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3: 18)
"...but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16: 16)
"That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (II Thess. 2: 12)
These verse teach that men are now, and will be in the future, "condemned" for their unbelief. Granted, this is not the sole reason for their condemnation, that is, is not their only sin. But, it does show that unbelief is sin, and is condemned, and this being so, it must be because men are duty bound and responsible for their failure to believe.
Universal Evangelical Responsibility
These verses are integral to a debate over the question of whether unregenerate men are responsible to repent, believe the Gospel, and seek God and salvation.
"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." (Acts 17: 26-31
From these verses it is obvious that Paul, in proclaiming the Gospel, informed all who heard him that God "commands" them to "repent" and to "seek the Lord." Further, such repentance necessarily involves belief. It is also obvious that such a command is given with a view to being judged on God's appointed day to judge all the world.
There is no way to limit the stated evangelical commands to merely the regenerate, for it is clear that all men are intended. Further, men are not only commanded to seek God, but to "feel after him" and to actually "find" him. What these verses teach are precisely what is denied by today's Hardshell antinomians.
Hardshells are often denying that the Gospel is to be preached "to" all men with a view to their salvation. All that God has done, and is doing in sending out Gospel messengers, is all for the purpose of bringing men to "find" God, and what is this but a description of salvation? Notice also these words:
"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." (Rev. 14: 6-7)
To whom is the "everlasting gospel" to be preached? And, for what purpose? What does the text say? It is to be preached "unto them that dwell on the earth." How can this be limited to the elect? It is be preached to "every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people." This is exactly what we saw was affirmed in Acts 17. But, Hardshells deny that the Gospel is intended to be preached to all men and this makes them antinomian.
(as a side note: notice that the Gospel is to be preached to "every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people." In Rev. 5: 9 it is said that the "redeemed" are "out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." Hardshells argue that this group cannot possibly be limited to those who hear the Gospel, and yet the same group does hear the Gospel in Rev. 14)
Does the preached Gospel give forth any commands to all? Is the command not to "Fear God"? Is it not to "give glory to him"? But, how can this be obeyed by disbelief of what God reveals? Further, men are told, in the preaching, that this is all said with a view to coming judgment, just as in Paul's sermon to the Athenian pagans. All men are commanded to "fear" God, but not to believe God?
Man's Moral Responsibility
"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man." (Ecc. 12: 13)
"The whole duty of man" does not exclude his unbelief, or impenitence, or failure to save himself.
It has been shown, or will be shown, that
1. Hardshells have historically been characterized as antinomian.
2. Hardshells admit to being in some sense antinomian.
3. Hardshells are antinomian in denying that it is the duty of all to believe the word of God.
4. Hardshells are antinomian as a result of their Pelagianism.
5. Hardshells are antinomian as a result of their Hyper-Calvinism.
6. Hardshells are antinomian for denying that men are responsible for their soul's destiny.
7. Hardshells are antinomian for denying that all disciples are under obligation to fulfill the Great Commission.
9. Hardshells are antinomian in avowing "non-lordship salvation."
10. Hardshells are antinomian in denying that perseverance and spiritual growth (or progressive sanctification) are necessary works of God, and what certainly follows a genuine new birth.
11. Hardshells are antinomian for denying that all men are duty bound to repent and seek God.
12. Hardshells are antinomian in practice, being known as "anti-effort" or "do-nothings."
Questions For Hardshells
1. Is every believer under obligation to tell others the good news? If it is, and you tell believers that they are not under such a duty, then are you not antinomian?
2. Is it the duty of all men to "repent" and "seek God"? If it is, and you tell others that there is no such duty binding on them, then are you not antinomian?
3. If professing Christians are commanded to persevere in order to be finally saved, and you tell them they are not under any such obligation, then are you not antinomian?
4. Is it the duty of all men to honor the Son of God?
5. Is it sin to not fear God, or seek God, or love God, or believe and obey God?
Hardshell Antinomianism Excuses Sin
How? In denying that men are under a moral duty to fear, seek, love, believe, or obey God, they cannot condemn unregenerate men for not doing so. Thus, such things are not sins for the unregenerate. That is the conclusion that they must face. The only way for them to free themselves of such an absurd falsehood is to repent of their error and quit denying "duty faith and repentance" as they do today.
Is It The Duty Of All To Honor The Son?
