R. L. Vaughn of "Ministry and Musis - Seeking The Old Paths" has posted links to two old Baptist confessions of faith for early 19th century associations in western Tennessee. (see here) One of these is the Forked Deer Association. This association continued with a Hardshell faction until recent years when it was disbanded. In my younger days as an Elder in the "Primitive Baptist Church" I visited churches in this association. I want to copy some of the articles of faith of this association for the year 1825 and ask whether today's Hardshells are in agreement with them.
"Art. V. Although the Gospel is to be preached to all the world and sinners be called upon to repent and believe in Christ, yet such is their opposition to the Gospel plan, that they all freely choose a state of sin, rather than enjoy the blessings of eternal life. But "where sin abounded grace did much more abound," God of his mere good pleasure, "and that he might make known the riches of his glory," hath elected or chosen unto salvation in Christ, "a great multitude which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people and tongues." These by the regenerating influence of the holy spirit, are "effectually called," become dead to sin, and alive unto God, and being the subjects of repentance, faith, &c., and having the love of God shed abroad in their hearts, freely choose Christ for their Savior, and willingly devote themselves to his service by a life of holiness. Art. VI. Those who are thus united to Christ by a living faith, have the full and free forgiveness of all their sins, & a complete justification of their persons, which favors are bestowed, not on account of any works they may have performed, or disposition they may possess, but solely on account of the merits of Christ, arising from his Suffering and death. Art. VII. All those who are born of the spirit, and justified by the imputed righteousness of the Son of God, shall persevere unto the end, being kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation." (emphasis mine)
Friday, November 23, 2012
More From Elder Hume
Here are a couple more citations from Elder Joel Hume from the 1863 debate. They are further evidence of what the Hardshells believed at that time respecting evangelical faith and its relation to salvation. (emphasis mine)
"So with every child of God, when the evidence comes before them that Jesus Christ is their Saviour, faith is irresistible. You know this is so, when you believed in the Lord Jesus; you could not help it. I do not remember how many kinds of faith there are in the Bible; there is such a theory spoken of as the faith of men and the faith of devils, as false faith, as little faith, as great faith; but the faith I have in view here, is the faith of God's elect. I inquire, who has this faith? The answer is, God's spiritual Israel possess that faith, and nobody else." (Closing reply on 4th proposition)
"Respecting Brother Stinson's passage, "he that believeth shall be saved," the question is, how does faith come? Upon what principles do men realize faith? I read in the first chapter of Ephesians, that they believed according to the working of the mighty power of God, which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead. What is the conclusion? It requires the same power to enable the sinner to believe in Jesus Christ that it requires to raise Christ from the dead." (last speech last proposition)
Those Hardshells today who say that evangelical faith in Christ is optional to the elect, and that many of them will never become believers in Jesus, is not true Old Baptist doctrine.
"So with every child of God, when the evidence comes before them that Jesus Christ is their Saviour, faith is irresistible. You know this is so, when you believed in the Lord Jesus; you could not help it. I do not remember how many kinds of faith there are in the Bible; there is such a theory spoken of as the faith of men and the faith of devils, as false faith, as little faith, as great faith; but the faith I have in view here, is the faith of God's elect. I inquire, who has this faith? The answer is, God's spiritual Israel possess that faith, and nobody else." (Closing reply on 4th proposition)
"Respecting Brother Stinson's passage, "he that believeth shall be saved," the question is, how does faith come? Upon what principles do men realize faith? I read in the first chapter of Ephesians, that they believed according to the working of the mighty power of God, which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead. What is the conclusion? It requires the same power to enable the sinner to believe in Jesus Christ that it requires to raise Christ from the dead." (last speech last proposition)
Those Hardshells today who say that evangelical faith in Christ is optional to the elect, and that many of them will never become believers in Jesus, is not true Old Baptist doctrine.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Elder Hume on the Elect
Elder Joel Hume was a first generation leader among the newly created "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist denomination. Like many in his times, such as Elder Lemuel Potter, Hume claimed to be a "Regular Baptist." In 1863 Elder Hume held a debate with Stinson of the General Baptist Church. It was held in Indiana. Here is what Elder Hume said about the Gospel being God's means in saving his elect.
