Disgruntled? Irrelevant.

I do not spend as much time writing on this blog as I once did.  That is due to a couple of reasons.   I have been working two jobs for over two years so that my lovely wife is able to stay at home and live the sort of life I desire for her.  It does my heart good.  And the other is for my own spiritual growth.  I have compiled a fairly decent size library over the years.  Few things bring me more happiness and assurance in my standing with God than to be found reclining in my chair with a dusty old book written by some dear servant of God hundreds of years ago.  My happy place!!!  My own personal ‘backside of the desert’!  For my own sanctification I spend more time these days studying various topics and dwell less and less upon Hardshellism and its numerous heresies.

Yet the recent charge has been stated again that this blog is a ‘disgruntled gossip blog’.  And I must speak out against this accusation. To be fair, one could possibly argue that we are disgruntled.  It’s only normal to expect that one would be upset upon being shunned or kicked out of a club, organization, football team, church, etc.  That’s a perfectly normal thing to expect for anyone who has been ostracized.  And I’ll be honest here. The thing which upset me the most about my departure from the Primitive Baptists, however, was not that they were intolerate to my new-found beliefs or that they would not give me a fair opportunity to defend my position. Rather, it was this.  A year or so after I was excluded the church denied my father a burial plot behind the church because he had been excluded, all because of his connection to me.  While on his death bed the church decided (perhaps by only a few which had influence) to deny him a spot. This hurt us very bad and left my mom, sisters, and myself scrambling, trying to quickly find a place to lay my father to rest.

I personally deny that I am disgruntled anymore, yet only the Lord knows my heart.  I believe that enough time has passed and I have ventured on to other bible topics which occupy my daily thoughts. It is, as I have said, my happy place. The charge that my writings can be dismissed because I am disgruntled falls flat from the simple fact that I came to my views long, long before I departed from the PBs. My writings are the results of many, many hours of mental torment, and sleepless nights, as I wrestled with scriptures which I saw as being twisted to support a paradigm, despite doing violation to the most basic rules of bible interpretation.  I came to my conclusion long before I was excluded from the PBs; and to this, my fellow blogger Stephen can testify.

But here’s the thing.  My own heart, and that of Brother Stephen’s, has no bearing on the content presented on this site.  What influence does my attitude towards the Primitive Baptists, for instance, have to do with the charge that Hardshellism was not taught prior to the 19^th century?  The charge is either true or not true.  If I make the statement that modern PB views of regeneration, conversion, faith, perseverance, sanctification, and predestination are heretical, new among Baptists, and do not stand up to scrutiny, or that their peculiar views of Romans 1:16, 1 Peter 1:23, etc. are likewise wrong, can this charge be ignored and/or denied by my opponents because I have been left upset by my exclusion?  Folks do not even have to investigate the claim because I cannot possibly be right because of my past experience with the PBs?  Who ever won a debate by not investing the claims of the other party, but rather drew a conclusion about their state of mind, and pushed it off on others to deter them from their own investigation? What gullible audience thinks such tactics are justifiable? The idea that myself and/or Brother Stephen have some ax to grind is irrelevant to the discussion, and all honest minds know it.  Even dishonest minds know it, if they will truly look within. Even if it were true it makes no difference. Objective claims are determined true or not true without regard to the person. So do us a favor, but I daresay we shouldn’t hold our breath. If there is a response to this or one of Stephen’s article, let it not be about us or our motive.  Why not address some of the substance that we present? That’s what we, and probably others, would like to see.

It is with a deep sigh that I say I think I know what lies behind the continuous ‘dodge’ we meet with here on our blog.  The claims presented on this site are bold and steep mountains to scale, something which a people laden with tradition are hesitant to confront.  Not only myself and Brother Stephen, but other notable men among the PBs have come to see the error of Hardshellism and agree more or less with our position. To confront and submit to this evidence would not involve simply changing one’s interpretation of a verse here and there, but rather lead to a complete paradigm shift. The people who have heretofore felt justified in not sharing the gospel with the unregenerate would suddenly wake up with the realization that they must put on the mantle of responsibility towards the lost, and tell men that must repent and believe in Christ, or else! Landmarkism and the claim that we are the only ones in the world preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ would all come crumbling to the ground, and there would have to be an admission that we have been wrong for over 150 years.  That’s tough! Challenges to paradigms are not often well received, especially when they've been in place for decades.  It is much the same sort of thing we see happening within the evolutionary community, which does not wish to confront the evidence of the intelligent design movement for fear that the whole superstructure would collapse. Therefore, instead of confronting this evidence, the opposing side wishes to just call them “Creationists”, ignoring the contrary evidence that is now coming to light.  In like manner, attention is being directed away from the insurmountable hurdle presented herein, our claims dismissed, and lay persons are encouraged to do the same, based on some perceived animosity we may or may not have against those to which we once belonged. It’s a classic red herring through means of ‘poisoning the well’!