Jesus said:
"The Father hath committed all judgment unto the Son, that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him." (John 5:23)
Notice "all men" are duty bound to "honor the Son." But, how can one honor Christ in rejecting him? Is not rejecting Christ and his word a dishonoring of him? I perceive that this is but another instance where the average Hardshell will not be willing to face the music. In teaching that all men are not under duty to honor the Son, by believing on him, they are antinomian.
All men are commanded to:
1. Love God with the heart
2. Worship God (includes praise and prayer)
3. Seek God
4. Please God
5. Serve and obey God
6. Fear God
7. Believe God
8. Turn to God in repentance
If we did not have any Scriptures that plainly commanded all men to repent, believe, and confess, there would still be support for the fact because it is a necessary deduction from the fact that all are commanded to love God, fear God, honor God, etc. Does not the command to love God necessarily involve believing God?
Is It Sin? - Are They Responsible?
"What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one...There is no fear of God before their eyes." (Rom. 3: 9-12, 18)
This is a well known and oft cited passage of the Hardshells. They use it to prove "total depravity," and once they prove this, they then use this to argue that since men cannot believe, repent, or do any spiritually good thing, therefore such cannot be necessary for regeneration or final salvation. They argue that such things as being righteous, understanding, seeking God, doing good, and fearing God, cannot possibly be requirements for salvation since men cannot do them in their lost condition. I have responded to this argumentation in my series on "Hardshell Proof Texts." For instance, see this chapter HERE. But, my point here is to argue that this passage destroys their antinomianism. Here's how.
Notice that Paul's language makes it clear that he views being unrighteous as sin, and if it is sin (see I John 5: 17 - "all unrighteousness is sin"), then men must be under duty to be righteous. Further, if not understanding is sin, then it is obligatory on men to understand, and their inability is no excuse nor proves that they are not under obligation to understand. The same could be said about seeking God, fearing God, and doing good. Yes, men are not morally able to do this apart from God's grace, but they are still under obligation to do so, and their not doing so is a violation of moral law.
Notice how Paul seeks to prove that all men are "under sin," or "under law," that is, under obligation and duty, to be righteous, to love, fear, and seek God, and to believe all he has revealed, and to turn to him. In verse 19, Paul gives this summation:
"Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."
Does not being "under law" mean that the law directs them to love God, fear God, trust God, obey God, etc.? And the fact that none do these things (apart from God's grace and power) renders "all the world" to be "guilty." And, what are they guilty of if it does not include the sins specifically mentioned, such as not being righteous, not doing good, not seeking and fearing God, etc.? But, once a Hardshell admits that such things are sins, then he must admit that men are obligated to such things. It is a very difficult dilemma for them.
Is Unbelief Sin?
Paul, in describing his lost condition, prior to being regenerated and converted on the Damascus road, said that he sinned through "ignorance and unbelief" (I Tim. 1: 13) Was his ignorance and unbelief sin? If so, then why say that Paul was under no moral duty to be wise and believing while unregenerate? Is unbelief not sin? Is sin not the "transgression of the law"? (I John 3: 4)
Here is more proof that unbelief, by "the world," is sin.
"And when he (the Comforter) is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me" (John 16: 9)
Notice that the Holy Spirit will "reprove," that is, "convict" or "convince," men, yea, "the world," "of sin." And this sin specifically involves the fact that "they believe not on me." Is it sin for the world, or for any man, to "believe not"? If Hardshells say yes, then they cannot consistently affirm that men are not morally obligated to believe. If they say no, then they are antinomian and cannot condemn men for their unbelief.
Consider also these words of the Apostle John:
"...he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son." (I John 5: 10)
Is this a warning to only professing Christians? To only those who are born again? Is it not rather a warning to all men, including the unregenerate? If a Christian believes not, it is sin and involves making God a liar. But, if an unregenerate man believes not, it is not sin, according to those who deny duty faith. Consider also these verses:
"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3: 18)
"...but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16: 16)
"That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (II Thess. 2: 12)
These verse teach that men are now, and will be in the future, "condemned" for their unbelief. Granted, this is not the sole reason for their condemnation, that is, is not their only sin. But, it does show that unbelief is sin, and is condemned, and this being so, it must be because men are duty bound and responsible for their failure to believe.
Universal Evangelical Responsibility
These verses are integral to a debate over the question of whether unregenerate men are responsible to repent, believe the Gospel, and seek God and salvation.
