The Lost Found By The Gospel
Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me....
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now, I see
Sinners are "lost," or unsaved. Salvation involves a man being "found," or being recued from a lost conditon.
"For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost." (Luke 19: 10)
"And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost." (Luke 15: 6)
The word "lost," in this and most passages in the new testament, denotes loss, or ruination, with the idea of being destroyed or perishing. But, it does not exclude the idea of being without a sense of direction or place, or of being in a strange and unknown environment and unable to find the way out. This is clear from Jesus' use of the term "seek" (search) with the word "lost." You look for people who have lost their way, and who are without knowledge of their location. The ones lost do not know where they are, and others also do not know where they are, and so become "seekers" of the ones "lost." In such a lost state, one is enveloped with fear and dread, and suffers loss of hope and assurance.
Jesus is the "seeker" of the lost sheep (elect). He is the one who goes looking for the lost and ruined sinner. Further, he never fails to find those who he goes looking for. Thus, salvation is an experience that is defined as a time when the Lord "finds" his sheep who are "lost."
The word "found" means to discover. The salvation experience may be described as two persons finding each other. God finds the sinner and the sinner finds God. God is not lost, of course, and finding God implies no such thing. But, the sinner in his lost condition does not know where God is located. The sinner is lost, not knowing where he is, but God knows where he is.
Most Hardshells will easily accept the fact that salvation (regeneration) is described in scripture as a time when the Lord finds the "lost." What nearly all of them deny, however, is how the Lord's finding of the lost is also a time when the lost find the Lord. They would also affirm that this phenomenon of the Lord locating and rescuing his lost sheep occurrs in "regeneration," but if so, then it occurs "non-cognitively" and "on the sub-conscious level," for that is their view of the "regeneration" experience. But, how can one seek and find something non-cognitively?
But, what saith the scriptures?
"But if our gospel be hid (unrevealed), it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (II Cor. 4: 3, 4)
Paul equates, in this passage, "the lost," with "unbelievers," with those who have no revelation of the gospel. Do the Hardshells? Do they not rather teach that many who are unbelievers, and who have no revelation of the gospel, are nevertheless saved?
Hardshells interpret this passage as dealing with "conversion," of what takes place after "regeneration," in only a few of the regenerated, but certainly not in all of them. This shining of the light of the gospel revelation into the heart the Hardshells will not ascribe to "regeneration." By this interpretation one can be "regenerated" and yet have no light in them! How can they be "children of the light (or God)" but have no light?
"Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon." (Isa. 55: 6, 7)
The Hardshells do not have a problem with regeneration being a time when the Lord finds the sinner, but they have a problem with regeneration being a time when the sinner finds the Lord. Some of them will even decry others who speak of a sinner "finding the Lord." They will say - "I didn't know the Lord was lost." But, this is fault-finding and nit-picking, demonstrating a cantankerous cultic spirit. Of course "finding the Lord" does not imply that the Lord is lost! Do the words of Isaiah not exhort all to "seek the Lord"? Does that imply that the Lord is lost? He says "while he may be found." Does that imply that God is lost? What it means, as I have already shown, is that the lost sinner does not know where the Lord is! He does not know where he is, himself, and neither does he know where the Lord is. But, when he "finds" the Lord, he discovers that the Lord also found him.
Notice how this "finding" of the Lord is connected with salvation, with "returning" to the Lord (repentance and faith, or conversion), with being shown "mercy" (justification) and given "pardon."
"I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name." (Isa. 65: 1 & Rom. 10: 20)
The words of the prophet are applied by Paul to the calling of the Gentiles, by the gospel, the Gentiles being formerly those who were not "seekers" of the Lord, and who were not "called by my name." But now, however, they have become seekers and finders of the Lord, by the gospel. Now they have become the people of God for they have been "called by my name," or "named the name of Christ." (II Tim. 2: 19) Doubtless this "finding" of the Lord is a cognitive experience, and involves enlightenment and a revelation.
"And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart." (Jer. 29: 13)
Jeremiah's message is the same as Isaiah's. Salvation is described as "finding" the Lord.
Jesus taught the same.
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened." (Matt. 7: 7, 8)
The Hardshells, due to their Hyper Calvinism, and extremism concerning the Calvinistic doctrine of "total depravity," have denied that one can be a "seeker" before his regeneration. But, Gill, Spurgeon, and the old Baptists of the confessions did not believe this, for they often spoke of "seeking sinners," people who had not yet come to faith in Christ, who had not yet been saved or regenerated, as still being lost or unsaved.
The old Baptist writers of former centuries spoke of these seekers as being "awakened sinners." Did they mean that they were "regenerated"? No, they did not. They saw this awakening as a "prevenient" or "preparatory" work before regeneration/conversion. They saw this as occurring when sinners became aware of certain facts of the gospel, and became, to some degree, "convicted." Hardshells see conviction of sin as an after-effect of regeneration, and so would pronounce any and all who are convicted of sin, as saved. But, the 17th and 18th century Particular Baptists did not view mere conviction of sin as evidence of a saved state, but of a lost state. To be saved (born again, or spiritually quickened) one had to be convinced (convicted) not only of "sin," but also of "righteousness" and "judgment," per Jesus in John 16: 8. They taught that one must come to believe in the righteousness of Christ, and to trust in it.
I have asked Hardshells this unanswerable question - "when the Spirit tells a sinner that he is lost, or convinces him of that fact, is he telling him the truth?"
If the Hardshells say "yes," then the convicted sinner cannot be said to be saved. If they say "no," then they make the Spirit a witness of falsehood.
"For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry." (Luke 15: 24, 32)
These are the words concerning the "prodigal son," in the context of "lost" things (lost coin, lost sheep, and lost son). Actually, they are stories of not only what is "lost," but of what is both lost and "found." The deliverance of the prodigal from "lost" condition was equated with his being restored to life, to his resurrection from death. But, when was he "found" and made "alive again"? Was it while he was under conviction, at that time when he "came to himself," when he received a revelation of his condition, and became contrite? This cannot be because he was still a foreigner to his father's house, and still in the pig pen, and "perishing with hunger."
Yes, he learned some things while in the pig pen of sin, and such teaching is what eventually brought him back to his father and to his father's house. He learned that he was truly miserable and a failure, that he done wrong to his father in leaving, and that he was to blame for his condition. Is everyone who comes to realize this saved? Certainly not. Many examples from scripture can be given to further demonstrate the truth of it.
He also saw the way of salvation. I will return to my father's house. I will humble myself before him and confess my wrong and my guilt. I will beg for his mercy and hope for his restoration. He knew the plan of salvation. But, are all those who have become aware of the plan of salvation alive from spiritual death? Certainly not. Jesus says that the Father's teaching and drawing is what causes a sinner to "come" to him for life and salvation. The teaching and drawing work is preparatory to the salvation experience. (See John 6: 44, 45)
The words of the text say that the prodigal was "alive again" upon his return (repentance), when he was "found" and no longer lost and away from his father.
All the experiences of the prodigal prior to his return were only "preparatory" operations of God upon him leading him to "life" and deliverance from being "lost."
"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." (Acts 17: 26, 27)
All men are commanded to "seek the Lord" and this certainly includes those who are "lost," and who do not possess the Lord. They are promised success if they do so, as has been seen from the scriptures already cited. Again, "find him" is a term describing the salvation experience. But, Hardshells must deny that sinners "find" the Lord in regeneration, for this would make salvation cognitive, and involve the sinner being saved by faith and repentance, and they will not affirm this.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
The Gospel - The Means of Grace XX
Choosing Christ As Husband
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." (Eph. 5: 22-27)
Lord Jesus is identified as being the "husband" of the "church" and the church is identified as being his "wife." The Hardshells correctly identify Christ's bride with the elect, with those chosen by the Father before the world began. Some have gone to extremes on this by affirming that the church, as a bride, existed with Christ in eternity past. This is known as the "eternal children" doctrine, connected with the "two seeds" theory of Hardshell founding father, Daniel Parker. Involved in this teaching was the idea that the elect existed with Christ in eternity past, at least seminally, as Eve was in Adam before her actual physical existence, or in what is called "eternal vital union." In this scheme the "eternal children" are the Lord's "seed" from eternity. But, the devil also has a "seed." These also, according to this scheme, are eternal children, but of the Devil. It is ancient Zoroastrianism or Manichaeism (dualism) in Christian disguise.
Many of the first Hardshells followed some aspects of Parker's "two-seedism." Gilbert Beebe believed in "eternal vital union." He did not fully accept Parker's view regarding the Devil's seed, or that the devil was without beginning as God. Further, most Hardshells today reject nearly all aspects of "two-seedism," denying that the elect existed in Christ from eternity. Good for them. Correctly they assert, as do all Calvinists, that the elect had no real existence in Christ before they were born into the world. The elect did exist as an idea or mental image in the mind of God, but this was no actual existence.
God the Father's election of a people to become a "wife" or "bride" for his Son was made from before the world began. (Eph. 1: 4) This the old Baptists have always believed and is what is expressed in her oldest confessions. This choice is a kind of prearranged marriage, done after the oriental fashion, and in accordance with Hebrew practice (see the case of Abraham arranging a marriage for Isaac).
When the elect are effectually "called" according to God's foreknowledge and predestination (Rom. 8: 29, 30), it is the time of their actual "engagement" to their appointed husband. This "engagement" of the appointed bride to her husband, however, goes against Hardshellism.
In the scriptures this "engagement" or "espousal" to Christ occurs in the experience of conversion, a conversion however that the Hardshells divorce from regeneration, and that they say is unnecessary for being the bride of Christ and for being eternally saved. Thus, their views deny that the bride of Christ, though appointed for Christ in the eternal decree of election, must become "engaged" to Christ through conversion. But, that is against both reason and scripture.
The chosen bride of Christ must become "willing" to have Christ as her husband, but the Hardshells argue that such "willingness" does not occur in time when the elect are called or regenerated. Calvinists, of course, believe that she shall be "made willing" by the constraining love of Christ and by the power of his Spirit to allure and draw her. (See Psa. 110: 3; Phil. 2: 13)
Some Hardshells even argue as do the Arminians in saying that all "obedience" is the result of free will and cannot be effectually cause by God. They would also say that is impossible that God irresistibly make one "willing." Yet, the bride of Christ, at some point, either in conversion, or when resurrected to glory, do become "willing" to become the wife of Christ. Other Hardshells, however, will affirm that those who become part of the church or bride of Christ will indeed be "made willing" and "obedient" by the sovereign efficacious grace of God. But, the question for all of them is this - when does one become "engaged" to Christ? When will they become willing to become his bride, willing to say "I do"? There are only three views possible.
First, one can argue that the sinner becomes a member of the church (bride) of Christ when he is "regenerated," and before he is "converted." This would be when the sinner, being saved, becomes "willing" to be engaged to Christ, or chooses to be such. Such a view according to Hardshellism contradicts their teaching that affirms that "regeneration" is "non-cognitive" and on the "sub-conscious" level.
Second, one can argue that the sinner becomes a member of the congregation of the saved, or chooses Christ, when he is "converted." But, the problem is, today's Hardshells believe that "conversion" is not necessary to become part of the bride of Christ.