It is my belief that the current paradigm among the Primitive Baptists is the end result of an attempt to explain away passages which teach gospel means in salvation, perseverance of the saints, and the predestination of all things from an anti-missionary spirit conceived in the early 19^th century.

That is an objective claim which I make, the truth of which depending solely on the result of investigation of the claim. What sort of individual ignores or denies such a statement, and what sort of reader thinks such is justified, on the basis that the one making the charge has some sort of bias, and therefore cannot possibly be right?  Objective claims are proven true or not true based on investigation of the facts and do not hinge on anything whatsoever about the one making it.

Answer the questions.

Address the issues.

Quit trying to poison the well.

Enough talk about our motives here.  Deal with the substance.

Come to the light.

I can only wonder how many there are from the opposing side following this discussion.  I speak not about our efforts here, but the larger discussion of those currently among the PBs who have come to see things as we do, more or less.  Do you think there are some inquisitive church members who would like to see these men allowed an opportunity to make their case for how and why they came to see Hardshellism a grievous error, instead of just ostracizing them?  They may be asking what if God has given them light on something that others have not received? True, they may end up disagreeing and still cling to their views but they would at least be given the chance to hear the opposing side.

On the other hand, are there any out there who are inquisitive from their own personal study?  Maybe someone is saying “Hmm. You know, I have been told all my life that we can trace our lineage back to the first century.  I wonder if it really is true or if I’ve been lied to?” Or are there some who have read the Roman letter and said “You know. It does seem odd that the Apostle Paul would write about eternal salvation in the ninth chapter and then all of a sudden switch to time salvation in the tenth chapter, and then revert back to eternal salvation in the eleventh chapter. Maybe the salvation is the same throughout.” Imagine the good and fairness of allowing an elder who is about to face exclusion the opportunity of having a week or so to lay out all that he has discovered to support his case.  Why can't this be? Scared that the congregation will hear how the Black Rock Address REALLY reads? Scared that he will share with them the 1777 Kehukee Association Articles of Faith? Or that they will learn of John Watson's Old Baptist Test, or the writings of PB authors prior to C.H. Cayce? Scared to see how he now handles passages which he used to twist and distort? Indeed, is there a fear that if one piece of the paradigm is questioned there is going to be an unravelling?

There are issues which need to be addressed, and to which we call attention on our blog.  We certainly hope there remain some, who, even though they may not agree with us, at least acknowledge that such tactics as ‘ad hominem’, ‘red herrings’, and ‘poisoning the well’ have no place in discovering the truth of a claim.  The questions we ask, the articles we post, the writers we cite, the history we share, have all been left unanswered, and a severe injustice is done to souls when they are encouraged to ignore important issues on the basis of such tactics, especially when they may be sincere seekers of the truth.  Our prayer is that there are some out there who would actually like to see the matters herein presented discussed, and not ignored.

Such are some of my thoughts with regard to being ‘disgruntled’.

The less tolerable charge, and the one which really unsettles me, is that we ‘gossip’ here.  This is totally laughable, and again, a tactic meant to distract!  One will search this site in vain for such material. The overwhelming bulk of articles on this blog deal with challenges to Hardshell doctrine and historical evidence overthrowing it.  Articles of faith, writings from 19^th century authors, and exegesis of Bible passages and doctrines are posted to show that the Hardshell view of scripture is new, unbiblical, and not Baptistic.  This is not gossip, but substance! Instead of speculating about whether we have an ax to grind, which could be true or not true, get to the meat of our claims!