"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." (Acts 17: 26-31
From these verses it is obvious that Paul, in proclaiming the Gospel, informed all who heard him that God "commands" them to "repent" and to "seek the Lord." Further, such repentance necessarily involves belief. It is also obvious that such a command is given with a view to being judged on God's appointed day to judge all the world.
There is no way to limit the stated evangelical commands to merely the regenerate, for it is clear that all men are intended. Further, men are not only commanded to seek God, but to "feel after him" and to actually "find" him. What these verses teach are precisely what is denied by today's Hardshell antinomians.
Hardshells are often denying that the Gospel is to be preached "to" all men with a view to their salvation. All that God has done, and is doing in sending out Gospel messengers, is all for the purpose of bringing men to "find" God, and what is this but a description of salvation? Notice also these words:
"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." (Rev. 14: 6-7)
To whom is the "everlasting gospel" to be preached? And, for what purpose? What does the text say? It is to be preached "unto them that dwell on the earth." How can this be limited to the elect? It is be preached to "every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people." This is exactly what we saw was affirmed in Acts 17. But, Hardshells deny that the Gospel is intended to be preached to all men and this makes them antinomian.
(as a side note: notice that the Gospel is to be preached to "every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people." In Rev. 5: 9 it is said that the "redeemed" are "out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." Hardshells argue that this group cannot possibly be limited to those who hear the Gospel, and yet the same group does hear the Gospel in Rev. 14)
Does the preached Gospel give forth any commands to all? Is the command not to "Fear God"? Is it not to "give glory to him"? But, how can this be obeyed by disbelief of what God reveals? Further, men are told, in the preaching, that this is all said with a view to coming judgment, just as in Paul's sermon to the Athenian pagans. All men are commanded to "fear" God, but not to believe God?
Man's Moral Responsibility
"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man." (Ecc. 12: 13)
"The whole duty of man" does not exclude his unbelief, or impenitence, or failure to save himself.
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Hardshell Antinomianism III
Chapter 177
One Hardshell apologist, with whom brother Fralick and I have engaged, wrote:
"Primitive Baptists are no strangers to the accusation of antinomianism. It is because we preach the same gospel that Paul preached." (see here)
Notice that this writer acknowledges the fact that the Hardshells have historically been labeled as "antinomian." Second, this Hardshell sees such an accusation as proof that the Hardshells preach the same soteriological truth as Paul, who was for the same reason also accused of being antinomian.
The apostle Paul taught that the law could not justify. None are saved by keeping the law, by the deeds of the law. Some did indeed perceive that such a teaching was antinomian, and the apostle was quick to answer.
"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." (Rom. 3: 31)
"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (8: 3-4)
Though none are saved by the law, nevertheless, the law is fulfilled in those who walk after the Spirit. Being saved does not make one lawless. Faith makes obedience to the law, or pleasing God, possible, and faith is the essence of the life of regeneration. God, in regeneration, has said that he "will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts." (Jer. 31:33, Heb. 10: 16)
Further, sanctification, which is progressive, is the work of God in and after regeneration and such sanctification involves obedience to the stated will of God, or to his commands (law). Faith that is dead, which does not have works of love and obedience to the word and will of God, will save no one now or in the end. But, today's Hardshells have generally rejected the faith of their fathers in denying the truth of perseverance, and of the certain and successful work of sanctification in the life of the believer. Thus, they hold to what is called "non-Lordship antinomianism."
Non-Lordship Antinomianism
The Hardshells err in thinking that the making of faith and repentance to be conditions and requirements for salvation is equivalent to making salvation to be by the law. They reason that if the sinner must "do" anything for salvation, then salvation is not by grace but by works of law. But, such reasoning is not in agreement with the teaching of the Bible.
By such reasoning one can conclude that faith, repentance, confession, perseverance, etc., are not necessary for salvation. Those who do teach that such things are necessary for salvation are teaching salvation by law. Paul, however, did not believe that trust in Christ was equivalent to a work of the law. He testified: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (Rom. 3: 28) If Paul followed Hardshell reasoning he would say "by faith" equals "by the law."
In "The Gospel According to the Apostles" John MacArthur discusses "non-Lordship Antinomianism."
"Contemporary no-lordship doctrine is nothing but latter-day antinomianism....It is important to understand the term antinomianism in its theological sense."
Hardshells, in holding to no-lordship teaching, with its denial of the necessity of perseverance and progressive sanctification for final salvation, are antinomian.