"I understand, my friends, that the Apostle is here introducing, for the instruction of his brethren, a system of salvation that embraces the finally and eternally beatified in glory--I had like to have said, the elect of God. It embraces the whole human family that ever did believe the gospel, and those are the only men that will be saved; and we maintain that they will be saved. There is no mistake; God will not be disappointed." (Hume-Stinson Debate on the Atonement - 1863 - see here)
And again he wrote:
"Who are the elect? Why, all the family of believers. Is that the way to come it, too? All believers in Jesus Christ; every sinner upon God's earth that is born of Jesus Christ; I care not their name or color; every single believer on the Lord Jesus Christ belongs to the number. My view of the matter is this: God never intended to exhibit a plan that would result in no profit to them."
I have already shown how men like Elder James Osbourn, a leader in the "Old School" or "Primitive Baptist" antimission sect after the 1832 split from the Baptist family, believed that the Gospel was the divine means in effecting the eternal salvation of the elect. (see here)
Thus, Elders W. T. Pence, E. H. Burnham, leaders among the Old School Regular Baptists, in the late 1870s and early 1880s, were correct when they contended that the means position was the historic teaching of the first leaders in the antimission movement.
"I understand, my friends, that the Apostle is here introducing, for the instruction of his brethren, a system of salvation that embraces the finally and eternally beatified in glory--I had like to have said, the elect of God. It embraces the whole human family that ever did believe the gospel, and those are the only men that will be saved; and we maintain that they will be saved. There is no mistake; God will not be disappointed." (Hume-Stinson Debate on the Atonement - 1863 - see here)
And again he wrote:
"Who are the elect? Why, all the family of believers. Is that the way to come it, too? All believers in Jesus Christ; every sinner upon God's earth that is born of Jesus Christ; I care not their name or color; every single believer on the Lord Jesus Christ belongs to the number. My view of the matter is this: God never intended to exhibit a plan that would result in no profit to them."
I have already shown how men like Elder James Osbourn, a leader in the "Old School" or "Primitive Baptist" antimission sect after the 1832 split from the Baptist family, believed that the Gospel was the divine means in effecting the eternal salvation of the elect. (see here)
Thus, Elders W. T. Pence, E. H. Burnham, leaders among the Old School Regular Baptists, in the late 1870s and early 1880s, were correct when they contended that the means position was the historic teaching of the first leaders in the antimission movement.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Gowens's Preface Text
Although I disagree with its message, easily the most academic attempt at defending conditional time salvation that I have read is "Temporal Salvation: A Bogus or Biblical Concept?" by Michael Gowens. There are of course many things stated which I think are an error, one of the primary ones being the text set forth at the very beginning to launch the apology. At the head of the treatise, a portion of Galatians 1:4 is inscribed:
"Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world...".
This is obviously meant to persuade the prospective reader that the text is supportive of this doctrinal novelty and the subsequent argument the author makes. It is cited however without the adjoining expression "according to the will of God, and our Father". This is a deceitful omission, intentional or no, for its inclusion would actually suggest that whatever salvation is under consideration is the product of God's decretive will. And any text of scripture which speaks of salvation as originating in the eternal counsel must be assigned to the category of eternal salvation, for what God decreed shall most certainly be brought to pass, and not left optional as time salvation teaches!
Is time salvation according to the will of God? If so, then why is it accomplished in but a few? If so, then how is it said in contradiction that this salvation must be obtained by free-will, in that the regenerate elect must "save themselves", per Acts 2:40? Furthermore, saying that time salvation is rooted in God's decree is to give semblance to absolutism, the very thing sought to be avoided by conditionalism!