Third, one can argue that the sinner does not become a member of the church, or bride of Christ, until he is glorified at the return of Christ, when he is resurrected and glorified. But, such a view fails to see how the scriptures teach that the actual marriage is when Christ returns, and the engagement occurs before that.
What saith the scriptures?
We have already agreed that the scriptures teach that the Father appointed the bride for Christ from eternity past. This is typified in God's appointment of Rebecca to become the wife of Isaac. In this choice Christ agreed with his Father's choice. The question is this, however; must not the chosen wife become willing to be the bride of her husband? Yes, she does, and for any Hardshell to deny it is to teach contrary to sacred scripture.
Though the choice of Christ's bride was made before the world began, the winning of the heart of the chosen bride, by Christ, takes place in time when the elect are converted by faith through the gospel.
"For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused (engaged) you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." (II Cor. 11: 2)
Even the Hardshells must confess that this "espousal" to Christ is what takes place in "conversion," an experience that Hardshells admit comes by faith through the gospel. The "one husband" is Jesus and the "chaste virgin" are those sinners who have given their hearts to Christ in covenant. Paul basically says - "I arranged your engagement to Christ." Paul was not denying that the Father had arranged it, but only acknowledging his being used by God to bring about the engagement. Also, most Hardshells will affirm that this "espousal" is not "regeneration" since it was 1) made through the instrumentality of Paul, that is, by the preaching of the gospel by Paul, and 2) made by the choice or willing of those who become married to the Lord.
"The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son...Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage." (Matt. 22: 2, 9)
"And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut." (Matt. 25: 10)
The scriptures speak of "the marriage supper of the Lamb." (Rev. 19: 7, 9) Without a doubt this marriage and marriage supper are yet future and will occur when all the elect have been called, when "the fulness of the Gentiles be come in," and so to argue that both the engagement and marriage will take place at the same time, when Christ returns, is against all logic and historical marriage tradition. Thus, one can only conclude that the "engagement" takes place in time when a person is saved, and becomes a member of the body of Christ, or church, or when he chooses Christ. Also, the words of Paul shows that the engagement to Christ takes place in time in regeneration/conversion, although he believed that the marriage was yet future.
On this passage the great old Baptist doctor, John Gill, wrote:
"The act of espousing, the apostle here, with respect to this church, takes to himself, though in another sense, and which is the principal one, it is ascribed to Christ himself, who betroths all his to himself in righteousness, in judgment, in lovingkindness, and tender mercies; he saw them in his Father's purposes and decrees, in all the glory they were designed to be brought unto, when he loved them as his Father did, and desired them for his spouse and bride, which was granted to him; and then secretly in covenant betrothed them to himself, and ever after looked upon them as in a conjugal relation to him; wherefore though they fell in Adam, and became guilty and filthy, he gave himself for them as his church and bride, to sanctify and cleanse them, that he might present them to himself, just such a glorious church he had seen them before. In consequence of this, the Spirit of God attends the ministration of the Gospel, to the conversion of each of these souls, when they become willing to be the Lord's, and give their free and full consent to have him for their husband; and this is the day of their open espousal to him, and in this the apostle had, and other ministers of the Gospel have a concern; he was a means, in the hands of the Spirit, of their regeneration, a minister by whom they believed, an instrument in directing their souls to Christ, by setting forth his unsearchable riches, the glory of his person, and fulness of his grace: as Abraham's servant set forth the greatness of his master, and the large possessions his son was heir to, and brought out his bracelets and ear rings, his jewels of gold and silver, and thereby gained his point, a wife for Isaac; so the Spirit of God going along with the ministration of the apostle so wrought upon these Corinthians, as to give up themselves to the Lord, and take him for their head and husband, Saviour and Redeemer." (Commentary)
That is the "Old Baptist" position and the Hardshell notion about it is novel and hybrid, and opposed to the scriptural teachings.
"Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God." (Rom. 7: 4)
Though the word "marriage" is not in this passage, it is nevertheless implied by the context. Literally the text reads - "that you should become another's," meaning become another's spouse. Doubtless Paul alludes to the conversion experience of the Romans, to the time when they chose Christ as their Lord, Savior, and Husband.
On this verse, Gill wrote:
"...here respect is had to their open marriage to him in time, the day of their espousals in conversion; to make way for which, the law, their former husband, must be dead, and they dead to that, that so their marriage to Christ might appear lawful and justifiable; who is very fitly described by him..."
Joined To Christ
"For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh." (Eph. 5: 30, 31)
This is how Paul concludes his words concerning the church's union with Christ in Ephesians chapter five. Notice the word "joined." Marriage is a "joining" or uniting together, a gluing or cementing of two together as one. When are the elect "united" or "joined" together with Christ? First, the engagement (which is in Jewish tradition, a kind of initial marriage, so that the terms wife and husband are used during the engagement period). Second, complete union, which will take place at the marriage when Jesus returns.
Saved people are people who have joined themselves to the Lord in a covenant.
"...joined himself to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants..." (Isa. 56: 6)
"They shall ask the way to Zion with their faces thitherward, saying, Come, and let us join ourselves to the LORD in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten." (Jer. 50: 5)
"And many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and shall be my people..." (Zech. 2: 11)
"But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit." (I Cor. 6: 17)
It would be absurd to affirm that one can be engaged to the Lord and yet be, at the same time, a heathen and idolater. A worshipper of Baal a born again child of God who is also engaged to the Lord? How stupid is that?
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." (Eph. 5: 22-27)
Lord Jesus is identified as being the "husband" of the "church" and the church is identified as being his "wife." The Hardshells correctly identify Christ's bride with the elect, with those chosen by the Father before the world began. Some have gone to extremes on this by affirming that the church, as a bride, existed with Christ in eternity past. This is known as the "eternal children" doctrine, connected with the "two seeds" theory of Hardshell founding father, Daniel Parker. Involved in this teaching was the idea that the elect existed with Christ in eternity past, at least seminally, as Eve was in Adam before her actual physical existence, or in what is called "eternal vital union." In this scheme the "eternal children" are the Lord's "seed" from eternity. But, the devil also has a "seed." These also, according to this scheme, are eternal children, but of the Devil. It is ancient Zoroastrianism or Manichaeism (dualism) in Christian disguise.
Many of the first Hardshells followed some aspects of Parker's "two-seedism." Gilbert Beebe believed in "eternal vital union." He did not fully accept Parker's view regarding the Devil's seed, or that the devil was without beginning as God. Further, most Hardshells today reject nearly all aspects of "two-seedism," denying that the elect existed in Christ from eternity. Good for them. Correctly they assert, as do all Calvinists, that the elect had no real existence in Christ before they were born into the world. The elect did exist as an idea or mental image in the mind of God, but this was no actual existence.
God the Father's election of a people to become a "wife" or "bride" for his Son was made from before the world began. (Eph. 1: 4) This the old Baptists have always believed and is what is expressed in her oldest confessions. This choice is a kind of prearranged marriage, done after the oriental fashion, and in accordance with Hebrew practice (see the case of Abraham arranging a marriage for Isaac).
When the elect are effectually "called" according to God's foreknowledge and predestination (Rom. 8: 29, 30), it is the time of their actual "engagement" to their appointed husband. This "engagement" of the appointed bride to her husband, however, goes against Hardshellism.
In the scriptures this "engagement" or "espousal" to Christ occurs in the experience of conversion, a conversion however that the Hardshells divorce from regeneration, and that they say is unnecessary for being the bride of Christ and for being eternally saved. Thus, their views deny that the bride of Christ, though appointed for Christ in the eternal decree of election, must become "engaged" to Christ through conversion. But, that is against both reason and scripture.
The chosen bride of Christ must become "willing" to have Christ as her husband, but the Hardshells argue that such "willingness" does not occur in time when the elect are called or regenerated. Calvinists, of course, believe that she shall be "made willing" by the constraining love of Christ and by the power of his Spirit to allure and draw her. (See Psa. 110: 3; Phil. 2: 13)
Some Hardshells even argue as do the Arminians in saying that all "obedience" is the result of free will and cannot be effectually cause by God. They would also say that is impossible that God irresistibly make one "willing." Yet, the bride of Christ, at some point, either in conversion, or when resurrected to glory, do become "willing" to become the wife of Christ. Other Hardshells, however, will affirm that those who become part of the church or bride of Christ will indeed be "made willing" and "obedient" by the sovereign efficacious grace of God. But, the question for all of them is this - when does one become "engaged" to Christ? When will they become willing to become his bride, willing to say "I do"? There are only three views possible.
First, one can argue that the sinner becomes a member of the church (bride) of Christ when he is "regenerated," and before he is "converted." This would be when the sinner, being saved, becomes "willing" to be engaged to Christ, or chooses to be such. Such a view according to Hardshellism contradicts their teaching that affirms that "regeneration" is "non-cognitive" and on the "sub-conscious" level.
Second, one can argue that the sinner becomes a member of the congregation of the saved, or chooses Christ, when he is "converted." But, the problem is, today's Hardshells believe that "conversion" is not necessary to become part of the bride of Christ.
Third, one can argue that the sinner does not become a member of the church, or bride of Christ, until he is glorified at the return of Christ, when he is resurrected and glorified. But, such a view fails to see how the scriptures teach that the actual marriage is when Christ returns, and the engagement occurs before that.
What saith the scriptures?
We have already agreed that the scriptures teach that the Father appointed the bride for Christ from eternity past. This is typified in God's appointment of Rebecca to become the wife of Isaac. In this choice Christ agreed with his Father's choice. The question is this, however; must not the chosen wife become willing to be the bride of her husband? Yes, she does, and for any Hardshell to deny it is to teach contrary to sacred scripture.
Though the choice of Christ's bride was made before the world began, the winning of the heart of the chosen bride, by Christ, takes place in time when the elect are converted by faith through the gospel.
"For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused (engaged) you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." (II Cor. 11: 2)
Even the Hardshells must confess that this "espousal" to Christ is what takes place in "conversion," an experience that Hardshells admit comes by faith through the gospel. The "one husband" is Jesus and the "chaste virgin" are those sinners who have given their hearts to Christ in covenant. Paul basically says - "I arranged your engagement to Christ." Paul was not denying that the Father had arranged it, but only acknowledging his being used by God to bring about the engagement. Also, most Hardshells will affirm that this "espousal" is not "regeneration" since it was 1) made through the instrumentality of Paul, that is, by the preaching of the gospel by Paul, and 2) made by the choice or willing of those who become married to the Lord.
"The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son...Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage." (Matt. 22: 2, 9)
"And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut." (Matt. 25: 10)
The scriptures speak of "the marriage supper of the Lamb." (Rev. 19: 7, 9) Without a doubt this marriage and marriage supper are yet future and will occur when all the elect have been called, when "the fulness of the Gentiles be come in," and so to argue that both the engagement and marriage will take place at the same time, when Christ returns, is against all logic and historical marriage tradition. Thus, one can only conclude that the "engagement" takes place in time when a person is saved, and becomes a member of the body of Christ, or church, or when he chooses Christ. Also, the words of Paul shows that the engagement to Christ takes place in time in regeneration/conversion, although he believed that the marriage was yet future.