MacArthur wrote:
"To say someone is antinomian is not necessarily to say that person spurns holiness or condones ungodliness. Most antinomians vigorously appeal for Christians to walk in a manner worthy of their calling; but at the same time they minimize the relationship between obedience and faith. Antinomians typically believe Christians SHOULD yield to the lordship of Christ; they just do not believe surrender is a binding requirement in the gosple call to faith. Antinomians do not necessarily despise the law of God; they simply believe it is irrelevant to saving faith. They suggest that obedience to the righteous principles of the law might not become a pattern in the Christian's life (cf. Rom. 8: 4; 10": 4). In short, antinomianism is the belief that allows for justification without sanctification."
Today's Hardshells are often trying to prove that many lukewarm believers in the Bible, people who did not grow and persevere, were nevertheless justified and saved.
MacArthur wrote:
"Antinomianism makes obedience elective. While most antinomians strongly counsel Christians to obey (and even urge them to obey), they do not believe obedience is a necessary consequence of true faith."
Hardshells make faith, repentance, and personal union with Christ, conversion, progressive sanctification, perseverance, etc., all optional, not at all necessary to be finally and eternally saved. Thus they are antinomian.
MacArthur wrote:
"Clearly, no-lordship theology DOES make obedience optional. And that is what makes no-lordship theology antinomian." He also said: "No-lordship antinomianism: Those who hold this view make sanctification an optional aspect of the believer's experience."
He could just as well have said "Hardshell theology DOES make obedience optional."
MacArthur wrote:
"Antinomians minimize sanctification or even render it noncumpulsory. Antinomian discussions of salvation typically omit any consideration of practical holiness."
Again, this is the view of today's Hardshells.
MacArthur wrote:
"No-lordship theology is classic antnomiansim. There is no way around that fact."
And, again we can that "Hardshellism is classic antinomianism."
MacArthur wrote the following under the sub heading "What is Sanctification?"
"Sanctification is the continuous operation of the Holy Spirit in believers, making us holy by conforming our character, affections, and behavior to the image of Christ. Justification is a one-time EVENT; sanctification is an ongoing PROCESS. Justification frees us from the GUILT of sin, sanctification from the POLLUTION of sin. As we are seeing, one is as much a necessary part of God's saving work as the other."
But, Hardshells have rejected the historic teaching of the Old Baptists in refusing to make progressive sanctification a "necessary part of God's saving work."
One Hardshell apologist, with whom brother Fralick and I have engaged, wrote:
"Primitive Baptists are no strangers to the accusation of antinomianism. It is because we preach the same gospel that Paul preached." (see here)
Notice that this writer acknowledges the fact that the Hardshells have historically been labeled as "antinomian." Second, this Hardshell sees such an accusation as proof that the Hardshells preach the same soteriological truth as Paul, who was for the same reason also accused of being antinomian.
The apostle Paul taught that the law could not justify. None are saved by keeping the law, by the deeds of the law. Some did indeed perceive that such a teaching was antinomian, and the apostle was quick to answer.
"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." (Rom. 3: 31)
"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (8: 3-4)
Though none are saved by the law, nevertheless, the law is fulfilled in those who walk after the Spirit. Being saved does not make one lawless. Faith makes obedience to the law, or pleasing God, possible, and faith is the essence of the life of regeneration. God, in regeneration, has said that he "will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts." (Jer. 31:33, Heb. 10: 16)
Further, sanctification, which is progressive, is the work of God in and after regeneration and such sanctification involves obedience to the stated will of God, or to his commands (law). Faith that is dead, which does not have works of love and obedience to the word and will of God, will save no one now or in the end. But, today's Hardshells have generally rejected the faith of their fathers in denying the truth of perseverance, and of the certain and successful work of sanctification in the life of the believer. Thus, they hold to what is called "non-Lordship antinomianism."
Non-Lordship Antinomianism
The Hardshells err in thinking that the making of faith and repentance to be conditions and requirements for salvation is equivalent to making salvation to be by the law. They reason that if the sinner must "do" anything for salvation, then salvation is not by grace but by works of law. But, such reasoning is not in agreement with the teaching of the Bible.
By such reasoning one can conclude that faith, repentance, confession, perseverance, etc., are not necessary for salvation. Those who do teach that such things are necessary for salvation are teaching salvation by law. Paul, however, did not believe that trust in Christ was equivalent to a work of the law. He testified: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (Rom. 3: 28) If Paul followed Hardshell reasoning he would say "by faith" equals "by the law."