These arguments overthrow the attempt to make Gal. 1:4 a proof text for conditional time salvation, which teaches that God has not guaranteed this particular salvation to His people. Rather, it is what He has left uncertain and contingent upon the will of regenerate sons to choose or not choose whether they want to become disciples.
Speaking of Christ, Gal. 1:4 actually reads in its entirety:
"Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world; according to the will of God, and our Father."
I suppose the reasoning is that since the deliverance is said to be from something present, that this is sufficient proof that there is such a thing as a time salvation which may or may not take place for the Lord's people. This is a terrible error. First, it divides asunder what God has joined together. Deliverance from the present evil world is part of what eternal salvation is! It is an error (as time salvation does) to extract elements out of eternal salvation and make them part of another salvation. I could say that sinners shall be delivered "from unbelief" or "from self-righteousness" or "from this present evil world" but that would simply be defining eternal salvation! Second, it may further deceive those who have erected an unbiblical wall between time and eternity, or who are confused in thinking that the timely phase of salvation and time salvation are one and the same thing. May those so deceived come to see that eternal salvation INVOLVES being delivered from this present evil world!
As we have done in the past with our challenges to time salvation we choose to do the same here. In the light of Gal. 1:4, with the presumption that deliverance "from this present evil world" has reference of time salvation, we ask some questions with the hope that they shall be approached and answered with an honest conscience.
1) Are those for whom Christ gave himself the same as those who shall be delivered from the present evil world?
2) If they are the same and Christ gave himself for all His elect, then does this mean that all shall receive time salvation?
3) Is it true that Christ gave himself for all his elect, but shall grant time salvation to only a portion of them?
e.g. "Who gave himself for ALL, that he might save SOME of them from this present evil world"?
4) Is being delivered from this present evil world a "second" salvation or part of eternal salvation?
5) Does eternal salvation involve being delivered from this present evil world?
6) Does the expression "that he might" mean that Christ intended to render time salvation possible, or to make it certain?
7) Is it true to say that Christ might save His people from the present evil world, or that they might save themselves?
8) Is it the absolute intent of the Lord Jesus to give His people a time salvation, or something He has left contingent on the human will?
9) If the former, then why is it effected only for a remnant of God's elect?
10) Are there any blessings connected to the death of Christ that shall not certainly be given (Rom. 8:32) to those for whom he died?
11) Is the blessing of time salvation freely given as a result of Christ’s death?
12) Is time salvation the effect of Christ's work at the cross or the effect of human free-will?
13) Is the deliverance promised the inevitable effect of the redeeming work of Christ?
14) Was it the intent of Christ to accomplish an eternal salvation for all the elect, and a time salvation for the "elect within the elect"?
15) Is time salvation according to God's decretive will?
"Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world...".
This is obviously meant to persuade the prospective reader that the text is supportive of this doctrinal novelty and the subsequent argument the author makes. It is cited however without the adjoining expression "according to the will of God, and our Father". This is a deceitful omission, intentional or no, for its inclusion would actually suggest that whatever salvation is under consideration is the product of God's decretive will. And any text of scripture which speaks of salvation as originating in the eternal counsel must be assigned to the category of eternal salvation, for what God decreed shall most certainly be brought to pass, and not left optional as time salvation teaches!
Is time salvation according to the will of God? If so, then why is it accomplished in but a few? If so, then how is it said in contradiction that this salvation must be obtained by free-will, in that the regenerate elect must "save themselves", per Acts 2:40? Furthermore, saying that time salvation is rooted in God's decree is to give semblance to absolutism, the very thing sought to be avoided by conditionalism!
These arguments overthrow the attempt to make Gal. 1:4 a proof text for conditional time salvation, which teaches that God has not guaranteed this particular salvation to His people. Rather, it is what He has left uncertain and contingent upon the will of regenerate sons to choose or not choose whether they want to become disciples.