On this passage the great old Baptist doctor, John Gill, wrote:
"The act of espousing, the apostle here, with respect to this church, takes to himself, though in another sense, and which is the principal one, it is ascribed to Christ himself, who betroths all his to himself in righteousness, in judgment, in lovingkindness, and tender mercies; he saw them in his Father's purposes and decrees, in all the glory they were designed to be brought unto, when he loved them as his Father did, and desired them for his spouse and bride, which was granted to him; and then secretly in covenant betrothed them to himself, and ever after looked upon them as in a conjugal relation to him; wherefore though they fell in Adam, and became guilty and filthy, he gave himself for them as his church and bride, to sanctify and cleanse them, that he might present them to himself, just such a glorious church he had seen them before. In consequence of this, the Spirit of God attends the ministration of the Gospel, to the conversion of each of these souls, when they become willing to be the Lord's, and give their free and full consent to have him for their husband; and this is the day of their open espousal to him, and in this the apostle had, and other ministers of the Gospel have a concern; he was a means, in the hands of the Spirit, of their regeneration, a minister by whom they believed, an instrument in directing their souls to Christ, by setting forth his unsearchable riches, the glory of his person, and fulness of his grace: as Abraham's servant set forth the greatness of his master, and the large possessions his son was heir to, and brought out his bracelets and ear rings, his jewels of gold and silver, and thereby gained his point, a wife for Isaac; so the Spirit of God going along with the ministration of the apostle so wrought upon these Corinthians, as to give up themselves to the Lord, and take him for their head and husband, Saviour and Redeemer." (Commentary)
That is the "Old Baptist" position and the Hardshell notion about it is novel and hybrid, and opposed to the scriptural teachings.
"Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God." (Rom. 7: 4)
Though the word "marriage" is not in this passage, it is nevertheless implied by the context. Literally the text reads - "that you should become another's," meaning become another's spouse. Doubtless Paul alludes to the conversion experience of the Romans, to the time when they chose Christ as their Lord, Savior, and Husband.
On this verse, Gill wrote:
"...here respect is had to their open marriage to him in time, the day of their espousals in conversion; to make way for which, the law, their former husband, must be dead, and they dead to that, that so their marriage to Christ might appear lawful and justifiable; who is very fitly described by him..."
Joined To Christ
"For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh." (Eph. 5: 30, 31)
This is how Paul concludes his words concerning the church's union with Christ in Ephesians chapter five. Notice the word "joined." Marriage is a "joining" or uniting together, a gluing or cementing of two together as one. When are the elect "united" or "joined" together with Christ? First, the engagement (which is in Jewish tradition, a kind of initial marriage, so that the terms wife and husband are used during the engagement period). Second, complete union, which will take place at the marriage when Jesus returns.
Saved people are people who have joined themselves to the Lord in a covenant.
"...joined himself to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants..." (Isa. 56: 6)
"They shall ask the way to Zion with their faces thitherward, saying, Come, and let us join ourselves to the LORD in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten." (Jer. 50: 5)
"And many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and shall be my people..." (Zech. 2: 11)
"But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit." (I Cor. 6: 17)
It would be absurd to affirm that one can be engaged to the Lord and yet be, at the same time, a heathen and idolater. A worshipper of Baal a born again child of God who is also engaged to the Lord? How stupid is that?
Saturday, August 13, 2011
The Gospel - The Means of Grace XIX
Saved From Hell By Faith
"Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent." (Luke 16: 27-30)
The rich man, in this story, is in that place in Hades where the wicked dead went prior to the resurrection of Christ. It is the place of suffering, a prison for wicked spirits. (See I Peter 3: 19) It is the place where he went after he was "dead and buried." Does the rich man rue the event? Certainly. Does he realize why he is there? Certainly. Does he know that he could have been saved and gone to the place where Lazarus is? Certainly. Does he know the way of salvation, how he may have been saved? Certainly. What is that way? He knows that "repentance" at the preaching of the gospel was the way. "If Lazarus preaches to them, and if they repent, then they will not come to this place." That is the reasoning of the rich man. Was he correct? Certainly. The scriptures promise salvation to all who believe and repent. "Repent ye, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out." (Acts 3: 19) "Repentance" is "unto life." (Acts 11: 18) The message of the gospel is - "repent or perish." (See Luke 13: 3, 5; II Peter 3: 9)
If the rich man is correct, then both the preaching the gospel and repentance are necessary for being saved from Hell's torments. Further, Abraham, who speaks for God and truth, does not correct the rich man, but confirms his understanding, by saying "they have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them." They have the word available to them, testified Abraham. They have opportunity to repent, he argued. Implied in this testimony of Abraham is agreement that repentance would prevent one's going to the place of the rich man. Abraham does not say - "you have it all wrong! Preaching and repentance have nothing to do with men escaping Hell's torments!" These would been his remarks had Abraham believed Hardshell teachings.
The Hardshells realize the implications of this conversation and how it uproots Hardshell notions about salvation and faith, about being eternally saved from Hell and damnation. That is why many of them have begun to reinterpret the story of the rich man and Lazarus to make it deal with something other than with where people go when they die. Some of them even make it a "test of fellowship," excluding any who believe the traditional view.
"Let them hear Moses and the prophets," said Jesus. "Let them receive the testimony given by them," and let them repent upon hearing it, and so escape the place of torments. These words of Jesus uphold the gospel means position, and teach that all the unbelieving and unrepentant will go to the place of torment when they die.
"Let them hear Moses and the prophets"! And why? First, because Moses and the prophets "testified" of Christ.
"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." (Luke 24: 47)
"Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." (John 1: 45)
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me." (John 5: 46)
This is why Christ condemned the hypocrites, who professed allegiance to the "scriptures" (old testament) and yet who rejected him. "Search the scriptures," exhorted Jesus, for "they are they which testify of me." (John 8: 39) They testify of the way of salvation. An example of this in the old testament are these words:
"Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David." (Isa. 55: 3)
This is what the rich man understood to be the way of salvation, and which Abraham confirmed to him. The rich man's brothers, if they would be saved, must needs "hear" (heed) that message if they are to "live" and escape the torments of Hades.
When I was a Hardshell I nevertheless believed that the story of the rich man and Lazarus taught what happened to people when the die. This was the view of the first Hardshells. It was the view presented by the great Hardshell debater and apologist, Elder John R. Daily, in his debate with the Universalists and No-Hellers. So, how did I deal with it? How did I reconcile it with my "no-means" and "no-faith" view of salvation? I did not do as most of today's Hardshells and "spiritualize" the story, making it teach that the "hell" was a temporary punishment, and that the torments were for those Jews who were "cut off" from kingdom (church). What I reasoned, in my own mind, was that Abraham simply did not want to correct the rich man, but answered him according to his own false scheme, that scheme which says that hearing and believing the gospel is unnecessary for salvation from eternal torment. But, I now see that such reasoning was simply a way of trying to "get around" the clear implications of the story and dialogue that occurred between the rich man and Lazarus.
On the dialogue between Abraham and the rich man, Dr. Gill wrote:
"let them hear them; for they testified concerning Christ, and concerning the sins of the Jews, and the calamities, both temporal and eternal, that should come upon them; and which, testimony was sufficient to leave them without excuse: and indeed, the word of God, read, explained, and heard, is the ordinary means of conversion, or of bringing men to faith and repentance." (Commentary)
Also, in commenting upon I Peter 4: 6, Gill wrote:
"...yet repenting and believing, upon Noah's preaching to them, they live in their spirits in eternal life, according to the free mercy and grace of God..."
"live according to God in the Spirit; while they were here on earth, the Gospel preached to them had such an effect upon them, as to cause them to live spiritually, to live by faith on Christ, to live a life of holiness from him, and communion with him, and to live according to the will of God, in righteousness and true holiness..."
This is the old Baptist position, one that realizes that faith and repentance are necessary conditions for being saved from Hell and damnation.
"Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent." (Luke 16: 27-30)
The rich man, in this story, is in that place in Hades where the wicked dead went prior to the resurrection of Christ. It is the place of suffering, a prison for wicked spirits. (See I Peter 3: 19) It is the place where he went after he was "dead and buried." Does the rich man rue the event? Certainly. Does he realize why he is there? Certainly. Does he know that he could have been saved and gone to the place where Lazarus is? Certainly. Does he know the way of salvation, how he may have been saved? Certainly. What is that way? He knows that "repentance" at the preaching of the gospel was the way. "If Lazarus preaches to them, and if they repent, then they will not come to this place." That is the reasoning of the rich man. Was he correct? Certainly. The scriptures promise salvation to all who believe and repent. "Repent ye, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out." (Acts 3: 19) "Repentance" is "unto life." (Acts 11: 18) The message of the gospel is - "repent or perish." (See Luke 13: 3, 5; II Peter 3: 9)
If the rich man is correct, then both the preaching the gospel and repentance are necessary for being saved from Hell's torments. Further, Abraham, who speaks for God and truth, does not correct the rich man, but confirms his understanding, by saying "they have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them." They have the word available to them, testified Abraham. They have opportunity to repent, he argued. Implied in this testimony of Abraham is agreement that repentance would prevent one's going to the place of the rich man. Abraham does not say - "you have it all wrong! Preaching and repentance have nothing to do with men escaping Hell's torments!" These would been his remarks had Abraham believed Hardshell teachings.
The Hardshells realize the implications of this conversation and how it uproots Hardshell notions about salvation and faith, about being eternally saved from Hell and damnation. That is why many of them have begun to reinterpret the story of the rich man and Lazarus to make it deal with something other than with where people go when they die. Some of them even make it a "test of fellowship," excluding any who believe the traditional view.
"Let them hear Moses and the prophets," said Jesus. "Let them receive the testimony given by them," and let them repent upon hearing it, and so escape the place of torments. These words of Jesus uphold the gospel means position, and teach that all the unbelieving and unrepentant will go to the place of torment when they die.
"Let them hear Moses and the prophets"! And why? First, because Moses and the prophets "testified" of Christ.
"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." (Luke 24: 47)
"Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." (John 1: 45)
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me." (John 5: 46)
This is why Christ condemned the hypocrites, who professed allegiance to the "scriptures" (old testament) and yet who rejected him. "Search the scriptures," exhorted Jesus, for "they are they which testify of me." (John 8: 39) They testify of the way of salvation. An example of this in the old testament are these words:
"Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David." (Isa. 55: 3)
This is what the rich man understood to be the way of salvation, and which Abraham confirmed to him. The rich man's brothers, if they would be saved, must needs "hear" (heed) that message if they are to "live" and escape the torments of Hades.
When I was a Hardshell I nevertheless believed that the story of the rich man and Lazarus taught what happened to people when the die. This was the view of the first Hardshells. It was the view presented by the great Hardshell debater and apologist, Elder John R. Daily, in his debate with the Universalists and No-Hellers. So, how did I deal with it? How did I reconcile it with my "no-means" and "no-faith" view of salvation? I did not do as most of today's Hardshells and "spiritualize" the story, making it teach that the "hell" was a temporary punishment, and that the torments were for those Jews who were "cut off" from kingdom (church). What I reasoned, in my own mind, was that Abraham simply did not want to correct the rich man, but answered him according to his own false scheme, that scheme which says that hearing and believing the gospel is unnecessary for salvation from eternal torment. But, I now see that such reasoning was simply a way of trying to "get around" the clear implications of the story and dialogue that occurred between the rich man and Lazarus.