Winslett & Flint River on Conversion

Recently Elder Ben Winslett, pastor of Flint River Primitive Baptist Church, made a video on the church's article of faith on conversion. Months ago we had some communication with Winslet on this subject and we cannot but believe that some in Flint River Church are asking Winslet lots of questions about all this.

Brother Fralick wrote on this article first (see here), followed by a second (see here)
Winslett Responded and then I wrote an article in reply (Answering Elder Ben Winslet)

The article in discussion reads:

7. That God's elect shall be called, converted, and regenerated and sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

In Winslett's video sermon on "conversion" he attempts to explain how Flint River Primitive Baptist Church still believes her original article on the subject. (see here) Needless to say, it was both funny and disturbing. I took notes while listening and let those notes lay undisturbed until today. I also went to the youtube page that has the sermon on the article of faith and left this comment behind two other comments. As of this morning he has had only 25 viewers, but I suspect he will perhaps get a few more as a result of our critique of it. Here is the comment I left:

So many distortions of the facts here brother. Where is your evidence that the term "converted" did not mean becoming a disciple? Those in Alabama in the early 19th century did not believe that being converted was as you believe. I will post a short review on my blog in regard to the things you say here about the article of faith.

I would like to have said more, but decided to say it here in a post rather than in comment stream.

Here are the questions to be decided:

1) How did the original authors of the articles of faith interpret the four key terms in article number seven? The terms "called," "converted," "regenerated" and "sanctified"?

2) Since it is agreed that "the writings" of the Baptists (in fellowship with Flint River at the time of her constitution and shortly thereafter) will be the determining factor in ascertaining the historical truth regarding how she defined the term "converted," what do those writings show?

3) Do those writings show that the first Alabama Baptists defined "converted" in the way that Winslet and Flint River church do today?

Brother Winslett says that those writings show that his (Hardshell) definition is the same as that of Flint River's founders and of the first Baptists of Alabama.

Now, can we have a short gentlemanly discussion of this point? Can we find out the truth on this point of history? Are we willing to deal with the truth we find? If all the historical evidence shows that Winslet's statement is false, will he admit his error? If he does not, what will that say of his honesty?

I will wait a few days before I write a more lengthy response, giving a chance for Winslett to respond and give us the writings that he says proves his assertion that the members of Flint River church believe about conversion exactly as did the founders. It will also give any others a chance to respond who want to do so before I make my next posting on this issue.

In closing let me say a few things that Winslett said in his sermon that are ridiculous and so against the scriptures. They are not directly related to his discussion of the article in question about conversion and so I will not include any comments about those things in that posting.

Outlandish Comments

1) Winslett said that the elect were espoused and married to Christ before the world began! 

Thoughts in response

- No marriage in time necessary! Can't marry Christ in conversion if you were married already to him from eternity!

- Implies that this "marriage" involves no real conscious union and communion between the partners!

- Implies "eternal vital union" or "eternal children" for how can one who does not exist get married?

- Implies that one can get or be married and not know it!

2) Winslett said that in marriage to Christ one is totally passive!

Thoughts in response

- Is that the kind of marital union we have in Christ, a "forced marriage" or "rape"?

- An involuntary marital union, rather than a voluntary union! Where is that in scripture?

3) Winslett said that the gift of the Spirit does not occur in the new birth!

Thoughts in response

- a man can be born again and not have received the Spirit! Incredible for a bible teacher to say such!

- why does he feel the need to say such? Is it not because he feels forced to do so in order to uphold his man made Hardshell premises?

4) Winslett said Gill gave the same sense of conversion as did Flint River's article.

Thoughts in response

- would that not be easy to disprove? Have we not disproved it here many times?

- why will the Hardshells not give up on Gill?

- if Gill's view on conversion is the same as Flint River's founders, then today's members of Flint River have departed from their articles of faith.

Thoughts on Daily Worship

Too many think of "worship" as something they do only when they are assembled with others in a church service. How wrong! What a pity!

Worship is both a delight and a duty. If it is only the latter, it often becomes a drudgery, something to be dreaded.

Worship is not entertainment. It is in no way pleasing to the body or to the natural man.

Worship, though it employs the physical faculties, is an action of the soul and spirit, of the heart and mind.