In "The Gospel According to the Apostles" John MacArthur discusses "non-Lordship Antinomianism."
"Contemporary no-lordship doctrine is nothing but latter-day antinomianism....It is important to understand the term antinomianism in its theological sense."
Hardshells, in holding to no-lordship teaching, with its denial of the necessity of perseverance and progressive sanctification for final salvation, are antinomian.
MacArthur wrote:
"To say someone is antinomian is not necessarily to say that person spurns holiness or condones ungodliness. Most antinomians vigorously appeal for Christians to walk in a manner worthy of their calling; but at the same time they minimize the relationship between obedience and faith. Antinomians typically believe Christians SHOULD yield to the lordship of Christ; they just do not believe surrender is a binding requirement in the gosple call to faith. Antinomians do not necessarily despise the law of God; they simply believe it is irrelevant to saving faith. They suggest that obedience to the righteous principles of the law might not become a pattern in the Christian's life (cf. Rom. 8: 4; 10": 4). In short, antinomianism is the belief that allows for justification without sanctification."
Today's Hardshells are often trying to prove that many lukewarm believers in the Bible, people who did not grow and persevere, were nevertheless justified and saved.
MacArthur wrote:
"Antinomianism makes obedience elective. While most antinomians strongly counsel Christians to obey (and even urge them to obey), they do not believe obedience is a necessary consequence of true faith."
Hardshells make faith, repentance, and personal union with Christ, conversion, progressive sanctification, perseverance, etc., all optional, not at all necessary to be finally and eternally saved. Thus they are antinomian.
MacArthur wrote:
"Clearly, no-lordship theology DOES make obedience optional. And that is what makes no-lordship theology antinomian." He also said: "No-lordship antinomianism: Those who hold this view make sanctification an optional aspect of the believer's experience."
He could just as well have said "Hardshell theology DOES make obedience optional."
MacArthur wrote:
"Antinomians minimize sanctification or even render it noncumpulsory. Antinomian discussions of salvation typically omit any consideration of practical holiness."
Again, this is the view of today's Hardshells.
MacArthur wrote:
"No-lordship theology is classic antnomiansim. There is no way around that fact."
And, again we can that "Hardshellism is classic antinomianism."
MacArthur wrote the following under the sub heading "What is Sanctification?"
"Sanctification is the continuous operation of the Holy Spirit in believers, making us holy by conforming our character, affections, and behavior to the image of Christ. Justification is a one-time EVENT; sanctification is an ongoing PROCESS. Justification frees us from the GUILT of sin, sanctification from the POLLUTION of sin. As we are seeing, one is as much a necessary part of God's saving work as the other."
But, Hardshells have rejected the historic teaching of the Old Baptists in refusing to make progressive sanctification a "necessary part of God's saving work."
My Chapter on "Time Salvation"
I have about 177 chapters written in my book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult." Chapter 7 "Time Salvation - A Novel Idea" (see here) should be a must read for my Hardshell brethren. Let me cite some from the beginning of that chapter.
"Secrecy" of some sort is a characteristic of a cult. Christians have their "secrets" (Psa. 25:14; Prov. 3:32), but the distinctive secrets of the Hardshell cult are not the secrets of God or of His kingdom.
Basically, religious secrets involve "special revelation" that the cult, and it alone, possesses. Christians have "special revelation"; for instance, the knowledge of Christ as being the Son of God (Matt. 16:16, 17). But the claimed "special revelation" of the Hardshell is nothing but the blindness of a heresy.
"Time Salvation"
Their primary "secret" revelation concerns the doctrine they call "Time Salvation." You have to be trained in Hardshell "dogma" to know all that the words convey. What the Hardshells believe the terminology, "Time Salvation," represents would never cross the average Bible reader's mind. You have to hear it from a Hardshell to be introduced to and informed in the meaning of its theological “jargon.”
I encourage all Hardshells to read this chapter.
"Secrecy" of some sort is a characteristic of a cult. Christians have their "secrets" (Psa. 25:14; Prov. 3:32), but the distinctive secrets of the Hardshell cult are not the secrets of God or of His kingdom.
Basically, religious secrets involve "special revelation" that the cult, and it alone, possesses. Christians have "special revelation"; for instance, the knowledge of Christ as being the Son of God (Matt. 16:16, 17). But the claimed "special revelation" of the Hardshell is nothing but the blindness of a heresy.