On the dialogue between Abraham and the rich man, Dr. Gill wrote:
"let them hear them; for they testified concerning Christ, and concerning the sins of the Jews, and the calamities, both temporal and eternal, that should come upon them; and which, testimony was sufficient to leave them without excuse: and indeed, the word of God, read, explained, and heard, is the ordinary means of conversion, or of bringing men to faith and repentance." (Commentary)
Also, in commenting upon I Peter 4: 6, Gill wrote:
"...yet repenting and believing, upon Noah's preaching to them, they live in their spirits in eternal life, according to the free mercy and grace of God..."
"live according to God in the Spirit; while they were here on earth, the Gospel preached to them had such an effect upon them, as to cause them to live spiritually, to live by faith on Christ, to live a life of holiness from him, and communion with him, and to live according to the will of God, in righteousness and true holiness..."
This is the old Baptist position, one that realizes that faith and repentance are necessary conditions for being saved from Hell and damnation.
Friday, August 12, 2011
A Novel Twist on Justification
Yesterday I received in my mailbox the July 2011 issue of the Primitive Baptist periodical The Banner of Love. I immediately gave a chuckle when I discovered it buried beneath my cable bill. Since I do not subscribe to the paper, it had to have been forwarded to me by another. There was no return address but I have my suspicions as to the sender. My instincts told me that the mailer was making an attempt to rescue me from my grave “sin” of switching to “cold Calvinism”. There had to be a special reason as well why this particular issue was sent. It obviously must contain an article, I thought, which was pivotal in the controversy over gospel means, perseverance, or some other point of doctrine in which a distinction is made between Hardshell vs. Calvinistic soteriology. Lo and behold, there was!
It didn’t take me long to find the article entitled Does God Have Faith? As I’m very familiar with the anti-means theology taught by many of the Primitives today, I didn’t even have to read its contents to know the purpose behind its composition and the argumentation the author would employ. Using Rom. 3:22-25 as the “proof” text, the subliminal argument made therein and that which is becoming increasingly popular among many today is that justification is not in any wise connected to the faith extended God-wards from man. Instead, it is the faith which God himself possesses and is directed toward the work of His Son, or that of the Son directed to the Father. The purpose is part of the determined effort by today’s extremists to try to devise an exegetical way whereby salvation can be made available to unbelievers. It’s a difficult task to say the least seeing that the scriptures so utterly refute the notion. Thus, this growing trend of trying to establish that God possesses faith is in reality a smokescreen obscuring the true purpose behind the effort. The real goal sought is actually to establish something completely different --- that sinners need not have it! If any of our friends happen to be reading this, we hope they will consider what we are saying. Whenever your ministers are pressing the idea that men are justified by the faith OF God or that OF Christ in the sense they mean it, the purpose is to convince you that faith IN Christ is not necessary for salvation. He is not necessarily concerned with trying to prove that faith is a disposition found within God or Christ. Rather, his ultimate intent is to deny that such must be found within man! The intended goal behind this modern take on justification is to redirect the instrument of justification from being God-given faith to God-possessed faith, thereby allowing for the existence of 'justified unbelievers' which their time salvation paradigm demands.
Brother Stephen has already written a very nice article entitled Faith in the Blood rebuking this evolving view of faith, so I wish not to rehash his arguments. However, I do wish to encourage others to consult some of the great writers of the past on the doctrine of justification and see what they had to say on the subject. And then ask yourself “Why didn’t they see these things?" In addition, if this modern twist on justification is "Old-Line teaching" then where is all the historical documentation to prove it? The doctrine of justification was probably the central doctrine focused on by the early reformers, seeing that the Roman church had confused it with sanctification. The need was therefore great in order to demonstrate systematically “How then can man be justified with God” (Job. 25:4). If sinners were justified by faith in the sense intended by our moderns, then it would have been both discovered and analyzed by these and other great theologians of the past. To therefore argue that sinners are justified by the faith that God “possesses”, which need not be communicated to man, is to immediately declare all of these ministerial giants as WRONG! At this point the argument becomes laughable. To say that 20 centuries of the Christian era have elapsed and that no clear, accurate presentation of justification has been given until this generation came along is absolutely ridiculous! As far our part, we would much rather be found standing on the shoulders of giants, than rely on present-day antinomians who pretend to be ‘wise above the fathers’.
To claim to have found a verse of scripture, which upon deduction, says that faith is not necessary for salvation is without a doubt in violation of one of the most fundamental rules of biblical interpretation: the analogy of faith. The individual is in obvious error. There are so many express statements in God’s Word which stress the necessity of believing in Christ that it’s amazing how anyone could say otherwise. I have a close friend who used to imbibe this heretical notion. One of the things which delivered him from such thinking was by going through the gospel of John and underlining all the places in which faith is yoked together with salvation. If a person were to do that very thing he would see just how much stress the Lord laid upon faith in his earthly ministry. Christ taught the necessity of faith in this gospel two different ways. First, he did it negatively by condemning those who had it not!
“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).
“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (v.36)
“I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.” (8:24)
Secondly, he does so positively by simply connecting the two together. Here we can only place a few for the sake of space.
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (3:16)
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life” (5:24)
“And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day” (6:40)
“But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” (20:31)
Could it be any plainer? In these places, and many others, faith is set forth as something possessed by man which is extended God-wards. And what other purpose could the Savior have in connecting faith with salvation but in order to demonstrate its necessity for the same? If it is true, then, based on the testimony of Christ himself that faith is necessary for salvation then something contrary could not be asserted by Paul when inscribing the expression ‘the faith of God’ or ‘the faith of Christ’, regardless of its exact meaning. It’s very telling that such plain facts of scripture as related above can be given secondary attention, while a case is built to render salvation available for the unbeliever by complete dependence upon a simple change of preposition! But even if justification was by ‘the faith of Christ’ in the manner intended by our moderns, then the texts to which this appeal is made nevertheless utterly refute the notion that this allows room for unbelievers to be saved.
“Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference (Rom. 3:22)
So let us grant for the moment that the faith OF Jesus Christ is that which Christ himself possessed. Does this mean then that unbelievers can be saved in their state? Certainly not! The text plainly says that the faith OF Christ is upon those that believe. So even if this expression is to be interpreted in the way which our moderns suppose, the righteousness is nevertheless said to be upon those that believe! This latter expression speaks of faith as possessed by the man, not by God or Christ. What is needed by those who have put this modern twist on justification is for the text to say that the faith OF Jesus Christ is upon those that don’t believe! An argument could then gain a possible footing.
The same truth is established in Gal. 2:16:
“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified”
Likewise, Gal. 3:22:
“But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.”
Friend, do not the above passages limit justification to those who have believed in Jesus Christ? Or is the promise given to those that don’t believe as well? And if so, is it for all of them, or some of them? If for all, then why is not everyone saved? If for some only, does this mean that unbelievers are part of Abraham’s seed?
Having said all of this however, there essentially is no reason why our moderns should feel the need to trumpet forth this novel idea concerning justification. A method has already been in place for years, maybe decades, for them to explain it in a way compatible with their anti-means theology. The traditional way by which many of the Primitives have explained the doctrine is by their reliance upon 'seed' faith for justification. They were actually forced into this position by recognizing that justification by faith is a reality, but yet could not tolerate the idea that faith comes by hearing the gospel (Rom. 10: 17). A way had to be devised to get faith to the sinner which by-passed all forms of instrumentality. So the question now arises. Why the need to place such great emphasis on an idea when 'seed-faith justification' is already in place to satisfy your soteriology by meeting your objections to gospel instrumentality?
Despite the reason, additional interpretations of the doctrine of justification have now been cast into the fray, and today’s extremists find themselves with three alternatives in defining the doctrine. They may choose to say that it is by 'seed faith', by 'the faith OF Christ', or by 'the faith OF God'. They may do this according to their own liking, as it doesn’t really matter which they one they select. Either of them are acceptable to remain in fellowship and to be considered “in good standing” with the churches. In this particular case, theological precision is not that necessary. As long as an explanation of justification is provided which does not include the gospel as an essential element, then the view is deemed acceptable. Yea, any of the three positions on justification can be set forth as long as it does not infringe upon their established premises and preconceptions. As a result, their ministers can travel forth from one church to the next, trumpet forth that we are justified by 'seed faith', 'the faith of God', or that of Christ, without fear of reproval despite their lack of agreement on which one is truly correct.
What is worse is how this newfangled idea about justification has grown to compromise other portions of God’s Word as well. No longer is this nonsense about God having faith confined to Romans 3 and Galatians 3 from which it originated. In the eyes of some extremists this is how one ought to explain the great regeneration passage that is Ephesians 2. When Paul stated that we are saved by grace through faith (v.8) some are having the tendency to now claim that this too is not speaking of a faith issuing forth from man, but God’s faith in His Son! This is absolutely tragic! This text of scripture has always been one of the Primitives’ most prized possessions, being constantly referenced to teach the grand truth that faith is a gift of God. With this new twist being put upon the text, however, we wonder how much longer they can continue to preach it in their traditional way.
Along with Eph. 2:8 we have noticed how some have even come to use this novelty to discredit the Bible’s assertion that the regenerate persevere in faith as taught in 1 Peter 1:5. Yea, that treasured text is now to be interpreted as…
“Who are kept by the power of God through faith (that is, either God’s faith or Christ’s faith – KF) unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time”
Geez! What’s next?!!!!
It is quite clear from such butchering of God’s Word that the growing trend among many of today’s extremists is to strip salvation of all its substance, and to teach the Lord’s people that God deals with His people like they are machines. They are regenerated, but yet experience no change. The first error was in exchanging evangelical faith for seed faith. That in itself was enough to present them with the problem of hollow-log regeneration. With this latest novelty, our minds are made to wonder if it’s about to become even more hollow. If seed faith is about to give place to the faith OF God or that OF Christ as the prominent explication for justification, then is anything at all gonna happen to one when regenerated?
Not even on the subconscious level????
It didn’t take me long to find the article entitled Does God Have Faith? As I’m very familiar with the anti-means theology taught by many of the Primitives today, I didn’t even have to read its contents to know the purpose behind its composition and the argumentation the author would employ. Using Rom. 3:22-25 as the “proof” text, the subliminal argument made therein and that which is becoming increasingly popular among many today is that justification is not in any wise connected to the faith extended God-wards from man. Instead, it is the faith which God himself possesses and is directed toward the work of His Son, or that of the Son directed to the Father. The purpose is part of the determined effort by today’s extremists to try to devise an exegetical way whereby salvation can be made available to unbelievers. It’s a difficult task to say the least seeing that the scriptures so utterly refute the notion. Thus, this growing trend of trying to establish that God possesses faith is in reality a smokescreen obscuring the true purpose behind the effort. The real goal sought is actually to establish something completely different --- that sinners need not have it! If any of our friends happen to be reading this, we hope they will consider what we are saying. Whenever your ministers are pressing the idea that men are justified by the faith OF God or that OF Christ in the sense they mean it, the purpose is to convince you that faith IN Christ is not necessary for salvation. He is not necessarily concerned with trying to prove that faith is a disposition found within God or Christ. Rather, his ultimate intent is to deny that such must be found within man! The intended goal behind this modern take on justification is to redirect the instrument of justification from being God-given faith to God-possessed faith, thereby allowing for the existence of 'justified unbelievers' which their time salvation paradigm demands.