The chief elements of worship are

1) exalting and praising God in thought and in word
2) expressing gratitude to God for his gifts and graces
3) praying to God and interceding for self and others

I do not consider baptism, the Lord's Supper, tithing, or even preaching, to be acts of "worship." They are duties and privileges. But not all such acts of obedience are acts of worship.

Worship is to occur in a temple under the supervision and help of priests.

In the new testament, "temple" is used in two senses: 1) the "church" proper, the assembly of believers gathered together for worship, and 2) the individual believer.

In either case, whether of the individual temple or the collective temple, a priest, the Lord Jesus Christ, officiates.

I daily worship God in the temple of my body. I delight to do so. I have often found more religious joy in worship in my own private temple than I have in most church worship services that I have attended.

If someone asks "where do you worship?" what can we say? Would it not surprise them to hear you say "I worship in the temple of my body"? Your are in that temple, as a believer, all the time! You may behave well in the "house of God" (temple) on Sunday in a church congregation, but do you behave well in the body in which you reside, which, if the Spirit of God dwell there, is a temple?

If your worship to God is only on Sunday, and not a regular habit, then I suspect that there is something amiss in your union with Christ. God, our Ebenezer, help us!

Said Spurgeon (emphasis mine):

"The whole of the Christian’s life, consisting as it must do of dealings with the invisible God through Jesus Christ by his heart, is a life of worship, and when at last he comes to die, you perceive that his worship will not cease with death, because it has always been spiritual, and did not depend upon the body. So that while the outward man faileth him, the inward spiritual man grows more strong in devotion than ever it was before; and when at last the spirit leaves its earthly tenement, and is disembodied, it has still a song for God, and throughout eternity its spiritual worship can continue; which worship must have been suspended if it had been connected with the body, and not with the immortal part of man." ("True Spiritual Worship" - see here)

He also said:

"Humbly to tremble before God, to confess sin before him, to believe him, to love him — this is spiritual worship!"

Good Rebuttal Against KJV Onlyism

Elder Robert Lackey, a writer at the web site connected with old Welsh Neck Primitive Baptist Church (a site with many good old articles on the history of the old school), wrote the following on the KJV Onlyism among many Hardshells (see here). It shows that not all Hardshells are KJV Only, and also shows that some even view the KJV as inferior to later English translations (a view I share). But, not only present day PB elders have denied KJV Onlyism (as did my father and others), but so have many throughout the past two hundred years. But, we cannot share that evidence now, but will save it for a later date.

Wrote Elder Lackey:

"If these baby-sprinkling, Baptist-persecuting, state-church loving Episcopalians were inspired as were the prophets, poets, historians, evangelists and apostles then we are bound to account the King of England and Pope of the Church of England as also inspired by the Holy Ghost when he set forth his rules for the translators. Now whether or not King James was a cross-dresser or a boy child lover we will not speculate upon. There is evidence from his enemies he was; there is evidence from his friends he was not. That part matters not to us, what we can say is while in Scotland he was a Presbyterian, but his religious convictions were so strong that he gladly embraced Episcopacy when crowned King of England, and became head (pope) of the Church of England."

Well, amen to that!

Finding Assurance In Mere Conviction?

Be Careful! Don't find assurance of salvation in the mere fact that you have been convicted of, or feel remorse for, your sin! That can lead you to a false sense of salvation and thus your eternal ruin.

Many of today's PBs, like many of their forefathers, struggle to find assurance of salvation. They seek it in all the wrong places, however. One hymn that captures the essence of their thinking on this subject is the song "Tis A Point I Long To Know," the title being in answer to the song's question - "am I his or am I not?" This is a favorite traditional hymn with them and one which many scholars of their denomination find appropo to their group psyche in regard to assurance.

They are also often heard denouncing other Christians who profess to "know" that they are saved, saying of them - "they are just saying that because that is what they are supposed to say. If they were honest, however, they would tell you how they often have doubts about the matter." Father used to say that the Hardshells were just being honest about the matter. Anyone who professes to know that they are saved are immediately viewed with suspicion.