Speaking of Christ, Gal. 1:4 actually reads in its entirety:
"Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world; according to the will of God, and our Father."
I suppose the reasoning is that since the deliverance is said to be from something present, that this is sufficient proof that there is such a thing as a time salvation which may or may not take place for the Lord's people. This is a terrible error. First, it divides asunder what God has joined together. Deliverance from the present evil world is part of what eternal salvation is! It is an error (as time salvation does) to extract elements out of eternal salvation and make them part of another salvation. I could say that sinners shall be delivered "from unbelief" or "from self-righteousness" or "from this present evil world" but that would simply be defining eternal salvation! Second, it may further deceive those who have erected an unbiblical wall between time and eternity, or who are confused in thinking that the timely phase of salvation and time salvation are one and the same thing. May those so deceived come to see that eternal salvation INVOLVES being delivered from this present evil world!
As we have done in the past with our challenges to time salvation we choose to do the same here. In the light of Gal. 1:4, with the presumption that deliverance "from this present evil world" has reference of time salvation, we ask some questions with the hope that they shall be approached and answered with an honest conscience.
1) Are those for whom Christ gave himself the same as those who shall be delivered from the present evil world?
2) If they are the same and Christ gave himself for all His elect, then does this mean that all shall receive time salvation?
3) Is it true that Christ gave himself for all his elect, but shall grant time salvation to only a portion of them?
e.g. "Who gave himself for ALL, that he might save SOME of them from this present evil world"?
4) Is being delivered from this present evil world a "second" salvation or part of eternal salvation?
5) Does eternal salvation involve being delivered from this present evil world?
6) Does the expression "that he might" mean that Christ intended to render time salvation possible, or to make it certain?
7) Is it true to say that Christ might save His people from the present evil world, or that they might save themselves?
8) Is it the absolute intent of the Lord Jesus to give His people a time salvation, or something He has left contingent on the human will?
9) If the former, then why is it effected only for a remnant of God's elect?
10) Are there any blessings connected to the death of Christ that shall not certainly be given (Rom. 8:32) to those for whom he died?
11) Is the blessing of time salvation freely given as a result of Christ’s death?
12) Is time salvation the effect of Christ's work at the cross or the effect of human free-will?
13) Is the deliverance promised the inevitable effect of the redeeming work of Christ?
14) Was it the intent of Christ to accomplish an eternal salvation for all the elect, and a time salvation for the "elect within the elect"?
15) Is time salvation according to God's decretive will?
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
A Comment from Abroad
It is the persuasion of this blog that the ‘no means’ view of salvation is an error. We agree with the method of effectual calling as expressed in the great Confessions of Faith:
“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.” (1689 London Confession of Faith).
It is also our conviction that the denial of this truth, a view which divorces the Word from the Spirit, is not an expression of what constitutes true Old Baptist doctrine. The definitive statement of Elder John Watson in his notable work The Old Baptist Test perfectly expresses what I feel to be the truth in this matter; namely, that it was a modern invention. Writing in the mid-19th century, he tells us:
“Paul, however, does not affirm, like some of our modern innovators, that means or instrumentalities are not employed by the Lord in the divine plan of salvation; for he asks: ‘How shall they hear without a preacher?’ Rom. x, 14”
Recently, an anonymous comment was made to fellow contributor Stephen’s posting on Sarrel’s false claim which I thought worthy of mention, as it illustrates those who still hold to the view of our Baptist forefathers. It is most reassuring.
Our commenter writes:
“Thank you for saying this. I believe you. I am connected (though not in fellowship) with the Gospel Standard Churches of England (where I live) and I can tell you that amongst the particular Baptists of England (and I have been to many churches – perhaps 10) I have found no evidence that they believe at all in so called ‘no means’ regeneration. All that I have spoken to agree adamantly that one must believe the gospel in order to be saved.”
“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.” (1689 London Confession of Faith).