Brother Stephen has already written a very nice article entitled Faith in the Blood rebuking this evolving view of faith, so I wish not to rehash his arguments. However, I do wish to encourage others to consult some of the great writers of the past on the doctrine of justification and see what they had to say on the subject. And then ask yourself “Why didn’t they see these things?" In addition, if this modern twist on justification is "Old-Line teaching" then where is all the historical documentation to prove it? The doctrine of justification was probably the central doctrine focused on by the early reformers, seeing that the Roman church had confused it with sanctification. The need was therefore great in order to demonstrate systematically “How then can man be justified with God” (Job. 25:4). If sinners were justified by faith in the sense intended by our moderns, then it would have been both discovered and analyzed by these and other great theologians of the past. To therefore argue that sinners are justified by the faith that God “possesses”, which need not be communicated to man, is to immediately declare all of these ministerial giants as WRONG! At this point the argument becomes laughable. To say that 20 centuries of the Christian era have elapsed and that no clear, accurate presentation of justification has been given until this generation came along is absolutely ridiculous! As far our part, we would much rather be found standing on the shoulders of giants, than rely on present-day antinomians who pretend to be ‘wise above the fathers’.
To claim to have found a verse of scripture, which upon deduction, says that faith is not necessary for salvation is without a doubt in violation of one of the most fundamental rules of biblical interpretation: the analogy of faith. The individual is in obvious error. There are so many express statements in God’s Word which stress the necessity of believing in Christ that it’s amazing how anyone could say otherwise. I have a close friend who used to imbibe this heretical notion. One of the things which delivered him from such thinking was by going through the gospel of John and underlining all the places in which faith is yoked together with salvation. If a person were to do that very thing he would see just how much stress the Lord laid upon faith in his earthly ministry. Christ taught the necessity of faith in this gospel two different ways. First, he did it negatively by condemning those who had it not!
“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).
“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (v.36)
“I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.” (8:24)
Secondly, he does so positively by simply connecting the two together. Here we can only place a few for the sake of space.
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (3:16)
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life” (5:24)
“And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day” (6:40)
“But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” (20:31)
Could it be any plainer? In these places, and many others, faith is set forth as something possessed by man which is extended God-wards. And what other purpose could the Savior have in connecting faith with salvation but in order to demonstrate its necessity for the same? If it is true, then, based on the testimony of Christ himself that faith is necessary for salvation then something contrary could not be asserted by Paul when inscribing the expression ‘the faith of God’ or ‘the faith of Christ’, regardless of its exact meaning. It’s very telling that such plain facts of scripture as related above can be given secondary attention, while a case is built to render salvation available for the unbeliever by complete dependence upon a simple change of preposition! But even if justification was by ‘the faith of Christ’ in the manner intended by our moderns, then the texts to which this appeal is made nevertheless utterly refute the notion that this allows room for unbelievers to be saved.
“Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference (Rom. 3:22)
So let us grant for the moment that the faith OF Jesus Christ is that which Christ himself possessed. Does this mean then that unbelievers can be saved in their state? Certainly not! The text plainly says that the faith OF Christ is upon those that believe. So even if this expression is to be interpreted in the way which our moderns suppose, the righteousness is nevertheless said to be upon those that believe! This latter expression speaks of faith as possessed by the man, not by God or Christ. What is needed by those who have put this modern twist on justification is for the text to say that the faith OF Jesus Christ is upon those that don’t believe! An argument could then gain a possible footing.
The same truth is established in Gal. 2:16:
“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified”
Likewise, Gal. 3:22:
“But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.”
Friend, do not the above passages limit justification to those who have believed in Jesus Christ? Or is the promise given to those that don’t believe as well? And if so, is it for all of them, or some of them? If for all, then why is not everyone saved? If for some only, does this mean that unbelievers are part of Abraham’s seed?
Having said all of this however, there essentially is no reason why our moderns should feel the need to trumpet forth this novel idea concerning justification. A method has already been in place for years, maybe decades, for them to explain it in a way compatible with their anti-means theology. The traditional way by which many of the Primitives have explained the doctrine is by their reliance upon 'seed' faith for justification. They were actually forced into this position by recognizing that justification by faith is a reality, but yet could not tolerate the idea that faith comes by hearing the gospel (Rom. 10: 17). A way had to be devised to get faith to the sinner which by-passed all forms of instrumentality. So the question now arises. Why the need to place such great emphasis on an idea when 'seed-faith justification' is already in place to satisfy your soteriology by meeting your objections to gospel instrumentality?
Despite the reason, additional interpretations of the doctrine of justification have now been cast into the fray, and today’s extremists find themselves with three alternatives in defining the doctrine. They may choose to say that it is by 'seed faith', by 'the faith OF Christ', or by 'the faith OF God'. They may do this according to their own liking, as it doesn’t really matter which they one they select. Either of them are acceptable to remain in fellowship and to be considered “in good standing” with the churches. In this particular case, theological precision is not that necessary. As long as an explanation of justification is provided which does not include the gospel as an essential element, then the view is deemed acceptable. Yea, any of the three positions on justification can be set forth as long as it does not infringe upon their established premises and preconceptions. As a result, their ministers can travel forth from one church to the next, trumpet forth that we are justified by 'seed faith', 'the faith of God', or that of Christ, without fear of reproval despite their lack of agreement on which one is truly correct.
What is worse is how this newfangled idea about justification has grown to compromise other portions of God’s Word as well. No longer is this nonsense about God having faith confined to Romans 3 and Galatians 3 from which it originated. In the eyes of some extremists this is how one ought to explain the great regeneration passage that is Ephesians 2. When Paul stated that we are saved by grace through faith (v.8) some are having the tendency to now claim that this too is not speaking of a faith issuing forth from man, but God’s faith in His Son! This is absolutely tragic! This text of scripture has always been one of the Primitives’ most prized possessions, being constantly referenced to teach the grand truth that faith is a gift of God. With this new twist being put upon the text, however, we wonder how much longer they can continue to preach it in their traditional way.
Along with Eph. 2:8 we have noticed how some have even come to use this novelty to discredit the Bible’s assertion that the regenerate persevere in faith as taught in 1 Peter 1:5. Yea, that treasured text is now to be interpreted as…
“Who are kept by the power of God through faith (that is, either God’s faith or Christ’s faith – KF) unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time”
Geez! What’s next?!!!!
It is quite clear from such butchering of God’s Word that the growing trend among many of today’s extremists is to strip salvation of all its substance, and to teach the Lord’s people that God deals with His people like they are machines. They are regenerated, but yet experience no change. The first error was in exchanging evangelical faith for seed faith. That in itself was enough to present them with the problem of hollow-log regeneration. With this latest novelty, our minds are made to wonder if it’s about to become even more hollow. If seed faith is about to give place to the faith OF God or that OF Christ as the prominent explication for justification, then is anything at all gonna happen to one when regenerated?
Not even on the subconscious level????
Thursday, August 11, 2011
The Gospel - The Means of Grace XVIII
Chosen To Gospel Enlightenment
"What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded." (Rom. 11: 7)
Unto what are the elect chosen? The Hardshells will say that they are elected to salvation, and this is correct. But, what is involved in this "salvation"? The Hardshells exclude enlightenment, the receiving of saving truth, and the elimination of ignorance about God, Christ, and salvation. Hardshells affirm that "no knowledge is given in regeneration," the whole experience being "non-cognitive" and "on the sub-conscious level."
What is the "it" of this verse? What was it that the elect Israelites "obtained" by their election? The answer to that question destroys Hardshellism. The answer to these questions are easily ascertained by the context.
"Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace." (vss. 3-5)
The "seven thousand men" are they who believed in the one true and living God, and who were not pagan worshippers of other gods, and were they who persevered in their allegiance to Jehovah. They were chosen to faith and perseverance, the two things required for the obtaining of the promises of salvation. (See Heb. 6: 12)
None of the worshippers and followers of Baal were of the elect and this is contrary to the belief of the Hardshells who affirm that some Baal worshippers are of the elect and born again. They reject the idea that God's election is unto faith and perseverance.
Further, Paul says, "and the rest were blinded." This word "blinded" (or 'hardened') involves ignorance, or lack of knowledge about God, and lack of faith in him. This "blindness" is evident in their allegiance to Baal and of their faith in false gods.
On this verse Dr. Gill wrote:
"and the rest were blinded: the non-elect, or those who were not chosen and reserved, to whom Christ was "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence"; and who "stumbled at the word" of the Gospel, "being disobedient" to the divine revelation, "whereunto they were appointed", 1Pe 2:8; hence they obtained no mercy, grace, faith, life, righteousness, and eternal salvation, but were "blinded"; left in that native blindness and ignorance..."
It is appropriate that Dr. Gill refers to the words of Peter. Peter wrote:
"Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. BUT ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light." (I Peter 2: 7-9)
First, it is clear that the elect are styled as the believing and obedient ones, while those not chosen are styled the unbelieving and disobedient. The elect are they who "allow" (accept) the stone while the non-elect are they who "disallow" (reject) the stone. The elect receive the word, and understand it, but the reprobates stumble over Christ, and are offended by him. All these things are contrary, however, to the Hardshell understanding of who are the elect and called.
"But you are a chosen generation," the word "but" offering a contrast between those who reject Christ and those who accept him. This word "but" shows that those who reject Christ are not chosen.
Further, this choice of God to salvation includes being chosen to faith, being chosen to "show forth the praises of God," but who can say this fits non-Christians? Do they show forth the praises of God? They may show forth the praises of their heathen gods, but not being believers in the God of Israel, and of Christ, they cannot fit this description.
Also, the elect are chosen to be called out of religious "darkness" and into the "marvellous light" of the gospel. But, Hardshells exclude enlightenment and saving knowledge from the experience of being chosen and called.
"What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded." (Rom. 11: 7)
Unto what are the elect chosen? The Hardshells will say that they are elected to salvation, and this is correct. But, what is involved in this "salvation"? The Hardshells exclude enlightenment, the receiving of saving truth, and the elimination of ignorance about God, Christ, and salvation. Hardshells affirm that "no knowledge is given in regeneration," the whole experience being "non-cognitive" and "on the sub-conscious level."
What is the "it" of this verse? What was it that the elect Israelites "obtained" by their election? The answer to that question destroys Hardshellism. The answer to these questions are easily ascertained by the context.
"Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace." (vss. 3-5)
The "seven thousand men" are they who believed in the one true and living God, and who were not pagan worshippers of other gods, and were they who persevered in their allegiance to Jehovah. They were chosen to faith and perseverance, the two things required for the obtaining of the promises of salvation. (See Heb. 6: 12)
None of the worshippers and followers of Baal were of the elect and this is contrary to the belief of the Hardshells who affirm that some Baal worshippers are of the elect and born again. They reject the idea that God's election is unto faith and perseverance.