They often talk about how that they only have a "hope" of salvation, a hope that they are one of the elect. To the degree they have hope, to that degree they have peace and joy. Where hope is lacking they experience grief and woe. They define biblical "hope" of salvation as meaning "wish" and cannot think of having "hope" without at the same time having "doubt." Thus, by this definition, they cannot have hope without having doubt and fear! Ironic, is it not? But, in scripture, hope rather implies knowledge and faith.

One of the reasons why I have written so much on the subject of conviction of sin in relation to salvation is to help to turn my Hardshell brothers away from attempting to find assurance of salvation in their doubts and fears, and in the conviction and remorse that they feel on account of their sins. There are many souls in Hell who had such in their lifetimes.

So, where is assurance to be found? Is it in our feelings? Or, is it not rather in the fact that we "know in whom we have believed"? (II Tim. 1: 12) My Hardshell brothers, look not to the fact of your conviction of sin and condemnation for assurance, but look to the fact of your conversion to Christ, to the time of your espousal to him. By itself conviction of sin is no assurance of salvation. To be convicted that Jesus is the Christ, and that you need to go to him for salvation and a perfect righteousness, this, this is the source of assurance. This in scripture is called "the full assurance of faith." (Heb. 10: 22)

Remember, if you can have salvation and not know it, then you can lose it and not miss it!

Said Spurgeon:

"In whom we have redemption." Whether others have it or not, we have "redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins." We do not hope for it, but we have it. We do not merely think so, but we know that we have it. We are redeemed; we are free from bondage; we are forgiven, and are no longer under condemnation." (A Sermon Intended for Reading on Lord's-Day, June 7th, 1891 - see here)

In the same sermon he said:

"I remember the astonishment with which I sat in a ministers' meeting, and heard one, who professed to be a preacher of the gospel, assert that he did not think that any one of us could be sure that he was forgiven. I ventured at once to say that I was sure; and I was pleased, but by no means surprised, to find that others dared to say the same. I hope I have hundreds before me who enjoy the same assurance."

 And

"Beloved, there are thousands, there are tens of thousands, on earth still who know that the Son of God has power on earth to forgive sins; and there are myriads in heaven who passed to their felicity confident that they had been forgiven, and they sang on earth the same song that they sing in heaven, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain." They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. They know it, they have no doubt about it. Many of us know it here, and rejoice therein at this moment."

Redemption (xvi)

"...who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." (Titus 2: 14)

Commenting upon these words of the apostle, F. B. Meyer wrote:

"We are, therefore, taught that the death of Jesus was intended, not for our forgiveness and justification merely, but for our sanctification, and our deliverance from the power of all our besetting sins."

In the previous chapter we focused on what it means to be "redeemed from all lawlessness" and showed how redemption has a past, present, and future aspect to it. In this chapter we will focus our attention on "and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." (kjv)

I like the Amplified rendering of the passage, which says:

"Who gave Himself on our behalf that He might redeem us (purchase our freedom) from all iniquity and purify for Himself a people [to be peculiarly His own, people who are] eager and enthusiastic about [living a life that is good and filled with] beneficial deeds."

What I like about this translation are these things:

1) the explaining of "redeem us" by the parenthetical "purchase our freedom"
2) using the words "for himself" instead "unto himself"
3) "a people to be peculiarly His own" is superior to "a peculiar people"
4) "eager and enthusiastic" is better than "zealous"
5) the parenthetical thought "living a life that is good and filled with" helps bring out the meaning
6) "beneficial deeds" is better than "good works"

λυτρόω (Lutroo) "redeem" is in middle voice which indicates that the person who carries out the action (of redemption), i.e. the "redeemer," has a special interest in the transaction. He is both viewed as doing the redemptive work as well as the one for whose interest and benefit the work is done. Though the redeemed slave benefits, of course, from being redeemed, yet the Redeemer also is benefited by it, receiving the praise of his Father, of the holy angels, and of all redeemed humanity. It was all done with a view to the glory of the Son of God who chose to condescend to become man for the purpose of redemption.