"Time Salvation"
Their primary "secret" revelation concerns the doctrine they call "Time Salvation." You have to be trained in Hardshell "dogma" to know all that the words convey. What the Hardshells believe the terminology, "Time Salvation," represents would never cross the average Bible reader's mind. You have to hear it from a Hardshell to be introduced to and informed in the meaning of its theological “jargon.”
I encourage all Hardshells to read this chapter.
Saturday, September 13, 2014
Hardshell Antinomianism II
Chapter 176
In an article titled "ARE WE ANTINOMIANS?" (see here) Hardshell J.F. Poole, wrote the following in "The Remnant" (May - June 1988)
"Antinomianism! Yes; if by that expression we are condemned for opposing the witchcraft of conditionalism, duty faith, and assorted other heresies crept in unawares about us, then we are indeed Antinomians: we are against all such laws."
From these words it is obvious that a denial that evangelical faith is a condition of salvation is a form of antinomianism, and in this respects, by their own admission, Hardshells are antinomian. Also, these words affirm that a denial of "duty faith" is a form of antinomianism, and again the Hardshells plead guilty to being antinomian. "We are indeed Antinomians" says Poole in regard to these things.
Samuel Trott, one of the first leaders in the anti-mission movement, and a founding father of the "Primitive Baptist" denomination, gave the general belief of the first Hardshells on the subject of "duty faith," In an article in the "Signs of the Times" periodical for 1839, titled "Duty Faith & Repentance. An enquiry concerning the duty of the unregenerate to believe, repent or pray," (see here) Trott wrote: (emphasis mine)
"On the other hand, I understand the Old School doctrine to be, that it is the duty of all rational beings to believe all God has spoken in the scriptures as they have access to them directly or indirectly, and to believe the testimony of the works of creation and providence, where the scriptures have not come. To disbelieve the record, which God hath given of His Son, is to make God a liar (I John 5:10;) and surely no person can do this and be guiltless. The obligation man is under thus to believe God, arises, not from any demand which the gospel as such peculiarly makes upon him, but from the nature and fitness of things, and from what God is. It is a law of our creation."
Thus, it is evident that once again we have today's Hardshells removed from the truth, from what is historically "Old Baptist" teaching on this point. Trott is very clear in stating that the unregenerate are under duty to believe the Scriptures and the Gospel. It is true that Trott, in this article, seems to back peddle from this statement, and to contradict himself, but still the statement is clearly made that all men are duty bound to believe.
Trott also wrote:
"The "duty of the unregenerate to repent," comes next under consideration."
"My own mind I confess has been much difficulted to draw a clear line of distinction between the different relations and senses in which the idea of repentance, is presented to our view in the scriptures, and between the idea of its being a duty incumbent on men at large, and that of its being a free gospel blessing bestowed by the exalted Saviour on the spiritual Israel of God."
Trott struggled with the same issue that Hyper Calvinists have traditionally. How can faith and repentance be both commanded and a gift. Today's Hardshells, sadly, think that they cannot be both, that for something to be commanded excludes it from being God's gift, and vise versa. They do not understand, for instance, the words of Augustine:
"O Lord, command what you will and give what you command."
I have on previous occasions written against the Hardshell notion that men are not commanded to become regenerate. See "Make You A New Heart". It seems the Hardshells would have sided with Pelagius rather than Augustine.
It is good that Trott and the first Hardshells did not reject in toto the truth of duty faith and repentance, as do today's Hardshells.
Trott continued:
"On the other hand I have never been able to receive in all points as correct, the explanations which Doctor Gill and other sound brethren have given of it. There will be found some difference between the explanation of this subject which I have to give, and that given by Brother Beebe in No.14, more particularly in relation to John's preaching repentance; this difference I trust is not such as to break any bones."
Regarding these words, notice how Trott, unlike later Hardshells, thought John Gill to be sound. Of course, I have already shown how Trott believed that conversion, by the Gospel, was the same as being born again, which is the view of Dr. Gill.
Notice also how Trott differs somewhat from editor Beebe on the subject. I have already shown in previous writings how Beebe imbibed the Pelagian premise that "a command implies ability to obey the command." He stated that to call upon sinners to believe and repent implied in them an ability to do so. Trott does not seem to agree with Beebe on this. As I have also shown elsewhere, most Hardshells have not understood that the natural man lacks moral ability, not physical ability.