Further, Paul says, "and the rest were blinded." This word "blinded" (or 'hardened') involves ignorance, or lack of knowledge about God, and lack of faith in him. This "blindness" is evident in their allegiance to Baal and of their faith in false gods.
On this verse Dr. Gill wrote:
"and the rest were blinded: the non-elect, or those who were not chosen and reserved, to whom Christ was "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence"; and who "stumbled at the word" of the Gospel, "being disobedient" to the divine revelation, "whereunto they were appointed", 1Pe 2:8; hence they obtained no mercy, grace, faith, life, righteousness, and eternal salvation, but were "blinded"; left in that native blindness and ignorance..."
It is appropriate that Dr. Gill refers to the words of Peter. Peter wrote:
"Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. BUT ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light." (I Peter 2: 7-9)
First, it is clear that the elect are styled as the believing and obedient ones, while those not chosen are styled the unbelieving and disobedient. The elect are they who "allow" (accept) the stone while the non-elect are they who "disallow" (reject) the stone. The elect receive the word, and understand it, but the reprobates stumble over Christ, and are offended by him. All these things are contrary, however, to the Hardshell understanding of who are the elect and called.
"But you are a chosen generation," the word "but" offering a contrast between those who reject Christ and those who accept him. This word "but" shows that those who reject Christ are not chosen.
Further, this choice of God to salvation includes being chosen to faith, being chosen to "show forth the praises of God," but who can say this fits non-Christians? Do they show forth the praises of God? They may show forth the praises of their heathen gods, but not being believers in the God of Israel, and of Christ, they cannot fit this description.
Also, the elect are chosen to be called out of religious "darkness" and into the "marvellous light" of the gospel. But, Hardshells exclude enlightenment and saving knowledge from the experience of being chosen and called.
The Gospel - The Means of Grace XVII
Cleansing of the Conscience &
Application of the blood
"And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." (Romans 5: 11)
For one to be saved, he must not only have had Christ make "atonement" (reconciliation) for him, but he must "receive" the "atonement." The atonement must be imputed to a person, the blood of Christ must be applied to the sinner, both forensically and experimentally. How does one "receive" the atonement? Is it not when he is saved or born again?
"Receiving the atonement" simply means the receiving of the fruits or benefits of the atonement. On this verse the great old Baptist, Dr. John Gill, wrote:
"by whom we have now received the atonement; atonement is not made, but received by us; which denotes the application of the atoning blood and sacrifice of Christ to the conscience, the Spirit's witness of interest in it, and the office of faith, as a recipient of it: it is not faith, nor anything else of the creature's, that makes the atonement, only Christ; but faith receives it from him, and by him..." (commentary)
The word "receive" in this verse deserves special attention.
One writer wrote:
"In the words of John Murray, the ‘word ‘receiving’…does not refer [in 5:17] to our believing acceptance of the free gift but to our being made the recipients’ of it. Indeed, Paul rarely used ‘lambano’ (‘to receive’) in the sense of ‘to take hold’ or ‘to accept believingly’. To receive something in his sense is simply to be the object or the recipient of it, as Murray says. We see this clearly in Romans 13:2, where those who receive (or incur) judgement are the objects or the recipients of it; they receive judgement in much the way that a boxer might receive severe blows to the head. Similarly, in Romans 1:5 those who ‘have received grace’ and in Romans 5:11 those who ‘have now received reconciliation’ are clearly the recipients of these effects in the same passive sense that a newborn baby receives life."
On the same web page, a commenter disagreed, and said:
"The word "receive" is in the active voice, which means its something YOU do. The word "receive" should have been translated ACCEPT, not receive. Or it should have translated TAKE. Its the Greek word "Lambano" which literally means to take hold of."
http://www.evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1116
So, which is it, active or passive voice? And, what are the consequences in either case?
A. T. Robertson says that "lambano" (received), in Romans 5: 11, is "second aorist active indicative."
So, though it is true that the word "lambano" (received) often is in the passive voice, it is sometimes put in the active voice. Often people receive things passively, and such things are put in the passive voice in the Greek. Dead people receive life, but they are passive in it. Receiving slaps on the face is also passive. But, when in the active voice, "receiving" means "accepting," or "laying hold of" (grabbing), or "taking." Thus, Murray is wrong.
It is not a denial of Calvinism and sovereign grace for the will to be active in salvation. The experience of salvation is not in every way passive, nor is it in every way active. In some respects the sinner is being acted upon, but in other respects the sinner is acting. Action is necessarily involved in being saved. The question is this, however: Is all the action and activity God's? or all the sinner's? Or, does salvation not involve action on the part of both God and the sinner? This leads to the debate about monergism and synergism.
Though these terms are often used by Calvinists, their definitions of them are often biased and misleading. Many Calvinists today, like John Hendryx, affirm that Calvinism is strictly monergistic and that Arminianism is synergistic in regard to being "born again" or "regenerated." In professional writings on this subject, "monergism" denotes passivity (passive voice) and "synergism" denotes activity (active voice). So, "what saith the scriptures?" Do the scriptures speak of regeneration in totally monergistic and passive terms? Or in totally synergistic and active terms? Or, in a combination of both? What does the old London Confession of 1689 say?
1689 London Confession on Effectual Calling
1._____ Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
Here it seems that the old Baptists blended both passive and active, both monergistic and synergistic, factors to the experience of salvation or regeneration. God acts upon the sinner. The sinner is passive. But, the sinner, being acted upon, acts himself, "so that they come most freely." Their being "willing" is the result of God's action, but it is nevertheless their action in coming. Is the sinner regenerated before his will has been changed? Before it is made willing? Before it comes to Christ?
It is true that this work cannot be called a "cooperation" in the general sense of that term. It is also true that God's act is always effectual, being irresistible. "Drawing" denotes this. God's power is the efficient cause, but the will of man is the instrumental cause. God causes the will of the sinner and the will of the sinner causes the sinner to come.
2._____ This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.
Can a man be said to be "called" and "quickened" who has not "answered" this call? Before he has "embraced" the grace offered and conveyed? Job, in speaking of his coming resurrection, said "you will call and I will answer." (Job 14: 15) Was Lazarus raised from the dead when Jesus called unto him or when he answered the call? Thus, regeneration (or resurrection) does not simply comprehend the cause but also that which is effected by the call.
Dr. Archilbald Alexander, the great teacher of Princeton Calvinism, and forerunner of Charles Hodge, wrote:
"Sometimes regeneration is considered distinctly from the acts and exercises of the mind which proceed from it, but in the Holy Scriptures the cause and effect are included..."
http://baptistgadfly.blogspot.com/2009/02/dr-grudems-errors.html
Those Calvinists who say that "regeneration" is the act of God that causes regeneration is false, for such a definition says that one is regenerated before he is regenerated, which is nonsensical. Such a definition limits regeneration to the cause of it, but not to the effect of it. Some of these Calvinists will say that the "drawing" = regeneration, but if this is so, then one is regenerated, or has spiritual life, before he "comes" to Jesus. But, Jesus put life after coming. (John 5: 40) The order given by Christ is drawing-->coming-->life. If the "drawing" = "receiving life," then one is alive before he is alive. But, again, this is nonsensical.
"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God." (Rom. 3: 25)
"Propitiation" is a result of the sinner placing his trust in the sacrifice of Christ, in the righteousness of Christ. Again, this is in direct opposition to Hardshellism which teaches that faith in the blood of Christ is no condition or means for obtaining propitiation.
On this verse, Dr. Gill wrote:
"...'faith' in his blood is the means by which persons become partakers of the benefits of his propitiation; such as peace, pardon, atonement, justification, and adoption..." (Commentary)
Propitiation occurs through application of the blood of Christ. In the old testament typology, the blood was applied to the mercy seat and also applied to the people by sprinkling. During the inaugural of the first passover, the Lord instructed the people to apply the blood of the sacrificial lamb to the doors of their homes and this typifies the sinner's application of the blood to his own case by believing in Jesus. Further, in old testament atonement, the individual was required to lay his hands upon the sacrificial lamb and confess his sins as a way of appropriating the benefits of the atoning sacrifice.
Thus, since propitiation requires faith, and faith requires the hearing of the gospel, then the gospel is a means of grace and salvation.
"And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (Rev. 7: 14)
The Greek word for "washed" is in the active voice, according to Robertson. Thus, regeneration is not, in every respect, a passive or monergistic experience. How do sinners wash their robes? Wrote Dr. Gill:
"The "robes" which they washed in his blood may either design themselves, their consciences, which this blood purges from dead works; or their outward conversation garments, which have their spots, and need continual washing; or else the robe of righteousness, and garments of salvation, or their justification, which is by the blood of Christ, Ro 5:9. The act of washing from sin, by the blood of Christ, is sometimes ascribed to Christ himself, as in Re 1:5; but here to the saints, and designs the concern which faith has in the blood of Christ, which deals with it for justification, peace, and pardon, for the removing of sin from the conscience, and for cleansing from all impurity, both of flesh and Spirit: and the effect of this is, that their robes were "made white"; that is, that they were freed from all sin, were without fault before the throne, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing. This shows that these persons had no trust in themselves, or dependence on their own merits, and works of righteousness, but wholly trusted to, and depended on the blood and righteousness of Christ; which is the only way to come out of tribulation, and enter the kingdom." (Commentary)
"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Heb. 9: 14)
This verse deals directly with the application of the blood of Christ to a person and occurs when one is saved, born again, or regenerated. Notice how this work is not non-cognitive as the Hardshells affirm. It involves the removing of ignorance (purging) and the giving of true saving knowledge. The word "conscience" denotes cognition, as does the word "serve." It is foolishness to speak of "born again pagans," as do the Hardshells, for pagans and all idolaters still serve false gods and are involved in "dead works," and do not serve the living God.
"Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." (Heb. 10: 22)
Do pagans possess a "good conscience" or an "evil conscience"? The Hardshells affirm that many pagans are "born again," even though their consciences are yet unclean. Who has a "true heart"? Those who have faith or those who do not?
"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." (John 6: 53-56)
This is another passage that deals with the application of the blood of Christ to a soul. Salvation is sometimes described as Christ being incorporated into a believer, and is sometimes described as the believer being incorporated into Christ. This is symbolized in the two ordinances of the Christian faith, in baptism and the Lord's Supper. In the typology of baptism, the sinner is pictured as being incorporated into Christ, but in the Supper Christ is pictured as being incorporated into the sinner. So, how is Christ incorporated into the sinner? It is by appropriating the sacrifice of Christ by believing in Christ and accepting his atonement. On this Dr. Gill wrote:
"But the words design a spiritual eating of Christ by faith. To eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ, is to believe that Christ is come in the flesh, and is truly and really man; that his flesh is given for the life of his people, and his blood is shed for their sins, and this with some view and application to themselves...only such that believe in Christ are living souls...between these acts of faith, and eternal life, there is an inseparable connection."
This is the old Baptist position and it is false for the Hardshells to claim that they are "Old Baptists" when they reject that position.