It is also our conviction that the denial of this truth, a view which divorces the Word from the Spirit, is not an expression of what constitutes true Old Baptist doctrine. The definitive statement of Elder John Watson in his notable work The Old Baptist Test perfectly expresses what I feel to be the truth in this matter; namely, that it was a modern invention. Writing in the mid-19th century, he tells us:
“Paul, however, does not affirm, like some of our modern innovators, that means or instrumentalities are not employed by the Lord in the divine plan of salvation; for he asks: ‘How shall they hear without a preacher?’ Rom. x, 14”
Recently, an anonymous comment was made to fellow contributor Stephen’s posting on Sarrel’s false claim which I thought worthy of mention, as it illustrates those who still hold to the view of our Baptist forefathers. It is most reassuring.
Our commenter writes:
“Thank you for saying this. I believe you. I am connected (though not in fellowship) with the Gospel Standard Churches of England (where I live) and I can tell you that amongst the particular Baptists of England (and I have been to many churches – perhaps 10) I have found no evidence that they believe at all in so called ‘no means’ regeneration. All that I have spoken to agree adamantly that one must believe the gospel in order to be saved.”
Friday, October 19, 2012
Solemn Words from Barnard
“If an old Hell-bound sinner is ever brought to the place where he knows that he is lost, because the Holy Ghost has pricked him in the heart by the Word of God and revealed to him his sinful condition, he will beg God to have mercy on him. And when God is pleased to make him a new creature in Christ, he will be in love with the Lover of his soul and will delight to do the will of God and walk in loving obedience to Him.
“We’ve got a stuff called ‘salvation’ now that makes the death of the Lord Jesus Christ a joke, and it makes God a minister of sin, and speaks peace to men where there is no peace. It is filling Hell full of church members who believed the lies that are being preached. The only people who will bring praise and glory to Christ are those who are under the Guiding Hand and rule of Him whom God appointed and decreed to be LORD over all mankind. I say that the Gospel is a holy-making Gospel, and we do not live a holy life in order to be saved, but we live a holy life because we are saved. And when a man is justified by the blood of Christ, that is the beginning of a holy life. That’s where holy living starts and that person who is not on the road to the time when he will be like Christ is traveling on the wrong road; Christ is not his Lord. In the churches today Christ is offered to men and women as One who will keep you out of Hell and let you do as you please, but the Lord Jesus Christ of God’s Word demands holy living.
“If sin is damning its thousands, religion today is damning its tens of thousands.
“What a miracle it will be if God ever fixes you so you’ll not just attend services, but where you will begin to listen to God’s Word! I have been preaching all these years to a generation of people who seem to wish to trust in the work of Christ, but without falling in love with Him. And thus Hell is full of people who have believed a fact but were not joined to a Person. I cannot understand that type of ‘salvation.’ What does a sinner expect when he doesn’t desire to be under the rule of Christ, but continues a rebel against that rule? I cannot understand a salvation that turns out men and women who do not intend in the deep recesses of their souls to become willing bondslaves of our Lord Jesus Christ. I say to you, my friend, that church members who live in known sin, who do not pant after holiness, who have no love for Christ — I say to you, they are in mortal danger and they are on the road to Hell and know it not” (Rolfe Barnard, 1904-1969, in a great sermon on “Why Christ Died”).
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Schismatics
The recent posting by Elder Fralick made me think of all the divisiveness that was prevalent among the "Primitive Baptists" during the years that I was an elder with them. In fact, their entire history is one of division. They are the epitome of what it means to be a schismatic. Easton's Bible dictionary says:
"From a Greek word signifying (1) a choice, (2) the opinion chosen, and (3) the sect holding the opinion. In the Acts of the Apostles (5:17; 15:5; 24:5, 14; 26:5) it denotes a sect, without reference to its character. Elsewhere, however, in the New Testament it has a different meaning attached to it. Paul ranks “heresies” with crimes and seditions (Gal. 5:20). This word also denotes divisions or schisms in the church (1 Cor. 11:19). In Titus 3:10 a “heretical person” is one who follows his own self-willed “questions,” and who is to be avoided. Heresies thus came to signify self-chosen doctrines not emanating from God (2 Pet. 2:1)." (see here)
Heretics, schismatics, are also known as sectarians.