Trott wrote:
"If on the other hand we suppose that the unregenerate are under no obligations to repent, we must consider them as justifiable in continuing on in their sins of whatever grade they may be. This I think none will admit; for there certainly are instances in the scriptures of unregenerated persons being exhorted or admonished to repent. The query then arises, Whence does this obligation to repent arise?"
Here, Trott demolishes the anti duty faith brethren's argumentation. He states what ought to be obvious to anyone with a reasonable unbiased mind. If it is not the duty of men to believe, repent, convert, or to have circumcised hearts, or to be saved, then their not doing these things cannot be "sin." They cannot be condemned for not doing these things. Trott confesses that this is untenable and a deduction that his brethren should be willing to acknowledge and which should keep them from denying duty faith, etc.
A.W. Pink wrote (1936) the following under the title of "Duty-Faith":
"It is the bounden duty of all who hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ, otherwise their rejection of Him would be no sin. Many of our readers will be surprised to hear that this self-evident truth is denied by some who are, otherwise, sound in the Faith. They reason that it is "inconsistent" to call upon the spiritually dead to perform spiritual duties."
Any Hardshell today who denies duty faith ought to come forward and answer the charge that their denial forces them to excuse men for their rejection of the truth and of Christ.
"Whence does this obligation to repent arise?" Trott will answer by showing how he understands that commands do not imply ability, and by showing how he sees that man's inability is not physical, but moral.
Trott wrote:
"This law of Ten Commands, in its spirituality and as addressed to all, both Jews and Gentiles, I understand was given expressly to teach repentance. I do not say, to show that repentance was a part of the original requisition of the law, and a part of the righteousness it required; but that it is addressed to man as depraved and condemned, to call him off from self-confidence, and to repentance. I feel myself fully supported in this by the declarations of scripture, that the law was added by reason of transgression; entered that the offence might abound, &c.; and especially by this text, "What things soever the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law" - for what? - "that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God." What is this but self-condemnation before God, that is designed to be accomplished by the declaration of the law? And what is such self-condemnation, but repentance toward God? It is then I think clear, that it is the law of Ten Commandments in its spirituality that calls for repentance."
Notice how Trott recognizes how the law is spiritual, a fact not generally understood by today's Hardshells. Notice also how Trott correctly states that the law was not only a duty, but intended to produce repentance, or as Paul says, to be a schoolmaster to bring one to faith in Christ.
Trott was closer to the truth on this important issue than later Hardshells have been. Let us hope that today's Hardshells will repent of their error on this important point of doctrine.
In an article titled "ARE WE ANTINOMIANS?" (see here) Hardshell J.F. Poole, wrote the following in "The Remnant" (May - June 1988)
"Antinomianism! Yes; if by that expression we are condemned for opposing the witchcraft of conditionalism, duty faith, and assorted other heresies crept in unawares about us, then we are indeed Antinomians: we are against all such laws."
From these words it is obvious that a denial that evangelical faith is a condition of salvation is a form of antinomianism, and in this respects, by their own admission, Hardshells are antinomian. Also, these words affirm that a denial of "duty faith" is a form of antinomianism, and again the Hardshells plead guilty to being antinomian. "We are indeed Antinomians" says Poole in regard to these things.
Samuel Trott, one of the first leaders in the anti-mission movement, and a founding father of the "Primitive Baptist" denomination, gave the general belief of the first Hardshells on the subject of "duty faith," In an article in the "Signs of the Times" periodical for 1839, titled "Duty Faith & Repentance. An enquiry concerning the duty of the unregenerate to believe, repent or pray," (see here) Trott wrote: (emphasis mine)
"On the other hand, I understand the Old School doctrine to be, that it is the duty of all rational beings to believe all God has spoken in the scriptures as they have access to them directly or indirectly, and to believe the testimony of the works of creation and providence, where the scriptures have not come. To disbelieve the record, which God hath given of His Son, is to make God a liar (I John 5:10;) and surely no person can do this and be guiltless. The obligation man is under thus to believe God, arises, not from any demand which the gospel as such peculiarly makes upon him, but from the nature and fitness of things, and from what God is. It is a law of our creation."
Thus, it is evident that once again we have today's Hardshells removed from the truth, from what is historically "Old Baptist" teaching on this point. Trott is very clear in stating that the unregenerate are under duty to believe the Scriptures and the Gospel. It is true that Trott, in this article, seems to back peddle from this statement, and to contradict himself, but still the statement is clearly made that all men are duty bound to believe.