Application of the blood
"And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." (Romans 5: 11)
For one to be saved, he must not only have had Christ make "atonement" (reconciliation) for him, but he must "receive" the "atonement." The atonement must be imputed to a person, the blood of Christ must be applied to the sinner, both forensically and experimentally. How does one "receive" the atonement? Is it not when he is saved or born again?
"Receiving the atonement" simply means the receiving of the fruits or benefits of the atonement. On this verse the great old Baptist, Dr. John Gill, wrote:
"by whom we have now received the atonement; atonement is not made, but received by us; which denotes the application of the atoning blood and sacrifice of Christ to the conscience, the Spirit's witness of interest in it, and the office of faith, as a recipient of it: it is not faith, nor anything else of the creature's, that makes the atonement, only Christ; but faith receives it from him, and by him..." (commentary)
The word "receive" in this verse deserves special attention.
One writer wrote:
"In the words of John Murray, the ‘word ‘receiving’…does not refer [in 5:17] to our believing acceptance of the free gift but to our being made the recipients’ of it. Indeed, Paul rarely used ‘lambano’ (‘to receive’) in the sense of ‘to take hold’ or ‘to accept believingly’. To receive something in his sense is simply to be the object or the recipient of it, as Murray says. We see this clearly in Romans 13:2, where those who receive (or incur) judgement are the objects or the recipients of it; they receive judgement in much the way that a boxer might receive severe blows to the head. Similarly, in Romans 1:5 those who ‘have received grace’ and in Romans 5:11 those who ‘have now received reconciliation’ are clearly the recipients of these effects in the same passive sense that a newborn baby receives life."
On the same web page, a commenter disagreed, and said:
"The word "receive" is in the active voice, which means its something YOU do. The word "receive" should have been translated ACCEPT, not receive. Or it should have translated TAKE. Its the Greek word "Lambano" which literally means to take hold of."
http://www.evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1116
So, which is it, active or passive voice? And, what are the consequences in either case?
A. T. Robertson says that "lambano" (received), in Romans 5: 11, is "second aorist active indicative."
So, though it is true that the word "lambano" (received) often is in the passive voice, it is sometimes put in the active voice. Often people receive things passively, and such things are put in the passive voice in the Greek. Dead people receive life, but they are passive in it. Receiving slaps on the face is also passive. But, when in the active voice, "receiving" means "accepting," or "laying hold of" (grabbing), or "taking." Thus, Murray is wrong.
It is not a denial of Calvinism and sovereign grace for the will to be active in salvation. The experience of salvation is not in every way passive, nor is it in every way active. In some respects the sinner is being acted upon, but in other respects the sinner is acting. Action is necessarily involved in being saved. The question is this, however: Is all the action and activity God's? or all the sinner's? Or, does salvation not involve action on the part of both God and the sinner? This leads to the debate about monergism and synergism.
Though these terms are often used by Calvinists, their definitions of them are often biased and misleading. Many Calvinists today, like John Hendryx, affirm that Calvinism is strictly monergistic and that Arminianism is synergistic in regard to being "born again" or "regenerated." In professional writings on this subject, "monergism" denotes passivity (passive voice) and "synergism" denotes activity (active voice). So, "what saith the scriptures?" Do the scriptures speak of regeneration in totally monergistic and passive terms? Or in totally synergistic and active terms? Or, in a combination of both? What does the old London Confession of 1689 say?
1689 London Confession on Effectual Calling
1._____ Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
Here it seems that the old Baptists blended both passive and active, both monergistic and synergistic, factors to the experience of salvation or regeneration. God acts upon the sinner. The sinner is passive. But, the sinner, being acted upon, acts himself, "so that they come most freely." Their being "willing" is the result of God's action, but it is nevertheless their action in coming. Is the sinner regenerated before his will has been changed? Before it is made willing? Before it comes to Christ?
It is true that this work cannot be called a "cooperation" in the general sense of that term. It is also true that God's act is always effectual, being irresistible. "Drawing" denotes this. God's power is the efficient cause, but the will of man is the instrumental cause. God causes the will of the sinner and the will of the sinner causes the sinner to come.
2._____ This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.
Can a man be said to be "called" and "quickened" who has not "answered" this call? Before he has "embraced" the grace offered and conveyed? Job, in speaking of his coming resurrection, said "you will call and I will answer." (Job 14: 15) Was Lazarus raised from the dead when Jesus called unto him or when he answered the call? Thus, regeneration (or resurrection) does not simply comprehend the cause but also that which is effected by the call.
Dr. Archilbald Alexander, the great teacher of Princeton Calvinism, and forerunner of Charles Hodge, wrote:
"Sometimes regeneration is considered distinctly from the acts and exercises of the mind which proceed from it, but in the Holy Scriptures the cause and effect are included..."
http://baptistgadfly.blogspot.com/2009/02/dr-grudems-errors.html
Those Calvinists who say that "regeneration" is the act of God that causes regeneration is false, for such a definition says that one is regenerated before he is regenerated, which is nonsensical. Such a definition limits regeneration to the cause of it, but not to the effect of it. Some of these Calvinists will say that the "drawing" = regeneration, but if this is so, then one is regenerated, or has spiritual life, before he "comes" to Jesus. But, Jesus put life after coming. (John 5: 40) The order given by Christ is drawing-->coming-->life. If the "drawing" = "receiving life," then one is alive before he is alive. But, again, this is nonsensical.
"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God." (Rom. 3: 25)
"Propitiation" is a result of the sinner placing his trust in the sacrifice of Christ, in the righteousness of Christ. Again, this is in direct opposition to Hardshellism which teaches that faith in the blood of Christ is no condition or means for obtaining propitiation.
On this verse, Dr. Gill wrote:
"...'faith' in his blood is the means by which persons become partakers of the benefits of his propitiation; such as peace, pardon, atonement, justification, and adoption..." (Commentary)
Propitiation occurs through application of the blood of Christ. In the old testament typology, the blood was applied to the mercy seat and also applied to the people by sprinkling. During the inaugural of the first passover, the Lord instructed the people to apply the blood of the sacrificial lamb to the doors of their homes and this typifies the sinner's application of the blood to his own case by believing in Jesus. Further, in old testament atonement, the individual was required to lay his hands upon the sacrificial lamb and confess his sins as a way of appropriating the benefits of the atoning sacrifice.
Thus, since propitiation requires faith, and faith requires the hearing of the gospel, then the gospel is a means of grace and salvation.
"And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (Rev. 7: 14)
The Greek word for "washed" is in the active voice, according to Robertson. Thus, regeneration is not, in every respect, a passive or monergistic experience. How do sinners wash their robes? Wrote Dr. Gill:
"The "robes" which they washed in his blood may either design themselves, their consciences, which this blood purges from dead works; or their outward conversation garments, which have their spots, and need continual washing; or else the robe of righteousness, and garments of salvation, or their justification, which is by the blood of Christ, Ro 5:9. The act of washing from sin, by the blood of Christ, is sometimes ascribed to Christ himself, as in Re 1:5; but here to the saints, and designs the concern which faith has in the blood of Christ, which deals with it for justification, peace, and pardon, for the removing of sin from the conscience, and for cleansing from all impurity, both of flesh and Spirit: and the effect of this is, that their robes were "made white"; that is, that they were freed from all sin, were without fault before the throne, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing. This shows that these persons had no trust in themselves, or dependence on their own merits, and works of righteousness, but wholly trusted to, and depended on the blood and righteousness of Christ; which is the only way to come out of tribulation, and enter the kingdom." (Commentary)
"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Heb. 9: 14)
This verse deals directly with the application of the blood of Christ to a person and occurs when one is saved, born again, or regenerated. Notice how this work is not non-cognitive as the Hardshells affirm. It involves the removing of ignorance (purging) and the giving of true saving knowledge. The word "conscience" denotes cognition, as does the word "serve." It is foolishness to speak of "born again pagans," as do the Hardshells, for pagans and all idolaters still serve false gods and are involved in "dead works," and do not serve the living God.
"Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." (Heb. 10: 22)
Do pagans possess a "good conscience" or an "evil conscience"? The Hardshells affirm that many pagans are "born again," even though their consciences are yet unclean. Who has a "true heart"? Those who have faith or those who do not?
"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." (John 6: 53-56)
This is another passage that deals with the application of the blood of Christ to a soul. Salvation is sometimes described as Christ being incorporated into a believer, and is sometimes described as the believer being incorporated into Christ. This is symbolized in the two ordinances of the Christian faith, in baptism and the Lord's Supper. In the typology of baptism, the sinner is pictured as being incorporated into Christ, but in the Supper Christ is pictured as being incorporated into the sinner. So, how is Christ incorporated into the sinner? It is by appropriating the sacrifice of Christ by believing in Christ and accepting his atonement. On this Dr. Gill wrote:
"But the words design a spiritual eating of Christ by faith. To eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ, is to believe that Christ is come in the flesh, and is truly and really man; that his flesh is given for the life of his people, and his blood is shed for their sins, and this with some view and application to themselves...only such that believe in Christ are living souls...between these acts of faith, and eternal life, there is an inseparable connection."
This is the old Baptist position and it is false for the Hardshells to claim that they are "Old Baptists" when they reject that position.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Hassell on The Divine Order
“There is no salvation, no eternal life, no enjoyment of heaven, without the renewing power of the Holy Ghost and the atoning death of the Son of God; and, unless we are first regenerated, or born again, or born from above, or born of God, or born of the purifying power of the Holy Spirit (called by Paul "the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit," Titus 3:5), we will never truly repent or believe or obey or enter heaven; and, if we are thus born of God, we will certainly repent, believe, obey, and inherit the fullness of eternal life” (Gospel Messenger, 1896)
Sylvester Hassell penned these words a little over a century ago. He is generally held in high esteem among the Primitives today, having compiled along with his father a History of the Church of God. This statement of his, though, is very significant. It was part of an article entitled ‘The Divine Order of Salvation’ which you may find here.
Hassell definitely sets forth an ordo salutis as the title of the article implies. Whether he was right or wrong in his supposed order of salvation, it is not now our present task to decide. The thing to note is that he does feel that repentance, faith, obedience would in fact follow the divine quickening of God! He says that those born again will CERTAINLY do those things! But this is an attack against the very heart and soul of the contemporary time salvation doctrine, which claims that these things are optional to the regenerate family of God. We have not read all of Hassell’s writings, but if he did in fact consistently advocate the position indicated above, then he could not be a supporter of time salvation in the modern sense of the term. Elsewhere in his writings he does condone the teaching, which makes me think that he believed it, but not in the ultimate connotation which the heresy carries today! If this is true, then it would not strike me strange at all! The evolving of ideas is nothing new among today’s extremists.
We are pleased that Elder Hassell could make this statement. I only wish that more of my former acquaintances could do the same. It would be a step in the right direction.
Sylvester Hassell penned these words a little over a century ago. He is generally held in high esteem among the Primitives today, having compiled along with his father a History of the Church of God. This statement of his, though, is very significant. It was part of an article entitled ‘The Divine Order of Salvation’ which you may find here.