As emphasized throughout this series, enslavement to sin is bondage, whereas enslavement to God is freedom. While we are enslaved to sin, while unconverted, we are "free" from God and righteousness, as Paul said: "For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness." (Rom. 6: 20 NKJV)

John Calvin in his Commentary wrote:

"Let us then remember that the Apostle still reasons on the principle of contraries, and in this manner, “While ye were the servants of sin, ye were freed from righteousness; but now a change having taken place, it behoves you to serve righteousness; for you have been liberated from the yoke of sin. He calls those free from righteousness who are held by no bridle to obey righteousness. This is the liberty of the flesh, which so frees us from obedience to God, that it makes us slaves to the devil. Wretched then and accursed is this liberty, which with unbridled or rather mad frenzy, leads us exultingly to our destruction."

"Righteousness" does not have dominion and control over the slave of sin. Sin is a shackle, but so is righteousness. The former binds and keeps men in their servitude to sin, the latter however binds and keeps them in their servitude to righteousness.

The slave of sin has no restraints from righteousness to hinder his movements in sin. All the restraints of his sin keep him from God, truth, and righteousness. All the restraints of righteousness, however, keep the slave of righteousness from Satan, error, and unrighteousness. One thing or the other will rule and dominate the lives of every sinner. Will it be sin or righteousness? God or the world? The flesh or the Spirit? Freedom, like bondage, are both relational. One may be free in regard to one thing but be in bondage in regard to another thing.

Those who are "redeemed" or "set free by purchase" are being delivered from "lawlessness." What is the essence of this "lawlessness"? Wrote one writer:

Lawlessness is living as though your own ideas are superior to God's.
Lawlessness says, "God may demand it but I don't prefer it."
Lawlessness says, "God may promise it but I don't want it."
Lawlessness replaces God's law with my contrary desires. I become a law to myself.
Lawlessness is rebellion against the right of God to make laws and govern His creatures. (Expositor's Greek - here)

Looking over these characteristics of lawlessness, we are able to see well how Satan first taught lawlessness to Eve in his encounter with her at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Purification & Possession

In redeeming from all lawlessness or iniquity, there must be

1) purification, for both body and soul, but chiefly for the latter, and
2) possessing of the "purchased possession," (taking ownership of the newly redeemed slave), and
3) equipping and making an enthusiastic servant out of the redeemed slave

The need for purification arises from the fact of moral filth and defilement. Sin makes us not only guilty but also unclean before a holy God. Purify is from the Greek word "katharizo" (from katharos) and denotes what is pure, cleansed, without stain or spot. We have English words derived from this Greek term, such as "catharsis" (emotional or physical purging), "cathartic" (substance used to induce a purging). Simply, the word means to "free from stains or shame" and "free from adulteration."

Says Expositor's Greek Testament:

"καθαρίσῃ ἑαυτῷ λαόν: This is a pregnant expression for “purify and so make them fit to be his people”. St. Paul has in mind Ezekiel 37:23, “I will save them out of all their dwelling places, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.” 

Notice the progression in Paul's words to Titus (which are in harmony with Ezekiel):

1) redeemed (or freed by payment)
2) separation and release from lawlessness
3) purification
4) becoming God's people
5) becoming enthusiastic workers for the Lord

All these elements are part of the redemptive process.

In all purification or purging there is "riddance" and "separation." What was formerly a mixture of items (joined together as one) is divided or separated out. This separation is the essence of the purification process. In purifying metals or chemicals it is necessary that the "bond" that holds the elements together be broken.

Filth in all its forms adheres, is bonded to, or otherwise clings to the flesh. To remove it one must wash, bath, or be cleansed. Metaphorically speaking, moral filth in a like manner clings to the soul and spirit, to the heart and mind. In the words "redeemed from all iniquity" the Greek preposition "apo" (from) indicates effective removal from (or separation from).

Redemption has as one of its ends the cleansing of the redeemed slave. Slaves and prisoners, when they are first emancipated and released from their bondage, come forth with the filth of their confinement upon them (most prisons have historically been filthy places). They must be thoroughly cleansed and their filthy garments removed.

This purification is not done in an instant. It is true that first conversion brings a washing in the blood of Jesus (I John 1:7), and a "washing of water by the word" (Eph. 5: 26), but two things must be said about this cleansing, purging, or purification:

1) It is both objective and subjective, and
2) It is both a) instantaneous and complete and 2) linear and progressive.