1. of or pertaining to sectaries or sects.
I have thought about how I could never again be a part of such a sect. If I chose to preach with sermon notes, I would be crucified. If I supported Bible classes and ministerial education, I would be cast off. If I supported musical instruments in the church, I would be viewed as a reprobate. If I did not spend half my time talking about how I could not preach, about how unworthy I was, I would be rejected. If I called upon sinners to repent and believe the Gospel in order to be saved, I would be esteemed the worst of heretics. If I said anything that was not already established as "the" accepted dogma of the sect, I would be "called on the carpet."
Hardshells, according to their own statistics, exclude more than they receive as members. They are even fond of the adjective "strict" when applied to them. There is very little mercy, compassion, and tolerance among them. Again, anyone familiar with their history knows this to be true.
What is ironic about all this is the fact that they think they are the one and only "kingdom of God" on earth and that all other Christian churches are of "antichrist." They will not cooperate with other Christians but spend all their time denouncing all others and extolling themselves. For my own self, I am glad to be free from this cult and work and pray for others to be delivered from them.
"Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone." (Hosea 4: 17)
"From a Greek word signifying (1) a choice, (2) the opinion chosen, and (3) the sect holding the opinion. In the Acts of the Apostles (5:17; 15:5; 24:5, 14; 26:5) it denotes a sect, without reference to its character. Elsewhere, however, in the New Testament it has a different meaning attached to it. Paul ranks “heresies” with crimes and seditions (Gal. 5:20). This word also denotes divisions or schisms in the church (1 Cor. 11:19). In Titus 3:10 a “heretical person” is one who follows his own self-willed “questions,” and who is to be avoided. Heresies thus came to signify self-chosen doctrines not emanating from God (2 Pet. 2:1)." (see here)
Heretics, schismatics, are also known as sectarians.
1. of or pertaining to sectaries or sects.
2. narrowly confined or devoted to a particular sect.
The "Primitive Baptist Church" manifests a party spirit, a characteristic of a cult. Their history is one in which factions have multiplied, each declaring the other in disorder by their "declarations of non-fellowship." It reminds one of the apostolic warning - "But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another." (Gal. 5: 15)
I have thought about how I could never again be a part of such a sect. If I chose to preach with sermon notes, I would be crucified. If I supported Bible classes and ministerial education, I would be cast off. If I supported musical instruments in the church, I would be viewed as a reprobate. If I did not spend half my time talking about how I could not preach, about how unworthy I was, I would be rejected. If I called upon sinners to repent and believe the Gospel in order to be saved, I would be esteemed the worst of heretics. If I said anything that was not already established as "the" accepted dogma of the sect, I would be "called on the carpet."
Hardshells, according to their own statistics, exclude more than they receive as members. They are even fond of the adjective "strict" when applied to them. There is very little mercy, compassion, and tolerance among them. Again, anyone familiar with their history knows this to be true.
What is ironic about all this is the fact that they think they are the one and only "kingdom of God" on earth and that all other Christian churches are of "antichrist." They will not cooperate with other Christians but spend all their time denouncing all others and extolling themselves. For my own self, I am glad to be free from this cult and work and pray for others to be delivered from them.
"Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone." (Hosea 4: 17)
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Trouble in the Southeast
On Tuesday I was privileged to speak at the funeral of a very special member of my family. My uncle, born a down-syndrome baby, passed away at 58 years of age. I was blessed to conduct it along with my close friend and elder within the Primitive Baptists. I can easily say that he is one of the finest men that I know. Unfortunately, due to recent trouble here in the southeast, he is one of a handful of local elders who have been blackballed in the past month for either supporting missionary work or fellowshipping those who do. How sad.