Hassell definitely sets forth an ordo salutis as the title of the article implies. Whether he was right or wrong in his supposed order of salvation, it is not now our present task to decide. The thing to note is that he does feel that repentance, faith, obedience would in fact follow the divine quickening of God! He says that those born again will CERTAINLY do those things! But this is an attack against the very heart and soul of the contemporary time salvation doctrine, which claims that these things are optional to the regenerate family of God. We have not read all of Hassell’s writings, but if he did in fact consistently advocate the position indicated above, then he could not be a supporter of time salvation in the modern sense of the term. Elsewhere in his writings he does condone the teaching, which makes me think that he believed it, but not in the ultimate connotation which the heresy carries today! If this is true, then it would not strike me strange at all! The evolving of ideas is nothing new among today’s extremists.
We are pleased that Elder Hassell could make this statement. I only wish that more of my former acquaintances could do the same. It would be a step in the right direction.
The Gospel - The Means of Grace XVI
Inheriting God's Promise
"Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath." (Heb. 6: 17)
Those who are elect and called are they who have become the "children" or "people" of God, as was shown in a previous posting. And, says Paul, "if children, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ." (Rom. 8: 17)
What is this "inheritance"? What does it involve? What things has God promised to his children and to his heirs? Are they temporal things or eternal things? A temporal salvation or an eternal one? Sometimes a biblical writer will focus on one item of the inheritance, but at other times will affirm that to be an "heir of God" means that the heir is an "heir of all things." Yes, Jesus is the one true supreme "heir," or "the heir of all things," but so are all the saved and called, for they are "joint-heirs" with Christ. This is why Paul could say to Christians - "all things are yours." (I Cor. 3: 22)
The Means or Conditions
"That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises." (Heb. 6: 12)
"Inheriting the promises" involves being saved, whether it is past, present, or future salvation. Some of these things promised by God are received in initial salvation, in conversion, some are received during the Christian life, and some are to be received in the resurrection to eternal glory and life. Further, what God has promised, in his covenant, to the "heirs of promise," concerns their deliverance from their condemned state to their glorious immortal state. For Hardshells to read Hebrews and the apostolic epistles concerning inheriting the promises and make them to deal strictly with a "time salvation" is a wholly untenable theory.
"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)
Notice how the writer of Hebrews makes it clear that he is talking about eternal salvation for he speaks of "the promise of eternal inheritance" and of "redemption" from "transgressions."
What are the means or conditions for obtaining the promise of heirship, of the promise of "eternal inheritance"? The writer says - "though faith and patience (perseverence) inherit the promises." But, Hardshells deny that faith and perseverance are conditions for obtaining eternal inheritance, affirming that many heathens who are without faith in God and in Christ, are nevertheless to become recipients of the eternal inheritance. Also, those who receive eternal inheritance are identified as being "those that are called," and we have already seen how Paul affirms that this "calling" is "by the gospel." (II Thess. 2: 14)
Hardshells, in holding to unconditional election, have rejected all propositions that put conditions with salvation. Yet, the old Baptists, like John Bunyan, did not speak of salvation as being strictly unconditional, but also conditional. The old Baptists of primitive times spoke of salvation as being both unconditional and conditional, unconditional in one sense and conditional in another sense. The Hardshells, however, affirm that eternal salvation is conditional in no sense, not conditioned upon faith and perseverance. But, the writer of Hebrews was no Hardshell for he plainly affirms that becoming heirs of God's promises is conditioned upon one having faith, faith in God and in Jesus as Lord and Savior, and persevering in that faith to the end.
"That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith...For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise." (Gal. 3: 14, 18)
In a previous posting we looked at how the salvation experience is described as involving one "receiving" the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of Christ, and this verse also speaks of such a receiving of the Spirit in connection with the promises of the eternal covenant. And, how does he say that the Spirit is "received"? Is it not "through faith"?
"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory." (Eph. 1: 11-14)
Hardshells love the part of this passage that deals with "predestination" and "election." But, they do not like that part that connects faith with salvation, or connects gospel preaching with being a means in the work of salvation. Who, according to the apostle, did God predestinate and purpose to ultimately be saved, or who should be "to the praise of his glory"? Is it not they who have "trusted in Christ"? Yet, Hardshells say that this purpose of God to make a people who become a matter of praise to God and his glory is not limited to believers in Jesus, affirming that many who do not believe in Jesus are saved people, and who will also be "to the praise of his glory."
Further, what does Paul say happened "after" they had believed and trusted in Christ? He says they were "sealed with that holy Spirit of promise." Why is this "sealing" not that which God purposed and predestinated, as the Hardshells will want to affirm? Why is this "sealing" not regeneration or conversion? Paul mentions this "sealing" in his other epistles.
"Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." (II Cor. 1: 22)
Is he not alluding to regeneration and conversion? Is not the "giving" of the "earnest of the Spirit in our hearts" not the salvation experience? Does he not include in this same experience the work of God in "sealing"?
In the Ephesian epistle, Paul mention the same "sealing" again in chapter four, saying:
"And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." (4: 30)
Here the "sealing" is connected with "redemption." It is also, like calling and enlightenment, "once for all time," an effectual work that endures and that does not fail. One is "sealed UNTO the day of redemption."
The word "sealed" is from the Greek word "sphragizō" and means to seal or mark a thing, for the purpose of owning and authenticating it. It is a way of saying of something - "it belongs to me." When a person, in primitive times, "sealed" a letter, he put his stamp or mark upon it. This seal was often done on wax placed on the folded document. In the process of "sealing" the document an "impression" is made in the wax. Thus, when people are saved, after believing, they are "sealed," owned by God, impressed by God, which impression is in the nature, in the heart and mind. Certainly this "sealing" does not occur later than regeneration. Can we imagine a man regenerated who was not yet "sealed"? Not yet owned by God? Not yet impressed upon by God?
"That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power." (Eph. 3: 6, 7)
This verse absolutely destroys the Hardshell no means theory of salvation! How does one become a "fellowheir"? How does one become a "partaker of his promise in Christ"? Paul says it is "by the gospel"! Hardshellism uprooted! Hardshellism, the chaff which the wind of scripture blows away!
Notice also that this being made a partaker of Christ by the gospel is "by the working of his power."
"Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath." (Heb. 6: 17)
Those who are elect and called are they who have become the "children" or "people" of God, as was shown in a previous posting. And, says Paul, "if children, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ." (Rom. 8: 17)
What is this "inheritance"? What does it involve? What things has God promised to his children and to his heirs? Are they temporal things or eternal things? A temporal salvation or an eternal one? Sometimes a biblical writer will focus on one item of the inheritance, but at other times will affirm that to be an "heir of God" means that the heir is an "heir of all things." Yes, Jesus is the one true supreme "heir," or "the heir of all things," but so are all the saved and called, for they are "joint-heirs" with Christ. This is why Paul could say to Christians - "all things are yours." (I Cor. 3: 22)
The Means or Conditions
"That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises." (Heb. 6: 12)
"Inheriting the promises" involves being saved, whether it is past, present, or future salvation. Some of these things promised by God are received in initial salvation, in conversion, some are received during the Christian life, and some are to be received in the resurrection to eternal glory and life. Further, what God has promised, in his covenant, to the "heirs of promise," concerns their deliverance from their condemned state to their glorious immortal state. For Hardshells to read Hebrews and the apostolic epistles concerning inheriting the promises and make them to deal strictly with a "time salvation" is a wholly untenable theory.
"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)
Notice how the writer of Hebrews makes it clear that he is talking about eternal salvation for he speaks of "the promise of eternal inheritance" and of "redemption" from "transgressions."
What are the means or conditions for obtaining the promise of heirship, of the promise of "eternal inheritance"? The writer says - "though faith and patience (perseverence) inherit the promises." But, Hardshells deny that faith and perseverance are conditions for obtaining eternal inheritance, affirming that many heathens who are without faith in God and in Christ, are nevertheless to become recipients of the eternal inheritance. Also, those who receive eternal inheritance are identified as being "those that are called," and we have already seen how Paul affirms that this "calling" is "by the gospel." (II Thess. 2: 14)
Hardshells, in holding to unconditional election, have rejected all propositions that put conditions with salvation. Yet, the old Baptists, like John Bunyan, did not speak of salvation as being strictly unconditional, but also conditional. The old Baptists of primitive times spoke of salvation as being both unconditional and conditional, unconditional in one sense and conditional in another sense. The Hardshells, however, affirm that eternal salvation is conditional in no sense, not conditioned upon faith and perseverance. But, the writer of Hebrews was no Hardshell for he plainly affirms that becoming heirs of God's promises is conditioned upon one having faith, faith in God and in Jesus as Lord and Savior, and persevering in that faith to the end.
"That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith...For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise." (Gal. 3: 14, 18)
In a previous posting we looked at how the salvation experience is described as involving one "receiving" the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of Christ, and this verse also speaks of such a receiving of the Spirit in connection with the promises of the eternal covenant. And, how does he say that the Spirit is "received"? Is it not "through faith"?
"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory." (Eph. 1: 11-14)
Hardshells love the part of this passage that deals with "predestination" and "election." But, they do not like that part that connects faith with salvation, or connects gospel preaching with being a means in the work of salvation. Who, according to the apostle, did God predestinate and purpose to ultimately be saved, or who should be "to the praise of his glory"? Is it not they who have "trusted in Christ"? Yet, Hardshells say that this purpose of God to make a people who become a matter of praise to God and his glory is not limited to believers in Jesus, affirming that many who do not believe in Jesus are saved people, and who will also be "to the praise of his glory."
Further, what does Paul say happened "after" they had believed and trusted in Christ? He says they were "sealed with that holy Spirit of promise." Why is this "sealing" not that which God purposed and predestinated, as the Hardshells will want to affirm? Why is this "sealing" not regeneration or conversion? Paul mentions this "sealing" in his other epistles.
"Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." (II Cor. 1: 22)
Is he not alluding to regeneration and conversion? Is not the "giving" of the "earnest of the Spirit in our hearts" not the salvation experience? Does he not include in this same experience the work of God in "sealing"?
In the Ephesian epistle, Paul mention the same "sealing" again in chapter four, saying:
"And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." (4: 30)
Here the "sealing" is connected with "redemption." It is also, like calling and enlightenment, "once for all time," an effectual work that endures and that does not fail. One is "sealed UNTO the day of redemption."
The word "sealed" is from the Greek word "sphragizō" and means to seal or mark a thing, for the purpose of owning and authenticating it. It is a way of saying of something - "it belongs to me." When a person, in primitive times, "sealed" a letter, he put his stamp or mark upon it. This seal was often done on wax placed on the folded document. In the process of "sealing" the document an "impression" is made in the wax. Thus, when people are saved, after believing, they are "sealed," owned by God, impressed by God, which impression is in the nature, in the heart and mind. Certainly this "sealing" does not occur later than regeneration. Can we imagine a man regenerated who was not yet "sealed"? Not yet owned by God? Not yet impressed upon by God?
"That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power." (Eph. 3: 6, 7)
This verse absolutely destroys the Hardshell no means theory of salvation! How does one become a "fellowheir"? How does one become a "partaker of his promise in Christ"? Paul says it is "by the gospel"! Hardshellism uprooted! Hardshellism, the chaff which the wind of scripture blows away!
Notice also that this being made a partaker of Christ by the gospel is "by the working of his power."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)