Objective

- "legal purging" involving "expunging from the record" a person's sins (crimes)
- theological terms are "justification" (exoneration and "freedom" from prosecution) and "forgiveness"
- this is an instantaneous event and is complete

Subjective

- moral cleansing of the conscience, purifying of the heart by ridding it of "uncleanness" and guilt
- in theological terms this first occurs in regeneration (rebirth) and conversion and sanctification
- this is a linear or progressive experience

The cleansing of the believer, though begun in initial conversion, and is, in some respects, completed at that moment, yet is in other respects continuous in the life of the saint and is not completed till the soul enters heaven at death. Saints are daily and regularly being cleansed by the blood and word of the Lord.  Of this the scriptures are clear, and on this I will have a few more things to say as we look at how "redemption," via sanctification, is linear and progressive in the life of the released slave.

A People For His Own Possession

On the words in the KJV "purify unto himself a peculiar people" Spurgeon comments:

"The translation “peculiar people” is unfortunate, because “peculiar” has come to mean odd, strange, singular. The passage really means that believers are Christ’s own people, His choice and select portion. Saints are Christ’s crown jewels, His box of diamonds; His very, very, very own...He desires that you, who are being disciplined by his grace, should know that you are altogether His. You are Christ’s men. You are each one to feel, “I do not belong to the world; I do not belong to myself; I belong only to Christ. I am set aside by Him for Himself only, and His I will be.” The silver and the gold are His, and the cattle upon a thousand hills are His; but He makes small account of them, “the Lord’s portion is His people.” ("The Two Appearings and the Discipline of Grace")

Did Jesus die to make us “strange” or “queer” or “odd”? No, but he did die and does save sinners via conversion, thus making them his special people. Converts to Jesus no longer "belong" to Satan, nor to the world, to depravity, nor to self. Recall the words of the apostle to believers - "you are not your own," i.e. "you do not belong to yourself," but you belong to Christ, having been "bought with a price." (See I Cor. 6: 20)

The translation "peculiar people" does not justify anyone being a religious oddball in order to prove that he is holy or orthodox. The thought that the apostle wishes to convey to us is this: God's redeemed people are Christ's costly possession and His distinctive treasure. In other words, believers are those that belong in a special sense to Christ. Below are other translations for comparison, and which are superior to the KJV:

people to be peculiarly His own - Amplified
His own special possession - Analyzed Literal Translation
so that we can be His special people GWT
a people who are truly His - NET
a people that are his very own - NIV
His own special people - NKJV
a people of his own - Phillips paraphrase
a people as his own treasure - Rotherham
people who belong to Him alone - TEV
a people who should be specially His own - Weymouth
a people of His own private possession, - Wuest

Vincent's Word Studies says that "peculiar" is

"derived from peculium, a private purse, a special acquisition of a member of a family distinct from the property administered for the good of the whole family. Accordingly the sense is given in Ephesians 1:14, where believers are said to have been sealed εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῆς περιποιήσεως with a view to redemption of possession, or redemption which will give possession, thus = acquisition. So 1 Peter 2:9, where Christians are styled λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν a people for acquisition, to be acquired by God as his peculiar possession."

What I hope the reader sees is the fact that "redemption" involves finally "acquiring" or "taking possession" or "reclaiming" what had been disponed away or a repossessing of what are called "lost inheritances."

When does Christ "takes possession" of what he has purchased or redeemed? That is one of the chief questions we have been studying in this series. He first takes possession of the slaves that he has acquired by purchase in conversion. And, again, this action of "taking possession" of property can be viewed as both instantaneous and linear (progressive). By Christ's death on the cross, he paid the price of redemption, and immediately obtained legal title (ownership) of the slave. But, legal possession and actual possession are two different things.

Wrote F. B. Meyer:

"ἑαυτῷ corresponds with λυτρώσηται ἀπό. The sentence is pregnantly expressed, and its meaning is: “that He by the purifying power of His death might acquire for Himself (ἑαυτῷ) a people for a possession.” 

That I think is an excellent translation of the passage and brings out several important points involved in the work of redemption.

In I Peter 2: 9 we have another place where we find the words "a peculiar people." There again we have a misleading translation of the Greek term, as we have seen. "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people..."