After the internment I was able to visit with an elderly couple who, along with many others, were victims of this devastating split in which an association declared non-fellowship against five churches, two of which were not even part of it! The couple chose to remove their letter from their home church, one of the perpetrators of this declaration, and place it within one of the excluded churches. I told them that they made the right decision. If forced to choose between the two, their spiritual health will fair much better among those who are somewhat active, as opposed to those who take their talent and promptly bury it in the ground.
I was pleased to know that they were interested in learning more about my own exclusion not long ago. This of course necessarily involved relating to them what I had come to see taught both in scripture and Baptist history. Knowing quite well how far some have gone in their misapplication of unconditional salvation, I first had to acquire what was their position with respect to a very basic Bible question:
“Do you believe that God’s children will in fact know the one true God of the Bible, and believe in His Son Jesus Christ?”
The average Christian is probably shocked that such a question as this must even be asked.
The husband responded:
“There will be many people in heaven who do not know God or have heard the gospel preached.”
I was not shocked at all by the answer, for I know what they’ve been taught, probably the whole of their life. I cited some verses to the Brother which teach the very simple lesson that God’s people will know and believe in the Lord.
He remained silent.
It was not yet time to get into the matter of how the elect ordinarily come to possess this said knowledge and belief. I wanted to go very slow and teach the basic concept that salvation involves knowledge and faith, without getting into the matter of gospel influence.
His wife was listening closely and spoke up that she believed that God would reveal himself to a person if they were one of His elect. I was glad to get this response, although I wish I would have had time to explain just how it is that the elect come to know their Lord.
Regardless of the doctrinal difference between myself and this couple, they and many others like them just had their church lives drastically altered by this terrible declaration of non-fellowship by their blind leaders, all because they were members of a church which had some connection, directly or indirectly, to those who were lifting a finger in advancing the cause of Christ and His kingdom.
After the internment I was able to visit with an elderly couple who, along with many others, were victims of this devastating split in which an association declared non-fellowship against five churches, two of which were not even part of it! The couple chose to remove their letter from their home church, one of the perpetrators of this declaration, and place it within one of the excluded churches. I told them that they made the right decision. If forced to choose between the two, their spiritual health will fair much better among those who are somewhat active, as opposed to those who take their talent and promptly bury it in the ground.
I was pleased to know that they were interested in learning more about my own exclusion not long ago. This of course necessarily involved relating to them what I had come to see taught both in scripture and Baptist history. Knowing quite well how far some have gone in their misapplication of unconditional salvation, I first had to acquire what was their position with respect to a very basic Bible question:
“Do you believe that God’s children will in fact know the one true God of the Bible, and believe in His Son Jesus Christ?”
The average Christian is probably shocked that such a question as this must even be asked.
The husband responded:
“There will be many people in heaven who do not know God or have heard the gospel preached.”
I was not shocked at all by the answer, for I know what they’ve been taught, probably the whole of their life. I cited some verses to the Brother which teach the very simple lesson that God’s people will know and believe in the Lord.
He remained silent.
It was not yet time to get into the matter of how the elect ordinarily come to possess this said knowledge and belief. I wanted to go very slow and teach the basic concept that salvation involves knowledge and faith, without getting into the matter of gospel influence.
His wife was listening closely and spoke up that she believed that God would reveal himself to a person if they were one of His elect. I was glad to get this response, although I wish I would have had time to explain just how it is that the elect come to know their Lord.
Regardless of the doctrinal difference between myself and this couple, they and many others like them just had their church lives drastically altered by this terrible declaration of non-fellowship by their blind leaders, all because they were members of a church which had some connection, directly or indirectly, to those who were lifting a finger in advancing the cause of Christ and His kingdom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)