Trott also wrote:
"The "duty of the unregenerate to repent," comes next under consideration."
"My own mind I confess has been much difficulted to draw a clear line of distinction between the different relations and senses in which the idea of repentance, is presented to our view in the scriptures, and between the idea of its being a duty incumbent on men at large, and that of its being a free gospel blessing bestowed by the exalted Saviour on the spiritual Israel of God."
Trott struggled with the same issue that Hyper Calvinists have traditionally. How can faith and repentance be both commanded and a gift. Today's Hardshells, sadly, think that they cannot be both, that for something to be commanded excludes it from being God's gift, and vise versa. They do not understand, for instance, the words of Augustine:
"O Lord, command what you will and give what you command."
I have on previous occasions written against the Hardshell notion that men are not commanded to become regenerate. See "Make You A New Heart". It seems the Hardshells would have sided with Pelagius rather than Augustine.
It is good that Trott and the first Hardshells did not reject in toto the truth of duty faith and repentance, as do today's Hardshells.
Trott continued:
"On the other hand I have never been able to receive in all points as correct, the explanations which Doctor Gill and other sound brethren have given of it. There will be found some difference between the explanation of this subject which I have to give, and that given by Brother Beebe in No.14, more particularly in relation to John's preaching repentance; this difference I trust is not such as to break any bones."
Regarding these words, notice how Trott, unlike later Hardshells, thought John Gill to be sound. Of course, I have already shown how Trott believed that conversion, by the Gospel, was the same as being born again, which is the view of Dr. Gill.
Notice also how Trott differs somewhat from editor Beebe on the subject. I have already shown in previous writings how Beebe imbibed the Pelagian premise that "a command implies ability to obey the command." He stated that to call upon sinners to believe and repent implied in them an ability to do so. Trott does not seem to agree with Beebe on this. As I have also shown elsewhere, most Hardshells have not understood that the natural man lacks moral ability, not physical ability.
Trott wrote:
"If on the other hand we suppose that the unregenerate are under no obligations to repent, we must consider them as justifiable in continuing on in their sins of whatever grade they may be. This I think none will admit; for there certainly are instances in the scriptures of unregenerated persons being exhorted or admonished to repent. The query then arises, Whence does this obligation to repent arise?"
Here, Trott demolishes the anti duty faith brethren's argumentation. He states what ought to be obvious to anyone with a reasonable unbiased mind. If it is not the duty of men to believe, repent, convert, or to have circumcised hearts, or to be saved, then their not doing these things cannot be "sin." They cannot be condemned for not doing these things. Trott confesses that this is untenable and a deduction that his brethren should be willing to acknowledge and which should keep them from denying duty faith, etc.
A.W. Pink wrote (1936) the following under the title of "Duty-Faith":
"It is the bounden duty of all who hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ, otherwise their rejection of Him would be no sin. Many of our readers will be surprised to hear that this self-evident truth is denied by some who are, otherwise, sound in the Faith. They reason that it is "inconsistent" to call upon the spiritually dead to perform spiritual duties."
Any Hardshell today who denies duty faith ought to come forward and answer the charge that their denial forces them to excuse men for their rejection of the truth and of Christ.
"Whence does this obligation to repent arise?" Trott will answer by showing how he understands that commands do not imply ability, and by showing how he sees that man's inability is not physical, but moral.
Trott wrote:
"This law of Ten Commands, in its spirituality and as addressed to all, both Jews and Gentiles, I understand was given expressly to teach repentance. I do not say, to show that repentance was a part of the original requisition of the law, and a part of the righteousness it required; but that it is addressed to man as depraved and condemned, to call him off from self-confidence, and to repentance. I feel myself fully supported in this by the declarations of scripture, that the law was added by reason of transgression; entered that the offence might abound, &c.; and especially by this text, "What things soever the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law" - for what? - "that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God." What is this but self-condemnation before God, that is designed to be accomplished by the declaration of the law? And what is such self-condemnation, but repentance toward God? It is then I think clear, that it is the law of Ten Commandments in its spirituality that calls for repentance."
Notice how Trott recognizes how the law is spiritual, a fact not generally understood by today's Hardshells. Notice also how Trott correctly states that the law was not only a duty, but intended to produce repentance, or as Paul says, to be a schoolmaster to bring one to faith in Christ.
Trott was closer to the truth on this important issue than later Hardshells have been. Let us hope that today's Hardshells will repent of their error on this important point of doctrine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)