As we compare the different English translations of this verse and consider the alternative meaning of the word peculiar, it becomes clear that "peculiar" in this verse also denotes that believers are a “special people.” This is because they were chosen from before the foundation of the earth to be “God’s own possession,” and purchased by Christ via his sacrificial death, and have been taken possession of in being born again. This is what makes them different from the world around them. Further, because they are being transformed by the indwelling Spirit, they are more and more being "taken over," or more and more fully possessed, influenced, and controlled.

Better translations say of I Peter 2:9 say:

"A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION" (NASB)
"His own special people" (NKJV)
"a people for his own possession" (RSV)
"a people belonging to God" (NIV)

Happy To Be His People

Those who have been redeemed by purchase and have become the special and treasured possession of Christ, are a cleansed people, a people who are no longer enslaved to moral depravity, but are happy and zealous in their new status as the people of God. To be "zealous of good works" is a sure result of having been redeemed. It is one of the objects of their having been redeemed.

"God's end in election," said Spurgeon, or "the end of all his purposes, is not answered until they become a people "zealous of good works.""("Good Works" delivered on March 16, 1856)

In Paul's letter to Titus, there are several references to doing good. We are told that a church leader is to be "a lover of what is good" (Titus 1:8). Christians are to be "zealous for good works" (Titus 2:14) and "ready for every good work" (Titus 3:1). Believers must "maintain good works" (Titus 3:8). Dorcas...was full of good works and charitable deeds. —Acts 9:36

When a slave is graciously freed by a redeemer or deliverer, he is sure to be thankful to the one who set him free, and be eager to please him, especially considering the severity of the bondage and the immense enjoyment of the freedom that a strong and kind Redeemer has brought. Anyone who truly appreciates this freedom in Christ will be eager to please their new master.

Good works do not mean that you must have been a soup kitchen worker at a place for feeding the poor, or that you put money in the collection plate, etc. These things are good, but they are not the only nor the chief good that redeemed sinners practice. The most important good works are daily activities that Christians do, often without conscious thought, it becoming more of a habit, such as praying, meditating, reading and studying the word of God, praising and worshipping, helping your neighbor, being a kind and wise father, brother, husband, friend, etc. These things are a delight to the new man who has been made the peculiar possession of the Lord Jesus.

Does Emancipation Make Slaves Happy or Sad?

As I have been writing on the subject of Redemption and how regeneration and conversion are described by the metaphor of slaves and prisoners being set free, I thought I would share this thought.

When people get out of slavery and prison, does it make them happy?

Almost universally it does. Then why do Hardshells say that regeneration makes sinners sad (as a result of deep conviction of sin and fear of divine judgement)? If they are being set free, ought they not to be happy in the act? I have written on this subject many times, generally in connection with the work or experience of "conviction." For instance see my posting

Does Regeneration Make Sinners Happy?

Why Do PBs Sing This Song?

In the song "Home Of The Soul" and sung by PBs (here) we find them singing these words.

If for the prize we have striven,
After our labors are o’er,
Rest to our souls will be given,
On the eternal shore.

Refrain

Home of the soul, beautiful home,
There we shall rest, never to roam;
Free from all care, happy and bright,
Jesus is there, He is the light!

Oft, in the storm, lonely are we,
Sighing for home, longing for Thee,
Beautiful home of the ransomed,
Beside the crystal sea.

Refrain

Yes, a sweet rest is remaining
For the true children of God,
Where there will be no complaining,
Never a chastening rod.

Refrain

Soon, the bright homeland adorning,
We shall behold the glad dawn;
Lean on the Lord till the morning,
Trust till the night is gone.

If for the prize we have striven, after our labors are over, we shall enter into rest? Do you see how these words are not believed by today's Hardshells? Do they teach that one must strive and labor for the prize, for the rest that is Heaven? The word "if" is so important. It implies a "then." If we have striven and labored and run for the prize (Phill. 3: 14), then we will enter into God's rest (unlike the Israelites who fell in the wilderness).

Hardshell apologist Jason Brown and I debated the issue of the "rest" of Hebrews chapters 3 and 4 and whether the words "let us labor therefore to enter into that rest" denoted entering into heaven.

See these postings

Lessons From Israelite Carcasses
Entering God's Rest
Entering God's Rest Conclusion
Resting From Christian Labor

But, it is no new thing that Hardshells sing songs that are contrary to their theology.